I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[MRC_Hans]

I do not know what you mean when you say "animated conscious experience...experienced by all lifeforms", which "results from a metabolic process which cannot be reduced".

It seems to me to be an "Idealist Of The Gaps" scramble to find a gap.

Hans

 

[LarryS]

It seems to me to be an "Idealist Of The Gaps" scramble to find a gap.

Hans

Materialism has it's fair share of gaps, assertions and special sauce as well

 

[Nonpareil]

Materialism has it's fair share of gaps, assertions and special sauce as well

A lot of people say this.

They tend to lack any ability whatsoever to actually point out these flaws.

 

[LarryS]

A lot of people say this.

They tend to lack any ability whatsoever to actually point out these flaws.

they're not flaws if they are duly noted.

 

[tsig]

Materialism has it's fair share of gaps, assertions and special sauce as well

A lot of people say this.

They tend to lack any ability whatsoever to actually point out these flaws.

they're not flaws if they are duly noted.

Q. E. D.

 

[punshhh]

Your definition is nonsense and your claim that it cannot be reduced further in organisms is a sudden, dramatic step backwards from saying that it cannot be reduced further at all.

I know my definition may not fit the mind set of "rationalists". I don't rush to throw the baby out with the bath water though, while enthralled by my rationalist mantra. It is not a step back, I am making the distinction that one is observing a consciousness before the reduction goes further than the cell and once one goes inside the cell, one is not observing consciousness, one is observing metabolism, the consciousness is lost in the reduction.

We don't care what you build the computer out of in an organic system. You can necessarily reproduce the computation on a non-organic computer.

This is not in dispute, remember, I am not saying that consciousness has anything to do with the computation. The computation is part of the process resulting in intelligence. This is not consciousness, this is intelligence. The consciousness is a phenomena of the physical body, independent of the computations (abstractions) going on in the Nervous system.

Which is fine, if you want a specific representation of that instance of consciousness.

Ok, do we know it would be self-conscious though?

We don't care which type of consciousness our hypothetical computer produces.

Ok, what are the others like then?

Materialism isn't turning on anything.

Yes, it's the proponents of it who tend to.

Rationalism is.

Oh yes, that definition which includes the words "true" and "is".

Yes, you have said this before.

You are wrong.

Yes, we can make the object and it may be self-conscious. How will we know?

That isn't what "control" means.

Do you want to define it?

Yes, we can.

Because we know that the ones producing it are computational.

Yes the processes involved in the cognition, the intelligence of the system are computational. This not not what makes it conscious, it is what makes that already present consciousness into self-consciousness.

Well, I can't take all the credit. It's a hand-me-down from all the preceding rationalists. If you have to canonize somebody, though, I would recommend Mistress Esmerelda Weatherwax:

"Haven't you got any romance in your soul?" said Magrat plaintively.
"No," said Granny. "I ain't. And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no one doesn't get burned who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you got to learn three things: what's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."
- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

She sounds like a mystic. You do know don't you that a mystic does not have a doctrine, other than as a tool which can be discarded when a more usefull tool is adopted.

What is real? By the way.

No, you asserted that.

And you were wrong.

Something which is true, is true to a beholder, hence subject.

We aren't trying to create human consciousness. Just consciousness.

What kind of consciousness is that again?

You really don't understand a single thing I've said to you, do you?

I understand it ok, I just don't like to confine myself to a world of abstractions.

Which is not what I asked for.

I know, I don't see a requirement to specifically point out what in an organism produces consciousness at this stage in understanding. There are lots of scientists probing cells, someone might work it out at some point. I am happy to observe the control/examples in the data which are conscious.

Yes, it has.

Not liking it doesn't change it.

There's that distinction between consciousness and intelligence again. Plants may be conscious, we can be fairly sure though that they are not intelligent.

There is no evidence for idealism under any framework.

There are, however, quite a lot of people trying to pretend there is.

We've been over this. The primary knowledge we have is our personal experience of existing, all else is secondary knowledge and may not be what it appears to be. Appearances, if you like, may not be the true appearance of existing.

I don't see how you can be so certain of any secondary knowledge, other than through employing pragmatism. The trouble is, once one employs pragmatism, one has to accept an appearance as true in order to move forward. One becomes surrounded by a world of assumed (for the purposes of pragmatism) truths.

It doesn't matter how usefull those assumed truths are, they are always secondary to the primary truth.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

punshh, hi

Can you tell us, if you know a self-evident truth?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I have already pointed out that the irreducible part is the living cell. This does not mean that the cell cannot be dissected and each process understood. But that consciousness(as my definition) cannot be reduced further in organisms....

But how do you justify this particular view, other than via preference? Are there any observations in behavior, any results of scans, or any other clues that this is the case? Although you certainly will have stated it along these 50 pages of posts, could you restate what it is precisely that inspires this view?

 

[LarryS]

I know my definition may not fit the mind set of "rationalists". I don't rush to throw the baby out with the bath water though, while enthralled by my rationalist mantra. It is not a step back, I am making the distinction that one is observing a consciousness before the reduction goes further than the cell and once one goes inside the cell, one is not observing consciousness, one is observing metabolism, the consciousness is lost in the reduction.

Have we observed consciousness even at the cellular level - have we observed consciousness at all? For example, an individual reports the observation of blue, we can detect which cells of the brain happened to be more active at the time of the observation, but have we observed consciousness?

 

[Nonpareil]

I know my definition may not fit the mind set of "rationalists".

It really doesn't.

I am making the distinction that one is observing a consciousness before the reduction goes further than the cell and once one goes inside the cell, one is not observing consciousness, one is observing metabolism, the consciousness is lost in the reduction.

You have no basis for this.

This is not in dispute, remember, I am not saying that consciousness has anything to do with the computation. The computation is part of the process resulting in intelligence. This is not consciousness, this is intelligence. The consciousness is a phenomena of the physical body, independent of the computations (abstractions) going on in the Nervous system.

You have no basis for making this distinction.

Ok, do we know it would be self-conscious though?

If it fits the definition of self-conscious, whatever that might be, then yes.

Do you want to define it?

Read.

She sounds like a mystic.

Pffffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha

What is real? By the way.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away."
- Philip K. Dick

Something which is true, is true to a beholder, hence subject.

Truth statements must be valid from every frame of reference, or they are not actually true.

That they also can seem true to someone does not change this.

We've been over this.

Yes.

And you're still wrong.

The primary knowledge we have is our personal experience of existing, all else is secondary knowledge and may not be what it appears to be. Appearances, if you like, may not be the true appearance of existing.

"True appearance" is a meaningless phrase if there is no situation, anywhere, ever, under any circumstance, where the difference is distinguishable.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Materialism has it's fair share of gaps, assertions and special sauce as well

You mean that science does not know all there is to know? Well, science accepts that. Furthermore, it is not likely that science WILL ever know all there is to know.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I know my definition may not fit the mind set of "rationalists".

Instead, you want to make your own private definitions.

I am making the distinction that one is observing a consciousness before the reduction goes further than the cell and once one goes inside the cell, one is not observing consciousness, one is observing metabolism, the consciousness is lost in the reduction.

No, consciousness is lost before we go into the cell. There is no known single-celled (or even "few-celled") organism that exhibits anything that conforms to any useful definition of 'consciousness'.

Any definition of consciousness that encompasses single cells (even brain cells) will be indistingushable from the definition of 'metabolism' and thus useless.

This is not in dispute, remember, I am not saying that consciousness has anything to do with the computation.

However, evidence says it has everything to to with computation. We do not observe any kind of consciousness in entities that do not posess some capability for computation.

The computation is part of the process resulting in intelligence. This is not consciousness, this is intelligence.

Off making your own private definitions again, ehh? Sorry, don't give a damn about your private definitions.

The consciousness is a phenomena of the physical body, independent of the computations (abstractions) going on in the Nervous system.

No.

Hans

 

[LarryS]

You mean that science does not know all there is to know? Well, science accepts that. Furthermore, it is not likely that science WILL ever know all there is to know.

Hans

That's not what I man, what I mean is:

Both Materialism and Idealism begin with
1) observation(s), and
2) observations are a 'state of mind'. By state of mind I mean, an observation of color blue, smell of rose or looking at the moon . . . the observation does not occur at the moon but in the mind, the observation is a computation.
3) taken together, we use these observations to create a mental/conceptual map or representation of the world - and we can share our map with other people, and these maps are consistent and useful for negotiating the world. So, how is it that these maps have such high utility? Materialists and Idealists answer this question differently.

Materialism make the 'grand assertion' that the world is different than the observation, the world is not a state of mind, but independent of mind. Independent not in the sense of an independent reality, as both matter and mind are unified as both are physical. Materialists claim there is a world of physical objects, with intrinsic existence (fundamental), and mind emerges from this physical world of objects.

Idealism claims that the world is as the observation. The activity of awareness* is not known through observation, the activity of awareness is the observation, and this activity of awareness manifests the world. As with Materialism, awareness and the world are not independent realities, Idealism claims both are unified as awareness. Idealists claim that awareness is fundamental, and what 'exists' is the activity of awareness.

*I am specifically using the term awareness as opposed to mind which carries additional baggage.

Personally I find both explanations pretty loopy - and with 'matter' looking less and less like what we thought it was, ie 'matter' less and less concrete and more and more like probabilities, it would not surprise me if these two POV's started looking more and more alike.

 

[Nonpareil]

That's not what I man, what I mean is:

Both Materialism and Idealism begin with
1) observation(s), and
2) observations are a 'state of mind'. By state of mind I mean, an observation of color blue, smell of rose or looking at the moon . . . the observation does not occur at the moon but in the mind, the observation is a computation.
3) taken together, we use these observations to create a mental/conceptual map or representation of the world - and we can share our map with other people, and these maps are consistent and useful for negotiating the world. So, how is it that these maps have such high utility? Materialists and Idealists answer this question differently.

That is not at all the question asked by materialism or idealism. It is something that they have to deal with, a situation which they must have an answer for, but it is not the question.

Materialism make the 'grand assertion'

Strikethrough mine.

Conclusion.

Idealists claim that awareness is fundamental, and what 'exists' is the activity of awareness.

Which is word salad, has no explanatory power, and does not fit the evidence.

 

[tsig]

That's not what I man, what I mean is:

Both Materialism and Idealism begin with
1) observation(s), and
2) observations are a 'state of mind'. By state of mind I mean, an observation of color blue, smell of rose or looking at the moon . . . the observation does not occur at the moon but in the mind, the observation is a computation.
3) taken together, we use these observations to create a mental/conceptual map or representation of the world - and we can share our map with other people, and these maps are consistent and useful for negotiating the world. So, how is it that these maps have such high utility? Materialists and Idealists answer this question differently.

Materialism make the 'grand assertion' that the world is different than the observation, the world is not a state of mind, but independent of mind. Independent not in the sense of an independent reality, as both matter and mind are unified as both are physical. Materialists claim there is a world of physical objects, with intrinsic existence (fundamental), and mind emerges from this physical world of objects.

Idealism claims that the world is as the observation. The activity of awareness* is not known through observation, the activity of awareness is the observation, and this activity of awareness manifests the world. As with Materialism, awareness and the world are not independent realities, Idealism claims both are unified as awareness. Idealists claim that awareness is fundamental, and what 'exists' is the activity of awareness.
*I am specifically using the term awareness as opposed to mind which carries additional baggage.

Personally I find both explanations pretty loopy - and with 'matter' looking less and less like what we thought it was, ie 'matter' less and less concrete and more and more like probabilities, it would not surprise me if these two POV's started looking more and more alike.

The fact that the world existed before awareness existed prove that this is not so.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That's not what I man, what I mean is:

Both Materialism and Idealism begin with
1) observation(s),

Please specify which observations support idealism.

2) observations are a 'state of mind'. By state of mind I mean, an observation of color blue, smell of rose or looking at the moon . . . the observation does not occur at the moon but in the mind, the observation is a computation.

No. What you are describing is 'perception'. It becomes an observation when we can support it with repeatable evidence.

Materialism make the 'grand assertion' that the world is different than the observation, the world is not a state of mind, but independent of mind.

No. Materialism concludes that the world exists independently of perception. We have evidence that the world pre-existed perception.

In other words, we find that if a tree falls in the forest, with nobody to hear it, it does make a noise.

Materialists claim there is a world of physical objects, with intrinsic existence (fundamental), and mind emerges from this physical world of objects.

Correct.

Idealism claims that the world is as the observation.

It does? Then what is the real difference?

The activity of awareness* is not known through observation, the activity of awareness is the observation, and this activity of awareness manifests the world.

Ah, so without observation, the world does not exist? That is solipsism.

Hans

 

[MuDPhuD]

I am making the distinction that one is observing a consciousness before the reduction goes further than the cell and once one goes inside the cell, one is not observing consciousness, one is observing metabolism, the consciousness is lost in the reduction..

Why are you making this distinction? Based on what? It seems to be an arbitrary dividing line.
For example, during somatic cell cloning:
http://www.rbej.com/content/1/1/98
A viable oocyte has it's nucleus removed, leaving only the cytoplasm, non-viable on its own. A somatic cell of the target animal (my dog for example) has it's nucleus removed, so the cell is now separated into non-viable cytoplasm, and non-viable nucleus. The somatic cell nucleus is then inserted into oocyte cytoplasm, and behold, after some fancy biomolecular shuffling the newly created cell begins to divide, and after a gestation in a surrogate bitch, I will have a puppy. It's all cellular chemistry, extremely complex yes, but nothing magical separates the dividing zygote from the non-viable cytoplasm and nucleus.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...ch-is-the-worlds-first-animal-cloning-factory

The consciousness is a phenomena of the physical body, independent of the computations (abstractions) going on in the Nervous system.


I am happy to observe the control/examples in the data which are conscious.

Plants may be conscious, we can be fairly sure though that they are not intelligent.

Do please tell what you observe of consciousness, aside from the use of your sensory organs and brain? You appear to be simply equivocating your use of "consciousness" to mean vitalism (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism), which has been long ago discarded by science as inaccurate.

The primary knowledge we have is our personal experience of existing, all else is secondary knowledge and may not be what it appears to be. Appearances, if you like, may not be the true appearance of existing.

.

The only knowledge you have of existing is a result of your functioning neural circuits which provide you with memory, integrated with your current sensory and emotional states, thus providing you a sense of continuity. Without memory you have NO sense of existing.
Anyone who has had an anesthetic will confirm this for you. When you are given a drug which prevents consolidation of working memory into long term memory you will have no sense of existing at that time. You will be awake, talking, answering questions, following directions, but tomorrow, when the drug has worn off, you will have no memory of what occurred. You will have no concept that that time period occurred, but all those present at the time will agree that you were there and awake and interacting. Your sense of existing at that moment will be Zero.
While you are unconscious under anesthesia, time will pass, violent things will happen to you (your appendix will be torn out through a gash in your abdomen), but tomorrow you will have no knowledge that you even existed at that time. That may be what a plant experiences. NOTHING because it has no memory.

 

[LarryS]

The fact that the world existed before awareness existed prove that this is not so.

according to Idealism, awareness is fundamental - and the world is the activity of awareness, and if the case, the 'fact' above is not true.

 

[LarryS]

Please specify which observations support idealism.

By 'observation' I mean the being aware of something. I am inspecting the being aware of something (observation) without any isms or attempting to reason it out, but inspecting the observation for what it is. IOW, I am experiential-based, not speculating.

Every observation is a state of mind. By 'state of mind' I mean the activity of awareness. This 'activity' takes place in awareness, not at the moon, strawberry, or whatever. We can't find any matter as a reality having an intrinsic existence independent of the activity of awareness.
--------------
Now, I am not trying to convince or sway anyone's POV towards Materialism or Idealism. You might find one POV more clever or intellectually convincing - or you might find one that resonates more than the other.

 

[tsig]

according to Idealism, awareness is fundamental - and the world is the activity of awareness, and if the case, the 'fact' above is not true.

How did the awareness become aware without a world to become aware in?