I have noticed that there is an ever reoccurring theme that divides the nexus. Whether we´re having a discussion on depressive disorders, the nature of the DMT experience, or whether it´s on science, religion or mysticism. The basic underlying theme that keeps dividing us is the old materialism/spirituality debate.

I think that the reason why themes related to this keep causing such a stir, is actually that the problem is a paradox. It´s a fake problem. Both sides are right, and therefore the lack of recognition of any of the two sides will feel like severe injustice to some people: both the claim that humans are not spiritual beings and the claim that materialism is a lie, do not do justice to the life´s we lead in this world. And injustice will always upset people...like it should.

My mind is moving my body. I´m using my fingers right now, to transfer something that is inside my mind, onto this screen. You are using your eyes to transfer something that is on a screen into your mind.

Only when you would take the stance that it is a mere coincidence that my fingers move exactly like i want them to, that the movement of my fingers isn´t realy caused by ME but that they pure coincidentally move like i want them to and that they have done so up till now, only then can you make a credible claim that the mind, the soul, the spiritual is not in some way connected to the body, the physical, the worldly (unless i´m looking over some other possibility´s here ofcourse...you´re welcome to fill them in where i have failed to do so).

At the same time we don´t know what either side is. We don´t know what the physical world is and we don´t fully know who WE are either.
But that´s not the last word either.

We do agree that we can use words to refer to certain phenomena, even though the connection between the words and the phenomena may be not a direct one but a rather long chain: no scientist or mysticist would disagree if i would say that i´m sitting on a chair right now, even though the chair would actually be a collection of molecules, that are actually a collection of atoms, that are actually a collection of subatomic particles, and that most of the chair is empty space, even. So even though i may not actually know what it is i am realy refering to, we all agree that the reference itself is still valid to some degree. When you understand this sentence, you have implicitly agreed with the above, at least to some extent, because you know what i wanted to say when i used the word 'chair'.

I think that what can be said about chairs in this way, can be said about both matter and the soul as well. We don´t know what the words realy refer to, but we do know what is meant with them. Saying that either one or both of them don´t exist is something therefore, that in a sense MAY be true, but that doesn´t do fully justice to reality either.

I don´t have the answer. But i do think that these are the puzzlepieces, and that somehow they can be fitted toghether.

Maybe all of our disagreements could be used in a positive way, to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the nature of existence. I don´t think the (knowledge)gap can ever be fully bridged. But we can get closer and closer, each day.

Both are right... Kind of...

I believe it's useless to argue about it without conclusive evidence

I believe that this is an ever occuring theme that divides all human beings who dare do dive into their inner self and debate the eternal question, why?

Some folks live their entire life never asking, never questioning, never debating, and thus never evolving internally/intellectually.

You have stated and I agree it is a paradox its is a fake problem. Both sides are right, its is Yin and Yang we need both sides to provide balance to our existence.

IMO all of our disagreements are used in a positive way, right here on the Nexus and we take what we get out of it and, well at least I do, apply it to our daily life. The knowledge gap lies within ourselves and our ability to accept and believe that-

in ourseves so is in others.

Not every one out there can listen, translate, verbalize, and represent beliefs and ideas equally but that doesnt mean the ability to understand and agree dont lie awake in the depths of every individual. I believe we are moving closer and closer each day to bridging the gaps, here on the Nexus. I know I mentate allot different tan I did a few years ago and I have all the wonderful members of this web site to thank for that.

All is reflection of self.......

thanks for the wonderful thread polytrip. You have know me from my beginnings here, You are a witness to the actual bridging of those gaps you refer to.

IH

That's typically why I stay out of any sort of debate on here. Not because I don't want to expand my own knowledge or get in a healthy debate, but because in the grand scheme...like poly said...."THEY ARE BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME COIN". It's hard for me to deabte because I can't really attach to one side because to me...it's all going up the same mountain.

But I greatly appreciate everyone on here that has gotten into these deep debates and shed light on alot of things that I have never figured or have figured in my life thus far.

And the other, much smaller reason for staying out of debate is because I can see it get heated from time to time and construct a line between the two opposing sides (as poly said) and I just choose to sit back and watch the fireworks..instead of lighting them.. hehe

In the end it's a good thing that at least we have people in the world who question reality, dig deeper and ask what is it all about

I'm not sure I can jump on board with both sides are right....though I would like to

It is my understanding that materialism is essentially a direct rejection of anything mystical and spiritual. AKA. If it isn't in the realm of science it doesn't exist.

Also spiritualism doesn't by nature have to deny the material world. I exist in the material world. Another part of me may transcend this. I believe this to be the case in some limited sense.

To me the more open minded view is that of the agnostic or agnostic leaning spiritualist as opposed to the hard core materialist/atheist that denies any possibility for a God, or spirit realm, etc.


I really don't think it's as simple as saying both sides are right.

In my understanding "both are right" is somewhat correct but not exactly. I don't think it's that extreme spiritualism or materialism are right, but that both in themselves can be closed minded and that truth is probably imo somewhere in the middle.

The problem I have is that often here in the nexus, the use of the scientific method is equated to dogmatic materialism and therefore rejected a priori. It specially bothers me when this is done only when it is convenient to "spiritualist" people: when scientific knowledge questions these people's beliefs they reject it (the generic "science doesnt know everything" argument), but when it supports their beliefs or needs, they use it.

In the same way, I find it problematic when some people are materialistically dogmatic and reject anything outside current scientific knowledge as nonsense, using logical fallacies such as appeal to ridicule, to deny opposing views.

The problem is that this starts going round and round, and emotions get stirred up, and nothing seems to be learned. If people would join the discussion ready to learn, willing to question their own assumptions, it would be completely different, but it seems that when the snowball starts, it's a battle to try to prove a point, regardless of anything. I just wish people would reflect a bit on their own motivations, their wordings, and if the post is really contributing to anything, before posting

This is exactly the reason for me to start this thread. The animosity does not fit the nexus attitude and it brings us nowhere.

Furthermore, it does not make the case for either science or spirituality stronger. On the contrary. It is neither scientific or spiritual to cherrish an attitude of animosity.

Animosity=just animosity and not much more. It is hugely irritating and often borderlines conspiracy theories, or even crosses that border.

Besides that, it tends to provoke only more animosity.

While the debate could be incredibly fruitfull in that it demands subtlety and therefore could sharpen our minds.

I like this. It makes a lot of sense, though I'm not sure that I completely agree yet or not.

What I have learned though, is that anytime you take a pattern of thought to the extreme, negativity emerges.

Just because you are on the fence or in the middle, doesn't mean that you stand there without certainty.

René Descartes had the same problem.

I pretty much agree with this.

The ability to keep an open mind is crucial in these sorts of discussions. I don't participate in them at the Nexus much any more because it's not a discussion. It's a battle to try and change the other's positions...which is never going to happen. These are deep and personal convictions.

I do hate the blind attacks on science, it's childish and pathetic. I also find it quite disdainful when certain members try hard to remove anything mystical form life. It's like these people need to live in a perfectly white room with no color. Life is deep and complex. The less I try to convince others of this the more enjoyment I get out of it.

What I find most troubling is that I have found (and continue to re-find) my spirituality. At one point I was pretty sure I had found a place to talk about it. I was wrong about that. Once I came to terms with that I could appreciate the Nexus for what it is. A site dedicated to the science behind psychedelics. This is both awesome and noble.

However, for me at least it almost completely misses the mark. It's what psychedelics catalyze in us that drives me. Yes I love reading about a new extraction tek or helping to figure out a mass spec peak, but at the end of the day these are only cursory interests. It's the mystery of it ALL that I'm interested in. It's how psychedelics can shed light in this regard that I'm personally most interested in.

I am with joedirt when he says that he can't jump on the board with both sides are right. This is also very dependent on what you mean by spirituality, or by calling something spiritual. Many here on the nexus undoubtedly have differing views on that which is spiritual. But the main issue is not so much what is spiritual and what is not, I think the crux of this divide is when the spiritual enterprise is used to make claims that are not, at all, supported by any empirical evidence - something that happens quite often here. That is problematic.

Another crux of this divide is, as endlessness said, the implicit and sometimes explicit anti-science attitude that flies around. The notion that science is some dogmatic enterprise, some narrow-minded perspective on the world and so on and so forth. When it is equated with something it is not. Because, and one can hardly reject this, scientific knowledge of this world at the very least often challenges some beliefs many here hold dear, if not almost completely debunking some of it.

I must also say that, if we use the standard definition of matter as meaning "anything that has both mass and volume (occupies space)", it undoubtedly exists, at the very least as sensory experience. No need to talk about their objective existence, but this is what is revealed to us by our senses and technological instruments. And with this in mind, if one is to hold a scientific view or attitude, one sees that at the current stage of scientific development, we can confidently say that no empirical or theoretical basis exists for assuming anything other than that we inhabit a universe made entirely of matter and energy. This is not a dogmatic position, as the whole point is that within our existing knowledge we simply do not have any credible reasons to require something transcendent to explain what we observe and experience. This is not to say we know everything, as we probably never will, but this is how the deck is stocked in the game so far. And since all science is provisional, if sufficient evidence that meets all the rigorous scientific tests were to occur to demonstrate a world beyond matter and energy, we would be forced to change our mind if we wish to stay honest and open minded. A position such as this, in my humble opinion, is the most open minded it gets.

Now, the only place where one can argue against the above is the question of consciousness. Here one must admit that we stumble upon a sheer and utter mystery, and that the door to something transcendent or beyond matter is open a tiny crack in this domain. Time will tell, or perhaps never tell, if this door will close as well. And as far as spirituality go, my take on it is that spirituality should concern itself with investigating consciousness from within. The domain of our subjectivity certainly constitutes a valuable and proper sphere of investigation, as some facts might only be discovered in consciousness (semantics, all facts are discovered in consciousness to be strict, but I hope you catch my point). This is where spirituality, as a method and practice, should come in to deliver some insight through sustained introspection, imo. This can be done rationally and carefully without having faith in anything else than that through certain methods, such and such will happen subjectively. No need to make unjustifiable claims about the nature of the universe either. In that case, there is no divide for me.

Also, as joedirt frequently says, his spirituality is more or less equated with the sheer mystery of existence. The fact that he is conscious, the fact that the universe is illuminated through him, the fact that he exists. That too, is significantly spiritual imo, and nothing is irrational about it. Furthermore, the practice of love and compassion and to stable the mind is certainly a spiritual practice, and nothing is irrational about this either. Thus there is no divide for me in those situations either.

Well, that is some of my take on it, enough rambling for now.

Take care folks

What i meant with 'both sides are right', is not that 'anything goes'. Ofcourse at some point, contrasting views can not be both right at the same time. Ofcourse you can not say 'god exists and he doesn´t exist'.

Although i´m agnostic myself, i think, like citta has expressed, that it´s always better to be cautious with making claims and stick to that what is least speculative of all (considering anything is uncertain at some point).

The anti-science attitude is often paired with a sort of conspiracy thinking that realy makes my head go through the ceiling: 'they want to rob you of your soul', 'they want to rob life of it´s beauty', etc.

Yet, to me, it´s obvious that humans are spiritual beings with spiritual needs. Life is still a mystery. And science only contributes to the mystery: the more we know about life and the universe, the more unbelievable, awesome and beautifull it all seems to become.

Spirituality is not nonsense or bullshit. It´s an essential part of life. To me spirituality does not vanish, the moment i realise that i have a brain. Some people look at it that way, but i don´t see why that would be. Does anything change, the moment i realise that i have a brain and that it is this organ that causes a lot of the sensations and thoughtprocesses i´m aware of?

I don´t think that it is spiritual at all, to cling on to a certain concept of wich we can´t be certain (like immortality, or a god-creator) and to pretent that life would be totally void of meaning if it would not be for this single concept. I think that a spiritual attitude means that you can live with the uncertainty of not knowing, as it leaves you open to all the wonders of life.

And for all we know, in the end there may very well be a god, as all of this may all be some great mystical prank.

It can´t be wrong to sometimes doubt your own believes. I know i do all the time, and i can tell anyone of you: it doesn´t hurt.

What i meant with 'both sides are right' is: any worldview that doesn´t include both the material AND spirituality is incomplete. How they can be fitted toghether is maybe a matter of personal choice.

What i should add, is that i feel my english often falls short for expressing the subtle nuances needed, when engaging in these debates. And even in my own language, finding the right words, expressing myself properly...these things require a degree of subtlety that makes it just very difficult to find the right expression. Misunderstadnings arise easily.

Getting to the beliefs I hold now about reality has been a long journey, and I have flip-flopped on the materialism/idealism debate many times in the past. But it took that long journey - of believing strongly on one side and then breaking down my beliefs over and over again - for me to finally realize that such strong beliefs only feed the ego in a bad way, and that my sense of knowledge should always be taken with a grain of salt because I am just a puny human mind trying to understand what seems to be the paradox of my own existence.

My point is that such a journey might be necessary, and maybe such heated debates aren't that harmful, in the end (though maybe there are some really hot ones that I just haven't come across). If you really just don't like looking at it, then I think that creating a space for more enlightened conversation would be more effective than trying to moderate how people argue their beliefs. I would actually like to see something like that: A subforum entitled "100% Agnostic Conversation"; Topics concerning infinite possibility and our inability to know. That might be asking a bit too much, and I don't know how much such a forum would be used anyway.

Another thing that I've always wanted to do was construct a tree diagram of all possible realities, because I wouldn't say it's impossible to at least capture the general scope of what reality could be. Such a diagram would be an organized plot of every reality from materialism to solipsism to brain-in-a-vat hypothesis. That might be a fun project that the community could engage in that might shed light on how improbable any one belief system is.

Otherwise, the best we can do to shut down such attitudes is to moderate better, and to self-moderate as a community: You don't have to be a moderator to point out that a certain remark was overly-hostile. Such self-moderation might help to shape the egos that you claim are currently over-the-top at times, assuming that that is what you're claiming.

Respectfully, I have to disagree with the premise of your allegory. The brain, rather than the concept of 'mind', is allowing you to control the actions of your body. This in itself is a totally physical serious of events.

Rather than assume coincidence, you can approach the question of, I suppose, why we move or whats the source of the choice to move or IF theres a choice to move or maybe were not actually moving . However, to me, that is a question of pyschology, philosophy or science.

Now im not discounting spirituality, but thats a very personal belief and understanding. each to there own.

However, i dont think you can refute the materialistic viewpoint; founded on evidence, reliability and repeatability. As such, it can be aggreed upon through concensus; what is said can be measured by all of us. I can state a materialistic point as fact.

On the other hand, stating a spiritual belief as fact is based on nothing more than personal thought or experience. This isnt something that can be quantified or aggreed upon. I state a spiritual point as my personal belief.

I don't think I would describe it that way. For example, those who would refer to their perspective as "spiritual" can disagree (and sometimes strongly) on a particular point with someone else who would also describe their perspective as spiritual.

I think the problem in discussions on the nexus involves truth claims (or the direct implication of claims--some seem to have the idea that if they don't DIRECTLY make a claim, but instead allow their statements to imply that something must be true, then they can avoid having to acknowledge they are "claiming" something to be true).

It's one thing to say maybe there are unicorns; it's another to say you saw a vision with unicorns, and it was REAL to you, and it makes you think unicorns might really exist; and it's yet ANOTHER to announce that unicorns exist, and to get ANGRY when someone implies that maybe you have no good basis for your claim.

Nobody likes to have their claims denied; and no honest person can deny that some claims are RIDICULOUS--nearly insane. Just have a look at some of the introduction threads sometime...

Unfortunately, there may be nothing that can be done. The use of psychedelics OBVIOUSLY tends to evoke from people reports of new ideas and perceptions about new things. People want to respond--either in joyous communion, or in cautious doubt; and responses can't be avoided either. A forum without responses isn't a forum.

...and demands for "respect" are difficult to heed: how can a claim one believes is a delusion be respected? Why should I respect a vision report that claims to validate and verify that the world will end in 2012? Should I, perhaps, wait until 2013 to respond to the post? Hardly.

The problem really consists of truth claims made with no basis, the doubtful questioning that follows, and the personal affront people tend to feel when they're doubted outright.

Christopher Hitchens used to say (and I think he coined the phrase): "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." There's a lot of sting in that--and it's obviously true and valid.

To unanswered questions,




You can refute the materialistic viewpoint in the following way: All of the evidence that we have for the materialistic viewpoint is based on personal thought and experience in the same way that the spiritual belief is, and you claim that such personal thought and experience is insufficient as evidence for truth. All of our beliefs are built up on these experiences that we have, and to say that we can't trust some of these experiences (such as the ones of spiritual phenomena) is to say that we can't trust any of them. It is always possible that reality is merely a multisensual illusion being held between our consciousness and "reality".

To SWIMfriend,
I agree with what I think was the point you were making which is that, regardless of our beliefs, we must tolerate the beliefs of others. On the other hand, I have to disagree with the Hitchens quote. The problem with these debates is that there's no evidence for either side that is not in the form of a personal experience, so to say that personal experience is not enough to make claims about the nature of reality is to say that we simply cannot know the nature of reality. On the other hand, it seems like Hitchens was basically saying that "we cannot trust claims about reality based only on personal experiences unless they are the types of personal experiences that support my viewpoint".

No. The evidence (NOT proof, btw--I'm glad you used the word I prefer) for materialism is based on the CONSEQUENCES: The materialist perspective was "necessary and sufficient" to invent, design, and build the computer and the internet you just used to make your post. THAT is the evidence; and it's very SUBSTANTIAL evidence.

I don't know that the internet exists, and I don't know that you and I exist as we seem to right now. The experiential evidence supports it, but I also have experiential evidence that aliens exist and this "physical" life does not.

I agree that all of my experiences of the physical world point toward the materialistic perspective. To say that that is enough evidence for me to be a materialist assumes that I can't conceive of the possibility that the existence of my entire physical life is one large and magnificent trick, but that is not the case. Not only can I conceive of it, but I have seen behind the curtain.