Ian,
Well let's make a list of all the comments in this thread shall we?
I think that consciousness is a physical process in the brain.
It (ie consciousness) is a physical process.
Conscious states are physical states.
The physical states are the conscious states. I do not think it is possible for me to be any more clear about this.
Well, that is not what I say. I say that conscious states are a type of physical state.
In principle, the existence of the phenomena we think of as consciousness (thought, awareness, etc...) can be logically derived from the physical brain activity, because these phenomena are brain processes.
The far more parsimonious theory is that consciousness is just a particular class of brain processes.
Clearly I think that consciousness is reducible to brain processes.
I'm sure there's many more, but that will do. I would say this definitely makes you a physicalist wouldn't you agree. Certainly these statements go far beyond the naturalism expounded in your 3 points.
I have already explained this to you several times. The above are conclusions drawn from observations using the scientific method, not metaphysical assumptions.
If you disagree with these scientific conclusions, then address them scientifically. Simply saying that you don't accept the premises of science does not in any way invalidate my position.
No, disputing my position is metaphysical. Why should anyone suppose there is anything more to the world outside all possible experiences?? Ontological claptrap.
Why make any assumptions either way. Once you assume that there is more to the world than just your own experiences, why make unverifiable ontological assumptions about what the rest of it is?
I leave that to science to determine. Any aspect of it which science cannot determine, is unknowable, so there is no point in me assuming what it is, or is not.
This presupposes that you are not part of the external world. Why make such an assumption?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I do not sensorily experience myself. The external world is that constituted by the information from my 5 senses. My actaul conscious states are not external to me.
There are all sorts of things which we know exist, which are not directly accessible by our 5 senses. You have no logical reason to a-priori assume that your own consciousness is not also indirectly observable. And since your consciousness has an effect on the observable world, to claim that it is not indirectly observable is to reject the premises of science.
Furthermore, once you acknowledge that your experiences have an effect on the external world, this becomes nonsensical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've made the assertion. Now you prove it. I would say denying it is nonsensical. How can my own conscious experiences be of the external world? How can they be external to me? You do not understand what the word external means. Like so many other words!
More meaningless word games. You call it the external world because it includes the stuff that is external to you. That does not mean that this world does not also include you. By insisting on calling it the "external" world, you are inherently assuming a separation between it and yourself. Why make that assumption?
It is not possible for the external world to function according to consistent logical rules, if something which has an effect on it does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well fair enough. A falling ball does not obey consistent logical rules if I catch it on its descent and then move it around in an arbitrary fashion. But reality operates according to logical rules provided we don't interfere and intervene in the course of events.
Like I said, you are assuming that consciousness is supernatural, and in doing so are rejecting the axioms of science.
Science is invalid in the magical world you are postulating. How do you know when consciousnesses are interfering and when they are not? Without this information, you cannot construct any scientific theories, nor can you test them. The entirety of science becomes pure nonsense.
You are wrong, for the above reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have refuted your reasons.
You have done nothing of the sort. You have merely asserted that they are wrong.
Naturalism requires that all observable effects can be explained scientifically, and this necessarily includes human behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can explain it scientifically, maybe via psychology and sociology, but this doesn't mean to say that our behaviour can be reduced to an unbroken chain of physical cause and effect.
That is a contradiction. If there are supernatural influences involved, then no scientific explanation is possible.
davidsmith,
Me: The same goes for the realm of Consciousness. Consciousness must pervade all individual experiences. In this sense there is nothing more to reality than what is contained within any experience.
Stimpy: That does not follow. You are making the leap from the statement that all experiences are part of consciousness, to the statement that consciousness consists only of experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That leap is justified. If you understood my other comments then you will understand that within materialism you can say the same thing; all physical processes are part of objective reality and there is nothing more to objective reality than what is contained within any physical process.
No, that would be an additional assumption there too. After all, dualism holds that reality is objective, and that physical processes are part of objective reality, but also that there are other parts of objective reality as well.
As I keep saying, the difference between our views is that my view of reality is not objective. It does not exist in the absence of experience.
And as I said, that is not what I mean by objective, so this has no relevance to my claim that science requires the assumption of objectivity.
Me: I don't agree with this definition. There is a difference between that definition and the one I was using which defines objectivity to be the existence of a thing in the absence of an experience of that thing.
Stimpy: So what? The only difference is that your definition allows for there to be experiences other than your own. I am simply saying that under my definition of objective, those other experiences objectively exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your definition is pretty meaningless then. The fact is that your definition makes special reference to experience whether it be my experience, your experience or someone else’s. If you are saying that experiences are part of objective reality then why do make special reference to it in your definition and say that objectivity is something more than an individuals experiences. Its simply incoherent nonsense.
No, to not do so would be incoherent.
All that I have direct access to is my experiences. Before I can go any further, I
must assume that there is more to reality that just these experiences, and I must make some basic assumptions about that reality.
It is meaningless for me to attempt to make reference to other people's experiences without first assuming that there is something else other than my own experiences.
The very concept of "Experience" being something more than just your own experiences is completely incoherent if you have not first assumed that there is more to reality than just your own experiences.
Stimpy: “I specifically clarified that I wasn't referring to any kind of ontological "separateness". I also clarified after that post that by "independently" I simply mean that there is more to it than just the awareness, and that it is only independent in the sense that the stuff you are aware of is there even when you are not aware of it.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have assumed that objective reality does exist in the absence of an experience of it.
When
I am not aware of it. Even in your mental monistic view, something can exist when you are not aware of it, as long as somebody is.
During this debate you have mixed together two different meanings of objective. At the present time you have adopted the “more than just your experiences” definition, which I have explained is meaningless with reagards to the basis of each of our views.
Your explanation makes no sense. It is quite clear that this is a necessary assumption which we both make.
Above, you were using a much better definition which is simply that objective reality is a reality that exists in the absence of an experience of it.
I never agreed to that assumption. It is pointless and implicitly assumes the first one.
Science does not need the latter definition to function.
I never claimed that it did.
Stimpy: This is exactly why your definition of objective is completely pointless. You are saying that, by definition, experiences are not objective. This is not a statement about the nature of experiences, or their relationship to everything else. Your definition amounts to nothing more than "anything that isn't an experience is objective".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on, you said above that you were making no assumptions about the nature of reality ! Oh, so its OK for only you to do that is it ? Like Ian said, your posts are riddled with contradictions.
I did not say that. What I said was that I make no assumptions about the nature of reality, other than those necessary for the validity of the scientific method. I also specifically stated that it is necessary to make at least some assumptions about the nature of reality, in order to actually be able to learn anything about it from our observations.
Stop misrepresenting my position.
Anyway, I do make a statement about the nature of reality by way of an ostensive definition. It is experiential. The meaning of experiential can be understood merely by introspective examination. If you can’t do that then I’ll assume you are a zombie !
So what you are saying is that your definition of objective is both a definition and an assumption about reality. That's fine, but this is exactly why your definition is of no use to me. It is of no use to anybody who does not also make that assumption!
You are still assuming that there is more to reality than just your experiences. Call that whatever you want.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll call that a pretty meaningless statement if you don’t mind.
I don't mind at all. I just disagree with you. I think that it is one of the most meaningful and important philosophical statements that one can make. It is, in fact, the foundation upon which
any non-solipsistic philosophy is built.
There is one very important distinction. Your experiences are only the ones which you are having, regardless of the mechanism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what ? This doesn’t have anything to do with how Consciousness cannot be regarded as objective. I was merely explaining how my experiences and someone elses are all expressions of Consciousness and all that apparently distinguishes them is their correlation with a description of their location in spacetime (which to confuse matters further is also an experience!). At the current time we do not have a model that describes how my experiences are usually correlated with the spatial and temporal location of “me” in the physical sense. In fact the phenomena of ESP might be the starting point to address this issue because it suggests otherwise.
What does any of this have to do with what we were discussing? I am not in the slightest bit interested in your Idealistic beliefs.
Let me remind you, the issue we are discussing is the minimal required assumptions for the scientific method to be valid. I have told you what I think those assumptions are. We have resolved the confusion about the meaning of "objective", and I have re-phrased those necessary assumptions without it. Can you address the actual issue or not?
Without objectivity as I have defined it, there would be no knowledge for science to give. Your definition of objectivity is irrelevant to science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There would be knowledge about the relationships between experiences. These relationships are also experiences. They do not objectively exist.
I said without objectivity as
I defined it. As I already explained, your definition of objectivity is of absolutely no relevance to science, or to my position.
I am quite familiar with materialistic monism, but I am not one. As for your claim that reality consists of only experiences, what possible logical reason could you have for holding such a position?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiences are the only things we truly know to exist.
No,
your experiences are the only thing
you truly know to exist. It is no more parsimonious to assume that other experiences also exist, then it is to simply assume that something more than your experiences exists, which may or may not also be "experiences". Indeed, it is less parsimonious to do so.
Well, my definition is the one that is relevant to science, and it was the question of whether science requires the assumption of objectivity to be valid that sparked all of this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No its not relavent to science. I could just as well have lived an isolated existence without the knowledge or assumption that there are other people with other experiences and still perform science. Your definition of objective is quite silly.
Actually, the above is more an indictment of your definition, than of mine. If you were all alone, you would still have to assume that there is more to reality than your experiences, in order for science to be valid. And under those conditions, there would be no reason for you to even suspect that other experiences existed at all.
So here’s my question to you.
Do you assume that reality exists in the absence of an experience of it ?
I assume that reality exists in the absence of
my experience of it. I leave the rest up to science. Science seems to indicate that reality existed before there was any consciousness of any kind. That is not a metaphysical assumption, but instead a conclusion drawn from observation and application of the scientific method.
Stimpy: What is this nonsense? Do you have any evidence for this insane assertion? Of course experiences are spatiotemporal!
Me: So where are they ?
Stimpy: They are physical processes occurring in your brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is based on the assumption that the physical processes are the same thing as the experience.
Wrong. It is based on substantial scientific evidence.
You also have the circular problem of the fact that the observation of physical process in the brain are also experiences themselves. If we examine an experience in isolation we find no spatial or temporal aspect to them for the simple reason that they are not measurable.
What makes you think that an experience can even exist in isolation? What does that even mean?
I examine experiences in the context in which they appear to exist. I see no point in speculating about disembodied consciousnesses, when no reliable evidence of such a thing has ever been produced.
I’m going to explain what makes our views different one last time. Your reality is objective because you say it exists in the absence of an experience of it. Mine does not and therefore is not objective.
And I am going to tell you one last time, that this is not my position. My reality is objective because it exists in the sense of
my experience of it. That is the assumption of objectivity I make. Just because you define the term differently than I do, does not give you license to mis-state my position when you know better.
1) Do you agree that there must be more to reality than just your experiences, for science to make sense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Because I could just as well have lived on a deserted island and do science all by myself without any knowledge of other people and their experiences.
You could not do so without assuming that there is more to reality than your experiences. At least, not without your scientific framework being logically incoherent.
2) Do you agree that your form of mental monism makes the assumption that there is more to reality than just your experiences?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Because any experience I have is an expression of Consciousness. Any experience someone else has also is an expression of Consiousness. Hence there is no more to reality than that which is contained with my experience or someone elses.
Please read the question again. I said
your experiences.
3) Do you agree that there are components of your mental monism which must be assumed, which do not have to be assumed in order for science to be valid?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I think I am right in saying that all I assume is that reality is experiential. Without experience we would not have science.
I did not ask you whether your assumptions were consistent with science. I asked you whether they were all necessary for science. Are you really going to assert that it is
necessary to assume that all that exists is experiential, in order for science to be valid?
However if you are talking about the validity of science, we must address what science can actually tell us about reality. If you do not assume objectivity then science cannot give you objective knowledge because such knowledge does not exist. If you assume an experiential reality, science would not be giving us any knowledge about the nature of reality, only knowledge about the relationships we find between certain experiences and these relationships are also experiences themselves (i.e they do not objectively exist).
Yes, yes, I know about your silly definition of objective which inherently assumes mental monism. I don't care.
Well fair enough. A falling ball does not obey consistent logical rules if I catch it on its descent and then move it around in an arbitrary fashion. But reality operates according to logical rules provided we don't interfere and intervene in the course of events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. This is why science is not describing an objective reality. In effect, science is being selective with which experiences it classes as relating to an objective reality and are therefore real. The ones that don't seem to strictly adhere to logical rules are not included. Then of course you can claim that reality seems to be based on logical rules because you have just excluded the experiences that don't fit !
This statement demonstrates an extremely profound lack of understanding of how science actually works. We don't just exclude experiences that don't fit. If we did that, science would go nowhere.
Hammegk,
....But anything doesn't go. What is the mechanism that makes much of our experiences self-consistent and logical?
~~ Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Laws Of Physics; remember them? The territory of what-is and not -- necessarily -- the current math/physics map(s) to that territory.
The Idealist's problem is: are there additional Laws Of Mind? And the more basic problem: what questions do scientists ask?
Exactly. This is what I have been trying to convey to Ian and David. Whether you are a classical materialist, an idealist, a dualist, or whatever, if you want to use science, you must assume that there is more to reality that just your experiences, that reality functions according to natural laws, and that those laws can be inferred from your observations.
It was very naive of the early scientific thinkers to assume a metaphysical basis of reality as some sort of "material substance", made up of indivisible atoms, with all the intuitive assumptions of determinism, space, and time, that went along with it. When scientific facts were discovered that conflicted with this view, most materialists were open-minded enough to discard this notion, and adopt a new framework. They also learned from their mistakes, and were fairly careful not to make any unnecessary assumptions in their new framework. They now accept that any guesses we make about thing which we have no information about, are pretty much doomed to be wrong, and that our intuition is not a reliable guide in such cases.
Unfortunately idealists are still stuck in the same old rut. Unlike materialism, idealism makes no claims about what we should, or should not, observe. So no matter how far off base it may be, there is no way to ever prove it. Rather than learn from the mistake made by the materialists, they instead revel in it, citing it as evidence for their own position, even though it is nothing of the sort.
The entire field of metaphysics is based on the faulty premise that our intuition is actually a useful tool for guessing the fundamental nature of reality. Once you reject this premise, it all becomes pointless blind speculation.
Dr. Stupid
