I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Dancing David]

That depends. Matter as a substance that exists independent of whose awareness?

I always wonder about ''awareness as a fundamental substrate", because anesthesia does not make things disappear.

 

[LarryS]

That depends. Matter as a substance that exists independent of whose awareness? I have plenty of evidence that matter exists independent of my awareness, because I'm constantly encountering (becoming aware of) new things that turn out not to be new to other people. As far as I can tell, everyone else has similar limited knowledge of a larger shared world, so matter can exist independent of any human's awareness. The distant galaxies whose existence we as a species only learned about within less than a century ago must have existed independent of all humans' awareness, in order to have emitted the light before humanity existed that we detect today. There are various animals that seem to exhibit various degrees and qualities of conscious awareness, but there's no evidence that any of them ever aware of distant galaxies or extrasolar planets or the iron forming in the center of the sun or the photons of the 4°C cosmic background radiation either.

In whose awareness did Hoag's Object exist 600,000,000 years ago, when it emitted the light we detect from it today? Who is this aware entity or group? What do we know about this entity or entities, apart from the necessarily implied fact that they collectively cannot possibly learn anything, because everything that exists only does so because it/they are already aware of it?

You are so locked into the Materialist POV you can not see the Idealist POV - according to Idealism 'awareness' does not belong to anyone - it is a fundamental substrate, of which the human mind, experience, sentience and etc. are as 'distillations' (lacking a better word at the moment) You are correct, reality exists independent of your mind, because your mind AND reality occur in awareness.

Granted, to make the switch from a Materialist POV to an Idealist one takes some effort or practice . . . first, locate awareness within yourself, establish that you are aware independent of any object, aware of being aware (as it were), and then, see how everything lies within that awareness.

 

[Dancing David]

And how would you demonstrate this fundamental substrate, all nice as a butterfly dram. Yest there is no way to demonstrate it...

How would you demonstrate the difference or is it a moot point and the apparent universe behaves as though it is materialistic...

When you can demonstrate the 'fundamental substrate of awareness', that will be very interesting and intriguing.

 

[tsig]

You are so locked into the Materialist POV you can not see the Idealist POV - according to Idealism 'awareness' does not belong to anyone - it is a fundamental substrate, of which the human mind, experience, sentience and etc. are as 'distillations' (lacking a better word at the moment) You are correct, reality exists independent of your mind, because your mind AND reality occur in awareness.

Granted, to make the switch from a Materialist POV to an Idealist one takes some effort or practice . . . first, locate awareness within yourself, establish that you are aware independent of any object, aware of being aware (as it were), and then, see how everything lies within that awareness.

Evidence would be nice.

My awareness exists inside my head. Proof is if you remove the head the awareness goes away.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The highlighted above is according to Materialism - an Idealist would disagree with that statement.

I invite anyidealist to present eveidence for something that did not exist till someone became aware of it.

Re a meaningful translation, it's mostly theatrics: according to Materialism, the 'mind' of Idealism is supernatural or incoherent gibberish. Likewise, according to Idealism, 'matter' is supernatural or incoherent gibberish.

Both wrong. According to materialism, the idealist's "Mind" is explainable through physical mechanisms. In other Words, it is neither supernatural, nor gibberish; it exists and is physical.


According to idealism, matter is real, it is just not the only thing there is.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Agreed . . . I was referring to Materialists take on 'mind' from Idealism, that is, most Materialists would describe the 'mind of Idealism as supernatural gibberish.

No we don't. We acknowledge its existence, we just hold that there is no need to explain it as supernatural.

Hans

 

[LarryS]

I invite anyidealist to present eveidence for something that did not exist till someone became aware of it.


Both wrong. According to materialism, the idealist's "Mind" is explainable through physical mechanisms. In other Words, it is neither supernatural, nor gibberish; it exists and is physical.


According to idealism, matter is real, it is just not the only thing there is.

Hans

That you keep repeating this naive strawman indicates you have no desire to understand Idealism.

 

[LarryS]

Evidence would be nice.
My awareness exists inside my head. Proof is if you remove the head the awareness goes away.

Evidence would be nice - and in fact is nice, as nice as a summer day - as each experience occurs in awareness. It's matter we have no evidence for.

--

Yes, if you remove your head, your individual sentience, mind, etc (among other human capacities) goes away.

If you haven't caught on by now, I am using the word 'awareness' meaning the fundamental substrate that does not belong to any mind; and, human mind, sentience, and the objects of experience, as distillations of awareness.

Just as we can speak of the Materialists fundamental state of 'matter' (as of yet undiscovered and not defined) as not belonging to any entity or thing . . . and human sentience, mind and the objects of experience as distillations of this primal state of matter.

 

[punshhh]

Because computation in the brain is physical.

And subjects?

Ie, is there a chemical formula for "Russell's teapot"? Or a distinguishable neurological map?

And, as was pointed out to you repeatedly, that claim is false. There is no evidence for idealism, but plenty for materialism. You just chose to ignore it.

You don't appear to understand, let me explain.

1, If the world we find ourselves in is entirely materialistic, as understood with materialism, then everything encountered in this world is "evidence" of that state of affairs.

2, Alternatively, if the world we find ourselves in is entirely, or fundamentally, idealistic, as understood logically, then everything encountered in this world is "evidence" of that state of affairs.

The point is that in both instances the reality on the ground is identical. It is the origin, or basis of that world which is different.

This being the case, it is pointless to compare, because if we are in state 1, state 2 is inconcievable and may be entirely impossible as a form of existence. And if we are in state 2, state 1 is inconceivable and may be entirely impossible as a form of existence.

 

[punshhh]

I suggest you read up on that. Google "scientific method". I'm not doing your homework for you.

What relevance is scientific understanding here? Does it answer any questions about our origins? Other than we (our universe) popped into existence fully formed.

That is one hypothesis, yes.

And I am not making a claim, I am simply making observations on the ground.

What is that evidence for?

It is evidence of what is required for consciousness to occur.

How do you know that the ant is conscious (any more than the robot)? Be specific.

Because the ant, like myself, has personal experience of being. In fact we are very similar beings, I just happen to be a bit larger.

 

[Tassman]

Evidence would be nice - and in fact is nice, as nice as a summer day - as each experience occurs in awareness. It's matter we have no evidence for.

--

Yes, if you remove your head, your individual sentience, mind, etc (among other human capacities) goes away.

If you haven't caught on by now, I am using the word 'awareness' meaning the fundamental substrate that does not belong to any mind; and, human mind, sentience, and the objects of experience, as distillations of awareness.

Just as we can speak of the Materialists fundamental state of 'matter' (as of yet undiscovered and not defined) as not belonging to any entity or thing . . . and human sentience, mind and the objects of experience as distillations of this primal state of matter.

As far as the decapitated individual is concerned there is no awareness. End of story! And what evidence do you have of the existence of a “fundamental substrate that does not belong to any mind”? Explain yourself!

 

[LarryS]

As far as the decapitated individual is concerned there is no awareness. End of story! And what evidence do you have of the existence of a “fundamental substrate that does not belong to any mind”? Explain yourself!

To begin, we can not find any 'matter' independent of our being aware of it, so after thousands of years looking for it, we have found no evidence of any such 'matter' that lies independent of consciousness.

Likewise I have no evidence of any such 'awareness as fundamental substrate'.

Some will suggest that since reality behaves as though its material, then its material. However, this is circular reasoning, as it simply equates the capacity of consistent measurement and quantification with it being physical - however this is an unnecessary leap and doesn't answer how something 'physical' is necessarily consistent, measurable and consistent - unless being physical is somehow magic.

IOW, we're all just speculating here, and if we can derive a little enjoyment out of the process, all the better.

As I've suggested previously, if the materialist narrative satisfactory describes your experience: if you are a localized separate consciousness, and everything about being a human being is a calculation inside your skull, then by all means stick with that narrative.

 

[Aepervius]

To begin, we can not find any 'matter' independent of our being aware of it, so after thousands of years looking for it, we have found no evidence of any such 'matter' that lies independent of consciousness.

And.... this is why philosopher are considered BSing all the time.

Whether you think the above is true or not, if UI drop a huge rock above you , whether you are conscious of it or not, if you do not side step.... wellllllll let us say I will have evidence that matter exists. And also gore. Lot of gore.

 

[Dancing David]

To begin, we can not find any 'matter' independent of our being aware of it, so after thousands of years looking for it, we have found no evidence of any such 'matter' that lies independent of consciousness.

You do realize the problem with your sophistry?

You assume that you have awareness, it could be something else entirely and you just assume that it is awareness. You do not demonstrate it, you just assert it.

Poke out your eyes, are you more aware without the eyes? Is your 'seeing' better?

Can you see better?

The Alleged Historical Buddha dealt with your sophistry millennia ago.

Can you answer or will you just assert?

 

[wea]

... consciousness, ... a calculation inside your skull, then by all means stick with that narrative.

I steal a possible definition by S.W.Smith: consciousness could "simply" be the irreducible entity a computational machine perceives itself to be, as the result of the ability to observe its own high-level workings, and the inability to observe its own low-level workings, for lack of a logic analyzer or suitable sensors (pointing to its ALUs or inside the skull ). Which other features would be necessary in your opinion?

 

[Myriad]

You are so locked into the Materialist POV you can not see the Idealist POV - according to Idealism 'awareness' does not belong to anyone - it is a fundamental substrate, of which the human mind, experience, sentience and etc. are as 'distillations' (lacking a better word at the moment) You are correct, reality exists independent of your mind, because your mind AND reality occur in awareness.

Granted, to make the switch from a Materialist POV to an Idealist one takes some effort or practice . . . first, locate awareness within yourself, establish that you are aware independent of any object, aware of being aware (as it were), and then, see how everything lies within that awareness.

You're misrepresenting your own particular characterization of idealism as all idealism. Historically, the universal awareness posited in most idealism has been associated with God or other universal deific figures such as the cosmic ALL of the hermetics. For example, the long-debated Christian theological hypothesis that should God cease to contemplate the flight of a humble sparrow or the courses of the planets, they would instantly stop in their tracks if not disappear altogether. If there is indeed a universal fundamental awareness underling anything, what would prevent that awareness itself giving rise to an associated aware being? We can't tell, of course, because you have not defined or described a single intrinsic property of the thing you call fundamental awareness.

Yes, if you remove your head, your individual sentience, mind, etc (among other human capacities) goes away.

If you haven't caught on by now, I am using the word 'awareness' meaning the fundamental substrate that does not belong to any mind; and, human mind, sentience, and the objects of experience, as distillations of awareness.

Just as we can speak of the Materialists fundamental state of 'matter' (as of yet undiscovered and not defined) as not belonging to any entity or thing . . . and human sentience, mind and the objects of experience as distillations of this primal state of matter.

Why, then, use the same word "awareness" for that fundamental substrate, if it has no known properties in common with the awareness associated with human sentience? Why not call it "pickles" or "phrmm" or "Buddha-nature" instead? Or perhaps, "matter?"

Consider the claim that a fundamental state of pickles underlies everything, gives rise to everything, and whose presence is evidenced by the pickles we observe in our fridges, even though it itself is not salty or tangy or derived from cucumbers like the pickles we're familiar with. That has exactly the same content and usefulness as your hypothesis about fundamental awareness.

It does not appear to me that you have outlined a distinct alternative to materialism. You have merely restated it, substituting some different terms.

 

[Tassman]

To begin, we can not find any 'matter' independent of our being aware of it, so after thousands of years looking for it, we have found no evidence of any such 'matter' that lies independent of consciousness.

Likewise I have no evidence of any such 'awareness as fundamental substrate'.

Some will suggest that since reality behaves as though its material, then its material. However, this is circular reasoning, as it simply equates the capacity of consistent measurement and quantification with it being physical - however this is an unnecessary leap and doesn't answer how something 'physical' is necessarily consistent, measurable and consistent - unless being physical is somehow magic.

IOW, we're all just speculating here, and if we can derive a little enjoyment out of the process, all the better.

As I've suggested previously, if the materialist narrative satisfactory describes your experience: if you are a localized separate consciousness, and everything about being a human being is a calculation inside your skull, then by all means stick with that narrative.

It’s not circular reasoning, its dealing with the evidence. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…..

All the available evidence indicates that there is nothing other than the material universe and you yourself acknowledge that there’s “no evidence of any such 'awareness as fundamental substrate'".

 

[barehl]

The question I made in my response remains, if our experience of being is physical, how can it also be a product of computation in the brain(mind/abstraction)?

Explain what would stop it from being this.

There is no evidence, or rationale which favours materialism or idealism over the other. As I pointed out in my first few posts in this thread.
Philosophically they are two alternative logically derived ontologies

Actually they are not. It is impossible to explain the origin of abstract concepts in an idealistic framework.

This is why I have been pointing out gaps and unknowns in the materialist interpretation of our world. To illustrate the fact that materialism(Scientism) is not a comprehensive philosophy, it is a blind(lacking foresight) pragmatic assessment.

Exactly what is lacking?

 

[barehl]

The positive claim is that AI will automatically be conscious, once a certain(unspecified) complexity is produced.

This is false.

Of course, it is possible once the process of consciousness is fully understood. My intuition is that it requires life.

I've been working on this myself. It is clear that animals as simplistic as fish have some awareness. Of course, single celled organisms, plants, fungus, and simpler animals are not conscious. However, the things that are right now are all alive. I have managed to rule out purely mechanical consciousness. However, I have not yet been able to prove or disprove electronic consciousness yet.

I know that an ant is conscious(has a personal experience of being)

An ant is environmentally reactive. This actually fits within computational theory whereas things that are actually aware do not.

but I do not know that the intelligent robot, which can figure things out like an ant, is conscious.

You have this wrong. An ant is not conscious so it is in fact possible to make a computer program that works exactly the same. This cannot be claimed for a fish that guards territory.

 

[barehl]

can you hint to how you'd disprove it and/or what's the difference with electronics ?

I could but it doesn't gain much. It just means that you can't build a gigantic adding machine that works like a mind. It doesn't gain much because it isn't practical anyway. It wouldn't have been practical to build an Eniac on the scale of a human brain. Imagine doing this with a punch card reader. The tough one is electronic consciousness. I have neither proven nor disproved this yet.