Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[PixyMisa]

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

Specifically, consciousness is self-referential information processing. As I said in... Okay, looks like I didn't say that in this thread. Oops.

Makes your entire post moot, but that's not your fault. I've gone over this in considerable detail in past threads, but I'm happy to cover it again.

Look at it this way. A thinking entity needs the following:

Input - sensory data of some sort
Memory - the ability to memorise past input and output, and hence to learn
Logic - the ability to make decisions based on a mixture of input and memory
Output - some way of interacting with the world

I call this simple creature (which can be simulated with about 50 transistors) aware, but not self-aware. Dennett describes a thermostat as conscious, but I describ it as merely aware.

To be conscious, one must also be aware of oneself. That is, you need feedback from the logic circuits to themselves. Now we're looking at maybe 100 transistors.

This creature (or circuit) can think and feel and act and learn, and it can reflect on the process by which it does this. Not very much, mind you; it only has about 8 bits of memory, total. But it can do it.

We have a whole bunch more RAM and logic circuits, but self-reference is what makes us different from, say, a clock.

Edit: I did mention feedback loops, but the reference isn't very clear unless you've read Godel, Escher, Bach. If you have read Godel, Escher, Bach, then you missed the point and need to read it again.

 

[plumjam]

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

Which is what Malerin has been arguing all along. Why is it, then, that given we know that the currency of idealism exists (consciousness, mind, thought), and we can never know whether the currency of materialism exists (mind-independent ´stuff´) that you and most other orthodox JREFers hitch your wagon of faith to materialism and attack idealism whenever it appears?
It has been demonstrated that idealism is a priori in the stronger position, and that materialists must rely more on faith than idealists.
Why go with the weaker position?

 

[PixyMisa]

Which is what Malerin has been arguing all along. Why is it, then, that given we know that the currency of idealism exists (consciousness, mind, thought), and we can never know whether the currency of materialism exists (mind-independent ´stuff´) that you and most other orthodox JREFers hitch your wagon of faith to materialism and attack idealism whenever it appears?

Because we know that consciousness, mind, and thought are material processes, and not evidence for any sort of idealism.

 

[plumjam]

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

And the findings, ultimately, are only known via subjective perception. Which is what makes the whole proposition self-undermining.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Which is what Malerin has been arguing all along. Why is it, then, that given we know that the currency of idealism exists (consciousness, mind, thought), and we can never know whether the currency of materialism exists (mind-independent ´stuff´) that you and most other orthodox JREFers hitch your wagon of faith to materialism and attack idealism whenever it appears?
It has been demonstrated that idealism is a priori in the stronger position, and that materialists must rely more on faith than idealists.
Why go with the weaker position?

Because it's not a weaker position.

First of all, the simple currency of consciousness is not sufficient to explain what we see. It does not explain why the trees in my backyard are in the same configuration when I return from vacation, without having been conscious of them while I was gone. Now we have to start talking about god or the Metamind or some such thing that is a huge leap from individual consciousness. And then we have to explain how the metamind divides into individual consciousness. And so on.

Second, just because our so-called consciousness is the closest thing to us does not mean that it is fundamental. It might be, but the real question is whether one complete metaphysical model is simpler than another. I don't think it's at all obvious that the overall idealism package is simpler than the overall physicalism package (as you know, I actually think they are equivalent).

Finally, without being able to point at the fundamental building blocks of consciousness (where is the mindon?), the idealist runs the risk of declaring something fundamental that is in fact merely a name for a group of other things (for example, brain processes). If only you could point at some free-floating consciousness.

~~ Paul

 

[plumjam]

Because we know that consciousness, mind, and thought are material processes, and not evidence for any sort of idealism.

You can´t ever know this because you can´t ever demonstrate the existence of the material (mind-independent stuff).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.


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


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



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

So, you're trying to prove to me that you can take things out of context again and that you have the reading comprehension skills of a first grader? Well, thank you very much.

You do know what evidence means, don't you? You do know that I specifically defined it in the way that I was using it to refer to what we see with our eyes and that I did not make an ontolgoical statement? You said yourself that you understood this, and now you say you don't?

OK, now you have actually committed a complete retraction of your earlier statement. You have actually done what you accuse me of. And why? Because I and a few others have found previous instances of your mistakes and pointed them out to you.

Learn to deal with it. Please stop being a child. Or don't. It's becoming increasing amusing the more you do it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And the findings, ultimately, are only known via subjective perception. Which is what makes the whole proposition self-undermining.
...
You can´t ever know this because you can´t ever demonstrate the existence of the material (mind-independent stuff).

Yes, I can. That tree in my backyard is independent of my mind. So if you're going to allow only personal subjective perception to be considered real, you have no obvious explanation for the tree.

But you agree that the tree is independent of you, so then let the baggage-building begin. You're only allowed to use personal subjective perception as the building block of your final model. No tossing in additional concepts, however vaguely mind-like they may be, without evidence.

~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Did you read the rest of my post in which I said that he may have simply misused a term that is loaded with prior assumptions? Substance does not mean 'physical/material stuff' in philosophical usage, so technically it was a contradiction. But I am fully willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since the language we use is loaded with all sorts of garbage.

I was merely pointing out that there techincally was a contradiction, but that it was no big deal and probably illusory.

 

[plumjam]

Because it's not a weaker position.

First of all, the simple currency of consciousness is not sufficient to explain what we see.

That´s just a massive assumption on your part. If you were to say ´the normal consciousness of the individual human being´ I might agree with you.

It does not explain why the trees in my backyard are in the same configuration when I return from vacation, without having been conscious of them while I was gone. Now we have to start talking about god or the Metamind or some such thing that is a huge leap from individual consciousness. And then we have to explain how the metamind divides into individual consciousness. And so on.

Your alternative is to go with matter, for which there will never be any evidence. I go with Overmind, Metamind, God, Universal Consciousness..whatever one wants to call it. For this there is indeed thousands of years of evidence in the form of the likes of expanded consciousness, God-consciousness, Theosis, Fana, Nirvana, Samadhi, the Beatific Vision etc etc..
Of course, most JREFers get to dismiss that evidence by hiding behind the usual ´it´s anecdotal´ or ´it´s subjective´ or ´perception can be wrong sometimes´. Well, given the subject matter, how could such evidence not be?

Second, just because our so-called consciousness is the closest thing to us does not mean that it is fundamental. It might be, but the real question is whether one complete metaphysical model is simpler than another. I don't think it's at all obvious that the overall idealism package is simpler than the overall physicalism package (as you know, I actually think they are equivalent).

So you think that a model for which we have ample evidence, and a model for which we´ll never, in principle, have any evidence, are equivalent? How does that work?

Finally, without being able to point at the fundamental building blocks of consciousness (where is the mindon?),

See, here you´re betraying your materialist upbringing. Why would you just assume that consciousness has to be made up of ´building blocks´? Maybe consciousness is Eternally One, but chooses to ´as it were´ (illusorily) divide itself. This is what Hinduism, for one, has been experiencing and arguing for millenia.

the idealist runs the risk of declaring something fundamental that is in fact merely a name for a group of other things (for example, brain processes). If only you could point at some free-floating consciousness.

I don´t see any sensible way in which something like a brain process could be considered fundamental in any sense. Pointing at a consciousness? How would that work? To know it was a consciousness you´d have to be it. Maybe you can point back at yourself.

~~ Paul[/QUOTE]

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Which is what Malerin has been arguing all along. Why is it, then, that given we know that the currency of idealism exists (consciousness, mind, thought), and we can never know whether the currency of materialism exists (mind-independent ´stuff´) that you and most other orthodox JREFers hitch your wagon of faith to materialism and attack idealism whenever it appears?
It has been demonstrated that idealism is a priori in the stronger position, and that materialists must rely more on faith than idealists.
Why go with the weaker position?

What is the weaker position? Do you guys think this argument has never been used before? It was one of Hammy's favorites.

What we know is that thought exists. We know that thought exists because we cannot know anything unless thought exists, knowledge being dependent on thought. Knowing that thought exists doesn't really help us to know the ultimate existent unless you anthropomorphize ultimate reality.

If you want to be consistent with idealism as a monism, then you need to posit a mind that keeps everything we see constant, so that is the mind that is thinking when we say that we know thought exists. To maintain a strictly monistic idealist position, there is exactly one entity. God. Everything flows from God. Everything you see out there in the word exists in the mind of God. And that includes "you". In any monistic position, there is no "you". Everything "you" do, is simply God thinking, in the same way that trees grow and maintain their presence when 'we' turn our backs.

So, beliefs such as "we must raise ourselves to understand the greater mind" are simply illusions themselves. "You" thinking about God is simply God thinking about God.

If you believe there is a separate "you" in an ontological sense, then you are a dualist.

What we argue against is not idealism. If you decide to stick to monism there cannot be any difference between what people label "materialism" or "idealism" since there is only one "thing" and everything must be that one thing. These labels -- "material", "ideal" -- can't be anything but labels because it is not possible for us to know the precise nature of a single ur-substance. If there is one "thing" then we must be discussing the same "thing" and any "controversy" arises only from one or the other group claiming to know something about this ur-substance.

What we argue against is the hidden dualisms that we often find at the core of people who call themselves idealists.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I go with Overmind, Metamind, God, Universal Consciousness..whatever one wants to call it. For this there is indeed thousands of years of evidence in the form of the likes of expanded consciousness, God-consciousness, Theosis, Fana, Nirvana, Samadhi, the Beatific Vision etc etc..
Of course, most JREFers get to dismiss that evidence by hiding behind the usual ´it´s anecdotal´ or ´it´s subjective´ or ´perception can be wrong sometimes´. Well, given the subject matter, how could such evidence not be?

Who has a problem with you "going with Overmind"? I think that's fine. The problems arise with what you do with it. Want to call it God? Fine, no problem. Want to call it Overmind? Also fine.

The only issue I think most would have with it is, are you now going to consistently apply this label and think in terms of a single "substance" or commit to dualism?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That´s just a massive assumption on your part. If you were to say ´the normal consciousness of the individual human being´ I might agree with you.

You're the one making the massive assumption: that you can get from individual consciousness to a complete model of what we see.

Your alternative is to go with matter, for which there will never be any evidence. I go with Overmind, Metamind, God, Universal Consciousness..whatever one wants to call it. For this there is indeed thousands of years of evidence in the form of the likes of expanded consciousness, God-consciousness, Theosis, Fana, Nirvana, Samadhi, the Beatific Vision etc etc..

That's not evidence of those things. It's just more talk from individual consciousness.

Of course, most JREFers get to dismiss that evidence by hiding behind the usual ´it´s anecdotal´ or ´it´s subjective´ or ´perception can be wrong sometimes´. Well, given the subject matter, how could such evidence not be?

So anything that any raving lunatic utters is now evidence for a metaphysical model of the world?

So you think that a model for which we have ample evidence, and a model for which we´ll never, in principle, have any evidence, are equivalent? How does that work?

There is no ample evidence! You have evidence for one thing: individual consciousness. From that you add on massive amounts of baggage based on no evidence whatsoever, except for the fact that the additional things seem vaguely mind-like to you.

See, here you´re betraying your materialist upbringing. Why would you just assume that consciousness has to be made up of ´building blocks´? Maybe consciousness is Eternally One, but chooses to ´as it were´ (illusorily) divide itself. This is what Hinduism, for one, has been experiencing and arguing for millenia.

You mean the entire universe is one massive fundamental existent? If you think so, then you have derived the entire complex answer in one feel swoop from nothing but individual consciousness. You have made up the answer.

~~ Paul

 

[plumjam]

Yes, I can. That tree in my backyard is independent of my mind. So if you're going to allow only personal subjective perception to be considered real, you have no obvious explanation for the tree.

But you agree that the tree is independent of you, so then let the baggage-building begin. You're only allowed to use personal subjective perception as the building block of your final model. No tossing in additional concepts, however vaguely mind-like they may be, without evidence.

~~ Paul

see post 250

 

[plumjam]

You're the one making the massive assumption: that you can get from individual consciousness to a complete model of what we see.

It´s not merely an assumption in the way yours are about the fundamentality of this mythical ´matter´ stuff. Human history tells us that consciousness is capable of becoming deindividuated i.e. transcending egoic consciousness, and merging with Universal Consciousness. There´s thousands of years worth of evidence for my position, in principle there will always be zero for yours.

That's not evidence of those things. It's just more talk from individual consciousness.

You´re assuming individuality of consciousness at the base of this evidence. That´s just a prejudice on your part.

So anything that any raving lunatic utters is now evidence for a metaphysical model of the world?

Strawman. Listen to everybody. See how what they say tallies with their actions, their mode of life, their effects on others and yourself. Some nutters do exist, they tend to be in asylums.

There is no ample evidence! You have evidence for one thing: individual consciousness. From that you add on massive amounts of baggage based on no evidence whatsoever, except for the fact that the additional things seem vaguely mind-like to you.

I can only conclude you haven´t seriously attempted looking into it.

You mean the entire universe is one massive fundamental existent?

No. Again you´re betraying your materialist roots. Whatever is fundamental need not be confined to this Universe.

If you think so, then you have derived the entire complex answer in one feel swoop from nothing but individual consciousness. You have made up the answer.

You are trying to confine my position to the realm of an individual consciousness. Like I´ve been saying, the answer lies in transcendence of the individual consciousness.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It´s not merely an assumption in the way yours are about the fundamentality of this mythical ´matter´ stuff. Human history tells us that consciousness is capable of becoming deindividuated i.e. transcending egoic consciousness, and merging with Universal Consciousness. There´s thousands of years worth of evidence for my position, in principle there will always be zero for yours.

If you say so.

You´re assuming individuality of consciousness at the base of this evidence. That´s just a prejudice on your part.

Excuse me? What other evidence do you have?

Strawman. Listen to everybody. See how what they say tallies with their actions, their mode of life, their effects on others and yourself. Some nutters do exist, they tend to be in asylums.

I spent three years in the TM movement. No luck finding anyone in a higher state of consciousness.

I can only conclude you haven´t seriously attempted looking into it.

So enlighten me. What evidence have you got for anything other than individual consciousness?

No. Again you´re betraying your materialist roots. Whatever is fundamental need not be confined to this Universe.

Excuse me. You mean the entire multiverse is one massive fundamental existent?

You are trying to confine my position to the realm of an individual consciousness. Like I´ve been saying, the answer lies in transcendence of the individual consciousness.

I know what you have been saying. It's not convincing without evidence.

~~ Paul

 

[plumjam]

Who has a problem with you "going with Overmind"? I think that's fine. The problems arise with what you do with it. Want to call it God? Fine, no problem. Want to call it Overmind? Also fine.

The only issue I think most would have with it is, are you now going to consistently apply this label and think in terms of a single "substance" or commit to dualism?

Wasp, what is it with you and Monism/Dualism? You seem slightly obsessed.
I tend to avoid the dichotomy because dualism, in particular, can be used to refer to all kinds of things.. mind/matter dualism, life/afterlife dualism, gross matter / subtle matter dualism, body/soul dualism, the dual nature of the opposites of experience, etc.. So I can only see a minefield of confusion.
You also seem to think that if you can paint people as Dualists then (somehow) therefore you´ve won the argument and there´s no point continuing.
Have you considered the possibility that there are many types of ´dualism´ capable of existing within an overall monism? An example might be body/soul dualism.

 

[plumjam]

If you say so.


Excuse me? What other evidence do you have?


I spent three years in the TM movement. No luck finding anyone in a higher state of consciousness.


So enlighten me. What evidence have you got for anything other than individual consciousness?


Excuse me. You mean the entire multiverse is one massive fundamental existent?


I know what you have been saying. It's not convincing without evidence.

~~ Paul

Start with The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, and Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill. If you´re not willing to accept personal testimony as valid evidence, in a field of study in which, due to the subject matter, personal testimony is going to be almost all you have to go on... then you´ll be stuck where you are for evermore.
The fact that at one time you were in the TM movement suggests you are or were to some extent willing to accept personal testimony as valid. Personally the TM movement isn´t where I´d look. Better to focus on people who make this the goal of their whole life, rather than for 20 minutes twice a day. Contemplative monastic orders in both east and west are a good place to look.

 

[nescafe]

It´s not merely an assumption in the way yours are about the fundamentality of this mythical ´matter´ stuff. Human history tells us that consciousness is capable of becoming deindividuated i.e. transcending egoic consciousness, and merging with Universal Consciousness. There´s thousands of years worth of evidence for my position, in principle there will always be zero for yours.

Sounds like you are describing ego loss. You can get that with 250 micrograms of LSD, transcranial magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobe, fasting, oxygen starvation, the list goes on.

That ego loss can happen (and yes, I have experienced it) is one thing, merging with a so-called Universal Consciousness is another. Is there any evidence beyond self-reported experiences (usually regarding states where you are not capable of critically analyzing your mental state with any degree of rationality) for a Universal Consciousness that goes beyond simple ego loss?

You´re assuming individuality of consciousness at the base of this evidence. That´s just a prejudice on your part.

Well, how does the (non-individual) Universal Consciousness work? Please keep your explanation consistent with what we already know about the reality we inhabit, please.

Like I´ve been saying, the answer lies in transcendence of the individual consciousness.

Bull. Losing your narrative center of gravity is an interesting experience, but there is no reason to think it is not explainable from a materialist (or any equivalent monisim) perspective, or that it involves group consciousness. You lose your I for awhile, but it always comes back unless you die.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Start with The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, and Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill. If you´re not willing to accept personal testimony as valid evidence, in a field of study in which, due to the subject matter, personal testimony is going to be almost all you have to go on... then you´ll be stuck where you are for evermore.

We've gone from personal consciousness to a baroque metaphysical model based on the contemplations of a few mystics. Somehow introspection has become a good source of evidence.

But let's say we accept their personal testimony. Where do we go from there? When do we start working on a scientific Theory of the Consciousness-Based Universe?

The fact that at one time you were in the TM movement suggests you are or were to some extent willing to accept personal testimony as valid. Personally the TM movement isn´t where I´d look. Better to focus on people who make this the goal of their whole life, rather than for 20 minutes twice a day. Contemplative monastic orders in both east and west are a good place to look.

Trust me, there were plenty of people in the TM movement who made it their whole life. You could tell how long they were meditating each day by how whacked out they were.

~~ Paul