Materialism

[MRC_Hans]

For me, P-Zombies are a nonsense that are implied by materialism. They are logically possible. That is their only purpose. They do not need to actually exist, any more than Schroedingers cat.

OH? You just used them as argument against the evolutionary argument for consciousness, and now you write them off? Is this a debate, or are we just lobbing ideas into space to see if they orbit?

And when I claimed that the universe exists without us observing it, you talked about Schroedinger's Cat, but now it is only a logical exercise? --- Not that I disagree on that, but I'm beginning to get this "wet soap" feeling about you

Hans

 

[Guest]

OH? You just used them as argument against the evolutionary argument for consciousness, and now you write them off?

I haven't 'written them off', Hans. I have simply looked at materialism and Darwinism and concluded that according to these two theoretical positions the product of physical evolution should have been a P-zombie. The fact that we are not P-zombies is the explanatory gap that remains for the materialistic Darwinist to explain. It's your metaphysics that makes P-zombies logical possibilities.

Is this a debate, or are we just lobbing ideas into space to see if they orbit?

Perhaps it's a bit of both. Personally I'm just trying to provoke people into thinking about conceptual problems in the hope they might go looking for conceptual solutions.

And when I claimed that the universe exists without us observing it, you talked about Schroedinger's Cat, but now it is only a logical exercise?

This is philosophy, Hans. Philosophy is a logical exercise!

Not that I disagree on that, but I'm beginning to get this "wet soap" feeling about you

Well, it would be boring if I was an easy target, wouldn't it?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I haven't 'written them off', Hans. I have simply looked at materialism and Darwinism and concluded that according to these two theoretical positions the product of physical evolution should have been a P-zombie. The fact that we are not P-zombies is the explanatory gap that remains for the materialistic Darwinist to explain. It's your metaphysics that makes P-zombies logical possibilities.

OK. Of course I accept that you change your mind after deliberation, after all what else would be the idea of debate?

Mmm, there is no metaphysics in materialism. P-zombies are a logical exercise, there is no explanation gap. Real life humans are conscious because they need to be.

Perhaps it's a bit of both. Personally I'm just trying to provoke people into thinking about conceptual problems in the hope they might go looking for conceptual solutions.

This is philosophy, Hans. Philosophy is a logical exercise!

Well, it would be boring if I was an easy target, wouldn't it?

Oh, right.....

 

[Guest]

Mmm, there is no metaphisics in materialism.

P-zombies are a logical exercise, there is no explanation gap.

Any chance of an explanation, or just an assertion?

Real life humans are conscious because thet need to be.

Why do they need to be?

 

[Peskanov]

UCE,

----
quote:
Real life humans are conscious because thet need to be.

quote:
Why do they need to be?
----


In this board conciousness it's always attached to awareness.
If you attach awareness to will, you get a reason for conciousness to exist.
So depending on your interpretation on conciousness, it will be unnecesary or a useful mechanism of animals.

The questions is: Does reckoning, interpretation and decision form part of conciousness?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Metaphysics. Are you the only one allowed provocational statements here? Materialism claims that everything is material, thus there is no metaphysical realm. Depends on the use of the word, of course. Our theoretical discussions are, of course, a form of metaphysics.

Any chance of an explanation, or just an assertion?

You are claiming that material Darwinism has an explanation gap because we need only be P-zombies. I challenge that claim on two grounds:

1) There is no such thing as P-zombies, it is a logical construct. (It seems we agree on this one).

2) Consciousness is an integral part of an advanced brain and a prerequisite for Mankind being what we (for better and worse) are today. (I would expect we disagree here)

Why do they need to be?

Because we could not function if we were not conscious. We would be just robots. The ability to deal with situations for which we are not prepared requires consciousness.

You, however, seem to assume that consciousness is not a survival factor. If so, then what is the purpose of it?

Hans

 

[Guest]

In this board conciousness it's always attached to awareness.
If you attach awareness to will, you get a reason for conciousness to exist.

Yes, these are things which are problematic for the materialist - awareness and will.

The questions is: Does reckoning, interpretation and decision form part of conciousness?

An unconcious algorithm does these things. They are things which occur within consciousness, but they aren't its defining features.

 

[Peskanov]

UCE,

----
quote:
Yes, these are things which are problematic for the materialist - awareness and will.
----

They are problematic in the same sense that DNA understanding is problematic. Work is going on...

----
quote:
An unconcious algorithm does these things. They are things which occur within consciousness, but they aren't its defining features.
----

I am not claiming that them are it's defining features, but that them are some of it's defining features. I don't think we have a full picture of conciousness. Not even idealism or solipsism.
Please, don't beg my question. Are interpretation and will functions of conciousness or not? Because, if they are, both are important for animals.

I think that the problem is that you are defining conciousness at you will to defy materialism. However, the original definition of conciousness doesn't come from materialism, but includes most features which materialism is currently embracing and defining from it's own POV.

 

[Guest]

Are interpretation and will functions of conciousness or not?

Define "consciousness", and I'll tell you......

Those aspects of consciousness that a P-zombie can do are just functions of the brain. Interpretation is a function of consciousness, but not a function that is relevant to the ontological debate. 'Will' is trickier - it depends exactly what you mean.

 

[The One called Neo]

Because we could not function if we were not conscious. We would be just robots. The ability to deal with situations for which we are not prepared requires consciousness.


Hans

Epiphenomenalists/weak dualists would take issue with this. On the other hand interactive dualists, idealists and materialists would all agree with this. Now for the materialist our behaviour is wholly a consequence of environmental stimuli and physical processes within the brain ie the world is physically closed. So how does the materialist reconcile this apparent paradox?

He does so by claiming that consciousness is either to be identified with such physical processes, or that consciousness is a logical consequence of such physical processes. Thus the problem is then solved and materialists can claim that consciousness is necessary for behaviour, and of course conversely p-zombies are logically impossible i.e they are no logically possible Universes where p-zombies exist.

So, given our initial presumption that we are wholly material creatures living in a wholly material world, we can then say Darwinism explains why consciousness arose. But what it does not do is vindicate materialism in any shape or form.

Are you in agreement with this?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

Notice the above emphasis. You believe that people's physical bodies are made up of atoms, but you also believe that people have a non-physical mind. That means that you do not believe that people are made entirely of atoms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am trying to describe two different conceptual levels. On a physical level people really are made of atoms, as is everything else. To say people are not entirely made of atoms is a dualistic way of thinking of it. The entire Universe, as you think of it, exists as a whole within consciousness. There isn't atoms AND consciousness. There is atoms WITHIN consciousness. Imagine an articifical world made of a certain sort of data structure. Entities within this world are made entirely of those data structures, but the structures themselves exist as a whole within a greater context.

There is nothing dualistic about it. When you say that atoms exist within consciousness, that is equivalent to saying that atoms are a subset of consciousness. That's fine.

When you claim that people have mental states (4), and that mental states cannot be described in terms of interactions between atoms (5), you are claiming that people possess characteristics which are not attributable to things made up completely of atoms. You are thus negating that people are made of atoms (2).

To put it another way, if you claim that people are made of atoms, and that atoms are purely physical, then this implies that any property or characteristic that people possess can be described in terms of purely physical characteristics.

In order to make all 5 statements consistent with each other under Idealism, you must alter number 2 to say "People's bodies are made of atoms", allowing for people to have other characteristics not attributable to atoms or to atomic interactions.

For me, P-Zombies are a nonsense that are implied by materialism. They are logically possible. That is their only purpose. They do not need to actually exist, any more than Schroedingers cat.

This is clearly false. P-Zombies are not implied by materialism. On the contrary, P-Zombies are logically inconsistent with materialism.


Ian,

Originally posted by Loki
Ian,

Having trouble keeping up, Ian?

"reality is objective" is a simple way of saying that if *all* consciousness in the universe was extinguished at midnight tonight, then the universe would still be there tomorrow morning.

"reality is subjective" (or "subjective existence") means that if all consciousness vanished, so would the universe.

Better now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a curious definition! Stimpy wouldn't even agree with that.

Of course I would. Although, I wouldn't call it a definition. It is a description. There is a difference. A description is a set of statements which are logically implied by the definition.

For example, the statement "everything that exists is physical" is a true statement under materialism, but it is not the definition of materialism. It is not a definition at all.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Q-Source]

Consciousness doesn't 'arise' at all. Consciousness is everything that is. Everything which exists arises from consciousness.

Of course, there is no way to prove that a Metamind is generating this physical reality.
It is just a matter of faith, isn't it?

I start from the observation that I am conscious, and that mathematical objects can exist requiring only Zero and logic. Neither of these things are assumptions. I can provide an entirely self-consistent model for metaphysics based on these observations, provided consciousness gives rise to matter rather than the other way around.

Funny, you are capable of providing a whole self-consistent model for methaphyics but you or any of the mystics haven’t provided any consistent explanation so far.

Anecdotal evidence is of use to a person who wishes to search for repeating patterns within that anecdotal evidence. Then you can look at both the patterns in the anecdotal evidence, and the metaphysical model, and try to make sense of them both.

Does anecdotal evidence satisfy your intellectual curiosity? Or is it the only way to reaffirm your preconceptions?

You can't prove any of the interpretations of QM, which is why they remain interpretations. There is no way to established whether the unobserved cat is both dead and alive because the very act of observation collapses the wave function and stops the cat from being both dead and alive. The same is true of most of metaphysics, which is why it remains metaphysics.

No, it is not true of most of metaphysics. The point is that most (all) of paranormal events claim to affect the physical world through mental channels (observations). Some of them make it at will, as you said.

There are certain ways of investigating some of these phenomena, which is what PEAR tries to do with statistical anlysis of many experiments where 'will' is used to attempt to influence 'random' events but this just scratches the surface. The problems are caused by the fact that we are trying to observe observation itself. You could only do this "objectively" by extricating yourself from the system and taking a 'Gods-eye' view, which is not possible for physicists to do.

I don’t think so, let’s leave the observations and the observers alone. Skeptics and scientists are trying to investigate the effects that those observations cause on the physical world, because this is what the observers claim.

In a way it does, since everything is ultimately mental, but I guess you won't like that answer. The nature of your questions seem to indicate that you are thinking about this from more of a dualistic rather than idealistic viewpoint. Dualism suffers from the problem of 'interaction'. Idealism doesn't really, since everything is mental.

I guess that taking as a fact that everything is mental (instead of assuming that it is mental) is the easiest way to solve all the metaphysical problems.

Q

 

[Guest]

Q

Of course, there is no way to prove that a Metamind is generating this physical reality.
It is just a matter of faith, isn't it?

Not for me it isn't....

Funny, you are capable of providing a whole self-consistent model for methaphyics but you or any of the mystics haven’t provided any consistent explanation so far.

Methaphysics? Does it make you go blind?

I would contest this. I would say the mystics have provided a very clear explanation, dating as far back as the Upanishads.

Does anecdotal evidence satisfy your intellectual curiosity?

Nothing satisfies my intellectual curiosity.

Or is it the only way to reaffirm your preconceptions?

Which preconceptions? I do not think I have any preconceptions.

I guess that taking as a fact that everything is mental (instead of assuming that it is mental) is the easiest way to solve all the metaphysical problems.

It's the only way to solve them. That is why it isn't really 'faith'.

G

 

[Q-Source]

So, given our initial presumption that we are wholly material creatures living in a wholly material world, we can then say Darwinism explains why consciousness arose. But what it does not do is vindicate materialism in any shape or form.

Are you in agreement with this?

Hello Neo,

had't seen you long time ago

Which methodogical framework does Darwinism rely on?


Q

 

[Peskanov]

----
quote:
Are interpretation and will functions of conciousness or not?

quote:
Define "consciousness", and I'll tell you......
----

Why should I? I am asking about your definition...
I think you are trying to build a concept similar to the "God of the gaps". We could call "consciousness of the gaps", because whenever someone identifies or proposes an aspect of consciousness, you say: "this is not consciousness; it is the remaining...".
Is this your definition of consciousness? The part of the mind which can not be described in any formal way?

----
quote:
Those aspects of consciousness that a P-zombie can do are just functions of the brain. Interpretation is a function of consciousness, but not a function that is relevant to the ontological debate. 'Will' is trickier - it depends exactly what you mean.
----

I don't see will as something so trickier. It's the system which makes decissions. My only assumption here is that it is a system, and this assumption is based on the fact that the will present both complexity and coherence(sometimes) in his decissions.
I will define it e-primed if you want, but there will not be any difference...

 

[Guest]

Stimp

There is nothing dualistic about it.

There is if you are worried about the 'interaction'.

When you say that atoms exist within consciousness, that is equivalent to saying that atoms are a subset of consciousness. That's fine.

You ignored the example I gave. I will give it again :

----------
Imagine an articifical world made of a certain sort of data structure. Entities within this world are made entirely of those data structures, but the structures themselves exist as a whole within a greater context.
---------

Those data structures are not a 'subset' of the computer they exist within. That is a misconception. Entities composed of those data structures are entirely composed of those data structures. They are not composed partly of the data structures and partly of the computer. A person who thinks they are part of each is doing so because he doesn't understand the relationship. People are made of atoms. Peoples 'minds' aren't 'made' of anything.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=make

"To bring into existence by shaping, modifying, or putting together material"

i.e. You are still thinking like a materialist - you are imposing things like location and material constituents on the mind. A mind isn't 'made' of anything. Therefore "Peoples bodies are made of atoms" = "People are made of atoms". All the bits of a person which are 'made' of anything at all are made of atoms.

When you claim that people have mental states (4), and that mental states cannot be described in terms of interactions between atoms (5), you are claiming that people possess characteristics which are not attributable to things made up completely of atoms. You are thus negating that people are made of atoms (2).

OK....the problem here is that "people have mental states" refers to the mind, whereas "people are made of atoms" refers to the body. The solution to this conundrum lies in clearer specification at to what is meant by 'people'. The solution lies in figuring out what is meant by "I". What is the "I" that has the mental state?

 

[Interesting Ian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Loki
Ian,

Having trouble keeping up, Ian?

"reality is objective" is a simple way of saying that if *all* consciousness in the universe was extinguished at midnight tonight, then the universe would still be there tomorrow morning.

"reality is subjective" (or "subjective existence") means that if all consciousness vanished, so would the universe.

Better now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a curious definition! Stimpy wouldn't even agree with that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Of course I would. Although, I wouldn't call it a definition. It is a description. There is a difference. A description is a set of statements which are logically implied by the definition.

For example, the statement "everything that exists is physical" is a true statement under materialism, but it is not the definition of materialism. It is not a definition at all.

This is not what you've said before! I'm pleased though you're now being sensible about it. So you now concede that materialism entails that reality exists in abstraction from our perception of it. Good!

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

When you say that atoms exist within consciousness, that is equivalent to saying that atoms are a subset of consciousness. That's fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You ignored the example I gave. I will give it again :

----------
Imagine an articifical world made of a certain sort of data structure. Entities within this world are made entirely of those data structures, but the structures themselves exist as a whole within a greater context.
---------

Those data structures are not a 'subset' of the computer they exist within. That is a misconception. Entities composed of those data structures are entirely composed of those data structures. They are not composed partly of the data structures and partly of the computer. A person who thinks they are part of each is doing so because he doesn't understand the relationship. People are made of atoms. Peoples 'minds' aren't 'made' of anything.

Then you are denying that people have mental states. You are essentially saying that mental states exist, but that they are not a property or characteristic of the person. You are defining the person to be only the physical body, but the very next moment asserting that the person possesses mental states.

I will make it very simple for you. If people are entirely physical (made of atoms), and mental states are non-physical, then people can not possibly possess mental states!

i.e. You are still thinking like a materialist - you are imposing things like location and material constituents on the mind. A mind isn't 'made' of anything. Therefore "Peoples bodies are made of atoms" = "People are made of atoms". All the bits of a person which are 'made' of anything at all are made of atoms.

No, I am not. Look, saying that a person has bits which "aren't made of anything" does not change the fact that the person is made up of both atoms, and those mysterious bits.

When you claim that people have mental states (4), and that mental states cannot be described in terms of interactions between atoms (5), you are claiming that people possess characteristics which are not attributable to things made up completely of atoms. You are thus negating that people are made of atoms (2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK....the problem here is that "people have mental states" refers to the mind, whereas "people are made of atoms" refers to the body. The solution to this conundrum lies in clearer specification at to what is meant by 'people'. The solution lies in figuring out what is meant by "I". What is the "I" that has the mental state?

I rest my case. The only way you can come up with to make those 5 statements not be mutually exclusive, is to define the terms used within those statements differently within the different statements.

You have essentially modified your "proof" to be:


1. For any system, every fact about the whole is a necessary consequence of the nature and relations of the parts.

2. People's physical bodies are made of atoms.

3. Atoms are purely physical objects, with nothing but physical properties and physical relations to one another.

4. People's non-physical minds have mental states.

5. No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.


Having done so, you are begging the question of materialism being false. You can no longer argue that all 5 statements are clearly true, because statement 4 is only meaningful if you assume that the mind is non-physical.

As I stated before, under materialism, statement 4 is false, and statement 5 is meaningless.


Ian,

This is not what you've said before! I'm pleased though you're now being sensible about it. So you now concede that materialism entails that reality exists in abstraction from our perception of it. Good!

Of course it does! Good grief man, have you never once listened to single word I have said! Materialism holds that reality is what we perceive, and not our perceptions itself. How many times have I told you this?

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

Stimpson :

Then you are denying that people have mental states. You are essentially saying that mental states exist, but that they are not a property or characteristic of the person.

In a very fundamental way this is precisely what I am saying. Atman=Brahman, remember? The individual mind is an illusion. There is only one consiousness. The mental states, if you look at it like this, are not a characteristic of the person. This only makes sense if minds are unified but bodies are seperate.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

Then you are denying that people have mental states. You are essentially saying that mental states exist, but that they are not a property or characteristic of the person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a very fundamental way this is precisely what I am saying. Atman=Brahman, remember? The individual mind is an illusion. There is only one consiousness. The mental states, if you look at it like this, are not a characteristic of the person. This only makes sense if minds are unified but bodies are seperate.

Once again, I rest my case. The five statements can only all be true if statements 2 and 4 use completely different meanings for the term "person". And if you do use the specific meanings that allow the statements to be consistent under Idealism, then the claim that all 5 statements are true, begs the question of materialism being false.

Dr. Stupid