/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15658150
How do materialists cope with the fact that local realism has been debunked? Reality is fake and an illusion, created by your mind. The material world is made up of matter and energy, things like atoms and photons and other particles. But every experience you have is non-material. You don't experience the world in terms of atoms or photons. Photons have wavelengths and these are represented by color. But color only exists inside your mind. Color is not material. Same with molecules that bind to your olfactory receptors. Smell is an experience in your mind, but molecules don't intrinsically have a "smell." You can't measure the smell of a molecule, that doesn't make sense. You can however measure the concentration of a substance or determine its molecular structure and weight. So everything you experience of and know about the material world is in non-material terms.
Different animals experience reality differently. Some animals experience more colors than others. Cats see human faces as cat faces. Whom then has the correct view of reality.

The only way the universe could exist is if there was a conscious entity able to experience its existence. Consciousness affirms reality. Consciousness is fundamental.

>>15475006

Science is a tool, a methodology. That's all. It is not incompatible at all with religion. In fact, God is real - he is the universal consciousness. We exist as ideas in God's mind.

Reality is mental, not physical. The "physical" world you interact with is a creation of your mind. There is an objective shared reality, but it is mental (God's mind).

Obviously, materialism/physicalism is false.

>>15416581
>You merely replaced one substance metaphysics with another.
Wrong! Mind-matter is a false dichotomy. By definition, two members of a dichotomy are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, or epistemically symmetrical. Epistemic symmetry can only hold for concepts residing in the same level of explanatory abstraction. But explaining matter in terms of mind (idealism) is not epistemically symmetric with explaining mind in terms of matter (materialism) because mind and matter do not reside in the same level of explanatory abstraction. In fact, mind is the ground within which, and out of which, abstractions are made. Matter, in turn, is an abstraction of mind. This breaks the epistemic symmetry between them: we do not know matter in the same way that we know mind, for matter is an inference and mind a given. So what you've done is conflated abstraction with empirical observation! Mind is the substrate of the explanatory abstraction we call matter, so when you speak of a mind-matter dichotomy you incur a fundamental category mistake! Mind we know through direct experience, but a material world outside and independent of mind is a theoretical inference arising from interpretation of sense perceptions within a framework of complex thought, not an observable empirical fact.