The Evil of materialism

[Swami V. Ānanda]

The danger of materialism is that it does not empower the subject. Under materialism you are a zombie with no free-will. Consciousness is nothing but an epiphenomenon. Western scientists that are tolerant of religion and Eastern thought will acknowledge the power of consciousness and mind over matter. Science will never answer the big questions unless it begins to acknowledge the role of the subject and consciousness in the Universe.

Debate topic added by moderator:
Where should consciousness fall into the scientific worldview?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Hi Swami.

The danger of materialism is that it does not empower the subject. Under materialism you are a zombie with no free-will. Consciousness is nothing but an epiphenomenon. Western scientists that are tolerant of religion and Eastern thought will acknowledge the power of consciousness and mind over matter. Science will never answer the big questions unless it begins to acknowledge the role of the subject and consciousness in the Universe.

There are a lot of issues here. I see nothing wrong with starting a thread with multiple topics (ideally, they should be related to each other), but members should make that known by posting a clear debate topic(s).

Is this more about materialism? Or more about consciousness? Both?

 

[Swami V. Ānanda]

I apologize. I was making a statement. The most important point is about the place of consciousness in the scientific worldview.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The most important point is about the place of consciousness in the scientific worldview.

Perfect. I'll add this to your first post so that readers and other members will know the topic from the start.

I added a topic. Let me know if you wanted it worded differently.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Where should consciousness fall into the scientific worldview?

Most scientists would say that consciousness is a product of the brain. You brought up the view of consciousness being an epiphenomenon. That is usually taken that to mean that consciousness is simply a byproduct with no direct function or efficacy.

However, for others, consciousness is an epiphenomenon, that is, something without a direct function, like the redness of blood – a characteristic which was not selected for, but was a consequence of the mechanism selected to deliver oxygen. In that view, qualia, the phenomenological experiences, correspond to internal discriminations that are reliable correlates of underlying neural mechanisms. Consciousness itself is not causal. It is the neural structures underlying conscious experience that are causal. 1

I used to be of the view that consciousness was an emergent property of the brain, but now I don't hold to that because I accept that it can exist in other mediums. So at best, the brain may just be a medium for consciousness.


Footnote:
1. Morgado-Bernal I. (2019) Is Consciousness an Epiphenomenon?. In: Matthews M.R. (eds) Mario Bunge: A Centenary Festschrift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16673-1_22

 

[Swami V. Ānanda]

Where should consciousness fall into the scientific worldview?

I began to lose trust in Western scientists when I realized that they know very little about the tool we use the most. I came to realize that if we are to understand the self and the world, then consciousness deserves the utmost attention. We find instead that scientists banned its study and regarded it as a byproduct at the bottom of the food chain. It is no wonder that scientists can not answer the big questions such as the origin and nature of life, consciousness, and the Universe.

When you encounter Eastern thought, you find just the opposite. You have thousands of years devoted to exploring the nature of consciousness. I encourage the skeptics to question themselves about dismissing such a great tradition, especially when they lack the answers. Many Eastern mystics reached the conclusion long ago that nothing exists apart from consciousness. Every tree you see, every penguin, the planets, your relatives, none of these exist independent of consciousness. Yet we have the Western scientists that study these things as if they are separate.

This is why consciousness should be studied at every level in Western science. Physicists should not only focus on the objects but also on the subject. Without this perspective, you will never get the full picture of reality.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I came to realize that if we are to understand the self and the world, then consciousness deserves the utmost attention.

I can see why the spiritual would say this. The reasons I bring it up a lot is because it puts a dent in the materialistic worldview. However, that alone doesn't mean it's supernatural or spiritual.

We find instead that scientists banned its study and regarded it as a byproduct at the bottom of the food chain.

Agreed.

You have thousands of years devoted to exploring the nature of consciousness. I encourage the skeptics to question themselves about dismissing such a great tradition, especially when they lack the answers.

You bring up skeptics. I consider myself an open-minded skeptic. Any reasonable person should question and probe, but contrary to some who just want to debunk, I'm also willing to build on any strong reasons and evidence you have to support your view here. Either that or I just remain agnostic.

Every tree you see, every penguin, the planets, your relatives, none of these exist independent of consciousness. Yet we have the Western scientists that study these things as if they are separate.

How can we know that nothing exists independent of consciousness? Certainly things exists outside of my consciousness. For example, my car is being worked on eventhough I'm not physically there to watch it.

This is why consciousness should be studied at every level in Western science. Physicists should not only focus on the objects but also on the subject. Without this perspective, you will never get the full picture of reality.

This is a big claim. I doubt any scientists would follow your suggestion unless there was a good reason to accept your claim about the connection between trees, planets, (penguins? lol), and consciousness.

 

[Swami V. Ānanda]

You bring up skeptics. I consider myself an open-minded skeptic. Any reasonable person should question and probe, but contrary to some who just want to debunk, I'm also willing to build on any strong reasons and evidence you have to support your view here. Either that or I just remain agnostic.

I appreiciate the standard you have set here. My experience on different forums skepticism is used to constrain discussion.

How can we know that nothing exists independent of consciousness?

Experience. Both mystics and even ordinary people have reported states of consciousness that transcends one's sense of self. Researchers have documented this experience.

From The Varieties of Self-Transcendent Experience in Review of General Psychology (American Psychological Association)

Under certain circumstances, the subjective sense of one's self as an isolated entity can temporarily fade into an experience of unity with other people or one's surroundings, involving the dissolution of boundaries between the sense of self and other. Such transient mental states of decreased self-salience and increased feelings of connectedness are described here as self-transcendent experiences (STEs). These temporary mental states are proposed to be experienced along a spectrum of intensity that ranges from the routine (e.g., losing yourself in music or a book), to the intense and potentially transformative (e.g., feeling connected to everything and everyone), to states in between, like those experienced by many people while meditating or when feeling awe.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I appreiciate the standard you have set here. My experience on different forums skepticism is used to constrain discussion.

I can not guarantee that everyone will be open-minded. I try to create rules and guidelines that create an environment for open-mindedness. I allow opinions and for anything to be questioned. I'm sure I will come up with more guidelines as I come up with more ideas from the discussions here.

Experience. Both mystics and even ordinary people have reported states of consciousness that transcends one's sense of self. Researchers have documented this experience.

I'll put on my hard skeptic hat.

How do you know that your experience is reliable? For instance, many people report to experiencing many things, and they may misidentify it, their mind may play tricks, drugs can induce experiences, etc.

 

[William]

I can not guarantee that everyone will be open-minded. I try to create rules and guidelines that create an environment for open-mindedness. I allow opinions and for anything to be questioned. I'm sure I will come up with more guidelines as I come up with more ideas from the discussions here.


I'll put on my hard skeptic hat.

How do you know that your experience is reliable? For instance, many people report to experiencing many things, and they may misidentify it, their mind may play tricks, drugs can induce experiences, etc.

I am not sure that minds can play tricks.

Rather, is it not a matter that we [consciousness] allow tricks to be played on us?
We allow ourselves to play tricks on our self and other selves.

Materialism is just us playing tricks on ourselves. We are in a game...one we created.