Naturalism, 'Materialism' vs Dualism and teh Gap

[Nonpareil]

And you no longer get to take refuge in materialism as a basis for arguments/hand waving. Categories of woo can no longer be dismissed wholesale, but must be examined and judged on their particular merits/flaws.

They always have been. They simply fail to hold up regardless.

Well, you need a little care here, Nonpareil.

The assumption of one who sees or experiences consciousness is often used to absolutely declare that conscious processing must be different from unconscious processing. This may be proceeding from error.

Indeed, the currently fashionable theory IIT proceeds from precisely this basis for a distinction between conscious and unconscious.

This changes precisely nothing.

 

[marplots]

Because error persists doesn't make it truth.

Does that apply to materialism?

Considering the aphorism though, if error persists long enough, it does kind of "make it truth." After all, truth ends up being those things we can't figure out are wrong and just quit trying to do so.

 

[Nick227]

This changes precisely nothing.

It changes a great deal.

If you're trying to create a theory of consciousness based around the notion that conscious processing must be different from unconscious processing at a neural level, you are proceeding from a whopping great assumption.

This issue has actually dogged consciousness research for decades. See Tononi and Crick for a start.

 

[tsig]

It changes a great deal.

If you're trying to create a theory of consciousness based around the notion that conscious processing must be different from unconscious processing at a neural level, you are proceeding from a whopping great assumption.

This issue has actually dogged consciousness research for decades. See Tononi and Crick for a start.

Why make that assumption?

 

[Nonpareil]

It changes a great deal.

Not about the issue that we are actually discussing. As I have already stated in this thread, while Tononi's research is interesting, it is ultimately irrelevant save to say that it exists, and that it is therefore possible to study consciousness in hopes of getting a more accurate definition of the term.

In the meantime, the functional definition suffices, and in neither case does idealism or a "shared universal consciousness" become any more coherent.

 

[tsig]

Does that apply to materialism?

Considering the aphorism though, if error persists long enough, it does kind of "make it truth." After all, truth ends up being those things we can't figure out are wrong and just quit trying to do so.

Material things exist whether anyone is aware of them or not.

How long does it take for error to transmute into truth? A year? Two? A thousand?

How many humans have to believe this error to transform it into truth?

If persistence of error makes it become truth then when the perception changes truth changes and that means that at one time the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

 

[marplots]

Material things exist whether anyone is aware of them or not.

That assertion sounds familiar. Only when I heard it, it was: "God exists whether you believe in Him or not."

How long does it take for error to transmute into truth? A year? Two? A thousand?

There's no set scale. It remains true so long as we believe it to be so.

How many humans have to believe this error to transform it into truth?

Just one.

If persistence of error makes it become truth then when the perception changes truth changes and that means that at one time the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Exactly right. Unless you think that everything you believe is true will never be shown to be erroneous, then at least some of the true things will become errors later on. And, in a tasty bit of symmetry, some of the things we think erroneous may turn out to be true.

So yes, undiscovered error is truth. This actually follows from the falsifiability model where a thing is provisionally true and true only to the extent it has been tested.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And you no longer get to take refuge in materialism as a basis for arguments/hand waving. Categories of woo can no longer be dismissed wholesale, but must be examined and judged on their particular merits/flaws.

So it is nothing more than the "XXX Therefore Woo" game. It's that. It's always that. It's never been and never will be anything more than that.

I keep trying to give all this "Let's doubt reality" nonsense the benefit of the doubt but it always comes back to this.

And it doesn't even make sense. How does an adding an overall layer of doubt to base reality make any one specific unreasonable claim more reasonable?

That's the script this always follows and it just literally makes no sense.

Bob: I believe in unsupported/unlikely idea X.
Ted: There is no strong evidence for X.
Bob: Well you can't prove reality is real so there.

And in Bob's head the script Ted is supposed to follow is Ted breaking down and accepting that he accepts base level reality on "faith" without 100% across the board metaphysical esoteric proof so that makes Bob's belief in alien ghosts bigfoot Illuminati something that is also taken on faith without 100% across the board metaphysical esoteric proof so it's all the same and Ted is being a big mean hypocrite for telling Bob he's wrong.

We're not stupid. We know what people are doing when they make this argument.

That's all this is and people need to stop pretending that's not what they are doing. You think by arguing that a simple acceptance of base reality is "Woo" you can turn your opponents into inconsistent hypocrites when they point out your Woo. A sad, silly game of "I found something you believe in that (if I play enough silly word games and split enough hairs and torture enough semantics) doesn't have 100% across the board 'proof' to even made up levels so you don't get to ever call me out on believing any unsupported nonsense I want."

Oh my God it is literally nothing more than the old childish school yard "Well you too!" argument filtered through the bad philosophy "Wise Old Man on the Mountain" routine.

And it doesn't work as an argument. People do get that right? If your argument is that the very concept of reality is a questionable proposition is correct that makes all that silly pseudoscience crap they believe in even less likely, not more.

Me refusing to join you in pretending reality not existing is a question worth considering just because of your ability to manufacturer a bad stoner's existential crisis out of more and more convaluted silly word games doesn't mean I never get to call you out on unsupported nonsense when you spout it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That assertion sounds familiar. Only when I heard it, it was: "God exists whether you believe in Him or not."

If I throw a rock at your head you'll duck.

If I throw a God at your head you won't.

 

[Nick227]

Why make that assumption?

Presumably researchers do it because that is how it seems.

Which is valid in the sense that a coherent theory of consciousness needs to explain why things appear the way they do.

But invalid in that it is highly unlikely if not impossible that there really is an observer.

 

[Nick227]

In the meantime, the functional definition suffices, and in neither case does idealism or a "shared universal consciousness" become any more coherent.

I'm also not a fan of these perspectives.

However, when you take the observer out of the neural picture ( hopefully we're both happy there's no homunculus) then the possibility arises that there is nothing to neurally distinguish conscious and unconscious processing.

And it is this possibility that has led researchers to start to develop quasi panpsychic theories like IIT, ITP, or AST.

As i see it, they're all trying to find a way to understand phenomenal consciousness as a form of non local information binding.

And in so doing they're having to allow in the possibility that consciousness is essentially everywhere.

 

[marplots]

So it is nothing more than the "XXX Therefore Woo" game. It's that. It's always that. It's never been and never will be anything more than that.

You are mistaken. Not that it can't be that way, but that it has to be that way. I am not trying to justify "woo" at all. Your suspicions are groundless and point out a bias on your part. Discussions do not have to be binary battles between "woo" and "not-woo."

I keep trying to give all this "Let's doubt reality" nonsense the benefit of the doubt but it always comes back to this.

And it doesn't even make sense. How does an adding an overall layer of doubt to base reality make any one specific unreasonable claim more reasonable?

No one is doubting reality, only doubting the veracity of claims about it. That's the point, really, the claim that one person has special or exclusive access to reality denied to others. It's the same claim a religious prophet who has "talked to God" might make. Should I just take them at their word?

That's the script this always follows and it just literally makes no sense.

Bob: I believe in unsupported/unlikely idea X.
Ted: There is no strong evidence for X.
Bob: Well you can't prove reality is real so there.

And in Bob's head the script Ted is supposed to follow is Ted breaking down and accepting that he accepts base level reality on "faith" without 100% across the board metaphysical esoteric proof so that makes Bob's belief in alien ghosts bigfoot Illuminati something that is also taken on faith without 100% across the board metaphysical esoteric proof so it's all the same and Ted is being a big mean hypocrite for telling Bob he's wrong.

Allow me to rewrite the script in a more accurate version:

Bob: I believe in unsupported/unlikely idea X.
Ted: What is your evidence for X?
Bob: Here you go.
Ted: There That is not strong evidence for X.
Bob: Why not? It was strong enough to convince me.
Ted: Because I will only accept certain types of evidence based on my worldview.
Bob: But what if I don't accept your world view? Why should my evidence align with your standards?
Ted: Because my standards are better than yours.
Bob: Says you. Funny thing though, I have different ideas.
Bob: Well you can't prove reality is real so there.

We're not stupid. We know what people are doing when they make this argument.

Not stupid, just biased to see maliciousness because of the perceived agenda and maybe a certain anxiety about the ramifications of exploring alternatives.

That's all this is and people need to stop pretending that's not what they are doing. You think by arguing that a simple acceptance of base reality is "Woo" you can turn your opponents into inconsistent hypocrites when they point out your Woo. A sad, silly game of "I found something you believe in that (if I play enough silly word games and split enough hairs and torture enough semantics) doesn't have 100% across the board 'proof' to even made up levels so you don't get to ever call me out on believing any unsupported nonsense I want."

Oh my God it is literally nothing more than the old childish school yard "Well you too!" argument filtered through the bad philosophy "Wise Old Man on the Mountain" routine.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm a materialist and I don't reject the arguments or feel materialism has to be abandoned because of it.

And it doesn't work as an argument. People do get that right? If your argument is that the very concept of reality is a questionable proposition is correct that makes all that silly pseudoscience crap they believe in even less likely, not more.

If that's what they are doing then you are correct. But bad arguments arise from all sides - you can hardly avoid them.

Me refusing to join you in pretending reality not existing is a question worth considering just because of your ability to manufacturer a bad stoner's existential crisis out of more and more convaluted silly word games doesn't mean I never get to call you out on unsupported nonsense when you spout it.

Again, at least for me, it isn't a question about reality, it's about the claims people make about it, especially if the claim is sole and exclusive access.

 

[Dancing David]

So okay I believe you. Reality is questionable. And?

I believe this is a meaningful question with a caveat, sensations, perceptions and thoughts are questionable.

However I believe that the use of metrics and instruments can help resolve things through naturalism.

There are obvious areas of error and confabulation in organic brains.

 

[Dancing David]

Not all of it, but for a lot of it I wore diapers and wasn't paying attention.

As to the "judged worthless" bit, I'd agree except it still seems to be around.

A more neutral statement would be "they may have limited to no correlation to scientific measures, their usefulness in other ways is a matter of discussion and individual belief"

 

[Dancing David]

They always have been. They simply fail to hold up regardless.



This changes precisely nothing.

False dichotomy on their part, there is no consciousness/unconsciousness, there is 'consciousness'

 

[Dancing David]

Does that apply to materialism?

Considering the aphorism though, if error persists long enough, it does kind of "make it truth." After all, truth ends up being those things we can't figure out are wrong and just quit trying to do so.

I think it is helpful to avoid absolute words like 'truth' especially since all words, theories, thoughts, sensations and perceptions are models.

the question comes down to 'validity' at making reasonable predictions from models of the apparent reality.

 

[Dancing David]

Material things exist whether anyone is aware of them or not.

How long does it take for error to transmute into truth? A year? Two? A thousand?

How many humans have to believe this error to transform it into truth?

If persistence of error makes it become truth then when the perception changes truth changes and that means that at one time the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

The issue comes down to language and avoiding dogmatism 'material objects seem to have a long term persistence' is the way I couch stuff in these discussions.

 

[Dancing David]

You are mistaken. Not that it can't be that way, but that it has to be that way. I am not trying to justify "woo" at all. Your suspicions are groundless and point out a bias on your part. Discussions do not have to be binary battles between "woo" and "not-woo."



No one is doubting reality, only doubting the veracity of claims about it. That's the point, really, the claim that one person has special or exclusive access to reality denied to others. It's the same claim a religious prophet who has "talked to God" might make. Should I just take them at their word?



Allow me to rewrite the script in a more accurate version:

Bob: I believe in unsupported/unlikely idea X.
Ted: What is your evidence for X?
Bob: Here you go.
Ted: There That is not strong evidence for X.
Bob: Why not? It was strong enough to convince me.
Ted: Because I will only accept certain types of evidence based on my worldview.
Bob: But what if I don't accept your world view? Why should my evidence align with your standards?
Ted: Because my standards are better than yours.
Bob: Says you. Funny thing though, I have different ideas.
Bob: Well you can't prove reality is real so there.



Not stupid, just biased to see maliciousness because of the perceived agenda and maybe a certain anxiety about the ramifications of exploring alternatives.



I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm a materialist and I don't reject the arguments or feel materialism has to be abandoned because of it.



If that's what they are doing then you are correct. But bad arguments arise from all sides - you can hardly avoid them.



Again, at least for me, it isn't a question about reality, it's about the claims people make about it, especially if the claim is sole and exclusive access.

Thank you!

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are mistaken. Not that it can't be that way, but that it has to be that way. I am not trying to justify "woo" at all.

But that's exactly what you are arguing. You just keep piling more words on the argument.

The problem with "X therefore Woo" isn't solved by going "X therefore Y therefore Woo" and then going "X therefore Y therefore Z therefore Woo" and then going "X therefore Y there Z therefore" and so forth and so on.

The problem with your argument isn't that you haven't yet found a way word it obtusely enough.

You don't get to lower my intellectual standards by arguing reality is somehow up for reasonable question.

You specifically said that we shouldn't use "materialism" (materialism being the apparently controversial idea that reality exists) to form basis for arguments when it comes to judging woo. This is no functionally different from just invoking magic regardless of many new ways you try to reword it.

 

[tsig]

That assertion sounds familiar. Only when I heard it, it was: "God exists whether you believe in Him or not."



There's no set scale. It remains true so long as we believe it to be so.



Just one.



Exactly right. Unless you think that everything you believe is true will never be shown to be erroneous, then at least some of the true things will become errors later on. And, in a tasty bit of symmetry, some of the things we think erroneous may turn out to be true.

So yes, undiscovered error is truth. This actually follows from the falsifiability model where a thing is provisionally true and true only to the extent it has been tested.

When I can see god as well as I can see the materiel universe that statement would be true.

Undiscovered error is still error.

Do you exist in some sort of undifferentiated grey chaos where nothing is real?