My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

My position is that there may be aspects of life and consciousness which are at this time unknown to science.

Name one.

My reference to true self relates to spiritual exercise and is usually applicable only when the assumption of the existence of a "God" is accepted.

However my position is that this exercise is a valid and usefull exercise like yoga, jogging or meditation for example, even if said God doesn't exist (along with heaven or nirvarna).

Not when it leads you to such absolute nonsense as your next paragraph.

To address your point, I appreciate how it is medically known how such brain injury effects consciousness. The way I see it is rather like a radio, you are yourself when you are receiving a signal and you can hear the music. However if the tuner does not work or a transistor is broken you don't hear music, or the signal is not being received. In this case you would not be yourself.

No. The brain does not work like that, and consciousness doesn't behave like that. Brain injuries do not cause affects like that. Transmission theory (as this idea is known) is physically impossible and doesn't account for anything we know of neurology or psychology. It's universally rejected by anyone who knows anything at all about either field. Or physics.

 

[tsig]

As Manuel would say in Fawlty Towers "I knoww naathiing". And neither does anyone else.

This is a serious point.

I'm suggesting that all thought philosophical, mathematical, spiritual, and scientifically related exists only as figments of human imagination.

By imagination I refering to the map described by Clown.

This map can be used to constructive use in the physical world, for example directing our bodies to invent things like computers etc.

Allied with science, this map has actually begun to relate quite well with the mountain (as described by Clown), ie physical reality outside of the human imagination.

Apart from the ways humanity has made use of the mind constructively through the human body in the physical world, all thought is just machinations and imagination. Little more than a map of existence.

I am concerned primarily with the the real physical world (rather than maps) and regard the mind as only one way of knowing and experiencing it.

If we accept your hilited sentence then your other post must be a lie.

 

[tsig]

What is life? and how did it, or does it begin?

Your dad never had that special talk with you?

 

[tsig]

As Manuel would say in Fawlty Towers "I knoww naathiing". And neither does anyone else.

I am well aware of the implications of what I am saying, it may appear incoherent to you but there is a simple distinction here.

Has it occured to you that each person is both in the "territory" and in the map room at the same time.

You can feel the physical world with your hand. The mind is only enabling you to know that you are feeling it and processing the sensory information into a recognised sensation. There is no thinking going on and no imagination, unless the conceptual aspect of the mind (the map room) is involved.

The map room or conceptual mind is involved in the development of thoughts, ideas and concepts. Not with comprehending the experience of the sensory apparatus.

My cat has a deep and subtle understanding of the physical world and yet it is clear that due to her old age she can barely think atall. Nearly all her activity is governed by instinct now, instincts which are as sharp as when she was a kitten. She doesn't require a map to experience and know physical reality.

You seem remarkably prolix about naathing.

 

[laca]

My cat has a deep and subtle understanding of the physical world and yet it is clear that due to her old age she can barely think atall.

Due to her old age? Old age? That's... I mean... WTF?!

 

[laca]

How long Lord,how long?

I believe he's aiming to reach the event horizon of the formless. And, quite miraculously, he seems to be succeeding.

 

[laca]

If we accept your hilited sentence then your other post must be a lie.

And if we don't, then that sentence is a lie. Either way, something is wrong.

 

[tsig]

And if we don't, then that sentence is a lie. Either way, something is wrong.

Apparently he knows nothing and is determined to share it with us.

 

[punshhh]

Yes. It's only you who can't.



In order for a being to be able to find something inconceivable, it has to be able to conceive in the first place. You think amoebas can conceive? How about ants? Cats? Dolphins?

The example with the human fails too. The ignorant cannot conceive what it doesn't know about, that's true. But that doesn't mean it's inconceivable. I'm sure with proper education and evidence most humans would be able to conceive what their bodies are made of.

What is energy laca?

All these animals are conceiving their environment and acting on it, like my cat. They do have limited powers of conception, this is my point, so do humans.

In the human example, yes it would be conceivable if it was explained to them, it is inconceivable because it hasn't and they have no idea about it.

Likewise a scientist may find it inconceivable to live life with time flowing backwards for example. Until it was explained to him by a highly evolved alien.

 

[punshhh]

The ability to do work.

What does the work?

Calculus.

Calculus is a way of figuring out something about what has been conceived of. Rather like an ant working out it can go round an obstacle if it can't get over it.
Nothing different about that.

 

[laca]

What is energy laca?

All these animals are conceiving their environment and acting on it, like my cat. They do have limited powers of conception, this is my point, so do humans.

No, you're conflating conceiving with experiencing.

In the human example, yes it would be conceivable if it was explained to them, it is inconceivable because it hasn't and they have no idea about it.

Dear lord. Please try not to contradict yourself within the same sentence.

Likewise a scientist may find it inconceivable to live life with time flowing backwards for example. Until it was explained to him by a highly evolved alien.

 

[laca]

What does the work?

Not relevant.

Calculus is a way of figuring out something about what has been conceived of. Rather like an ant working out it can go round an obstacle if it can't get over it.
Nothing different about that.

The ant is not "working it out". It tries as many times as needed, over and over again, mindlessly bumping into it. Next obstacle, what happens? Same thing, all over again. It has not worked it out. Just like you have not worked anything out. In many ways, you're exactly like that ant.

 

[punshhh]

One of these things contradicts the other.

Yes, I should have been more precise, perhaps you were aware of the distinction I was hinting at. The trouble is this is a large subject with a lot to take on board, it may take sometime.

I should have explained that I see the mind not as one instrument but rather as two.
In a knutshell;

The lower mind
and
The higher mind

The lower mind performs the instinctual tasks, the higher does the thinking

We perceive both the world outside (the real world) and the world inside (the world of the imagination) with the same tool - the mind. Because we are not consciously aware of the source of all our perceptions, external or internal, this can lead us to confuse the world outside with the world inside. Because we now find it necessary to clearly distinguish between these two worlds, we have developed a toolset and a system to allow us to do so. This is called science. It allows us to distinguish reality from imagination, and in the process, we learn more about both.

Yes I agree with your point about science.

Also we should try not to confuse what we imagine or come to think is real through thought with the real world outside of our imagination.

This is what I have been saying, we should be aware of the limitations of using thought to interpret physical reality.

 

[punshhh]

But:

I feel you are changing the game. In the above quote you're clearly talking about experience being part of the map, and the territory being the real physical world.

But here:

...it's a different game. Here you're talking about raw sensations as the territory, and theoretical constructs explaining them as the map.

I don't think it's fair to engage me in play and change the rules right after I have my turn. Furthermore, I don't understand why in a discussion of metaphysics you would want to play a game about making sense of experiences, unless you want to make it clear that we're playing the idealism variant.

Can you tell me which game you're playing?

Yes I can see that I have introduced a lot of distinctions here and not laid them out clearly. Let me try to tidy it up a bit.

I am not working from idealism here.

I am stating that there are two realities here;

The physical world
and
The thinking mind of a human.

The mind of the human is housed in a body made up of atoms from the physical world, including the brain.

There is brain activity which processes the information coming in from the senses and deals with all the instinctive behaviour of the person.
This is the part of the mind most closely involved with the physical world, as it is controlling a physical body operating in the physical world.

I am drawing a distinction between this part of the mind, with the thinking mind which is a thought machine or computer.

The thinking mind is the map room I was refering to, which performs the higher brain functions like thinking, self conscious awareness etc.

I hope this is clearer.

 

[punshhh]

But it's so much more subtle than that. We literally have cells, yes, cells,... that are intimately involved with anything from the awareness of teeth, to eyes, to even cartoons. We know about these specific cells in the brain from a condition where the blind and deaf hallucinate very specific shared hallucinations of people with giant teeth, giant eyes, cartoons and other things. You are not only able to wipe out these concepts by damaging the brain. You are able to create them by stimulating these areas of the brain.

If it was merely damaging a signal, this doesn't explain how a signal can also be broadcast and played. This is adding things to you that otherwise would not be there.

Yes the radio analogy may be an oversimplification, I agree with your points here. I have no argument with materialism over how the brain works. My point about the true self was refering to the "software" not the computer.
The limitations of the human condition and cultural conditioning of the mind and the like.

This "software" can be exercised like your body can when jogging or performing yoga.

People don't just assume such powerful and defined personal concepts about the nature of reality for no reason. You obviously need to pretend the world is the way you see it and I don't think it's possible to have you consider you're wrong beyond a token nod of appreciation.

I have told you before about you telling me what I'm thinking, are you a mind reader?

 

[punshhh]

Name one.

How to create biological consciousness, or life of any form under laboratory conditions.

Not when it leads you to such absolute nonsense as your next paragraph.


No. The brain does not work like that, and consciousness doesn't behave like that. Brain injuries do not cause affects like that. Transmission theory (as this idea is known) is physically impossible and doesn't account for anything we know of neurology or psychology. It's universally rejected by anyone who knows anything at all about either field. Or physics.

I have no disagreement with your explanations of how the brain works, I agree.

 

[punshhh]

If we accept your hilited sentence then your other post must be a lie.

The hilited sentence was tongue in cheek, there is an argument that we know nothing. But I won't go down it now, it probably won't lead anywhere.

 

[punshhh]

Your dad never had that special talk with you?

Maybe you need a special talk with a biologist.

My mother and father shared living parts of themselves, which when combined became me. My life didn't start with conception, I am part of a succession of a continually living multicellular community which began life many millions of years ago.

In this sense, I am possibly a billion years old (give or take a few hundreds of millions of years) and you and I were a long time ago the same person.

 

[punshhh]

You seem remarkably prolix about naathing.

It was easier than telling you straight

 

[punshhh]

Apparently he knows nothing and is determined to share it with us.

On second thoughts it might be harder to share nothing with you!