Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by Sy Borg »

N693 wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 9:05 pm I don't know Sy, does string theory ever go the way of alchemy?
The whole quantum field is replete with experimental ideas, some of which is highly questionable.

We are a lot better at understanding things at more familiar scales. Our ideas regarding the very large and very small are efficacious but rather vague when it comes to understanding what's going on.

That's why I don't have strong views in these areas, but I draw the line at positing deities of ancient mythology, which I expect were in the first instance seen as metaphorical entities but, due to changes in language and how language is used, these metaphorical beings were rendered literally. In that case, we might as well posit the archetypal Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This does not discount the (extremely speculative) possibility that we exist within a larger mind, or larger minds. Who knows? The whole universe might be a single quark in a larger universe. Idealism will always remain on the table as long as various mysteries about the nature of reality are better understood.
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by ernestm »

3017Metaphysician wrote: December 1st, 2022, 11:11 am Hello Philosopher’s, Metaphysicians and Materialists!

This is latest installment concerning the critique of Materialism, and now considers some of the meanings and implications of subjective observers in the world of perceived reality. Accordingly, this video below made me think of the old question about how we would know whether the tree fell in the forest if there were no observers. Materially, we do know we have two dynamics which are associated with the phenomenon of sound. One being the physical perception of it and another being the metaphysical perception of it. While both still require a subjective observer (idealism) for a some-thing to be percieved, their truth values seem to make materialism nonsensical. In other words, this further corresponds to a sense of objectivity (an independent existence/physics) and subjectivity (a metaphysical existence/experience) when trying to understand reality:

Sensation due to stimulation of the auditory nerves and auditory centers of the brain, usually by vibrations transmitted in a material medium, commonly air, affecting the organ of hearing. b. Physics. Vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves)."[15] This means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical definition, respectively.

And so, while it seems logically necessary that there are observers in the philosophical sense (Subjective Idealism), how does the Materialist reconcile the existence of an observer, along with the qualitative properties of same? Remember, human beings are essentially information processing systems who think and feel. And Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Is the exclusivity of Material events (causes and effects) still nonsensical? I think so... .

Well Ive also read all this, and what I observe is, no one ever changes their mind, no matter what arguments are made. I did change my mind, reaching the conclusion that the debate is no longer about truth, but about ethics. There are no arguments that irrefutably prove one view necessarily true, so it's a matter of belief. I have my belief, other people have theirs, and when rational arguments cannot reach a definitive conclusion, its really pointless considering that furhter argment does anything but increase information bias.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by Sy Borg »

Why have a belief when you cannot possibly know for sure?

Why not accept not knowing?
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by N693 »

Because getting the categories correct between what we can and what we cannot know is important. Earlier I pointed out the contradiction is this statement from Terrapin: "I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes." No one responded. If the statement is true, there is no "I" and no "convincing"; it's just a tautology that says "chemical output x is chemical output x. But it is not true yet modern thinkers continue to act as if this silliness is "so profound", and "cutting edge".

Avoiding the descent into imbecility is what is at stake.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by GE Morton »

3017Metaphysician wrote: December 1st, 2022, 11:11 am
Accordingly, this video below made me think of the old question about how we would know whether the tree fell in the forest if there were no observers. Materially, we do know we have two dynamics which are associated with the phenomenon of sound. One being the physical perception of it and another being the metaphysical perception of it.
Er, no. There is no "metaphysical perception." That phrase is an oxymoron.
While both still require a subjective observer (idealism) for a some-thing to be percieved, their truth values seem to make materialism nonsensical.
There is no "both." There is only perception (an experiential event). Physical theory provides an explanation for the perception --- and quite a powerful, satisfactory one.
Sensation due to stimulation of the auditory nerves and auditory centers of the brain, usually by vibrations transmitted in a material medium, commonly air, affecting the organ of hearing. b. Physics. Vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves)."[15] This means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical definition, respectively.
Yes. The answer depends upon what is intended by "sound" --- i.e., whether the experienced sensation, or the physical cause of the sensation. The vibrations exist whether or not anyone senses them. But obviously no one senses them who is not within earshot.
And so, while it seems logically necessary that there are observers in the philosophical sense (Subjective Idealism) . . .
Observers are only necessary for there to be an observation. No observer is necessary for the existence of what is observed (per physical/materialist theory).
. . . how does the Materialist reconcile the existence of an observer, along with the qualitative properties of same?
"Reconcile"? Observation consists of "qualitative properties." Experience of qualitative properties is just what "observation" is. Physical theory seeks to explain why we have those experiences (and does a pretty good job of it).
Remember, human beings are essentially information processing systems who think and feel.
No, they're not. They think and feel, of course, but while one may describe the brain as an "information processing system," animals are not "essentially" IP systems. They are self-replicating biochemical systems.
And Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.
Yep. And it does so quite well.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

ernestm wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 12:54 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: December 1st, 2022, 11:11 am Hello Philosopher’s, Metaphysicians and Materialists!

This is latest installment concerning the critique of Materialism, and now considers some of the meanings and implications of subjective observers in the world of perceived reality. Accordingly, this video below made me think of the old question about how we would know whether the tree fell in the forest if there were no observers. Materially, we do know we have two dynamics which are associated with the phenomenon of sound. One being the physical perception of it and another being the metaphysical perception of it. While both still require a subjective observer (idealism) for a some-thing to be percieved, their truth values seem to make materialism nonsensical. In other words, this further corresponds to a sense of objectivity (an independent existence/physics) and subjectivity (a metaphysical existence/experience) when trying to understand reality:

Sensation due to stimulation of the auditory nerves and auditory centers of the brain, usually by vibrations transmitted in a material medium, commonly air, affecting the organ of hearing. b. Physics. Vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves)."[15] This means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical definition, respectively.

And so, while it seems logically necessary that there are observers in the philosophical sense (Subjective Idealism), how does the Materialist reconcile the existence of an observer, along with the qualitative properties of same? Remember, human beings are essentially information processing systems who think and feel. And Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Is the exclusivity of Material events (causes and effects) still nonsensical? I think so... .

Well Ive also read all this, and what I observe is, no one ever changes their mind, no matter what arguments are made. I did change my mind, reaching the conclusion that the debate is no longer about truth, but about ethics. There are no arguments that irrefutably prove one view necessarily true, so it's a matter of belief. I have my belief, other people have theirs, and when rational arguments cannot reach a definitive conclusion, its really pointless considering that furhter argment does anything but increase information bias.
It sounds as though you're supporting the position that materialism is nonsensical! Since ethics itself is all part of a qualitative property of the mind, the subject person, it has in effect become your cause to reject same. And as such, your argument is self-refuting.

For example, , if I understand your comments correctly it seems as though that would be a defeatist position. So it makes materialism self-refuting and only provides the supporting evidence. Your comments support the primacy of the Will and emotion has the exclusive cause and effect! Material neurons (material interactions themselves) would not make you believe what you believe. They have no causal powers in influencing your decision making abilities (volitional existence)!!

In short, it seems evident the primacy of the Will (see part V) has caused you to think the way you think. You know, immaterial qualities of one's thoughts and feelings. In other words, you seem to be supporting the thesis that an observer's subjectivity is more important, causing you to make such an assertion (or argument)!

Thus far, the exclusivity of materialism remains nonsensical!!
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by Gertie »

Davies' point here, as I understand it, is he thinks that a fundamental understanding of the universe requires an explanation which integrates observers, maths and the   laws of physics as all being themselves fundamental.  (Tho he doesn't know what such an explanation might be).  That's a fair approach, which panpsychism I'd think most closely addresses. 

Physicalism differs in that it integrates conscious observers as emergent, rather than fundamental, and there are fair reasons for that.  The evidence we have suggests material stuff existed prior to conscious subjects (as far as we can tell).  And it would be no surprise that very smart  conscious critters such as ourselves which evolved for utility can recognise the pre-existing laws of physics and mathematical relationships in the manner we do - in a way which enables us to navigate the pre-existing world we are born into. 

His position is fine as broadcloth speculation, so is the physicalist one.  The prob is how to test which, if either, is on the right track.

Then there's the question of what gives rise to the laws of physics.   We have to bear in mind we are flawed and limited model makers of the ontological reality of the universe, with no apparent direct access to what reality might lie beyond what we can observe (and theorise from patterns in those observations).  So the obvious answer is we don't know.  Maybe we're missing the real fundamental nature of reality, maybe that's just the way physical stuff is, maybe our universe is just one of gazillions with different laws or chaos, maybe it's a simulation, maybe white mice created the universe as an experiment... we can speculate endlessly. 

An approach which relies on information processing as fundamental however doesn't work for me.  Information is an abstract way of describing what stuff in itself is and does, rather than being a thing in itself.  It exists as thoughts, but again these thoughts are always descriptive - if there's nothing pre-existing to describe, I don't see how information itself can be fundamental.  Davies can fairly conceptualise  physical processes in an abstract way as like information processing, but that doesn't make information processing itself a fundamental thing in itself.  Similarly maths describes properties and relationships of things in themselves.  It can't exist as a thing in itself independantly of what it describes.  Unless the universe itself is inconceivably different to how we experience it, I think.
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by ernestm »

3017Metaphysician wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 3:52 pm
ernestm wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 12:54 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: December 1st, 2022, 11:11 am Hello Philosopher’s, Metaphysicians and Materialists!

This is latest installment concerning the critique of Materialism, and now considers some of the meanings and implications of subjective observers in the world of perceived reality. Accordingly, this video below made me think of the old question about how we would know whether the tree fell in the forest if there were no observers. Materially, we do know we have two dynamics which are associated with the phenomenon of sound. One being the physical perception of it and another being the metaphysical perception of it. While both still require a subjective observer (idealism) for a some-thing to be percieved, their truth values seem to make materialism nonsensical. In other words, this further corresponds to a sense of objectivity (an independent existence/physics) and subjectivity (a metaphysical existence/experience) when trying to understand reality:

Sensation due to stimulation of the auditory nerves and auditory centers of the brain, usually by vibrations transmitted in a material medium, commonly air, affecting the organ of hearing. b. Physics. Vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves)."[15] This means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical definition, respectively.

And so, while it seems logically necessary that there are observers in the philosophical sense (Subjective Idealism), how does the Materialist reconcile the existence of an observer, along with the qualitative properties of same? Remember, human beings are essentially information processing systems who think and feel. And Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Is the exclusivity of Material events (causes and effects) still nonsensical? I think so... .

Well Ive also read all this, and what I observe is, no one ever changes their mind, no matter what arguments are made. I did change my mind, reaching the conclusion that the debate is no longer about truth, but about ethics. There are no arguments that irrefutably prove one view necessarily true, so it's a matter of belief. I have my belief, other people have theirs, and when rational arguments cannot reach a definitive conclusion, its really pointless considering that furhter argment does anything but increase information bias.
It sounds as though you're supporting the position that materialism is nonsensical! Since ethics itself is all part of a qualitative property of the mind, the subject person, it has in effect become your cause to reject same. And as such, your argument is self-refuting.

For example, , if I understand your comments correctly it seems as though that would be a defeatist position. So it makes materialism self-refuting and only provides the supporting evidence. Your comments support the primacy of the Will and emotion has the exclusive cause and effect! Material neurons (material interactions themselves) would not make you believe what you believe. They have no causal powers in influencing your decision making abilities (volitional existence)!!

In short, it seems evident the primacy of the Will (see part V) has caused you to think the way you think. You know, immaterial qualities of one's thoughts and feelings. In other words, you seem to be supporting the thesis that an observer's subjectivity is more important, causing you to make such an assertion (or argument)!

Thus far, the exclusivity of materialism remains nonsensical!!
I am anomalous monist, as per Donald Davidson, for lack of anything better.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by Sy Borg »

N693 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:50 am Because getting the categories correct between what we can and what we cannot know is important. Earlier I pointed out the contradiction is this statement from Terrapin: "I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes." No one responded. If the statement is true, there is no "I" and no "convincing"; it's just a tautology that says "chemical output x is chemical output x. But it is not true yet modern thinkers continue to act as if this silliness is "so profound", and "cutting edge".

Avoiding the descent into imbecility is what is at stake.
What I see are people making premature assumptions based on an amateur knowledge base. Both materialists/monists and idealists/dualists are guilty of this, but the latter tend to take more liberties.

I think the discussion on this topic, as with many others on the forum, lacks discipline. Emotion can drive people to posit the speculative as fact. Look at this topic. People with a knowledge of physics that would fit on the back of the postage stamp in Arial 10pt are making certainty claims about the very nature of reality, ignoring the findings of physics. This thread is not really about materialism, as such. The crux of this debate is whether there exists a separate spirit realm to go to after death.

To claim materialism as "nonsense", without even a basic grounding in physics, is simply saying that it's stupid not to believe in the afterlife. They are trying to convince themselves. They don't want to die. They cannot accept that their mind will end (even though their minds stop every night, and seemingly also while posting on the forum). So we see hostility against any suggestion that they will die and that their mind will be no more.

I find it strange that people are so loathe to admit not knowing. We can be confident that any deities of ancient mythology are not real but metaphorical representations of observed dynamics at large scales. This does not discount dualism or the existence of other dimensions, but it's a mistake to present such speculative possibilities as Truth.

After all, we will all find out whether there's life after death soon enough, so why pre-empt?
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by N693 »

Sy Borg,

All you have to do is answer the argument. That's all.

If your thoughts are mere chemical reactions, why do you think you have an objective, mind-independent knowledge that your opponents are wrong? Chemical reactions are not "wrong" they just exist. What standard tells you that a chemical reaction is wrong?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by Gertie »

N693 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 9:05 pm Sy Borg,

All you have to do is answer the argument. That's all.

If your thoughts are mere chemical reactions, why do you think you have an objective, mind-independent knowledge that your opponents are wrong? Chemical reactions are not "wrong" they just exist. What standard tells you that a chemical reaction is wrong?
Physicalist monism has its problems, but to clarify only absolute eliminativists would say that conscious experience doesn't exist.  The claim that  'thoughts are chemical reactions'  is a claim about substance - that they aren't different types of fundamental substances.  Rather that brain processes also have mental properties/qualities.  It's those mental properties which manifest as seeing, hearing, remembering, and thinking this or that about this topic. 

What we know is there's a correlation between brain processes and mental experience, and material substance monism is one possibiliy.  Substance dualism, panpsychism and idealism are others, they too would have to account for that correlation.  As things stand, there's no way to test which might be right. 

It's called the Hard Problem because physicalism, despite giving us an incredibly detailed and coherent model of what the universe is made of and how it works, doesn't seem to have a way of explaining the mind-body relationship. But there's no similar dualist or panpsychic model of the universe and how it works which does either - just broad cloth hypotheses which are untestable. 

Sy Borg's position that anyone who claims to know the answer is kidding themselves is correct.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by Sy Borg »

N693 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 9:05 pm Sy Borg,

All you have to do is answer the argument. That's all.

If your thoughts are mere chemical reactions, why do you think you have an objective, mind-independent knowledge that your opponents are wrong? Chemical reactions are not "wrong" they just exist. What standard tells you that a chemical reaction is wrong?
As stated, it's illogical to make a definite claim of fact here.

Chemical reactions are obviously a key component of most things that we care about. If we are to say that consciousness is "just chemical reactions", then we can certainly say that digestion is also "just chemical reactions". So why does one complex suite of chemical reactions result in digestion while the other results in consciousness? The difference lies in the configuration.

I also see a possible flaw in the "just brain chemicals" idea because consciousness cannot be maintained without an external environment for it to "consume" informationally, just as our guts consume the environment's available energy. A gut deprived of food will eat itself and a brain deprived of stimulus will consume itself informationally. In time, all memories would be forgotten, only the recollections of those memories, and then only recollections of recollections.

Sure, one can posit idealism - that the universe is entirely conscious or it resides within a field of consciousness - but to then claim materialism is nonsensical for not ascribing to that view strikes me as irrational and manipulative.
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by N693 »

Gertie and Sy,

I'm not talking about Monism, or Dualism, or Eliminativism, or needing an environment to make judgements, or whatever. Look, you both made arguments that assume an objective, mind-independent truth claim: you think your assessment of the situation is metaphysically true. You don't think that your assessment is just whatever the result of some vibration of the particles happened to result in. And in reading this and assessing it, you are doing it again; you can't escape it.

So you both are rejecting materialism by default.

You can (as everyone always does) say something like "we get better results from conforming to reality" or some such. But this does nothing to answer the question: so your opponents don't 'conform to reality", so? Is that "wrong"? How can particle configurations be "wrong"?

You are making "aught" claims. There is no ought in particle configurations.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

N693 wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:50 am Because getting the categories correct between what we can and what we cannot know is important. Earlier I pointed out the contradiction is this statement from Terrapin: "I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes." No one responded. If the statement is true, there is no "I" and no "convincing"; it's just a tautology that says "chemical output x is chemical output x. But it is not true yet modern thinkers continue to act as if this silliness is "so profound", and "cutting edge".

Avoiding the descent into imbecility is what is at stake.
Sure. That's the typical category error. Since neurons don't have agency, it would be nonsensical to argue that your neurons causes you to type words on your computer. The primacy of your Will (see part V) is that qualitative entity, property, or immaterial thingy that causes you to do stuff!

Hence, thus far, the exclusivity of Materialism remains nonsensical. It's only a half-theory. Remember, Materialists don't know where Singularity came from!
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
N693
Posts: 56
Joined: November 25th, 2022, 8:31 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

Post by N693 »

You are making a very Aristotelian argument: "neurons don't have agency" is another way of saying neurons are a potential cause in a line of potential causes that must terminate in something purely actual without potency. You attribute this to "will". Whether or not "will" fits the bill is a different question, but nonetheless it is the form of the Aristotelian argument. And that is where everything is going: back to Aristotle.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021