I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[punshhh]

No there isn't. Just because you want to use the term differently doesn't change how other people use it.

I said it ought to be revised, brought up to date. At the moment it is vague, contradictory and archaic.

You do know that definitions ARE the consensus, right ?

"Originally Posted by Wiki
Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event."

In your quoted passage there are definitions of consciousness which would deem an amoeba conscious, because it can "feel" and all animals with a nervous system would be conscious. Thinking is not mentioned, PixyMisa.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I said it ought to be revised, brought up to date. At the moment it is vague, contradictory and archaic.


In your quoted passage there are definitions of consciousness which would deem an amoeba conscious, because it can "feel" and all animals with a nervous system would be conscious. Thinking is not mentioned, PixyMisa.

So consciousness is not thinking?!! Okay

But what are you up to?
P1: C is not T
Therefore ???

What is your agenda? What do you want to replace P1 with and what are your P2, P3 and so on?
It is easy to say it is wrong, but what do you want to replace it with?

 

[punshhh]

So consciousness is not thinking?!! Okay

But what are you up to?
P1: C is not T
Therefore ???

What is your agenda? What do you want to replace P1 with and what are your P2, P3 and so on?
It is easy to say it is wrong, but what do you want to replace it with?

Simply I treat consciousness as a quality of a living organism, it occurs in many forms and in many degrees of self conscious awareness. The thinking part beloved of the materialists around here, is a mind, it should not be referred to as the only conscious thing in nature. That would be misleading, it is more appropriate to refer to it as mind. Distinct from consciousness and conscious organisms that don't have a thinking mind.

 

[Belz...]

I said it ought to be revised, brought up to date. At the moment it is vague, contradictory and archaic.

I think it's fine, myself. Rocks interact with their environment, but they are not conscious.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Simply I treat consciousness as a quality of a living organism, it occurs in many forms and in many degrees of self conscious awareness. The thinking part beloved of the materialists around here, is a mind, it should not be referred to as the only conscious thing in nature. That would be misleading, it is more appropriate to refer to it as mind. Distinct from consciousness and conscious organisms that don't have a thinking mind.

Okay

 

[PixyMisa]

Are they aware of their environment?

Chordates, generally, yes. Simpler animals, plants, and single-celled life-forms, no.

Awareness is the construction of a symbolic model of some part of the world. Many animals do this. Plants don't.

 

[marplots]

Chordates, generally, yes. Simpler animals, plants, and single-celled life-forms, no.

Awareness is the construction of a symbolic model of some part of the world. Many animals do this. Plants don't.

Are all three of those material objects? If we say that the first two are emergent properties of material things in a certain arrangement, there still seems a need for something relational, not something specifically bound to the material. In the same way that concrete numbers don't do much until you add operators - the times, pluses and so on.

There's a different quality between what something is, and what something does. The relational aspects, the interactions. Especially so when there is no apparent causal link and some state "just appears." In those cases, even a robust and detailed description doesn't capture what we want from a materialist outlook and we are left saying, "It just is that way."

I'm not saying there's a magical ingredient, just that a brick-and-mortar description doesn't satisfy unless we extend it by adding forces and so on. I think this is why light and photons have always fascinated scientists and philosophers. Light seems to be less about an "is" and more about a "does."

 

[Brian-M]

Simply I treat consciousness as a quality of a living organism,

I regard consciousness as a property of a mind.

The thinking part beloved of the materialists around here, is a mind, it should not be referred to as the only conscious thing in nature.

What else is there which we could reasonably regard as having the property of consciousness?

That would be misleading, it is more appropriate to refer to it as mind. Distinct from consciousness and conscious organisms that don't have a thinking mind.

There's nothing misleading about it. The mind is the processes performed by a brain, and consciousness is a property that many (but not all) minds possess.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Are all three of those material objects? If we say that the first two are emergent properties of material things in a certain arrangement, there still seems a need for something relational, not something specifically bound to the material. In the same way that concrete numbers don't do much until you add operators - the times, pluses and so on.

There's a different quality between what something is, and what something does. The relational aspects, the interactions. Especially so when there is no apparent causal link and some state "just appears." In those cases, even a robust and detailed description doesn't capture what we want from a materialist outlook and we are left saying, "It just is that way."

I'm not saying there's a magical ingredient, just that a brick-and-mortar description doesn't satisfy unless we extend it by adding forces and so on. I think this is why light and photons have always fascinated scientists and philosophers. Light seems to be less about an "is" and more about a "does."

Sometimes it is as simple as - Why do you do it? - versus - How do you do it?

 

[LarryS]

I think it's fine, myself. Rocks interact with their environment, but they are not conscious.

According to materialism, rocks don't exist. All that exists is dynamic energy fields, matter in it's most fundamental state (elementary particles or strings, etc). Making the distinction between a thing (like a rock or an atom) and that which is not that thing, or a distinction between two things, or a collection of things, these distinctions require consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

According to materialism, rocks don't exist.

Would you please stop saying ridiculous things. Of course they exist under materialism, as a sum total of the stuff that composes them. If you are this ignorant of what materialism is, or this dishonest about representing it, discussion will be impossible.

 

[LarryS]

Would you please stop saying ridiculous things. Of course they exist under materialism, as a sum total of the stuff that composes them. If you are this ignorant of what materialism is, or this dishonest about representing it, discussion will be impossible.

the stuff of the primal matter exists and in measurable densities, but not the boundaries that distinguish one thing from another. We can say molecules and rocks exist, but only as artifacts of human consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

We can say molecules and rocks exist, but only as artifacts of human consciousness.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. There's no point in discussing until you start making some sense.

 

[tsig]

the stuff of the primal matter exists and in measurable densities, but not the boundaries that distinguish one thing from another. We can say molecules and rocks exist, but only as artifacts of human consciousness.

Then before there were humans there was nothing?

 

[LarryS]

Then before there were humans there was nothing?

Did I suggest there was nothing? No I did not. Read it again.

 

[tsig]

the stuff of the primal matter exists and in measurable densities, but not the boundaries that distinguish one thing from another. We can say molecules and rocks exist, but only as artifacts of human consciousness.

Then before there were humans there was nothing?

Did I suggest there was nothing? No I did not. Read it again.

The hilited clearly says that rocks and molecules are artifacts of human consciousness the logical corollary is that if there is no consciousness there's no rocks and molecules therefore there is nothing.


artifact
[ahr-tuh-fakt]

Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
any object made by human beings, especially with a view to subsequent use.

 

[LarryS]

The hilited clearly says that rocks and molecules are artifacts of human consciousness the logical corollary is that if there is no consciousness there's no rocks and molecules therefore there is nothing.


artifact
[ahr-tuh-fakt]

Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
any object made by human beings, especially with a view to subsequent use.

You are picking and choosing a definition of artifact, there are many more. Putting that aside.

According to Materialism, a rock, molecule or apple is a summary of observations - observations of reality. Take away consciousness and the observations, and the summary of those observations do not exist. Reality is quantities of energy/matter; elementary particles, strings or whatever matter is.

 

[Dancing David]

Who decides what properly is? You???

You are basically saying that you decide what good and wrong is, based on how you think.

Pretty much the truth anyway.

 

[Dancing David]

You: I define good as A and not B.
Me: I define good as B and not A.

What now, PixyMisa? How do you resolve that one using science?

Well you sure con't resolve it using religion or philosophy.
I tend to use game theory myself.

 

[tsig]

You are picking and choosing a definition of artifact, there are many more. Putting that aside.

According to Materialism, a rock, molecule or apple is a summary of observations - observations of reality. Take away consciousness and the observations, and the summary of those observations do not exist. Reality is quantities of energy/matter; elementary particles, strings or whatever matter is.

The rock is reality, our observations are of the reality of the rock, the rock in no way depends on our observation.

Depends on the scale you use whether you see a rock or an atom.