🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1966@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> brianc@daedalus.UUCP (Brian Colfer) writes:

>
>My question is why would any one think that 
>1) we are more than materialistic beings ... what valid evidence is there? 
>Valid in the sense of observable, reliable and well constructed measures.
>

This is an entirely circular position.  Once you insist that the only
admissable evidence is that which 'valid' by YOUR criteria, which are
materialistic, then of course you will find that that evidence
supports a materialistic world view.  If I ask you "What valid
evidence is there that we are spiritual beings -- valid meaning based
in our spiritual experience?"  then of course whatever evidence I get
will fulfill by a priori assumptions.

Instead, I'll ask a different question:  what observable, reliable and
well-constructed evidence is there that the validity of evidence
relies on it being observable and reliable?  I doubt that you can
materially _prove_ this assumption; it is merely one of your a priori
ground rules.  

What's interesting about this is that the insistence on material
("objective") evidence is itself an entirely subjective position, and
thus violates its own ground rules.

The point is, there is no PROOF of the kind you are asking for, either
way.  It is just as subjective and 'religious' to assert that we are
material beings, which you can't prove objectively, as it is to
assert that we are not, which you also can't prove objectively.  In the
latter case, though, at least the position is logically consistent; in
the former, it is not.

Matt Meighan          
matt@nbires.nbi.com
-- 

Matt Meighan          
matt@nbires.nbi.com (nbires\!matt)