I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[annnnoid]

You sure the universe isn't primarily just ellipses?

As I tried to express before, an informational universe makes both conciseness and material (along with just about everything else) just information processing. So it basically puts them both on a similar footing as emergent properties.

I would be flattered to discover that the universe is ellipsellian!

Conciseness would, necessarily, be information processing (along with everything else). Assuming it is ‘information processing’…the question of what variety of coherence orients the whole damn thing may eventually become relevant (merely asserting that it all functions according to humanly defined laws seems so…inadequate).

…and how human consciousness achieves the ability to intelligibly adjudicate this coherence. The relationship might be coincidental…but would that make sense? That an intersection of such dimensions is coincidence….???

 

[PixyMisa]

…generally speaking…idealism suggests the universe is ‘immaterial’ (to whatever degree it is possible to accurately define the word). If the universe is information…that’s certainly about as far from material as you can get without drifting into nothing-at-all.

If matter is information, it's still matter, and minds still come from matter - and materialism is still true.

…it can also refer to the universe as existing as some variety of consciousness / intelligence. If the universe is ‘information’…then it’s not much of a leap to add ‘processing’….if for no other reason than that is what seems to be occurring everywhere all the time (not to mention that whole inconvenient issue of mathematics and the mathematical basis of physics and that the whole damn thing seems to function according to rules that don’t exist anywhere). From there…it’s not much of a leap to consider how the word ‘intelligence’ might occur within such a paradigm.

This is where you run aground; everything in this paragraph is wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

You sure the universe isn't primarily just ellipses?

As I tried to express before, an informational universe makes both conciseness and material (along with just about everything else) just information processing.

Yes.

So it basically puts them both on a similar footing as emergent properties.

Not at all. We know how consciousness comes about. This is not speculation, it's established fact. It's an emergent property of matter. Whatever matter might ultimately be, consciousness emerges from it.

 

[tsig]

There is no singular version of idealism any more than there is a singular version of materialism.

…generally speaking…idealism suggests the universe is ‘immaterial’ (to whatever degree it is possible to accurately define the word). If the universe is information…that’s certainly about as far from material as you can get without drifting into nothing-at-all.

…it can also refer to the universe as existing as some variety of consciousness / intelligence. If the universe is ‘information’…then it’s not much of a leap to add ‘processing’….if for no other reason than that is what seems to be occurring everywhere all the time (not to mention that whole inconvenient issue of mathematics and the mathematical basis of physics and that the whole damn thing seems to function according to rules that don’t exist anywhere). From there…it’s not much of a leap to consider how the word ‘intelligence’ might occur within such a paradigm.

…it can also suggest that consciousness creates reality (a rather complex metaphysical issue that doesn’t lend itself to the variety of simplistic exploration that occurs at a place like this). There are other iterations…but the first two certainly seem consistent with at least some of the latest advances in theoretical physics.

There's a sophisticated metaphysical argument that we are not addressing?

Seems a lot like that sophisticated theology that we always hear about but never see.

 

[Fudbucker]

There's a sophisticated metaphysical argument that we are not addressing?

Seems a lot like that sophisticated theology that we always hear about but never see.

But now you have an authority in the field of consciousness (Koch) who claims that consciousness permeates the universe. You also have Tegmark claiming the universe IS math.

Mainstream science and physics seems to be moving away from materialism, not towards it.

If I had to guess, I'd say a weird amalgam of materialism/dualism/neoplatonism will be the dominant mindset in science in twenty years. Strict materialism will be like string theory is today- on life support, with a few die-hard proponents.

 

[Lowpro]

But now you have an authority in the field of consciousness (Koch) who claims that consciousness permeates the universe. You also have Tegmark claiming the universe IS math.

Mainstream science and physics seems to be moving away from materialism, not towards it.

If I had to guess, I'd say a weird amalgam of materialism/dualism/neoplatonism will be the dominant mindset in science in twenty years. Strict materialism will be like string theory is today- on life support, with a few die-hard proponents.

I seriously suggest you understand how Koch considers consciousness. With the Integrated Information Theory, consciousness becomes measured as interactions spatially. It's model cannot discriminate the physiology of the brain from any system with the interactions (and that's a good thing!). He's extending that fact. This doesn't really shake up the metaphysics here.

As far as Tegmark's concerns, remember that math has always been abstract; it didn't exist in reality. Tegmark's mathematical universe described as a gigantic goddamned matrix or a self-referential set. If the universe is informational (thus mathematical) then the mathematics aren't even abstract anymore, they're freakin' real!

That's not groundshaking either though. When materialism says that reality is material, and material is described completely mathematically, then they're one and the same.

 

[PixyMisa]

But now you have an authority in the field of consciousness (Koch) who claims that consciousness permeates the universe.

Yeah. He then immediately contradicts himself on that point. He also makes claims that are known to be mathematically impossible. It's not entirely clear what he is saying. I'd suggest listening to him when he's talking about brains, and ignoring him on any other subject.

Anyway, we know that consciousness doesn't permeate the universe. That's physically impossible.

You also have Tegmark claiming the universe IS math.

Sure. That's materialism.

Mainstream science and physics seems to be moving away from materialism, not towards it.

It only seems that way if you don't understand it.

If I had to guess, I'd say a weird amalgam of materialism/dualism/neoplatonism will be the dominant mindset in science in twenty years. Strict materialism will be like string theory is today- on life support, with a few die-hard proponents.

Not a chance in hell. Dualism is self-contradictory; it is useless for any purpose at all. And Neoplatonism is pure baloney, an utter failure at every level. Materialism is and will remain the bedrock of science because it is actually true.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I will try

This is not just science, but rather it appears to be philosophy. But if you don't like philosophy, it is psychology. The moment we do metaphysics we are doing cognition or rather meta-cognition. We are doing how we know that we know. In philosophical terms metaphysics is a subset of epistemology and logic and not the other way around.

So here is one example with a combination of philosophy and psychology.

• If you are not a materialist, then you are a idealist/dualist.

Please tell me, that you can spot that it is an invalid deduction in the following manner:
P1: A is not B
Therefore A is C

You should be able to recognize that one if I do so:
P1: Reality(A) is not explainable by science(B)
Therefore Reality(A) is explainable by God(C)
In abstract terms:
P1: A is not B
Therefore A is C

In other terms the false dichotomy is nested in the idea(psychology) that it is possible to know what reality is and it is either:
Reality is material or
Reality is idealism/dualism
Now there is another possibility - we don't know what reality is in metaphysical terms.

So my best alternative to materialism is that we don't know. I am a skeptic and I don't mind the answer I don't know and I can't explain it. In other words I accept that there are limitations to knowledge and one of them is that we can't know what reality is.
The reason we end in psychology is because the answer - "It doesn't make sense'" is a psychological one and how you deal with the meaningless, absurd, senseless and nonsense in part depends on psychology.
In other words you can accept some meaningless, absurd, senseless and nonsense answers as valid, correct and right because they mark the limitation of knowledge.

With regards
Tommy

 

[PixyMisa]

I will try

This is not just science, but rather it appears to be philosophy. But if you don't like philosophy, it is psychology. The moment we do metaphysics we are doing cognition or rather meta-cognition. We are doing how we know that we know. In philosophical terms metaphysics is a subset of epistemology and logic and not the other way around.

So here is one example with a combination of philosophy and psychology.

• If you are not a materialist, then you are a idealist/dualist.

Why are you arguing with yourself? No-one said that.

So my best alternative to materialism is that we don't know.

You're wrong. We do know.

The reason we end in psychology is because the answer - "It doesn't make sense'" is a psychological one and how you deal with the meaningless, absurd, senseless and nonsense in part depends on psychology.

If you ever happen to actually study psychology, you will find that it's fundamental principle is that mind is brain function.

 

[Aepervius]

Well, if you're going to limit the umbrellas to just two, then there would be no alternative to materialism other than idealism. Under that restriction I would have to say that given the dependence on just information and not physical material existence that it would be closer to idealism.

That still not diealism by its definition :
"In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."

Only when you cronstruct idealism is being information which is not what it is thought to be in philosophy. There is a reason it is called idea-lism. This is about the mind transcending or creating the universe, not about the universe being strings vibrating or information in form of energy or whatever.

 

[The Man]

I would be flattered to discover that the universe is ellipsellian!

Conciseness would, necessarily, be information processing (along with everything else). Assuming it is ‘information processing’…the question of what variety of coherence orients the whole damn thing may eventually become relevant (merely asserting that it all functions according to humanly defined laws seems so…inadequate).

Sure "Conciseness would, necessarily, be information processing" but so would a lot of other things that we would not ascribe as conscious or consciousness. So conciseness would, necessarily, be a particular type of information processing.

 

[The Man]

Yes.


Not at all. We know how consciousness comes about. This is not speculation, it's established fact. It's an emergent property of matter. Whatever matter might ultimately be, consciousness emerges from it.

Again if an informational universe is true then matter is also an emergent property of information processing. Ontology concerns itself specifically with what things "might ultimately be". So simply asserting "Whatever matter might ultimately be" not only doesn't address whether, as an ontology, an informational universe is more like materialism or idealism, it explicitly ignores it.

Now functionally and empirically consciousness appears to be dependent on martial aspects. However, just information itself functionally and empirically appears to be dependent on material aspects (information evidently requires some material media). While that may go to putting consciousness functionally subsequent to material it would also put information functionally subsequent to material. So while such arguments might go against the validity of an informational universe it again doesn't address which of two ontological classifications (materialistic or idealistic) it is more closely related to.

 

[annnnoid]

Not at all. We know how consciousness comes about. This is not speculation, it's established fact. It's an emergent property of matter. Whatever matter might ultimately be, consciousness emerges from it.

…and I can present at least a half dozen neuroscientists who have categorically stated that not only do we NOT know, we actually have no idea how consciousness comes about. (btw Pixy…precisely what neuroscience credentials do you possess ….yeah …thought so).

…and you have yet to answer a single one of those questions I keep presenting (which would, of course, actually convince folks that you’re not just waving your arms about like a madman!). Want to give them another try (probably not…but just for excrement and giggles):

- What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
- What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?
- How is this process expressed through the biochemistry of neurons?
- What part of the system actually has the experience(s)?
- What are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?
- Why (for example) does the amygdala have the physical dimensions and bio-chemical constitution that it has (and how did it achieve that condition) and in what specific ways do these elements determine its cognitive functionality? When you’re done explaining that, provide equivalent explanations for every other significantly differentiated brain region (modularity of mind, remember, what you’re all claiming is evidence that we know how the brain works).

…and you have yet to present the slightest support for your never-ending contention that there is any consensus what-so-ever on what consciousness even is (you saying it is SRIP and having Belz, tsig, and Nonpareil agree with you does not actually represent a consensus).

So…we have something that isn’t remotely defined…and we have no idea how it’s generated…( “it comes from your head” hardly qualifies as a scientific conclusion ….or are you actually suggesting that “it comes from your head” does, in fact, qualify as an explicit scientific conclusion????).

But you not only KNOW what it is… you KNOW how it’s generated.

…what fairy tale land are you in exactly???? Like I said…you’ve got the thread right this time. Religion.

If matter is information, it's still matter, and minds still come from matter - and materialism is still true.

This is where you run aground; everything in this paragraph is wrong.

…so do enlighten us then Pixy…what is it, specifically, that accounts for and explains mathematics and physics and the all-but-indisputable relationship they have to the universe they exist in.

…and since you categorically insist that we know how the brain generates consciousness it should hardly take you a moment to explain how the brain also generates mathematics. Thereby explicitly resolving the trivial issue of the actual relationship between mathematics and reality.

We’ll wait.

…oh…you can’t. Sorry…what was that??? You can’t even begin to.

Sorry for asking then. I guess your one-true-epistemology fails rather badly sometimes.

That still not diealism by its definition :
"In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."

Only when you cronstruct idealism is being information which is not what it is thought to be in philosophy. There is a reason it is called idea-lism. This is about the mind transcending or creating the universe, not about the universe being strings vibrating or information in form of energy or whatever.

…precisely how much farther away from ‘material’ can you get than ‘information’ ? There is no ‘energy’. There is just information. That is the point. There is coherent, apparently self-directed information processing. What we typically associate with the metaphysical qualities of intelligence.

…oops! Did I just mention intelligence. Sorry. Not before dinner (of course, that would depend on what time zone you inhabit).

Sure "Conciseness would, necessarily, be information processing" but so would a lot of other things that we would not ascribe as conscious or conciseness. So conciseness would, necessarily, be a particular type of information processing.

…a typo. How uncharacteristic.

…and if consciousness is information processing, the question then becomes what differentiates that particular variety? Anything?

For one thing…it seems to have the capacity to self-adjudicate. IOW…it can discover, represent, and perhaps expand, the parameters and conditions of its own existence.

Thus…consciousness is the ability to know what consciousness is. ‘Knowing’ being some unique version of information processing. One characteristic of it being…an explicit ‘sense’ of it’s veracity / accuracy / authenticity (human beings generate terms such as real, unconditional certainty, honesty, truth, etc. …simply examples of explicit functionality [as opposed to dysfunctionality]).

…but, I suppose, that’s all a bit abstract. Still…way more fun than what Bertrand Russel had to say about brute materialism:

“Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.”

 

[The Man]

That still not diealism by its definition :
"In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."

"...otherwise immaterial". Is just information fundamentally material? Again being closer to idealism as an ontology doesn't make it idealism. Right now I'm closer to New York City than I was when I woke up this morning but that still doesn't make me NYC.

Only when you cronstruct idealism is being information which is not what it is thought to be in philosophy. There is a reason it is called idea-lism. This is about the mind transcending or creating the universe, not about the universe being strings vibrating or information in form of energy or whatever.

I know, that is why I have never said it was idealism and in fact have stated that it disputes the basic tenet of idealism (as well as materialism). Sorry but I don't know how much clearer I can make the point that you seem to be auguring against something I not only haven't said but have explicitly and repeatedly denied.

 

[The Man]

…a typo. How uncharacteristic.

Acctualy not at all.

…and if consciousness is information processing, the question then becomes what differentiates that particular variety? Anything?

As noted above the empirical dependence on material aspects and media for what we identify as consciousness. To try an analogy, material would be how the information is packaged or how the information is packaged is what we perceive as material. As a technical analogy material would be like a communication protocol, information organized in a particular way. From combinations and interactions of such organized information we apparently can find consciousness

For one thing…it seems to have the capacity to self-adjudicate. IOW…it can discover, represent, and perhaps expand, the parameters and conditions of its own existence.

Well, judging itself presupposes knowing itself and thus "its own existence" already.

Thus…consciousness is the ability to know what consciousness is. ‘Knowing’ being some unique version of information processing. One characteristic of it being…an explicit ‘sense’ of it’s veracity / accuracy / authenticity (human beings generate terms such as real, unconditional certainty, honesty, truth, etc. …simply examples of explicit functionality [as opposed to dysfunctionality]).

…but, I suppose, that’s all a bit abstract. Still…way more fun than what Bertrand Russel had to say about brute materialism:

“Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.”

Too bad “way more fun” doesn’t equate to true or even just eminently practical.

 

[PixyMisa]

…and I can present at least a half dozen neuroscientists who have categorically stated that not only do we NOT know, we actually have no idea how consciousness comes about.

Yes, we're well aware of your sad attempts at quotemining. They don't change the fact that consciousness is brain function.

 

[PixyMisa]

Again if an informational universe is true then matter is also an emergent property of information processing. Ontology concerns itself specifically with what things "might ultimately be". So simply asserting "Whatever matter might ultimately be" not only doesn't address whether, as an ontology, an informational universe is more like materialism or idealism, it explicitly ignores it.

Not at all. We know that matter is what exists, and we know that minds arise from material processes. We talk about matter in terms of information. What we are discussing here is the idea that matter is not just represented by information, it is information. This changes absolutely nothing about the behaviour of our universe. It's still material, and the usual forms of naive idealism (the ones being discussed in this and related threads) are still entirely false.

Now functionally and empirically consciousness appears to be dependent on martial aspects. However, just information itself functionally and empirically appears to be dependent on material aspects (information evidently requires some material media).

Information is physical. What we are saying here is that this means that the physical is information. Again, this changes absolutely nothing about the nature of the universe; it's just a change in how we describe it.

While that may go to putting consciousness functionally subsequent to material it would also put information functionally subsequent to material. So while such arguments might go against the validity of an informational universe it again doesn't address which of two ontological classifications (materialistic or idealistic) it is more closely related to.

It's materialism.

 

[The Man]

Not at all. We know that matter is what exists, and we know that minds arise from material processes. We talk about matter in terms of information. What we are discussing here is the idea that matter is not just represented by information, it is information. This changes absolutely nothing about the behaviour of our universe. It's still material, and the usual forms of naive idealism (the ones being discussed in this and related threads) are still entirely false.

Who said it would change anything "about the behaviour of our universe"?

Information is physical. What we are saying here is that this means that the physical is information. Again, this changes absolutely nothing about the nature of the universe; it's just a change in how we describe it.

Hardly a useful description if changing that description of the nature of the universe doesn’t reflect some change in our understanding of the nature of the universe. Isn’t idealism also “just a change in how we describe it”?

It's materialism.

Where does materialism assert information as its fundamental element?

 

[Aepervius]

"...otherwise immaterial". Is just information fundamentally material?

No it isn't for the purpose of materialism vs idealism.

It is the same fallacy you would use by saying "materislism is wrong because all is vibrating string of energy in 99.99999% void".

For the purpose of idealism, holographic theory is NOT immaterial.

You are redefining terms and idea to match materialism that you can deny.

This is about brain and thought, and how the world is formed either therefrom or in absence of. Youa re mistaking what idealism is about.

 

[Aepervius]

Where does materialism assert information as its fundamental element?

Because this is how PHYSIC define it. You are using a pre-19th century definition. If you want to say materislism is wrong, use the definition of today.

Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects.

And that encompass vibrating string of energy on a 2D volume i.e. information.