Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Wrong. Information is one. Computation is another.

You're just not getting this at all are you?

Asking what is the ultimate nature of the the information in the universe that is being "computed" is not answered by saying it's information and/or computation.

The difference is between describing something and explaining something.

What is not an option, and never has been, is mind. If the fundamental nature of reality is "mind" in some sense, then that mind gives rise to matter, and the observable nature of reality remains material.

Nope. Matter doesn't exist at all. There is absolutely no substance whatsoever underlying what you call physical reality. Materialism has had a good inning over the past few thousand years but it's worthless now. The most parsimonious theory is that there is some kind of Overmind behind it all and that everything is just as real as thought.

You're welcome to believe in some funky magic powder if you like, of course. But your believing in it doesn't make it real.

You cannot explain minds as we experience them by using "mind" as the fundamental existent, because minds are, plain and simple, physical processes. Every bit of evidence ever collected tells us this.

You keep talking about this physical stuff? I see no evidence for anything except phenomena/neumena.

Even sticking with the neutal term "information" can't you see why your argument makes no sense? Brains are just ultimately information - nothing more. There's no substance underlying them there particles that ultimately make up the brain.

The truth is some type of panentheism. It's the only rational conclusion in a Universe without substance.

NDEs and mystical experiences are fully explained by physical processes in the brain. There is exactly zero evidence that anything else is going on.

Wrong. And very sad that you choose to see things this way. There are no "physical" processes pixie because there is nothing there apart from information which is purely thought from some kind of Overmind.

There is absolutely no substance at all - think about that.

Amaterialism is a much more reasonable approach.

Anecdotes reduced to statistics are still worthless.

Again, anecdote means an "un-written" account. Paranormal experiences are far from unwritten.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Dualism in this sense refers to substance dualism or to property dualism, both of which are seriously sticky philosophical problems.

The issue is really over sticking to a coherent position or trying to fudge and "get something for nothing". When most positions are examined closely, there are hidden assumptions or hidden "substances" that weaken them seriously.

Watch what Nick is trying to do. He is essentially doing the same thing -- tyring to get folks to be consistent. Consistency is a major bear in such debates.


If you end up with any sort of dualism, you've got the problem of explaining how incommensurate substances interact or, in the case of property dualism, how one substance can create several different appearances with different properties.

The minor potential derail into Democritus and Leuccipus previousy mentioned was mischaracterized. What most ancient philosophers tried to deal with was the problem of "many from one". Atomic theory was one approach, since different types of atoms could account for different substances, though everything was at base "atom". Atomic theory accounts for substance plurality, with a single substance (I don't really remember Democritus making a point of what "atoms" really were, though; I think he bypassed the ultimate ontological issue). It wasn't a fight with animism, but with other philosophies at the time. Socrates/Plato's solution was hylomorphism -- a form of dualism in which form inheres in matter, but it suffered from the same problem as other dualisms, namely the interaction issue.

 

[rocketdodger]

But how do you know you're modelling consciousness?

How do you know I am conscious? What about your friends? Or your parents?

Would your program be conscious if you printed it out on a piece of paper? Why so? Why not so?

It would be processing information in a very different way, so I would say no. But it would still experience, because all things experience. Granted, the experience of being a sheet of paper with ink on it is probably very mundane.

Do you think that having it on a hard disk and having an electric current pass though the computer matters somehow? If so, why?

Yes. Because the information processing being done is now harnessed rather than random, and is thus computation.

One can claim that a sheet of paper processes just as much information as a running computer, but if so it is completely random and not used in any way, and thus is not really computation.

Do you agree with Daniel Dennett about thermostats having beliefs about too hot, too cold and just right?

Given a certain definition of belief, of course.

What if it's a mechanical thermostat rather than an electric thermostat?

Irrelevant.

It just so happens that as the complexity of a machine increases, it becomes laborious and inefficient to keep them purely mechanical.

 

[Nick227]

Yes, I am sure. It was in the context of "self" vs. "non-self." You constantly ask 'who defines self vs. non-self?' We give you logically coherent answers, such as pixy saying 'physics -- if you stub your toe, it is you and not your neighbor who cries out in pain.'

And your responses are similar to what I stated -- that without a "self" somewhere to perceive a difference between you and your neighbor, both of you are simply a process.

A response like that implies that there is no way to differentiate between you and your neighbor if there is no "self" to do it. Which is nonsense and doesn't in any way refute pixy's answer to your riddle.

Whoa there, RD. That's dualism... a self to perceive? Can you start to see the problem now? All I am saying is that creating an authentic materialist model for conscious experience is not simple. When you make statements like this you're proving it. Dan Dennett will tell you the same. Ramachandran will tell you that we are just starting to scratch the surface of the stickiest issue of all - selfhood. These guys say these things because they have been in this area for decades and they know it's not easy. Guys like you and Pixy hang out on the surface and jibe at idealists. You just don't grasp the issues. To you it's all simple and obvious because you simply don't understand the actual issues.

eta: I was reading Susan Blackmore's series of interviews with consciousness researchers recently. It's an amazing volume. They're all in there - Dennett, Chalmers, Searle, the Churchlands, Crick, O'Regan. Bottom line, if you ask me - they're all pretty mystified still.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

The difference is between describing something and explaining something.

Pixy is asserting that explaining the fundamental existent can't be done -- all we can do is describe it.

You seem to agree with this.

Except you think materialism asserts that it can be explained. Maybe in the past, but as everyone who is a materialist here will tell you, we no longer think like that. We think in terms of "properties of stuff" now, not "stuff." This is what pixy has been trying to explain to you for this entire thread.

If you want to argue further along that line, you should know you are arguing with a strawman.

 

[rocketdodger]

You just don't grasp the issues. To you it's all simple and obvious because you simply don't understand the actual issues.

You keep saying things like this, instead of responding to what we actually say.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: A human can distinguish their physical self from physical non-self via sensory perception.

 

[rocketdodger]

Of course, but so what? The fact that we rarely choose to excercise a great deal of free will with mundane tasks can hardly be said to demonstrate that free will is an illusion.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that we choose to exercise a great deal of free will in certain instances, and think we have, when in fact we did not.

The issue is that we now know that our subjective perceptions can be wrong, even for a normally/nominally functioning mind.

You seem somewhat intelligent, so perhaps my zeal here strikes you as odd. Understand that it is only in the context of being able to solidly refute people like plumjam where I consider these findings very important.

People like him can't simply say "soooo many people feel this... so it must be there," anymore. Numbers don't matter now, because we have these studies that show every single human was wrong about a perception of their own consciousness.

 

[Nick227]

You keep saying things like this, instead of responding to what we actually say.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: A human can distinguish their physical self from physical non-self via sensory perception.

I would agree, basically, though I think it's important to be aware that visual perception alone, for example, does not really allow the organism to self-distinguish. It needs to feel the body also. It's not clear for me why this is relevant when we're considering how a mass of neurons comes to create consciousness, but no doubt you will explain this.

I'm also a bit concerned by your phrase "their physical self," but let's take it that this is just a language issue, and that you're not implying that the body has an immaterial owner.

Nick

 

[HypnoPsi]

What is it that allows objects to continue to exist when we are not thinking about them? It isn't consciousness. There must be another mechanism that preserves the continuity of the world. Let's call it "substance" or "external reality." Now suddenly the God theory loses its edge.

Absolutely amazing, Paul. Even though there is no substance let's just pretend there is one anyway and then we won't need God anymore. Simple.

How about we deal with reality as it actually is - amaterial.

Consciousness is clearly the only other thing we know of that can store information.

(If there was some secret magic powder stuff underlying phenomenal objects you'd still only have a 50/50 situation whereby the fancy stuff is self-sustaining and self-generating or Created and sustained by God.)

God's Mind/Will being the most parsimonious theory to the existence of the Universe doesn't prove God exists, of course. It's just the most reasonable theory on account of being the most parsimonious.

Significantly more reasonable than pretending that there really is a substance when there isn't just so we don't have cause to bring in the God theory.

You can try to save it by saying that God thinks about the entire universe while I'm not, and that's what preserves the continuity. But then you need a mechanism for God to refresh my memory of a scene when I come back to it. What does that have to do with consciousness?~~ Paul

Why does God need to refresh your memory?

If His/Her/It's laws are happily working away then why won't your house, for example, still be there when you return from work and/or why would you forget it?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope. Matter doesn't exist at all. There is absolutely no substance whatsoever underlying what you call physical reality. Materialism has had a good inning over the past few thousand years but it's worthless now. The most parsimonious theory is that there is some kind of Overmind behind it all and that everything is just as real as thought.

What's the difference between saying "stuff is physical" and saying "stuff is Overmind"?

You're welcome to believe in some funky magic powder if you like, of course. But your believing in it doesn't make it real.

Out of context, I couldn't tell whether you were saying this to Pixy or he was saying it to you. The Overmind is magic.

You keep talking about this physical stuff? I see no evidence for anything except phenomena/neumena.

You see evidence for noumena? That is, objects as they appear in themselves, independent of perception? Well then, we agree. There are objects independent of your perception. How do they work?

Wrong. And very sad that you choose to see things this way. There are no "physical" processes pixie because there is nothing there apart from information which is purely thought from some kind of Overmind.

How are these Overmind-thought brain processes distinguished from physical brain processes?

There is absolutely no substance at all - think about that.

What shall we call the substantial external world that this Overmind generates for us?

~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

To me thinking should not of necessity require a coherent entity in order for it to exist. This is what I meant.

Ah, OOK, with that I agree. But that is not really thought without a thinker. A thinker refers only to some physical thing that does the thinking, on which the thinking takes place. In other words, there has to be something somehere that does the thinking; but that something does not have to be what we would consider a coherent whole individual (don't know how to express that any better, but I think you know what I mean -- it doesn't require an integrated "self").

I meant an explanation for how thinking comes to be experienced in the manner that it is, usually that of an inner voice telling a narrative. This I do not understand in material terms.

OK, right, gotcha. I don't think anyone understands it in detail. We can speak about it in general terms, but the answer is likely going to involve a very complex system that will not be easily explained in simple terms. Essentially, it requires some form of self-reference, as we can potentially see with mirror neurons, though this would require an additional "step-up" of mirrors to mirror neurons -- not hard to build into a system. And it requires the neural structure for story-telling, which no one yet understands. We do have some evidence for it, but we certainly do not have a coherent story yet.

Well, I'd be happy to hear any materialist explanation. Maybe I can or maybe I can't understand it. How does neuronal activity translate into physical action and does this imply thinking is epiphenomenal or is it purely material and causative?

Nick

As to whether or not you consider thinking epiphenomenal, I think that depends on what you call "thinking". It is probably the case that the conscious reflection we engage in is epiphenomenal in a way. I don't think it is directly causitive of any physical action. However, there is plenty of thinking (or information processing) that goes on "under the surface" leading to action.

As with the consciousness story no one has a coherent full account, because it is extremely difficult to study this in detail. We don't generally sacrifice humans for experimental purposes, so much of the information will necessarily come from other models -- particularly from AI research.

What we do know from cortical stimulation is that we can stop certain actions from occurring with stimulation of particular areas of cortex and that we can create certain thoughts, feelings, and actions by stimulating other cortical areas -- but you already know that, I'm sure. Moving from thought to action, however, probably depends on a certain internal "set" so that whatever region is stimulated is allowed to result in a physical action. Simple stimulation studies are never going to reproduce that. This is the case, in large part, because the stimulation studies are performed for other reasons -- they are done to provide localization information for potential surgical planning -- and because these studies are generally performed on epileptics and we don't want to stimulate too much cortex or overly stimulate certain ares for fear of producing a seizure (we elicit afterdischarges all the time).

I'm afraid the direct brain work is going to give only part of the picture. Modelling the whole system is going to have to come through computer work.

The simple answer as to how neuronal activity results in physical action is well worked out for simple systems. I can get you to raise your arm by stimualting the right area of your premotor cortex. The motor neurons there descend through the brain, brainstem, spinal cord (where they synapse on other motor neurons) and through this synapse continue to their terminal bouton, where the "electrical signal" results in release of calcium, which through a complex series of events involving several different proteins causes the release of acetylcholine. Ach traverses the synapse, activates its receptor and with an influx of sodium and calcium initiates another complex series of protein transformations that results in actin and myosin "ratcheting" against one another to produce muscle contraction. We know that part of the story in great detail. It is the complex coordination of different movements that occurs upstream that is the tough bit.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Your alternative is to go with matter, for which there will never be any evidence.

Except that we can make repeatable observations about matter and its nature, and different people will get the same results regardless of their perception or bias. If anyone, no matter who they are, where they come from, or what they believe, strikes themselves in the head hard enough with a hammer, their consciousness will shut off, no exceptions. The same cannot be said for the results of thought experiments, prayers, chanting, meditations, touching oneself, etc.

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..

Which are not repeatable or measurable observations, and will vary greatly depending on what the person's preexisting religious inclinations are.

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?

This rationale unwittingly broadens the field of acceptable evidence TO the ravings of lunatics confined to insane asylums. You wouldn't want to dismiss them as anecdotal, or subjective, or misperceived, would you?

On a tangent note, the role of village shaman was in fact where many societies placed individuals suffering severe mental illness to serve a useful function.

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?

Yes, no evidence except for demonstrable causality and repeatable observation. Pit that against begging the question and special pleading and I don't see how it could possibly compete.

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.

Consciousness comes from where then? Magic? If consciousness behaved this way then it could not be destroyed or disrupted, merely displaced. Unfortunately, I think I see where you're going with this now.

 

[plumjam]

Dualism in this sense refers to substance dualism or to property dualism, both of which are seriously sticky philosophical problems.

The issue is really over sticking to a coherent position or trying to fudge and "get something for nothing". When most positions are examined closely, there are hidden assumptions or hidden "substances" that weaken them seriously.

Watch what Nick is trying to do. He is essentially doing the same thing -- tyring to get folks to be consistent. Consistency is a major bear in such debates.


If you end up with any sort of dualism, you've got the problem of explaining how incommensurate substances interact or, in the case of property dualism, how one substance can create several different appearances with different properties.

The minor potential derail into Democritus and Leuccipus previousy mentioned was mischaracterized. What most ancient philosophers tried to deal with was the problem of "many from one". Atomic theory was one approach, since different types of atoms could account for different substances, though everything was at base "atom". Atomic theory accounts for substance plurality, with a single substance (I don't really remember Democritus making a point of what "atoms" really were, though; I think he bypassed the ultimate ontological issue). It wasn't a fight with animism, but with other philosophies at the time. Socrates/Plato's solution was hylomorphism -- a form of dualism in which form inheres in matter, but it suffered from the same problem as other dualisms, namely the interaction issue.

The thing is, if you define dualism as two incommensurate substances (by that I´m taking you to mean two kinds of stuff which could not in principle effectively interact with each other) somehow mysteriously interacting, then you have already decided the problem, in your favour, via your definitions.
My own position is that there are various types of stuff in reality, which manage to interact effectively with each other, within the (as a nod to your outlook) monism of idealism or Universal Consciousness . Soul, mind and body might be a few examples.
The fact that we don´t, in 2008, understand within our particular society, in a way which can be represented in numbers and mathematical relationships, how this happens, is, to me, of almost no import.
The alternative of a monism of matter, which no one will in principle have any kind of evidence for, would be a case of taking faith too far. And this in a millieu in which faith (at least on this forum) is more or less despised.

 

[Nick227]

Ah, OOK, with that I agree. But that is not really thought without a thinker. A thinker refers only to some physical thing that does the thinking, on which the thinking takes place. In other words, there has to be something somehere that does the thinking; but that something does not have to be what we would consider a coherent whole individual (don't know how to express that any better, but I think you know what I mean -- it doesn't require an integrated "self").

Yes.

OK, right, gotcha. I don't think anyone understands it in detail. We can speak about it in general terms, but the answer is likely going to involve a very complex system that will not be easily explained in simple terms. Essentially, it requires some form of self-reference, as we can potentially see with mirror neurons, though this would require an additional "step-up" of mirrors to mirror neurons -- not hard to build into a system. And it requires the neural structure for story-telling, which no one yet understands. We do have some evidence for it, but we certainly do not have a coherent story yet.

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought.

As to whether or not you consider thinking epiphenomenal, I think that depends on what you call "thinking". It is probably the case that the conscious reflection we engage in is epiphenomenal in a way. I don't think it is directly causitive of any physical action. However, there is plenty of thinking (or information processing) that goes on "under the surface" leading to action.

This seems to me somewhat at odds with Pixy's assertion that there is no aspect of thinking that is not material.

As with the consciousness story no one has a coherent full account, because it is extremely difficult to study this in detail. We don't generally sacrifice humans for experimental purposes, so much of the information will necessarily come from other models -- particularly from AI research.

What we do know from cortical stimulation is that we can stop certain actions from occurring with stimulation of particular areas of cortex and that we can create certain thoughts, feelings, and actions by stimulating other cortical areas -- but you already know that, I'm sure. Moving from thought to action, however, probably depends on a certain internal "set" so that whatever region is stimulated is allowed to result in a physical action. Simple stimulation studies are never going to reproduce that. This is the case, in large part, because the stimulation studies are performed for other reasons -- they are done to provide localization information for potential surgical planning -- and because these studies are generally performed on epileptics and we don't want to stimulate too much cortex or overly stimulate certain ares for fear of producing a seizure (we elicit afterdischarges all the time).

I'm afraid the direct brain work is going to give only part of the picture. Modelling the whole system is going to have to come through computer work.

The simple answer as to how neuronal activity results in physical action is well worked out for simple systems. I can get you to raise your arm by stimualting the right area of your premotor cortex. The motor neurons there descend through the brain, brainstem, spinal cord (where they synapse on other motor neurons) and through this synapse continue to their terminal bouton, where the "electrical signal" results in release of calcium, which through a complex series of events involving several different proteins causes the release of acetylcholine. Ach traverses the synapse, activates its receptor and with an influx of sodium and calcium initiates another complex series of protein transformations that results in actin and myosin "ratcheting" against one another to produce muscle contraction. We know that part of the story in great detail. It is the complex coordination of different movements that occurs upstream that is the tough bit.

Thanks for your insights. Always welcomed.

Nick

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Absolutely amazing, Paul. Even though there is no substance let's just pretend there is one anyway and then we won't need God anymore. Simple.

I don't care what you call it, but there is a substantive external reality. Why is the god hypothesis any better than the actual substance hypothesis?

Consciousness is clearly the only other thing we know of that can store information.

What does "other" refer to? Don't computers store information?

(If there was some secret magic powder stuff underlying phenomenal objects you'd still only have a 50/50 situation whereby the fancy stuff is self-sustaining and self-generating or Created and sustained by God.)

What is the difference between those two ideas? What experiment can we run to tell them apart?

God's Mind/Will being the most parsimonious theory to the existence of the Universe doesn't prove God exists, of course. It's just the most reasonable theory on account of being the most parsimonious.

How is "god's will" more parsimonious than "physical stuff"?

Why does God need to refresh your memory?

If His/Her/It's laws are happily working away then why won't your house, for example, still be there when you return from work and/or why would you forget it?

Because I don't have any memory. All I have is consciousness, remember? You're basing this entire model on one thing: personal phenomenological consciousness. All the other aspects of the model, including memory and god and Overmind, are just-so concepts that you think are reasonable to posit because they are kinda like consciousness and therefore don't require any evidence. You have less evidence for being able to derive god from personal consciousness than the materialist has for being able to derive consciousness from brain function.

You have only one kind of card, but have built an entire Victorian mansion from it.

~~ Paul

 

[Nick227]

I don't care what you call it, but there is a substantive external reality. Why is the god hypothesis any better than the actual substance hypothesis?

Or, why should God be a more reasonable explanation than math? Surely noumena must have mathematical attributes.

Nick

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

Nothing at all. That's informational idealism.

Okay, you might think this is splitting hairs but I am absolutely not an idealist. I am a phenomenologist (radical empiricist, amaterialist and noteticist).

Idealism is much too focussed on the consciousness of the observer (us). Philosophically I am a realist and pragmatist believing fully in a world that exists independently of us.

The bottom line is I'm a theist.

The Universe is material. After all, I can take a chunk of it and hit you over the head.

No. The Universe is phenomenal/noumenal. And I can just as easily hit you over the head with a chunk of it.

The word material comes from latin (L. materia) and means "substance from which something is made".

There is no substance. It's all ultimately just laws that we perecieve as information and objective phenomena due to their interactions.

The very idea of "matter" (and even "physical"), as the terms are used by atheists, is to denote something, self-sustaining, self-perpetuating; i.e. uncreated. And it does lead people into thinking about some fundamental "stuff" or other.

I object to materialism just as you would object to someone matter of factly discussing "God's laws" - as if it was known to be true.

Whether there is any deeper reality underlying what we observe is the question.

No. Whether the underlying reality is a substance or mind is the question. That it definitely isn't any substance of some kind doesn't prove "God did it", of course. But it is the most parsimonious answer.

The 'kicker' I'm refering to is the question mark over why there is something rather than nothingness?

Grilled cheese sandwiches.

If nothing else, at least this means you have a sense of humour.

But why believe in a material essence in the first place

Because it is parsimonious.

No. Materialists have to fantasize that some type of prima materia substance actually exists before imagining it as being self-sustaining, self-perpetuating, etc.,. Materialists need to believe in an unknown to theorise the final unknown

To be truly parsimonious a theory should only involve theorising the final unknown without bringing in other unknowns.

Theists already know that consciousness exists and can hold information (as thoughts). They're only saying that the final piece of the puzzle is another bigger consciousness.

Nothing is conclusive - and God is far from proven. It's just the simplest explanation (most parsimonious). That's all.

Reality is indisputably material. To assume that it is essentially material as well is the most parsimonious option.

Spoken like a true believer. What do you say to the fact that you have no evidence for any substance of any kind and that science keeps reducing everything to pure information?

Why hold onto this theory (sic fantasy)?

Because it works.

Ahh.... now we see. It's a comforting belief then?

Again, what do you say to the fact that physics keeps reducing everything to nothing but information?

Is this then just an inconvenience that you choose to ignore?

Objects are real. Reality is real.

I didn't say they weren't real. An amaterilists universe is objectively no different from a materialists just because the amaterialist is absent the belief in any type of substance whatsoever underlying the objective phenomena they encounter in their day to day life.

Your conscious awareness of reality is just a physical process.

So you keep insisting. But why would anyone believe that pure information can cause consciousness?

Materialism vs. informational idealism makes no difference to science in any way.

Except that "matter" is a fantasy and not real. (Some of us consider that important.)

QLM? Never mind, not important.

That's a typo - it should have been QLG for quantum loop gravity (also known as loop quantum gravity or LQG).

It's just one of the many theories out there that attempts to explain reality at the deepest levels. You can read a fascinating article on it, titled "You are made of spacetime" here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125645.800-you-are-made-of-spacetime.html

What is important is that F=MA. The law does not change. Physics does not change. Nothing changes.

Why would it change?

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.[/quote]


There's no being determined to be confused (utterly or otherwise) about it. The very idea of matter was created to provide philosophers with a way to counter the rampant superstition in the ancient world in regards to the question of why there are things. (Yes, even they noticed that things kept existing when they weren't looking.)

Materialism was an alternative to things like animism and vitalism. It inherently means substance.

You seem to be saying that we should just hold onto the idea because of some fondness for the word; harking back to the good old days when atheist materialists could breath easily placing their faith in an orderly mechanical universe of indivisible little particles and the atoms and molecules that are composed from them.

Let's face facts here. Matter, as a theory, is in direct opposition to the God theory. If it exists and is self-perpetuating and self-generating (i.e. uncreated) then God truly is a redundant idea. Do you honestly expect theists and amaterialists to just role over and accept that it's okay for atheists to spread this faith-based belief in schools and society without providing any direct evidence at all for any type of substance, based only on the most wooly of philosophical excuses?

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.

No. The scientific method only gethers information and data about objective, phenomenal, reality. Believing there is a substance is an added, superflous belief.

Materialism is a reasonable assumption (but only an assumption) for the underlying nature of reality given this evidence.

No. Physics has reduced particles and energy to the level of pure information. There is nothing reasonable about holding on to materialistic assumptions.

Informational idealism is likewise reasonable.

God is not.

Wrong. Idealism - without God - relies on an unkown and unconscious part of consciousness keeping the Universe and objective phenomena going when we're not thinking about them or aware of them. It is not as parsimonious as God.

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.

Why do you keep thinking that amaterialism makes things less real in some way?

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.

Why would substance lead to consciousness?

Why do you think that programmers and engineers have succeeded in this to the point they now do so "on a daily basis"?

Do you believe Daniel Dennett is correct that thermostats believe in "too hot", "too cold" and "just right"?

Informational idealism is simply materialism with the idea of "substance" removed.

Parsimony.

It changes nothing in the observed nature of reality (nor should it, for then it would be false).

Yet several points you have made seem to read that you think differently. Nevermind.

So that's how information gives rise to consciousness.

So, information interacting with information gives rise to consciousness because you say so?

Why do you think consiousness is a process?

Because it is?

Seriously, what do you think it is if not a process?

I have no intention of proving a negative. That consciousness is a process is your claim for which you have provided no causal mechanism or explanation.

We know the material Universe exists. Materialsm simply does not assume that there is something else that exists.

Wrong. We know the phenomenal Universe exists. We no nothing of any substance underlying it and, indeed, physics is heading away from that notion very rapidly.

We observe that consicousness is a material process, and we have gone a long way to explaining the details of that process.

How have you done this with no evidence of material to begin with?

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?

God is the uncreated creator. The first cause or prime mover. The laws of the Universe are God's laws. So it would be more accurate to say that "reality" is part of him.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[nescafe]

Ego loss is not the same as ego transcendence. The ego exists as an organisational nexus within a certain level of the development of individualised mind. It is there to bring experience together in order to allow for intelligent analysis, reflection, planning, creativity and the like.

More like the illusion that there is that organizational nexus, but we wander a bit afield here.

Mental asylums are full of people who have, for one reason or another, suffered ego loss. They no longer have the ability to intelligently organise, analyse, reflect, or plan upon their variegated experiences. In short, they have somewhat regressed to an animal experience of the world.

Yes, loss of ego can be tramautic of you are not prepared for it or already had a predisposition to mental illness -- but what you are describing sounds like mental impairment rather than ego loss. Where is your evidence that people who have suffered ego loss are the primary occupants of our mental asylums, though?

In contrast ego transcendence allows for the ´individual´ to merge into Universal Consciousness, yet when they ´return´ their prior ego is still intact in an operational sense. So for example they will still retain their previous tastes in food, music, their same habits of gesture, language, temperament etc. If you read the teachings of someone like Ramana Maharshi it´s clear that his ´centre´ remains in The Self (the Divine), while his ego/body centre goes on operating, as it were, automatically.

An when you strip the gibberish about "universal consciousness" and "transcendence", that also sounds like ego loss, except in someone who is able to integrate the experience due to proper priming and having a healthy brain.

With your second sentence you are, perhaps unwittingly, rendering the question unanswerable. It´s like asking an ant to explain how a mainframe computer works, while keeping your explanation consistent with what we already know about the reality we inhabit, please.
You are also making the mechanistic assumption that everything in existence has to bow to the rationale of ¨well, how does it work?¨. This makes the assumption that there have to be interrelated parts, cogs, wheels etc..

No, it is more like asking that your explanation of how a computer works not violate any laws of physics or contain any internal inconsistencies.

If Universal Consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, questions as to how it works would not be valid.

Well, what is the point of even positing it, then? You posit a thing called Universal Consciousness, call it the fundamental nature of reality, but then assert that questions about how it works are meaningless? Sounds like a useless concept to me.

Just as if ´matter´was the fundamental nature of reality it would be pointless to ask how matter worked. Matter would just BE.

No, how it works is the most important thing to know. Our understanding of how that which we call "matter" (which includes energy) works is pretty good these days and getting better all the time. If our current understanding turns out to just be a special case explainable in terms of some more general understanding, that is fine, so long as that understanding is not tautological.

You are making another assumption, which is that tripping on drugs, or the like, is the same thing as true ego transcendence.

Indeed, I am. The accounts I have read of both from people who are not mentally ill is close enough that I assume they are the same phenomenon.

That is not the case, and is illustrated by the fact that so many trippers have ended up in asylums, regressed somewhat to animalistic consciousness.

Cite some evidence, please.

You were lucky enough that up till now your ego came back. So it always came back for you, so far. That´s all you can say.

Yep. I have no reason to believe otherwise, and it seems that our brains are wired to create a narrative center of gravity unless something has gone wrong, either developmentally or through trauma.

And do you have recollection of dying before in order to substantiate your last claim?

Not being dead, I have not had the experience of dying. After dying, I rather doubt that I will be able to experience anything.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

Information processing.

What a strange idea. I have a home brew kit here. Ultimately the fermentation is just information processing. Is it conscious?

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 an even stranger idea.

Does this require electricity or would a purely mechanical information processor have subjective experiences.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No. Materialists have to fantasize that some type of prima materia substance actually exists before imagining it as being self-sustaining, self-perpetuating, etc.,. Materialists need to believe in an unknown to theorise the final unknown

To be truly parsimonious a theory should only involve theorising the final unknown without bringing in other unknowns.

Theists already know that consciousness exists and can hold information (as thoughts). They're only saying that the final piece of the puzzle is another bigger consciousness.

Apparently it's materialists vs. theists. That's a new one.

Theists know nothing of the kind. They know there is some sort of inner awareness that can sustain temporary thoughts. This is not sufficient for maintaining the external world, as god is required to do. There is a leap of faith from the temporary to the permanent in both metaphysics.

Let's face facts here. Matter, as a theory, is in direct opposition to the God theory. If it exists and is self-perpetuating and self-generating (i.e. uncreated) then God truly is a redundant idea. Do you honestly expect theists and amaterialists to just role over and accept that it's okay for atheists to spread this faith-based belief in schools and society without providing any direct evidence at all for any type of substance, based only on the most wooly of philosophical excuses?

Wow.

Wrong. Idealism - without God - relies on an unkown and unconscious part of consciousness keeping the Universe and objective phenomena going when we're not thinking about them or aware of them. It is not as parsimonious as God.

You introduce what is literally a god of the gaps argument to explain the external world and then claim it is simpler than some other unknown and unconscious explanation? I don't know god and I am not conscious of him.

How have you done this with no evidence of material to begin with?

God is the uncreated creator. The first cause or prime mover. The laws of the Universe are God's laws.

Bolding mine.

~~ Paul