Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[thesyntaxera]

It reminds me very much of the creationist need to not understand how natural selection gives rise to the appearance of designe. If we (materialists) are right, then their unfalsifiable alternative is in jeopardy and this scares them. They have an emotional "need" for their believe in their "belief".

Is there any topic you can't some how contort into a discussion about creationists, religionists, and "believers" in general versus the almighty materialists? I think your post might indicate an emotional "need" for self validation more so than anything relevant to this discussion.

 

[Nick227]

Legs give rise to running... Legs are responsible for the jog around the park I took. "Jogs" and "running" (gerund) are non material things (nouns) that rely on material (physical) things. So is music, movement, time, patterns, laps, and flames that are blown out. I am not a dualist because I believe in these non-material "things"... in the same way I am not a secret dualist to say that brains give rise to consciousness the way legs give rise to "running". Consciousness is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains... there is no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist absent a material brain. I presume that most materialists follow this line of thinking... including Dennett, Ramachandran, Blackmore, and most of those on the forefront of evolution and/or cognitive research. As much as some would like to think this is an incoherent philosophy, I presume their ignorance, obfuscation, and semantic confusion has more to do with keeping their own incoherent alternative beliefs "alive" in their "consciousness". It reminds me very much of the creationist need to not understand how natural selection gives rise to the appearance of designe. If we (materialists) are right, then their unfalsifiable alternative is in jeopardy and this scares them. They have an emotional "need" for their believe in their "belief".

Well, Ramachandran describes himself as "neutral" in the materialist/idealist debate and I can't see Dennett or Blackmore agreeing with your statement "Consciousness is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains" as it is already assuming duality. No one actually owns the brain and no one interprets. Yet another Cartesian materialist! Hell, there's a lot of them on this forum. We need Samuel L Jackson down here!

ETA; Let's be honest, Articulett. You like to label yourself a "materialist" because you want to identify with a group that you perceive as being able to take a stand against parapsychology, homeopathy, alchemy, and most of all, Tom Cruise and Scientology. That's fair enough. I can relate to that. But the problem is that you don't actually understand materialism. Read Blackmore. She's into Anatta and Zen. She considers your apparent notion of self as just a parasitic memeplex. You can't escape Scientology just by identifying with a group. It doesn't work like that.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

I can't see Dennett or Blackmore agreeing with your statement "Consciousness is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains" as it is already assuming duality.

I can't see you agreeing with your own statement as it is already assuming duality.

You shouldn't communicate using personal pronouns unless you are a dualist, Nick. Duh.

 

[articulett]

Consciousness Explained (published 1991) is a book by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett which offers an account of how consciousness arises from interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

There are "things" like consciousness and music and wifi and a "jog in the park" that arise from material processes that are not, themselves "material"-- but this does not make them "dualistic" as much as woo want to pretend that it does. It's just a silly attempt to make it so that materialism doesn't make sense to them so that their unevidenced alternative belief seems more true.

 

[Dancing David]

Wow, I am glad i have stayed away, this has gotten worse, in terms of Nick227's insistence on thier POV.

The only self that makes sense in the one identified as a unique organic body. (Or inorganic when and if such things exist.)

But I still don't see where materialism and science are obviating science.

 

[AWPrime]

But the problem is that you don't actually understand materialism.

No, that is your problem. You can't seem to grasp that a process that depends on material things (neurons, etc) doesn't suggest duality.
Heck, the fact that brain damage affects the mind/self clearly destroys dualism. In the end dualism is a, outdated, simplistic notion that can't hope to explain causal interaction.


A good example would be flowing water. In which one can compare the mind with flow (process) and the brain with water (material).

 

[Dancing David]

If the self is derived from consciousness, and consciousness is derived from the collected sensory information funneled together to create a continuous experience, then what is self ultimately? Especially if consciousness is the non-material result of the brain functioning...

The only coherent defintion of self in the unique physical body based upon the contingent history of that ephemeral body.

It seems kind of a waste to only view self as being the mechanisms of the brain and body when there is no way to prove that an AI modeled consciousness is in anyway similar to how our brains actually function. Even if you can model every neuron it's not going to tell you what your modeled brain is thinking. It's only going to show you a modeled brain.

Which just begs the question:

What point are you trying to make here.

The processes that the brain engages in are not deliniated but a base understanding is occuring.

Where are you headed here?

Unless one is in possession of the knowledge of how our brains collect and combine information to create conscious experience, arguing that it's all able to be modeled, and that the self is merely the collection of biomechanical components appears on the surface to be some what naive.

Oh really.

Do we have to justify models for science to have predicitive value.

Does what you say apply to fusion in stars?
Plate tectonics?
Ion channles in semi-permeable membrances of organic cells?

Or do you just reserve this for an undefined term, consciousness?

That is not to say that the potential for creating a thinking AI is impossible or that it won't give us insight into our own thinking nature. It's just that right now, AI isn't representative of a whole lot when it comes to the complexity of our own brains, so we don't know, and we can't argue very well what we don't know.

Um, what makes you think that we don't know, the mechanism of perception is getting to be deliniated, and that is the main process other than thinking and memory that people conflate with consciousness.

I will ask, what evidence is there that consciousness is not associated with an organic brain?

 

[Dancing David]

No, that is your problem. You can't seem to grasp that a process that depends on material things (neurons, etc) doesn't suggest duality.
Heck, the fact that brain damage affects the mind/self clearly destroys dualism. In the end dualism is a, outdated, simplistic notion that can't hope to explain causal interaction.


A good example would be flowing water. In which one can compare the mind with flow (process) and the brain with water (material).

Nick227 has a host of assumptions, they do not understand that the outcome of idealism and materialism is exactly the same. But then they believe that there is some ultimate perception beyond self and that this improves life functioning, not that they have any data or evidence to support it.

 

[Nick227]

There are "things" like consciousness and music and wifi and a "jog in the park" that arise from material processes that are not, themselves "material"-- but this does not make them "dualistic" as much as woo want to pretend that it does. It's just a silly attempt to make it so that materialism doesn't make sense to them so that their unevidenced alternative belief seems more true.

The duality is created by the notion that anyone is experiencing these things, Articulett.

When you wrote "Consciousness is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains" you are assuming that there is a "you" that is interpreting and an "our" who's brain it is. These are dualistic constructs, inconsistent imo with materialism.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No, that is your problem. You can't seem to grasp that a process that depends on material things (neurons, etc) doesn't suggest duality.

That is not the point. That consciousness may be said to be brain activity or that thoughts emerge from neural substrate is not dualistic. I have not suggested otherwise. The dualism comes when you consider that there exists someone who is interpreting these things, or experiencing these things.

Articulett is doing what generations of researchers have done. She defeats dualism on one level only to reconstruct it on another. If you read Dennett (1991) you will see that throughout the book he labels this activity as Cartesian Materialism.

It's nearly two decades that Dennett has been banging on about these things. His "multiple drafts" model is widely regarded now, but still people who call themselves "materialists" fall into the Cartesian trap. They still look for a "place where it all comes together in the brain" or some lone neuron that is observing. Why is this? The answer is straightforward. It is because the intuitive model of self is so deeply embedded in the human brain that it is very difficult to overcome. It doesn't seem to matter if you have a Ph.D or have studied consciousness for years. The same mistake is made over and over even though Dennett and Blackmore have been calling it for nigh on 2 decades. It still goes on.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

ETA; Let's be honest, Articulett. You like to label yourself a "materialist" because you want to identify with a group that you perceive as being able to take a stand against parapsychology, homeopathy, alchemy, and most of all, Tom Cruise and Scientology.

What is it with this strange fetish for ascribing discreditable motives to people who disagree with you?

Have you ever considered, even for a moment, that the real reason people disagree with you is not that they want to fit in, stand out, or avoid the issue, but rather that you are talking a load of old cobblers?

 

[PixyMisa]

The duality is created by the notion that anyone is experiencing these things, Articulett.

Nope.

Experience is just information processing, a perfectly commonplace material process.

When you wrote "Consciousness is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains" you are assuming that there is a "you" that is interpreting and an "our" who's brain it is.

Obviously.

These are dualistic constructs

Nope.

inconsistent imo with materialism.

And you know what they say about opinions.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is not the point. That consciousness may be said to be brain activity or that thoughts emerge from neural substrate is not dualistic. I have not suggested otherwise. The dualism comes when you consider that there exists someone who is interpreting these things, or experiencing these things.

Nope.

The brain activity is the someone.

Articulett is doing what generations of researchers have done. She defeats dualism on one level only to reconstruct it on another.

Nope.

If you read Dennett (1991) you will see that throughout the book he labels this activity as Cartesian Materialism.

Nope.

It's nearly two decades that Dennett has been banging on about these things.

Two decades and you still haven't got it right.

His "multiple drafts" model is widely regarded now, but still people who call themselves "materialists" fall into the Cartesian trap.

Nope.

They still look for a "place where it all comes together in the brain" or some lone neuron that is observing.

Nope.

Why is this?

You tell me. It's your imagination.

The answer is straightforward.

Do tell.

It is because the intuitive model of self is so deeply embedded in the human brain that it is very difficult to overcome.

Nope.

It doesn't seem to matter if you have a Ph.D or have studied consciousness for years. The same mistake is made over and over even though Dennett and Blackmore have been calling it for nigh on 2 decades. It still goes on.

Nope.

What's more, Dennett's Cartesian Materialism is materialist, so even if people were clinging to it, they would still be materialists. Dennett's point is that it is a materialist explanation for consciousness that we know to be false by material evidence. Except for those aspects of Cartesian Materialism that have been shown to be true by material evidence.

Dualism enters into it only in the twisty little passages of your mind, Nick.

Nick

Well, you got that right.

 

[AWPrime]

That is not the point. That consciousness may be said to be brain activity or that thoughts emerge from neural substrate is not dualistic. I have not suggested otherwise. The dualism comes when you consider that there exists someone who is interpreting these things, or experiencing these things.

Only if you give 'someone' a supernatural meaning/quality. You're basically shooting yourself in the foot.

It's nearly two decades that Dennett has been banging on about these things. His "multiple drafts" model is widely regarded now, but still people who call themselves "materialists" fall into the Cartesian trap. They still look for a "place where it all comes together in the brain" or some lone neuron that is observing. Why is this?

It isn't, for that would be a strawman. If you take my water flow example its not some area or specific molecules that define the flow, its the whole working together in that process.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

The duality is created by the notion that anyone is experiencing these things, Articulett.

Yes, a duality is created from a first-person perspective, there's no denying that and I don't think anyone here is in such denial. That is however not a statement of dualism in terms of ontology – you should really try to keep these two completely different issues separate here.

Nick, what I have constantly tried to point out is that at that exact point where people here say that "… is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains", it signifies a change to a third-person perspective rather than continuing towards an ontological position. Such a change is necessary because that exact point also signifies the end of the road for explaining this phenomenon through ones own first-person perspective.

Finally, this is exactly why the change of perspective is followed by a similar change in definition for the "self": It does no longer only signify the self as in 'sens' of self or what you call 'notional' self, but rather it signifies the particular system where those experiential processes are manifested.

When you wrote "Consciousness is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains" you are assuming that there is a "you" that is interpreting and an "our" who's brain it is. These are dualistic constructs, inconsistent imo with materialism.

If you read what I just tried to explain, then that is not necessarily the case at all, not even close. One must simply notice when an elementary change in perspective has occurred, even though normal language use continues unhindered and unchanged.

 

[Nick227]

Nick, what I have constantly tried to point out is that at that exact point where people here say that "… is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains", it signifies a change to a third-person perspective rather than continuing towards an ontological position. Such a change is necessary because that exact point also signifies the end of the road for explaining this phenomenon through ones own first-person perspective.

Yes. But why then use terminology that suggests a perspective so dripping in duality....if this not what you mean? There is absolutely no need for it here.

Consider Articulett's statement "Consciousness is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains." I submit that this is just dualistic nonsense. No one is interpreting, and the brain does not belong to anyone. Furthermore, there's not even an underlying truism that could be being misconstrued through misuse or misinterpretation of the first person perspective. The statement is simply dualistic nonsense. Show me one redeeming feature. Retranslate it into the 3rd person perspective. Now look...it's still bollocks.

Or defend away, up to you. I just call it like it is.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

What is it with this strange fetish for ascribing discreditable motives to people who disagree with you?

Not descreditable. I just put out my judgments. If the people referred to feel maligned they should speak up. It's not healthy to internalise too many judgments. You end up believing in things like subjectivity. Better to check things out direct. Ask a behaviourist.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Only if you give 'someone' a supernatural meaning/quality. You're basically shooting yourself in the foot.

No. Once you have "an observer" or "an experiencer", you have duality.

It isn't, for that would be a strawman. If you take my water flow example its not some area or specific molecules that define the flow, its the whole working together in that process.

Look, I don't need some pseudo-holistic blather to appease the reality that "I" is the result of autonomous narrative construction. Radical behaviourism neither. I can do holism. I can do behaviourism. I can also just look and call it like it is. I prefer the latter.

Nick

 

[AkuManiMani]

Meh...is it just me or do just about all philosophical debates come down to an issue of semantics?

It appears that our basic language structure is simply ill equipped to adequately deal w/ certain concepts -- particularly such a slippery one like agency/consciousness.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Yes. But why then use terminology that suggests a perspective so dripping in duality....if this not what you mean? There is absolutely no need for it here.

I don't think there's a need to be on the constant watch for dualism because it's nowhere near an ontological attribution. It's quite normal language use.

Consider Articulett's statement "Consciousness is our individual interpretation of the pattern of neuronal firing in our brains." I submit that this is just dualistic nonsense. No one is interpreting, and the brain does not belong to anyone. Furthermore, there's not even an underlying truism that could be being misconstrued through misuse or misinterpretation of the first person perspective. The statement is simply dualistic nonsense. Show me one redeeming feature. Retranslate it into the 3rd person perspective. Now look...it's still bollocks.

To me it simply means that there is a first-person interpretation going on and it is happening in quite homologous systems, thus 'our' interpretation and 'our' brains. Simple as that!

The brain simply belongs to the distinguishable system we denote to... or which shows such characteristics that it can be interpreted as showing brain like features as a structural part of the whole systemic function. The latter explanation just looks rather silly.