I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[realpaladin]

Dear Belz... as the past 3 weeks I suggested you to try a win-win paradigm

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Doron, you must be a monumental scale pathological liar to even claim that.

You! The king of strife! You! The master of opposition! You! The antithesis to peace!

The lord of flies could learn a trick or two from you; at which point did you do so?

 

[gurugeorge]

Let me explain it simpler:

- I think, therefore I am.
- There is *more* than just me...
- <anything you want>

The *more* is the crux here. Whether you like it or not, to be conscious of anything you *must* measure and/or analyze to be aware of anything outside of you.

Otherwise you become like Doron and the TM-cult; professional plants, being reactive biomass.

The "more" could be an unwarranted assumption. The cogito doesn't really get you an "I", it just gets you that thinking is happening.

Also, that there has to be a thinker of thought (the "I" who thinks) could be an unwarranted assumption (it's grammatically true that thoughts need a thinker, but so what?).

The trouble with the cogito formulated with any sort of "I" is that one has gone to all the trouble of bracketing and setting aside anything that can possibly be doubted, only to end up with an "I" - but "I" needs "other", which is what we were doubting, IOW "I" can't have any meaning without there being other things, but the existence of other things is what we were supposed to be doubting to reach the supposed bedrock certainty.

The upshot is that it is logically possible to take the whole thing as an un-analyzed (in causal terms) singular event (which is actually what the solipsist and the non-dual mystic do).

Which was my initial point re. neutral monism, neutral monism is the position that both mind and matter are the same thing, merely looked at in different ways, one from the point of view of causal analysis, the other from the point of view of being sheer, singular presentation.

 

[punshhh]

Hi punshhh

You can't observe self-consciousness in other humans. It is as the word self goes a contradiction to claim that you can know that someone other than you is self-consciousness. So how do you know that I am self-consciousness? You don't, because for the word self it is a contradiction that you can be something which you are not; i.e. you are not me as a self. So stop using a double-standard!!!

There is some truth in what you say, but I know that I am related to the other person, we have a common self-conscious ancestor. Also I am using the word observe in a scientific sense, i.e. detect sufficiently to conclude it is the case.

 

[punshhh]

You and I are not exactly the same, are we ?

I think we are quite distant relations, if that helps.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

There is some truth in what you say, but I know that I am related to the other person, we have a common self-conscious ancestor. Also I am using the word observe in a scientific sense, i.e. detect sufficiently to conclude it is the case.

You don't know that other humans are self-conscious. To claim that is a contradiction.

 

[dlorde]

Ah, but in each case where you have said that something (AI, robot, ropes and pulley machine) behaves exactly as something else(a human), it is not exactly the same( I.e. the structure of the apparatus), is it. The only thing that is the same in your scenario is the computation and it has not been demonstrated that equivalent computation = equivalent consciousness.

No, the requirement was that the behaviour is indistinguishable under all circumstances. It is the behaviour that is exactly the same. If this is done by computation, so be it.

You keep repeating this mistake, in order for a mimic to perform the self-conscious behavior of a human, it does not have to be(or is not a) human. You only have to look at the apparatus performing to act to see this. On the one side you have a human body on the other you have a mass of ropes and pulleys, or a computer. One is not the other.

No-one says it is. It is the self-conscious behaviour that is perfectly mimicked, so the mimic is self-conscious.

...if it is merely mimicking consciousness, there is no requirement for it to be self-conscious to perform the act.

The argument is that if it is perfectly mimicking consciousness, then it is conscious; and if it is perfectly mimicking self-consciousness, it is self-conscious.

So any rope duck observed in nature is a duck then and not a fabrication of ropes and pulleys?

You have repeated the same mistake again, the apparatus is not the same in the mimic.

Comprehension error; punshhh, it's you that keeps making this mistake. A rope duck is not a perfect imitation of a duck, so it isn't a duck. Nonpareil just agreed that a perfect mimic of a duck would include every chemical in the body of the duck, i.e. it would be a duck. That's the whole point. Behaviour completely indistinguishable from consciousness would be consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

I think we are quite distant relations, if that helps.

It doesn't. How do you know I'm conscious, for instance ? By assumption because we are similar ? That is reasonable but far from certain. Wouldn't a better argument be that we both are acting as if we are conscious ?

 

[doronshadmi]

Doronshadmi - I gotta hand it to you, you fought with class till the end, but the end you did reach; and like Arjuna on the battlefield, you set down your bow and took a seat in your chariot. Now, begin again with consciousness which requires no hypothesis, and reality, which turns into matter whenever we 'touch' it.

Hi LarryS,

According to The Bhagavad Gita Arjuna fulfills himself by actually being aware of the substance of things, which can't directly be known only in terms of multiplicity.

This knowledge does not exclusively belongs to any particular school, but at the level of multiplicity it is fragmented into many schools of thought, religions, etc. that are all miss it if they are aware of it only in terms of multiplicity.

Here is belz... paradigm:

The reason why I'm not 100% of anything (except the axiom "something exists.") is that my point of view is not omniscient, and that future evidence may lead me to different conclusions. It has nothing to do with variance or boundings or bondage or whatever, but with the incompleteness of my knowledge. Meditation will not change that. All knowledge is incomplete and transient.

A according to this approach objective evidence is something that exists independently of the existence of some observer, whether this something is variant or invariant.

The best that the observer can do is to develop rigorous methods that define and use the observed object in such a way that highlights (stresses) its independence of the observer as much as possible (for example: the ability to replicate results by independent research laboratories, etc.), by always keeping in mind that the subjective aspect of the observer, the possible spontaneous changes of the observed (which are independent of the observer) and the inability of the observer to know everything, actually prevent 100% certainty of anything.

This is exactly the multiplicity aspect of existence that is characterized by object\subject\dependence\independence\variant\
invariant\observed\observer\observation\ and more infinitely many relations among infinitely many levels.

Multiplicity is definitely not the simplest state of existence, which is naturally non-composed, and it can be known only if awareness is unbounded by multiplicity.

Being unbounded by multiplicity transcends its complexity, and one directly aware of the simplest state of existence, which can't be known in terms of multiplicity including object\subject\matter\spirit\internal\external\ etc.

Moreover, the research methods that are used for multiplicity are insufficient for direct awareness of the simplest state of existence, and this is exactly where techniques like TM are used in order to effortlessly transcend multiplicity and directly be aware of the simplest state of existence, that from the multiplicity aspect of existence is described as unbounded, non-composed, absolutely invariant, the substance of multiplicity, absolute symmetry, total silence, total calmness, the simplest state of existence, Unity, pure consciousness etc. ... more and more descriptions, that no one of them or all of them together is the actual thing in itself.

Direct awareness of the actual thing in itself enables that is directly aware of it to be developed into 100% harmonious factor among multiplicity, exactly because multiplicity is constantly derived from and returns to the actual thing in itself (exactly as universes, particles, virtual-particles, waves, fields, and more infinity many things appear from and disappear into the thing in itself).

As long as Belz... seeks for about evidence of the actual thing in itself, this is exactly the best he can get, which is always multiplicity awareness about the the actual thing in itself.

 

[realpaladin]

Hi LarryS,

According to The Bhagavad Gita Arjuna fulfills himself by actually being aware of the substance of things, which can't directly known in terms of multiplicity.

And there we have it: Doron's depth is nothing but a google assisted regurgitation of religion.

Was that so hard to admit, Doron?

 

[poblob14]

Kappish?

What I kappish is that you can't even explain your own ideas properly, cannot understand the explanations of other people, have no evidence and no method of gathering it, no logic and no knowledge.

Not to mention no knowledge of Italian-American slang, capisce?

 

[LarryS]

Hi LarryS,

According to The Bhagavad Gita Arjuna fulfills himself by actually being aware of the substance of things, which can't directly be known only in terms of multiplicity.

This knowledge does not exclusively belongs to any particular school, but at the level of multiplicity it is fragmented into many schools of thought, religions, etc. that are all miss it if they are aware of it only in terms of multiplicity.

I was hoping this would not happen, that you would respond with way too many incomprehensible phrases. However I am more motivated in understanding your position than "I win you lose", so I am going to give this another shot. Are you saying that the 'substance of things' has two components or properties, one of unity and one of multiplicity?

How does your claim vary from if I made the following (rather simple) two seemingly but not necessarily opposite claims:

1) Consciousness requires a brain or similar complex structure.
2) The brain (or complex structure) is insufficient to explain consciousness.

Are the above two claims a real world way of expressing your claim of 1)multiplicity and 2) unity?

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you saying that the 'substance of things' has two components or properties, one of unity and one of multiplicity?

No, there is only one thing that may or may not appear as multiplicity.

The awareness of the thing in itself does not require multiplicity (subjective\objective etc.)

Therefore: 2) The brain (or complex structure) is insufficient to explain consciousness.

Please be aware of the fact that our communication through this medium (this forum) is done in terms of multiplicity, where http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10417706&postcount=936 is only about the thing in itself (known also as Unity).

 

[LarryS]

No, there is only one thing that may or may not appear as multiplicity.

The awareness of the thing in itself does not require multiplicity (subjective\objective etc.)

Therefore: 2) The brain (or complex structure) is insufficient to explain consciousness.

Please be aware of the fact that our communication through this medium (this forum) is done in terms of multiplicity, where http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10417706&postcount=936 is only about the thing in itself (known also as Unity).

To restate with terminology with a tad less baggage . . .

There is one universal 'substance' that persists, that is, eternal, and not subject to modification; and this substance can appear as something particular.

We can be aware of this substance both as something particular, as in touching, seeing, tasting, ideas, thoughts and etc.; and we can be aware of this substance as universal, presumably in this 'simplest state of awareness'.
We can only be aware of this substance in this simplest state of awareness.

So where does consciousness fit in? What/where is subjective and objective?

 

[punshhh]

No, the requirement was that the behaviour is indistinguishable under all circumstances. It is the behaviour that is exactly the same. If this is done by computation, so be it.

Yes I am aware of this requirement. Unfortunately this is a non sequitur if it is possible for a mimic to replicate all the behaviour. Why would it not be possible to fashion an AI device which can replicate all the computation involved in a person?
Also if this device were made why would it be necessary for it to be conscious in any way? All that would be required is sufficient self referential computation.

No-one says it is. It is the self-conscious behaviour that is perfectly mimicked, so the mimic is self-conscious.

If the mimic can perform all the behaviour of a person, what need would there be for self-consciousness? That would be entirely unnecessary. Does something magical happen once the level of computation reaches a certain threshold?

The argument is that if it is perfectly mimicking consciousness, then it is conscious; and if it is perfectly mimicking self-consciousness, it is self-conscious.

I agree that it would be conscious in a rudimentary sense, i.e. can react strategically to the results of the computation of data. Once this point is reached all other more sophisticated forms of behaviour such as self-consciousness could be replicated or mimiked by increasing the computational power and processing of internal referential states. Again, there is no requirement for the kind of sentient self awareness found in a person.

Comprehension error; punshhh, it's you that keeps making this mistake. A rope duck is not a perfect imitation of a duck, so it isn't a duck. Nonpareil just agreed that a perfect mimic of a duck would include every chemical in the body of the duck, i.e. it would be a duck. That's the whole point. Behaviour completely indistinguishable from consciousness would be consciousness.

Yes, if the mechanism, the hardware, is identical to the hardware in a duck, it would be a duck.But why would it not be possible to construct an automaton which can replicate all aspects of the behaviour of a duck out of mechano for example?

You have to rule out in some way the possibility of mimicry? Can you?

 

[punshhh]

To restate with terminology with a tad less baggage . . .

There is one universal 'substance' that persists, that is, eternal, and not subject to modification; and this substance can appear as something particular.

We can be aware of this substance both as something particular, as in touching, seeing, tasting, ideas, thoughts and etc.; and we can be aware of this substance as universal, presumably in this 'simplest state of awareness'.
We can only be aware of this substance in this simplest state of awareness.

So where does consciousness fit in? What/where is subjective and objective?

Just look up "Brahman" on wiki, its a western form of Hinduism

 

[punshhh]

It doesn't. How do you know I'm conscious, for instance ? By assumption because we are similar ? That is reasonable but far from certain. Wouldn't a better argument be that we both are acting as if we are conscious ?

i know that I was produced by my mother and that you were produced by a mother related to my mother. As such we are essentially clones. This being the case, you will have similar levels of consciousness to myself.

You should realise that idealists and Mystics don't deny any of the reality and pertinence of physical matter in any way. It is only the origin and basis of our reality which is under dispute.

 

[realpaladin]

The "more" could be an unwarranted assumption. The cogito doesn't really get you an "I", it just gets you that thinking is happening.

Also, that there has to be a thinker of thought (the "I" who thinks) could be an unwarranted assumption (it's grammatically true that thoughts need a thinker, but so what?).

The trouble with the cogito formulated with any sort of "I" is that one has gone to all the trouble of bracketing and setting aside anything that can possibly be doubted, only to end up with an "I" - but "I" needs "other", which is what we were doubting, IOW "I" can't have any meaning without there being other things, but the existence of other things is what we were supposed to be doubting to reach the supposed bedrock certainty.

The upshot is that it is logically possible to take the whole thing as an un-analyzed (in causal terms) singular event (which is actually what the solipsist and the non-dual mystic do).

Which was my initial point re. neutral monism, neutral monism is the position that both mind and matter are the same thing, merely looked at in different ways, one from the point of view of causal analysis, the other from the point of view of being sheer, singular presentation.

But "looking at things from points of view" is nothing but a semantic cop-out.

I once met someone who, just like you, was trying to make it 'one and the same' with a lot of words.

Before he finished I punched him extremely hard in his face and he landed on the ground.

When he got up all angry asking me 'what the...' I told him 'from my point of view, this never happened'.

IOW, it is all fine and dandy to try and build silly little constructs by playing with words, but in the end, either matter exists and you get hurt, or you don't believe in neutral monism enough to control the thinking that makes you think you get hurt.

Until I meet, or see or hear from using a, to me, credible source, someone who can distort reality because he/she really understands/believes at his/her core that neutral monism is the correct way of looking at things, I can state that it is all hogwash.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

i know that I was produced by my mother and that you were produced by a mother related to my mother. As such we are essentially clones. This being the case, you will have similar levels of consciousness to myself.

You should realise that idealists and Mystics don't deny any of the reality and pertinence of physical matter in any way. It is only the origin and basis of our reality which is under dispute.

You don't know that your mother is self-conscious. I would like evidence, which can be reproduced as to how you know that something else is self-conscious.

 

[realpaladin]

Just look up "Brahman" on wiki, its a western form of Hinduism

That is funny... when I lived and worked in India (Kolkata) my good friend and colleague always told me he was Brahman, the highest caste... nothing western about him.

 

[punshhh]

You don't know that your mother is self-conscious. I would like evidence, which can be reproduced as to how you know that something else is self-conscious.

My proof is the same as how I know I am conscious, along with the realisation that I am a clone* of my mother. When I was a newborn, my mum and I were as one person for a few years.
Also I have realised that humanity is in some respects one organism, therefore the consciousness I experience is that experienced by other parts of the organism.

If I were female I could produce(reproduce) a specimen.

* with a few genetic differences.