• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

asydhouse said:
Excellent post, Dessi!

But Bernardo claims to have already covered it:

10) Because psychoactive drugs and brain trauma can markedly change subjective experience, it’s clear that the brain generates consciousness.
Click to expand...

I predict he'll dismiss it out of hand.
Click to expand...
I would like to see Bernardo's argument that conscious experiences are not dependent on the brain, when conscious experiences appear in every way dependent on the brain.

I read his article on magic mushrooms:

n Chapter 2 of Why Materialism Is Baloney, I illustrate a broad pattern associating procedures that reduce brain activity with expanded consciousness. [ . . . ]

Whichever way a materialist twists the observations to try and fit them into his metaphysics (for instance, with convoluted, ambiguous, obscurantist arguments about the interplay between excitatory and inhibitory brain activity, which I discuss at length in my book), the bottom line is exceedingly simple: under materialism, consciousness is brain activity. When one finds substantially more consciousness correlating consistently with substantially less brain activity, one is forced to contemplate the possibility that the brain is somehow associated with filtering, constraining, or localizing consciousness, instead of generating it.
Click to expand...

Nevermind recent neurological research which literally identities the on/off switch for consciousness, his argument is just a word game.

If a materialist can address his argument by simply being more precise in their language ("altered consciousness" instead of "more/expanded consciousness ), then his argument is that the stoner slang "expanded consciousness" is a misnomer, not that psychedelic experiences are inconsistent with materialist descriptions of consciousness.

For Bernado's benefit, "expanded consciousness" refers to the loss of one's proprioception or kinesthetic sense, which means you lose perception of the natural boundaries of your body, making it impossible to differentiate yourself from your surroundings. It gives you the utterly alien feeling that nearby objects and everything around you is an extension of your own sense organs, or that your senses have no boundaries at all.

This sensation, in addition to colors appearing incredibly vivid, stationary objects appearing to move or "breath", people and animals appearing cartoonish or straight out of A Scanner Darkly, subjective feeling of time dilation, language becoming incomprehensible, are all part of the feeling of "expanded consciousness". All of which are a result of psychedelic substances subtly changing the action potential of neurons in one's brain, causing calcium ions to linger between neurons longer than normal, which exaggerate normal experiences.

That, and a massive release of serotonin resulting in incredible euphoria (and lots and lots of colors). If it were not accompanied by euphoria, the intense feeling of depersonalization and dissociation would be terrifying (which I learned through experience, unfortunately).
 
Last edited:
Consider the result of a lengthy but completely deterministic series of computations, such as the bitmapping of the Mandelbrot set on a specified region of the complex plane at a certain resolution. Consider specifically a case where that particular bitmapping has never been done by anyone before (which is the typical case, since only an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite possible bitmappings have ever been or could ever be performed).

Specifically, consider that result at a time when the relevant parameters have been specified but the computation has not yet begun. The result is absolutely predictable, in the sense that only one correct result is possible and that anyone doing the required computation correctly is guaranteed to get that result. But the result is not yet known to any human.

There are two possibilities: either that result, at that time, is already in some consciousness (which, since it's not yet in any human consciousness, must mean it is in some other nonhuman e.g. "universal" consciousness), or it is not.

If it is not, then when the computation is complete (or perhaps, when a human looks at the results), it must become so. That is, it becomes part of consciousness because the computation was performed. Consciousness of the result is in (caused by) the result, which is consistent with materialism but inconsistent with the monistic view of the result being within (caused by) consciousness.

If it is, then there is no such inconsistency, but there are some difficult implications. For one thing, the consciousness must store an infinite amount of information, because there are an infinite number of different possible Mandelbrot bitmaps alone. All the physical evidence holds that the known universe has only a finite number of bits of information, so either the universe must be deceptive on that point or the consciousness in question must extend outside the known universe.

For another thing, if the result is already in consciousness before the computation is done, then we must explain why the computation must be done to obtain the result (that is, to replicate the result in human consciousness). Every failure to be able to obtain the results without doing the computation must count as evidence (not conclusive evidence, but evidence) against the idealistic model.
 
Bernardo said:
I never said reality was made up of human consciousness. I said reality was in consciousness. Do you see how challenging it is for you to actually step back from materialist assumptions even for a moment, for the sake of argument? You cannot even visualize what it means for a human being to be in consciousness (like your dream character at night is in your consciousness, not the other way around), as opposed to consciousness being in a human being.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, do you have experience other form of consciousness than human consciousness? You are making quite the assumption if you assume that the consciousness you experience is somehow a universal that the entire universe is based around. Who's to say that other beings don't experience consciousness in a completely different way?
 
Dessi said:
"Obviously"? No, it's so far from "obvious" that linguists haven't yet coined the word needed to describe how completely and entirely wrong it is.

A case study: rocks colliding with the moon for billions of years, glaciers carving canyons through mountains, deep sea life being in an evolutionary arms race for billions of years. More generally: the entirety of astronomy, geology, climatology, archaeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, etc.

These things are only observable today because events from the past leave traces on the present, unavoidably implying the existence of events taking place independent of anyone around to observe them.
Click to expand...
But the point is that you can't actually prove it. With all of our superstar physicists lining up to say on documentaries that we may, for all we know, be a simulation - doubting reality has pretty much hit the scientific mainstream.

So you can't prove that any of that actually happened, or even derive any sort of a rough probability that it did.

On the other hand the parsimonious explanation is that it did and that there was no mind in which it was happening.

And since parsimony is the criterion on which Bernardo is recommending his metaphysic, then it is clear that it comes in behind Materialism on that alone.
 
MikeG said:
Here is "Why Materialism is Baloney" on Amazon



Aside.........5 months later another book is ready for publication. Wow, that's quick.

Rationalist Spirituality



Meaning in Absurdity



IFF Books

From the above IFF website
Click to expand...

I checked "Predators and Editors" which lists John Hunt Publishing as a Vanity Publisher. Elsewhere on the website they pretty much admit that they are a vanity publisher but defend it by saying the big six publishers have vanity arms too. I have to say that it undermines one's argument to present oneself as a well respected and widely published author when the books came out from a vanity press. I'm not against self publishing or non-traditional publishing for those who want to do it but works should be identified as such. A book from Harvard University Press is not the same as a self published book as the crucible of approval of approval is missing.
 
taygatayga said:
Every metaphysical position has an ontological primitive which is a basic assumption that can't be proved and on which all other arguments rest. In materialism the ontological primitive is matter and in idealism it's consciousness.

You could ask the same question about materialism: what is the source of this "matter"?
Click to expand...
Uknowable.

The thing is, materialism and idealism are most definitely not in the same position with respect to explaining our Universe.

Under materialism, we assume that matter is what exists (whatever "matter" is), and we look at the Universe, and we observe matter giving rise to consciousness. Good, assumption is unprovable, but seems to work.

Under idealism, we assume that mind is what exists (whatever "mind" is), and we look at the Universe, and we observe matter giving rise to consciousness. Oops. Now we have an unknowable mind, and an unexplained process by which that mind gives rise to matter.

So, for any reasonable definition of wrong, naive idealism is it.

I say naive idealism, because if you take the view that the Universe is, at it's most basic level, mathematics, or information, or computation, then that doesn't leave the same explanatory gap... And it looks just like materialism.

That doesn't rescue the nonsense Bernardo is peddling, though.
 
So if you believe the only reality is consciousness, was there a universe before there was life to perceive it? Must we buy in to Bishop Berkeley's God? If you presume that a consciousness other than that of a living thing is what the universe is made of, then why, other than hubris, can we presume that ours has taken over the task? If we accept that a universe existed before we (or anyone) existed to perceive it, does calling it one thing and not another actually have any meaning?
 
Bernardo said:
As some of you know, I think materialism is baloney. I subscribe to the much more parsimonious and skeptical notion that reality is in a trans-personal form of consciousness, of which we are localizations -- like whirlpools in a stream. This ontology is often called monistic idealism. My books, videos and blog expand on all this, so I won't elaborate here (moreover, apparently I lose rights to anything I post here). What I want to do is this: in my upcoming book, I am taking the time to dissect and expose all materialist counter-arguments against monistic idealism. So far I have selected 16 of them, which I list below. I argue in the upcoming book that all these points fail because they (a) beg the question; (b) contradict materialism itself (!); (c) totally misunderstand and misrepresent monistic idealism (i.e. straw man); (d) misunderstand or misrepresent the evidence; or (e) fail simple sound logic.

So my challenge to you is this: can you come up with other, better arguments for materialism, beyond the ones I list below? I doubt, but remain curious and open minded.

The current list:

1) Our sense perceptions provide direct evidence for a world outside consciousness.
2) Because we cannot change reality by merely wishing it to be different, it’s clear that reality is outside consciousness.
3) Because we are separate beings witnessing the same external reality, reality has to be outside consciousness.
4) It is untenable to maintain that there is no reality independent of consciousness, for there is plenty of evidence about what was going on in the Universe before consciousness evolved.
5) It is not parsimonious to say that reality is in consciousness, because that would require postulating an unfathomably complex entity to be imagining reality.
6) Reality is clearly not inside our heads, therefore monistic idealism is wrong.
7) Monistic idealism is too metaphysical.
8) There are strong correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. Clearly, thus, the brain generates consciousness.
9) Unconscious brain activity precedes the awareness of certain decisions, showing a clear arrow of causation from purely material processes to conscious experience.
10) Because psychoactive drugs and brain trauma can markedly change subjective experience, it’s clear that the brain generates consciousness.
11) During dreamless sleep, or under general anesthesia, we are clearly unconscious. Yet, we don’t cease to exist because we become temporarily unconscious. Clearly, thus, reality cannot be in consciousness.
12) The stability and consistency of the laws of physics show that reality is outside consciousness.
13) To postulate a collective and obfuscated part of consciousness as the source of consensus reality is equivalent to postulating a reality outside consciousness.
14) Why would consciousness deceive us by simulating a materialist world?
15) Monistic idealism is solipsistic and, as such, unfalsifiable.
16) One cannot prove that monistic idealism is true.

Although you have to wait for the publication of my new book to see the refutation of all these 16 arguments, I can guarantee to you that only smoldering ashes will be left of them after I am done. ;-)

So can you come up with anything else? What's your best argument in defense of materialism? What's your best argument against monistic idealism? Apologies in advance for the fact that I will have to ignore trolls given my limited time. As for the rest of you, your input will be sincerely appreciated.
Click to expand...

(17) There is no practical difference between monistic idealism and monistic materialism. Both present actors engaging with in- or semi-tractable "stuff" and other actors. (Furthermore, dualism is meaningless precisely for the same reason: having two "planes of existence" operating in tandem begs the question of why they would be different, and what that difference would be.)

Cpl Ferro
 
I can't prove materialism beyond a reasonable doubt, but I can rule out idealism. If idealism is assumed to be the starting point, then it dictates there must be unthought of thoughts, which are logically impossible. So yeah, whoops.
 
PixyMisa said:
Uknowable.

The thing is, materialism and idealism are most definitely not in the same position with respect to explaining our Universe.

Under materialism, we assume that matter is what exists (whatever "matter" is), and we look at the Universe, and we observe matter giving rise to consciousness. Good, assumption is unprovable, but seems to work.

Under idealism, we assume that mind is what exists (whatever "mind" is), and we look at the Universe, and we observe matter giving rise to consciousness. Oops. Now we have an unknowable mind, and an unexplained process by which that mind gives rise to matter.

So, for any reasonable definition of wrong, naive idealism is it.

I say naive idealism, because if you take the view that the Universe is, at it's most basic level, mathematics, or information, or computation, then that doesn't leave the same explanatory gap... And it looks just like materialism.

That doesn't rescue the nonsense Bernardo is peddling, though.
Click to expand...
Of course if a mind is basically a computation then it is pretty easy to see how a mind could give rise to matter - it just does the computation.

Under Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis there must be infinitely many minds giving rise to matter in this sense, since every run of every algorithm will exist.

Whether such ideas are thought of as Idealism or Platonism, They are (IMHO) pretty much as woo as any of the naive Idealisms.
 
bruto said:
So if you believe the only reality is consciousness, was there a universe before there was life to perceive it? Must we buy in to Bishop Berkeley's God?
Click to expand...
I think yes, if you buy into Idealism then you must buy into a perceiver of last resort which does all the calculations behind the scenes.
 
asydhouse said:
10) Because psychoactive drugs and brain trauma can markedly change subjective experience, it’s clear that the brain generates consciousness.
Click to expand...

I predict he'll dismiss it out of hand.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he'll claim something along the lines of the drugs/trauma being loci of consciousness themselves, so that it's still just consciousness affecting consciousness.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
So its turtles all the way UP? :cool:
Click to expand...
You get the same problem with a computational universe hypothesis - what is doing the computations? And what is doing the computations for the thing that is doing the computations?

Or in a mathematical universe - what is doing the mathematics? And what is doing the mathematics for the thing that is doing the mathematics?

Seems to me that if we could drill down and find the fundamental level of reality we would have to either find something that behaves the way it does for no reason at all, or else that it would be something that couldn't possibly be any other way.
 
Robin said:
Of course if a mind is basically a computation then it is pretty easy to see how a mind could give rise to matter - it just does the computation.
Click to expand...
Sure. But then you end up with materialism; the unknowable nature of the mind underlying the unknowable nature of matter is double plus irrelevant.
 
Robin said:
Seems to me that if we could drill down and find the fundamental level of reality we would have to either find something that behaves the way it does for no reason at all, or else that it would be something that couldn't possibly be any other way.
Click to expand...
Yes. Mind you, that can be computation - if you look at Conway's Game of Life, for example, it's easy to imagine that there's a sub-Planck-scale grid on which something like this runs because that's just what spacetime does. (And in the holographic universe scenario, it could even be the 2d Game of Life itself, with the 3d nature of space being illusory.)
 
PixyMisa said:
Yes. Mind you, that can be computation - if you look at Conway's Game of Life, for example, it's easy to imagine that there's a sub-Planck-scale grid on which something like this runs because that's just what spacetime does. (And in the holographic universe scenario, it could even be the 2d Game of Life itself, with the 3d nature of space being illusory.)
Click to expand...
Yes, a universal computer can be something very simple indeed.
 
I would remind Bernardo that the burden is not on us to refute his thesis, the burden is on him to establish it and I cannot see that he has done that. If there are any definite arguments in favour of the thesis then we could address these.

But in the past I have put up the following argument against Idealism and in favour of a minimalistic Materialism, and I don't think it is on Bernardo's list:

Every real Idealism must posit that the fundamental unit of reality is mind.

Minds think.

Anything that thinks must be, at least, a computer.

Computers are complex in that even very simple computer have parts that are not, in themselves computers.

So any mind will consist of parts that are not, in themselves, capable of thinking.

So if we were to drill down beyond the reality we perceive and find a mind behind it, there must be a non-mind substrate on which the mind depends. If that substrate itself depended on a mind then the same would apply to that mind.

So for any level of reality that could be called mind, there must be a deeper reality which is not mind.

So any Idealistic metaphysic is either wrong, or else it is just a rebadged Materialism.
 
tsig said:
You're going to prove that reality is an illusion by changing the brick wall into an illusion?
Click to expand...

Hardly. I don't think reality is an illusion. I just think the experiment doesn't address the issue.

All the "I refute it thus" rejoinders are addressing a different question than the question being asked. The brick wall bit just highlights the fact that what we call reality seems real. Idealism accepts that already. Their challenge is to show some logical path supporting the notion of materialism, not to demonstrate the fidelity of the illusion.

It's not even an esoteric question. It's a question at the heart of scientific investigation and daily life. "I know I can be fooled. I know I make mistakes. On what basis can I be confident that this time I'm not?"

In many ways, being a skeptic and critical thinker amounts to gathering the tools to test our relationship between the "really real" and the, "what I take to be the case." We collect fallacies and are interested in paradoxes because we value the lessons they capture. Idealism merely extends this critique to the root level.

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom