Materialists......

[hammegk]

I've said several times before. And I've said so in my little essay back there: if the "world" is suspect, then so is "I".

We -- whatever that might mean in "what-is" -- agree.

Does the Thought exist? That is the question, and I'd say at 100% certainty. Where and what and how is another problem.


And to my dear articulett: Facts learned by rote and regurgitated do not equal learning or wisdom or even good sense.

 

[nescafe]

I saw Stone Phillips have a transcendent experience with a persinger helmet--which uses magnetism to induce nirvana--and Cliff Pickover talks a lot about DMT and transcendent experiences...and recent science articles show that people taking psilocibin mushrooms report profoundly transcendent experiences of personal profundity leading to beneficial outlook. Even religious ecstacy has been shown to often involve epilepsy in a certain portion of the brain (the temporal lobe, I believe). But what do I know, I'm just a materialist, and I don't think I've had any actual transcendent experiences, though in my woo years, I convinced myself I had. I'm too afraid of the dark recesses of my mind to try hallucinogens--but maybe when I'm old.

You seem to be making the mistake that because Geoff and I have experienced the (apparent) obliteration of our respective narrative centers of gravity (our "i"'s if you will), we have reached the same conclusion as to what it means. I assure you, we do not.

I do not go as far as Geoff in his assertion that there is still a metaphysical I even when the narrative I is destroyed, because I think that which we call a "self" is just a consequence of the brain trying to create a consistent narrative based on limited sensory input, incomplete memory, and imperfect pattern-matching and reasoning -- I think humans are better rationalizers than we are reasoners.

I believe that ones metaphysical stance is not even relavent once it is capable of explaining processes that are at least as complex as a Universal Turing Machine, which is why if I were forced into a particular metaphysical stance I would call it computational naturalism.

(ed. some spelling)
(ed. s/realism/naturalism/)

 

[nescafe]

But there are many people who have become p-zombies with respect to portions of their subjective experience. People with blindsight, prosopagnosia, and so forth.

~~ Paul

Hmmm... I think that using the term p-zombie to describe the experience of people with blindsight, etc. is a mistake, because the terms blindsight, etc. already do that. Have you read Consciousness Explained, Paul? (just wondering, not accusing you of woeful ignorance. )

 

[hammegk]

Paul has basketfulls of red-herrings to toss out.

Yes, it is possible to mess up brain operations in odd ways, which is as relevant to discussing the implications of materialism, or ~materialism, as the crap articulett continues to feel needs posting.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hmmm... I think that using the term p-zombie to describe the experience of people with blindsight, etc. is a mistake, because the terms blindsight, etc. already do that. Have you read Consciousness Explained, Paul? (just wondering, not accusing you of woeful ignorance.

The terms blindsight, etc., already do what?

I haven't read Consciousness Explained, but I have read a dozen other books. The term zombie module is often used to describe specific nonconscious brain functions. But, granted, blindsight doesn't make a conscious function nonconscious, it just eliminates the function altogether.

~~Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To a large extent, that is precisely what it is.

I agree that the minding is a fleeting jumble, but that doesn't seem to be the way idealists describe it.

~~Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, it is possible to mess up brain operations in odd ways, which is as relevant to discussing the implications of materialism, or ~materialism, as the crap articulett continues to feel needs posting.

It's possible to mess up mental, experiential, perceptual, consciousness-related operations in odd ways. Is that not relevant? If not, then why did you object when I said philosophers shall pay no attention to neuroscientists?

~~Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I do not go as far as Geoff in his assertion that there is still a metaphysical I even when the narrative I is destroyed.....

Then why didn't your consciousness disappear?

You are a Buddhist, yes?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I agree that the minding is a fleeting jumble, but that doesn't seem to be the way idealists describe it.

~~Paul

There's only one fleeting jumble.

 

[Robin]

Essentially the p-zombie argument assumes it's conclusion. They are showing that consciousness cannot be physical. So they posit something that is physically identical to a human but not conscious. But if consciousness was physical then the p-zombie would not be physically identical

They are assuming that consciousness is not physical and then using that premise to prove that consciousness cannot be physical.

Bolding by Geoff. The line in bold is where you assume your conclusion. The proponents of the p-zombie argument do no such thing. If you think that they do, please lay out the line of reasoning as I did in my last post.

Can you show me even one assumption that I have made in my statement?

Just one?

Again I find myself wanting to lecture your lecturers about logic. Basic kindergarten logic.

If I say "if x then y", this does not mean I have assumed x.

If one of your lecturers has led you to believe this nonsense then go and slap him with a rubber chicken because he has misunderstood the very simplest basic of logic.

Now here it is again slowly.

The P-zombie argument:
1. The set S has all members that the set T has.
2. It is metaphysically concievable that S does not contain a₁
3. Therefore T does not contain a₁

That is what the argument boils down to.

But it would not even be metaphysically conceivable that S did not contain a₁ if T did contain a₁. So 2 contains the assumption that T does not contain a₁.

Now you are trying to defend the argument by saying that I am assuming that T does contain a₁.

But I am clearly not. I have simply stated that step 2 assumes step 3 is true. If step 3 were not true then step 2 would not be true.

Let's look at it another way.

A p-planet has all the physical characteristics of a normal planet but has no gravity whatsoever. If you were one foot away from a p-planet you might simply float away.

It is metaphysically possible for there to be a p-planet.

Therefore gravity is not a physical attribute.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Can you show me even one assumption that I have made in my statement?

Just one?

Here:

But if consciousness was physical.....

If I say "if x then y", this does not mean I have assumed x.

IF the Bible is literally true THEN Darwinism is wrong.

Is Darwinism wrong?

The P-zombie argument:
1. The set S has all members that the set T has.

What do S and T mean?

I didn't understand how any of the rest of your post corresponds to the zombie argument.

 

[articulett]

Articulett,

Oh, I can't be bothered. You are a complete idiot.

How interesting....because that is exactly what Interesting Ian says. He pretends I'm incomprehensible instead of noticing the myriad of people telling him the same thing. Did you notice that only you and Hammy hold the notion that materialism is "illogical"--yet you've provided no evidence for that--and like your synchronicity it seems to be true only in your reality? I have no doubts that my education and I.Q. are on par with yours and I'm not the one saying that materialsim is illogical or that I am the wise one who can unite faith and facts. That is you. That makes you the complete idiot--or at least ignorant and arrogant at the same time. You want to run to your words and your semantic games to prove that "materialism" is illogical, but that doesn't make it so. I take your putting me on ignore as a sign that you feel narcissistically peeved because I won't be lead into your silly, self serving, semantic game where "materialm is illogical". I would say that the vast majority of scientists--especially those who work in the field of genetics or neurology find materialism by far the most logical "ontology" and it has lead to quite a bit of information regarding how the brain evolved and how it perceives. Your self serving claim that materialism is illogical keeps you and all those you preach your ignorance to from learning some of the most interesting and exciting information that science has uncovered. Woo is still woo no matter what words you use.

 

[I less than three logic]

What do S and T mean?

I didn't understand how any of the rest of your post corresponds to the zombie argument.

It looked like the S and T were simply labels of the set, you know, to be able to tell them apart. No different from set 1 and set 2, only easier to write. The a₁ was an attribute assigned to the set, also just a label not pertaining to anything in particular. Robin broke down the argument without using the words to confuse everything.

Robin has a point that you don’t seem to be following. The p-zombie argument assumes that consciousness isn’t physical as soon as it declares that p-zombies are physically identical to normal conscious people, but do not possess consciousness themselves. If they are physically identical and do not have consciousness, then consciousness can’t be physical. Thus, they have assumed the conclusion they were attempting to argue against in the first place.

 

[Robin]

Can you show me even one assumption that I have made in my statement?

Just one?

Here:

But if consciousness was physical.....

So now we are going to get into a debate about what if means?

Let's try again. I asked you to show where I assumed x. You showed where I said "if x". Even after I pointed out the kindergarten error in this the first time. You repeated the same mistake!!!!

Again: "if x .. then " does not mean "assume x .. therefore".

If you fail to understand this simple thing then how can you expect to do the more complicated things involved in philosophy?

IF the Bible is literally true THEN Darwinism is wrong.

Is Darwinism wrong?

No because (and try to understand this) the statement "If the Bible is literally true then..." does not mean the same as "the Bible is literally true therefore...".

Just the same as "if consciousness is a physical process then..." does not mean the same as "consciousness is a physical process therefore..."


Now you have stated twice in a row that when I say "if x then ..." that I have assumed x. Even after I pointed out that this makes no sense.

If you cannot understand that then you understand nothing of logic and therefore philosophy.

Please, please tell me the name of the university where they teach such nonsense, so that I can advise friends to avoid it.

What do S and T mean?

I already stated - T is some set and S is some other set that has all the members that T has. It does not really matter for the purposes of analysing the logic just what T is the set of.

So T might be the "set of all physical characteristics that a human has" or it might be the "set of songs which George Gershwin wrote" or even "the set of physical information about colour vision" or "the set of all prime numbers" - for the purposes of the argument it does not really matter.

We are looking at the structure of the argument to determine if it is valid.

You do not need to ask what S means because I have already defined S in terms of T.

Now if you do not agree that I have accurately portrayed the formal structure of the argument, feel free to show me how you see it.

I didn't understand how any of the rest of your post corresponds to the zombie argument.

You don't need to. Do you accept that the argument at the end of my post proves that gravity is not physical? If not then what is the flaw in my argument? Here it is again:

A p-planet has all the physical characteristics of a normal planet but has no gravity whatsoever. If you were one foot away from a p-planet you might simply float away.

It is metaphysically possible for there to be a p-planet.

Therefore gravity is not a physical attribute.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How interesting....because that is exactly what Interesting Ian says.

That's not interesting either. I should imagine that II figured out quite early on that talking to you was a complete waste of time.

He pretends I'm incomprehensible....

Does he? Are you sure he doesn't just say you are irrelevant?

instead of noticing the myriad of people telling him the same thing.

II can think for himself.

Did you notice that only you and Hammy hold the notion that materialism is "illogical"....

No.

--yet you've provided no evidence for that--and like your synchronicity it seems to be true only in your reality?

There is only one reality.

 

[Robin]

It looked like the S and T were simply labels of the set, you know, to be able to tell them apart. No different from set 1 and set 2, only easier to write. The a₁ was an attribute assigned to the set, also just a label not pertaining to anything in particular. Robin broke down the argument without using the words to confuse everything.

Robin has a point that you don’t seem to be following. The p-zombie argument assumes that consciousness isn’t physical as soon as it declares that p-zombies are physically identical to normal conscious people, but do not possess consciousness themselves. If they are physically identical and do not have consciousness, then consciousness can’t be physical. Thus, they have assumed the conclusion they were attempting to argue against in the first place.

Thank you, you put it more consicely.

The statement "a p-zombie is physically identical to a normal human being" contains in itself the assumption that consciousness is not physical.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Robin,

Okay, I accept your point, but I can't remember where we were in the debate. You didn't assume your conclusion, you just made a claim that was dependent on an IF which I believe is false.

Geoff.

 

[hammegk]

It's possible to mess up mental, experiential, perceptual, consciousness-related operations in odd ways. Is that not relevant? If not, then why did you object when I said philosophers shall pay no attention to neuroscientists?

Why in Ed's Name would I, or Geoff, not take note of the facts modern neuroscience, and all science, provides? Of course we take note, and at least think we understand the implications. What do you not understand about epistemology not providing answers to ontological questions?

... Hammy holds the notion that materialism is "illogical" ....

Do you ever understand anything you read? I agree -- and have never disagreed -- that materialism can be a logical position; what I state is not logical is dualism masquerading as materialism, or (interactive) dualism of any kind.

 

[Mercutio]

I agree -- and have never disagreed -- that materialism can be a logical position; what I state is not logical is dualism masquerading as materialism, or (interactive) dualism of any kind.

I was just reviewing the video of Blackmore's speech at the Skeptic Society meeting last year--she makes a similar point, calling one popular view "materialistic dualism", because the people who hold it claim to be materialists, but still speak of "giving rise to consciousness", the very phrase implying dualism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Robin has a point that you don’t seem to be following. The p-zombie argument assumes that consciousness isn’t physical as soon as it declares that p-zombies are physically identical to normal conscious people, but do not possess consciousness themselves.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I have already been through this with Paul.

The argument starts from a metaphysically neutral position, rather than trying to assume materialism. It first establishes that Zombies are logically/conceptually possible. This is regardless of ontology. I do not wish to assume any ontology is true before you approach the conceptual possibilities of zombies. I only ask whether you can distinguish between a brain process and a mind. If you can, then p-zombies are possible.

***FORGET METAPHYSICS***

Can you [edit: distinguish between a brain process and a mind]?

If they are physically...