Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

I have already given you the reference. You have said that you can't possibly follow it up until October.

Just give a rough version........you appear to be stalling.

If you cannot provide a better definition, stop claiming mine is wrong.

 

[articulett]

And Hammygk, your view boils down to, "it feels like I have a soul exercising free will--therefore, I do." Well, that might work it philosophy, but not in REALITY. People are poor estimaters of themselves. 94% of people claim to be better than average drivers--that makes 44% of people over confident in this area. Conviction of an idea is not evidence of truth--facts, however are. The facts support materialism--and not hammgk's nihilistic version--just plain old materialism for all it's wonders and all it's implications--nature doesn't care what hammygk wants to believe. And though hammegk thinks materialists are being stubborn in not conceding to "dualism"--most of us had to think our way out of such thinking the hard way--even against our own hopes at times-- It is you and justgeoff who are repeatedly unyielding in your view and absolutely unable to consider an alternative explanation for what you "experience".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

<snip philosophical arguing about a nonphilosophical topic>

Please tell me where I said "evolution produced consciousness". I specifically did not say that. I you thought I intended to say that, you are mistaken.

Was that directed at me? Somebody said it, don't know if it was you.

Genetic drift happens, and most of it has no short-term impact on reproductive fitness. Selection is only part of the process of evolution.

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that consciousness is the result of genetic drift. Genetic drift is responsible for occasionally driving a gene to fixation in a species, or driving it out of existence, usually in relatively small populations of individuals. There is no way it is responsible for conciousness.

 

[articulett]

It is LEGO.

(Sorry old habits die hard.)

Well, I didn't make it plural this time (legos)...I'm learning. I didn't realize block letters were required, but now I do. Thanks for edifying me. LEGO LEGO LEGO

Tell me, how is it that you acquired your expertise in LEGO? (and did I phrase it right this time--no plural--block letters?) Are you Scandinavian? Do you have a personal interest in LEGO building "bricks"? Despite my sloppy LEGO spelling etc., I assure you, I am a fan of the whole concept --and I meant no disrespect.

It's true!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Here is all the metaphysics you ever need to know:


Eliminative materialism: Minds are stuff

WRONG

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay Lex.

 

[Belz...]

I am yet to hear an explanation of how something with no causal power has enough causal power to drive evolutionary selection.

What's that got to do with consciousness?

What ? Come on, now. Consciousness = beign aware of your own existence, right ? If you're aware of what you're doing, it seems to follow that you'll have a vested interest in succeeding, more so than an amoeba. Isn't success the whole point ?

 

[Belz...]

My position remains "I don't know that it does, but it sure seems like I have libertarian free-will, and I choose to have faith I do."

Yours is (or should be for the logical materialist/dualist/~idealist) "It sure seems like I have libertarian free-will; however, I choose to have faith in a worldview that prohibits it."

Oh. Never heard of a little word called "illusion" ?

 

[Belz...]

Once you've memorised those, you should be fine.

Yeah. THAT's what I'm talking about.

I'll try and learn those terms, but I find the sheer number of them pointless.

 

[hammegk]

So we all agree then that minds are reducible to the same thing that my coffee cup is reducible to.

No, "we" don't.

In short, what is the precise nature of the difference you see between "mind" and "matter"?

Intent and/or Will.

... meaningless blather removed ...

Darlin', I hope some day you come to grips with the fact that epistemology does not, cannot, will never, answer ontological questions.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What ? Come on, now. Consciousness = beign aware of your own existence, right ?

If you're aware of what you're doing, it seems to follow that you'll have a vested interest in succeeding, more so than an amoeba.

Why?

Are you suggesting that evolution cannot program an organism to survive and succeed without consciousness?

Plus, you aren't actually thinking about the problem as it is presented - you are trying to follow a completely different line of reasoning instead. If consciousness is epiphenomenal and has no causal power over matter then it cannot make any difference to the behaviour of the organism. Unless you can find a way to respond to the previous sentence, any other argument you try to supply is not relevant.

 

[Belz...]

Okay... let's see.

Monism: Reality is made of one thing.

Seems pretty vague. What's "one thing" ?

Materialism/materialistic monism: Reality is made of material.

Which happens to be "one thing", but what's "material" ?

Eliminative materialism/Eliminativism: There are no such things as minds.

Which is like saying that rocks don't exist.

Reductive materialism: There are minds, but they can be reduced to matter (somehow).

Assuming that we know what matter is, this seems like a reasonable assumption.

Computationalism: Minds are like software.

"like" is also vague. Rocks are like minds in a number of ways, but I'm not sure the comparison is valid.

Physicalism: Usually means "materialism", but sometimes means "reality is made of whatever physics eventually says it is".

I'm not sure physics say anything about what reality is "made of".

Idealism/mental monism: Reality is made of mind.

Made of mind. Until we understand what the mind is, something we apparently haven't achieved in this thread, this is impossible to hold.

Neutral monism: Reality is made out of neutral stuff that is neither mind nor matter.

Again, we don't know of anything that isn't "matter". Where does this one come from ?

Dualism: Reality is made out of two things.

See above.

Substance/Cartesian dualism: Reality is made out of mind-stuff and matter-stuff

How is this different from dualism ?

Property dualism/epihenomenalism : Reality is made of matter, with mind-stuff smeared over the outside like icing sugar.

Pastry metaphors don't help me, here.

Panpsychism: Consciousness is sort-of "everywhere".

Which is implied by idealism.

Transcendental realism : We can know the nature of ultimate reality.

What is this "ultimate" reality of which you speak ?

Transcendental idealism : We can't.

Idem.

(Empirical) Realism: Objects in space which we percieve are real.

Difficult, since then we're left with explaning hallucinations.

Direct realism: We percieve those objects directly.

This reeks of idealism, because how can you perceive things "directly" ? We have senses for that. The only way we could sense directly is if our "soul" did the job, somehow.

Indirect realism: We directly perceive sense-data/representations/mental images of real objects, but we only indirectly perceive the real objects.

That's overly simplified, but it sounds reasonably accurate.

(Empirical) Anti-realism: Objects in space aren't real (related to idealism).

Related ? They're siamese twins.

Determinism: Everything happens according to pre-determined causality.

So far, seems like it...

Indeterminsim: It doesn't.

...though QM says indeterminism is true to a degree.

Compatibilism: Free will is compatible with determinism.

Well, if we could define "free" will, it'd help.

Incompatibilism: It isn't.

That's probably true.

Libertarianism: Co-creational free will, a form of incompatibilism.

Again, an unknown variable that we haven't even defined yet.

Hard Determinism: Another form of incompatibilism, which denies there is any such thing as free will.

The first statement I completely agree with.

Foundationalism : Knowledge can be justifiably based in a single foundation.

Clarification ?

Anti-foundationalism: It can't.

Same.

Coherentism: Knowledge can be justfied by coherence within a single system with multiple non-critical foundations.

Say what ?

Scientism: The belief that science provides the only genuine knowledge about the world and humanity's place in it.

Until someone comes up with another means to verify that that knowledge corresponds to reality in any capacity.

Disjunctivism: All we can say about perception is that EITHER we are perceiving a real object OR we are hallucinating one.

Assuming all those other people who confirm our perceptions can ALSO be hallucinations.

Intentionalism: Consciousness is defined by being "about" things, like objects.

Huh ?

 

[Belz...]

Are you suggesting that evolution cannot program an organism to survive and succeed without consciousness?

I've said nothing of the sort and you know it. I'm claiming that consciousness gives added survivability.

Plus, you aren't actually thinking about the problem as it is presented - you are trying to follow a completely different line of reasoning instead. If consciousness is epiphenomenal and has no causal power over matter then it cannot make any difference to the behaviour of the organism. Unless you can find a way to respond to the previous sentence, any other argument you try to supply is not relevant.

Consciousness is part of a system, Geoff. It's not separate from the body. It HAS causal power because it's part of a whole, like, say, testosterone.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I've said nothing of the sort and you know it. I'm claiming that consciousness gives added survivability.

How? Why?

Consciousness is part of a system, Geoff. It's not separate from the body. It HAS causal power because it's part of a whole, like, say, testosterone.

If conciousness "is not seperate from the body" then you are back to having a word you cannot scientifically fine. What is this consciousness which is not seperate from the body? Brain processes, by any chance?

 

[Belz...]

How? Why?

It's been said before in this thread, Geoff:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1742404&postcount=1017

And I've said it too: If I'm led to believe that I'm much more important and special than I really am, I might think it more important that I survive. A psychological reason for survival in addition to a biological (read: genetic) one.

If conciousness "is not seperate from the body" then you are back to having a word you cannot scientifically fine. What is this consciousness which is not seperate from the body? Brain processes, by any chance?

I've never claimed anything else. If not brain process, then the result of brain processes.

 

[nescafe]

If conciousness "is not seperate from the body" then you are back to having a word you cannot scientifically fine. What is this consciousness which is not seperate from the body? Brain processes, by any chance?

What, precisely are you implying here? Based on what I have seen you say so far, you are trying to say one of the following:

• Science does not have a rigorous definition of consciousness. I do not think anyone would argue with you there.
• Science cannot have a rigorous definition of consciousness. There is no evidence one way or another about this, so we should set it aside while we probe for evidence that this may or may not be the case. In the meantime, all the arguments you have made for this proposition have either been from incredulity, by assertion, or from what I would consider inadequate premises.

Aside from that, you incredulity that some people think that consciousness is explainable in terms of brain processes is rather ridiculous, for the following reasons:

• We know that altering brain processes (via altering brain chemistry or by direct alteration of brain structures) can alter consciousness. You, JG, have experienced this directly via the ingestion of THC and other, more powerful psychedelics.
• Despite centuries of searching, we do not appear to have not found any phenomina that cannot be explained in a scientific fashion. That these phenomina are also explained (and explainable) via other methods is not relavent.
• Just because something is not currently explained in a scientific fashion does not mean that it can never be explained in a scientific fashion. That we may never find a scientific explanation for a given phenomenon is irrelavent.

Your position that consciousness cannot ever be explained from a materialist stance seems as justifiable as Simon Newcomb's and Lord Kelvin's position that heavier-than-air flying vehicles would be impractical if not flat-out impossible.

 

[Robin]

I have already given you the reference. You have said that you can't possibly follow it up until October.

Just give a rough version........you appear to be stalling.

Let's see .... you refuse to look up my reference until October and then you say that I am stalling?

Am I stopping you looking up my reference?

If you cannot provide a better definition, stop claiming mine is wrong.

I did. I gave you a whole chapter on the subject by one of the most respected philosophers of the last century. I went to the trouble of getting the book from the library and refreshing my memory on the subject, so it is hardly unreasonable to ask the same of you. And if you are doing a philosophy course you are going to have to read it sooner or later.

So stop stalling and look it up.

 

[DreadNiK]

[*]We know that altering brain processes (via altering brain chemistry or by direct alteration of brain structures) can alter consciousness. You, JG, have experienced this directly via the ingestion of THC and other, more powerful psychedelics.

Stoner nitpick: More than likely inhalation of THC rather than ingestion...although ingestion isn't an uncommon option. As for any others, depends what they are...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Let's see .... you refuse to look up my reference until October and then you say that I am stalling?

Am I stopping you looking up my reference?

Why can't you just tell us?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I've never claimed anything else. If not brain process, then the result of brain processes.

This is going nowhere....