Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My turn. What the heck is Metamind? Could you list any attribute other than "raw intent"?

Under idealism, everything is mind. Clearly there are individual minds such as yours and mine. But what is everything else? It's still mind, so I call it Metamind (after Interesting Ian).

But then again, I'm so confused now about what idealism holds that I could be completely full of it.

My what a confused and confusing "thought" ...

I thought use 1.

everything was mind Use 2.

Why should the mind Use 3.

Yup, I'm confused. Can anyone enlighten me about what idealists are actually saying. The more I read the more it sounds like idealism and materialism are identical, except for calling the fundamental existent two different names.

What is that "I"?

Exactly! That's why I was saying that mind is not the same as objects of perception. Geoff seems to think it is.

Although Geoff may not agree, I classify "hammegk" objective idealism as post-Kantian. It is a work still in progress. At the moment I'm trying to integrate the concept of the perceived-as-physical being an epiphenomena of an idealist 'what-is'.

Good luck.

You continue to expand the silliness quotient with that absolutely untrue comment.

Well, at best the attention is selective. Interesting Ian simply refused to pay attention at all. The Knowledge Argument, seems to me, is trashed by the most basic neuroscience. The p-zombie argument is heavily influenced by the fact that parts of the brain are zombie modules. Arguments about objects of perception should be influenced by syndromes such as blindsight.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But it is correct, by definition, under idealism. So there are no p-zombies under idealism.

Eh? I still don't know why you think this.

Considering that everything in metaphysics is open to debate, I think you're being a bit dogmatic here. Anyway, I wasn't talking about p-zombies under idealism. I was talking about a different sort of zombie that has a mind but no objects of perception. Are you saying that this is not even conceivable?

That's what I am saying, yes. There is no such thing as a mind which is not aware of anything. I cannot concieve of such a thing.

If you are, then why do you say it is conceivable to have a brain without mind under materialism?

Because brains without minds are not the same as minds without objects of perception.

The article I'm reading certainly doesn't make it this simple.
The question of the definition of conceivable is much more complex than this.

Let's go for it then.....

So what is wrong with this statement: Provided you can define mind and objects of perception and can distinguish between the two of them, then x-zombies are conceivable.

I cannot distinguish between an individual mind and the sum total of everything it is aware of. These are identical things. My mind IS the sum total of everything I am aware of.

I am not sure what would follow from me being able to distinguish between the two of them. I'd have to have a very odd understanding of "mind".

Or: Provided you can define the neutral monism and Zero and can distinguish between the two of them, then y-zombies are conceivable.

We are back to monty python. I've got no idea what you mean, Paul. What the hell is a y-zombie???

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That's pretty arrogant. That's stunningly arrogant. Are you sure about this concerning dolphins and apes, too? No microtubules in their brains?

Their brains do contain microtubules and they are conscious. So I am not sure what you are getting at here.....

The difference between animals and humans is one of cognitive power, not consciousness.

QM cleverly selective about only manifesting consciousness in H. sapiens microtubules? I can't wait to see the mathematics about this bit.

That's not my position.

Even without consciousness, I could conceptualize something, in the sense that I could abstract a bunch of similar things and then use the abstract to tackle problems concerning those things.

Sure. It wasn't me who was claiming conceptualisations were neccesary for experience. Kant claims this. I think he is wrong.

 

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by I less than three logic
So there is no logic to claim that all humanists are or must be materialists as well.

Agreed.

Hmm. Our point of contention involves "effectiveness". Basically we all believe that words are a human invention so all history and words are 100% humanist.
At the dawn of civilization some people noticed that shared ethics and morality enhanced group survival, and that humans do not readily accept directions based on "I said so", "I" being just another human ego. It's easier when the source of directions can be attributed 'elsewhere'.
Materialists imo have effectively removed themselves from the "game", and social systems admittedly based on might- makes-right human-ego driven societies have a poor record of long-term utility as I read history.
I prefer leaving the door ajar for, shall we say, "divine guidance".

... Of course ... Hammy will not read Dawkins or Dennet because they are evil atheist materialist who couldn't possibly offer anything of value to the belief they want to be true,

Madam, I'm beginning to believe you are as clueless in all ways as that unfounded statement demonstrates you are wrt my thinking.
Lapsed theists whose personal god failed them in time of crisis have their own problems to sort through, and if that is part of your problem, you are doing a poor job of re-integration.

"Various philosophical theories of mind fall under this category. Essentially, idealism is the view which posits that the material realm does not exist wholly independent of the mind. Idealism does not dismiss the notion that the material realm exists; it just asserts that the material realm must be perceived by the mind - i.e. that ultimately, the material realm (contepts, ideas, things, etc.) exists in the mind."

Mmmkay. If the The Mind is The Solipsist -- should one exist -- I'd agree. Otherwise, your comments are meaningless from my viewpoint of objective idealism.

....under idealism, all the nonconscious stuff going on to keep the "external world" together must be part of my mind, no? There is nothing but mind.

All mind ? Yup. All your mind? Do you suggest you are The Solipsist?

"I am 100% certain my mind exists; but I can also see how everything that's part of it is affected by a number of circumstances in the world it is observing. I can therefore be 100% certain that the world that it is observing exists as well."

I'm not sure who the quote is from. I know I disagree with it.

What one should be 100% sure of is that the thought exists that "I exist", and that "I" interact with "the world".

... reasonable discussion removed ....

Call it materialism or physicalism or whatever, but it's the only path that gives me real answers and doesn't require mental gymnastics for me to maintain. Sure, the universe really could be an illusion; it's possible that I'm just a brain in a vat. But it changes nothing to this reality, so in the end, it's the only thing I can ever hope to understand.

The conclusion doesn't follow from any of the premises. I disagree with little you posted, yet am as firmly an objective idealist as I've ever been.

Epistemology does not answer ontological questions.

P-zombies are possible under idealism. Period.

I'm not convinced that's true.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Exactly! That's why I was saying that mind is not the same as objects of perception. Geoff seems to think it is.

Geoff has also stated that mind is not the same as "I". My mind is the same as the sum total of everything I am aware of. That does not include "I". It only includes what "I" am aware of.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The more I read the more it sounds like idealism and materialism are identical, except for calling the fundamental existent two different names.

This is both true and false. In one sense, they are the same - they both involve the amputation of one half of Descartes' dualism and the reification of the other. But they are also different because the relationship between mind, matter and the human perspective is more complicated than you are allowing for. Materialists and Idealists do not face the same set of problems in defending their respective claims. I think this is where you are going wrong: you are actually trying to treat materialism and idealism as though they faced exactly the same set of problems, but they don't. Then you try to figure out an analogous problem for neutral monism, at which point you cease to make much sense to me. What you have called "a y-zombie" would have to be a zero which wasn't also infinity or an infinity which wasn't also zero. I will of course deny that any such thing is possible.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Because brains without minds are not the same as minds without objects of perception.

I would debate this assertion with you, but my head hurts even contemplating the idea.

Let's go for it then...

Nah, I can hardly even understand the article. We got conceivable, we got possible, we got natural, we got logical, we got necessary. It's so obviously a word game that I lose interest.

I cannot distinguish between an individual mind and the sum total of everything it is aware of. These are identical things. My mind IS the sum total of everything I am aware of.

I can distinguish. Here's a mind perceiving objects of perception, here's the mind perceiving one fewer, ..., here's the mind with no objects of perception.

I am not sure what would follow from me being able to distinguish between the two of them. I'd have to have a very odd understanding of "mind".

If mind is the thing that perceives objects, then mind can stand alone without objects. Hell, how about nonconscious mental activities? They have no objects of perception, so you'll have to declare that nonconscious mental activities are not mental activities at all. A guy who suddenly develops blindsight has literally lost part of his mind.

We are back to monty python. I've got no idea what you mean, Paul. What the hell is a y-zombie???

A y-zombie is a neutral monist human being who has lost the Zero. His microtubules are physically identical to a normal human being, but QM isn't doing its thing inside them. Surely if you require me to acknowledge that mind is conceptually different from brain, you'll agree that QM doing its thing is also conceptually different from brain.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mmmkay. If the The Mind is The Solipsist -- should one exist -- I'd agree. Otherwise, your comments are meaningless from my viewpoint of objective idealism.

That was a definition of idealism from another site. I was just noting that it says the material realm exists in "the mind." What mind?

All mind ? Yup. All your mind? Do you suggest you are The Solipsist?

No, no. I'm asking where the nonconscious activities that maintain the commonality of the "external world" reside. Do they reside in each of our minds? Or do they reside in a Metamind. Or where?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff has also stated that mind is not the same as "I". My mind is the same as the sum total of everything I am aware of. That does not include "I". It only includes what "I" am aware of.

Okay, so we agree that my mind and "I" are separate concepts. So now let's imagine a neutral monist human being who has mind but is missing the "I". Voila! An I-zombie.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Materialists and Idealists do not face the same set of problems in defending their respective claims. I think this is where you are going wrong: you are actually trying to treat materialism and idealism as though they faced exactly the same set of problems, but they don't.

No, I'm just pointing out that they face the same set of requirements: They must model the world as we see it. I agree that the two models have different problems. And neutral monism has its own problems, such as having to declare that something both exists and does not exist.

~~ Paul

 

[nescafe]

Okay, so we agree that my mind and "I" are separate concepts. So now let's imagine a neutral monist human being who has mind but is missing the "I". Voila! An I-zombie.

~~ Paul

Hmm, that sounds like straight ego loss. Generally higher doses of LSD (250 mikes or so) will obliterate the "I" for awhile (although it can be a very traumatic process, especially if you do not understand what is happening and confuse it with death or become afraid that your ego will never reform), and you can supposedly do the same thing through meditation.

 

[hammegk]

That's a fact, but do you think it is germane to one's assumption of monism of choice? It isn't.

 

[nescafe]

That's a fact, but do you think it is germane to one's assumption of monism of choice? It isn't.

Didn't say it was -- just noted that the I-zombie concept appears to not be the same as a p-zombie concept, in that there are people who can convincingly claim to have (temporarily, generally) lost their "i", but no-one (with the possible exception of lifegazer) can make convincing claims to p-zombiehood.

(ed. for clarity)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I can distinguish. Here's a mind perceiving objects of perception, here's the mind perceiving one fewer, ..., here's the mind with no objects of perception.

I can't agree. At the moment the last of object of perception ("object" here also means things like pains) disappears, then there is no mind left.

If mind is the thing that perceives objects, then mind can stand alone without objects.

I'm not sure I'd say that "Mind is the thing that percieves objects". I said that "my mind is the sum total of all the things that I am aware of." I will stick to that definition.

Hell, how about nonconscious mental activities?

What about them? They are not things in my mind. They are just brain activities.

They have no objects of perception, so you'll have to declare that nonconscious mental activities are not mental activities at all.

I just did.

A guy who suddenly develops blindsight has literally lost part of his mind.

Correct. What is wrong with that description?

A y-zombie is a neutral monist human being who has lost the Zero.

OK, I see. It can't happen.

His microtubules are physically identical to a normal human being, but QM isn't doing its thing inside them.

OK, then he's not conscious. He's just a p-zombie, except this time we have a more detailed explanation of why.

Surely if you require me to acknowledge that mind is conceptually different from brain, you'll agree that QM doing its thing is also conceptually different from brain.

Sure.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Okay, so we agree that my mind and "I" are separate concepts. So now let's imagine a neutral monist human being who has mind but is missing the "I". Voila! An I-zombie.

~~ Paul

It's still a p-zombie. You do not need a new term. Without an "I", he has no mind. The "I" is not the mind, but the mind still depends on there being an "I".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And neutral monism has its own problems, such as having to declare that something both exists and does not exist.

~~ Paul

That is too crude a way of putting it, but sort of. But perhaps there is no better way.

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/heart_sutra.htm

"Here, Oh Shariputra, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form;
Form does not differ from Emptiness, Emptiness does not differ from Form;
- whatever is Empty, that is Form, whatever is Form, that is Empty!"

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hmm, that sounds like straight ego loss. Generally higher doses of LSD (250 mikes or so) will obliterate the "I" for awhile (although it can be a very traumatic process, especially if you do not understand what is happening and confuse it with death or become afraid that your ego will never reform)...

I think what happens with LSD is not as simple as that. I wouldn't say that "The "I" gets obliterated". All the normal rules of cognition gets obliterated and self-consciousness gets obliterated and all sorts of other things get seriously messed up, but somewhere under the mess there is still an "I".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Didn't say it was -- just noted that the I-zombie concept appears to not be the same as a p-zombie concept, in that there are people who can convincingly claim to have (temporarily, generally) lost their "i", but no-one (with the possible exception of lifegazer) can make convincing claims to p-zombiehood.

(ed. for clarity)

OK, I can just about agree with this, since I don't want to split any more hairs with you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think at this point we need to distinguish between various conceptions of "self" or "I". Specifically we need to distinguish between the narrative (or autobiographical) self and the metaphysical or conscious subject/self. It is the second thing which I have been calling "I". But I believe that in the cases of meditation and LSD it is the narrative self which gets obliterated. The two types of "self" are often mistakenly confused, and I think it is part of the purpose of buddhist meditation to realise this is a confusion. Apart from anything else, the narrative self is neccesarily part of ones own individual identity - it is the thing which defines our own idea of "who we are". When it gets obliterated, it is claimed, so does the sense of ones seperateness from everything else. Consciousness itself does not disappear. This is certainly true in the case of LSD. I cannot speak for the meditation case because I have never attained any such state through meditation.

 

[articulett]

I see...Justgeoff and Hammy believe they are the ones uniting religion and science by pretending that the extremists on both side are extreme in the same way. But religion is extreme in that it all about "truth" coming from faith and feelings and science is all about useful truths built upon measurable facts and evidence--what makes humans feel good and what humans want to be true is not a part of science. Taking a namby pamby view of facts just encourages the backward thinking of religion where people are told they have a preplanned purpose and that the world is about humans and an afterlife and hidden divine meanings--divisive thinking where the illogical can feel superior to those who stick to more mundane facts. It encourages a type of illogic that people are prone to anyhow...and your insults do nothing to address it. Pretending that religion or philosophy are as good of way of knowing things or understanding things is just not the case--it adds to ignorance and divisiveness as far as I can tell. I think there is way too much respect for every silly belief that people have that makes them feel important, but not challenging those sacred "feel good" beliefs make people unable to understand some very basic facts.

I have as much right to speak on this forum as you and from what I read, I seem to be as understood as you are or moreso. I think it is backwards and wrong to be teaching that faith and feelings are good ways of knowing anything--they may point you in a direction for inquiry but they are also the main avenues for coming to irrational and illogical conclusions about the world and failing to investigate further. II think promoting this kind of thinking promotes both ignorance, arrogance, and illogic while blinding the teachers of this middle view to their own "holier than thou" encouragement of nonsensical thinking. Your presumptions of intelligence beyond the majority of posters on this forum and insight and pseudo "unifying message" to moderate between the teachers of faith and the teachers of fact is pretentious, unsupported, offensive, and only serves to further the illogic of the masses. I would have to say that my opinion and perhaps the opinion of many others on this board who have gone to the trouble to learn the facts and all your self satisfied ranting about your own nobility, deep experiences, logic defying synchronicity, and blathering about how materialism contradicts itself is nothing more than the same kind of pap that teachers of woo or religion endorses-- Sematic games and feelings noble intentions are poor excuses for spreading ignorance. And though philosophy may be useful, the only use you seem to have found for it is in convincing yourself you are the one who will unite religion and science when it seems that respect for the former is a major cause of ignorance in the latter and blatant hostility towards the latter as well. I do not care that you ignore me, because the fact is, you ignore everyone on this thread when they challenge the view you want to be true. You hide behind semantics as you tell others how illogical their positions are. You are only fooling yourself and Hammy it seems. You have not proven materialism illogical though you keep saying it over and over--you have only proven how philosophy has made you both arrogant and ignorant while seeing yourself as the mighty uniter of religion and science. As a person on the science side of the equation, I do not want people such as you speaking for me. You are extremely short on evidence and have Interesting Ian proportion of egotism. Instead of insulting everyone repeatedly, why not provide a definition and stick with it or some evidence or at least show the willingness to learn you exasperatedly expect your audience to have. I am not the one starting a thread so that I can insult others and spread my unproven and inane ******** under the guise of being the uniter of religion and science. Recent studies indicate that the more secular a society is, the fewer social problems they have. Objective facts do not need a middle ground...they do not need an interpreter or moderator either.