Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[interwaff]

1. Having to do with the MEST universe as described by L. Ron Hubbard.

2. A state of romance in which touching occurs, including person-to-person contact as well as object-to-person interactions.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I wonder how many lives have been destroyed by someone's "inner knowingness" about "divine truths"?

Add absolute certainty to that equation and you've got a formula for disaster. If extrapolating a philosophical stance down its slippery slope were a valid assumption for the sake of argument, then one might argue that immaterialism in the form of solipsism is responsible for the worst crimes and atrocities in history. After all, the perpetrators of these acts must have believed that they weren't harming anyone real, because all the external perceived phenomena called people were just figments of their imagination.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I wonder how many lives have been destroyed by someone's "inner knowingness" about "divine truths"?

I suppose we should count you as a casualty then. Apparently, your early brush with Roman Catholicism has deeply affected you.

 

[rocketdodger]

Godel was omniscient? Well, just two letters out. Godel was talking about all finite systems having to rely upon assumptions external to the system itself. That would not apply to omniscience.

Joking about it doesn't change the fact that your understanding of this issue is somewhat lacking.

In particular, that is not what "Godel was talking about." What you stated above is not incompleteness.

Godel "was talking about" the fact (which he proved formally) that for every sufficiently powerful system there are truths that cannot be obtained from the axioms of the system.

Even if what you wrote made any sense mathematically, it would be wrong. And it doesn't make sense because

1) A "finite system" is not a mathematical notion, it is an engineering notion. Most 'formal systems' I.E. those of mathematics can generate infinite theorems (statements) given a finite set of axioms, so it doesn't make sense to label them "finite" or "infinite."

2) Incompleteness applies to systems with an infinite number of axioms anyway -- the number of axioms is irrelevant.

3) Systems do not rely upon external assumptions -- they would not be systems if they did.

4) The "assumption external to the system itself" you mention is not an assumption. It is a true statement of arithmetic. It would be much less troubling to our sense of place in the universe if it was merely an assumption.

 

[HypnoPsi]

The point of describing a thing through behavior is that it avoids all the useless stupidity associated with arguments over substance.

No, the point of materialists only discussing behaviour and then, post hoc, claiming that's just what consciousness is is that it serves to completely skirt the question of consciousness.

All so called (materialistic) research into consciousness is nothing more than, at the very best, cognitive modelling in terms of problem solving, ect.,.

[If you would just accept that modern materialists think in terms of properties (behaviors) rather than substance you would have nothing to argue about.

So called, "modern materialists" in academia very rarely refer to themselves as "materialists" (modern or otherwise). Instead, they usually refer to themselves as "physicalists".

Look, materialism as a defined term means "something that occupies space and time" - an idea very closely related to atomism (lit.tran. "un-cuttable").

Surely, you should see how the idea itself obviously becomes redundant when one begins to talk about sub-atomic particles themselves as being braids in spacetime (as in loop quantum gravity theory).

For talking sense, as a thought experiment only, if we imagine that LQG theory turns out to be "truth" that still leaves us to ponder: what the heck is spacetime?

I have no idea - and neither do you.

But however you dress it up - as materialism or physicalism (by any definition you've offered so far) - it is still perfectly clear that atheist materilism or physicalism inherently entails the view that whatever "it" ultimately is it is self-perpetuating, self-generating and/or self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

To my mind that is very clearly as much a faith based position as theism.

What exactly does "psi" mean?

Good question. Historically, it has been divided into psi-kappa (extrasensory cognition) and psi-gamma (extrasensory action-at-a-distance).

In modern times it has come to mean more than just extra-sensory to include any conscious activity (input or output) that is not (fully) mediated by anything physical - or known to physics at this time.

If by "psi" you simply mean "unknown" then I agree, those experiments would be evidence of psi. But that would be a pretty weak definition.

The point is do they show or even hint at consciousness being distinct - or even partly distinct - from physiology? Since the positive hit rates were achieved by some seeming extra-sensory method that is the conclusion many draw. Whether or not it's all down to your EM fields or some kind of spirit is another question altogether.

Because as an A.I. programmer, I cannot for the life of me find a qualitative difference between what goes on in my mind and what I can make an A.I. do.

Yet this is precisely where I see you as being confused. You are looking at cognitive activity and computational activity from the outside and after describing them both in the same qualitative terms (as functions and problem solving routines, etc.,.) assuming that means consciousness exists for the A.I., however rudimentary you may suppose A.I. consciousness to be.

For myself, I think that John Searl has come very close to pointing out the faults in this reasoning with his Chinese Room thought experiment.

What is "reasoning" to a computer/machine exactly?

start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

more specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_chaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network

All absolutely fantastic stuff and I applaud the creativity, inspiration, hard work and intelligence behind all of it.

Please, go ahead and develop robot buddys to help grandma around the house and voluptuous robo-bimbos and himbos for the rest of us for our... ahem.. entertainment...

But do not imagine for one minute that you are in anyway proving even slightly that such things actually have any conscious subjective experience no matter how much you co-opt psychological language in your qualitative descriptions of Information Processing, etc.,.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Frozenwolf150]

No, the point of materialists only discussing behaviour and then, post hoc, claiming that's just what consciousness is is that it serves to completely skirt the question of consciousness.

All so called (materialistic) research into consciousness is nothing more than, at the very best, cognitive modelling in terms of problem solving, ect.,. (snip)

Your refusal to look up concepts you don't understand in no way drags them down to the level of your own dismissable question-begging.

In modern times it has come to mean more than just extra-sensory to include any conscious activity (input or output) that is not (fully) mediated by anything physical - or known to physics at this time.

The point is do they show or even hint at consciousness being distinct - or even partly distinct - from physiology? Since the positive hit rates were achieved by some seeming extra-sensory method that is the conclusion many draw. Whether or not it's all down to your EM fields or some kind of spirit is another question altogether.

For proving my point, you owe me a million dollars.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But however you dress it up - as materialism or physicalism (by any definition you've offered so far) - it is still perfectly clear that atheist materilism or physicalism inherently entails the view that whatever "it" ultimately is it is self-perpetuating, self-generating and/or self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

What does theist materialism/physicalism entail?

But do not imagine for one minute that you are in anyway proving even slightly that such things actually have any conscious subjective experience no matter how much you co-opt psychological language in your qualitative descriptions of Information Processing, etc.,.

How would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?

~~ Paul

 

[HypnoPsi]

We are supposed to believe that reality is made up of physical stuff that takes up space and can be observed/weighed/measured/felt, etc.

Actually, one prominent theory these days suggests that what we call particles are just braids in/of spacetime. I find the very idea of it fascinating - though I have absolutely no idea what any of it really means.

Ok, let's assume that's true. How is it then that a bunch of physical matter can be arranged in such a way as to create a completely non-physical phenemenon- consciousness?

Yes, thank you, Malerin. Consciousness and physical matter are phenomenally distinct things at the most basic level.

Why should there be anything like consciousness in a purely physical universe?

This is something that Rupert Sheldrake asks very often. I saw him speak a few months ago and I thought he made a fabulous point about how materialistic models for consciousness drawn from A.I. never actually point out the purpose or requirement of consciousness (in evolutionary terms).

Consciousness, as in subjective experience, is surplus to requirements if you only need a physical device to solve problems as and when it interacts with its environment.

As Rupert pointed out - we are creative beings.

Consciouesness is totally outside the realm of physicality, and when materialists claim that consciousness comes from matter, they are creating a fairy tale much more unparsimonious than anything a theist can come up with.

Yes, definitely. When is "now"?

As soon as you've said/read "now" it isn't "now" anymore.

There is something distinctly timeless about consciousness.

The theist at least knows the mind exists, and so their claim that God (as a sort of super-mind) exists at least rests on a foundation of mind, however shaky it may be.

Again, yes, this is so clearly obvious to me that I am genuinely surprised anyone wastes their efforts on trying to refute it.

The God-Mind is obviously a huge step from our limited awareness. But, then, any theory that attempts to expain why there is a Universe is going to be pretty big by necessity.

The materialist is bereft of even the shakiest foundation. There is no evidence at all that physical matter exists,

I would go much further than this. Whatever the Universe and all the objective phenomena within it are, modern physics has clearly shown them to be without any substance whatsoever in the traditional view of the term.

Atoms and particles are not "uncuttable". And even if their massless state is down to superstrings or loop quantum gravity they're still ultimately just information/laws.

This is very good for theistic theories and very bad for atheistic theories.

We can't even imagine a system in which information can store itself! At least materialism had this going for it until physics outgrew it.

God-Mind is the only real contender left.

It is a completely ad-hoc non-sensical theory that the materialist must believe in order to keep the whole house-of-cards that is materialism from collapsing.

The atheist faith in materialism/physicalism is wholly without logic, reason or rationality. Information needs a mind to exist and be information. Without a mind it wouldn't be information - it would be nothing. And the only way for it not to be nothing would be if it were some kind of permanent (i.e. "uncuttable") self-sustaining and self-perpetuating substance occupying spacetime - and there isn't any!

The house-of-cards that is materialism has never had any foundation to begin with!

Best,
HypnoPsi

 

[rocketdodger]

No, the point of materialists only discussing behaviour and then, post hoc, claiming that's just what consciousness is is that it serves to completely skirt the question of consciousness.

Do you have any evidence of the consciousness of anyone besides yourself that is anything other than behavior?

Are you certain that your evidence of your own consciousness is not behavior as well?

All so called (materialistic) research into consciousness is nothing more than, at the very best, cognitive modelling in terms of problem solving, ect.,.

Even if this were true, so what?

So called, "modern materialists" in academia very rarely refer to themselves as "materialists" (modern or otherwise). Instead, they usually refer to themselves as "physicalists".

Look, materialism as a defined term means "something that occupies space and time" - an idea very closely related to atomism (lit.tran. "un-cuttable").

Surely, you should see how the idea itself obviously becomes redundant when one begins to talk about sub-atomic particles themselves as being braids in spacetime (as in loop quantum gravity theory).

For talking sense, as a thought experiment only, if we imagine that LQG theory turns out to be "truth" that still leaves us to ponder: what the heck is spacetime?

I have no idea - and neither do you.

I have an idea of the properties a thing must have for it to be knowable to a human -- material properties. Parsimony dictates that the simplest explanation for a thing having those properties is that there is a thing having those properties. That is materialism. I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but it doesn't seem to be this.

But however you dress it up - as materialism or physicalism (by any definition you've offered so far) - it is still perfectly clear that atheist materilism or physicalism inherently entails the view that whatever "it" ultimately is it is self-perpetuating, self-generating and/or self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

To my mind that is very clearly as much a faith based position as theism.

No.

It is perfectly clear that stuff exists. It is also perfectly clear that stuff must come from existing stuff. These are the foundations of thought -- things exist and every result has a cause.

This means either stuff has been around forever, which a human cannot comprehend, or the stuff somehow came from something other than existing stuff, which a human can also not comprehend. Since we can't comprehend either, it is pointless to even think about it.

I don't say "self-creating and self-sustaining" because those are nonsense ideas. Results without a cause. A human can't think like that. You are deluding yourself if you think you can.

The point is do they show or even hint at consciousness being distinct - or even partly distinct - from physiology? Since the positive hit rates were achieved by some seeming extra-sensory method that is the conclusion many draw. Whether or not it's all down to your EM fields or some kind of spirit is another question altogether.

No, they don't show or even hint at consciousness being distinct from physiology.

To show that, one would have to find results that suggest the physical state of a mind can remain the same while the consciousness it produces changes. No such results exist.

Yet this is precisely where I see you as being confused. You are looking at cognitive activity and computational activity from the outside and after describing them both in the same qualitative terms (as functions and problem solving routines, etc.,.) assuming that means consciousness exists for the A.I., however rudimentary you may suppose A.I. consciousness to be.

For myself, I think that John Searl has come very close to pointing out the faults in this reasoning with his Chinese Room thought experiment.

No, he hasn't.

All he has pointed out is that if one accepts that consciousness is computational then one must accept that they could be a chinese room themselves.

He did not, in any way, show that consciousness is not computational.

The only way one can reach that conclusion from the chinese room thought experiment is if one really doesn't like the idea of being a chinese room -- so much so that they abandon rational thought and simply stick their head in the sand.

But do not imagine for one minute that you are in anyway proving even slightly that such things actually have any conscious subjective experience no matter how much you co-opt psychological language in your qualitative descriptions of Information Processing, etc.,.

Why do you imagine your friends and family have any conscious subjective experience?

 

[plumjam]

Experience by itself cannot be unconditionally trusted.

You could only have come to this conclusion via experience.

 

[rocketdodger]

The house-of-cards that is materialism has never had any foundation to begin with!

Was there supposed to be some content in that post?

Because all I got out of it was you and Malerin giggling at each other.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Idealists, do you feel threatened by creeping materialism? Does it threaten to curtail your wilder theories about creation?

Not an idealist here (I'm a theist and phenomenologist) but, no, I absolutely don't feel threatened by "creeping materialism" in the slightest.

I absolutely love all this stuff claiming that the Universe and everything in it made of some self-sustaining stuff or other and that computers (or thermostats) are consciousness (or have rudimentary "thoughts").

Atheists/materialists don't have the slightest shred of evidence for any of it. It's pure smoke and mirrors. 100% absolute blind-faith.

The hey day of this whole atheism/skepticism/materialism movement is well and truly over - as much due to its own flaws as anything else.

The more someone wants to be a good atheist/skeptic/materialist then the more they'll have to defend, explain and answer the issues and questions that the likes of Malerin, PlumJam and myself have been pointing out.

And there's lots of very annoyed theists out there to answer to...

~
HypnoPsi

 

[rocketdodger]

You could only have come to this conclusion via experience.

Were you an ostrich in a previous life plumjam?

 

[rocketdodger]

The hey day of this whole atheism/skepticism/materialism movement is well and truly over - as much due to its own flaws as anything else.

Ah so you are also ignorant of world history and current events. Bravo.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Computers - even very simple ones - have subjective experiences.

You can't even prove to me that you have subjective experiences, so how can you prove this?

We completely understand every part of the process by which those experiences are formed, and there they are.

Really? Completely understand? As in to the level of getting Malerin's colour blind scientists to see red?

Okay then. If you completely understand how subjective experiences are formed in computers then why not completely explain it and/or completely demonstrate it to the rest of us?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[paximperium]

Materalist:
The cosmos is made of stuff. We don't know what this stuff is made from but can see its properties. This stuff interacts with one another and produces certain processes. These process occasionally become aware of its own processes. These processes occasionally try to figure out what this stuff is made from and how these stuff interacts.


Idealist/wooist:
The cosmos is made of stuff and magic. We don't know what this stuff is made from but can see its properties however magic also does things...don't know what things but it does, trust me. This stuff interacts with one another and produces certain processes but magic somehow is involve as well. These process occasionally become aware of its own processes and somehow there is magic as well. These processes occasionally try to figure out what this stuff is made from and how these stuff interacts and occasionally we can't figure things out so magic must be involved as well.

 

[paximperium]

You can't even prove to me that you have subjective experiences, so how can you prove this?

Really? Completely understand? As in to the level of getting Malerin's colour blind scientists to see red?

Okay then. If you completely understand how subjective experiences are formed in computers then why not completely explain it and/or completely demonstrate it to the rest of us?

~
HypnoPsi

Translation: You can't explain everything about materialism therefore my magic thinking is the true one.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You could only have come to this conclusion via experience.

Experience is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.

That no one can come to such a conclusion without experience tells us nothing about the actual process of arriving at the conclusion. Of course experience is a part of the "experience"; it is necessary but not sufficient.

Why do all of these discussions always return to the same point -- it's all about the evidence?

 

[HypnoPsi]

The issue with your 'Overmind' postulate is that it assumes a fundamental entity which, itself, would need explaining.

The scientific purpose of constructing a theory as parsimoniously as possible is absolutely not that the final theorised model/solution should somehow not pose futher questions.

That has never, ever, been a requirement of theory-building or parsimony.

The only essential facet is that our final theorised model/solution should deal with all the data available in as neat a way as possible with as few (preferably zero) unknowns as possible in the construction of the final theorised model/solution.

In brief:

1) Deal with all the data (don't leave out bits you don't like)
2) Do it parsimoniously (don't bring in unknowns)

It doesn't matter if the materialistic theory of some orderly mechanical universe causes less questions after the fact or if the God theory causes a million - in your mind. (In my mind the materialistic one causes a million more than the God theory!)

The thing is we don't and, almost certainly, cannot know what the ultimate fundamental of reality is because there really isn't one.

The question is: is the information "out there and in here" all self-sustaining or not?

God-Mind is predicated on a known. Matter isn't predicated on anything - especially, though not exclusively, as a theory of information that sustains itself.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Frozenwolf150]

This is something that Rupert Sheldrake asks very often. I saw him speak a few months ago and I thought he made a fabulous point about how materialistic models for consciousness drawn from A.I. never actually point out the purpose or requirement of consciousness (in evolutionary terms).

Consciousness, as in subjective experience, is surplus to requirements if you only need a physical device to solve problems as and when it interacts with its environment.

The sense of an internal self or perceiver gives individuals a frame of reference to process the information they receive. There are obvious advantages to believing there to be an "I" that needs feeding, protecting, and to interact with other "I"s.

There is in fact an evolutionary explanation for consciousness. It won't kill you to look things up.

Again, yes, this is so clearly obvious to me that I am genuinely surprised anyone wastes their efforts on trying to refute it.

Ignoring refutations of your beliefs does not make you right.

The God-Mind is obviously a huge step from our limited awareness. But, then, any theory that attempts to expain why there is a Universe is going to be pretty big by necessity.

You're admitting it's a huge step away from the sole basis you have for asserting it. It was already shown that you're attributing abilities to the God-mind that no humans possess, and therefore your analogy fails.

I would go much further than this. Whatever the Universe and all the objective phenomena within it are, modern physics has clearly shown them to be without any substance whatsoever in the traditional view of the term.

Atoms and particles are not "uncuttable". And even if their massless state is down to superstrings or loop quantum gravity they're still ultimately just information/laws.

This is very good for theistic theories and very bad for atheistic theories.

Yes, meanwhile physical causes can alter or destroy consciousness. You can hardly claim that consciousness is "uncuttable." The fact that there are unknowns in physics does not prove an alternate woo-theory true.

We can't even imagine a system in which information can store itself! At least materialism had this going for it until physics outgrew it.

God-Mind is the only real contender left.

The argument from incredulity must truly be potent if it can sweep the field of all other contenders by default. Fortunately it can't.

The atheist faith in materialism/physicalism is wholly without logic, reason or rationality. Information needs a mind to exist and be information. Without a mind it wouldn't be information - it would be nothing. And the only way for it not to be nothing would be if it were some kind of permanent (i.e. "uncuttable") self-sustaining and self-perpetuating substance occupying spacetime - and there isn't any!

No, you're equivocating the term. "Information," like the term "law," is a label we use for our understanding of what we observe. Your argument is no more coherent than the one creationists use in claiming that "laws" exist and laws require a lawgiver.