I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[LarryS]

The mistake I had been making - even as recent as my posts last evening; was thinking that matter is inert, colorless, tasteless and odorless. I was wrong, there is no need to invent qualia or to break the connection between the liveliness of subjective experience with matter; matter is creative, matter displays intelligence, matter is vivid and feature rich. Matter is whatever it needs to be to make the model work. We should not be surprised consciousness emerged from matter - given sufficient time, it is an inevitable outcome.

 

[Belz...]

The mistake I had been making - even as recent as my posts last evening; was thinking that matter is inert, colorless, tasteless and odorless. I was wrong, there is no need to invent qualia or to break the connection between the liveliness of subjective experience with matter; matter is creative, matter displays intelligence, matter is vivid and feature rich. Matter is whatever it needs to be to make the model work. We should not be surprised consciousness emerged from matter - given sufficient time, it is an inevitable outcome.

My sarcasm detector just went off. Do I need to adjust it ?

 

[asydhouse]

The mistake I had been making - even as recent as my posts last evening; was thinking that matter is inert, colorless, tasteless and odorless. I was wrong, there is no need to invent qualia or to break the connection between the liveliness of subjective experience with matter; matter is creative, matter displays intelligence, matter is vivid and feature rich. Matter is whatever it needs to be to make the model work. We should not be surprised consciousness emerged from matter - given sufficient time, it is an inevitable outcome.

I'm sure you posted this before seeing Myriad's post, which appears at the top of this page immediately before this smart-arse comment you posted soon after his appeared.

I really hope you have read and digested it since. Myriad is one of the best thinkers on this forum, and you would do well to pay attention.

Hint: he is not only a thinker of clarity, subtlety, and power, and an articulate writer; he has done extensive learning, researching, and living. Wisdom laid before you. Free gold!

 

[Apathia]

The mistake I had been making - even as recent as my posts last evening; was thinking that matter is inert, colorless, tasteless and odorless. I was wrong, there is no need to invent qualia or to break the connection between the liveliness of subjective experience with matter; matter is creative, matter displays intelligence, matter is vivid and feature rich. Matter is whatever it needs to be to make the model work. We should not be surprised consciousness emerged from matter - given sufficient time, it is an inevitable outcome.

I like it!
Yes, I know you're probably being sarcastic, but reality is certainly richer than inert substance vs Platonic forms. Matter ain't what it used to be. Why can't we just drop our metaphysical/ontological baggage and revel in a reality that is alive and supports science?
Why not let Matter be wonderful?

 

[Belz...]

Myriad is one of the best thinkers on this forum, and you would do well to pay attention.

Hint: he is not only a thinker of clarity, subtlety, and power, and an articulate writer; he has done extensive learning, researching, and living. Wisdom laid before you. Free gold!

Well, we know why you never get infracted, now.

 

[LarryS]

His post was nicely written, and I apologize for tossing in an inexcusable quotient of sarcasm - but the main thrust of my post still rings true - my opinion of matter needed to change. Capabilities I had mysteriously attached to consciousness, IE the notion of an object (clumping), color, taste, etc . . . these are really properties of matter . . . combined with the vast computational power of the brain and our other biology = subjective experience.

 

[Belz...]

Correction: they are neural behaviours based on real properties of matter. A subtle distinction that doesn't change much about the fact that objects are real and have those properties that we perceive.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Correction: they are neural behaviours based on real properties of matter. A subtle distinction that doesn't change much about the fact that objects are real and have those properties that we perceive.

Well, yes, everything is matter, but you can't still reduce matter down to the same thing. I.e. that subjectivity matters to me, is a real property of this brain, which uses the Internet nick of Tommy Jeppesen. The only evidence I can give you for that is that it is something this brain does, but you can't see it. Of course, how you perceive that is not exactly the same way as you e.g. perceive/see a rock. It is material, physical, biochemistry, neural and all that, but you don't know the way you see a rock.
In short empiricism is not just seeing or sensing through the senses.

 

[LarryS]

In light of Myriad's post, and given matter and sufficient computing power, I can see how all the vivid contents of consciousness can be 'generated' (or whatever is the best term) - but what about the experiencer, is the experiencer regarded as an illusion, or is the experiencer a result of a continuous computation? If it is a computation - what is the stimuli? My personhood/identity, IE my likes/dislikes/preferences, is continuously changing, but the experiencer is the same throughout my life.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In light of Myriad's post, and given matter and sufficient computing power, I can see how all the vivid contents of consciousness can be 'generated' (or whatever is the best term) - but what about the experiencer, is the experiencer regarded as an illusion, or is the experiencer a result of a continuous computation? If it is a computation - what is the stimuli? My personhood/identity, IE my likes/dislikes/preferences, is continuously changing, but the experiencer is the same throughout my life.

What do you mean by the experiencer?

 

[Belz...]

Well, yes, everything is matter, but you can't still reduce matter down to the same thing. I.e. that subjectivity matters to me, is a real property of this brain, which uses the Internet nick of Tommy Jeppesen.

One does not preclude the other. Your mind exists and is material.

 

[Myriad]

His post was nicely written, and I apologize for tossing in an inexcusable quotient of sarcasm - but the main thrust of my post still rings true - my opinion of matter needed to change. Capabilities I had mysteriously attached to consciousness, IE the notion of an object (clumping), color, taste, etc . . . these are really properties of matter . . . combined with the vast computational power of the brain and our other biology = subjective experience.

However you meant it, I only disagree with one part of your previous post: "We should not be surprised..."

Sure we should. We should be surprised as hell! We should all be walking around with our stupid mouths hanging open in shock! Aristotle, Pythagoras, Sophocles, Plato, Confucius, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, DaVinci, Goethe, Franklin, even Darwin; they'd all be dumbfounded by what's been discovered so far about the antics of matter that's following only causal, quantum mechanical, and statistical laws.

I love the way PixyMisa seems to take it all as a matter of course, I hope he never changes, but I think it's weird and it's counter-intuitive and it's really hard to believe, even after you've looked at things like cell biochemistry, neural network systems, computing theory, ecosystem ecology, biological evolution, linguistics, and cognitive neuroscience (and no one has time to really study all those fields, so "looking at them" is about the best you can do). But it's what all the evidence is telling us.

Some hints regarding the antics of matter were known early on. Shortly after the inverse-square law of gravitation was spelled out, the precise equations for the motion over time of the general case of two uniform bodies in space affected only by one another's gravity were derived. The corresponding equation for the general case of three such bodies has been proven (as of the late 19th century) not to exist. Such motion, except in special cases, will never repeat and so cannot be expressed in any finite formula. That's all it takes to make simple deterministic laws yield intractably complex behavior: three bodies with mass, Newtonian gravitation, space, and time. No other forces, other complications like odd-shaped bodies with more complex gravitational fields, relativity, or quantum weirdness are needed to make mathematical predictability go "tilt." That's dull lifeless matter for you.

(By the way, some of the special cases are when one or two of the body(ies) is much more massive than the other(s), as in planets orbiting around stars or moons around planets. So planetary orbits are regular and predictable, although not for indefinite time periods.)

Does that make it easier to accept the incredible range of what matter can do when the number of interacting parts is not two or three or four, but billions or trillions or quadrillions or more?

And if you have any notion of a deeper "why" for all that—for instance, why a certain proclivity for computation seems to bubble up from the very fabric of the universe—I'm interested in your ideas.

 

[LarryS]

What do you mean by the experiencer?

As I sit here now, and willing to do some earnest introspection, I am aware of many different things, the various contents of mind come and go, but awareness is always present. Eyes closed, I can attend to being aware of different thoughts and images, and, I can attend to and find awareness itself . . . so that is the experiencer, awareness is the experiencer.

 

[LarryS]

However you meant it, I only disagree with one part of your previous post: "We should not be surprised..."

Sure we should. We should be surprised as hell! We should all be walking around with our stupid mouths hanging open in shock! Aristotle, Pythagoras, Sophocles, Plato, Confucius, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, DaVinci, Goethe, Franklin, even Darwin; they'd all be dumbfounded by what's been discovered so far about the antics of matter that's following only causal, quantum mechanical, and statistical laws.

I love the way PixyMisa seems to take it all as a matter of course, I hope he never changes, but I think it's weird and it's counter-intuitive and it's really hard to believe, even after you've looked at things like cell biochemistry, neural network systems, computing theory, ecosystem ecology, biological evolution, linguistics, and cognitive neuroscience (and no one has time to really study all those fields, so "looking at them" is about the best you can do). But it's what all the evidence is telling us.

Some hints regarding the antics of matter were known early on. Shortly after the inverse-square law of gravitation was spelled out, the precise equations for the motion over time of the general case of two uniform bodies in space affected only by one another's gravity were derived. The corresponding equation for the general case of three such bodies has been proven (as of the late 19th century) not to exist. Such motion, except in special cases, will never repeat and so cannot be expressed in any finite formula. That's all it takes to make simple deterministic laws yield intractably complex behavior: three bodies with mass, Newtonian gravitation, space, and time. No other forces, other complications like odd-shaped bodies with more complex gravitational fields, relativity, or quantum weirdness are needed to make mathematical predictability go "tilt." That's dull lifeless matter for you.

(By the way, some of the special cases are when one or two of the body(ies) is much more massive than the other(s), as in planets orbiting around stars or moons around planets. So planetary orbits are regular and predictable, although not for indefinite time periods.)

Does that make it easier to accept the incredible range of what matter can do when the number of interacting parts is not two or three or four, but billions or trillions or quadrillions or more?

And if you have any notion of a deeper "why" for all that—for instance, why a certain proclivity for computation seems to bubble up from the very fabric of the universe—I'm interested in your ideas.

Your post above attends to the possibility of a really great show - even a humble cottage industry like Hollywood can put together a pretty decent 3D computation - but your post does not account for the how it is there's actually awareness there in the theater. Speaking of movies, I'm reminded of 'Contact' where Jody Foster's character kept referring to what a waste of space it would be without intelligent life elsewhere . . . well what a waste of a double rainbow it would be without someone there to experience it.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, it is so that everything is material, but everything is not experienced as "things" or even as properties of "things". Matter in the metaphysical sense still allows for "I am not a thing, I am someone!"

Sure, misperceptions are allowed and misconceptions. I am a body is the most accurate.

And a body is a thing.

 

[Myriad]

In light of Myriad's post, and given matter and sufficient computing power, I can see how all the vivid contents of consciousness can be 'generated' (or whatever is the best term) - but what about the experiencer, is the experiencer regarded as an illusion, or is the experiencer a result of a continuous computation? If it is a computation - what is the stimuli? My personhood/identity, IE my likes/dislikes/preferences, is continuously changing, but the experiencer is the same throughout my life.

I regard the experiencer as a result of continuous computation. When the computation stops (e.g. during unconsciousness) the experiencer goes missing. The computation is the same one as, or a closely related adjunct to, the computation that turns sensory stimuli into a perceived and remembered narrative of ongoing events. It's more or less continuous during waking because you have to be ready for the unexpected, and it's experiential because maintaining a mental model of a self-state is needed to react successfully to the unexpected. (For instance, the doorbell rings, and you must decide either "I'd better go to the door and see who's there," "I'd better quickly put some clothes on first," or "I'd better hide," as appropriate to the circumstances).

The continuity of experience is mostly mediated through memory (how else?) but might be completely illusory apart from that. It's easy to get bogged down in thought experiments and hypotheticals involving things like cryogenic hibernation or teletransportation machines, but consider ordinary slow-wave (non dreaming) sleep or routine medical anesthesia instead. When you awaken, you don't resume your previously interrupted thoughts; instead, you orient yourself from recent memories and your sensory inputs. Which is no different from saying, your brain re-commences computation of the experiencer from memory and sensory inputs. (The available alternative to this seems to be: magic.)

Here's an article by Susan Blackmore on this topic, which relates these ideas to research findings. Although it's over ten years old, it's still ahead of the science most people are aware of. http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs02.htm

 

[tsig]

I regard the experiencer as a result of continuous computation. When the computation stops (e.g. during unconsciousness) the experiencer goes missing. The computation is the same one as, or a closely related adjunct to, the computation that turns sensory stimuli into a perceived and remembered narrative of ongoing events. It's more or less continuous during waking because you have to be ready for the unexpected, and it's experiential because maintaining a mental model of a self-state is needed to react successfully to the unexpected. (For instance, the doorbell rings, and you must decide either "I'd better go to the door and see who's there," "I'd better quickly put some clothes on first," or "I'd better hide," as appropriate to the circumstances).

The continuity of experience is mostly mediated through memory (how else?) but might be completely illusory apart from that. It's easy to get bogged down in thought experiments and hypotheticals involving things like cryogenic hibernation or teletransportation machines, but consider ordinary slow-wave (non dreaming) sleep or routine medical anesthesia instead. When you awaken, you don't resume your previously interrupted thoughts; instead, you orient yourself from recent memories and your sensory inputs. Which is no different from saying, your brain re-commences computation of the experiencer from memory and sensory inputs. (The available alternative to this seems to be: magic.)

Here's an article by Susan Blackmore on this topic, which relates these ideas to research findings. Although it's over ten years old, it's still ahead of the science most people are aware of. http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs02.htm

From the link:

Throughout history there have been people who say it is all illusion. I think they may be right. But if they are right what could this mean? If you just say "It's all an illusion" this gets you nowhere - except that a whole lot of other questions appear. Why should we all be victims of an illusion, instead of seeing things the way they really are? What sort of illusion is it anyway? Why is it like that and not some other way? Is it possible to see through the illusion? And if so what happens next.

If it's all an illusion what makes your illusion any more real than my illusion?

My illusion is that the bus is real.

ETA: More from the link:

These are difficult questions, but if the stream of consciousness is an illusion we should be trying to answer them, rather than more conventional questions about consciousness. I shall explore these questions, though I cannot claim that I will answer them. In doing so I shall rely on two methods.

If stream of consciousness is an illusion where did all the I's come from.

 

[LarryS]

I regard the experiencer as a result of continuous computation. When the computation stops (e.g. during unconsciousness) the experiencer goes missing. The computation is the same one as, or a closely related adjunct to, the computation that turns sensory stimuli into a perceived and remembered narrative of ongoing events. It's more or less continuous during waking because you have to be ready for the unexpected, and it's experiential because maintaining a mental model of a self-state is needed to react successfully to the unexpected. (For instance, the doorbell rings, and you must decide either "I'd better go to the door and see who's there," "I'd better quickly put some clothes on first," or "I'd better hide," as appropriate to the circumstances).

The continuity of experience is mostly mediated through memory (how else?) but might be completely illusory apart from that. It's easy to get bogged down in thought experiments and hypotheticals involving things like cryogenic hibernation or teletransportation machines, but consider ordinary slow-wave (non dreaming) sleep or routine medical anesthesia instead. When you awaken, you don't resume your previously interrupted thoughts; instead, you orient yourself from recent memories and your sensory inputs. Which is no different from saying, your brain re-commences computation of the experiencer from memory and sensory inputs. (The available alternative to this seems to be: magic.)

Here's an article by Susan Blackmore on this topic, which relates these ideas to research findings. Although it's over ten years old, it's still ahead of the science most people are aware of. http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs02.htm

Your highlighted above - I would not regard this as a rebooting of the experiencer, but a reboot of the personhood. By personhood I mean the person who's photo is on my drivers license, who was born in Alaska (in my case), went to these schools, married this woman, likes this wine, etc. . . . like what Bourne (Identity) was going through. However, even though one can be struggling to gather one's thoughts, as in who am I, where am I, etc . . . struggling to remember who we are as a person, the experiencer as awareness can still be there and fully live vividly in the moment.

I think this is what Dr. Blackmore was noticing with her students. When she asked them if they were conscious, they did not attend to being conscious of an object to find being conscious . . . they went to the simple state of being conscious - even to the point of wondering if they were conscious when they were absorbed in being conscious of an object. I am using the term experiencer as being conscious. Very interesting article (I'm still working thru it), and the experiment she had her students perform is exactly what I've performed myself for decades (in context of meditation) - and with practice it gets easier to interrupt the flow of content and locate being conscious, and it gets easier to maintain being conscious even while active.

 

[asydhouse]

Your post above attends to the possibility of a really great show - even a humble cottage industry like Hollywood can put together a pretty decent 3D computation - but your post does not account for the how it is there's actually awareness there in the theater. Speaking of movies, I'm reminded of 'Contact' where Jody Foster's character kept referring to what a waste of space it would be without intelligent life elsewhere . . . well what a waste of a double rainbow it would be without someone there to experience it.

That's life! Lots of waste all around.

(Either there's no consciousness in the vast majority of space, making our little pocket so special that we really need to take care of it, or some truly alien forms of consciousness are residing in inaccessible or undiscovered locations such as deep inside gas giant planets, perhaps as in the film Solaris?)

On the other hand, there's no such thing as "wasted" in nature. Lots of chemistry etc producing phenomena… the universe itself is one big phenomenon, composed of lots of littler phenomena, etc! None of it is "wasted". When a mind comes along (in the form of a brain generating a mind, to be clear) and exudes the luxurious playful beingness (consciousness) which basques in the auto-creation of its pleasure in the phenomenon of a rainbow, that's simply a new phenomenon developing within the dynamics of the situation. It's a bonus!

Let me just congratulate you Larry, on your willingness to grow your conceptual world to comprehend what we materialists are working with, and trying to share. The dull insistence on fixated ideas of the primacy of mind which is all we normally see in people who start out with a sort of New Agey or pseudo spiritual mindset around here gets boring and fruitless, so to see you apparently growing before our eyes is a refreshing change, and suddenly here's an interesting dialogue going on!

Thank you!

Cheers, a Syd

 

[Belz...]

Your highlighted above - I would not regard this as a rebooting of the experiencer, but a reboot of the personhood. By personhood I mean the person who's photo is on my drivers license, who was born in Alaska (in my case), went to these schools, married this woman, likes this wine, etc. . . . like what Bourne (Identity) was going through. However, even though one can be struggling to gather one's thoughts, as in who am I, where am I, etc . . . struggling to remember who we are as a person, the experiencer as awareness can still be there and fully live vividly in the moment.

I have no idea what all this means.