Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Toasters exist = toasters as conscious.

You couldn't make this up....

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).

More expensive toasters are actually self-aware?

Wow!

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

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

How do you know you are not a p-zombie? Perhaps you only think you're conscious, when in reality, all your "thoughts" are just information being passed up from a subconscious level over which you have no control whatsoever.

 

[paximperium]

Because denying your own consciousness is ludicrous?

Why?

This seems to be the second prong of the materialstic attack on consciousness.

Oooooh, a conspiracy against a useless fringe belief that the true believers don't even act upon or use except to justify their woo.

First, we had toasters and thermostats are conscious. Now, we have nothing is conscious.

So you don't understand the argument about machines that are self-aware and conscious and all you have left it Argument from Incredulity(ie. Pure ignorance)?

Looks like Malerin no longer has any ability to refute any points anymore so he's now attempting his strawman and ridicule tactic to prevent his cognitive dissonance.

Yep, materialism is looking better and better

Yes it does because it works while your belief is completely and utterly useless drivel.

 

[PixyMisa]

Toasters exist = toasters as conscious.

You couldn't make this up....

And yet, you just did.

The two statements are separate. Both are true, but not equivalent.

More expensive toasters are actually self-aware?

Wow!

Sure. I'm not sure why anyone would put a even four-bit microcontroller into a toaster, but I'm quite sure someone has, and the programming would very likely qualify it as self-aware.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Keep flouting your ignorance. The rest of the world will continue to advance as you keep claiming that nothing else is real.

How on Earth is it an advancement for the world to think that toaster ovens (and now fridges) are conscious and self-aware?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by Malerin
Unintentionally hilarious (which makes it even funnier). I have to nominate this.

I'm glad you're amused. Would you care to indicate why you find it amusing?

Because it's funny.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[paximperium]

Toasters exist = toasters as conscious.

You couldn't make this up....

More expensive toasters are actually self-aware?

Wow!

~
HypnoPsi

Toasters exist. Toasters are aware of its internal temperature and time.

Expensive toasters are able to determine the exact crispiness of the toast, the type of toast or if it is bagel, crossaint, the type of heat to use, the length of time to toast it. etc.

A toaster has sense data and is able to act upon it and even make judgements on it. Yes it is self-aware in a very limited sense but it has senses and abilities superior to yours.

 

[paximperium]

How on Earth is it an advancement for the world to think that toaster ovens (and now fridges) are conscious and self-aware?

~
HypnoPsi

To approach neurobiology as a field of science; mechanisticly and functionally view thereby gaining new knowledge on brain function and treatments for disease instead of relying on superstition, delusion and magic.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

You can't even count to two and you want to dispute ontologies?

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.

No.

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

Not only is this false, but it directly contradicts the previous sentence.

God is predicated on consciousness.

Consciousness in no way implies any sort of God, nor does God in any way explain consciousness. The invocation of God in your epistemology is unnecessary, unhelpful, undefined, and unsupported.

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.

Depends on your definition of God, which you have not provided.

Of course, your terms "self-sustaining" and "uncreated" don't apply to materialism in any case.

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.

God is not predicated on consciousness.

The atheist Universe of information or substance that sustains and generates itself is not predicated on anything known.

And yet, I can hit you on the head with it and remove your consciousness.

Seems I made that point before. Seems you ignore all logic and evidence that you disagree with. Seems that you don't make a whole lot of progress that way.

 

[paximperium]

Because it's funny.

~
HypnoPsi

Only to the most ignorant.

It's like a 12th century peasant laughing at the concept of tiny little life forms causing disease.

 

[PixyMisa]

Because it's funny.

And why do you think that?

 

[plumjam]

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.

This post of yours contains at least 5 propositions.
If you believe that all propositions are meaningless why have you bothered to make thirteen thousand posts, full of propositions, on an internet forum?
Your beliefs and your actions contradict each other.
And in terms of amusement value you are edging closer to Pixymisa and his self-aware toaster (only certain models, apparently).

 

[HypnoPsi]

Unless the computer is equipped with some kind of wireless communication device.

After all, that is your evidence for psi right? Purely non-physical communication?

So you think that wireless networking is non-physical?

Indeed, where is your evidence that psi is all down to EM fields to begin with?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Happy new year

Happy New Year everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PixyMisa]

Indeed, where is your evidence that psi is all down to EM fields to begin with?

That would be hard to provide, there being no evidence for psi in the first place.

 

[HypnoPsi]

This raises at least three questions:

1. What is your evidence that humans have this "psi"?

I'm perfectly happy with things like the Ganzfeld studies and staring experiements showing a low level of psi ability in humans. I also accept that at least some NDE's are real.

You've heard of all of these already I'm quite sure.

2. What is your evidence that computers do not have this "psi"?

I have no need to prove a negative.

Show me a robot that can sense it's being stared at and then we'll definitely have something to talk about.

3. What reasoning can you provide that connects the supposed existence of this "psi" to the claim that matter is an illusion?

Again, to me, psi and NDE's demonstrate that consciousness is a distinct phenomena (from the brain). And I would reiterate that the Universe is no less real to me just because I am a theist and phenomenologist.

In otherwords the only illusion I see is the belief that objective phenomena are self-sustaining or auto-sustaining or whatever; as in uncreated.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not saying that objective reality isn't a thing or is in anyway unreal. My definition of atheistic materialism/physicalism is that things are self-sustaining (as in being uncreated or sustained by any consciousness).

Well, your definition bears little relation to the definition used by materialists. Where does "sustaining", let alone "self-sustaining" even come into it?

I accept that ultimately we don't know and that all we have about either God or matter is theory. That's not the point of building a scientific theory. I'm only saying that theism is more parsimonious.

And I'm only pointing out that this claim is absurd.

And I disagree based on NDE research.

What NDE research? Cite the specific papers that you think aren't just a miserable amalgam of wishful thinking and incompetence. Unlike all the ones that have ever been referenced on these forums.

Now that is a sensible question. It can be tested (in principle if not in practice) on the grounds that God could - and indeed would - be falsified if you could show something existing that was truly self-sustaining and/or uncreated.

How would that be possible, even in principle? More to the point, what does it mean?

 

[HypnoPsi]

Saying "I made the decision at time X" is equivalent to "I had not made a decision at time X - t." Yet the data shows a decision could be predicted at time X - t.

This is a very simple result. A person didn't feel they had made a decision yet the outcome could be predicted.

No, you're looking at it exactly like a computer. You have no idea what was going on inside their heads.

All I can say here is that if I were a subject I'd probably be deciding at every instant whether or not to move my hand (and which one) from the moment I was given the instruction from the experimenter.

And you're still not explaining why the decision to move the hand didn't show up immediately after the instruction was given.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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".

No, there are evolutionary theories for the development of cognition. You're only kidding yourself that it leads to qualitative experience. In short, you need to believe all of this first in order for it to be true.

Wrong as usual. In order for something to qualify as an evolutionary explanation, all it has to do is have a demonstrable survival benefit under certain environmental conditions. To rephrase what I said before, consciousness in this sense is essentially a mental illusion or construct based on the centralization of sensory input from environmental stimuli. The reason you're seeing everything as circular is because it clashes with your own presuppositional belief that consciousness makes you special and that it's unique to humans, when in fact it's neither.

You cannot experimentally demonstrate or justify the belief that consciousness is equivalent to or caused by information processing.

One of the brain's main functions is to process information. Damage parts of the brain and the consciousness suffers, as we see in lesion studies, Alzheimer's patients, and those suffering various mental illnesses. Cause enough damage and the consciousness shuts off, often irrevocibly.

And, again, the point of constructing a theory parsimoniously is not perfection - it is only to be parsimonious about it.

When you keep repeating something that isn't true, it doesn't make it more true. The only way you've supported this assertion is through special pleading and the tu quoque fallacy. If both theories are wrong, your theory is still wrong. If both theories are wrong, but you claim that one is less wrong than the other, your theory is still wrong. I hope you realize that deriving a premise from a false conclusion gives you a false premise, therefore you're not in any position to conclude anything about the "exclusive materialist atheist" stance based on your false conclusion.

Nope. NDE's prove this completely wrong. Consciousness is completely distinct from physiology.

Well if you think your brain is just a hunk of meat that sits inside your skull and takes up space while pretending to be the center of consciousness, why don't you scoop it out and eat it? I'm sure it'd be delicious, albeit fairly high in cholesterol. Better yet, since that's likely to shut off your sense of taste and you won't be able to savor the juicy goodness, you can always wrap it up and give it to me.

Can you give any examples of laws and information causing themselves to exist?

Sure, ignore what I said about these being ways of categorizing our knowledge. I assume this translates into your asking me to prove that matter causes itself to exist, which is an absurd request because it's based on the assumptions of your theistic model that do not translate into any other models. You have yet to prove that consciousness is self-sustaining, and have refused to address the arguments involving physical causes that can affect the consciousness.

I'm not saying that objective reality isn't a thing or is in anyway unreal. My definition of atheistic materialism/physicalism is that things are self-sustaining (as in being uncreated or sustained by any consciousness).

What justifies theorising that information - or even some stuff or other - can sustain itself?

Which is a strawman, again based on your applying assumptions from the theistic model to other models. The problem with doing this? The theistic model was formed on the basis that God needed a role to fulfill. If you try to use the same framework on other models, it's going to look like a hole where God would normally sit. However you're only fooling yourself.

I accept that ultimately we don't know and that all we have about either God or matter is theory. That's not the point of building a scientific theory. I'm only saying that theism is more parsimonious.

Hey look, a causality loop! Oh wait, that's just your repeating yourself over and over again. My mistake.

And I disagree based on NDE research.

Let's see how well NDEs hold up as evidence. No two people will ever have the same NDEs. Not everyone will experience an NDE. People cannot observe each other's NDEs. It's demonstrable that the content of an NDE will vary based on a person's preexisting religious beliefs or lack thereof, for example, atheists and agnostics tend to see nothing during an NDE. Furthermore, the one thing NDE patients have in common is some form of brain damage; they're not called "near-death" for nothing. If you want to argue that accounts from brain damage patients are the most reliable sources of evidence to support a model of reality, be my guest.

Now that is a sensible question. It can be tested (in principle if not in practice) on the grounds that God could - and indeed would - be falsified if you could show something existing that was truly self-sustaining and/or uncreated.

That's not evidence for God, that's an argument from ignorance, asserting that because the opposite side of your black-and-white fallacy can't disprove God, we must assume he's real. Epic fail. I'm talking about standalone evidence for God.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm perfectly happy with things like the Ganzfeld studies and staring experiements showing a low level of psi ability in humans. I also accept that at least some NDE's are real.

You've heard of all of these already I'm quite sure.

Yes. I also asked why you are "perfectly happy" with these experiments, when they are completely discredited.

I have no need to prove a negative.

Show me a robot that can sense it's being stared at and then we'll definitely have something to talk about.

The very best evidence from the Ganzfeld experiments is barely above statistical noise and fully explicable by the misapplication of analytical methods. (And we know the researchers have done that.)

I can do the same for a robot - or a toaster - given half an hour.

Again, to me, psi and NDE's demonstrate that consciousness is a distinct phenomena (from the brain).

Even if I allow, for the sake of argument, the existence of such things, how do you reach the conclusion that consciousness is a distinct phenomenon from the brain?

And I would reiterate that the Universe is no less real to me just because I am a theist and phenomenologist.

And I would reiterate that it seems odd that this phenomenon that is distinct from your brain can be so readily canceled out by blunt head trauma.

In otherwords the only illusion I see is the belief that objective phenomena are self-sustaining or auto-sustaining or whatever; as in uncreated.

When the rock meets your head, the rock persists; your consciousness is what fades away.