My argument against materialism

[Belz...]

Yes. This is just the Kantian divide into the phenomenal and noumenal realms.

****. Here we go again !

 

[Belz...]

It doesn't matter if qualia is the result of anything, the qulia itself is still an absolute experience. It simply is and debating this won't change this. Or would you really disagree with this?

By definition, qualia is experience. Makes you wonder what's the use of it, since we already have a term for it: "experience".

But saying "qualia" doesn't really answer the question. It sounds intuitive at first, until you realise it gives no mechanism for experience to function.

 

[HypnoPsi]

It's axiomatic, unless you want to enter the bankrupt realm of the solipsist, or to posit a form of idealism that is ultimately indistinguishable from materialism.

I really don't think the OP was actually espousing solipsism and definitely ask you hold onto that thought "a form of idealism that is ultimately indistinguishable from materialism".

If an idealistic model of the universe exists that allows us to better explain the universe and to make more accurate predictions, I've yet to see it.

See ultimately indistinguishable above.

Take a good look at the monitor in front of you. It's there because a materialistic model of the universe actually works. Is that evidence enough?

Stop! Do you see what you just did there?

You conflated methodological materialism with metaphysical materialism. (They're like weak and strong AI.)

More accurately, what is actually working (when we invent/build/use things like monitors) is a model of the objective world based on both realism (in the sense that things really do 'exist') and naturalism (in the sense that they work according to the principles of chemistry and physics that we have so far uncovered).

What is important here is that you recognise that theistic phenomenalism (in either the Berkleyan or Kantian sense) works just as well here as metaphysical materialism.

As you wrote above yourself "a form of idealism that is ultimately indistinguishable from materialism".

It provides the best explanations for, and the most accurate predictions regarding, that which we experience.

How so when it involves multiplying unknown entities?

If we're going to seriously ask what the best theory is for the ultimate nature of neumenal reality, i.e. it's true fundamental essence, shouldn't we apply Occam's razor to the problem?

My conscious mind can create, store and retrieve information and it certainly exists.

Consequently, all that theistic phenomenalism says is that the ultimate unknown noumenal essence of reality is more likely to be similar to something already known to exist, meaning consciousness, than something unknown.

How can it truly be more parsimonious to say that the ultimate unknown noumenal essence of reality is actually another unknown and unknowable self-generating and self-perpetuating magic powder/power?

Again, I am fully aware that all metaphysical statements about the fundamental nature of reality are all nothing more than theoretical conjecture but the above really is the bottom line for many of us.

Atheists just aren't being skeptical enough.

It's like you all expect the fact that you use the term "matter" in the methodological sense (really, to apply to nothing more than just realism and naturalism) to somehow add support to metaphysical materialism!

As I really hope you understand, metaphysical materialism is a very different beast than realism and naturalism and theistic phenomenalism (sometimes known as pantheism or panentheism) doesn't somehow deny the existence of reality or that it works in a fairly machine like fashion.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

By definition, qualia is experience. Makes you wonder what's the use of it, since we already have a term for it: "experience".

Well... on wikipedia it reads:

"a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky."

One of my old hard disks broke down. S.M.A.R.T. was telling me for ages the disk was bad so I didn't lose any data but did my PC feel pain? I very much doubt it.

(If you want to pick a really useless term try "memes" for "ideas".)

But saying "qualia" doesn't really answer the question. It sounds intuitive at first, until you realise it gives no mechanism for experience to function.

The concept of qualia isn't supposed to provide a "mechanism for experience to function". It's asking you to think about how mechanisms can consciously feel the subjective quality of an experience unless consciousness is a distinct phenomena in it's own right.

This is because all materialistic/physicalistic theories of consciousness are, ultimately, really no better than Dennett's thermostat model that, he believes, "thinks" "too hot", "too cold" and "just right".

Even more amusingly, what he, Dennett, then seriously tries to argue is the same old chestnut that behaviorists were fond of - that conscious experience is somehow less real because we tend to enrich it with the language we use.

But then he says he's not an elminitavist and that subjective experience is real.....

It's nothing more than pure, classic, Orwellian double-think in action and the whole language and way of thinking he's developed is worse than scientology.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Assuming that only materialism can receive confirmation from sense-data is what? Special pleading?

Yes, it is special pleading in the most extreme sense!

The basic problem is the materialist's conflation of methodological materialsm with metaphysical materialism.

As I see it what we're really talking about is realism in the sense that things have some kind of existence when we're not thinking about them and naturalism in the sense that things seem to work according to chemical and physical processes.

(For example, were a disease to wipe out all sentient life on Earth, apples would still fall from trees.)

However, absolutely none of this entails metaphysical materialism is the ultimate "truth".

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Something that feels right in your gut-- Very few will argue with your gut, as long as you're up front about it. Just don't expect folks to believe that what you're saying is true based on nothing other than the strength of you personal conviction.

But atheistic materialists aren't up front about this. Indeed, I very often think they're clearly not being totally honest with themselves let alone everyone else.

It would genuinely be much more helpful if they just acknowledged that metaphyscial materialism/physicalism was pure theory.

"Something independent of me" means something that exists regardless of whether I exist.

Which is called realism.

A mind-independent, consistent, probabilistically predictable universe seems to exist. There is no reason to assume that it doesn't.

Again, realism in the observation that the world 'out-there' certainly seems, for all intents and purposes, to be human-mind independent.

I would love to be able to just leave it at that with the conclusion "all metaphysical statements about the ultimate nature of reality are theoretical conjecture" and all else being purely academic - but it's not just academic in todays world.

Following the policies of an uber-atheist like Peter Singer (co-author of "Should The Baby Live") would lead to hell on Earth for the most disadvantaged in our society.

And atheist groups openly and actively advocate that people adopt atheism - which, of course, necessarily entails a very real belief and faith in metaphysical materialism/physicalism being somehow 'correct' or 'better' than other theories about the ultimate nature of reality.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

My basic point stands -- there is no safe move from epistemology to ontology.

I'm going to have to steal this - sorry.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Um, energy and time are not key essentials of materialism? Really?

Personally, I'd say that energy and time refer more to physicalism...

Which is really just the same argument as materialism without any substance.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[gentlehorse]

More accurately, what is actually working (when we invent/build/use things like monitors) is a model of the objective world based on both realism (in the sense that things really do 'exist') and naturalism (in the sense that they work according to the principles of chemistry and physics that we have so far uncovered).

I don't see that we disagree, though some might point out that your parenthetic comments we would be more accurate in saying "in the sense that things really do seem to 'exist'", and "...that they seem to work according to the principles of chemistry and physics that we have so far uncovered".

How so when it involves multiplying unknown entities?

It doesn't. It's a matter of what you hold as axiomatic.

If we're going to seriously ask what the best theory is for the ultimate nature of neumenal reality, i.e. it's true fundamental essence, shouldn't we apply Occam's razor to the problem?

I'm not aware of a theory that explains the ultimate nature of numenal reality, so it doesn't make sense for me to ask which one is best. Theories are tentative explanations, having varying degrees of predictive power, for phenomena we observe.

My conscious mind can create, store and retrieve information and it certainly exists.

Consequently, all that theistic phenomenalism says is that the ultimate unknown noumenal essence of reality is more likely to be similar to something already known to exist, meaning consciousness, than something unknown.

Odd that the noumenal would predate the emergence of consciousness, if the "noumenal essence of reality" is consciouseness, as you suggest...

Regardless, I have made no ontological claims and don't intend to, unless I qualify them with something along the lines of "...but I'm just making stuff up".

How can it truly be more parsimonious to say that the ultimate unknown noumenal essence of reality is actually another unknown and unknowable self-generating and self-perpetuating magic powder/power?

I don't recall saying that.

Again, I am fully aware that all metaphysical statements about the fundamental nature of reality are all nothing more than theoretical conjecture but the above really is the bottom line for many of us.

I agree with the part I put in bold, if you replace the words "theoretical conjecture" with "idle speculation". As to the bottem line, there are many explanations for what "may be" true. Those for which there is no evidence don't hold my interest as anything other than possible sources of entertainment.

It's like you all expect the fact that you use the term "matter" in the methodological sense (really, to apply to nothing more than just realism and naturalism) to somehow add support to metaphysical materialism!

I've made no metaphysical claims.

As I really hope you understand, metaphysical materialism is a very different beast than realism and naturalism and theistic phenomenalism (sometimes known as pantheism or panentheism) doesn't somehow deny the existence of reality or that it works in a fairly machine like fashion.

Label what I've said with any "ism" that suits you.

 

[PixyMisa]

@PixyMisa: You make a lot of statements that you don't give any (for me) comprehensible explanation for.

Well, yes. Funny how that works.

I don't really know how to answer to assertions when I don't really know why you think it's true. So I will only answer to where I have something to relate to other than just a statement.

You say when you die, there will be no experiences more at all. How will that statement ever found to be true?

I asked the dead people.

Before we are born - before we are conceived - our bodies and brains don't exist, and we have no experiences. After we die, our bodies and brains rot away and no longer exist. What do you think happens?

You assume it will be true based on what we seemingly know about minds and matter, but don't adress the question how the statement possibly *can* be subjectively true (if it can't be subjectively true, but only "objectively", what would this mean to me?)

The question is meaningless. The subjective self stops. It's jsut a function of your physical brain, and the brain has died. The situation is not subjectively anything, because your subjective self has gone.

It simply can't come true for me, because absent of experience there is no way of even saying that "I" am this what has no experience.

Only in the present tense. Considering the past and the future it makes perfect sense.

It seems tautologically true that when I define myself subjectively only through my experience (and this seems to be the only way, because I *just have* experience) non-experience is not meaningful for me.

You haven't always existed. You can remember a certain span of your personal past, and beyond that - nothing.

Non-experience has only relative meaning as something I fail to experience (for example laying down in the . Absolute subjective non-experience has no reality for me.
Are you sure it has for you?

Of course.

What you are saying is: I am not dead.

This is true and valid. But it cannot be used to infer I will never die.

Comparing after death with before birth, doesn't work. I'm not saying you can't have the experience of being whithout a clue as to what your past was (in non-lucid dreams this is quite common) or have discontinuities.
It is possible that time is an appearance in consciousness and consciousness as such does not begin or end, but just is.

No it's not. Consciousness is a process; it changes with respect to time.

Even if you think this is not what science suggest, is as least conceivable (for me at least).

No it's not. You can write the words, but you can't conceive of such a thing.

Whereas stopping to exist just makes no sense for me.

You die, and then there's no more you.

When I'm stopping to be, I am not there, so why would I think it's possible for me as conscious being to not exist, it's seems like straightforward contradiction.

That's a non-sequitur. Your conclusion is not logically connected to your premises.

So to sum it up: Beggining to exist can be a experience one has. Stopping can't (well you can fear that you stop to exists, for example at a trip, but you don't actually experience it). That's the crucial difference.

No.

You already know that there was a time when there was no you, and that you had no experience of that time by definition.

That time will come again.

No difference.

 

[HypnoPsi]

The evidence indicates that the universe existed for billions of years before your consciousness, my consciousness, or any consciousness, emerged. Consequently, I conclude that the universe is mind-independent.

Again... a cart before horse argument.

All you really know about the universe and all therein is that it's objectively independent of you in some way (realism) and that it works just fine according to chemical/physical laws and processes (naturalism).

But that's all you know. You don't know what it's ultimate nature is.

Furthermore, as soon as you accept that all the things we experience about the universe are filtered through our senses - which they are - you're accepting that we can never truly know the ultimate nature of neumenal reality.

So I'm left to wonder. We have:

A) A magical self-perpetuating and self-generating non-conscious powder or power behind it all.

Or

B) A magical self-perpetuationg and self-generating consciousness behind it all.

Without any way to conclusively answer the question I'm wondering why you don't just apply Occam's razor instead of multiplying unknown entities?

Consciousness can create, store and retrieve information and we all, intimately and directly, know that consciousness exists.

Is it really logical to assume that a Universe (composed ultimately, of massless wavy-gravy information) is more likely produced by an unknown thing (that is pure conjecture) than a consciousness which has a firm theoretical grounding being based upon something we do know exists (i.e. our own individual consciousnesses)?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, it is special pleading in the most extreme sense!

The basic problem is the materialist's conflation of methodological materialsm with metaphysical materialism.

Nope.

Methodological naturalism works.

That means that metaphysical materialism is true.

However, absolutely none of this entails metaphysical materialism is the ultimate "truth".

Because that's meaningless. Metaphysical naturalism doesn't speak to "ultimate truth", but to behaviours.

 

[PixyMisa]

What is important here is that you recognise that theistic phenomenalism (in either the Berkleyan or Kantian sense) works just as well here as metaphysical materialism.

As you wrote above yourself "a form of idealism that is ultimately indistinguishable from materialism".

That's nothing more than handwaving.

Naturalism is correct; that is how the Universe behaves.

Materialism is reasonable, it's merely the assertion that the Universe is how it acts.

Idealism is just the addition of another fundamental reality underneath that for no reason whatsoever.

How so when it involves multiplying unknown entities?

That's what you are doing.

If we're going to seriously ask what the best theory is for the ultimate nature of neumenal reality, i.e. it's true fundamental essence, shouldn't we apply Occam's razor to the problem?

We did.

My conscious mind can create, store and retrieve information and it certainly exists.

So?

Consequently, all that theistic phenomenalism says is that the ultimate unknown noumenal essence of reality is more likely to be similar to something already known to exist, meaning consciousness, than something unknown.

That position is only tenable if you ignore the evidence of your senses. And that is solipsism.

How can it truly be more parsimonious to say that the ultimate unknown noumenal essence of reality is actually another unknown and unknowable self-generating and self-perpetuating magic powder/power?

And that's a strawman.

Again, I am fully aware that all metaphysical statements about the fundamental nature of reality are all nothing more than theoretical conjecture but the above really is the bottom line for many of us.

Yes, and it's based on the rejection not only of all evidence, but of the very possibility of evidence.

Atheists just aren't being skeptical enough.

No, sorry, wrong. Atheists are being precisely as skeptical as they should be. Rejecting the existence of the world, just when it suits you, is not skepticism, it is lunacy.

It's like you all expect the fact that you use the term "matter" in the methodological sense (really, to apply to nothing more than just realism and naturalism) to somehow add support to metaphysical materialism!

That again is a flaming strawman. We simply infer that the fact that the Universe behaves as if it were material in all respects suggests that it is.

As I really hope you understand, metaphysical materialism is a very different beast than realism and naturalism

No, actually. It's just a shorthand. If we accept that the only thing we can know is how things behave, naturalism and materialism are the same.

and theistic phenomenalism (sometimes known as pantheism or panentheism) doesn't somehow deny the existence of reality or that it works in a fairly machine like fashion.

That's exactly what they do. They take what we observe and invent fairy tales.

 

[PixyMisa]

In consideration of Cantor sets for example, I see a system which seems to span infinity, but always falls short.

That's just you.

 

[marplots]

But only because you're conscious now. You don't experience the state of being unconscious. You experience waking up and inferring that during the night you were "unconscious". Contrary to a final death, this does not mean you ceased to exist, but simply you failed to have experience with certain properties (like knowing it is night), that would be there if you hadn't slept.

This is true and it shows one place to stand outside of what's going on. Although my memories and awareness of current context may also be subjective, I can displace in time, through memory to discover properties that I was unaware of.

So, for instance, brushing my teeth and the feeling of having a clean mouth might highlight for me the fact that my mouth was dirty previously (sorry, first analogy I thought of) and if I never brush my teeth I would never have that feeling and maybe never know. It's the displacement in time that gives me a look by contrasting one time with another.

As to final death, you are correct insofar as I do not return to examine the state or the "hole." But that is the point. By reflecting on my lack of experience when I am not conscious, I am making an analogy. I could certainly assume that no consciousness by way of dead is different than no consciousness by way of deep sleep (or anesthesia) but there are reasons why I think it's a good parallel.

On the other hand, the argument for a special state that cannot be accessed is too open ended to make much headway. I might as well use it to stipulate that rocks are conscious, the same circumstances apply. The difference seems to be that I can observe my own consciousness at one point and not another. To say that I do not experience unconsciousness is just a reflection on what the word means, isn't it?

I forgot to mention that another "place to stand" is by looking at others when they are unconscious (or dead). One further place is by extrapolating from what I already take to be so to what I am curious about. And a final one might be seeing if I can make a coherent case for what I suspect and then test it -- hence, in a sense, using a verified prediction to "stand outside" my own experience. All these have failings and can be criticized, but as a group, they do have the property of giving a sense of seeing what cannot otherwise be seen.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I don't see that we disagree, though some might point out that your parenthetic comments we would be more accurate in saying "in the sense that things really do seem to 'exist'", and "...that they seem to work according to the principles of chemistry and physics that we have so far uncovered".

Fair enough.

I'm not aware of a theory that explains the ultimate nature of numenal reality, so it doesn't make sense for me to ask which one is best. Theories are tentative explanations, having varying degrees of predictive power, for phenomena we observe.

Okay, all theories about the ultimate nature of neumenal reality are "tentative explanations" and they can't be said to actually "explain" anything.

Are you then an agnostic in the sense defined in Wikipedia:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable"

Odd that the noumenal would predate the emergence of consciousness, if the "noumenal essence of reality" is consciouseness, as you suggest...

The Universe predates the appearance of conscious humans - but not necessarily of consciousness itself. And remember, it is our sensory mode of perception (and/or our evolutionary level of sensory acuity) of reality that gives us the sense of long time periods.

If, at a more accurate level of examination, the universe can be described as (a very large quantity of) massless information then we have to ask ourselves what kind of existence can information even have without some consciousness or other experiencing it?

And what would time even mean to a conscious God-being that was outside of spacetime? Such a question is unanswerable because it is outside of our level of comprehension.

We can however wonder (just barely) about how an alien life form that perceived the world with sonar instead of the visual sense might comprehend their world? I imagine they'd have a sense of objectivity and subjectivity, but I doubt their cognitive schema of 'substance' would be the same.

How can it truly be more parsimonious to say that the ultimate unknown noumenal essence of reality is actually another unknown and unknowable self-generating and self-perpetuating magic powder/power?

I don't recall saying that.

It was a rhetorical question I am inviting you to take a shot at answering.

Again, I am fully aware that all metaphysical statements about the fundamental nature of reality are all nothing more than theoretical conjecture but the above really is the bottom line for many of us.

I agree with the part I put in bold, if you replace the words "theoretical conjecture" with "idle speculation".

Fine by me.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[tsig]

Again... a cart before horse argument.

All you really know about the universe and all therein is that it's objectively independent of you in some way (realism) and that it works just fine according to chemical/physical laws and processes (naturalism).

But that's all you know. You don't know what it's ultimate nature is.
Furthermore, as soon as you accept that all the things we experience about the universe are filtered through our senses - which they are - you're accepting that we can never truly know the ultimate nature of neumenal reality.

So I'm left to wonder. We have:

A) A magical self-perpetuating and self-generating non-conscious powder or power behind it all.

Or

B) A magical self-perpetuationg and self-generating consciousness behind it all.

Without any way to conclusively answer the question I'm wondering why you don't just apply Occam's razor instead of multiplying unknown entities?

Consciousness can create, store and retrieve information and we all, intimately and directly, know that consciousness exists.

Is it really logical to assume that a Universe (composed ultimately, of massless wavy-gravy information) is more likely produced by an unknown thing (that is pure conjecture) than a consciousness which has a firm theoretical grounding being based upon something we do know exists (i.e. our own individual consciousnesses)?

~
HypnoPsi

You're assuming there is an ultimate nature.

 

[Dancing David]

The concept of qualia isn't supposed to provide a "mechanism for experience to function". It's asking you to think about how mechanisms can consciously feel the subjective quality of an experience unless consciousness is a distinct phenomena in it's own right.

Distinct from what? The qualia are perceptions, apparently generated by a neural network.

 

[Dancing David]

But that's all you know. You don't know what it's ultimate nature is.

Yup, all ontology is equally empty.

 

[marplots]

Consciousness can create, store and retrieve information and we all, intimately and directly, know that consciousness exists.

Is it really logical to assume that a Universe (composed ultimately, of massless wavy-gravy information) is more likely produced by an unknown thing (that is pure conjecture) than a consciousness which has a firm theoretical grounding being based upon something we do know exists (i.e. our own individual consciousnesses)?
~
HypnoPsi

A known entity would be preferable, but the problem is that we know a bit too much about the entity in question. In no case do we find consciousness creating, out of thin air (not even air!) other than non-physical things. If the universe were composed of ideas instead of matter, consciousness would be a good explanation.

The important thing seems to be to go and find out what we can about the Universe instead of just guessing with what we have on offer so far.