Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[PixyMisa]

Actually, Hypno's argument is very easy to understand. It's just that none of you agree with the premises:

Not quite. His premises are false, and his reasoning is unsound.

1. There is no evidence matter exists.

Which is simply false.

2. If the physical universe does exist, it is either eternal or a cause in and of itself.

Which is a non-sequitur.

2.1 Nothing in the physical universe suggests it has the property "eternal"

Which is simply false.

or "cause in and of itself".

Which is a non-sequitur.

3. Consciousness exists, and is a non-physical phenemenon (it has none of the qualities of physical matter).

Which is simply false.

4. Under materialism, there is no coherent story to explain how an assemblage of physical matter can create a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness).

Which is a non-sequitur.

:. (therefore) Because there is no evidence of matter

False.

no reason to believe matter is either a cause in and of itself or eternal

Non-sequitur.

and no explanation how consciousness can arise from physical matter

False.

(or even why consciousness is possible under materialism)

False.

materialism contains more assumptions than theism

Absurd beyond measure.

and is the less parsimonious theory.

Ditto.

The arguments from the materialists here have been less than persuasive. They attack (1) by basically kicking a rock and saying, "Did you see that? That's a material thing! I felt it, so it must be a physical object!"

Nope.

My matter can take out your consciousness. Every single time. Matter meets consciousness, matter wins.

I haven't seen anyone yet take on (2).

It's just something HypnoPsi made up. Has no bearing on reality.

(3) and (4) have led to absurd claims of doubting your own consciousness and the existence of conscious toasters (the extra-fancy model actually possessing self-awareness).

Why is either of these suggestions absurd?

Once you understand why you think the first is absurd, grasshopper, you will have found the flaw in your own beliefs.

Once you have found the flaw in your own beliefs, you will come to understand why the second is no more nor less than objective truth.

 

[articulett]

I think that Malerin's mishmash could be used to prove that music doesn't make sense under materialism.

Music has the same nonphysical aspects associated with consciousness, but like consciousness, it is clearly reliant upon the movement of physical objects through time. I maintain that just as there is no sound without matter, there can be no consciousness without matter.

Malerin seems to think that consciousness is more "magical" than music. I guess he does this so he can make his god seem real. Long live the crazy semantics that allow the believer to believe their pet delusion has a basis in logic.

 

[Dancing David]

This cuts both ways, which seems to be a problem.

1. There is no evidence matter exists.

There is no evidence that consciousness exists.

2. If the physical universe does exist, it is either eternal or a cause in and of itself.
Nothing in the physical universe suggests it has the property "eternal" or "cause in and of itself".

Same:Same

3. Consciousness exists, and is a non-physical phenemenon (it has none of the qualities of physical matter).

Ooops, consciousness exists on the same evidentiary basis as matter.

4. Under materialism, there is no coherent story to explain how an assemblage of physical matter can create a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness).

Um and then under consciousness there is no mechanism that can create or explain the appearance of the universe.

You concede one and ignore the other.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I do not presume to have even the slightest idea what consciousness is.

Actually, you presume that it has all the attributes required for your god. Otherwise your parsimony argument goes to hell instantly.

1 and 2 are fine but I've never said there is evidence for a self-sustaining universal consciousness. I have no knowledge either way.

Yikes. Parsimony blown again.

No, I do not theorise that God has memory. Again, for all I know God might have just thought up the laws that are the Universe and individual consciousness and never looked back or even be aware of it in any self-conscious sense.

Then something else is maintaining the universe. Your model has deteriorated into a physicalist model.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you "can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?"

How is this not proving a negative?

I'm not saying the solution is perfect or that it solves all problems and leaves nothing unanswered. I agree it doesn't and that it isn't perfect. It is just that God is more parsimonious.

How can you claim your model is more parsimonious while agreeing that it is incomplete?

~~ Paul

 

[HypnoPsi]

Unless consciousness is self-sustaining, which you have argued that you have no evidence for, then there is something more fundamental than consciousness giving consciousness its "motion".

That would be correct. If the conscious-thinker (posited as "God") is not self-sustaining then naturally there would have to be something more fundamental.

My position here is that any guess either way is pure speculation - though I would point out that when we are positing something that sustains spacetime we are naturally implying that thing to be outside of spacetime.

The bottom line is - what that all means I don't know and fully admit that I don't know.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if more people thought the same way.

Nobody "knows" what God is like.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[rocketdodger]

That would be correct. If the conscious-thinker (posited as "God") is not self-sustaining then naturally there would have to be something more fundamental.

wtf?

If God is "self-sustaining" then you have no basis to attack "self-sustaining" as applied to material. Why is the nonsensical property of "self-sustaining" acceptable for God but not material?

If God is not "self-sustaining" and there is something more fundamental, then you have become a materialist.

Either way it seems like you have taken a huge turn in the direction of your arguments here.

My position here is that any guess either way is pure speculation - though I would point out that when we are positing something that sustains spacetime we are naturally implying that thing to be outside of spacetime.

The bottom line is - what that all means I don't know and fully admit that I don't know.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if more people thought the same way.

Nobody "knows" what God is like.

Is anybody else reading this as an admission that HypnoPsi realizes his/her arguments aren't holding up to scrutiny on this forum?

 

[HypnoPsi]

Isn't it amazing how people can really think that replacing "stuff we can't understand" with "magic we can't understand" solves any problems?

Neither theory (atheistic materialism or theistic amaterialism) gives us a complete and full solution without further questions.

If that is what you mean by "solves any problems" then I agree with you.

The only end in sight when working parsimoniously is to construct the most neat theory where less is best.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Malerin]

I think that Malerin's mishmash could be used to prove that music doesn't make sense under materialism.

Music has the same nonphysical aspects associated with consciousness, but like consciousness, it is clearly reliant upon the movement of physical objects through time. I maintain that just as there is no sound without matter, there can be no consciousness without matter.

Malerin seems to think that consciousness is more "magical" than music. I guess he does this so he can make his god seem real. Long live the crazy semantics that allow the believer to believe their pet delusion has a basis in logic.

Music doesn't make sense under materialism. Sound makes sense under materialism, but music is the experience of listening to (or organizing) sound and also makes us feel a certain way. The experiential component of anything is going to be a problem for materialism.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is anybody else reading this as an admission that HypnoPsi realizes his/her arguments aren't holding up to scrutiny on this forum?]/quote]
I have the warm and fuzzy feeling that eventually we will all agree that something has to be self-sustaining and it's extraordinarily difficult to figure out what that something is. Then we will agree that we are all monists without a means of knowing what the fundamental existent is.

~~ Paul

 

[Malerin]

This cuts both ways, which seems to be a problem.

There is no evidence that consciousness exists.

If you're reduced to claiming you're a zombie, your argument is not going well.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That would be correct. If the conscious-thinker (posited as "God") is not self-sustaining then naturally there would have to be something more fundamental.

My position here is that any guess either way is pure speculation - though I would point out that when we are positing something that sustains spacetime we are naturally implying that thing to be outside of spacetime.

The bottom line is - what that all means I don't know and fully admit that I don't know.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if more people thought the same way.

Nobody "knows" what God is like.

~
HypnoPsi

OK, with that I agree (with the proviso that I do not agree that whatever we are discussing is "outside spacetime", since that does not necessarily follow, the possibility of self-sustention, but not self-creation, always being a logical possibility). Either guess is speculation and neither is more parsimonious since the "sustainer of the universe" is certainly not proved by knowledge that thought exists while "something that causes motion" is. So we are left with deciding what we think the origin of motion and time *is* (both of which we also know by the cogito -- that there is motion and time, not what their origin is).

I see no way out of the dilemma, no more parsimonious solution. Choose God, choose "energy", they are both equally parsimonious solutions.

So, we are back to square one with it all being a wash and the decision resting on people's inclinations. The point is to decide and to know that it is a decision, so that we can stop all this bickering about "I know the ultimate truth and you guys are wrong."

 

[Dancing David]

If you're reduced to claiming you're a zombie, your argument is not going well.

If that is an argument, you might as well not try.

A zombie would 'think' is was conscious, it would 'feel' that it is conscious, it would 'behave' in all ways as though it is conscious. So it would have the internal sense of self awareness.

So how do you know you aren't a p-zombie, a p-zombie would do everything the exact same way.

This is a serious question that you are avoiding. There is a coherent resolution, but it states that the concept of a p-zombie is a fiction. And why toasters (at a low magnitude) are conscious.

 

[paximperium]

Neither theory (atheistic materialism or theistic amaterialism) gives us a complete and full solution without further questions.

If that is what you mean by "solves any problems" then I agree with you.

Finally.
As I've continually stated.
HypnoPsi's argument boils down to: "I don't know but magic involved just because I said so." as opposed to everyone elses, "I don't know".

The only end in sight when working parsimoniously is to construct the most neat theory where less is best.

Parsimony? Hypno don't know what the hell that word means, just what he/she/it wants it to mean.
Parsimony is not "neatly" fitting someone's already preconceived beliefs and delusions.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Music doesn't make sense under materialism. Sound makes sense under materialism, but music is the experience of listening to (or organizing) sound and also makes us feel a certain way. The experiential component of anything is going to be a problem for materialism.

Translation: "Music evokes emotions, and emotions are magical, therefore music is magical, so take THAT materialism! Thrrrppppppt!"

 

[PixyMisa]

Sound makes sense under materialism, but music is the experience of listening to (or organizing) sound and also makes us feel a certain way.

Emotions are brain function.

The experiential component of anything is going to be a problem for materialism.

Why?

 

[Dancing David]

Why?

Because he says so.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh yeah. I forgot.

 

[articulett]

It's the "hard" problem because it causes people to realize that they are just like all the other moral life on the planet. Finite... and not part of any "divine plan".

 

[articulett]

We organize sound and "listen to" music in our brains-- the organ that interprets all sensorial input.

It's ALL matter dependent, Malerin. We can affect it all by changing one link.