I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

Not sure evolution is anything more than human cultural progress in this case.

Do you mean that, according to your view, evolution is no more than some speculative view of humans about reality?

I have no idea what that sentence means.

This sentence means that the observed complex physical reality is derived from simple substance, and life phenomena progression is measured by its actual ability to consciously act right from the simple substance, which is naturally in harmony with all of its complex expressions.

 

[doronshadmi]

This is done through information processing in the brain, computation. To be clear, I am referring specifically to intelligence here, not consciousness. Consciousness as I see it is generated independently of this process.

Do you mean that self-consciousness and consciousness do not have common substance?

You may need to be more specific, but my first reading of this is in terms of spirituality, indicated in your previous comments. In which case, it is quite simple. One cultivates the state of mind and behaviour resulting in the alignment of one's mental faculties with ones natural or spiritual nature.

I mean that the observed complex reality is derived from simple substance, and life phenomena progression is measured by its actual ability to consciously act right from the simple substance, which is naturally in harmony with all of its complex expressions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Concept derived from religious belief and/or unexplained experiences.

Do you mean that anything eventually can be defined\explained\understood in terms of physics?

In that case do you think that physical phenomena is all there is, or they are expressions of a simple common substance that is not limited to any of its expressions or all of them together (the simple common substance is not a collection and any attempt to define\explain\understand it in terms of collection is doomed to fail)?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Do you mean that anything eventually can be defined\explained\understood in terms of physics?

The physical sciences, yes. Well, most everything except the inexplicable taste for reality TV.

In that case do you think that physical phenomena is all there is, or they are expressions of a simple common substance that is not limited to any of its expressions or all of them together (the simple common substance is not a collection and any attempt to define\explain\understand it in terms of collection is doomed to fail)?

I'd need to find some indication that there is more before commencing any search for it. But said indication could only come from observation, and observation relates only to the natural world.

The problem of ontology is that we have an answer, "it is," without further anything. I take that nastiness with the same glee as a fat tablespoon of cod-liver oil. Them's the breaks. To solve this quandary, one needs a view of the system from the outside, an impossibility.

"Game over, humans!" is the cackle I imagine to hear in the darkness of the night.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am challenging the utility of the accepted definition of consciousness and offering an alternative.

No you are just making new definitions.

To be, to be an existing entity, the organism/mechanism experiences its own existence, presence in a domain. I am linking being with experience, neither is possible without the other.

No. That is self-awareness.

Do they "care", about something? Anthropomorphism?

They don't have to care.

My point is that consciousness as experienced by other organisms is likely quite different to the experience of being a human. Even in our close relatives, the primates.

Why do you assume that?

This being the case, the subject of consciousness is not just a simple intellectual interpretation of the human experience.

Making a conclusion based on your unfounded assumption. Does not compute.

Indeed, the subject of consciousness in other organisms is barely addressed by science.

Wrong. It is being quite intensely researched.

Hans

 

[doronshadmi]

I'd need to find some indication that there is more before commencing any search for it. But said indication could only come from observation, and observation relates only to the natural world.

Don't you think that an observation that excludes complete simplicity is doomed to define the natural world only in terms of phenomena (only in terms of multiplicity)?

The problem of ontology is that we have an answer, "it is," without further anything. I take that nastiness with the same glee as a fat tablespoon of cod-liver oil. Them's the breaks. To solve this quandary, one needs a view of the system from the outside, an impossibility.

Why do you think that one can't observe multiplicity right from its simplest (and therefore one (which is not one_of_many)) substance?

"Game over, humans!" is the cackle I imagine to hear in the darkness of the night.

Why not "Game starts, humans!" if the natural world is directly known to all human beings right form its simplest state?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This morning I woke up to find that someone had parked his car right in front of my garage, completely blocking my exit. So I stood up, took a deep breath, closed my eyes, breathed out and then.... really focused on making that car disappear. Then, as I slowly opened my eyes, the car had in fact dematerialized from existence with the power of my thoughts.













































































...NOT!!!

 

[punshhh]

Do you mean that self-consciousness and consciousness do not have common substance?

No, but sentient self-consciousness is enabled by the processes of the brain. Basic consciousness being a result of the metabolism of the organism. So self-consciousness is both consciousness and complex information processing.

I mean that the observed complex reality is derived from simple substance, and life phenomena progression is measured by its actual ability to consciously act right from the simple substance, which is naturally in harmony with all of its complex expressions.

Yes this makes sense, I am not concerned with describing such processes. I am more concerned with contemplation and living. I do have an intellectual way of viewing such things, but considering how difficult it is to communicate successfully around here, with differences in the understanding of commonly known words. It would be pointless and futile to attempt to communicate more subtle ideas.

 

[punshhh]

No you are just making new definitions.

The common definition is based on observation. As such it is descriptive of the human experience of it. This is fine, but does not explain how it comes to be, or how it can, if generated scientifically by experiment, be distinguished from the mere appearance of consciousness, by observation.

No. That is self-awareness.

This self awareness must be experienced to be known. Presumably for self-awareness to be self-aware, it must be known. This requires the experience of knowing something and the experience of knowing one's self, as distinct from everything else.

They don't have to care.

They can't care, or know.

Why do you assume that?

Because human consciousness as experienced these days is so much more highly developed in terms of intellect from our close relatives, that surely it can have little resemblance, if one were to experience the other.

Making a conclusion based on your unfounded assumption. Does not compute.

My point is that humans may look at consciousness as experienced by a human, in all its uniqueness and naively assume that it can be easily replicated, or that other conscious organisms, have in some way, something equivalent to the human experience.

Wrong. It is being quite intensely researched.

What, how the brain works in processing sensory data? This has more to do with intelligence than consciousness. Anyway, where are the experiments to generate consciousness in the lab? Not experiments to generate intelligence in the lab. Or the experiments to replicate cellular metabolism, or isolate the processes of life in the cell?

 

[doronshadmi]

Then, as I slowly opened my eyes, the car had in fact dematerialized from existence with the power of my thoughts.

If human beings share a common substance for any process, including thoughts process, no one of them will park in front of your garage.

 

[doronshadmi]

So self-consciousness is both consciousness and complex information processing.

Do you agree that consciousness is not less than simplicity AND complexity, such that simplicity is the substance of complexity?

Yes this makes sense, I am not concerned with describing such processes. I am more concerned with contemplation and living. I do have an intellectual way of viewing such things, but considering how difficult it is to communicate successfully around here, with differences in the understanding of commonly known words. It would be pointless and futile to attempt to communicate more subtle ideas.

If all the posters here are naturally share one simplicity (which is not one_of_many state) as the natural substance of all possible phenomena, don't you think that they are naturally enable to basically be in harmony with each other, such that different points of view do not eliminate each other (diversity is flourishing right from natural simple substance)?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Don't you think that an observation that excludes complete simplicity is doomed to define the natural world only in terms of phenomena (only in terms of multiplicity)?

Why do you think that one can't observe multiplicity right from its simplest (and therefore one (which is not one_of_many)) substance?

I have no idea what meanings you are attaching to the terms here.

Why not "Game starts, humans!" if the natural world is directly known to all human beings right form its simplest state?

That would be glass half-full optimistic. I prefer dark and gloomy nights, like Snoopy.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have no idea what meanings you are attaching to the terms here.

Do you think that the natural world has common substance, which is naturally not limited to any particular phenomenon or to the set of all possible phenomena (the common substance is not a collection (it is not defined in terms of multiplicity))?

I prefer dark and gloomy nights, like Snoopy.

Why?

Moreover, you seems to be a person that cares about facts and peer reviewed journals, so how come that you prefer a functionary Snoopy view of nature?

 

[doronshadmi]

Making a conclusion based on your unfounded assumption.

How exactly conclusions can be considered as well-defined?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Do you think that the natural world has common substance, which is naturally not limited to any particular phenomenon or to the set of all possible phenomena (the common substance is not a collection (it is not defined in terms of multiplicity))?

I think the best description of the basics of the natural world is provided by the Standard Model of Particle Physics. 'Common substance' is broken down into specific forces and particle families, energy and matter. Or did you mean hydrogen? That's a pretty neat atom and the simplest you can find. Once the cosmos runs out of that (not tomorrow), we're all done for.

Why? Moreover, you seems to be a person that cares about facts and peer reviewed journals, so how come that you prefer a functionary Snoopy view of nature?

Humor is the spice of life. Who cares what the answers are if we are not having fun? I aspire to the highest forms of good-natured laughter known to mankind; without that, the rest of life sucks pretty much bigtime.

Or didn't anyone tell you an irony-poor diet is bad for you?

 

[Dancing David]

The common definition is based on observation. As such it is descriptive of the human experience of it. This is fine, but does not explain how it comes to be, or how it can, if generated scientifically by experiment, be distinguished from the mere appearance of consciousness, by observation.

P-Zombies, never know if they are observing self awareness or just mimicking self awareness, they have the experience of self awareness.

But is it real...

 

[MRC_Hans]

How exactly conclusions can be considered as well-defined?

By having evidence to back them.

Hans

 

[Navigator]

If all the posters here are naturally share one simplicity (which is not one_of_many state) as the natural substance of all possible phenomena, don't you think that they are naturally enable to basically be in harmony with each other, such that different points of view do not eliminate each other (diversity is flourishing right from natural simple substance)?

Why does that have to do with diversity? What do you mean by diversity?

If something is in harmony with something else, is diversity affected?

 

[Nonpareil]

I have no idea what meanings you are attaching to the terms here.

Ah. Doron is back. Wonderful. Allow me.

There are no coherent definitions for anything he says. He jumbles together the basic tenets of neutral monism, which is incoherent and undefined already, with some nonsensical terms like "Unity", which are never given even the barest semblance of a definition. He does, however, spend an awful lot of time trying to make binary trees and posting pretty pictures to arbitrarily crowbar these terms into; the most memorable attempt thus far has been creating a binary tree of ones and zeroes, then placing "Unity" at the root, "tautology" at 1111, and "contradiction" at 0000, then acting as if he had proven something.

He is so far into gibberish that his words have no coherent meaning even to himself. He just likes to dress that up behind pseudomathematics, because this leaves him the option of claiming that you simply don't understand it.

It's the same word games punshhh plays, but taken to the extreme.

 

[doronshadmi]

By having evidence to back them.

Hans

And who exactly decides about such an evidence?