Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[PixyMisa]

We have a pretty good grasp of where our conscious experience takes place, namely the brain.

Yep.

The problem is we don't really know, ontologically, what it is.

What what is? Consciousness? Sure we do.

What is it that makes the mass of material in the brain seem to feel, experience, and be aware?

Information processing.

What IS being aware and why does the matter of the brain seem to experience while other matter does not?

Computers do this too.

What property, or physical principle allows or causes sensate experience?

It's the organisation into a self-referencing information processing system.

The fact is

NO

ONE

KNOWS

The fact is, it's pretty straightforward, but people like to elevate consciousness to some magical status.

Period.

Exclamation mark.

That is the mystery and the cause of so much metaphysical speculation and contention.

All of it worthless.

Okay, we've narrowed down the problem: the brain generates consciousness.

Period.

Great, wonderful. We're still left with the same profound mystery.

I see no mystery here.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

You have evidence of thinking that does not require a thinker? I'd love to hear about it.

Of course thinking is more complex than running. The analogy is designed to demonstrate only that both are actions, better represented by verbs and not nouns.

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

I'm afraid I don't understand. You haven't seen much evidence that if you stimulate nervous tissue in a particular way, you see a particular type of mental activity? Nor the fact that when the brain is shut off that thinking stops?

As to how thinking translates into physicality, I think you'd better be a little more specific. What precisely do you mean? How thinking can result in physical action? How detailed an explanation do you want?

Or are you asking how the entire system works? The body as a whole? No one has that answer yet.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No he didn´t. Objects do not equal substance.

Actually, yes he did, but not precisely where Paul pointed out. If we know that mind exists, then we do have evidence that a substance exists namely "mind". In common philosophical usage mind/thought is one of the substances often mentioned. It is the primary substance behind idealism. I thought you knew that.

Now the real problem here may simply be that we are forced to use language which carries all sorts of baggage, so that particular sentence may not have accurately conveyed Hypnopsi's precise thoughts.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Yep.


What what is? Consciousness? Sure we do.


[Its] Information processing.


Computers do this too.


It's the organisation into a self-referencing information processing system.


The fact is, it's pretty straightforward, but people like to elevate consciousness to some magical status.

[...]

I see no mystery here.

[1]Perhaps you're confusing my use of the word 'consciousness' to be synonymous with 'intelligence':

When I say consciousness I don't strictly mean cognition. I mean awareness; the conscious experience. The fact that the human brain and nervous system continue to operate and process information even when the conscious state is not active (e.g. in a coma or in during non-REM sleep) clearly demonstrate that information processing is consciousness.

A human can perform many complex operations in their conscious minds such as planing, philosophizing, or performing maths. But in the background, regardless of whether a person is lucid or not, is a dizzying array of complex, 'self-referencing' computation going on. The computational activity of a single living neuron alone is mind boggling. The fact that all of this is going on even when and individual is NOT conscious is proof positive than information processing is not the same as being lucid and aware. I don't buy the "computation = consciousness" position; it requires quite a leap of faith, in and of itself, even if one doesn't take into account the evidence to the contrary.



[2]Also you seem to be confusing my use of the term 'mystery' to be synonymous with 'magical'.


When I say that the nature of consciousness is a mystery I'm not trying to imply that it is 'magical' or beyond scientific explanation. Quite frankly, I would be disappointed beyond words if that were the case. What I'm saying is science hasn't yet gotten to the point where it can answer the fundamental whats and the whys of lucid experience. Hence, the reason why there is still much speculation as to what it's nature is.

 

[PixyMisa]

[1]Perhaps you're confusing my use of the word 'consciousness' to be synonymous with 'intelligence':

Nope.

When I say consciousness I don't strictly mean cognition. I mean awareness; the conscious experience.

Yep. Awareness and self-awareness.

The fact that the human brain and nervous system continue to operate and process information even when the conscious state is not active (e.g. in a coma or in during non-REM sleep) clearly demonstrate that information processing is consciousness.

Not all information processing is consciousness, but all consciousness in information processing.

A human can perform many complex operations in their conscious minds such as planing, philosophizing, or performing maths. But in the background, regardless of whether a person is lucid or not, is a dizzying array of complex, 'self-referencing' computation going on.

Absolutely.

The computational activity of a single living neuron alone is mind boggling.

Only if your mind is easily boggled. Well, I guess if you're not used to modern computers; my relatively inexpensive PC has a teraflop graphics card.

The fact that all of this is going on even when and individual is NOT conscious is proof positive than information processing is not the same as being lucid and aware.

I didn't say it was the same. I said that consciousness is information processing.

I don't buy the "computation = consciousness" position; it requires quite a leap of faith, in and of itself

No leap of faith.

Look at the nature of consciousness. Look at what it does. It's all information.

even if one doesn't take into account the evidence to the contrary.

If you can present this evidence, you'll be the first.

[2]Also you seem to be confusing my use of the term 'mystery' to be synonymous with 'magical'.

Not really; just pointing out that there is neither mystery nor magic involved.

When I say that the nature of consciousness is a mystery I'm not trying to imply that it is 'magical' or beyond scientific explanation. Quite frankly, I would be disappointed beyond words if that were the case. What I'm saying is science hasn't yet gotten to the point where it can answer the fundamental whats and the whys of lucid experience. Hence, the reason why there is still much speculation as to what it's nature is.

Science has answered the fundamental whats and whys. It hasn't answered every detail of how, but that's a different matter.

 

[Malerin]

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

I'm certainly sympathetic to this view (having devoted considerable energy arguing for it here and months ago (http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?t=120937&highlight=argument+support+idealism)), but I'm not entirely sure I agree with your formulation of it.

The way you put it, the idealist is in a better position epistemically (parismoniously) because God (Overmind, as you call it) is simply consciousness to the nth degree, and we know that consciousness exists (and I would argue thought and mind as well).

However, there's still an assumption going on there- just because we have proof of consciousness doesn't mean there's a higher consciousness (God/Overmind). There's quite a big leap to go from "concsiouness exists" to "a higher consciousness exists", and we have no evidence to support the existence of God/Overmind. You bring up NDEs, and I'm also sympathetic to your view, but NDE's, even if they're not materialistically explainable, are consistent with materialistic realities (brain-in-a-vat, experience machine, being in a Matrix, etc.)

On a fundamental level, though, I agree the materialist is in a worse position. They have no proof at all for the existence of a physical substance, so their model of reality rests on basically three unproven assumptions: 1) Physical matter exists; 2) consciousness arises from physical matter and interacts with it; and 3) physical matter is either eternal or had a first cause (cause in and of itself).

The idealist has basically the same three assumptions, but for (1), the idealist has some actual evidence (the existence of consciousness). This isn't proof for (1), but it is evidence that the building block of idealism actually exists.

On the 2nd point, the idealist is also in a slightly better position. The materialist has no explanation how or why consciousess should arise from a bunch of physical stuff (neurons), while the idealist has some evidence of the interaction of perception, thought, and mind. We all know what it is to perceive something, think about it, and experience those thoughts in our mind. For the idealist, the story gets a little fuzzy on where all the objects we experience come from (group mind, God's mind, one mind), but that is also an objection for the materalist: where did all this physical matter come from? Which leads to the 3rd point:

On the 3rd point, the idealist also has to tell a story of where the idealist stuff came from (Is it eternal? First cause?). I think it makes more sense to imagine that God has the quality "eternal" or "first cause" than a bunch of physical matter. There's nothing in physicalism/materialism to suggets that matter is either eternal or a cause in and of itself.


So it's not that there are "no multiplications of unknowns" with theism or idealism (God still remains the big unknown), but the assumptions contained in either one have a bit more evidence to support them, and on the question "Where did it all come from?" The idealist (and/or theist) has a more convincing story.

 

[rocketdodger]

What I'm saying is science hasn't yet gotten to the point where it can answer the fundamental whats and the whys of lucid experience.

Wrong.

Hence, the reason why there is still much speculation as to what it's nature is.

There isn't much speculation as to the "nature" of experience anymore -- at least among those who know what they are talking about.

The majority of "speculation" is now limited to the mechanics and implementation of that "nature" rather than the "nature" itself. Again, at least among those who know what they are talking about.

And no, I do not consider Roger Penrose to be someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to cognitive science.

 

[PixyMisa]

On a fundamental level, though, I agree the materialist is in a worse position. They have no proof at all for the existence of a physical substance

I can hit you over the head with some if you like.

so their model of reality rests on basically three unproven assumptions

Wrong.

1) Physical matter exists

Wrong.

The assumption of materialism (the sole assumption) is that matter is what exists. We observe that matter exists; materialism states that everything is matter or comes from matter.

2) consciousness arises from physical matter and interacts with it

This is not an assumption. We know that this is true.

There is more evidence supporting this than any other concept. There is no evidence to the contrary.

3) physical matter is either eternal or had a first cause (cause in and of itself).

This is the first assumption.

The idealist has basically the same three assumptions, but for (1), the idealist has some actual evidence (the existence of consciousness).

We know that consciousness is a material process, so the existence of consciousness is evidence for materialism and a terrible problem for many forms of idealism.

This isn't proof for (1), but it is evidence that the building block of idealism actually exists.

Not in the slightest.

On the 2nd point, the idealist is also in a slightly better position. The materialist has no explanation how or why consciousess should arise from a bunch of physical stuff (neurons)

Feedback loops. As I said earlier, programmers and engineers create conscious systems every day.

while the idealist has some evidence of the interaction of perception, thought, and mind.

What?

No.

The only useful understanding of perception that we have comes from the framework of materialism.

We all know what it is to perceive something, think about it, and experience those thoughts in our mind.

Yes, we do: It's all material processes.

For the idealist, the story gets a little fuzzy on where all the objects we experience come from

Indeed.

(group mind, God's mind, one mind)

The first two don't exist; the last is solipsism.

but that is also an objection for the materalist: where did all this physical matter come from?

Wrong again.

This physical matter is what exists. Where it came from is not a meaningful question; it is where things come from.

Which leads to the 3rd point:

On the 3rd point, the idealist also has to tell a story of where the idealist stuff came from (Is it eternal? First cause?). I think it makes more sense to imagine that God has the quality "eternal" or "first cause" than a bunch of physical matter.

Another abject failure.

No. No it doesn't.

Again, we know that consciousness is a material process. So you have to have God, who is self-caused, creating the material universe somehow, which gives rise to consciousness through purely physical processes.

Under materialism, we just leave out the God part.

There's nothing in physicalism/materialism to suggets that matter is either eternal or a cause in and of itself.

That is materialism. That's the entire point of materialism. Matter is what is. Since all the we observe is matter, this makes a lot of sense.

So it's not that there are "no multiplications of unknowns" with theism or idealism (God still remains the big unknown), but the assumptions contained in either one have a bit more evidence to support them, and on the question "Where did it all come from?" The idealist (and/or theist) has a more convincing story.

No. The idealist - of your sort, not the consistent idealist whose ontology is indistinguishable from materialism - is not only multiplying entities unnecessarily, but multiplying undefined entities unnecessarily.

The nature of the Universe is material. The nature of consciousness is material. It's a reasonable assumption that the nature of reality is material. And necessarily more parsimonious than any ontology containing gods.

 

[Malerin]

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."

You were caught in a blatant contradiction. I was being charitable by assuming you meant no dishonesty. Your tone and later remarks convinced me you were lying after all. That's a serious accusation, so I'll repost the quotes.

Originally Posted by Malerin
Right, which is the point I always make. Now, how do I reconcile this with another thread where you made an appeal to sense data as evidence for the existence of external objects and people?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130922&page=3

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp
You can't because I never made that appeal. I don't even think in that way, so I have no idea where you got the idea from.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130922&page=3

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp
Good God, what has gone wrong with you? Sense data is evidence for the existence of external things and people. It does not tell us absolutely that they exist (as I have mentioned repeatedly), but how could it be anything but evidence for their existence?

...

We are justified in believing that there is an external world because we have signficant evidence that there is an external world

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...ng+rock&page=4

 

[Malerin]

I can hit you over the head with some if you like.


Wrong.


Wrong.

The assumption of materialism (the sole assumption) is that matter is what exists. We observe that matter exists; materialism states that everything is matter or comes from matter.


This is not an assumption. We know that this is true.

There is more evidence supporting this than any other concept. There is no evidence to the contrary.


This is the first assumption.


We know that consciousness is a material process, so the existence of consciousness is evidence for materialism and a terrible problem for many forms of idealism.


Not in the slightest.


Feedback loops. As I said earlier, programmers and engineers create conscious systems every day.


What?

No.

The only useful understanding of perception that we have comes from the framework of materialism.


Yes, we do: It's all material processes.


Indeed.



The first two don't exist; the last is solipsism.


Wrong again.

This physical matter is what exists. Where it came from is not a meaningful question; it is where things come from.


Another abject failure.

No. No it doesn't.

Again, we know that consciousness is a material process. So you have to have God, who is self-caused, creating the material universe somehow, which gives rise to consciousness through purely physical processes.

Under materialism, we just leave out the God part.


That is materialism. That's the entire point of materialism. Matter is what is. Since all the we observe is matter, this makes a lot of sense.


No. The idealist - of your sort, not the consistent idealist whose ontology is indistinguishable from materialism - is not only multiplying entities unnecessarily, but multiplying undefined entities unnecessarily.

The nature of the Universe is material. The nature of consciousness is material. It's a reasonable assumption that the nature of reality is material. And necessarily more parsimonious than any ontology containing gods.

Pixy, I think you hit yourself on the head too many times trying to prove materialism. Your entire post could be summed up: "Materialism is true, therefore you're wrong".

 

[rocketdodger]

The idealist (and/or theist) has a more convincing story.

Until someone asks them, for instance, why an air-conditioner won't work or how to stop their buddy from bleeding out after an injury or where to plant seeds to get the best crops next year. Or any other question that requires a useful answer.

Then the utter uselessness and pointlessness of idealism becomes strikingly apparent.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

No.

If major elements of decisions are subconscious, yet individuals perceive them to be conscious, it is the perception of the decision that is wrong, not the decision itself.

The findings do not undermine the value of conscious decisions. They undermine the value of subjective perception.

 

[rocketdodger]

Pixy, I think you hit yourself on the head too many times trying to prove materialism. Your entire post could be summed up: "Materialism is true, therefore you're wrong".

To an individual as blatantly uneducated in the relevant subject matter as yourself yes, it could be summed up that way.

On the other hand, since Pixy did after all provide short coherent reponses to every one of your points, someone who actually knows a thing or two about this issue would come away with alot more.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy, I think you hit yourself on the head too many times trying to prove materialism. Your entire post could be summed up: "Materialism is true, therefore you're wrong".

Only if you didn't understand it or are being deliberately dishonest.

Once again: The observed nature of the Universe is material. It is made of stuff. I can pick up some of this stuff and hit you over the head with it.

If I hit you hard enough, your consciousness goes away.

From this (and vast bodies of further evidence all pointing to the same conclusion) we find that consciousness comes from matter, and not vice-versa.

This does not prove that materialism is true. I do not claim to know that materialism is true. What it proves is that all our observations of the Universe are consistent with materialism. And what that means is that any ontology inconsistent with materialism is false.

Informational idealism (as I've described) is entirely consistent with materialism; indeed, it's isomorphic - indistinguishable.

HypnoPsi's God version of idealism, assuming it's truly idealism and not dualism, could be indistinguishable from materialism - in which case, it fails of parsimony - or it could be distinct, in which case it fails of reality.

We could be brains in a vat, or the dreams of butterflies. Materialism would still be correct. Just incomplete - but that is, from all we can tell, unknowable.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The idealist has basically the same three assumptions, but for (1), the idealist has some actual evidence (the existence of consciousness). This isn't proof for (1), but it is evidence that the building block of idealism actually exists.

But the fact that it only exists inside the heads of certain organisms and can be manipulated by poking their brains is a bit of a conundrum. If my brain is a physical illusion played upon my senses by god, why did god bother to make it so that poking that illusion can alter or shut down my mind? It sounds like the same sort of god who made it appear as if evolution is true when he really just controls everything as puppets.

Also, I have a question: Where is the Theory of Consciousness? This "actual evidence" of which you speak never seems to have been built into a theory. Is it possible that "consciousness" is just a name for a bunch of brain processes and has no actual independent existence? That would explain why there is no theory. Where is the mindon and senson? Where are the interaction laws?

On the 2nd point, the idealist is also in a slightly better position. The materialist has no explanation how or why consciousess should arise from a bunch of physical stuff (neurons), ...

So you're basing your philosophy on the current state of neurophysiology, and even then you're not paying very close attention.

~~ Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

So you're basing your philosophy on the current state of neurophysiology

They had internet access in 1932?

and even then you're not paying very good attention.

Indeed.

Maybe we could make a sticky that says "Before posting your take on cognition/neuroscience/psychology, make sure you listen to the whole of the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series, as presented by the estimable Prof. Jeremy Wolfe. Unless you are the estimable Prof. Jeremy Wolfe, in which case, love the Freudian take on Hansel and Gretel!"

 

[Dancing David]

I guess the short answer would be anything that is objectively real and knowable, right?

Not really because perceptions are objectively real for the person who experiences them, optical illusions can cause one to perceive color that is not there.

The 'objective' part has to do with, "Will a person with a not altered state of consciousness be able to measure the events the same way?" Those that can not be measured off of some standard scale need to be examined for bias more often.

And again the system of ontology/epistomology is not crucial, there is no way to tell if you are in an idealist universe or a material one.

 

[Dancing David]

No he didn´t. Objects do not equal substance.

And you still can't tell a material object from an ideal object.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Not all information processing is consciousness, but all consciousness in information processing.

[...]

Only if your mind is easily boggled. Well, I guess if you're not used to modern computers; my relatively inexpensive PC has a teraflop graphics card.

[...]

Look at the nature of consciousness. Look at what it does. It's all information.

Okay, so your position: Consciousness is a class of information processing

Great. But you haven't exactly narrowed it down. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems your line of reasoning leads down the same path as the idealists'. Allow me to explain.

Every physical process, in some sense, is a form of information processing. This is plainly illustrated by the fact that we can mathematically model physical phenomenon and predict their behavior to an extent. Now if physical processes are basically the processing of information and your central argument here is that consciousness is information processing, then you're essentially saying that everything is in some sense a conscious process.

So either, you can leave your argument as it is without distinguishing exactly makes consciousness different from all other forms of computation [be it, unconscious brain functions, cellular processing, general physical process, etc.] in which case you've simply taken up the idealist position. OR, you can quit tap dancing and admit that lucid awareness is somehow different from all other computational phenomenon and we don't know why yet.

Either way, I'd say you've argued yourself into a corner.

 

[plumjam]

Actually, yes he did, but not precisely where Paul pointed out. If we know that mind exists, then we do have evidence that a substance exists namely "mind". In common philosophical usage mind/thought is one of the substances often mentioned. It is the primary substance behind idealism. I thought you knew that.

Rather pedantic of you. It´s quite clear from Hypno´s posts that he was using the term ´substance´ to mean physical/material ´stuff´, and this was the point Paul was addressing, and, in turn, myself.