I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

Rabbit hole alert! Before we descend, discussing mind and reality requires definitions. This topic usually goes into 50 pages of nonsense whenever it pops up. If we go there, I'd heartily recommend first agreeing on definitions. Here are some for starters:

OR: objective reality: includes agents and environs (external to agents), consensually described and determined, not in doubt, no indication agents must be here for OR to exist, it's where we do our science

SR: subjective reality: internal experiential existence, as described by agents

MDR: mind-dependent reality: term used not to question the existence of OR, but to indicate the limitations of agents in dealing with it. This is why our view and understanding of OR can change over time, without changing the source facts. MDR is a description of the nature of knowledge, not the cosmos.

MIR: mind-independent reality: easily confused with Objective Reality, this term was coined really to contrast with the prior definition above, not to contradict the idea of Objective Reality. Highly recommended to spend time thinking about this term, and what it means, before use.

To save time, we could avoid all this by simply recognizing that MIR, "mind-independent reality," is an oxymoron for agents. OR is not under 'attack,' the cosmos does not need agents to exist, and science works as always.

It is just that agents process OR as MDR, and no agent can directly 'grok' MIR, by definition. The cosmos is safe, and does not need us to be.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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

Try explaining reality using the word control and then combine with awareness. Awareness is in a sense passive, it comes to you. Now try to figure out control and when you are done you have a way of understand materialism. Materialism is not just about matter/physical, but rather just as much about cause and effect or if you like from a point of view of humans about control. I.e. what we can do and can't do.

With regards

 

[Nonpareil]

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

Which is silly, nonsensical, and requires a completely useless non-definition of "is".

We can't find any matter as a reality having an intrinsic existence independent of the activity of awareness.

Yes, we can. We do it all the time. Literally everything you experience acts in every situation exactly as though it had independent, material reality. For any functional definition of "is", the universe is material.

Idealism can only answer this by rejecting any sort of coherence. It must hold that there is some undetectable, ineffable stuff, some sort of unknowable quality, that makes matter not actually matter. It must hold that, despite the universe being matter in every way, it isn't matter.

It's the p-zombie problem. And it's still an incoherent mess.

Rabbit hole alert! Before we descend, discussing mind and reality requires definitions.

Didn't you know? Defining your terms is verboten.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Honestly, I feel you are speculating quite a bit.

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.

No, observation is the processing of an external input. It is true that we can have experiences similar to observation without such input (dreaming or hallucinating), but we have methods (the scientific method) to ascertain that a given observation is indeed caused by an external input.

We can't find any matter as a reality having an intrinsic existence independent of the activity of awareness.

Quite the contrary: We can find that matter consistently has an existence regardless of any awareness.

Hans

 

[LarryS]

it does not need to be this complicated, one does not need formal training in philosophy or physics - or define a set of terms - pick up any mundane object and without applying reason or speculation: Are you a separate observer, a computational device experiencing an independent object with intrinsic existence; or, are you more connected with the object and other beings, and awareness the more abundant 'substance'? Perhaps during the course of a lifetime or even a single day you may swing between the two frameworks, because they are two sides of the same coin. There isn't a single correct answer, so, with a little practice one can try them both on - and culture the framework that gives the most satisfaction.

 

[Nonpareil]

it does not need to be this complicated

It's not complicated at all.

one does not need formal training in philosophy or physics - or define a set of terms

If you can't define your terms, what you say has no meaning.

pick up any mundane object and without applying reason or speculation: Are you a separate observer, a computational device experiencing an independent object with intrinsic existence; or, are you more connected with the object and other beings, and awareness the more abundant 'substance'?

The former, because the latter is word salad.

There isn't a single correct answer

Yes, there is.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know, I think Nonpareil has been pretty entertaining with his that's the definition of "is" and its all "computation"

Did you make any effort to understand what he means by that ? Or is just funny because it goes over your head ?

 

[Belz...]

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

Could you point a few of those gaps ? Bear in mind that gaps in your personal knowledge does not constitute gaps in materialism.

 

[MRC_Hans]

it does not need to be this complicated, one does not need formal training in philosophy or physics - or define a set of terms - pick up any mundane object and without applying reason or speculation: Are you a separate observer, a computational device experiencing an independent object with intrinsic existence;

This is what we do, objectively when we perceive the object. We can verify this by making objective measurements on the object, or ask others to inform me how they perceive it.

or, are you more connected with the object and other beings, and awareness the more abundant 'substance'?

I can have experiences, memories that connect me emotionally to the object (or class of objects). That is subjective, private. It does not change the validity of the objective experience, and it is not, in fact, connected to the object as such. I can experience the same when viewing a picture of the object, read about it, etc.

Perhaps during the course of a lifetime or even a single day you may swing between the two frameworks, because they are two sides of the same coin.

I don't swing between the frameworks; they coexist. They are in no kind of conflict, but they are two different things.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Sigh, they we have, what makes you think that visual perception isn't studied?

 

[Dancing David]

it does not need to be this complicated, one does not need formal training in philosophy or physics - or define a set of terms - pick up any mundane object and without applying reason or speculation: Are you a separate observer, a computational device experiencing an independent object with intrinsic existence; or, are you more connected with the object and other beings, and awareness the more abundant 'substance'? Perhaps during the course of a lifetime or even a single day you may swing between the two frameworks, because they are two sides of the same coin. There isn't a single correct answer, so, with a little practice one can try them both on - and culture the framework that gives the most satisfaction.

You are a body, your body has thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits.

 

[Navigator]

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.

Are you saying that individual awareness creates reality (the physical universe)?

 

[punshhh]

punshh, hi

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

I think therefore something exists. All else is appearances.

 

[punshhh]

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?

My view is that it is organisms which have consciousness. This is derived from observations that the only structures which have the various qualities associated with consciousness are biological organisms. This does not say that non biological structures can have these qualities, but that there is something about an organism, the way it is composed, the way it is animated that results in these qualities and an equivalent may be required for other structures to be conscious.

If one observes these organisms, the one unit of importance and which is present in all (except a very small number on the periphery) organisms is the cell and with a virtually identical form in all cases.

 

[punshhh]

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?

Yes, we as humans have an emergent quality, the quality of mind, this enables us to have self-awareness, subjective awareness, knowledge, intellect etc. This is the mind and cannot be reduced to the material of the brain. For example, the thought " Freuds folly" and it's connotations are not represented in the brain by a common molecular or atomic combination in different brains. Brains in the heads of many people who understand the meaning of the thought and most of its connotations, the moment it is expressed.

Yes an AI can in theory represent abstract subjects like this and process all the connotations. But they are not necessarily anything more than an automaton, a congregation of toasters, when they do it and crucially, they are not aware that they are doing it, they have no knowledge of it, or what they are doing, they have no intellectual perspective on it, they have no mind.

 

[punshhh]

Instead, you want to make your own private definitions.

Yes, I have offered a modified definition of consciousness. This is because the definition used around here and in academic circles( that I have come across) is rather archaic and fails to distinguish between aspects of thinking and the biological basis of thought and awareness. Or to accept that there is an entity, a being with experience and the phenomena of mind, independent in its specific contents from the brain.

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'.

It is alive and has the capacity to interact with its environment as an entity.

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

Fine, substitute metabolism for my definition of consciousness, see how that works.

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.

By computation you mean a processing of information in which each neuron is a bit in the computation? If so, this is distinct from the metabolism.

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

It is easy to agree on definitions, before proceeding. I have only offered one novel definition.

No.

Metabolism is distinct from the computations going on in the mind.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, I have offered a modified definition of consciousness. This is because the definition used around here and in academic circles( that I have come across) is rather archaic and fails to distinguish between aspects of thinking and the biological basis of thought and awareness.

No, it doesn't fail to do so.

Or to accept that there is an entity, a being with experience and the phenomena of mind, independent in its specific contents from the brain.

Yes, it does fail to cater for your personal assertions. Sorry about that. ... or not.

It is alive and has the capacity to interact with its environment as an entity.

Unfounded assertion.

Fine, substitute metabolism for my definition of consciousness, see how that works.

Whether your definition works is not my concern.

By computation you mean a processing of information in which each neuron is a bit in the computation? If so, this is distinct from the metabolism.

No.

It is easy to agree on definitions, before proceeding. I have only offered one novel definition.

I do not agree with your definition.

Metabolism is distinct from the computations going on in the mind.

No.

Hans

 

[Hlafordlaes]

My view is that it is organisms which have consciousness. This is derived from observations that the only structures which have the various qualities associated with consciousness are biological organisms. This does not say that non biological structures can have these qualities, but that there is something about an organism, the way it is composed, the way it is animated that results in these qualities and an equivalent may be required for other structures to be conscious.

If one observes these organisms, the one unit of importance and which is present in all (except a very small number on the periphery) organisms is the cell and with a virtually identical form in all cases.

From Principles of Neuroscience, Kandel et al, Ch 15, The Organization of the Central Nervous System: "In earlier chapters of this book, we emphasized that modern neuroscience is based on two tenets. First, the brain is organized into functionally specific areas, and second, neurons in different parts of the vertebrate nervous system, indeed all nervous systems, are quite similar. What distinguishes one brain region from another, and one brain from the next, are the number and types of neurons in each and how they are interconnected through development. The specific patterns of interconnection and the resulting functional organization of neural circuits in distinct brain regions underlie the individuation of behavior."

Like in all of science, common processes result in highly specific arrangements which identify or differentiate one instance from the next. The commonalities include overall brain functions and consciousness, the specifics yield personality and other mental traits.

Now, if your theory is to pan out, we'd need to find a single-celled organism that includes enough of what a neuron does to constitute consciousness. On the positive side, through the use of simple chemotaxis, behaviorally we can claim that simple bacteria are capable of elementary decision-making (move cilia in order to flee bad chemical signals, or swim toward food).

But would we claim this as consciousness? I would not, but I would say this, "decision-making," is one of its component behaviors. Therefore, what one needs first is a definition of consciousness that identifies its constituent behaviors, and secondly, identification of that organism (neural structure) that is capable of exhibiting the full range of consciousness.

Since we will easily observe the complexity of such behaviors scaling up in more or less lock step with evolution (in more than one way; i.e. birds, mammals), then we know that consciousness is indeed fully a function of biology, and its complex mysteries the same as those conundrums pre-evolutionary thought suffered from.

Amazing complexity built up over time always seems magical to humans, whose natural time scales do not allow common sense to process much that occurs at other tempos.

 

[Navigator]

Yes, we as humans have an emergent quality, the quality of mind, this enables us to have self-awareness, subjective awareness, knowledge, intellect etc. This is the mind and cannot be reduced to the material of the brain. For example, the thought " Freuds folly" and it's connotations are not represented in the brain by a common molecular or atomic combination in different brains. Brains in the heads of many people who understand the meaning of the thought and most of its connotations, the moment it is expressed.

Yes an AI can in theory represent abstract subjects like this and process all the connotations. But they are not necessarily anything more than an automaton, a congregation of toasters, when they do it and crucially, they are not aware that they are doing it, they have no knowledge of it, or what they are doing, they have no intellectual perspective on it, they have no mind.

I wonder if you might think on this:

"Yes, we as humans have an emergent quality, the quality of mind, this enables us to have self-awareness, subjective awareness, knowledge, intellect etc."

We are that which is self awareness, subjective awareness.

We don't have that, we are that. The quality of mind enables us to experience what we are though that process and by that we gain experience, knowledge,intellect, understanding etc.

We are consciousness.

Human consciousness specifically, but generally we are consciousness.

We have the ability to look at other non human consciousnesses and understand that these are equally as important as our own and worthy of respect for that.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now, if your theory is to pan out, we'd need to find a single-celled organism that includes enough of what a neuron does to constitute consciousness. On the positive side, through the use of simple chemotaxis, behaviorally we can claim that simple bacteria are capable of elementary decision-making (move cilia in order to flee bad chemical signals, or swim toward food).

But would we claim this as consciousness? I would not, but I would say this, "decision-making," is one of its component behaviors.

It is no more consciousness than a single NAND-gate is a computer.

Hans