Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[tsig]

Yep.

This is what turned our understanding that mind is brain function from overwhelming correlative evidence to overwhelming causative evidence: Not what the mind does when the brain is working, but what the mind does when the brain is broken.

From ten thousand years of substance abuse, to Phineas Gage, to the blind gentleman navigating the obstacle course unaided, we have been able to map out, piece by piece, what parts of the brain are responsible for what.

Until there is nothing left.

HypnoPsi, Plumjam, Malerin: You do not grasp how much is known today about how the brain generates the mind. There is simply no room left for any rational question here.

Listen to the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series. Listen to all of it. Stop making things up about shared mystical experiences and learn what really goes on in the brain - it is far more exciting and infinitely more important.

If they learned anything it would defile their pristine minds and then they would no longer be able to hear the Music of the Spheres.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nobody has ever observed matter - ever.

Nobody has ever observed anything but matter. The act of observation is itself a material process.

Listen to the lectures, HypnoPsi. They are presented by Prof. Jeremy Wolfe, whose field of research is visual perception, so considerable attention is given to that area. He explains how every part of the visual processing system works, from photons striking the retina to you recognising your mother - possibly incorrectly, and he explains that too.

You can't avoid this; it's as absurd as claiming that aeroplanes can't fly - when you're 30,000 feet over the Pacific.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I don't care what you call it, but there is a substantive external reality.

There is a real objective phenomenal external reality that we can observe, weigh, measure and interact with. Believing that its essense is some fundamental material substance or other is pure faith born of nothing but speculation.

Why is the god hypothesis any better than the actual substance hypothesis?

Because, for the nth time, it is so clearly more parsimonious. This point has been shown very clearly many times in this thread.

Theism only requries one to theorise another consciousness existing. Since we know that consciousness exists, the God theory is predicated from a good starting position.

"Matter" as the essence of things isn't predicated on anything at all.

Materialism is there therefore not as parsimonious as theism.

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

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

You're confusing levels. Computers are phenomenal objects. We're asking about the essense of those phenomenal objects.

Of course, if someone really wants to believe that reality is some type of matrix-esq construct, I suppose that's up to them.

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?

Nope. Why don't you have any memory?

You're basing this entire model on one thing: personal phenomenological consciousness.

Yes, my theism is predicated on something that exists - my consciousness. "Materialism" is not predicated on anything that exists at all.

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.

What is it with you and memory?

I'm perfectly happy to say that's mainly stored in the (phenomenal) human brain.

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.

Look Paul, there is no absolutely theory or reason why little bits of matter (for which there is absolutely no evidence at all) interacting and bouncing off one and other would cause consciousness to exist.

You don't have any evidence at all that consciousness is derived from brain function and beliving it doesn't make it so. At best you've got mental events and nothing more.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

No.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I know some of the folks here have actual training in philosophy, so please critique away at this:

Under discussion now, at heart, is the implications of the cogito. Since most people have already realized that the cogito does not prove that "I" exist, but that thought exists we needn't cover the "I" side of the issue.

But, and I'm sure this has been covered in the history of philosophy before, the cogito seems to work because it contains hidden assumptions of its own.

Mathematical proofs work because they simply play out underlying assumptions (axioms), and philosophical proofs seem to do the same.

Knowledge implies thought; it is not possible without it. So, knowledge already assumes the "existence" of thought. The cogito, therefore, simply plays out the trivial issue that knowledge includes thought, or that thought is more fundamental than knowledge.

So, that we know thought exists does not imply that thought is a primary constituent of the universe, it implies that knowledge is not possible without thought.

If we want to postulate that thought is the primary constituent of the universe, that's fine; but it is just as much as assumption as to postulate that the apeiron is the fundamental constituent of the universe.

 

[articulett]

The crucial points that materialists like to ignore about mystical experiences is that they are confirmed and apperceived (not filtered through the senses).

The are not the same as the ravings of some poor soul who believes they can see spiders everywhere or whatever while nobody else can.

Mystics across continents and generations have described the same things without ever encountering each other.

The fact that they are apperceived is where things get really interesting though. How can we ever be justified in thinking that information that is filtered through the senses before reaching our awareness is somehow more real than what is intuitively known in Enlightenment?

~
HypnoPsi

I think mystics use such garbled language that they can imagine they are describing the same things. Tom Cruise and forum member, Fred car perceive thetans and engrams and and Xenu... Rain dancers perceive rain gods... those who sacrificed virgins to volcanoes believed that this pleased gods... astrologists perceive planetary influences... palm readers perceive lines in the palm as "signs"--

I think we have tons of evidence that people are very good at twisting facts to support what they've come to believe in... I don't think there's any evidence that these people are describing or perceiving the same things. Their descriptions are indistinguishable from people describing drug trips, parietal lobe seizures, and schizophrenic delusions. There is no means of separating one woo claim from another as far as veracity goes. To you it might all sound like they are describing the same things just as all believers in god imagine that people all believe in the exact same immeasurable invisible entity-- but they sure don't sound the same to me.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Not really, the simple models is as follows

Chance of firing = base rate + (potentiation matrix) - (attenuation matrix)

base rate will be effected by various other factors such as how often it has fired and availability of metabolites, presence of chemicals and lack of chemicals. Sodium, potasium and calcium are required for the cell to fire.

Cell C 'remembers' or associates with the cells around it, if cell P fires and then cell C fires then cell C is more likely to fire again in the presence of cell P firing (potentiation). If cell C doesn't fire and cell A does fire then cell C is less likely to fire when cell A fires (attenuation).

So you then have a matrix of association. The value for each input cell is plastic and variable, depending on contingent history it will be part of the potentiation matrix or the attenuation matrix.

This is the base unit of association.

Please note that when I say fire i mean that a phase shift occurs in the cell membrane and that channels open to allow ions to cross the membrane, this is the basis of 'transmission' along the cell IE firing. There is not really an electrical signal, it is biochemical.

The way that cells talk to each other is by releasing neurotransmitter into the post synaptic cleft.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was taught that the action potential propagating along the membrane of neurons is electrochemical in nature and its at the juncture of the synapses that these are converted into the purely chemical signals via neurotransmitters.

I don't remember exactly where, but I also recall reading about studies concerned with modeling the computational functions of single neurons. I'll definitely have to check it out a bit more and will provide a link if I can actually find the source again

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Paul,

You have absolutely lost me with all this stuff about memory.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Articulett - absolutely. When HypnoPsi says

Mystics across continents and generations have described the same things without ever encountering each other.

That just plain isn't true. Not unless you twist all their descriptions until none of them any longer resemble the original.

But from someone who accepts the Ganzfeld experiments as gospel while ignoring all of modern neuroscience, that's hardly a great leap.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Paul,

You have absolutely lost me with all this stuff about memory.

~
HypnoPsi

I think what hes saying is that w/o memory there can be no perceivable stream of consciousness.

 

[HypnoPsi]

There is no evidence for god, either.

I have always made it clear that God being the most parsimonious theory is not evidence for God.

My only point is that theism is more parsimonious than materialism for several very clear and fully explained reasons.

Sure, there are lots of unanswered questions left. I never said there wouldn't be.

All I am saying is that it very obviously requires more faith to be a materialist since materialism is not predicated on any known thing unlike the God theory.

That "not being predicated on any known thing" is the crux of the issue as to why materialism has to multiply unknowns and therefore so obviously not as parsimonious a theory as the God theory.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't remember exactly where, but I also recall reading about studies concerned with modeling the computational functions of single neurons. I'll definitely have to check it out a bit more and will provide a link if I can actually find the source again

That would be interesting. Certainly a neuron is considerably more sophisticated than a single logic gate; but then, a logic gate can run a million or so times faster.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have always made it clear that God being the most parsimonious theory is not evidence for God.

My only point is that theism is more parsimonious than materialism for several very clear and fully explained reasons.

All of which are wrong.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope. Why don't you have any memory?

The only thing I know I have is phenomenological consciousness. That doesn't include my memory. My memory is a second-order thing.

Yes, my theism is predicated on something that exists - my consciousness. "Materialism" is not predicated on anything that exists at all.

Your consciousness doesn't include your memory. The concept of god is derived from your personal consciousness. Therefore god does not have memory without some additional mechanism to provide it.

What is it with you and memory?

I'm perfectly happy to say that's mainly stored in the (phenomenal) human brain.

Then you cannot attribute memory directly to the god that you have derived from personal human consciousness. He needs his own meta-phenomenal god brain to house his memories, which are maintained by a meta-god. It's turtles, baby.

You are doing something similar to the intelligent design folks. They derive the concept of god as an intelligent designer by analogy to human design. Unfortunately, human designers can only use existing materials to build things; they have no way of creating stuff from nothing. Therefore, by analogy, the god of intelligent design is not the creator of the universe, he is merely an engineer.

You have derived your god by analogy to personal human consciousness. You cannot give the god any additional capabilities without exceeding the analogy and therefore having no foundation for the additional capabilities. In particular, your god has no memory, since memory is not part of personal human consciousness.

All I am trying to point out is that your complete model of reality includes a core derived from the one thing you're sure of (phenomenal consciousness) and a whole lot of additional features that you cannot be sure of because they are not attributes of consciousness. You have some splainin' to do. You need a science of the Overmind.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You have absolutely lost me with all this stuff about memory.

See above.

~~ Paul

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

The point is what theory is the stronger regarding the essence of phenomenal objects. Why are they there when, as modern physics has confirmed, they are nothing but information. What sustains them?

I really do think that at the end of the day, if someone genuinely doesn't have any belief in the God theory, then ultimately they really must think that somehow all the phenomena in the universe (gravity, planets, Koala bears, etc.,) are something more than just pure information due to the fact that things do indeed have an existence when we're not conscious of them.

It's that "what sustains things/is the essence of things" when we're not looking that's at the root of the issue.

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.

And I note the way you all use it! I honestly don't see how you can deny that the way atheists explain things really does lead people to believe that phenomenal objects and phenomenal reality are something other than information.

I see it as all being materialism by the back door.

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.

Again, God (theism) is predicated on something known - consciousness. I accept it's only a theory. But it's definitely a much better theory (as in, more parsimonious) due to it being predicated on something "real" and "known". Materialism, in the traditional sense, isn't predicated on anything. It's speculation based upon speculation.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Frozenwolf150]

There is a real objective phenomenal external reality that we can observe, weigh, measure and interact with. Believing that its essense is some fundamental material substance or other is pure faith born of nothing but speculation.

Treating it as such however is not a matter of faith or speculation, the way tearing open a gap in which to insert God is. Creationists do this all the time, assuming that the world had to "come from" somewhere in order to designate a role for the God they already believe to be the creator. Regardless of what this stuff we call "matter" turns out to be made of in the end, there's still no reason or requirement for God. A God would require standalone evidence, i.e. claiming that the evidence equally fits all these ass-pulled models of reality does not count as standalone evidence.

Theism only requries one to theorise another consciousness existing. Since we know that consciousness exists, the God theory is predicated from a good starting position.

This is the same error creationists commit. Just as there is a huge leap from human designers to a godly designer, there is a huge leap from a human consciousness to a godly consciousness. The analogy doesn't quite fit, in fact, it isn't consistent at all.

I've repeatedly asked for a demonstration of thoughts that are directly able to alter reality without any intermediaries. Got one?

Look Paul, there is no absolutely theory or reason why little bits of matter (for which there is absolutely no evidence at all) interacting and bouncing off one and other would cause consciousness to exist.

You don't have any evidence at all that consciousness is derived from brain function and beliving it doesn't make it so. At best you've got mental events and nothing more.

Same argument from incredulity. You can slap whatever label you want on it. You can call it objective phenomenal external reality if you don't like calling it "matter." You can call it an illusion, a simulation, congealed thought goop, whatever. Okay fine. It doesn't make one bit of difference. You're still wrong that consciousness cannot be an emergent property of this stuff we call "matter" (again, regardless of what it's made of) when it's arranged into living cells we call "neurons" in clusters we call "brains."

Even if we assume that there's a prime consciousness behind the scenes, it doesn't make any difference. Why is it so necessary to conflate human consciousness with something supreme in nature? Maybe humans aren't all that special, God or no God. If God existed, our individual consciousness would be in no way comparable or analogous to its consciousness, just little farts in the wind.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was taught that the action potential propagating along the membrane of neurons is electrochemical in nature and its at the juncture of the synapses that these are converted into the purely chemical signals via neurotransmitters.

I don't remember exactly where, but I also recall reading about studies concerned with modeling the computational functions of single neurons. I'll definitely have to check it out a bit more and will provide a link if I can actually find the source again

That's what DD just said, but he provided a few more details. Biochemical, electrochemical, same.

For the action potential, the primary ionic species involved is sodium entering the cell to depolarize the membrane and potassium extruded to reset the resting membrane potential. The gating mechanisms for the action potential are much more complicated and the selection mechanism for sodium over potassium is elegant and fairly interesting, but that's beside the point.

You've got the basics down quite well.

Kandel did lots of work on the computational properties of networks in Aplysia. There is plenty out there on computational issues having to do with altering of firing rates and dealing with the thousands of inputs for every CNS neuron.

 

[articulett]

I just want to pop in and declare that I'm a fan of Kandel. I've heard several excellent interviews with him on the Brain Science Podcast and BBC's All in the Mind, I think.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You're still wrong that consciousness cannot be an emergent property of this stuff we call "matter" (again, regardless of what it's made of) when it's arranged into living cells we call "neurons" in clusters we call "brains."

And if it's not, then what in the name of all that is Overholy is the point of its existence?

Overmind: Okay fellas, what's on the agenda today?

Undermind1: Our plan is to start designing the brain.

Overmind: What's that?

Undermind2: It's the organ that's going to sit in the skull and pretend to be the source of personal human consciousness.

Overmind: Remind me again why we're bothering with bodies at all?

Undermind1: Remember that we decided that a bunch of individuated consciousnesses running around stark naked was going to be a problem?

Overmind: Why?

Undermind1: Because there wouldn't be anything to stop them from merging and re-emerging and conjoining and dissipating and stuff. The body fools them into thinking they are separate, permanent entities.

Overmind: Right, I remember. Why can't we just set things up so those problems don't happen?

Undermind3: That's what we're doing by introducing bodies.

Overmind. Ah, okay. It's a bit of a hack, but anyway. So the brain is going to act like it's producing consciousness in every detail?

Undermind2: Ha! Yes, that's our plan. We'll fool the silly buggers into thinking that consciousness is brain function.

Undermind1: You realize that some people won't be fooled, right?

Undermind3: Sure, but who cares? The rest of the people will beat them into submission with "materialism."

Overmind: What?! Who in hell thought up that word?

Undermind1: We used it last time and it worked pretty well.

Overmind: That last Overmind was an idiot, but if it worked, fine. No reason to reinvent the wheel.