Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[paximperium]

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

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

Basically I think "sustaining" means anything that can "sustain" itself without some extra "mind/magic" phenomena. Essentially it sounds like he believes that unless some "mind" sustains a rock,chicken, tree etc. it will dissipate.

Sounds like solipsisms to me but he takes it one step further by throwing in this "god-mind" sustains everything nonsense.

 

[paximperium]

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

Because the processing centers are different from the motor centers?

 

[paximperium]

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

And a machine, properly programmed, could likely guess better than a human could.

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

Ahhh, we just think it persists when in fact it doesn't.

 

[HypnoPsi]

My leanings would probably be more towards future research into such things as NDE's - and possibly even mediums, so long as good, stringent, controls were in place.

I thought you were going to say something like "well if we suppose there was a God-mind, it raises questions we could use to tailor scientific research across the board and hopefully better understand the fundamentals of the universe and existence."

I think that both research into psi and research into physics combined will lead us much more to truth than research into physics alone.

It is reassuring to know that, were everyone to accept a God-mind hypothesis, you would advocate research in near death experiences and mediums above all else.

What would you expect me to say? That we should all just believe the Bible (or whatever book you can pick) as good enough and call it a day where research is concerned?

Why would I do that?

You have insisted, in at least 10 separate posts, that materialists claim "matter" is "self-sustaining" and "self-creating." Which means within the hard limit of what we can know.

You have been told, in at least as many posts, that materialists assert such concepts are nonsense/unknowable. Which means past the hard limit of what we can know.

Quotes? All I recall I've ever said is that atheism is the belief that the universe (and all therin) is self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

Which for an atheist is clearly that it is uncreated; i.e. self-sustaining, self-perpetuting or self-generating or whatever. Heck, call it auto-sustaining/perpetuating or generating if you like. It all amounts to the same thing, as I am quite sure you fully understand

OOPS!!

Make that at least 11 posts!

Atheist - not materialist, though definitely atheistic materialist.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

what is your evidence that humans have phenomenal experience?

In strict terms, we can all each of us - as far as I see it - only know that we ourselves are conscious. Psi and NDE's are only suggestive of other consciousnesses.

Though my personal belief here is that somehow we have some kind of inner knowing that we're all conscious through some low-level of psi - but that's just my opinion.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

I think that both research into psi and research into physics combined will lead us much more to truth than research into physics alone.

Again, why?

Physics research has lead to rapid and often astounding leaps in human understanding of the Universe, including the technology that drives this very forum.

Research into psi has... Lined the pockets of psi researchers.

Quotes? All I recall I've ever said is that atheism is the belief that the universe (and all therin) is self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

Which is sure as heck not how atheists define it.

 

[PixyMisa]

In strict terms, we can all each of us - as far as I see it - only know that we ourselves are conscious.

How do you know you are conscious?

Psi and NDE's are only suggestive of other consciousnesses.

Ah. Reversion to solipsism, then.

Though my personal belief here is that somehow we have some kind of inner knowing that we're all conscious through some low-level of psi - but that's just my opinion.

Have you ever tried, y'know, talking to people?

Just a thought.

 

[paximperium]

In strict terms, we can all each of us - as far as I see it - only know that we ourselves are conscious.

Are you sure about this? Perhaps you are complete imaginary zombie construct of Bob?

Psi and NDE's are only suggestive of other altered consciousnesses.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I think that both research into psi and research into physics combined will lead us much more to truth than research into physics alone.

Oh absolutely. An understanding of psi has applications in hydraulics, barometric measurements, reservoir construction, SCUBA diving, automobile tire maintenance, and recreational bike riding. Unfortunately those damn materialists who see everything in terms of metric are threatening to take our psi away and replace it with Pascals!

Quotes? All I recall I've ever said is that atheism is the belief that the universe (and all therin) is self-sustaining (i.e. uncreated).

Nope, atheism is simply the rejection of belief in worshiped beings called gods. Marquis explains it all here.

 

[Malerin]

And why do you think that?

Why is a conscious toaster funny? You have to ask? How about a happy calculator? A sad GPS navigator? An angry refrigerator? If you really want to know, stop someone on the street and tell them if they want a self-aware toaster, they'll have to be the extra-fancy model.

Seriously, you can't really believe this. That would be really sad.

 

[rocketdodger]

As I've said, I believe in the evidence for a low level of psi ability in humans and that some NDE accounts are genuine.

And all such evidence is behavioral. Try again.

Here is what wikipedia says about behavior. Do you disagree with this?

Behavior or behaviour (see spelling differences) refers to the actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to the environment.

Frankly, you are doing quite a bit of whining about "behavioral approaches" to cognition yet it seems like you don't even know what "behavioral" means.

I'm certain that I'm not inclined to redefine the "evidence of my own consciousness", as you call it, as behaviour and then, having leapt from subjective to objective uses of the term 'behaviour' carry on like I've not made the leap.

Can you give me even a single example of an aspect of your consciousness that is not behavioral? Just one?

Here is a clue -- an "action" is not just a physical action. It is anything an organism could be said to do. Any verb at all.

The way atheists do it is little more than just white-washing the facts. The objective and subjective realms are different things. Just using behaviouristic language drawn from information processing and cognitive psychology to describe both the subjective and objective realms does not lead to them both being the same thing.

Correct. What leads to them both being *almost* the same thing is the fact that nobody can provide a logically coherent reason for why they should be different other than identity. And identity is trivial.

It's nothing more than trying to get around the scientific rule that correlation is not causation by chasing your own tail.

No, it isn't. It is simply paying attention.

The only qualitative difference you can name between my consciousness and yours is the fact that I experience mine and you experience yours.

That very strongly suggests that "subjectivity" is merely the result of being an information processing entity. And all the evidence that keeps coming in from the fields of psychology and cognitive science reinforces this conclusion. Including your precious Ganzfeld and NDE results, which shed no light whatsoever on this magic source of subjectivity you contend exists.

What makes you think this idea is correct?

The laws of mathematics.

Since consciousness perceives in terms of thought it it not more rational to assume that objective phenomena must somehow have the same fundamental basis?

I don't understand this statement.

It's also idealism and theistic phenomenology - that there are objective phenomena with properties "out there" that occupy spacetime doesn't change for anyone whatever theory they ascribe to of what it all ultimately is.

Correct. But that is all materialism asserts -- that there are objective phenomena with properties. So what, again, is the point of idealism and theistic phenomenology?

Are you somehow trying to deny that atheism must inherently include the belief that it is all uncreated by any type of consciousness or other (i.e. that it is all self or auto sustaining)?

Yes. Atheism only denies a theistic God. You know, the omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, outside of space and time, gray hair, hates fags and women, and kills firstborn children type?

It's practically the whole point of scientific thinking to generate hypothesis and construct theories. Do you just dislike this because it leads to theism being parsimonious?

You keep repeating these lofty words about "science" and "scientific method" and "theories" and "hypotheses." What, exactly, is your hypothesis that the evil atheist conspiracy is suppressing?

Note that a real scientific hypothesis logically leads to experiments that can be undertaken to test its validity. Does yours?

You know, this whole post reads of typical atheist/materialist/skeptic behaviour of trying to desparately redefine things so that they simply don't have claims or beliefs and "nothing to defend".

One could construct God in exactly the same way following the exact same logic.

Really? Do it.

NDEs refute this idea.

How? Can you provide anything resembling a logical argument?

You keep saying NDEs prove this and NDEs prove that. How do they prove it?

Nobody is required to prove a negative. You have yet to show that consciousness is computational. Just using computational language for cognition and computation is not enough.

Correct, except for the fact that there is zero evidence that consciousness is not computational.

If you disagree, feel free to give us an example. Just one example, HypnoPsi. Put your money where your mouth is.

Because I fully believe that low levels of psi ability exist in humans and that at least some NDE's are true.

Again... and again... and again... how does this show that consciousness is not computational?

 

[rocketdodger]

So you think that wireless networking is non-physical?

"Non-physical" as in "relies upon no mechanical communication," yes.

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

The facts that neurons are electrochemical and the only known way two electrochemical devices could interact with a wall between them is some kind of EM field.

So if Ganzfeld results are credible, I would put my money on some kind of unknown EM phenomena.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

So would I. But I would not imagine that they could predict, with any success, what my decision would be. Because I do not feel like my decisions are determined, in any way, before I make them.

Which is wrong, as these experiments clearly demonstrate.

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

How is that relevant to the conclusion we are discussing?

Don't say "because we have no idea what was going on in their heads." That makes no difference whatsoever. We are only concerned with their perception of what was going on inside their heads -- which is easily accessed by simply questioning them.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I think that if it is godthought, phenomena, butterfly dreams or quanta is meaningless.

It depends where you take the theory. Consider, if people really believe that personhood is like a computer program and nothing more what's to stop their being more Peter Singers in the world?

Prematurely translating pure theory it into actual policy is to me where things could get very ugly.

Or how about giving robots rights?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Psi. Humans have got it and computers aint.

BTW, I'm not an idealist. I'm a theist and phenomenologist if that matters.

I think we should split this to another thread, do you agree?

Which part?

The problem for me is that now that the holidays are nearly over I simply won't be around that much on here after the weekend

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

I don't consider my consciousness a belief and don't see why I should.

Then I would think you could show me a disembodied consciousness. Whatever NDEs are, they clearly require a body.

I disagree. NDE's are OOBE's.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[paximperium]

Why is a conscious toaster funny? You have to ask? How about a happy calculator? A sad GPS navigator? An angry refrigerator?

Nice strawman. Self awareness and consciousness are not predicate on emotions. A roach and even simpler organisms are self aware and "conscious".

If you really want to know, stop someone on the street and tell them if they want a self-aware toaster, they'll have to be the extra-fancy model.

Yawn, another Argument from Incredulity.

Seriously, you can't really believe this. That would be really sad.

Another appeal to emotion and Argument to consequence.

Malerin is now down to flailing aimlessly.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

I'm not saying there is no consciousness. I'm asking how you justify it, and how you determine whether something is conscious. In particular, since a philosophical zombie would answer all the questions with the same answers, how do you know you're not a zombie? Zippie the Zombie thinks it's just as ludicrous to deny that he is conscious.

~~ Paul

 

[paximperium]

I don't consider my consciousness a belief and don't see why I should.

Really? Are you sure all your thoughts, memories and very existence are yours and not Bob the Dreamer?

I disagree. NDE's are OOBE's.

Do you have any evidence that OOBE's are anything more than products of a dysfunctional brain since we can reproduce these OOBE with chemicals?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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

Oh my. Don't use Sheldrake's work to justify anything. Yagh. Bad. Eek.

~~ Paul