Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[PixyMisa]

What I'm asking is how are thoughts doing it right here, right now. How are thoughts creating the expression of this sentence?

At what level of detail do you wish the explanation?

For starters, thoughts are physical processes. They're the manipulation of information. An expression of a sentence is information.

Because if we don't understand this then how can we make an assessment about psychic phenomena (which incidentally I don't believe in.)

You don't? What about secret world governments of immortal alchemists?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Parsimony, as I've said repeatedly, means, all things being equal, we should prefer the simpler theory. How am I misinterpreting that? I have already referenced multiple reputable sources in support of my interpretation, which isn't even an interpretation- it's the literal definition. YOU are the one arguing against the standard usage of the term. YOU have referenced nothing to support Athon's own personal definition that contradicts a widely understood term. I've shown my proof. The burden is on YOU to show why everyone else is wrong.



There, is that clearer? I'm beginnig to wonder if you've read half of what I've posted. I've argued the appeal to parsimony as evidence for a particular reality is fallacious in and of itself. Occam's Razor never should have been brought into the discussion at all.

This isn't going anywhere and I probably should have stopped when it became clear you wouldn't acknowledge the fact that you'd made a claim weeks ago, and then denied making it, despite a quote that clearly shows you saying it. I thought, generously, that you were equivocating on "external". Now, I'm not so sure.

Anyway, good luck with your campaign to convince everyone of the true meaning of "parsimony".

Dude, you argued that Zeus throwing lightening bolts was a simpler explanation than electrostatic charges amassing in clouds, etc. If you really believe that is the point of parsimony, then it follows that 'God did it' is the real output of Ockham's razor. What could be simpler than that? If Zeus throwing the lightening bolt entails the amassing of electrostatic charges in clouds, then the addition of Zeus is not parsimonious. If Zeus is the entire explanation, then it's 'God did it'. If you want to introduce the idea that "God could have done it", then there is no reason to debate the issue of parsimony. Instead, you need to define "God", so that one and all can discuss. There generally is an additional component added to explanations such as "God did it" or that "God could have done it", so if we are to examine the claim in detail you need to supply the detail. One of the big problems is that when you bring in particular conceptions of God, you've already introduced dualism to the picture, so parsimony goes out the window.

You could, and probably should, just argue that parsimony does not prove anything about ultimate reality. But trying to argue that Zeus throwing lightening bolts is just utter misuse of the term.

I haven't argued against the standard definition of "parsimony". I haven't even offered a definition. I do see, however, that those definitions do not contradict what Athon said. Why do not you as well?

What is wrong with parsimony being used to appeal to a particular ontology? It isn't used as proof, only as evidence that one outlook is more likely. There is no stench of truth about parsimony, only likelihood.

As to this "claim" that I made -- just wait a minute. I told you then that you misunderstood it, but you insisted that I must have been making an ontologic claim. I told you I wasn't and that I don't even believe that I can say anything about ultimate ontology. You insisted that I must be. I told you I wasn't. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.

You kept up the charade for post afte post, and then you said, "Oh, I understand now" and now you go back to "you made a claim and then disowned it."

I didn't equivocate about anything. You completely misunderstood what I was saying, then told me that you did finally understand, now you are saying that you don't because I challenge you about the way you are trying to misuse "parsimony"?

What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[HypnoPsi]

I got tired of waiting for a response from Malerin in this thread to the question, so thought I'd open it up.

Well, I consider myself as being a phenomenologist rather than an "idealist" but my response to this would be that it's not really up to non-materialists/non-physicalists to define the terms that materialists/physicalists use.

However since I see you have provided your own answer in the following that point may be moot.

Historically speaking, materialists might well have only regarded existence in terms of particles and their interactions. As the nature of particle interactions, fields, energy, information etc. has become better understood, we've adjusted that understanding to define the universe less as an interaction of particles, and more as an expression of information according to deeper laws or rules. Thus 'physical' refers to the interaction of information that gives rise to properties which can be observed. Unfortunately the limit lies with the question of 'what is the fundamental property of information?', which is akin to asking 'what is reality made of?'.

Yes.... and very good!

But, of course, the devil is in the details.

The word 'physical' (or physicalism) is and outgrowth of 'material' (or materialism) - and these are, I strongly suspect, every bit as loaded concepts for many people as words such as "Soul" or "God".

(This is part of the reason why I just refer to things, in more neutral terms as "objective phenomena" or "subjective phenomena" - or, on occasion, phenomena and neumena.)

Historically, when the theory of matter was constructed in ancient Greece by such individuals as Leucippus and Democritus it was taken to mean some “substance” or other that is ultimately underlying all of objective reality.

This idea of some, ultimate, fundamental "substance" or other underlying all of objective reality was extremely important to the theory as it contrasted it sharply with the standard forms of vitalism and animism that held sway in the ancient world.

Several thousand years later and, to scientists at least, the idea of substance has been replaced with the word 'information' in the exact same sense that you apply it yourself.

The problem as I see it is that this neutral term "information" only serves to smother the blow by only describing the situation rather than explaining the situation - the profoundity of which is hard to fully appreciate:

We live in a universe in which only two things actually exist - consciousness and information. Yet - and here's the real kicker objects do indeed continue to exist even when we're not looking at them or thinking about them.

However, I am beginning to stray from your original question.

My issue with the words "physical" and "material" is that they come with a past. They come loaded with the concept of a neat mechanical, orderly Universe with some type of fundamental prima materia substance underlying it.

One doesn't have to look very hard online or offline to find a definition of “matter” that includes the word “substance” and I very much doubt the average man on the street would think it means anything other than this.

Consider, if I were to say that all I meant by "God" was: that which underlies objective reality and is ultimately responsible for our counsciousness (and, by extension, ultimately subjective reality also), the laws of the Universe, the information therein and all the properties said information gives rise to would you be happy to have this very fair, and frankly untheistic, use of the term replace all instances of matter and physical in any given science text book?

I very much doubt it. And is it not obvious that the reason for this would be the connotations that the word "God" brings with it?

I think we would all be better off replacing physical/material (laws, objects, etc.,) with phenomenal/neumenal (laws, objects, etc.,).

Idealists seem to allude to there being the possibility of something other than that which is 'physical' (as a philosophy distinct from physicalism). I'm wanting to know how they define the word 'physical' if it does not relate to an interaction of information according to a set of rules or laws.

Athon

I don't know what idealists do but that's not the case for me. My only question is what is the most parsimonious solution to the situation as we find it?

To that end I see two possible candidates with the ability to store information - some self-generating/sustaining substance or other (prima materia) or some kind of overmind (God).

We have no objective proof of either - yet, clearly, evidence for one would instantly falsify the other.

So just what is the most parsimonious solution to the situation as we find it?

Well, to my mind, even though both (prima materia versus God) are both valid and testable (in principle if not in practice) theories, the God theory clearly has the edge for the very simple reason that we already know that consciousness and/or mind exists while we have no evidence for any substance of any kind.

That certainly doesn't prove God exists but it definitely does make it more parsiminous. Theists are only theorising the existence of another (bigger) consciousness (one step) while adherents to the alternative theory have to imagine that there is some secret hidden substance underlying reality based on.... absolutely nothing (two steps).

In short, there is no multiplications of unknowns in theism since consciousness/mind is known to exist.

All the best,
Hypnopsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Unfortunately, this again is an overly simple concept. I can understand the notion of 'concrete' versus 'abstract', yet 'physical' has to take into account far more than just whether something is solid, liquid or gas.

For the most part solid, liquid or gas just refers to the three states of "matter".

I find a lot of idealists (not pointing anybody out in particular, mind) who use old concepts of materialism as straw men, and then proceed to demolish them in an effort to support vague notions of idealism.

I dare say you'll accuse me of this in my reply to you. But I really don't think that many physicalists really appreciate the folloy of using terms that historically (and currently to many) allude to some substance or other and then correcting their definitions afterwords...

Since there is no substance underlying reality I think you need to be much more careful with the words you use lest you fall into a cognitive illusion of sorts.

For example, there is no 'distance' between myself and my computer monitor in reality any more than there is any substance underlying my physiological body or the computer monitor. There is only 'information' about 'distance', etc.,.

In my view, language is very important as talk of things (sic phenomena/neumena) "existing" objectively and/or outside of us is a cognitive remnant of belief in substance theory as it is inherent in traditional materialism.


Cheers,
HypnoPsi.

 

[plumjam]

Great post Hypnopsi, nominated. (163)

 

[AkuManiMani]

HypnoPsi has just won this thread...and life.

I now present him with The Golden Cookie Award! (#)

In all seriousness, your response was very well thought out and well worded. However.. I must say that the assumption of an "over-mind" is a bit loaded itself. Do you mean to imply a literal mind or are you speaking metaphorically? It seem that whichever of the two explanations you go with [self-generating "stuff", or "overmind"] you still run into the regression problem namely: what underlies/causes/originate such-n-such. One can keep inquiring further ad infinitum. This is true of any ontology or world view.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Berkeley was an idealist. The obvious problem with idealism, that objects do not vanish when nobody is looking at them, was resolved in Berkeley's case by assuming the existence of an omniscient God to keep an eye on everything.

What people need to remember about Berkely is that he lived from 1685 to 1753; long before the quantum mechanics revolution.

Indeed, if you look at the list of famous idealists on the relevant wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#George_Berkeley

you will see that the vast majority were writing before quantum mechanics came along and, even at the later stages, only when it was just being born.

At the very least, they certainly didn't know as much about it as science does today.

So, what exactly would Berkelely make of a Universe that everyone seems to agree is "made" of nothing but "information"?

Obviously, we'll never know for sure - but I do however strongly feel that he would have felt vindicated in some sense.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Great post Hypnopsi, nominated. (163)

I thank you! You are too kind.

(HypnoPsi takes a bow)

 

[HypnoPsi]

HypnoPsi has just won this thread...and life.

I now present him with The Golden Cookie Award! (#)

Thank you very muchly!

Yummy cookie!!

I must say that the assumption of an "over-mind" is a bit loaded itself. Do you mean to imply a literal mind or are you speaking metaphorically?

It's very hard to say - which, of course, is a big part of the problem. It was more of an off-the-cuff description really.

I suppose it cuts to the heart of my personal view that 'mind' is the experience of information (and information processing) in consciousness. Other's may (and do) differ.

It seem that whichever of the two explanations you go with [self-generating "stuff", or "overmind"] you still run into the regression problem namely: what underlies/causes/originate such-n-such. One can keep inquiring further ad infinitum. This is true of any ontology or world view.

Yes, that's correct.

How would (could) we ever know that some big consciousness/mind didn't have a bigger consciousness/mind beyond it (and so on)? And the exact same thing holds true for any fundamental substance we find. How do we ever "know" it's really fundamental?

I cannot imagine any satisfactory answer to this but, as I see it, it partly depends upon what evidence someone accepts. I believe the evidence that a moderate degree of psi ability exists (Ganzfeld, staring experiements, etc.,) in human beings - though I regularly reject outlandish claims of willed ability or high levels of accuracy.

"God", to me, can only really be known for sure (as in, without blind faith) through a type of cognitive communion of sorts; of which, I suspect, the faculty we loosly call 'intuition' is the medium.

Where others see differences and discrepancies in mysticism and near-death-experiences I see similarities and confirmation of something much more than a mundane and meaningless Universe of information with points of consciousness "in" it.

Cheers,
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Several thousand years later and, to scientists at least, the idea of substance has been replaced with the word 'information' in the exact same sense that you apply it yourself.

Not exactly. "Information" has real physical meaning. But I think what you're saying is that it's a small step from saying that an electron (for example) is defined by its behaviours to saying that an electron is its behaviours. (It is what it does, as someone said...)

That gives one of the isomorphic idealisms, what I call informational idealism.

The problem as I see it is that this neutral term "information" only serves to smother the blow by only describing the situation rather than explaining the situation - the profoundity of which is hard to fully appreciate:

We live in a universe in which only two things actually exist - consciousness and information.

That's only one thing.

Yet - and here's the real kicker objects do indeed continue to exist even when we're not looking at them or thinking about them.

Why should this be at all surprising?

We are still physical organisms with physical brains and our minds are still physical processes. Rocks and trees and grass are still material things, and care not in the least for our conscious awareness of them.

Nothing has changed; pure materialism still rules. Except that we've abandoned the search for essence and accepted that all we can perceive is behaviours.

My issue with the words "physical" and "material" is that they come with a past. They come loaded with the concept of a neat mechanical, orderly Universe with some type of fundamental prima materia substance underlying it.

My issue with your issue is so what?

One doesn't have to look very hard online or offline to find a definition of “matter” that includes the word “substance” and I very much doubt the average man on the street would think it means anything other than this.

Nor does it. It's the same stuff as it always was. It is what it does, and what it does has not changed.

Consider, if I were to say that all I meant by "God" was: that which underlies objective reality and is ultimately responsible for our counsciousness (and, by extension, ultimately subjective reality also), the laws of the Universe, the information therein and all the properties said information gives rise to would you be happy to have this very fair, and frankly untheistic, use of the term replace all instances of matter and physical in any given science text book?

No, because it's a mishmash of confused ideas.

I very much doubt it. And is it not obvious that the reason for this would be the connotations that the word "God" brings with it?

The "God" part is irrelevant; it's the definition that I have the problem with.

I think we would all be better off replacing physical/material (laws, objects, etc.,) with phenomenal/neumenal (laws, objects, etc.,).

To what end?

Either these new laws are identical to the old laws - F still = MA - or they are wrong.

To that end I see two possible candidates with the ability to store information - some self-generating/sustaining substance or other (prima materia) or some kind of overmind (God).

Why do you need either?

Matter is information. There is no evidence for any deeper reality, nor any need of such.

We have no objective proof of either - yet, clearly, evidence for one would instantly falsify the other.

How and why would they falsify each other?

So just what is the most parsimonious solution to the situation as we find it?

Materialism. Or informational idealism, which is exactly the same thing.

Well, to my mind, even though both (prima materia versus God) are both valid and testable (in principle if not in practice) theories, the God theory clearly has the edge for the very simple reason that we already know that consciousness and/or mind exists while we have no evidence for any substance of any kind.

That is wrong in every possible way.

The God (it's not a theory, let's call it...) argument has no connection at all to consciousness. Consciousness is a physical process. There's no question of that. If the universe exists in the mind of God - or is a computer program, same thing - then consciousness is still a physical process. It makes absolutely no difference.

That certainly doesn't prove God exists but it definitely does make it more parsiminous.

No. As I've noted before, any argument that includes God is less parsimonious than any other finite argument.

Theists are only theorising the existence of another (bigger) consciousness (one step)

No.

That's a consciousness (that we cannot observe) that generates reality that generates consciousness as we actually observe it. Two steps.

while adherents to the alternative theory have to imagine that there is some secret hidden substance underlying reality based on.... absolutely nothing (two steps).

No. That's reality that generates consciousness. One step.

In short, there is no multiplications of unknowns in theism since consciousness/mind is known to exist.

Wrong.

 

[Nick227]

Yes.

It can be shown that this is equivalent to the three properties I mentioned, although I prefer not to use it because things like "objective," "real," and "knowable" require definitions and the moronic populace often get those definitions wrong.

And others, who are not morons but just troublemakers (such as nick227) will argue over any delineation between "objective" and "subjective."

So I stick with those three properties I spoke of because I haven't yet found a moron or troublemaker who could bring them down.

You might consider me a troublemaker because I challenge your points. Up to you. But I point out the nasty realities underneath what is to me a lot of pseudo-materialist flapdoodle.

If you want to jump on the materialist bandwagon, fair enough. But you need to be prepared for a rough ride if you're going to start to posit a realistic model for how the brain produces consciousness. The model will of necessity be deeply counter-intuitive. I've pointed this out to you on numerous occasions. At times you seem to come close to accepting it. The rest of the time it seems to me that you prefer not to look and just deal with the world of ideas as though materialism is some kind of salvific mantra which will save you from new-age madness. I'm afraid that it isn't.

As Dan Dennett says, on the subject of consciousness research, if your theory isn't counter-intuitive then it's just wrong. One day you're going to believe me.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

HypnoPsi has just won this thread...and life.

That HypnoPsi's argument appeals to you does not mitigate the fact that it is complete nonsense.

 

[Nick227]

At what level of detail do you wish the explanation?

For starters, thoughts are physical processes. They're the manipulation of information. An expression of a sentence is information.

So you're saying that thoughts are simply material at every level?

You don't? What about secret world governments of immortal alchemists?

True. Forgotten about those guys!

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

As Dan Dennett says, on the subject of consciousness research, if your theory isn't counter-intuitive then it's just wrong. One day you're going to believe me.

That depends entirely on what your intuition is telling you.

 

[PixyMisa]

So you're saying that thoughts are simply material at every level?

Absolutely.

Remembering that "material" includes processes and not just objects. (Or alternatively, that objects are processes.)

 

[plumjam]

I was going to address Aku´s point about the overmind being, itself, a loaded assumption, but thought I should let Hypno respond first.

In all seriousness, your response was very well thought out and well worded. However.. I must say that the assumption of an "over-mind" is a bit loaded itself.

Following on from Hypno´s well-made points about no materialist ever having experienced substance/matter (apart perhaps from a mischievous Dr. Johnson), it´s worth pointing out that in this respect the Overmind has a lot more going for it than does substance/matter, due to the fact that for millenia many human beings have at least seriously claimed to have experienced Overmind consciousness. Of course this has been described using various nouns or verbs according to what is available in that person´s particular culture, but there are strong commonalities of description.

Likewise there are strong commonalities of modes of life/behaviour leading up to such experiences. They commonly involve behaviours which weaken the hold of ego-domination upon consciousness, and include things like silence, solitude, fasting, celibacy, repentance, selfless service to humanity, worship, prayer, willed poverty, obedience, prostration, meditation etc..
So, in short, the assumption of an Overmind is not quite that. Rather it is an aspect of human experience and endeavour which has been repeatedly proven in the lives, and reflected in their teachings, of many reputable and indeed inspiring human individuals, throughout known human history.

 

[Nick227]

As Dan Dennett says, on the subject of consciousness research, if your theory isn't counter-intuitive then it's just wrong.

That depends entirely on what your intuition is telling you.

Your intuition tells you what evolution has programmed it to tell you. Severe mental illness aside, you will believe that you are an individual experiencing a world of objects, thoughts and feelings. A materialist theory of consciousness must challenge this notion.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Absolutely.

Remembering that "material" includes processes and not just objects. (Or alternatively, that objects are processes.)

Can you cite me some research here? Thoughts don't appear to me to be material though I would be happy to be convinced they were!

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

HypnoPsi has just won this thread...and life.

I now present him with The Golden Cookie Award! (#)

In all seriousness, your response was very well thought out and well worded. However.. I must say that the assumption of an "over-mind" is a bit loaded itself. Do you mean to imply a literal mind or are you speaking metaphorically? It seem that whichever of the two explanations you go with [self-generating "stuff", or "overmind"] you still run into the regression problem namely: what underlies/causes/originate such-n-such. One can keep inquiring further ad infinitum. This is true of any ontology or world view.

Yes, an overmind is a very loaded assumption. As is the assumption that "mind" is the more likely existent if monism is correct.

You guys jumping on this response tells me that you haven't been paying attention to what most of the rest of us have been saying.

The mistake that Pixy points out is that tending toward "mind" is wrong. We can't know what the ultimate existent is, so all the rest of the wrangling is silly. Call it information, whatever; it's all the same.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My issue with the words "physical" and "material" is that they come with a past. They come loaded with the concept of a neat mechanical, orderly Universe with some type of fundamental prima materia substance underlying it.

One doesn't have to look very hard online or offline to find a definition of “matter” that includes the word “substance” and I very much doubt the average man on the street would think it means anything other than this.

Consider, if I were to say that all I meant by "God" was: that which underlies objective reality and is ultimately responsible for our counsciousness (and, by extension, ultimately subjective reality also), the laws of the Universe, the information therein and all the properties said information gives rise to would you be happy to have this very fair, and frankly untheistic, use of the term replace all instances of matter and physical in any given science text book?

Yep. The problem with all these words is that they come with so much baggage -- much of the problem is that the baggage is loaded with dualistic assumptions.

I sometimes interchange the word "God" in discussions about the same issue when they take on religious overtones, and this seems to piss off some people, but I certianly agree with the point.

So just what is the most parsimonious solution to the situation as we find it?

Well, to my mind, even though both (prima materia versus God) are both valid and testable (in principle if not in practice) theories, the God theory clearly has the edge for the very simple reason that we already know that consciousness and/or mind exists while we have no evidence for any substance of any kind.

That certainly doesn't prove God exists but it definitely does make it more parsiminous. Theists are only theorising the existence of another (bigger) consciousness (one step) while adherents to the alternative theory have to imagine that there is some secret hidden substance underlying reality based on.... absolutely nothing (two steps).

In short, there is no multiplications of unknowns in theism since consciousness/mind is known to exist.

All the best,
Hypnopsi

This is where you lose me. That we know thought exists is a function of how we can know anything in the first place, so I don't think it can tell us anything about a fundamental existent. It tells us what we already know -- thought exists. Our nature could be entirely distinct from what we experience as thought, however.

I still maintain that the real issue is not if the fundamental existent is matter or information or thought or whatever, but is there one, two, or many. If there is one, then we can't know what it is, really. Information is just as good a word as any other to label it but we don't know what that really means. Matter is another. Thought or mind another. God another. We shouldn't pretend that we know what any of these words mean, however, when it comes to describing the fundamental existent, only that they can serve as labels.

If we all agree that there is only one thing that *is* reality, then we have nothing to argue about.

The problem, as I see it, is where people tend to take it from there, often introducing other "substances" often without even knowing, especially if they refer to what amounts to two different substances that they label with one word.