Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[HypnoPsi]

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.

For the record, I don't see any reason to think of mind as a substance.

I don't even think it's a good placeholder term for "phenomenon" or "entity".

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

No leap of faith.

This, in a nutshell, is your problem, Pixy.

You believe so much in computer consciousness that you just can't see how it is so clearly nothing but blind faith.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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?

Do you think that only atheists believe there is an external world independent of conscious beings?

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

I suspect that's more an opinion of yours, Hypnopsi, that you've developed to confirm your belief biases.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Hi Malerin,

That's the point of working parsimoniously. You only do so when you're constructing a theory to explain the facts.

God being the most parsinonious solution to the problem at hand (the existence of a phenomenal Universe with us in it) does not in any way establish God as a fact, and I certainly wouldn't argue such.

On a fundamental level, though, I agree the materialist is in a worse position.

Yes, definitely.

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.

Again, yes, this is absolutely correct.

Overall, one of my main points in this thread has been that the reason philosophers have only ever came up with "mind" and "matter" as the only two possible holders/containers of information is because they, quite possibly, really are the only two options (and not simply just they are the only two things two human beings can think up).

Given that there is no evidence of any fundamental prima materia substance, God (Overmind or whatever) is the only option left really.

In otherwords, the God theory remains unfalsified by the matter therory while the matter theory was falsified by physicists of all people.

All the best,
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

HypnoPsi,

The crux and strength of your argument is based on selecting as the fundamental existent that one thing you know to exist: your phenomenological awareness. It is from this one surety that you construct your entire model. Unfortunately, your awareness does not include your memory. Your memory is just another one of those external things played upon your senses by god. It is just a brain function. You don't get to use memory as a basic building block of your model. You must derive it from personal consciousness. You must derive both god and his memory of the world. You must derive the means by which the overmind is split into individual minds. You must specify the reason we all don't have god consciousness all the time. You must carefully delineate what is fundamental consciousness and what is god's illusion. You must explain why god has a special position and how he plays the external world on my senses.

"It's all vaguely mind-like" is not an explanation.

~~ Paul

 

[plumjam]

I realise from experience it´s hardly worth replying, but here goes..

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

In other words you´d rather not fully adress the point. Probably because it´s the first time it has been presented to you and you have no pat preprepared good materialist response that someone else would have written.

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?

The customary lazy appeal for evidence when you don´t have any strong or at least interesting counter arguments to make. Also your misrepresentation of me saying that those with ego loss would be the primary occupants of mental asylums. I never said such.

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.

In your last post you used the term ´bull´ now you use the term ´gibberish´ . This use of pejorative language indicates you have some emotional investment in your in principle non evidenceable belief in materialism. You may well do better to apply what you learned in school regarding balance, non bias and the like. It´s high school level, I think.

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.

To an ant? Clearly you avoid my point. As elsewhere.

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.

In what sense would the ultimate nature of reality need to be useful? See, you are already assuming a more or less materialistic (utilitarian) view of HOW THINGS SHOULD BE. You may well be wrong in that. The fact that you keep repeating these prejudices indicates they go pretty deep in you. Most likely on little evidence except what you´ve been raised to believe.

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.

´How it works´ is not synonymous with understanding. Any understanding you came to of how particular things work would not include how those particular things managed to come into existence and maintain their existence. Thus your approach is flawed.
Ít´s entirely useless to explain the interrealtionship of things if you cannot explain the genesis of the things themselves. So your effort in this regard would always be futile.

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.

Superficial investigation then.

Cite some evidence, please.

Try my reply to Paul. Not that you will, or treat it evenly.

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

Then why invoke the experience of dying in your reply as some kind of support?[/QUOTE]

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Given that there is no evidence of any fundamental prima materia substance, God (Overmind or whatever) is the only option left really.

There is no evidence for god, either. You have postulated it based on a vague relationship to personal consciousness that appears to please you.

What there is evidence for is the existence of a substantial external world. Perhaps it exists independently. Perhaps god plays it on our senses. Perhaps we are in a computer simulation. Perhaps there is no way to know. But until there are at least two models that describe more or less everything we see in the world, invoking Occam is premature.

~~ Paul

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Here you go again.

Why exactly do you believe that objective phenomena are somehow less real from an amaterialist viewpoint?

The assumption of materialism (the sole assumption) is that matter is what exists.

Don't you see the problem right there? Why assume in the first place that "what exists" (objective phenomena) is "matter" or "material"?

We observe that matter exists; materialism states that everything is matter or comes from matter.

But, by your own admission you have to believe in it first!

consciousness arises from physical matter and interacts with it

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

But you just admitted that you had to assume that "what exists" is matter. How do you now get from that position to knowing it's "true" that objective phenomena is composed of "matter" or "material"?

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

What evidence is there for these things you believe in like computer consciousness and cells generating consciousness?

Nobody has ever found a way to observe conscoiusness, so how exactly do you know you're not just imagining that cells and computers do these things?

We know that consciousness is a material process

Again, how can you know that consciousness is a material process when, by your own admission, you have to assume that objective phenomena - or "what is" - is made of material?

This physical matter is what exists.

How did you get from no longer just assuming this to knowing this so quickly?

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.

Only if you believe in material first.

And you Pixy really are very much a true believer.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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".

The thing that fascinates me is how he begins his post by admitting materialism is an assumption about "what is" and then goes on to assert he knows it's true.

I thought we'd established and we can't know the ultimate nature of objective phenomena, we can only speculate?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The thing that fascinates me is how he begins his post by admitting materialism is an assumption about "what is" and then goes on to assert he knows it's true.

I thought we'd established and we can't know the ultimate nature of objective phenomena, we can only speculate?

Your confusion may be due to the fact that when you read "material" or "substance," you insist on thinking of it as some ontological existent akin to a rock or something. I can't speak for Pixy, but when I say "substance" I'm just referring to the stuff of the external world that is independent of my awareness. That's why I use the term physicalism instead of materialism, since it was invented to soften up the idea that everything is just solid physical material.

It's just a question of explaining the external world. You seem to think that god is a parsimonious explanation. I think it's just a baroque fabrication with a tenuous connection to the observation that phenomenological awareness is all we really have.

~~ Paul

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Utterly and completely wrong. Why exactly would the Universe and phenomenal reality work differently or be less real if someone is an amaterialist (or idealist if you prefer)?

Phenomenal reality doesn't change for an amaterilist. It is solely an absence of belief in any type of prima materia substance underlying reality.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

I do not claim to know that materialism is true.

You're kidding, right? What about your earlier post where you were spouting off about how you just simply knew it was all true (after first stating it was all just an assumption)?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[articulett]

HypnoPsi,

The crux and strength of your argument is based on selecting as the fundamental existent that one thing you know to exist: your phenomenological awareness. It is from this one surety that you construct your entire model. Unfortunately, your awareness does not include your memory. Your memory is just another one of those external things played upon your senses by god. It is just a brain function. You don't get to use memory as a basic building block of your model. You must derive it from personal consciousness. You must derive both god and his memory of the world. You must derive the means by which the overmind is split into individual minds. You must specify the reason we all don't have god consciousness all the time. You must carefully delineate what is fundamental consciousness and what is god's illusion. You must explain why god has a special position and how he plays the external world on my senses.

"It's all vaguely mind-like" is not an explanation.

~~ Paul

Indeed. If an organ in the brain called a hippocampus is destroyed, that person cannot form new memories. You can Google "Clive Wearing" on youtube to see the horrific result this has. If a person cannot form a memory without a hippocampus-- then what kind of consciousness would there be without a brain? If consciousness is so severely disabled without a hippocampus, what would it be with no brain at all? Non existent--obviously. The convoluted reasoning to deny this boggles my mind-- but not as much as not having a hippocampus would.

 

[plumjam]

You're kidding, right? What about your earlier post where you were spouting off about how you just simply knew it was all true (after first stating it was all just an assumption)?

~
HypnoPsi

Hypno,
Pixy is your classic faithful materialist fool. I do not bother to answer him, partly because he cannot see past his own dogma, and partly because if I write a paragraph he will write a reply to each sentence, or part of a sentence, with just a sentence of his own... thus ensuring firstly that anyone willing to reply has to put in about 3 times the effort that he did, and secondly that he never has to break into a paragraph and actually present a coherent or at least interesting argument of his own.
I´ve noticed that others who are not newcomers don´t bother to answer him either.
Hey, Pixy, write a paragraph and maybe someone will make an effort for you sometime.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

Make up your mind, Pixy. You can't have it both ways.;

You wrote:

I do not claim to know that materialism is true.

And in an earlier post admitted materialism is an assumption about "what is".

And now you answer Plumjam's very reasonable question by saying you "know" materialism is true.

How exactly do you know this?

Have we not established that the workings and observation of phenomenal reality ("what is") would not change in anyway just because one guy is an idealist/amaterialist and another is a materialist?

How do you know matter exists? How can you tell?

I'm just absent the belief in it. Why aren't you?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[plumjam]

Indeed. If an organ in the brain called a hippocampus is destroyed, that person cannot form new memories. You can Google "Clive Wearing" on youtube to see the horrific result this has. If a person cannot form a memory without a hippocampus-- then what kind of consciousness would there be without a brain? If consciousness is so severely disabled without a hippocampus, what would it be with no brain at all? Non existent--obviously. The convoluted reasoning to deny this boggles my mind-- but not as much as not having a hippocampus would.

Arti, you could always try to make the Eureka leap of realising that memory is not the same thing as consciousness. Memory is a content of consciousness.
A stone, itself, may have no memory, yet still be part of Universal Consciousness.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You were doing fine until you said this:

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?

Come on, the argument from persecution and an appeal to conspiracy theories? The strawman that atheism relies on faith? The demand for an equal share in academia without the slighest shred of evidence?

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.

Heads up, couch jumping at 12 o'clock.

Where's my facepalm mosaic?

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Huge step or not - the point is that theism involves much less of a step than materialism. (And, by the way, I agree completely with your critique of traditional idealism.)

Look Paul, the most scientific thing to do when constructiong a theory is to base it upon as many "knowns" as possible with as few (preferably zero) "unknowns" as possible.

Yes, the final theory will itself still be an "unknown" but if you use any other "unknowns" to reach the final theory then they act like wildcards making your final theory ultimately useless as it's really two theories and, thus, worse than the original situation.

I as a theist am only theorising the existence of another consciousness that is big enough to "think" the entire universe. I don't know it exists but it's a sound theory because, first, I already know that consciousness exists and, second, in principle, it can be tested should someone come along and prove that matter exists and is self-perpetuation and self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

But those are very big "ifs", Paul. You as a materialist have a very long way to go with your theory. Which is why it requires a heck of a lot more faith than theism. You've still got to find your substance and even then you have no way of knowing it's genuinely uncreated.

And then there's consciousness. There is absolutely no reason to believe that complex machines generate consciousness any more than simple machines (e.g. Dennett's thermostat).

Why would little bits of matter hitting off each other cause consciousness? You and Pixy and all other materialists are kidding yourselves if you think you have anything even approaching a materalist theory of consciousness.

From what I can see, all of the solutions offered seem to involve just ignoring the problem in some way or other and/or simply assuming that material interactions cause consciousness - and nothing more.

It all requires a heck of a lot more faith than theism regarless of how much you don't want to admit it.

Cheers,
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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?

You'll notice they don't do this with their own subjective belief in "matter" though...

~
HypnoPsi