I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[turingtest]

If you're American you may not have heard the term (I'm in the UK, that other country that speaks English "but not as we know it Jim").

Why do I say he is being trashed? Because his points aren't discussed, just his personality attacked like in a Disney cartoon

Yes, page, I'm perfectly well aware of what "trashing" means; if I hadn't been, your own references to Bernardo's critics as a "bunch of hypocrites" and "lazy people" would have made pretty good examples to define it by. Which was my actual point, the one you avoided- if you yourself say you're not sure of some of Bernado's points, without saying which ones or why, while other folks are addressing them, then who's doing the empty "trashing"? (Much less the ridiculous "suppressing" charge- his posts are there for anyone to read, are they not? "Disagreeing with" =/= "suppressing.")

 

[IanS]

There's a lot of philosophy which is subjected to peer review such as legal philosophy, anthropology ( there are definite branches of cultural anthropology that are philosophical in nature), and to some extent even mathematics.

I never like using peer review as a separation of science and pseudoscience or philosophy. Peer Review can be as much a cosmetic veneer as it can be a filter.

But that's not to contradict you Nonpariel, I just don't share the idea.

In science "peer review" plays a vital role to maintain the highest possible standards of accuracy.

In core science (i.e. physics, chemistry, maths, biology, and direct offshoots of those subjects, such as astronomy) is it's actually quite difficult to publish any paper in the main highly rated journals. Obvious mistakes, or a lack of scientific rigor, or simply a lack of interesting, new or novel results, will almost always result in the paper being rejected at the first hurdle ... it just won't get published.

But even if papers are published with serious errors or misleading arguments and conclusions, then they rarely stand for long without numerous experts in the field publishing opposing papers pointing out the errors.

By the time scientific discoveries and explanations get to be rated as "theories", e.g. evolution, relativity, and thousands of other core theories in science, there is virtually zero chance that the theory is completely wrong or very seriously flawed to the point of completely misleading everyone.

I don't know if "peer review" can work in that same relatively rigorous way in other less mathematically precise field of academia, such as philosophy, or biblical studies(??). But in core science, the research literature (peer reviewed) is absolutely key to the whole field of research.

 

[Fudbucker]

No; what is best is following the evidence. If the early evidence is misleading, then when you get better evidence you will find out that you were wrong, and change your mind. But if you steer to a middle way you will always be wrong.

Edit: If you mean that all scientific findings are tentative and subject to change if new evidence appears, then I have no problem with that. Of course, some findings are a lot less tentative than others.


Why? Also, how?

We know a lot more now than in Kelvin's day, and in particular, we have a very good idea of what we don't know. And we know that there's no unknown physics involved in consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrs-Azp0i3k#t=2046

Right. Of course I know that many 'skeptics' have many certitudes or quasi-certitudes. Except to acknowledge the manifest limits of what we call knowledge. Personally I would argue that we have to begin with a modest definition of knowledge, namely it is merely justified belief, and thus the best approach is still that suggested by me, we should always be prepared for possible non trivial, rational, paradigm shifts in ALL parts of what we accept today as knowledge. Basically nothing is exempted from possible rational replacement so there is little reason to give to the current knowledge the status you suggest. Some may easily dismiss such a (moderate) philosophical scepticism (we can define knowledge but fallibilism in non trivial ways should always be present, I don't think you really understood my stance) unfortunately for them Rationality show plenty that it cannot be so easily wiped out.

We absolutely don't know this.

"I think consciousness, like mass, is a fundamental property of the universe."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531146/what-it-will-take-for-computers-to-be-conscious/

Now I'll post what I come to regard as "the fine-print" for this website, whenever someone is quoted (I have it saved on notepad):

Argument from authority is not a fallacy in informal logic (i.e., the kind of discussions that take place here), unless the authority in question is not an expert in the relevant field. It's a rare discussion indeed that doesn't result in an appeal to some kind of expert: economics, medicine, climate, biology, physics, math, etc. Such appeals are perfectly valid and often settle the debate, especially when the topic under discussion is esoteric.

Christof Koch is indeed an authority on consciousness. (both from a biological and computational standpoint).

 

[pagetheoracle]

To dispassionately point out the error of someone's ways is intellect at work, especially if backed up with knowledge and logic. When a person's character is attacked to shut them up, this is avoidance of thinking yourself and an attempt to stop them doing the same.

As for scientists being authorities, who can be relied on to be dispassionate - this isn't always so: Look up how Newton destroyed evidence of Robert Hook's work, simply because he detested the man and his position in The Royal Society allowed him to suppress his work later in life (History is written by the victor, remember).

 

[The Man]

Wait, so after bemoaning character assassination you then proceed to attack the character of some natural philosopher? Yes, scientists are people and people often make poor choices.

"History is written by the victor" you say, so who wrote that history for you to "Look up how Newton destroyed evidence of Robert Hook's work, simply because he detested the man and his position in The Royal Society…"? Who was that “victor”?

Besides the trivial, irrelevant and impugning the general character of scientists and historians (as well as yourself), do you have anything on topic?

 

[abaddon]

To dispassionately point out the error of someone's ways is intellect at work, especially if backed up with knowledge and logic. When a person's character is attacked to shut them up, this is avoidance of thinking yourself and an attempt to stop them doing the same.

As for scientists being authorities, who can be relied on to be dispassionate - this isn't always so: Look up how Newton destroyed evidence of Robert Hook's work, simply because he detested the man and his position in The Royal Society allowed him to suppress his work later in life (History is written by the victor, remember).

Actually, Hooke was disliked generally because he was a total <item of headwear applied to posterior>. He wrote his Principia on foot of a bet in a coffee house between Hooke, Halley and Wren. Halley approached Newton on foot of that bet and as recorded by deMoivre:

In 1684 Dr Halley came to visit him at Cambridge. After they had been some time together, the Dr asked him what he thought the curve would be that would be described by the planets supposing the force of attraction towards the sun to be reciprocal to the square of their distance from it. Sir Isaac replied immediately that it would be an ellipse. The Doctor, struck with joy and amazement, asked him how he knew it. Why, saith he, I have calculated it. Whereupon Dr Halley asked him for his calculation without any farther delay. Sir Isaac looked among his papers but could not find it, but he promised him to renew it and then to send it him…

and thus was born Principia.

OTOH, Hooke came up with the inventive excuse that he had already figured it all out but refused to disclose his solution on the basis that to do so would deprive others of the joy of discovering it for themselves.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

We absolutely don't know this.

"I think consciousness, like mass, is a fundamental property of the universe."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531146/what-it-will-take-for-computers-to-be-conscious/

Now I'll post what I come to regard as "the fine-print" for this website, whenever someone is quoted (I have it saved on notepad):

Argument from authority is not a fallacy in informal logic (i.e., the kind of discussions that take place here), unless the authority in question is not an expert in the relevant field. It's a rare discussion indeed that doesn't result in an appeal to some kind of expert: economics, medicine, climate, biology, physics, math, etc. Such appeals are perfectly valid and often settle the debate, especially when the topic under discussion is esoteric.

Christof Koch is indeed an authority on consciousness. (both from a biological and computational standpoint).

Hmmm. Not the first time I've heard this class of statement from people in the field. The problem I have is that plenty of evidence can be cited concerning neurons and processing, but there is zilch to indicate in any way that matter itself is conscious. I've also heard this from cosmologists. One enterprising engineer thinks the key paradigm to intelligence is maximizing entropy.

But I think Denet is closer to the case. Just think in terms of evolution, and the step-wise process that led to our capacities. There is an extremely fine-grained sequence of layers or levels of sophistication, starting with unicellular stimulus-response (see chemotaxis), and ranging up to posting on internet boards to meta-think.

 

[Fudbucker]

Hmmm. Not the first time I've heard this class of statement from people in the field. The problem I have is that plenty of evidence can be cited concerning neurons and processing, but there is zilch to indicate in any way that matter itself is conscious. I've also heard this from cosmologists. One enterprising engineer thinks the key paradigm to intelligence is maximizing entropy.

But I think Denet is closer to the case. Just think in terms of evolution, and the step-wise process that led to our capacities. There is an extremely fine-grained sequence of layers or levels of sophistication, starting with unicellular stimulus-response (see chemotaxis), and ranging up to posting on internet boards to meta-think.

I think the reason why people like Koch are saying this is because the materialist explanation for A) why there is consciousness and experience and B) how consciousness and experience come about is inadequate, and they're finally starting to explore other, stranger theories (like Koch speculating that a conscious field exists that permeates the universe). Someone like Koch doesn't just arrive at panpsychism out of the blue.

 

[pagetheoracle]

Wait, what? You're not sure of some of Bernardo's points...but anybody else who isn't, and explains why, is "trashing" and "suppressing" him, and thinking only...um...scientismistically?*

*My spellchecker not only underlined that word, I think I heard a groan and a pretty good facepalm smack from somewhere in the bowels of my computer.

My spellchecker tries to tell me that English, English is wrong but that American-English is right. Funny that.

It's arbitrary, by which I mean it doesn't have to be either way or could be both (An agreed upon form). Before dictionaries came along standard spelling didn't really exist and we still have examples of this, not to mention pronunciation (You say eether and I say eyether, let's work the whole thing out).

 

[pagetheoracle]

I don't dispute the facts about what happens in the brain' just the interpretation.

The brain obviously has some influence on what we think we see in that a bird in the sky will be seen as dark against that background but when seen against the ground as a background, in relative terms it will appear lighter (My observation).

 

[tsig]

I don't dispute the facts about what happens in the brain' just the interpretation.

The brain obviously has some influence on what we think we see in that a bird in the sky will be seen as dark against that background but when seen against the ground as a background, in relative terms it will appear lighter (My observation).

My camera does the same thing.

 

[pagetheoracle]

My camera does the same thing.

Thank you. Then that proves it isn't a mental interpretation but reality in some form. An interesting fact and like ones I get on the science forum I belong to, a welcome rebuttal because it isn't personal / emotional but factual / intellectual.

 

[pagetheoracle]

Hmmm. Not the first time I've heard this class of statement from people in the field. The problem I have is that plenty of evidence can be cited concerning neurons and processing, but there is zilch to indicate in any way that matter itself is conscious. I've also heard this from cosmologists. One enterprising engineer thinks the key paradigm to intelligence is maximizing entropy.

But I think Denet is closer to the case. Just think in terms of evolution, and the step-wise process that led to our capacities. There is an extremely fine-grained sequence of layers or levels of sophistication, starting with unicellular stimulus-response (see chemotaxis), and ranging up to posting on internet boards to meta-think.

I think there may be some organizing principle in the universe, from the slit experiment and the way the particles arranged themselves as waves. Up until I saw this demonstrated on TV recently, I'd always thought (being a layman) that it was electric charge from the slit material itself that was causing the pattern.

 

[pagetheoracle]

I think the reason why people like Koch are saying this is because the materialist explanation for A) why there is consciousness and experience and B) how consciousness and experience come about is inadequate, and they're finally starting to explore other, stranger theories (like Koch speculating that a conscious field exists that permeates the universe). Someone like Koch doesn't just arrive at panpsychism out of the blue.

Yes there's always 'something' isn't there? It was The Ether, Phlogiston, Dark Matter and to New Agers, just energy as the filling principle. The universe holds something and that is everything else, just like the body is a container for various giblets but it doesn't explain consciousness. To me it is being on the cusp of time and noticing change or movement i.e. the past as memory slipping behind us (negative emotion from guilt to sadness i.e. regret for mistakes) and the future as approaching reality (imagination or what could be but not necessarily will be or enthusiasm), with the present as simple perception of what is here now and for certain (matter perceived dispassionately by intellect). Like everyone else I'm just trying to make sense of the world, from my own experiences and those of others (Change always comes because there's always a chink in someone's armour - nothing is perfect after all and that is what makes life, life - the ineffable quality of not being able to pin it ever down 'perfectly', so it is 'dead certain.'

 

[pagetheoracle]

Actually, Hooke was disliked generally because he was a total <item of headwear applied to posterior>. He wrote his Principia on foot of a bet in a coffee house between Hooke, Halley and Wren. Halley approached Newton on foot of that bet and as recorded by deMoivre:

and thus was born Principia.

OTOH, Hooke came up with the inventive excuse that he had already figured it all out but refused to disclose his solution on the basis that to do so would deprive others of the joy of discovering it for themselves.

So Hook was a backside and best forgotten? Under those circumstances I can understand Newton's wish to annihilate his memory as not jealousy but the attempt to get rid of bad workmanship (I must have heard the jealousy quote from someone who was a pro-Hook camp member).

 

[pagetheoracle]

Yes, page, I'm perfectly well aware of what "trashing" means; if I hadn't been, your own references to Bernardo's critics as a "bunch of hypocrites" and "lazy people" would have made pretty good examples to define it by. Which was my actual point, the one you avoided- if you yourself say you're not sure of some of Bernado's points, without saying which ones or why, while other folks are addressing them, then who's doing the empty "trashing"? (Much less the ridiculous "suppressing" charge- his posts are there for anyone to read, are they not? "Disagreeing with" =/= "suppressing.")

From memory I can say the first one I thought was a bit iffy but the following two sounded very reasonable. I could go back and discuss each individual point but then my attack was based on the fact nobody else had done this either, including you.

 

[devhdb]

edit

 

[devhdb]

I like this thread a lot for. Bernardo has got a point here.

Unfortunately, the intellectually "skeptical" audience here isn't prepared for him, which is a pity. Prove us wrong otherwise: study his arguments carefully and realize that it is not as easy as insulting him to shut him down.

In the end, Bernardo wrote his book, which, as expected, has been a success:

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2013/04/why-materialism-is-baloney-overview.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eehz5YKnBf4




A really interesting "skeptical" interview with Bernardo by Alex Tsakiris @ Skeptiko:

Bernardo Kastrup Says Materialism is Baloney

https://skeptiko.com/248-bernardo-kastrup-materialism-is-baloney/


Thanks Bernardo!

 

[LarryS]

I did check out this book from local library and read it quite a few years ago. His reasoning favoring Ideaism seemed solid enough but it lingered as one of those 'still somehow not convincing' - as compared to materialism, which is incoherent yet somehow quite convincing. In the long-run I think that materialism as a metaphysics is doomed - but it will take 2-3 Einsteins to properly kill it.

 

[bruto]

Wow, endorsed by Deepak Chopra. It must be an impressive percentage of wonderful.