I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[tsig]

Really ? You are utterly unable to understand the distinction ? It doesn't help that, when I made a very clear analogy to you, you ignored the point of it and focused instead on the differences between the analogy and thing being discussed, which is both dishonest and trivial: analogies are, by definition, different from the thing being discussed.

And now, after _several_ attempts by me to explain the difference to you, you decide to walk away ? Why can't you make any sort of effort to understand this ? Are you so dead-set against the idea that the mind is physical that you refuse to do any sort of actual thinking on the topic ? Why are you even here, then ?

It's important to keep the mind a deep, dark mystery, where else have the got to stash their woo?

 

[LarryS]

You need to have evidence the relationship is causal and not(merely) correlative. The existing evidence does not prove the brain does not cause consciousness, but neither does it prove it does. Researchers may proceed with the assumption it does, but that is not proof either.

 

[LarryS]

It's important to keep the mind a deep, dark mystery, where else have the got to stash their woo?

The "woo accusation" cuts both ways in this discussion.

 

[LarryS]

Nonsense. Of course we do. We've invented and defined the term. Physical is stuff that exists in reality. Stop trying to "mystify" the world.

This definition only appears coherent and lacking in woo because it's circular.

 

[Belz...]

This definition only appears coherent and lacking in woo because it's circular.

Riddle me this: find me a definition of reality that will not be circular.

It's irrelevant. We define reality as what exists. It might sound circular, but there is absolutely no other logical way to do it. Think about it.

 

[punshhh]

What is this 'system' of which you speak?

Our known spacetime continuum.

If something does not have an influence or effect within or on a system, it is not detectable from that system and does not exist with respect to that system.

There are numerous ways in which such is not the case. For example if the influence is in the form of the nature, structure, configuration, or signature of the system, which was imparted in some way during the process involved in its origin. As such the influence is a priori to both the system and its contents.

 

[MuDPhuD]

MudPhud, can you edit your post so you're quoting me correctly?

I did quote you correctly, I simply capitalized the words NO IDEA for emphasis; sorry I failed to make note of it. It was kind of of obvious wasn't it?

No substantive response on your part though?

 

[metacristi]

There's a thread that is quite active I challenge you: your best argument for materialism that is - as you can probably guess - all about the best arguments for why materialism is "correct". There have been several members that have posted who have argued by assertion that there is an alternate to materialism that is as successful (or more so) at predicting and describing the reality we exist in.

Rather than derailing that thread I'd thought I'd start this one so they can put forward their alternate (or alternates).

Anyone willing to kick this thread off?

Here is my attempt, it goes anyways in the same direction with my scepticism regarding the value of our accepted knowledge (only to some extent). Quantum Physics suggests that we have access only to what we can measure / perceive and not to the 'things-in-themselves' (as an ultimate reality), we only see some sort of Platonic shadows on a wall.

Now many things can be behind the 'veil' covering Reality (and ontological idealism is still one possibility), we can indeed argue that what we observe at the macro level is real but this is perfectly compatible with the existence of a deeper reality which to relegate what we see to the status of at least 'less real'.

This means that we cannot really talk about materialism (involving self sustained physical stuff as fundamental) as more than one of the possible interpretations of the observed facts. So some may argue, with enough support in my view, that 'we don't know' is a much better approach here. Personally I think however that philosophical considerations do indeed make some forms of physicalism and realism the best alternatives at this moment in time but this in no way discard idealism for example; in a stronger sense basically nothing in our currently accepted 'web of knowledge' is above possible rational replacement, we should always be open to possible important changes in ALL parts of our accepted knowledge.

 

[Fudbucker]

I did quote you correctly, I simply capitalized the words NO IDEA for emphasis; sorry I failed to make note of it. It was kind of of obvious wasn't it?

No substantive response on your part though?

I'll write a post on your points. I need a break from philosophy for a bit.

 

[Belz...]

While you're away, perhaps take some time to learn to distinguish different claims from one another, assuming you're interested in, you know, discussion.

 

[Fudbucker]

Really ? You are utterly unable to understand the distinction ? It doesn't help that, when I made a very clear analogy to you, you ignored the point of it and focused instead on the differences between the analogy and thing being discussed, which is both dishonest and trivial: analogies are, by definition, different from the thing being discussed.

And now, after _several_ attempts by me to explain the difference to you, you decide to walk away ? Why can't you make any sort of effort to understand this ? Are you so dead-set against the idea that the mind is physical that you refuse to do any sort of actual thinking on the topic ? Why are you even here, then ?

Belz, you just accused me of being dishonest, lazy, and stupid, and now you wonder why I won't discuss this with you? Seriously? If you want to think that me not talking to you about this is the equivalent of me "refusing to do any sort of actual thinking on the topic", go right ahead. Award yourself 1,000 R&P points.

ETA: and you still can't help yourself! While I was writing this, you posted another snide comment and I wasn't even talking to you. You're becoming downright unpleasant.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, you just accused me of being dishonest, lazy, and stupid, and now you wonder why I won't discuss this with you?

I never accused you of being stupid. Dishonest, yes, because after several attempts by me to clarify the difference to you, you continued to act as if it didn't exist. What else would _you_ call it if our positions were reversed ?

 

[tsig]

I'll write a post on your points. I need a break from philosophy for a bit.

Well, building strawmen, leaping to conclusions and moving goalposts are tiring.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Riddle me this: find me a definition of reality that will not be circular.

It's irrelevant. We define reality as what exists. It might sound circular, but there is absolutely no other logical way to do it. Think about it.

Exactly. It's not circular so much as self defining.

Questions of "Prove Reality is Real" are meaningless. It's like demanding someone prove a circle is round.

The whole Plato's Cave / Matrix / Brain in a Jar malarkey is just that. "What would reality be like if it wasn't real?" Well then it wouldn't be reality. Problem solved.

 

[punshhh]

Here is my attempt, it goes anyways in the same direction with my scepticism regarding the value of our accepted knowledge (only to some extent). Quantum Physics suggests that we have access only to what we can measure / perceive and not to the 'things-in-themselves' (as an ultimate reality), we only see some sort of Platonic shadows on a wall.

Now many things can be behind the 'veil' covering Reality (and ontological idealism is still one possibility), we can indeed argue that what we observe at the macro level is real but this is perfectly compatible with the existence of a deeper reality which to relegate what we see to the status of at least 'less real'.

This means that we cannot really talk about materialism (involving self sustained physical stuff as fundamental) as more than one of the possible interpretations of the observed facts. So some may argue, with enough support in my view, that 'we don't know' is a much better approach here. Personally I think however that philosophical considerations do indeed make some forms of physicalism and realism the best alternatives at this moment in time but this in no way discard idealism for example; in a stronger sense basically nothing in our currently accepted 'web of knowledge' is above possible rational replacement, we should always be open to possible important changes in ALL parts of our accepted knowledge.

Agreed," we don't know "is a good starting point when it comes to the nature of existence. Materialism is the best practical philosophy for our every day lives. One should take care not to use it as a means of confining thought, though.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. It's not circular so much as self defining.

Questions of "Prove Reality is Real" are meaningless. It's like demanding someone prove a circle is round.

The whole Plato's Cave / Matrix / Brain in a Jar malarkey is just that. "What would reality be like if it wasn't real?" Well then it wouldn't be reality. Problem solved.

And if we're brains in jars, it doesn't change the reality we're in.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

By all means, please, show how "It is a core principle in modern theoretical physics". One thing that poster did assert is that currently it is purely speculative.

I am well aware you are the one that made the original post, and you can stop talking about yourself in the third person. Here is a paper on the holographic principle:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089

Cited over 2500 times. Also, AdS/CFT correspondence. Seems pretty important in modern theoretical physics, to me at least. I have no interest in getting into a semantic argument over the word "core".

The holographic principle was an idea proposed to deal with loss of information relating to black holes. This is a theoretical fix to a theoretical problem. The problem may not actually exist, or it may have a different solution. So, I wouldn't describe this as a core principle. Core principles include things like mass, gravity, volume, charge, inertia, etc. I don't know of any accepted theory that describes everything as information although this concept was used in the science fiction novel Anvil of Stars by Greg Bear.

Theoretical problems and theoretical fixes are the entire point of theoretical physics. Again, I have no interest in getting into a semantic argument over the word "core", of all things. My entire point was that there are plenty of other ontological possibilities that are not materialism, and many of those make more sense than materialism given our current best understanding of physics. I don't know (and I don't think anyone should particularly care) what we "call" the fundamental of nature of things; whether that be matter, mind, information, physics, logic, whatever. It all depends on assumptions and perspective. As long as it is internally consistent (which materialism really isn't, at least as an ontology) and consistent with empirical evidence who cares really.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I guess you don't know much about psychology if you think that just asking patients if they feel split is going to cut it. Of course their perceptions might not correspond to reality. You have to be able to isolate each half of the brain to get proper results. With both eyes and ears open, both brains have means to communicate, and sure enough, neither of them feels like they are two entities, so they'll probably never answer "yes".

This is utter nonsense. When we're talking about consciousness in a philosophical context, we aren't talking about the information processing and sharing between areas of the brain. We are talking about the perception of conscious experience. How a person "feels" is the only variable that matters.

In fact, when you have essentially two brains, you can only have two consciousnesses unless you believe that they communicate magically.

Or, you know, there is simply information deprivation to the one part of the brain that is conscious, since we already know there are unconscious brain processes. Unless you believe there is a magical unicorn fairy in the other hemisphere that just doesn't want to tell us it is a separate consciousness. Let me guess, this second consciousness -- it's invisible right? Or do we have to assume a bunch of things about the unconscious information processing in the other hemisphere to get to your conclusion? Are my legs conscious since they process sensory information?

Did you read the whole link ?

Yessir. Did you?

I think your recent posts illustrate your screen name very well.

Yup. My recent (well, not recent anymore) posts illustrate that your hypotheses and conclusions are untestable and are simply a reflection of your personal biases. Thus, you are not even wrong.

Are you even aware that only one of the two halves (the left) can use speech ?

Yeah. Are you even aware that just because something is unconsciously processing information does not mean it is conscious? Think about this for at least 2 seconds before responding.

Ah, there we are. There we find the reason for the "not even wrong" nonsense you post: you believe in souls.

Oh, you are one of those people that conflate anything non-materialism with religion. No wonder you are so biased and wrong all the time. And you have to create strawmen to (try to) argue coherently. Hint: the passage you quoted was an example of how nonsensical the argument was to which I was replying. I wasn't asserting it. Just like I wasn't asserting the invisible dragon in the line after that. Do you really have that much trouble following along?

Actually, there is only one, because they are connected into a single integrated system. I thought Nonpareil's posts were clear on this, but I guess you didn't read them because they don't espouse your pet theory.

Oh. My. God. The brain is cut in two. You even asserted before that split brains = two consciousness and you acted like it was fact in the neuroscience community. And I simply pointed out that the opposite was true, so you were the polar opposite of "correct". You literally weren't following anything were you?

Translation: "I really don't know enough about this topic to properly discuss it."

Translation: "I don't understand what word salad means so I am going to attack the arguer." (When you start calling everything that doesn't agree with you "invisible dragon" this is word salad because it is an unintelligible mixture of words and phrases that have no meaning. Which is the definition of "word salad". Seriously, look it up.)

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I know of no such thing in neurology such as single unitary consciousness, what definition are you using.

Been talking about the philosophical definition of consciousness, obviously. The topic of this entire thread, you know. [Edit: OK, not the topic of the entire thread, but the topic of the "consciousness" sidetrack. Don't want to get nitted to death by a bunch of people that don't know how to lose an argument with grace.]

Secondly the two halves can not communicate certain information , however the lower brain is still unified and can communicate with both spheres.

Unitary consciousness sounds like some philosophical term to me,.

And there are parts of their 'consciousness' that are not joined.

So maybe you should study and ask rather than making assertions about what cutting the corpus collosum does.

Where the heck does a materialist say that cutting the corpus would do this, please note the position of the corpus c in this diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum#/media/File:Gray720.png

Please note the areas of the limbic system and cerebellum that are below the corpus c., how did they loose their connection to the two hemispheres exactly.

Nice strawman, maybe you should try to understand the materialist POV before you pretend to refute it.

maybe you should read some more, there is still communication between the hemispheres....
being ignorant is easily remedied, try reading up on neurology.

I appreciate the suggestion on reading up on neurology, but I used to work in synthetic neurobiology (currently more in the biophysics and bioinformatics fields, so maybe I'm a few years behind!) so I think I'm probably caught up relative to your expertise.

I think I know the source of your confusion though. Here is the original post that is the beginning of this exchange:

Cut the connections between the two hemispheres of the brain and you end up with two distinct instances of consciousness.

Post #2786 by Nonpareil if you want to read the whole thing. So, you see, it was not me making the assertions. It was other posters, and I was replying to them. Maybe if you were responding to the right posters your suggestions would make more sense? Sorry your materialist brethren were in fact the ones who were wrong and spouting nonsense. I'm sure you'll correct them any moment now.

 

[Belz...]

When we're talking about consciousness in a philosophical context

No, we're talking about consciousness in a real context, here.

we aren't talking about the information processing and sharing between areas of the brain. We are talking about the perception of conscious experience.

The two are one and the same.

How a person "feels" is the only variable that matters.

Again, here's the bit you ignore: people are NOT aware of their internal processes. Asking them how things work inside their head is only going to result in nonsensical answers. Also, only the left hemisphere of the brain is able to respond with speech, so the right side gets the shaft unless you find a way to control for that.

Unless you believe there is a magical unicorn fairy in the other hemisphere that just doesn't want to tell us it is a separate consciousness.

I'm not sure the hemispheres are aware of what's going on, given that they don't communicate directly.

Let me guess, this second consciousness -- it's invisible right?

Only inasmuch as consciousness is invisible: we detect it through actions. It would really be nice if you had some working knowledge of this topic before engaging other people on it.

Are my legs conscious since they process sensory information?

They don't, actually.

My recent (well, not recent anymore) posts illustrate that your hypotheses and conclusions are untestable and are simply a reflection of your personal biases.

How so ?

Are you even aware that just because something is unconsciously processing information does not mean it is conscious?

Yes, that is a tautology. What does that have to do with what I said ? The two hemispheres are not processing unconsciously: they can both respond to requests using the means at their disposal. Their answers, however, clearly indicate that they do not agree.

Oh, you are one of those people that conflate anything non-materialism with religion.

No. I conflate non-materialistic with "non-existent".

No wonder you are so biased and wrong all the time.

Why did you continue to post as if my answer above was "yes" ?

Oh. My. God.

You can cut the outrage engine, there. That doesn't help you get your point across.

The brain is cut in two. You even asserted before that split brains = two consciousness and you acted like it was fact in the neuroscience community.

You lost track of the conversation there: that paragraph was talking about a brain NOT split in two.

Translation: "I don't understand what word salad means so I am going to attack the arguer."

I'm not attacking the arguer. I am simply saying that you do now know enough about this topic. If that's attacking you, then you have an incredibly thin skin.