I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

Dancing David said:
So I suppose the fact that doctors and neurologists have direct observations and measures of consciousness is immaterial.
:)
Click to expand...

No one could possibly believe we 'have direct observations and measures of consciousness' At best we have observed what could be changes in brain activity that correlates (in time) with specific experiences or sensations.
 
LarryS said:
To suggest that "consciousness is the process of the physical activity (and lack thereof) in the brain along a continuum" because "That is materialistic in nature" is a perfect example of begging the question.

You can state axiomatically that: the material world alone exists, so therefore, consciousness emerges from the material world.
Click to expand...
If the material world alone exists, and we observe consciousness to exist, then yes, it follows from that alone that consciousness emerges from the material world.

But this is not just something we deduce from our axioms; it is precisely what we observe.

LarryS said:
No one could possibly believe we 'have direct observations and measures of consciousness'
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that this is absolutely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Volitional_acts_and_readiness_potential
 
LarryS said:
No one could possibly believe we 'have direct observations and measures of consciousness' At best we have observed what could be changes in brain activity that correlates (in time) with specific experiences or sensations.
Click to expand...

No.

We can alter and stop consciousness at will with various drugs or surgeries. This isn't a matter of the brain transmitting the mind, but it being the sole source of it. There is no other explanation for the body of observation.
 
PixyMisa said:
If the material world alone exists, and we observe consciousness to exist, then yes, it follows from that alone that consciousness emerges from the material world.

But this is not just something we deduce from our axioms; it is precisely what we observe.


Except for the fact that this is absolutely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Volitional_acts_and_readiness_potential
Click to expand...

If we deduce that the physical world exists from observation, then we are a dualist, because observation assumes consciousness.
 
Belz... said:
No.

We can alter and stop consciousness at will with various drugs or surgeries. This isn't a matter of the brain transmitting the mind, but it being the sole source of it. There is no other explanation for the body of observation.
Click to expand...

Believing there is no other explanation is not a proof.
 
PixyMisa said:
If the material world alone exists, and we observe consciousness to exist, then yes, it follows from that alone that consciousness emerges from the material world.

But this is not just something we deduce from our axioms; it is precisely what we observe.


Except for the fact that this is absolutely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Volitional_acts_and_readiness_potential
Click to expand...


These experiments are not the observations of consciousness or subjective experience. . . it's just a bunch of twitches.
 
LarryS said:
To suggest that "consciousness is the process of the physical activity (and lack thereof) in the brain along a continuum" because "That is materialistic in nature" is a perfect example of begging the question.

You can state axiomatically that: the material world alone exists, so therefore, consciousness emerges from the material world.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "because". Keep in mind I've made more than a few posts here so I suggest you read them all because that context will help you. We (or at least I have) been suggesting that consciousness is best modeled in a stochastic (aka integrated, spatio-temporal, whathaveyou) fashion. That means it's measurable. If it's measurable then it's not an abstraction anymore thus the hard problem of consciousness as Chalmers suggests no longer is tenable if the physiology of consciousness reflects the model. This is what Koch, Tononi, and other scientists have suggested and this to me is a sensible model since many physiologic and biophysics disciplines also use them.

There is no suggestion of a material world alone in this though and I don't care one way or another about the metaphysical concept of a material world.

But more to the point, my suggestion to surreptitious was that he was introducing a concept of the physical world that does not reflect the discourse on consciousness in any contemporary manner which is why I mentioned the concept of survival.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
If we deduce that the physical world exists from observation, then we are a dualist, because observation assumes consciousness.
Click to expand...

When a photon interacts with an electron and raises it to a higher electron state, it does not assume consciousness. When this electron, by moving to a higher state, causes a chemical reaction, it does not assume consciousness. When this reaction triggers a neuron to releases neurotransmitters to other neurons in a chain reaction into the brain, it does not assume consciousness. When the brain interprets that electro-chemical signal as a certain color of light, it does not assume consciousness.
 
LarryS said:
If we deduce that the physical world exists from observation, then we are a dualist, because observation assumes consciousness.
Click to expand...

That's why we use models. Also observations in science do not assume consciousness. Observation is synonymous with data collection.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
If we deduce that the physical world exists from observation, then we are a dualist, because observation assumes consciousness.
Click to expand...


That alone does not constitute dualism. In order to be a dualist, we must assume that at least some aspects of consciousness are not a product of physical processes.

There is no need to make any such assumption.
The reasoning goes...
  • We know consciousness exists because we experience it directly.
  • We know the physical world exists because we can observe it.
  • We infer that consciousness is based upon physical interactions because interfering with the physical interactions in the apparent seat of our consciousness alters our conscious state.
 
LarryS said:
These experiments are not the observations of consciousness or subjective experience. . . it's just a bunch of twitches.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Read how Libet established the timing of conscious decision-making. It's a direct measurement of consciousness. (And it proves that conscious decision-making is illusory.)
 
Pretty much going "Oh you're a (insert distinction only Navel Gazers make here)" as a retort in an argument means you don't have a leg to stand on. The petty hair splitting over how much of reality to ignore is beneath me.

"Oh you're a reformist Calvinistic second string dualistic frappacino materialist!" Yeah sure whatever you want call someone that isn't as far out beyond the event horizon of formless as you think they should be.
 
Who was it here that said "Proof is for whiskey. I'll settle for some evidence."
 
I don't mind using the word "proof" to mean "evidence". For one, the distinction only works in mathematics. And two, in French the two words are one and the same anyway.
 
LarryS said:
If we deduce that the physical world exists from observation, then we are a dualist, because observation assumes consciousness.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe the evidence of your senses then where are you getting any evidence from?
 
Belz... said:
I don't mind using the word "proof" to mean "evidence". For one, the distinction only works in mathematics. And two, in French the two words are one and the same anyway.
Click to expand...

It is sorta similar to the "knowledge/truth" malarky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom