I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

I can accept that there is something outside the mind, apart from what science tells, if you can give evidence for that.

I think therefore something exists. Science has not convinced me yet that it has discovered what it is yet.

 

[punshhh]

How would you know ?

I wouldn't. If it were not alive though, I would doubt it is self-conscious.

How do you define "conscious" ?

Alive to its existence.

 

[punshhh]

Well, to be fair, we don't know. There is just no evidence for an 'I'.

Hans

It depends on what is considered evidence and also on one's philosophy.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It depends on what is considered evidence and also on one's philosophy.

No. It is pretty clear what evidence is, and it is, per definition, not philosophy.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I wouldn't. If it were not alive though, I would doubt it is self-conscious.

Alive as in biologically alive, or what?

Alive to its existence.

The sentence has no meaning. Do you mean aware of its existence?

Hans

 

[Belz...]

I have tried and failed, but at least I have tried it, after all dear Belz... "we can't be 100% sure of anything", isn't it?

Given that you have no idea what I meant by that even after I explained it to you twice, I can't help but agree that no.

Now dear Belz... why are you so sure that by practicing, for example, TM, you are going to fail to be aware without thoughts' process?

I will not answer that until you successfully fly by flapping your arms.

Generally, currently you ontologically exclude the simplest state of existence.

No, I actually do accept materialism.

 

[Belz...]

I wouldn't. If it were not alive though, I would doubt it is self-conscious.

Alive to its existence.

What ? You are defining conscious as alive, and then doubting that non-alive means non-conscious ?

Gee, man.

 

[punshhh]

No. It is pretty clear what evidence is, and it is, per definition, not philosophy.

Hans

Yes, however around here evidence is often conflated with proof, yourself excepted.

If ones philosophy is idealism, I is fundamental and personal experience is evidence of this.

 

[punshhh]

Alive as in biologically alive, or what?

Biologically/metabolically alive. There may be other forms of life, though.

The sentence has no meaning. Do you mean aware of its existence?

Hans

Yes, I was being facetious. What I mean is difficult to pin down, but I could express it this way. An organism, or mechanism with independent molecular autonomy, with strategic awareness of its environment.

 

[punshhh]

What ? You are defining conscious as alive, and then doubting that non-alive means non-conscious ?

Gee, man.

I made the distinction between metabolic consciousness and self-consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

I made the distinction between metabolic consciousness and self- consciousness.

The what and the what ?

 

[doronshadmi]

Given that you have no idea what I meant by that even after I explained it to you twice, I can't help but agree that no.

Your explanation are no more than maneuvers of evasion to understand X (Matter, in your case) and deal only with X behavior.

I will not answer that until you successfully fly by flapping your arms.

This is an excellent example of maneuvers of evasion in order not to face with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10453253&postcount=1696.

No, I actually do accept materialism.

Wrong, you actually accept only X behavior, by totally avoiding any understanding of X.

It is about time to direct your maneuvers into my ignore list.

 

[Belz...]

Your explanation are no more than maneuvers of evasion to understand X (Matter, in your case) and deal only with X behavior.

Yes, and the fact that you don't understand the irony I am trying to convey is quite telling of the fact that you don't understand the very things you post.

It is about time to direct your maneuvers into my ignore list.

Yay, that means I win.

 

[Nonpareil]

Well that sounds clever, but it is in ignorance of physical reality.

No, it isn't. That is exactly the opposite of the problem; to say that it isn't is to ignore reality.

If a mechanism is self-conscious it is due to a physical mechanism, not due to a definition, or assertion.

If something has all the properties of self-consciousness, then it is self-conscious both by definition and by the mechanisms present. That is why it is self-conscious by definition.

We only have one kind of example of self-consciousness as a result of a physical mechanism. Unless the same physical process is reproduced in an experiment to reproduce self-consciousness. There is no rational basis to consider or presume that it will be Self-conscious.

You're playing games now.

"Unless you can create self-consciousness, there's no reason to believe it - but because it was created, it wasn't really self-conscious".

Circular.

If one endeavours to replicate only one of many physical processes involved in self-consciousness

Which no one is doing.

But that demonstration is solely behavioural, a mimic, automaton, or mime artist could fein it. I.e. replicate the required behaviour to fulfill the requirements of the experiment/definition.

Except that a perfect mimic is the thing it is mimicking.

You can't get around this.

Yes, no mind required(ref' primitive life forms), but no, self is independent of mind. Each of those primitive life forms is an individual self. I am not saying they are self-conscious, I am saying they have a conscious self.
Looks like a slam dunk/checkmate then, as you've brought out the gibberish word.

All your arguments are obsolete, what else can you say?

No. But your argument is gibberish. It is self-contradictory and nonsensical.

You cannot have a self without a mind, and if you have a self, you are self-conscious. "Has a conscious self but is not self-conscious" is a meaningless phrase.

There's that problem with is again. Humanity dictates that physical reality is an objectively existing thing, it must be so.

No, humanity observes that physical reality is an objectively existing thing, and that any attempt to dismiss it as otherwise is meaningless word games that leave you with no functional definition of the word "is".

X* and ~X. (Where X* is not replicating all the physical processes of self-consciousness, but is merely replicating the behaviour of self-consciousness.)Is not coherent?

No, it's not, because physical processes are behaviors.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, to be fair, we don't know. There is just no evidence for an 'I'.

Hans

Fair enough, no evidence then....

 

[Dancing David]

The claim that there is something outside of mind is a materialist claim.

The evidence for minds is lacking...

the assumption of minds are abundant

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, however around here evidence is often conflated with proof, yourself excepted.

The conflation is mainly in manners of speech. I'm sure most here know the distinction.

If ones philosophy is idealism, I is fundamental and personal experience is evidence of this.

OK. As argument, or evidence if you will, that statement is circular, however. Fortunately, philosophy exists independently of evidence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Biologically/metabolically alive. There may be other forms of life, though.

First part, correct.

Second part: Not under our current definition of 'life'. That may, of course, change one day.

Yes, I was being facetious. What I mean is difficult to pin down, but I could express it this way. An organism, or mechanism with independent molecular autonomy, with strategic awareness of its environment.

What does "independent molecular autonomy" mean?

Awareness of its environment (strategic or otherwise) does not cut it. Your plain vanilla motion detector switch has that. Our current definition is someting like: "Aware of itself as a separate entity." - Not that this is too clear, either.

Hans

 

[LarryS]

The evidence for minds is lacking...

the assumption of minds are abundant

Funny how that works, we assume mind, then employ this assumption to derive evidence for matter. Then we state, matter is because it is, and mind is not because there ain't no evidence.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Funny how that works, we assume mind, then employ this assumption to derive evidence for matter. Then we state, matter is because it is, and mind is not because there ain't no evidence.

I don't think so.

We assume mind because we can observe the material world ^*). We then observe that there is no evidence for mind being independent of the material world. We therefore assume that mind is a product of the material world.

Hans

*) Or, if you will, we define mind as the ability to observe the material world.