Is it possible to perceive a world which is external to our perceptions?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You mean like absolute free will? I don't think it's necessary to assume that:

Sweet Jesus on a pogostick! Don't bring up libertarian free will!

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If "stuff" only existed in minds, then objects that no mind is perceiving would not exist. However we have plenty of evidence that things nobody is watching still exist, and in fact that the universe existed long before there was anything around to perceive it.

I'm thinking that there would be a universal mind that kept everything consistent, with human minds being little islands of universal mind.

Berkeley's dodge, and the only one that really works, is to postulate a God or God-like entity which perceives everything all the time and always has, so explaining the fact that objects never disappear because nobody is looking. You can call it Cosmic Consciousness or Jehovah or whatever you like, but it's needed to rescue idealism.

Yes, but if that god-like entity simply is The Universal Mind, then it would be equivalent to "universal matter."

So the problem of justifying Idealism drops down to the problem of giving reason to believe in a God, which historically has not been forthcoming despite an awful lot of optimistic effort.

I'm not sure why that has to be any more of a problematic axiom than the axioms required for physicalism.

It just seems like idealism and physicalism are two names for the same thing, assuming you define them so they can support the attributes of the real world as we see it.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Yes it does. I don't see any reason for denying that computers could ever be conscious, in the far future. If it engages you on a personal level and you relate to it as if it was conscious then what grounds do you have for denying that it is conscious? Biological chauvinism notwithstanding, you are in the same position in relation to it as you are in relation to other humans.

We agree that is the correct position a materialist must take.

More problematic are the moral and ethical implications and does biological life enjoy any special status? Which parts of it? How does science reduce those problems? When it does, who will accept the answer? And who won't?

Personally, I am willing to state categorically there is, and will remain, some fundamental difference between life and not-life, no matter how 'lifelike' a robot/computer system may be. Even more interesting is the question of the status of some superman-like beast when it and its kind emerge from the gene labs.

 

[cyborg]

More problematic are the moral and ethical implications and does biological life enjoy any special status? Which parts of it? How does science reduce those problems? When it does, who will accept the answer? And who won't?

Sensible questions - not sensibly answered by taking the position you do.

Personally, I am willing to state categorically there is, and will remain, some fundamental difference between life and not-life, no matter how 'lifelike' a robot/computer system may be.

Right - so it's argument from ignorance and incredulity as I stated earlier.

I also like the term biological chauvanism.

I've never seen any evidence we're anything more than carbon-based machines; just a lot of assertion that it just isn't.

 

[hammegk]

Sensible questions - not sensibly answered by taking the position you do.

Nor yours.

Right - so it's argument from ignorance and incredulity as I stated earlier.

As, at heart, are all arguments. You may certainly base your arguments on physicalism. We sure think we perceive "physical stuff".

I'll go back to my 100% certainty that thought exists. Remember that this means to me:
Thought exists,
I think I think,
I think I'm not The Solipsist should such be the answer,
I think you think, and are not The Solipsist either.

I also like the term biological chauvanism.

I've never seen any evidence we're anything more than carbon-based machines; just a lot of assertion that it just isn't.

Again, your choice. I examine the facts as I understand them and conclude the opposite. Just use your logic and try not drift into some form of illogical interactive dualism.

 

[Z]

I think, as long as we avoid dualism, we're all OK.

 

[cyborg]

Nor yours.

I'm not arguing for any answers by derriving them from an underlying model of reality. I'm arguing that there are simply choices with no fundamentally right answer. Arguing for what is conscious is merely an act of one being that considers it has that property deciding whether or not it should assign that propery to another being.

As, at heart, are all arguments.

Erm, no.

You may certainly base your arguments on physicalism. We sure think we perceive "physical stuff".

No we don't. Such a concept is far more abstract. What the brain does is respond to stimuli and attempt to build a model that is useful to carrying out functions related to the primary objectives of the machine; namely to survive and reproduce. It is only in recent history that any creature has decided to sit down and postulate the nature of reality.

I'll go back to my 100% certainty that thought exists. Remember that this means to me:
Thought exists,
I think I think,
I think I'm not The Solipsist should such be the answer,
I think you think, and are not The Solipsist either.

And I'll again state that a far more basic assumption would be 'information exists', and then build thought atop that.

Thought is too high level and abstract a concept for it to be reasonably assumed as the fundamental stuff of reality. Your definition simply rests on assertion - you assert thought is special to life, assert life is somehow special compared to the carbon it is based on etc... And yet you say that your metaphysics makes less assumptions? It's a completely top-down view with assumptions all the way!

Again, your choice. I examine the facts as I understand them and conclude the opposite.

No, you see the current sets of facts and make conclusions from what is UNKNOWN. That's what it means to make an argument from ignorance.

Just use your logic and try not drift into some form of illogical interactive dualism.

Whatever you condescending ass.

 

[hammegk]

I'm not arguing for any answers by derriving them from an underlying model of reality. I'm arguing that there are simply choices with no fundamentally right answer. Arguing for what is conscious is merely an act of one being that considers it has that property deciding whether or not it should assign that propery to another being.

Although you appear to have concluded physicalism is The choice.

Erm, no.

Think about it and you notice we are no better than Plato's shadows on the cave wall. Pretend otherwise if you wish.

No we don't. Such a concept is far more abstract. What the brain does is respond to stimuli and attempt to build a model that is useful to carrying out functions related to the primary objectives of the machine; namely to survive and reproduce. It is only in recent history that any creature has decided to sit down and postulate the nature of reality.

All true sfaik, yet vaueless for this discussion in that objective idealism agrees with those statements.

And I'll again state that a far more basic assumption would be 'information exists', and then build thought atop that.

LOL. Where do you 'think' this 'information' resides, and what is its' attributes?

Thought is too high level and abstract a concept for it to be reasonably assumed as the fundamental stuff of reality. Your definition simply rests on assertion - you assert thought is special to life, assert life is somehow special compared to the carbon it is based on etc... And yet you say that your metaphysics makes less assumptions? It's a completely top-down view with assumptions all the way!

We agree we don't agree on what 'thought' means.

No, you see the current sets of facts and make conclusions from what is UNKNOWN. That's what it means to make an argument from ignorance.

Whatever you condescending ass.

There, there. Take a few deep breaths, but be careful not to 'think' too much.

Go look at the pretty shadows.

 

[chriswl]

More problematic are the moral and ethical implications and does biological life enjoy any special status? Which parts of it? How does science reduce those problems? When it does, who will accept the answer? And who won't?

If science (or philosophy) told us that organic chemistry was necessary for consciousness, none of us would take it seriously if we were surrounded by non-organic lifeforms that we related to as conscious beings. If someone claimed to have proof that people with blue eyes were philosophical zombies, would we pay any attention? We bestow consciousness on things that behave in such way as to engage our empathy (or potentially could, because they are clearly physically the same as things that do). And we are typically generous about this - we have a natural tendency to anthropomorphise and assume consciousness on fairly flimsy evidence.

 

[cyborg]

Although you appear to have concluded physicalism is The choice.

No: read what I'm writing. I'm saying that some things don't have hard and fast answers no matter what metaphysics you use.

Think about it and you notice we are no better than Plato's shadows on the cave wall. Pretend otherwise if you wish.

Emotional appeal. WHAT I WISH IS IRRELEVANT TO REALITY! And nothing to do with anything said to boot.

All true sfaik, yet vaueless for this discussion in that objective idealism agrees with those statements.

Getting somewhere at least.

LOL. Where do you 'think' this 'information' resides, and what is its' attributes?

Well where exactly do you 'think' 'thought' resides and what are it's attributes? Try answering that and remain fashionably non-dualistic.

We agree we don't agree on what 'thought' means.

Oh well, that renders my previous question moot and your hilarity at my proposition of information being more basic rather perplexing.

Tell me, just how would you propose anything could have thoughts without something to think about?

Hmm, what might one need in order to even start the process?

There, there. Take a few deep breaths, but be careful not to 'think' too much.

You too, wouldn't want you to strain yourself - if that's even possible in your metaphysical reality.

Go look at the pretty shadows.

You keep on convincing yourself you're special.

 

[hammegk]

No: read what I'm writing. I'm saying that some things don't have hard and fast answers no matter what metaphysics you use.

True. The question is more along the lines of what works to further civilization. In any group based on every-man-for-himself morals and ethics lies anarchy and decay. No, I don't mean to deny the possibility of enlightened self-interest; however, given barbarians at the gate more cohesion in a group rather than less seems a better choice for group survival.

Emotional appeal. WHAT I WISH IS IRRELEVANT TO REALITY! And nothing to do with anything said to boot.

An interesting comment; for myself, I choose to believe and act as if my wishes were relevant to reality, if you catch my meaning here. The advice about faith the size of a mustard seed moving mountains has real world applications that aren't supernatural.

BTW, supernatural is a word coined by dualists pretending to be physicalists to better hide their dualism.

Well where exactly do you 'think' 'thought' resides and what are it's attributes? Try answering that and remain fashionably non-dualistic.

Since nothing exists independent of thought, everywhere -- universe, meta-verse, what-have-you -- is best I could do.

Oh well, that renders my previous question moot and your hilarity at my proposition of information being more basic rather perplexing.

I'd suggest information is ordered thought.

Tell me, just how would you propose anything could have thoughts without something to think about?

Another interesting comment, although a non-sequitor if thought is all that exists. You strive for separateness, I don't.

You keep on convincing yourself you're special.

And you continue with the cheap and irrelevant personal shots.

 

[Robin]

I'd suggest information is ordered thought.

And what would you suggest unordered thought is? (Apart from a hammegk post?)

 

[hammegk]

Darned if know, although I find the concept meaningless. What do you think a photon is? Or a quark? Or a boson?

As to the cheap shot, if you look you should find a number of thought-free posts here. Or like yours, without content and irrelevant.

 

[Robin]

Darned if know, although I find the concept meaningless.

And yet you introduced the phrase "ordered thought" yourself, as though there could be some other kind of thought.

You are right - the concept is utterly meaningless. Therefore your definition of information as "ordered thought" is a tautology.

So your definition of information then is "thought". So the statements "information exists" and "thought exists" must be precisely equivalent.

What do you think a photon is? Or a quark? Or a boson?

Utterly and absurdly irrelevant to present discussion

As to the cheap shot, if you look you should find a number of thought-free posts here. Or like yours, without content and irrelevant.

Well I think we can agree from your record that this would have been your cheap shot in reply to me if I had not got in first.

By getting in first I at least got the admission from you that "unordered thought" was meaningless and hence "ordered thought" a tautology.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It just seems like idealism and physicalism are two names for the same thing, assuming you define them so they can support the attributes of the real world as we see it.

Yep. Thats why I dont understand when people attacks materialism like the plague. It an approximation, granted, but its a good one. Not perfect? I doubt we can get a "perfect" answer.

What is "perfect" anyway.

 

[hammegk]

And yet you introduced the phrase "ordered thought" yourself, as though there could be some other kind of thought.

Yeah, it would be info-free unordered thought. Precursor to the quark-boson plasma phase, huh?

You are right - the concept is utterly meaningless. Therefore your definition of information as "ordered thought" is a tautology.

Perhaps not; let's try zero entropy.

So your definition of information then is "thought". So the statements "information exists" and "thought exists" must be precisely equivalent.

You had me agreeing for a minute anyway.

Utterly and absurdly irrelevant to present discussion

Depending on your understanding and viewpoint, perhaps.

Well I think we can agree from your record that this would have been your cheap shot in reply to me if I had not got in first.

Nope.

By getting in first I at least got the admission from you that "unordered thought" was meaningless and hence "ordered thought" a tautology.

You made me actually think for a few seconds, anyway. Thanks.

 

[cyborg]

True. The question is more along the lines of what works to further civilization. In any group based on every-man-for-himself morals and ethics lies anarchy and decay. No, I don't mean to deny the possibility of enlightened self-interest; however, given barbarians at the gate more cohesion in a group rather than less seems a better choice for group survival.

And what has this got to do with whether or not we could attribute the concept of conciousness to a non-carbon based entity?

An interesting comment; for myself, I choose to believe and act as if my wishes were relevant to reality, if you catch my meaning here.

You want to be special?

The advice about faith the size of a mustard seed moving mountains has real world applications that aren't supernatural.

Erm, no it doesn't.

BTW, supernatural is a word coined by dualists pretending to be physicalists to better hide their dualism.

No.

Since nothing exists independent of thought, everywhere -- universe, meta-verse, what-have-you -- is best I could do.

The best evidence is that things happily exist without thought.

I'd suggest information is ordered thought.

Strange. I'd suggest thought is ordered information.

Another interesting comment, although a non-sequitor if thought is all that exists.

No, it strikes to the heart of the problem with your idealism. What the hell does it mean for thought to simply exist without any context?

You strive for separateness, I don't.

Eh? I best I can fathom is this means that you think I 'strive' for some view of reality in which things aren't all inherently connected together whilst in your metaphysic everything is thought and all connected together.

Again I must reiterate I don't 'strive' for any conclusion about reality. You are the one doing that.

And you continue with the cheap and irrelevant personal shots.

As long as you continue so will I.

 

[Lamuella]

I've been reading bits and pieces of this thread now for several days

and I still can't get past the fact that the name of the thread is a paradox.

Of course we can't perceive a world external to our perceptions. This is true by definition. That's no comment on whether the world is there or not, just as not being able to see things is no comment on whether invisible things are there.

The question becomes what should you do about this world you can't sense or interact with.

In my uneducated and probably barely comprehensible opinion, the answer is to ignore it until it does something we can perceive.

this is probably a monumentally ignorant post to make on page 17 of a long and intricate thread, but at least I'm not yelling at anyone

 

[hammegk]

And what has this got to do with whether or not we could attribute the concept of conciousness to a non-carbon based entity?

To you, obviously nothing.

You want to be special?

Sorry you didn't catch the meaning.

Erm, no it doesn't.

You must lead a hectic life if you never make a plan.

No.

Yes.

The best evidence is that things happily exist without thought.

So you seem to 'think' -- darn that word.

Strange. I'd suggest thought is ordered information.

Fully acceptable ... for a physicalist.

No, it strikes to the heart of the problem with your idealism. What the hell does it mean for thought to simply exist without any context?

Nothing exists 'without context'.

Eh? I best I can fathom is this means that you think I 'strive' for some view of reality in which things aren't all inherently connected together whilst in your metaphysic everything is thought and all connected together.

Again I must reiterate I don't 'strive' for any conclusion about reality. You are the one doing that.

What are you striving for participating in this thread?

As long as you continue so will I.

Yawn.

... the answer is to ignore it until it does something we can perceive. ...

Picky, picky. And, Welcome! BTW, someone here will have you yelling soon enough.

 

[Robin]

Yeah, it would be info-free unordered thought.

However in just your last post you said you found the concept of unordered thought "meaningless". Which is it now?

Precursor to the quark-boson plasma phase, huh?

Does thought have a "quark-boson plasma phase"? Careful, you are starting to sound like a materialist.

Perhaps not; let's try zero entropy.

Are you talking physics here - or information theory? Either way it sounds a little like you are sounding even more like a materialist.