What's wrong with just accepting it as it is - pure, raw, information?
Nothing at all. That's informational idealism.
As I said earlier,
it is what it does. It's a small step from saying an electron is defined by its properties to saying that an electron is its properties. That it's all just information.
This does not change anything at all.
It doesn't make NDEs anything but the confused product of a dying brain.
It doesn't make mystical experiences anything but the confused product of an otherwise addled brain.
It doesn't make God real.
It doesn't make consciousness anything but a physical process.
All we've done is ignored the question of substance and accepted that all we can know is behaviours.
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.
The Universe
is material. After all, I can take a chunk of it and hit you over the head. Whether there is any deeper reality underlying what we observe is the question.
Materialism says "it is what it does".
Informational idealism says "there is no is, only does".
An electron, to me, would simply be a set of laws.
And that's what I call informational idealism. The critical point here is that the laws do not change in any way. The laws are deduced from observation, and tested by further observation.
Because otherwise it's dualism, and dualism either (a) is inherently inconsistent or (b) postulates an inherently inconsistent universe.
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?
Grilled cheese sandwiches.
What exactly is this physical/material stuff of which you speak? Please be specific in your answer.
As I've indicated, there are two answers I'm happy to accept.
One is, it is what it does.
The other is, there is no is, only does.
In the one case, matter is what gives rise to the behaviours we observe.
In the other, matter is a description for the behaviours themselves.
But why believe in a material essence in the first place
Because it is parsimonious.
Reality is indisputably material. To assume that it is essentially material as well is the most parsimonious option.
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.)
Indeed.
But that was thousands of years ago. Why hold onto this theory (sic fantasy)?
Because it works.
There is no substance - physical or otherwise - at all. There is only information.
That's fine too.
The point is, it's exactly the same.
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.
It makes no difference. None.
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".
It makes no difference.
Why not just be honest and call phenomenal reality and phenomenal objects for what they are - phenomenal reality and phenomenal objects?
Because that's complete nonsense.
Objects are real. Reality is real. Your conscious awareness of reality is just a physical process.
All stuff.
No. It's exactly the same.
Science has gone through this before with other ideas like the aether.
The luminiferous aether hypothesis makes specifically testable - and as it turns out, wrong - predictions.
Materialism vs. informational idealism makes no difference to science in any way.
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.)
QLM? Never mind, not important.
What is important is that F=MA. The law does not change. Physics does not change.
Nothing changes.
No. Information is information. "Matter" is a subjective sense about said information.
It's not subjective at all.
At best, it is a placeholder term.
That I can grant you.
At worse it is very misleading in terms of it's historical connotations.
It's only confusing if you are utterly determined to be confused.
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.
This displays a complete misapprehension of both science and philosophy.
Science is based on methodological naturalism. Science
works. This tells us (though it does not prove) that metaphysical naturalism, and more specifically, scientific natuarlism, is correct.
Metaphysical naturalism says that the Universe behaves as though it is made out of matter.
Scientific naturalism adds that this behaviour is consistent throughout the Universe.
Materialism is a reasonable assumption (but only an assumption) for the underlying nature of reality given this evidence. Informational idealism is likewise reasonable.
God is not.
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.
The ontological argument was worthless when it was first proposed, and is still worthless.
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.
See above.
If you're saying that matter is an "ideal substance" then I agree. (Though, obviously, I still see it as fantasy.
Yahzi's Bat demolishes this claim.
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?
Well, it's clear enough how material processes can bring about consciousness, since this is done by programmers and engineers on a daily basis.
Informational idealism is simply materialism with the idea of "substance" removed. It changes nothing in the observed nature of reality (nor should it, for then it would be false).
So that's how information gives rise to consciousness.
Why do you think consiousness is a process?
Because it is?
Seriously, what do you think it is if not a process?
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.
No; they have an infinite collection of pieces from an imaginary puzzle.
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.
No. This is never justifiable in terms of parsimony.
God is a short word. It is not a parsimonious concept. Indeed, it is antiparsimonious.
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
Again, you have it backwards.
There is no unknown here. We know the material Universe exists. Materialsm simply does not assume that there is something else that exists.
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.
Sorry, wrong again. God is an infinite set of assumptions; it allows for anything, and therefore explains nothing.
In otherwords your answer is to just avoid the question. Just call "what is" reality
Well,
duh.
That's the definition of the term.
and just say it causes consciousness.
No. We
observe that consicousness is a material process, and we have gone a long way to explaining the details of that process.
How does this answer the question about how reality got there exactly?
What do you mean, "how reality got there"?
Reality is reality. It is what is. It's all that is. There is no understanding of how it got there, because if we could do so, we would merely be extending our definition of reality.
How did God get there? Oh, he's self-causing? So reality can't be self-causing, but God can be? And at the same time, God isn't part of reality? Surely that means he doesn't exist?
