I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[barehl]

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.

It is claimed that abstraction exists in both. However, I have not met anyone yet who could account for abstraction within an idealistic framework. Most self-styled Idealists start with, "Lets assume we have this and this and this and this and then we say that..."

Unless you can come up with a basis for this, abstraction of any kind within Idealism is nothing but fantasy.

 

[punshhh]

Explain what would stop it from being this.

The experience generated by computation in the brain is virtual. This is an abstraction of physical experience.

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

All that is required is to regard mind as a subtle material.

Exactly what is lacking?

It relies on the verifiable results of experimental apparatus and doubts the validity of more philosophical approaches. For example, what is the overall goal of science in the development of human culture?

 

[punshhh]

This is false.

It depends who one is talking to.

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.

Do you know that an ant does not have awareness?

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

A robotic replica of an ant, even if it contains an electrical computer, does not have cellular life. Cellular life may be the cause of awareness, rudimentary consciousness.

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.

I place an importance on cellular life for conscious experience.

 

[Tassman]

This is false.


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.

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


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.

Why wouldn't a sufficiently complex, programmed electronic consciousness be a reasonable proposition; are you familiar with futurist Ray Kurzweil's considerable work in this area? He seems to think it inevitable.

 

[wea]

I place an importance on cellular life for conscious experience.

why?

 

[MRC_Hans]

And subjects?

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

Is there a Chemical formula for MS Internet Explorer? Or for this post? There is, however, the equivalent of a neurological map: There is data, stored in a physical medium.

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.

No, that is not the argument. The argument is that everything we have so far observed follows the repeatable rules for a material universe.

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.

Does idealism require the World to follow repeatable rules?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

What relevance is scientific understanding here?

For materialism? Are you joking???

Does it answer any questions about our origins?

Yes.

Other than we (our universe) popped into existence fully formed.

No.

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.

The robot also has personal experience of being.

Hans

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I just hope that everyone here is aware that because of their very nature, these type of debates will lead, exactly, nowhere.

Carry on...

 

[Dancing David]

Well, we know where we're goin'
But we don't know where we've been
And we know what we're knowin'
But we can't say what we've seen

 

[Belz...]

rather, the mind, sentience, and the measurable/quantifiable objects of reality, all exist in awareness

What's the difference with materialism ?

 

[Dancing David]

Some semantic bit of sophistry that is unevidenced

 

[punshhh]

Is there a Chemical formula for MS Internet Explorer? Or for this post? There is, however, the equivalent of a neurological map: There is data, stored in a physical medium.

I would think there is a chemical formula for Internet Explorer, albeit a complex one including more than one molecule. One which could be identified as such in different systems. I doubt there is likewise a chemical formula for Concepts like Russell's Teapot. One which can be identified in different brains. It is subjective, virtual and it requires a knower.

No, that is not the argument. The argument is that everything we have so far observed follows the repeatable rules for a material universe.

Or an idealistic universe, if that is what it is. Is there a difference?

Does idealism require the World to follow repeatable rules?

Why not?

 

[punshhh]

For materialism?

For the debate around ontologies.

Are you joking???

Well I was going to ask you the same thing. But anyway this is a discussion about philosophical systems. The system of materialism can be evidenced without science. Experiencing physical life is sufficient, likewise with the system of idealism. It is only the philosophical interpretations and conclusions which differ.

Yes.

No it doesn't, materialism can describe properties of physical matter. But as to its origin, it is mute.

No.

Yes, we're stuck with a pop. Can you offer an alternative?

The robot also has personal experience of being.

Incorrect, it is simply acting it out for our benefit, like an automaton.

What specifically is required for experience?

 

[Aepervius]

I just hope that everyone here is aware that because of their very nature, these type of debates will lead, exactly, nowhere.

Carry on...

Pretty much. But usually I watch and smirk how idealist are as cautious as materialist while walking to the other side of the road, to check left and right that a car they are not aware of , is not about to hit them.

 

[LarryS]

Pretty much. But usually I watch and smirk how idealist are as cautious as materialist while walking to the other side of the road, to check left and right that a car they are not aware of , is not about to hit them.

both the materialist and idealist frameworks suggest that oncoming vehicles be taken seriously, and both frameworks suggest the oncoming vehicles not be taken literally.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I would think there is a chemical formula for Internet Explorer, albeit a complex one including more than one molecule. One which could be identified as such in different systems.

No, not chemical. It s called an algorithm.

I doubt there is likewise a chemical formula for Concepts like Russell's Teapot. One which can be identified in different brains. It is subjective, virtual and it requires a knower.

Why don't you think it can be defined as an algorithm? If it can't, how will you define it at all?


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Incorrect, it is simply acting it out for our benefit, like an automaton.

(About the robot). The ant is acting out for the benefit of the antheap.

What specifically is required for experience?

Define experience, and I'll tell you.

Hans

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Pretty much. But usually I watch and smirk how idealist are as cautious as materialist while walking to the other side of the road, to check left and right that a car they are not aware of , is not about to hit them.

That, by the way, is the example I always use when confronting idealists

 

[LarryS]

. . . and those who understand Idealism do yet another face palm at hearing this worn out strawman

 

[Fudbucker]

Why wouldn't a sufficiently complex, programmed electronic consciousness be a reasonable proposition; are you familiar with futurist Ray Kurzweil's considerable work in this area? He seems to think it inevitable.

That's a fun one. The problem with electronic consciousness is it leads to an absurd conclusion.

If a machine can become conscious, then it's possible for a system of electronic switches, transformers, rheostats, etc. to become conscious (if it's sufficiently complex and everything is arranged a certain way). If THAT'S possible, then it's possible to replace the moving electrons with moving water molecules so that a system of vales, pumps, pressure regulators, etc. is the functional equivalent of the system that is producing machine consciousness. If it's functionally equivalent (i.e., does the same thing that our brains do (or the conscious machine brain does), but with a different substrate) there's no reason it shouldn't be conscious.

Which LEADS to the inevitable conclusion that if you move rocks around in the right way, you can produce a simulation of the entire universe, conscious beings and all.
https://xkcd.com/505/