My argument against materialism

[CurtC]

Do you really believe that any contributors to this forum actually think that any machine can 'think'? Even non-technical people like me know with absolute certainty that all machines are programmed by people.

My point with the simple computer program, and Dennet's point with the thermostat, is that the difference between what they do, and what we call "consciousness" in our brains, is a difference of degree, not of kind.

 

[tsig]

I call it reality. Are you claiming that the world is somehow different than what we perceive in the brain?

Absolutely - in several easily demonstrated ways that are fully accepted by science!

For example, the visible part of the light spectrum we see lies firmly between very real phenomena such as radio waves, microwaves, infrared on one side and ultraviolet rays, X-Rays and Gamma Rays on the other side.

And, what's more, everything we see as solid objects can be reduced to massless thermal radiation with the addition of temperature and, particularly, gravity.

(That's what happens in a Black Hole and the thermal radiation that the Black Hole emits, unit it completely evaporates, is called Hawking Radiation.)

We exist in a wonderous, exciting and magnificent Universe of information. But we're just bald apes and our senses don't capture everything.

The marvellous 3D phenomenal perceptual world that our mind-brains create is truly incredible, but it's just a cognitive map. It's not reality itself. Reality is nothing like what we see.

~
HypnoPsi

They are all perceived in the brain. You claim that reality is somehow different than what we perceive yet all you can show is what we perceive.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Your consciousness is only aware of your own decisions after said decisions have been made, so it doesn't really do anything except "being conscious".

I think you're confusing consciousness with agency.

Furthermore, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be here. Your conclusion that agency doesn't do anything because it's only aware of decisions after they have been made is jumping the gun a little. But that's a different thread.

 

[HypnoPsi]

A mind created Universe is certainly more parsimonious than metaphysical materialsim - but parsimony does not guarantee accuracy of a theory only elegance.

Not really -- you take a strictly local phenomenon (us being able to imagine things), inflate that to the Basic Substance of The Universe (it is being imagined by a superbeing). How is that parsimonious or elegant?

Did you even read my post? And do you even understand the distinction between the phenomenal perceptual world and neumenal reality?

Our mind-brains construct our 3D world based upon sensory data.... but we don't see "things in themselves". Our eyes only pick up the light that either bounces off things or is emitted by them. But there clearly is a real world out there - the simple act of leaving a working clock in an empty room and forgetting about it for a while before returning to see the hands of the clock have moved demonstrates this.

We see matter and energy everywhere, in every direction we look, and we have rather rigorous and well tested models that describe how it should behave at multiple different levels of complexity.

As above, I don't deny that our 3D model of reality is absolutely and definitely based upon something real. But we do not see "things in themselves".

When you write "we see matter and energy everywhere" you don't make any effort to define whether you are referring to your personal 3D cognitive model of the world or (a believed in) metaphysical materialism.

To me it reads like you are pointlessly trying to conflate the two.

However, since the theistic model also has better explanatory and predictive power than than the alternative atheistic model (which has no explanatory or predictive power at all with regards to consciousness) we can certainly be very confident in it's veracity.

Explanatory and predictive power are related to falsifiability -- how is your theistic model falsifiable? What could disprove it?

Both the theistic model and the metaphysical materialism model are in principle falsifiable by each other for the following reasons:

1) If we could prove there was a God that created everything then no non-conscious metaphysical prima materia could ever be said to be self-generating and self-perpetuating. It would be falsified.

2) If we could prove that there actually was some non-conscious metaphyscial prima materia that really was self-generating and self-perpetuating then any powerful consciousness we ever found wouldn't really be God since something existed that "God" hadn't actualy created.

That's fine in principle, but in practice I don't think that either can really be done.

Nope - for the blindingly obvious reason that the Universe is populated by distinct self-aware entities....

No, as far as we know only a single insignificant speck of dust has been populated with self-aware entities for a single fleeting instant. Thinking otherwise is deluding yourself.

Believe how you will; either way solipsism doesn't come into it.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

What does the theistic model predict?

The theistic model predicts consciousness... like creating after it's own kind - just as an acorn can produce another oak tree.

Consider Daniel Dennett's atheistic physicalist view that thermostat's think "too hot", "too cold" and "just right". I mean, just how full of holes is that?

First, it's a conscious valuation of information processing in order to label said IP "behaviour" as what consciousness "really is"! But.... if consciousness is only a valuation then where does the first material consciousness come from without any conscious valuation that it is conscious in the first place!

Second, as if that's not laughable enough, we can easily dismis claims of predictive power to metaphysical materialism due to the fact that if consciousness didn't already exist, no purely IP device would predict consciousness in any other IP system!

No non-conscious entity could ever value itself as conscious or conceive of consciousness.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Plenty of evidence exists if you bother to look.

"I have evidence but I can't be bothered to give it to you".

Sure thing, Hypno.

Oh... I assure you, Belz. I would be more than happy to compare the evidence for psi against the evidence for things like computers producing consciousness in their circuitry.

Oh... wait...

I see your problem with this....

You haven't got any evidence at all for things like computers doing this!

~
HypnoPsi

 

[yy2bggggs]

HypnoPsi:

What does the word "conscious" mean as you're using it?

In particular, whatever it is, it is something that is somehow more parsimonious to assume is there, since we know we exist, information is like our sensory data, and information is there when we aren't thinking about it, correct?

But on the other hand, the suggestion that a thermostat might think it's too hot, too cold, or just right, is absurd and full of holes?

I've been confused about this for a while. How can you mock the suggestion that a particular information system contains the very aspect that you're claiming is most parsimonious to attribute to the entire system?

 

[HypnoPsi]

My point with the simple computer program, and Dennet's point with the thermostat, is that the difference between what they do, and what we call "consciousness" in our brains, is a difference of degree, not of kind.

I don't believe there is any degree or kind of consciousness in either Dennett's thermostat or your computer (whatever software it's running).

Can you cite any experimental research that has somehow measured different degrees or kinds of consciousness in computers?

What does degrees of consciousness in computers and thermostats even mean? Is this like being a little bit pregnant?

How many and what kinds of consciousness are there?

How are you aware of them being different kinds?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[yy2bggggs]

How many and what kinds of consciousness are there?

If you don't mind, how would you answer this question?

 

[HypnoPsi]

You claim that reality is somehow different than what we perceive yet all you can show is what we perceive.

And one of the things we can show very easily is that change can occur when we're not there to percieve it.

E.g. Put a working clock in an empty room, get on with your daily routine and forget about it, check up on it later and the hands will have moved!

Simple, noumenal reality is real.

Our brains take sensory information (such as a certain part of the light spectrum we call visible light) and provide us with the wonderful 3D phenomenal perceptual world that we each, individually perceive.

The point being that the noumenal/phenomenal distinction is an important one. (This is particularly true in medicine and psychology whereby a patient may be seeing or hearing something that their carers are not perceiving.)

Personally, I dont care if the folks in this forum refer to the noumenal and phenomenal realms as Disneyland and Graceland the point is that ignoring this distinction is not only illogical and unscientific it is completely unreasonable.

So if someone's atheism - or need need to believe in atheist conclusions about reality - forces them to be illogical, unscientific and unreasonable in their thinking then wouldn't it be wise to apply some critical thinking to atheism itself?

If theism is a step too far, what I'd like to see is people sincerely asking themselves why they are atheist rather than agnostic?

I mean, we don't (and it seems can't) declare conclusively whether or not neumenal reality is given being by some non-conscious substrate as required by metaphysical materialism and atheism ("without God") or whether it is a conscious mind that is "thinking up" the Universe!!

I think there is real logical value in accepting that atheism really does require belief in some non-conscious substrate to existence and, further, that even agnositicism is a much more logical and reasonable belief system.

Afterall, if someone is going to try and argue that theism is illogical because it requires belief in an unknown and unknowable thing then how can atheism be any less logical given it's need for a unknown and unknowable thing?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

HypnoPsi:
What does the word "conscious" mean as you're using it?

Consciousness to me, is that which we have when we're not unconscious. I am skeptical that a more precise definition is really possible.

What does the word "matter" mean to you?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[yy2bggggs]

Consciousness to me, is that which we have when we're not unconscious. I am skeptical that a more precise definition is really possible.

But you feel that it's definitely something you either have or do not have--for example, you asked CurtC the question, "Is this like being a little bit pregnant?".

Your conflicts with others who are posting here also suggests that you, unlike what I have voiced, feel that the term refers to something with a definite meaning (recall how I mentioned that whether or not the universe consists of mind-stuff may be more of a semantic concern than an ontological one?), if not something we have a definition for.

What does the word "matter" mean to you?

Something that has mass and takes up space. I'm curious why you ask.

What does the word "matter" mean to you?

FYI, I ask because you have very strong feelings against materialism. But I'd like to remind you that I explicitly stated that I don't call myself a materialist.

 

[PixyMisa]

And one of the things we can show very easily is that change can occur when we're not there to percieve it.

E.g. Put a working clock in an empty room, get on with your daily routine and forget about it, check up on it later and the hands will have moved!

Simple, noumenal reality is real.

What does that mean?

Our brains take sensory information (such as a certain part of the light spectrum we call visible light) and provide us with the wonderful 3D phenomenal perceptual world that we each, individually perceive.

Our senses interact with the world via the electromagnetic force. (Yes, all of them.) Nerve signals are mediated via the electromagnetic force. So is neural activity. Our internal mental map of reality constructed from this sensory data is thus just one huge complex net of electromagnetic interactions.

There's no cutoff between the noumenal world and the phenomenal one, HypnoPsi. It's all made of the same stuff.

The point being that the noumenal/phenomenal distinction is an important one. (This is particularly true in medicine and psychology whereby a patient may be seeing or hearing something that their carers are not perceiving.)

Except that we can scan a person's brain and by identifying which parts of the brain are active, distinguish hallucinations from perceptions. (Though not in all cases, not with current technology.)

HypnoPsi, we can - with current technology - have a subject look at a word on a page, then scan the visual cortex of his brain via fMRI and produce an image of the word he is looking at. This has actually been done.

The distinction you are making is just a false dichotomy, a holdover from Kant's time when we actually didn't know much about how the brain worked. Now we do; we know; there's only one kind of stuff, and consciousness ain't it.

Personally, I dont care if the folks in this forum refer to the noumenal and phenomenal realms as Disneyland and Graceland the point is that ignoring this distinction is not only illogical and unscientific it is completely unreasonable.

Nope. You're simply wrong. Scientifically, there is no such distinction.

So if someone's atheism - or need need to believe in atheist conclusions about reality - forces them to be illogical, unscientific and unreasonable in their thinking then wouldn't it be wise to apply some critical thinking to atheism itself?

Strawman, appeal to motive.

If theism is a step too far, what I'd like to see is people sincerely asking themselves why they are atheist rather than agnostic?

Why are we atheists?

Because there is no reason to believe in gods.

I mean, we don't (and it seems can't) declare conclusively whether or not neumenal reality is given being by some non-conscious substrate as required by metaphysical materialism and atheism ("without God") or whether it is a conscious mind that is "thinking up" the Universe!!

Metaphysical materialism and atheism simply aren't connected. They may be correlated, but you can be an atheist and an idealist or dualist - or solipsist, for that matter. You can't be an atheist and subscribe to your form of idealism, but there are plenty of others.

I think there is real logical value in accepting that atheism really does require belief in some non-conscious substrate to existence

It doesn't.

further, that even agnositicism is a much more logical and reasonable belief system.

No. If you don't believe in any god you are an atheist. End of story. That's what the word means.

Afterall, if someone is going to try and argue that theism is illogical because it requires belief in an unknown and unknowable thing

That's only some forms of theism.

then how can atheism be any less logical given it's need for a unknown and unknowable thing?

Atheism requires no such belief.

 

[HypnoPsi]

HypnoPsi:

What does the word "conscious" mean as you're using it?

In particular, whatever it is, it is something that is somehow more parsimonious to assume is there, since we know we exist, information is like our sensory data, and information is there when we aren't thinking about it, correct?

But on the other hand, the suggestion that a thermostat might think it's too hot, too cold, or just right, is absurd and full of holes?

I've been confused about this for a while.

The difference here is that Dennett is arguing that the thermostat is thinking on account of it's information processing being valued (by human language in particular) as thinking.

I can't find the exact quote, but I believe he has also made the comparison that consciousness is to brains what strength is to muscles (i.e. "strength" is a convenient single word for a much more complicated process).

In brief, his theory is that consciousness is just like a big concept or idea that we imbue things with in the same way that we might talk about "plant behavior" (when we're really talking about stimulus-response).

Now, the problem here is that, applied to non-conscious information processing systems like computers there is absolutely no reason why a computer couldn't apply a shorter run code for a series of functions non-consciously.... (e.g. routine 1, routine 2, routine 3, etc,).

So, Dennett's theory has two glaring problems. First, it always requires a conscious observer in the first place and, Second, it doesn't actually explain at all how labeling a thing as conscious causes it to actually be conscious (whether that's between a human being and a thermostat or two human beings).

In short, his theory doesn't really explain consciousness at all. It doesn't even explain it away very well. It's basically just eliminativism or denying the Elephant in the room!

How can you mock the suggestion that a particular information system contains the very aspect that you're claiming is most parsimonious to attribute to the entire system?

The theory could very well be put forward that, since everything is thought, everything from simple information processing systems (like a thermostat) all the way up to complex human brains are "conscious". Subsequently, a believer in this model might say that when our bodies cease to function, the thought of who we are returns to God and we as individuals (thermostats or computers) cease to exist as distinct individual entities.

Some might even go so far as to say our individual counsciousnesses are just small pieces of God's mind that eventually return to the source.

Personally, I find this too fatalistic. Why bother to create other consciousnesess just to have them disintegrate in the end?

Either way, as you can see, this is rather different from Dennett's model.

I, personally, don't think it's possible to know which theory is correct. I guess, when our bodies wear out, we'll either find out or we won't - in which case it won't matter to us.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

How many and what kinds of consciousness are there?

If you don't mind, how would you answer this question?

I would say I have no idea how many kinds of consciousness there are (or if there even are different kinds).

~
HypnoPsi

 

[yy2bggggs]

I would say I have no idea how many kinds of consciousness there are (or if there even are different kinds).

But would you say it's most parsimonious to assume that there are at least two kinds?

 

[SumDood]

Oh... I assure you, Belz. I would be more than happy to compare the evidence for psi against the evidence for things like computers producing consciousness in their circuitry.

Oh... wait...

I see your problem with this....

You haven't got any evidence at all for things like computers doing this!

~
HypnoPsi

Let me see, is this how it works:

I can gladly show you evidence for pigs flying out of my rectum just as soon as you provide evidence of invisible unicorns.

Oh... wait...

I see your problem with this....

You haven't got any evidence at all for things invisible unicorns!


Did I get that right?



All I'm asking is that you support your claim. In case you forgot, here it is:

Nope. Psychic phenomena definitely exist. Loads of experiments show positive results.

Please provide support or retract your claim. Put up or shut up.

 

[Robin]

HypnoPsi,

I am still deeply confused as to what you are claiming. Could you answer a question.

You say that you believe that there is a real world existing independently of human (and presumably animal) consciousness.

So you agree, for example, that there is a real Sun.

Presumably you will agree that the Sun that you believe exists is informationally identical to the Sun that a Materialist believes exists.

So what is the difference between the Sun that you believe exists and the Sun that Materialists believe exists?

 

[Robin]

The theistic model predicts consciousness... like creating after it's own kind - just as an acorn can produce another oak tree.

How does it predict consciousness?

If I meet a man in a dream then that man is a creation of my mind.

Does that mean the man in my dreams has an independent conscousness?

 

[Bad vibe]

HypnoPsi,

I am still deeply confused as to what you are claiming. Could you answer a question.

You say that you believe that there is a real world existing independently of human (and presumably animal) consciousness.
So you agree, for example, that there is a real Sun.

Presumably you will agree that the Sun that you believe exists is informationally identical to the Sun that a Materialist believes exists.

So what is the difference between the Sun that you believe exists and the Sun that Materialists believe exists?

I think that particular bit could be a real can of worms for his ideas