My argument against materialism

[benjayk]

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.

*You interpret* the evidence as meaning this, but this is not what the evidence itself says.
Time may be a concept that ermerges out of our consciousness and the "lack" of consciousness in the early universes may just mean we had no physical avatar back then, but nevertheless the cause for it being observable could be our awareness *now*.
Physical time may simply be the attempt of consciousness to make sense of its evolution.

It seems that by "empty belief" you mean "unfulfilling position" or "uncomfortable position." The notion that the universe is mind-independent and that upon your death your consciousness will cease to exist is consistent with what we observe, regardless of the extent to which you, I, or anyone else finds it to be an "empty belief".

With "empty belief" I mean something which seems to mean nothing (in particular) to *me*. Like "SDfaW"...
Of course this need not be true for others, but in this case I'm naturally interested in what *they* think they mean with it.

As I said my intention is not me being right and you being wrong, but me understanding what you mean, which could help you to understand what you really mean, too.

This second sentence is true, but can you see that an empty belief is consistent with everything? It's merely superfluous and confusing.

The fact that it is consistent with what we observe. My consciousness has only been around for 52 years. The universe clicked along just fine without me for about 13.7 billion years. Consequently, I have no problem saying that "the universe exists independently of me."

I think you are a bit fast with your conclusions and take a bit too much for granted. You know how long your your particular personality has been there as a physical manifest object.
But it may be that consciousness is beyond time and personality and causing them to be perceived.

You may be right, although I see no reason to conclude that you are. If it turns out that you are, I'll buy you a non-corporeal beer when we merge into the mega-consciousness.

I'm looking forward to it.

The evidence indicates that when the brain dies, consciouseness ends.

No, it indicates a particular expression of consciousness as perceived by others vanishes... But this does not preclude the possibility that you may be ressurected some time later (which I think does not contradict any physical law), or that the informational pattern that corresponds to your personality continues in an other relative environment (that may be largly or completely out of our present reach of communication).

Furthermore I don't think we need much evidence to see that consciousness does not end (or rather, that we can not know what this really means). All we need is the subjective certainty "I am conscious" and understand that this can not subjectively change (because the negation of "I am conscious" "I am unconscious" can not be directly experienced).
There seems to be no alternative to "I am conscious and will always be" and if there is no alternative to something, we don't need any additional evidence to conclude it's true.

 

[benjayk]

The evidence does in fact support strong atheism. Absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence when expected evidence cannot be found.

You realize there are other conceptions of God than the personal God(s) in (for example) the abrahamic religions? Some think of God simply as existence, and I don't think you disbelief in existence.

I, for example, think it is nice to use God as word for existence if one wants to emphasize its mysterious and good nature. Yes, I know existence often seems to be really bad, but nevertheless it all has a orderliness that can be called goodness in my mind (at least good feelings are attractive which is a really good starting point for a good universe I think - maybe bad feelings are necessary even in a good universe).

The evidence shows that the Universe has existed for over 13 billion years.

The only examples of consciousness we know of have existed for well under one billion years, even taking my broad definition of consciousness.

You take the theory matter->consciousness (and "consciousness is material") for granted. You only accept consciousness as the configurations of matter we can easily identify as having a close relationship with the content of our consciousness.
This does not mean that everything else is independent of consciousness.

We have a faint picture of the relationship between consciousness and matter so I it's a good idea to not be so sure there.

I think actually the evidence points to content of consciousness being related to computations, since the particular form matter takes at low scales seem not be important. And this suggests the appearance of the physical world is a consequence of abstract relationships (since computation as a precise term is a mathematical notion).

 

[Third Eye Open]

I shouldn't have to keep reminding skeptics of this crucial bit. I'm surprised many of you aren't geocentrists. After all, the sun appears to move across the sky.

No it doesn't. Please stop trolling.

 

[dlorde]

No, it indicates a particular expression of consciousness as perceived by others vanishes... But this does not preclude the possibility that you may be ressurected some time later (which I think does not contradict any physical law), or that the informational pattern that corresponds to your personality continues in an other relative environment (that may be largly or completely out of our present reach of communication).

Sounds like wishful thinking. What makes you think informational pattern that corresponds to your personality might continue in "an other relative environment" ? Such as what environment?

In the absence of evidence, unless you can suggest some means by which this pattern might be maintained and some medium in which it might be maintained, resurrection from it sounds distinctly contrary to physical law - the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics at least.

 

[The Norseman]

Sounds like wishful thinking. What makes you think informational pattern that corresponds to your personality might continue in "an other relative environment" ? Such as what environment?

In the absence of evidence, unless you can suggest some means by which this pattern might be maintained and some medium in which it might be maintained, resurrection from it sounds distinctly contrary to physical law - the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics at least.

Wait, he's got that covered.

(which I think does not contradict any physical law)

Yeah, so we're good.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So we actually agree that if we can not bridge the gap between epistemology and ontology, ontology is really just nice words that have no element of verifiable truth.

Yes.

But this either leads ontology as a philosophical position ad absurdum (after all philosophy is about "wisdom" and not about telling nice stories) - or, we limit ontology to what IS for *us* because we call "what is for us" (with "us" being as broad as we can conceive it, all kinds of subjective experience) "what is".

Why shouldn't we do this, as we could not tell the difference between the two?
Because if this is the case, it seems perfectly justifiable to equate two terms.
After all if someone uses a word "XcsaSD" the same way and defines it exactly as the word "window", there should be no problem using it interchangeably.

We shouldn't do the latter because we theoretically could tell the difference (if it were possible for us to transcend our type of existence) and because there may actually be a difference. There is nothing that tells me that my experiences *are* what really is. We are discussing what actually *is*; it makes no sense to equate what actually *is* with 'what is for us'; because 'what is for us' may not actually *be* what actually *is*.

The better position is to hold ontology as unreachable in an absolute sense.

I take consciousness to mean roughly the same as awareness of the moment

If that is the case, then there is no knowledge. Awareness of the moment does not and cannot be knowledge. It is simply awareness of the moment.

but I don't see why we have to exclude all other mental features? Awareness of the moment can have many expressions, yet has the fundamental (and quite mysterious) feature of being observable - which is the most important in this debate.

Admit other mental features and you've got those more fundamental aspects -- time and energy -- to deal with.

I think it's unfortunate to see fundamental reality as something we can not have knowledge about, because I don't see any reason that we shouldn't call "the fundamental reality as we can know it" the fudamental reality.
Because otherwise "fundamental reality" are empty words, but for me it feels "fundamental reality" "should" have and can have meaning.

I disagree. It does not mean that 'fundamental reality' represents empty words. It simply means that this is something that we cannot access in any absolute way. We cannot be absolutely certain of it. We can, however, be provisionally knowledgeable about it. That is what science does.

Yes, this is a question of taste, but do you really want to abondon the meaning in "fundamental reality"?

I don't abandon it; I merely prefer to deal with 'our reality'. There are things we can know and things we can't know absolutely. I think it's better to face that fact up front.

I agree, when "knowing" means knowing with our minds (=sets of beliefs).
But direct knowledge (qualia) is absolutely certain, and thus is the perfect canidate for "what really is".

Nope. All your qualia may be the result of an evil genie. Unless you are now using 'qualia' to refer only to 'momentary awareness'.

 

[benjayk]

Sounds like wishful thinking. What makes you think informational pattern that corresponds to your personality might continue in "an other relative environment" ? Such as what environment?

I can only speculate wildly about that, I'm not claiming that I have any usable theory about this, so I can just list possibilities that come to mind:
It might be a heaven or hell that serves as intermediate states between incarnations (if reincarnation is true), it might be a permanent heaven or hell (like in christianity, although I think especially a permanent hell makes no sense whatsoever, but hey, maybe I'm wrong), it might be an alien civilization that likes to simulate minds in order to study them, it might be in the future of our civilization.

But the important point for me is that subjective survival is a subjective necessity because not surviving is not an experience one can have, so all that remains is the experience of survival. What is wrong with this line of thinking?
That I have no clue *what* happens after our current physical form dies does not invalidate this.

In the absence of evidence, unless you can suggest some means by which this pattern might be maintained and some medium in which it might be maintained, resurrection from it sounds distinctly contrary to physical law - the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics at least.

I don't see why it has anything do to with the 1st law of thermodynamics, we don't need to create new energy in order to simulate or ressurect a person, do we?
I do not know enough about the 2nd laws of thermodynamics to decide what it means regarding this question. Why do you think does it contradict a ressurection / simulation of a deacesed one?

Also, we do not need to maintain the informational pattern through time, we can search the space of possible minds until we find one that seems close.

 

[PixyMisa]

I can only speculate wildly about that

Don't bother.

But the important point for me is that subjective survival is a subjective necessity because not surviving is not an experience one can have, so all that remains is the experience of survival.

Until you die, after which there are no experiences at all.

What is wrong with this line of thinking?

It's complete nonsense.

That I have no clue *what* happens after our current physical form dies does not invalidate this.

Except that we know what happens when our physical forms die: Our minds die with them.

What happens when you undergo general anaesthesia? You stop having experiences. Death is like that, except you don't wake up in a hospital bed afterwards. You don't wake up at all.

Also, we do not need to maintain the informational pattern through time, we can search the space of possible minds until we find one that seems close.

You mean, just make stuff up?

 

[PixyMisa]

You realize there are other conceptions of God than the personal God(s) in (for example) the abrahamic religions? Some think of God simply as existence, and I don't think you disbelief in existence.

Equivocation fallacy.

I, for example, think it is nice to use God as word for existence if one wants to emphasize its mysterious and good nature.

Handwaving.

You take the theory matter->consciousness (and "consciousness is material") for granted.

Wrong, wrong, completely wrong. It is the conclusion we reach after an immense amount of observation and experiment. Nothing was taken for granted. It just turns out to be true.

You only accept consciousness as the configurations of matter we can easily identify as having a close relationship with the content of our consciousness.

Wrong.

This does not mean that everything else is independent of consciousness.

No. But everything else is independent of consciousness. This is simply fact.

We have a faint picture of the relationship between consciousness and matter so I it's a good idea to not be so sure there.

No. We know very well how what the relationship between consciousness and matter is. Consciousness is a computational process.

I think actually the evidence points to content of consciousness being related to computations, since the particular form matter takes at low scales seem not be important.

Yes.

And this suggests the appearance of the physical world is a consequence of abstract relationships (since computation as a precise term is a mathematical notion).

Non-sequitur.

 

[PixyMisa]

*You interpret* the evidence as meaning this, but this is not what the evidence itself says.

Yes, it is.

Time may be a concept that ermerges out of our consciousness and the "lack" of consciousness in the early universes may just mean we had no physical avatar back then, but nevertheless the cause for it being observable could be our awareness *now*.

No.

Physical time may simply be the attempt of consciousness to make sense of its evolution.

No.

Time happens. Consciousness can only happen within time.

Furthermore I don't think we need much evidence to see that consciousness does not end (or rather, that we can not know what this really means). All we need is the subjective certainty "I am conscious" and understand that this can not subjectively change (because the negation of "I am conscious" "I am unconscious" can not be directly experienced).
There seems to be no alternative to "I am conscious and will always be" and if there is no alternative to something, we don't need any additional evidence to conclude it's true.

This is not just solispsism, this is actually untrue.

You are not merely conscious, you have a finite history of being so. You began. At some point in the past, there was no you.

Therefore, it is necessarily possible that at some point in the future, there will be no you either.

 

[marplots]

I sleep well and deeply and am unconscious every night. This state is not unfamiliar to me -- no more so than the experience of not being able to recall an actor's name when they appear on television. That is, as a "hole" in an otherwise continuity. I experience the unconscious state in the same way that I know I know that guy's name, but I don't know it. I can see the "blank spot."

 

[AlBell]

Like a bit of Berkley do yiz?

Berkeley.

 

[AlBell]

Yes, it is.


No.


No.

Time happens. Consciousness can only happen within time.

This is not just solispsism, this is actually untrue.

You are not merely conscious, you have a finite history of being so. You began. At some point in the past, there was no you.

Therefore, it is necessarily possible that at some point in the future, there will be no you either.

No, Yes, Yes, unknown, whatever, (yes, yes ... depending on what 'you' means).

SRIP! Church-Turing! Read GEB! Yeah Packers!

 

[PixyMisa]

No, Yes, Yes, unknown, whatever, (yes, yes ... depending on what 'you' means).

SRIP! Church-Turing! Read GEB! Yeah Packers!

Do try to keep up, there's a good chap.

 

[PixyMisa]

I sleep well and deeply and am unconscious every night. This state is not unfamiliar to me -- no more so than the experience of not being able to recall an actor's name when they appear on television. That is, as a "hole" in an otherwise continuity. I experience the unconscious state in the same way that I know I know that guy's name, but I don't know it. I can see the "blank spot."

Discontinuities, precisely.

The biggest one we are aware of subjectively being the fact that beyond some point in the past, we can't remember anything at all.

 

[AlBell]

Do try to keep up, there's a good chap.

Just a walk in the park with a Pixy.

 

[Lowpro]

I sleep well and deeply and am unconscious every night

How can a sentence, an idea, be more valid than empirical evidence? Does the regress of evidence really invalidate it? Or is it just hand waving?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The evidence doesn't support theism or atheism (strong). The assumption that the universe has been around for billions of years without consciousness existing is just that: an assumption.

I think you have some misunderstanding about what evidence is. Evidence is a fact which is more probable under one hypothesis than another.

There are a distinct shortage of facts which are more probable under theism as it is usually constructed than atheism - the lack of amputees miraculously regrowing their limbs, for example, taken against the plethora of people "miraculously" recovering from diseases from which people sometimes get better of their own accord.

You can of course retreat to a pared-down version of theism which makes no predictions whatsoever, but such versions are unfalsifiable and thus vacuous, and in addition fall immediately afoul of Occam's Razor since they postulate an unnecessary entity.

If idealism is true, if the universe is a projection of god's mind, then every piece of sensory evidence is evidence of god's existence.

No it's not. At best it's no more likely or unlikely to be true in the idealist scenario than in the materialist scenario, hence it's not evidence of anything.

 

[Halfcentaur]

It's quite odd to me that some people seem to think certain objects and concepts exist in the universe that are naturally, independently of observation even, just exuding pure importance. Because in the end, that's what idealism and meaning really is, importance. They seem to think importance is some kind of universal constant, and not the subjective thing that it is. Just imagine a cube in space somewhere that floats alone in the darkness that is the most important thing in the universe, just because it is the most important thing in the universe. It's silly. And so is absolute truth and a universe that is good or bad.

 

[punshhh]

Yes.




We shouldn't do the latter because we theoretically could tell the difference (if it were possible for us to transcend our type of existence) and because there may actually be a difference. There is nothing that tells me that my experiences *are* what really is. We are discussing what actually *is*; it makes no sense to equate what actually *is* with 'what is for us'; because 'what is for us' may not actually *be* what actually *is*.

The better position is to hold ontology as unreachable in an absolute sense.






If that is the case, then there is no knowledge. Awareness of the moment does not and cannot be knowledge. It is simply awareness of the moment.




Admit other mental features and you've got those more fundamental aspects -- time and energy -- to deal with.





I disagree. It does not mean that 'fundamental reality' represents empty words. It simply means that this is something that we cannot access in any absolute way. We cannot be absolutely certain of it. We can, however, be provisionally knowledgeable about it. That is what science does.





I don't abandon it; I merely prefer to deal with 'our reality'. There are things we can know and things we can't know absolutely. I think it's better to face that fact up front.





Nope. All your qualia may be the result of an evil genie. Unless you are now using 'qualia' to refer only to 'momentary awareness'.

Don't forget the unknown unknowns