Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[HypnoPsi]

Let's assume the very panultimate basis of reality is made up of magic powder or mind stuff, how does that change anything we know about it?

It doesn't and wouldn't. I have said so several times myself just as many others on the atheist side have themselves acknowledged.

My only point has been and remains that God is a more parsimonious solution to the question of existence that something being self-sustaining (regardless of whether or not it is pure information or some substance or other). God is predicated on consciousness. Matter is predicated on nothing at all. That's all there is to it.

Move it much further back. What sustains the sun? The solar system? The galaxy, cosmos etc. Or move it further into a molecule, atom, sub-particle etc.

Care to name one external magic mind process needed to sustain any of these regressions?

Nobody knows - and I don't believe that we can answer it. Do you? My point is that we can only work theoretically here. Consequently the only point worth debating is which view is the most parsimonious - and nobody has yet explained what the very idea of some self-sustaining stuff (or information) is predicated on.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

My first reaction to this is that you can't possibly be serious that your god theory wins over physicalism. You must surely be joking.

Nope. The God theory is predicated on something known - consciousness. Physicalism (or materialism) in the atheist sense is simply not predicated on anything. It's all just words.

No, no, no, it is not. It is a complete disanalogy to personal human consciousness, which cannot create universes, cannot remember anything, cannot split itself into billions of individual minds, cannot maintain the regularity of the external world, is not everlasting, etc., etc.
~~ Paul

I'm not aware of anyone who is saying that it's a perfect analogy. What exactly is physicalism or materialism predicated on except the belief that what you are observing is physical or material.

It's pure circular reasoning and nothing more.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Your theory: God maintains the universe.

Physicalism: The universe maintains itself (until further evidence suggests otherwise).

Now please perform the parsimony analysis so we can understand your point.

~~ Paul

Honestly... how many times. God is predicated on consciousness something that exists (important).

Information sustaining itself is predicated on nothing known to exist (unless you believe it first). Matter (as a truly uncuttable susbstance of some kind in spacetime) is predicated on thing known to exist either (unless you believe it first).

Nothing's being proven here. Theory does not prove God. The only point is that God is more parsimonious.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

This is evidence for a self-sustaining universe.

Which is?

(And, please, not just your belief that it's self-sustaining.)

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Do you think plumjam and hypnopsi actually understand each other?

Yes.

I just can't nail down a coherent line of thought in any of them...

That says much more about you than it does about us.

But they really just knock science and others down, and never present a coherent picture or evidence of what they believe.

Please provide evidence that the Universe is self-sustaining.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

So you don't think there are any theists who believe that god created the physical world and then left it alone to work by itself?

I'm perfectly aware of what deists, for example, believe. I think they may very well be 99.9% correct.

I don't even know why anyone would look for phenomenal experience in a robot in the first place.

Perhaps, but how would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?

The only people to ask for an anwer to this are those who indulge in such fantasies. I can't even begin to imagine how they would go about it.

In short, they have a lot of work to do first before they can even expect us to say "yes, such and such, existing would prove the robot has phenomenal experience".

So far there is nothing more than using the words robot and phenomenal experience in the same sentence as if it's supposed to mean something.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

My only claim here is that God is the most parsimonious theory to explain existence when set against atheist theories like materialism or physicalism (however you choose to describe them). That's it. Nothing more.

Then list all the properties of your God. In complete detail.

No idea and never claimed to have any idea about all properties of God. Again, I'm only saying it's more parsimonious than materialism.

You're the one who claims to have a complete understanding of how computers have subjective experience, right? Prove that and I'd say you pretty much prove that consciousness is generated by material interactions making the God theory redundant.

Let's see the evidence.

Except for the wee problem that we can observe that the Universe exists, and continues to exist,

Why would that mean it's self-sustaining?

and we can prove that computers are conscious.

I just love that emphasis on "prove" there! As if it's actually going to translate into reality or evidence somehow.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm not aware of anyone who is saying that it's a perfect analogy.

In fact it's a really awful disanalogy. The only thing that analogizes is that you're imagining god to be like consciousness. But all the abilities you attribute to him don't follow.

What exactly is physicalism or materialism predicated on except the belief that what you are observing is physical or material.

All that matters is that I observe things that maintain consistency without my conscious effort. And those things appear to follow laws (an epistemological claim). What the stuff really is I do not know.

Honestly... how many times. God is predicated on consciousness something that exists (important).

It's a flimsy predication, but fine.

Information sustaining itself is predicated on nothing known to exist (unless you believe it first).

It's predicated on the fact that stuff continues to exist without any effort on the part of my phenomenal awareness.

Matter (as a truly uncuttable susbstance of some kind in spacetime) is predicated on thing known to exist either (unless you believe it first).

Agreed.

Nothing's being proven here. Theory does not prove God. The only point is that God is more parsimonious.

I don't see why.

Which is?

(And, please, not just your belief that it's self-sustaining.)

My belief that it is self-sustaining is no more or less complex than your belief that god sustains it. In fact, your god adds a mess of complexity that you cannot squirm out of by claiming god is an analogy to human consciousness, since the analogy is far from perfect. The disanalogous parts require extra complexity. Also, my belief that it is self-sustaining is justified, since it sustains itself. Neither my consciousness nor any perceivable god are doing the sustaining.

I'm perfectly aware of what deists, for example, believe. I think they may very well be 99.9% correct.

I think you're a deist, right? Theists believe in a personal god. Does god answer your prayers?

The only people to ask for an anwer to this are those who indulge in such fantasies. I can't even begin to imagine how they would go about it.

I don't want to ask them. I want to ask the robot. Or a zombie. Won't they answer precisely the same way you do?

~~ Paul

 

[HypnoPsi]

After 12 pages, I think we can distill theism and materialism into the following:

Theism: God, a conscious being, exists.
Materialism: My toaster, a conscious thing, exists.

And atheists think theists are loopy?

Exactly! Thank you Malerin.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

You assume the existence of one more entity than do atheists. If a god-created universe is indistinguishable from a self-sustaining, self-perpetuating universe, to posit the existence of a god, particularly considering the fact that there is no evidence of one, is less parsimonious than an atheistic worldview.

Nope. Both theories that the Universe is God-thought and that it is a self-sustaining thing are positing one more entity.

Both theories are saying it's real. But the atheist claim that it's a self-sustaining thing is still going from properties to it being an independent thing.

It's just not as parsimonious as it's not predicated on anything known. God is predicated on consciousness.

Psi experiment aside, I'm sure others have pointed out that a god theory is no theory at all in that it's untestable and unfalsifiable.

Wrong. You find something that is truly self-sustaining (and not just believed to be self-sustaining) and uncreated and that would, by definition, end any theory of God.

Same in reverse. Proof of a God that has created everything thing would nullify anything you suspected was self-generating and self-sustaining.

Neither side can do this in practice but in principle the logic is sound.

That said, a god explanation of the universe involves an additional entity but yields no more information than a godless explanation.

I'll tentatively agree with this.

Consequently, a godless explanation is more parsimonious.

Nope. Parsimony is about taking all the facts and coming up with a theory that does not multiply unknowns. Consciousness is known so theists aren't predicating God on an unknown. The atheist Universe of information or substance that sustains and generates itself is not predicated on anything known.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[AkuManiMani]

Aside from that, I can no more prove God than you or any other atheist can prove that the Universe and everything in it is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating or that computers are conscious.

What makes you think that existence requires a 'sustainer', let alone a sentient personage to do the 'sustaining'? Your central point of contention seems to be:

"Reality requires a 'sustainer' and materialism fails to posit one. Therefore, it is incorrect."

There are a number a valid critiques that one can make of materialism but the one you've made central to you position is simply begging the question. Your alleged parsimonious solution to the 'sustainer' problem is just as unjustified as the claim that toasters and thermostats are somehow conscious.

 

[Dancing David]

bolding mine
The second sentence is made up of two propositions, both of which propose propositions to be meaningless. It's an entirely self-defeating position to take.
Start again.

So, let us see, I say that a priori, all propositions are meaningless.

Does that bother you, to say that atheism or theism is a better position a priori is foolish.

Despite the fact that many say it.

How do you know that thoughts or consciousness validate the notions that they exist?

And saying that semantic communication is meaningless prior to any evnt of reference is not a contradiction.

All thoughts and words are equally false and equally true. Some have greater predictive validity than others.

 

[Dancing David]

You're still not seeing it are you? You are giving individuals as frame of references and having someone believe there to be an "I" that nees feeding, etc.,. None of this explains why there should be a subjective sense of an "I".

There is no subjective experience on an "I" there is a body, there are sensations, thoughts, emotions and habits.

As the alleged historical buddha pointed out, that is all that there appears to be. The 'subjective sense of an I' is merely a conjecture that is placed over the five experients of being.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope. Parsimony is about taking all the facts and coming up with a theory that does not multiply unknowns. Consciousness is known so theists aren't predicating God on an unknown.

I don't usually say this sort of thing, but this is turning into a repetitious lie on your part. Most theists, including you, don't believe in a god that is nothing more or less than an analogy to consciousness. God is endowed with all sorts of extra attributes that we've all been listing for pages now. The mechanisms for all those attributes are unknowns.

~~ Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

Your alleged parsimonious solution to the 'sustainer' problem is just as unjustified as the claim that toasters and thermostats are somehow conscious.

Dead wrong.

Toasters and thermostats are unequivocally conscious according to a specific and useful definition of consciousness. Not a definition I fully agree with, but it's not invalid either.

HypnoPsi's invocation of God is undefined, unnecessary and unsupported.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If you could bring up one, just one, aspect of consciousness that is not clearly informational in nature (and that actually exists) you would have a point.

Earlier, I brought up examples of computation and cognition in the human brain that are not conscious. We know at this point that the brain is the medium for the phenomenon we call consciousness but there is not yet any understanding of what it is, exactly.

Its established the the mere computational processing of information isn't the same as being aware of that information. We experience sensory information and data as color, tastes, emotions, etc. but the information itself does not have such qualities. Colors are not a property of light, wavelengths are. The very phenomenon of experiencing these frequencies as color is a part of what we call consciousness. What is pain, really? We know it is associated with certain neurological responses but what is it about these responses that makes pain -- well -- painful?

Theres nothing in the currently known laws of physics that accounts for subjective experience. What is it really? We honestly don't know yet. All we do know is that its correlated with activity in the brain when we're lucid. Theres a big gaping hole in our understanding of the mind. While its not justified to fill in that gap with unsubstantiated 'magic' solutions its also not productive to pretend that it's not there.

Your computer = conscious is as unfounded as the 'Overmind' postulate.

 

[paximperium]

It doesn't and wouldn't. I have said so several times myself just as many others on the atheist side have themselves acknowledged.

My only point has been and remains that God is a more parsimonious solution to the question of existence that something being self-sustaining (regardless of whether or not it is pure information or some substance or other). God is predicated on consciousness. Matter is predicated on nothing at all. That's all there is to it.

Nobody knows - and I don't believe that we can answer it. Do you? My point is that we can only work theoretically here. Consequently the only point worth debating is which view is the most parsimonious - and nobody has yet explained what the very idea of some self-sustaining stuff (or information) is predicated on.

~
HypnoPsi

To summarize your long meandering post:
"Immaterialist state "We don't know but god is involved" is more parsimonious then the Materialist statement of "We don't know"."

Correct me if I find your hypocrisy and nonsense exceedingly funny.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Well, let's see.

We have evidence for toasters. For example, we can see them, touch them, burn our fingers on them, electrocute ourselves sticking knives in them. We spend money to buy them. We even, on occasion, use them to make toast.

Are they conscious? Sure, by Dennett's definition. I would say aware rather than conscious for the average toaster, but I'm sure there are toasters on the market that I would consider conscious (not just aware, but self-aware).

As for God... Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not even a coherent definition.

Funny post, but science fiction writer Thomas M. Disch beat you to it.

Though I forget whether the Radio had psi powers or not. I mean, he was certainly capable of receiving invisible signals from other machines over long distances.

 

[Malerin]

How do you justify the belief that consciousness exists at all?

Because denying your own consciousness is ludicrous? This seems to be the second prong of the materialstic attack on consciousness. First, we had toasters and thermostats are conscious. Now, we have nothing is conscious.

Yep, materialism is looking better and better

 

[PixyMisa]

Earlier, I brought up examples of computation and cognition in the human brain that are not conscious.

Which isn't relevant.

We know at this point that the brain is the medium for the phenomenon we call consciousness but there is not yet any understanding of what it is, exactly.

Reflection.

Its established the the mere computational processing of information isn't the same as being aware of that information.

Irrelevant.

We experience sensory information and data as color, tastes, emotions, etc. but the information itself does not have such qualities.

The qualities are information.

Colors are not a property of light, wavelengths are.

Irrelevant.

The very phenomenon of experiencing these frequencies as color is a part of what we call consciousness.

Why do you say that?

What is pain, really?

From what point of view? Physiological? Biochemical? Neurological? Cognitive?

We know it is associated with certain neurological responses but what is it about these responses that makes pain -- well -- painful?

Ah. Evolution. If pain was pleasurable we'd all be dead.

Theres nothing in the currently known laws of physics that accounts for subjective experience.

Baloney. There is nothing in subjective experience that raises the slightest problem for a purely physical explanation.

What is it really? We honestly don't know yet.

Yes. Yes we do. We don't know every detail of how the brain functions, but we know perfectly well that part of its function results in subjective experience.

All we do know is that its correlated with activity in the brain when we're lucid.

And also when we're not.

Theres a big gaping hole in our understanding of the mind.

Really? And what might that be?

While its not justified to fill in that gap with unsubstantiated 'magic' solutions its also not productive to pretend that it's not there.

Perhaps you could point it out to me, because I sure can't see it.

Your computer = conscious is as unfounded as the 'Overmind' postulate.

Have you read Dennett on this? Or Hofstadter? Do you know why Dennett regards a device as simple as a thermostat as conscious and not qualitatively different from a human brain or a human mind?

If not, then go read. Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach in particular.

If so, then why are you spouting rubbish?