Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

They don't appear to be material because they aren't things, but processes. In the common world that we experience, stop the functioning of neurons and thought disappears. Thought is not identical with neuron but with neuron function.

The same is true of running. What is running? Where is running? We can see a particular thing running, but we cannot see "running" because it is a word that describes a process which involves a particular changing relation of parts that create translational motion.

Thoughts are the same, but we confuse ourselves everytime we use the word "thought", since it is a noun, though we are describing a verb.

 

[rocketdodger]

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

And this is why I call you a troublemaker.

I have told you more than a dozen times that yes I understand that, and people who share my views such as pixy also understand that, yet you constantly assert that no, we do not, even though we explicitly say we do.

And your justification is always "but you are using words that suggest you don't really understand what you say you understand."

And our response, which has been given at least a dozen times as well, is that we are using those words differently than you think we are using them -- we even provide you with consistent definitions.

And your response to that is simply "I don't think you really are using those words the way you think you are using those words," which is an absurd accusation given that we provided you with a freaking definition. When someone says "I define X as Y" why would you respond with "no, I don't think you really do?"

By now any reader would be tired of this game, because it is pointless. And since you are the primary player of this dumb game, dragging forum members like pixymisa and myself into it unwillingly, I claim you are a troublemaker.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

So is the assumption that one consciously makes decisions.

Which we recently discovered to be completely wrong.

The above argument is no longer valid, plumjam. It doesn't even work as an appeal to authority, because the authority has been utterly discredited. We can't trust our own conscious experience anymore.

Don't you get it?

 

[HypnoPsi]

"Information" has real physical meaning.

As an amaterialist this statement doesn't mean very much to me. Unless you can define it.... properly

But let's follow your link and see where it takes us shall we? The first sentence on your link at:

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

reads:

In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system."

Okay... so let's move on to physical systems at:

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

It reads:

"In physics the word system has a technical meaning, namely, it is the portion of the physical universe chosen for analysis."

In short... nothing but information.

Your choosing to underline the statement "real physical meaning" does nothing to either describe or explain your beliefs here.

It does however lead me to belive that you are very strongly holding onto the idea of ultimately there really being some substance or other out there underlying it all.

What's wrong with just accepting it as it is - pure, raw, information?

You need to explain what you mean by "physical" here.

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.

Personally, I describe myself as a phenomenologist and amaterialist. I don't see any need to think of the manifest Universe as ideas or material.

An electron, to me, would simply be a set of laws.

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

That's only one thing.

Why?

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?

I didn't say it was surprising. The 'kicker' I'm refering to is the question mark over why there is something rather than nothingness?

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.

What exactly is this physical/material stuff of which you speak? Please be specific in your answer.

If you believe there is some substance(s) or other underlying reality just say so.

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.

But why believe in a material essence in the first place?

Look, thousands of years ago when the likes of Leucippus and Democritus thought up the theory of some fundamental substance (materialism) or other underlying phenomenal/neumenal objects it did indeed seem like a pretty good idea - to them. (Certainly much better than vitalism and animism, as they saw it.)

But that was thousands of years ago. Why hold onto this theory (sic fantasy)?

There is no substance - physical or otherwise - at all. There is only information.

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?

The "so what" is that people are being encouraged to live a fantasy. If science textbooks and teachers were to strongly stress the fact that words like "physical" and "material" were only placeholder terms for information that would be a step in the right direction.

However, my sense here is one of skeptics/atheists/materialists gaining by keeping people in ignorance. Happily throwing up their hands at the end of the day saying "Oh, well... look... if students take the words "physical" and "material" to mean some substance or other... it's not really our fault".

Why not just be honest and call phenomenal reality and phenomenal objects for what they are - phenomenal reality and phenomenal objects?

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.

What stuff??

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.

How so?

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.

Why is that?

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

To what end?

It's more accurate. Science has gone through this before with other ideas like the aether.

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

Not wrong - just different from how we have previously looked at them. F does still equal MA in terms of the same event occuring. The only difference is that we should not look at M (mass) as being a substance. (For example, in QLM its all just basically braiding.)

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.

No. Information is information. "Matter" is a subjective sense about said information. At best, it is a placeholder term. At worse it is very misleading in terms of it's historical connotations.

And you're forgetting that science is about construction theories rather than standing still. There is no reason why the rest of us should stop asking what underlies reality (and/or what is the most parsimonious theory). Materialism has plateaued out - and evaporated. Playing let's pretend it doesn't matter and just keep on using the terms "physical" and "material" isn't good enough for me. You go ahead and feel free if it suits you.

How and why would they falsify each other?

I would say that's rather simple. A truly self-generating and self-sustaining (i.e. truly uncreated) substance would instantly and forevermore end all ideas of "God" permanently since no candidate for God could be God if something God had not actually created existed (since, surely, God, if it's posited to be anything is posited to be the creator of all.

And the same is true in reverse. Something that could show itself as the only genuine Creative force would end notions of anything being self-generating and self-sustaining.

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

Please explain this "informational idealism" of yours.

If you're saying that matter is an "ideal substance" then I agree. (Though, obviously, I still see it as fantasy.

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.

Well, I have one. How exactly can pure information bring about consciousness? Please be specific in your answer since this is surely not something you expect anyone to believe without evidence, is it?

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.

Why do you think consiousness is a process?

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

Parsimony is like a jig-saw puzzle. Theists have a piece of the puzzle for the Universe, for everything in it and for their consciousness. Since the whole point of being parsimonious is to find the missing piece from the parts that are currently there (and solely from the parts that are currently there) theists are quite justified in suggesting it is a "bigger" consciousness that is the missing piece of the puzzle.

Materialism in the traditional sense of the word does not fare so well at all. They have two missing pieces having to infer that some substance exists and that it is self-generating and self-perpetuating without purpose, will or creative impulse Materialists have to multiply unknowns

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

What an absolute mess your last statement is. Being parsimonious with this question is about taking reality as it is now (Universe and us consious beings in it). It's not about asking what happens next/first after God is there.

That's reality that generates consciousness. One step.

In otherwords your answer is to just avoid the question. Just call "what is" reality and just say it causes consciousness. How does this answer the question about how reality got there exactly?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

pseudo-materialist flapdoodle.

Absolutely fab. May I please use this along with my standard "magic powder" and "pixie dust" jibes. I promise to share too!

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.

Affirmative!

~
HypnoPsi

 

[plumjam]

And this is why I call you a troublemaker.

I claim you are a troublemaker.

Hilarious. Maybe call the cops so Nick won´t keep hanging around your street corner.

 

[plumjam]

So is the assumption that one consciously makes decisions.

Which we recently discovered to be completely wrong.

The above argument is no longer valid, plumjam. It doesn't even work as an appeal to authority, because the authority has been utterly discredited. We can't trust our own conscious experience anymore.

Don't you get it?

How did you or they arrive at this decision?
And if we can´t trust our own conscious experience anymore how/why would anyone feel confident in believing in such a finding?
Dodger, most of the time you´re just arguing against yourself, and getting increasingly angry in the process.
Can´t you see that if you argue a position that we can´t trust our own conscious experience anymore then you´re shooting any position you hold, in the foot? Unless of course you arrive at your decisions/findings via non-conscious processes.

 

[rocketdodger]

How did you or they arrive at this decision?
And if we can´t trust our own conscious experience anymore how/why would anyone feel confident in believing in such a finding?
Dodger, most of the time you´re just arguing against yourself, and getting increasingly angry in the process.
Can´t you see that if you argue a position that we can´t trust our own conscious experience anymore then you´re shooting any position you hold, in the foot? Unless of course you arrive at your decisions/findings via non-conscious processes.

Bold mine.

That is the conclusion that this finding leads to.

We make decisions in a traditionally non-conscious way and our "consciousness" merely becomes "aware" of the result. And when I say "non-conscious" and "consciousness" I am only using those terms for your convenience, because it isn't that simple (as troublemaker nick227 will attest).

This conclusion is devastating to those like yourself who insist that something must be true due to it just "seeming" so true to billions of people. Because the concept of consciously making a decision is arguably one of the most "seemingly true" aspects of human experience -- yet it is provably an illusion.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Yes, very much so. But I would personally describe mystical experiences of this sort (Enlightnment, certain NDE's) as being communion with the Overmind in a very profound way.

In our day to day experience we have a sense of both Self and Other (than self) that is all too often overlooked.

What is the Other?

Who are we talking to when we talk to our selves, meditate or, in particular, pray if not the Other that we sense as both within and all around us at some level.

What would absolutely selflessness be like, I wonder?

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.

Yes definitely. Good post.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[plumjam]

Bold mine.

That is the conclusion that this finding leads to.

We make decisions in a traditionally non-conscious way and our "consciousness" merely becomes "aware" of the result. And when I say "non-conscious" and "consciousness" I am only using those terms for your convenience, because it isn't that simple (as troublemaker nick227 will attest).

This conclusion is devastating to those like yourself who insist that something must be true due to it just "seeming" so true to billions of people. Because the concept of consciously making a decision is arguably one of the most "seemingly true" aspects of human experience -- yet it is provably an illusion.

The point I was making was that those particular researchers would need to have faith in elements of their consciousness enough to be able to support findings which undermine that very same consciousness. Which is, of course, self-defeating.
They would be simultaneously undermining the value of conscious decisions while basing this undermining entirely on an aspect of their own consciousness i.e. the conscious decisions they made regarding some study or other.

 

[HypnoPsi]

The mistake that Pixy points out is that tending toward "mind" is wrong.

No, it's not wrong. For thousands of years the debate has been between "mind or matter" (defined as immaterial thought and fundamental substance).

Nobody has ever came up with a third option.

Even using the word "Monism" (in the sense of a third option) doesn't actually offer a third option - at least, certainly not by way of description.

Heck... even suggesting there is a third option is just a vain attempt to explain the unknown with another unknown!

What's wrong with accepting that the reason "Mind" or "Matter" are the only two options available is because they actually are the only two options?

Could it not just simply be that because there really is no "matter" stuff you just don't like the only option that is left?

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.

Again, that depends upon what evidence you accept. Though I am certianly not going to say that all NDE's or all mystical experiences (or all described thereof) are "real" I am fully satisfied that there is "truth" somewhere in them there accounts.

And don't just dismiss them as anecdotes. Anecdote just means "unwritten" which is not the case with NDE's, etc.,. They are data because they have been collected, collated, and reduced to statistics (data) in terms of the elements each one contains.

NDE's etc., provide data - plain and simple.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it's not wrong. For thousands of years the debate has been between "mind or matter" (defined as immaterial thought and fundamental substance).

Nobody has ever came up with a third option.

Even using the word "Monism" (in the sense of a third option) doesn't actually offer a third option - at least, certainly not by way of description.

Heck... even suggesting there is a third option is just a vain attempt to explain the unknown with another unknown!

What's wrong with accepting that the reason "Mind" or "Matter" are the only two options available is because they actually are the only two options?

Could it not just simply be that because there really is no "matter" stuff you just don't like the only option that is left?

Nope, none of the options can be the final "substance" (even though that is a poor word) because whatever it is, we cannot know its ultimate reality. We can attach labels to it, sure, but that gets us nowhere. Mind, matter, information, whatever, if you've committed to one or the other you've already lost this game if you think all is one "thing" and those words carry their normal everyday connotations.

Monism means only that we begin with an assumption -- that there is one thing that is ultimate reality. It tells us nothing else about it. We can examine it with science, but, by its very nature, we cannot arrive at what it *is*. We can label it, but that's no help.

In discussing this, we need to reach back before Democritus. This answer was reached by the second Milesian. Everything else since has been whistling in the wind as far as metaphysics is concerned.

And I am thoroughly confused by your contention that I might be upset by mind being the ultimate reality. Why would that even be an issue?

Again, that depends upon what evidence you accept. Though I am certianly not going to say that all NDE's or all mystical experiences (or all described thereof) are "real" I am fully satisfied that there is "truth" somewhere in them there accounts.

And don't just dismiss them as anecdotes. Anecdote just means "unwritten" which is not the case with NDE's, etc.,. They are data because they have been collected, collated, and reduced to statistics (data) in terms of the elements each one contains.

NDE's etc., provide data - plain and simple.

~
HypnoPsi

Of course NDEs are data. What they represent is an entirely other point. You can believe that they represent some interaction with a realm beyond, but then you are not a monist but a dualist.

 

[plumjam]

Yes, very much so. But I would personally describe mystical experiences of this sort (Enlightnment, certain NDE's) as being communion with the Overmind in a very profound way.

In our day to day experience we have a sense of both Self and Other (than self) that is all too often overlooked.

What is the Other?

Who are we talking to when we talk to our selves, meditate or, in particular, pray if not the Other that we sense as both within and all around us at some level.

I think that the strongest, most effective, movement from self to other is what we ordinarily call love. Love is our attempt to dissolve the barrier of self and other.
As you say, consciousness is. Our knowledge of it comes from association with bodily forms. At the human level the association of consciousness with this form results in 100% self-consciousness, but is marred or blocked by the evolutionary necessity of an ego centre which is used to organise experience and enable intelligent planning etc..
The next step is to move beyond the domination of consciousness by the ego, and this is the aim of spiritual practice. I´m an adherent of the teachings of Meher Baba, and the above is part of what he says.

What would absolutely selflessness be like, I wonder?

Sri Ramakrishna used to go into spiritual ecstasy, witnessed by his disciples, as he was ascending in his experiences he would describe what was happening, until he reached the level of Nirvikalpa Samadhi (absorption in Divinity without qualities) at this point he would stop speaking because his individuality had become dissolved into the absolute. Description and language are predicated on the self/other separation, so no description was possible at that point.
I´m sure you already know that kind of thing, but I thought I´d just elucidate for the great unwashed
Anyway, I´m enjoying your posts.

 

[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.

Yes, I think I have lost you. First, I'm talking about consciousness and saying that we should apply parsimony to answer why/how:

"There is a Universe with us conscious beings in it".

In otherwords what sustains and/or causes existence?

My argument is that "God" is a more parsimonious answer than "Matter" (in the original and most commonly understood definition of the term).

Parsimony is a bit like trying to work out the last piece (and only the last piece) in a jig-saw puzzle.

Consciousness already exists as a valid holder of information - so theorising that there is another bigger holder of information (that is the Universe) is only a one step theory (i.e. it is parsimonious).

Materialists (again, in the original and commonly understood definition of the term) don't have a substance to begin with. They have to theorise it's existence before they can even begin to theorise it as the holder of all the information that is - and exists within - the Universe (gravity, consciousness, planetoids, Hillary Clinton and bigfoot )

Materialism has to multiply unknowns. It is not parsimonious.

That's all I'm saying. I'm certainly not saying it in anyway proves the existence of "God/s".

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.

I don't want to say many of these these points are invalid but they are (to my mind) purely academic (meaning, as yet, purely speculative without practical purpose or use).

As I said in an earlier post, multitudes of pholosophical man-hours down the millenia have only ever came up with two options for what underlies reality: "Mind" and "Matter". There must be some reason for this; why we, cognitively, we have a pretty good handle on these two options and only on these two options.

I'd say the reason we can't think of a third option is because there isn't a third option. So why speculate?

Calling the information that is the Universe (and all therein) information is just a neutral description of things - it's not an explanation. Now, "Mind" and "Matter" might not be very good explanations (or even satisfactory) but knowing if one is right would, at least, remove the other from the problem.

What has been called "matter" has been reduced to the point of being totally absent of any substance whatsoever. Since the very idea of "matter" actually means "mother substance" we don't have "matter" anymore.

That only leaves mind - or "Overmind"; a term I seem to have unwittingly coined.

Cheers,
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, I think I have lost you. First, I'm talking about consciousness and saying that we should apply parsimony to answer why/how:

"There is a Universe with us conscious beings in it".

In otherwords what sustains and/or causes existence?

My argument is that "God" is a more parsimonious answer than "Matter" (in the original and most commonly understood definition of the term).

Parsimony is a bit like trying to work out the last piece (and only the last piece) in a jig-saw puzzle.

Consciousness already exists as a valid holder of information - so theorising that there is another bigger holder of information (that is the Universe) is only a one step theory (i.e. it is parsimonious).

Materialists (again, in the original and commonly understood definition of the term) don't have a substance to begin with. They have to theorise it's existence before they can even begin to theorise it as the holder of all the information that is - and exists within - the Universe (gravity, consciousness, planetoids, Hillary Clinton and bigfoot )

Materialism has to multiply unknowns. It is not parsimonious.

That's all I'm saying. I'm certainly not saying it in anyway proves the existence of "God/s".

But that doesn't address my point. You seem to have begun with consciousness based on the cogito. Every idealist I have ever encountered arrives at that place sooner or later.

But, here's the problem -- the very means by which we know anything is through thought. We can't move from the way that we know things to what the fundamental nature of reality is because that mixes the means by which knowledge is possible with ontology. It might be the case, but our means of knowledge might have nothing whatever to do with fundamental existence.

I understand that you are beginning with consciousness. I've seen the argument many times before. The problem is that the argument is not as simple as it appears when it is examined in depth. I guess the question is, how far do you want to take it?

I don't want to say many of these these points are invalid but they are (to my mind) purely academic (meaning, as yet, purely speculative without practical purpose or use).

As I said in an earlier post, multitudes of pholosophical man-hours down the millenia have only ever came up with two options for what underlies reality: "Mind" and "Matter". There must be some reason for this; why we, cognitively, we have a pretty good handle on these two options and only on these two options.

I'd say the reason we can't think of a third option is because there isn't a third option. So why speculate?

Calling the information that is the Universe (and all therein) information is just a neutral description of things - it's not an explanation. Now, "Mind" and "Matter" might not be very good explanations (or even satisfactory) but knowing if one is right would, at least, remove the other from the problem.

What has been called "matter" has been reduced to the point of being totally absent of any substance whatsoever. Since the very idea of "matter" actually means "mother substance" we don't have "matter" anymore.

That only leaves mind - or "Overmind"; a term I seem to have unwittingly coined.

Cheers,
HypnoPsi

Yet, Anaximander said, following Thales, that the fundamental existent could not possible be any of the things we see around us, and in the 5th century B.C. In other words, it could not be water. It could not be matter. It could not be mind. Any of those "things" would be "swallowed by it". It is something "other". That is why Kant used the word Noumena in the first place. He was really getting at the same idea.

The problem as I see it isn't really with "matter" or "mind" or "information" -- the problem is when we think we know something about the fundamental existent, the ur-substance, when we use such words. For all I know Heraclitus got it right and all is fire, meaning change or motion. I don't think it helps to label it with one of the words that we use to speak of our ordinary daily experience.

I'm sure you know the J.B.S. Haldane quote, so I needn't repeat it. But I agree with him, whatever reality it is, it is probably stranger than we can know.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Let me repeat this argument, and perhaps it will help.

Keep in mind that I begin with a basic assumption -- that everything is One.

Words are defined in relation to other words, and we know what particular things are by their definitions -- in terms of other things.

So, for instance, if I tell you that I drive a particular type of car that you are not familiar with, I would describe in terms that you are familiar with until you understand what I am talking about.

If we are to talk or even think about the fundamental existent, then we must do so in relation to something else. But there is nothing else to which it may be compared except itself. So, any definition of it will necessarily be self-referential.

All we can do is examine the rules by which it works.

Call it God. That's fine with me. I often do too. Call it mind. That's fine with me. I do the same sometimes. Call it matter. OK. I don't particularly like that one because of the reasons you have already outlined, but it's as good a word as any other.

If we accept that all is One, then there really is nothing left to discuss. We spend most of the time in these conversations playing semantic games. It helps pass the time, but it doesn't do anything.

If, however, there is more than one "thing", then that's a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[HypnoPsi]

We make decisions in a traditionally non-conscious way and our "consciousness" merely becomes "aware" of the result.

Actually, you need to be extremely careful with interpreting the results of these experiments.

You'll need to read this link to know what I'm talking about here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Neuroscience

The point is that in Libet's experiments the subjects were told what to do (flex their wrists) long before they did it. In short, the experiment was really studying pre-meditated (and monotonous) decisions and not spontaneous (and creative) decisions.

It also raises questions about consciousness and brain activity actually being the same thing in the first place, as materialists allege, since the same single event (the decision to move) happens at two different times in the brain and consciousness.

If brain activity and consciousness are supposed to be the exact same thing then why the (up-to) half a second delay in brain activity and the, percieved, sense of willed movement in consciousness?

As they say... every solution brings a new problem...

And that's not even getting into the fact that the experiment was relying on the subjects own subjective judgements about timing to assert there is a delay in what is actually a twin-task experiement (since the subject was required to both watch the hands of a clock (actually it was an oscillating beam of light Libet used) and also to make a decision to move).

Also of note is that nowadays the delay between brain activity and conscious decision has been pushed back to about 1/4 or 1/5 (250ms or 200ms) of a second.

I don't think I am being overly skeptical here by saying that there are just too many problems here that materialists need to iron out if they want this to be convincing.

Furthermore, even in the Ammon and Gandevia experiment outlined in that section of the above linked wikipedia page, the researchers didn't actually cause the subjects hand to move - they only caused the subjects to choose to move a certain hand (in a statistically significant way most often - but not always).

An important difference.

If someone is doing something to your brain and asks you to choose to move one of your hands, the choice to actually move the hand is still yours even if they can statistically make you choose one hand over the other more often and make you think the choice of hand was yours.

Personally, I'm happy to accept that this does actually do say that there are limits to free will. (Or at least, eventually, people may be justified in drawing this conclusion when further, more precise and better controlled research is conducted.)

I don't see a problem with it. I'm told the mystic Gurdjieff basically claimed that man is just a machine and would say myself that several mystics I've read have said the same thing in their own way.

This conclusion is devastating to those like yourself who insist that something must be true due to it just "seeming" so true to billions of people. Because the concept of consciously making a decision is arguably one of the most "seemingly true" aspects of human experience -- yet it is provably an illusion.

Since the reasearchers themselves do not draw this conclusion (or anything like it) from work they were intimately involved in why should be take your word on this?

Think about something like table tennis or a computer game or even driving. There are lots of instances in life where we have to make split second decisions (that we've never made before and have therefore not become habitual, rehearsed or hard-wired) in much less time than half a second.

Without information on what occurs in the brain at these times (where subjects may very well consciously judge that their decision occured at a time earlier than which an EEG analysis determines the readiness potential occured) how can you claim to have a "proven" conclusion?

You have very slim data (all of it reliant upon testimonials from subjects in one way or another) from a very slim and restricted set of circumstances.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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.

Which is no more proof of an "Overmind consciousness" than sense data is proof for physical matter, to take a page out of the immaterialist playbook, since everything we perceive is processed internally and filtered through personal bias regardless. The brain can play tricks on you, false memories can be formed, and people can easily misinterpret what they experience through confirmation bias. The fact that there are even variations in what people describe, and that many people will never experience it at all, indicates that this is not on the level of a repeatable observation. Besides, it's possible for large numbers of people to be wrong; it's happened many times in history.

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..

Which is not a validation of those behaviors any more than it's a validation of substance use, sleep deprivation, asceticism, self harm, or worshiping a specific deity. By the same logic, deliberately giving oneself an NDE in order to see angels would be an aspect of a healthy lifestyle.

For the record, I have had my share of what others might call "visions" or "out-of-body experiences." My dreams tend to be very vivid, and I've seen some very strange things when I was hospitalized. I just choose not to jump to any conclusions until I have enough information, and I don't let people tell me what to believe.

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.

Yes, as a metaphor for the unexplained, which is something humans frequently conceive as part of their basic nature.

I think that the strongest, most effective, movement from self to other is what we ordinarily call love. Love is our attempt to dissolve the barrier of self and other.

Most emotions are. Given that they're an evolutionary adaptation that facilitates communication among social animals by allowing individuals to discern the mental states of others of their kind, this is not surprising.

As you say, consciousness is. Our knowledge of it comes from association with bodily forms. At the human level the association of consciousness with this form results in 100% self-consciousness, but is marred or blocked by the evolutionary necessity of an ego centre which is used to organise experience and enable intelligent planning etc..

Ironically, the same line of questioning that creationists use on the universe works here. Where did consciousness come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? If one is going to posit an Overmind consciousness, then from whence did the Overmind arise?

 

[Nick227]

And this is why I call you a troublemaker.

I have told you more than a dozen times that yes I understand that, and people who share my views such as pixy also understand that, yet you constantly assert that no, we do not, even though we explicitly say we do.

And your justification is always "but you are using words that suggest you don't really understand what you say you understand."

Read back the threads, RD, and link me where you agree that it's counter-intuitive. Do it and I will believe you. Both you and Pixy have flat out denied it in recent past posts. In a recent thread you even stuck quote marks around something I never wrote and proceeded to rail against it, even when I protested you stuck with it. For me, neither of you demonstrate much intellectual honesty. You don't say it when you're wrong. You don't say it when you don't understand. You just quietly reform your opinions in the background.

And our response, which has been given at least a dozen times as well, is that we are using those words differently than you think we are using them -- we even provide you with consistent definitions.

And your response to that is simply "I don't think you really are using those words the way you think you are using those words," which is an absurd accusation given that we provided you with a freaking definition. When someone says "I define X as Y" why would you respond with "no, I don't think you really do?"

By now any reader would be tired of this game, because it is pointless. And since you are the primary player of this dumb game, dragging forum members like pixymisa and myself into it unwillingly, I claim you are a troublemaker.

Read back the threads, RD. This is tiring. You constantly accuse me of misinterpreting your language. It's your usual back door out.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The same is true of running. What is running? Where is running? We can see a particular thing running, but we cannot see "running" because it is a word that describes a process which involves a particular changing relation of parts that create translational motion.

Thoughts are the same, but we confuse ourselves everytime we use the word "thought", since it is a noun, though we are describing a verb.

Well, as I see it, running is a process that is inextricably tied up with something that runs. Thinking is also a process, but it is more complex. Thinking requires a subject being thought about and apparently language, a medium for expression. It does not require "a thinker" in the same way that running requires "a runner." Thus I wouldn't consider the analogy with running especially good, though perhaps it has some usefulness.

I agree with the model you describe for thinking. I just haven't seen much actual physical evidence that it's true. This is what I was asking for. Also, what I was originally asking for is a mechanistic explanation of how thinking translates into articulation, into physicality.

Nick