Naturalism, 'Materialism' vs Dualism and teh Gap

[tsig]

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.

Yep, same ole shell game.

 

[tsig]

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.

Hilited your straw man. I'm not claiming any exclusive access to reality, in fact, it's just the opposite claim, that we all share the same reality.

 

[Nonpareil]

However, when you take the observer out of the neural picture ( hopefully we're both happy there's no homunculus)

No.

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.

Which is still not equivalent to idealism, or whatever other nonsense ontology you wish to name. Even if every particle in the universe is conscious, the universe itself is not "made of" consciousness. The idea remains incoherent.

 

[marplots]

Hilited your straw man. I'm not claiming any exclusive access to reality, in fact, it's just the opposite claim, that we all share the same reality.

Which one is that? The one with God and homeopathy or the one without?

 

[Nonpareil]

Which one is that? The one with God and homeopathy or the one without?

Without.

What is your point?

 

[marplots]

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

Let me try to make it as straightforward as possible in a form you might agree with:

1) Whatever underlying reality there is, people hold different opinions about it.
2) Those opinions are judged fair or foul by other people who hold their own opinions about it.
3) The standards by which an opinion is judged fair or foul are also set by people.

From this the following arises, which may be more controversial than the above:
"Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not."

That's one of those answers from Philosophy which aren't supposed to exist, courtesy of Protagoras.

 

[marplots]

Without.

What is your point?

If we all share the same reality, why do we disagree?

I think you answered this already. Something about people being silly. I assumed the silly people were the ones you disagreed with, is that right?

 

[Nonpareil]

If we all share the same reality, why do we disagree?

I think you answered this already. Something about people being silly.

Quite.

I assumed the silly people were the ones you disagreed with, is that right?

In most instances, certainly.

What, I ask again, is your point?

 

[Nick227]

No.

So, you believe in the homunculous?

Even if every particle in the universe is conscious

Can you explain to me how this could be so.

the universe itself is not "made of" consciousness. The idea remains incoherent.

So, tell me, what have you experienced in your time that is not consciousness, Nonpareil? That is not neural representation?

 

[marplots]

Quite.



In most instances, certainly.

What, I ask again, is your point?

That, silly or not, we do not all perceive things the same way. Nor do we make the same judgements about the things we do perceive in similar ways. And this is a fundamental fact about the human condition that no appeal to external reality can overcome.

But naturally, since you and I live in the same reality, this point is obvious. Unless it's silly. Or both obvious and silly?

 

[Nonpareil]

So, you believe in the homunculous?

In observers? Yes. See the other thread.

Can you explain to me how this could be so.

No, because it is what we call a hypothetical.

So, tell me, what have you experienced in your time that is not consciousness, Nonpareil? That is not neural representation?

Literally anything I have ever experienced. Playing silly semantic games and trying to claim that all anyone ever experiences is consciousness is both irrelevant and pointless, as I have covered multiple times in both threads.

Solipsism is incoherent.

That, silly or not, we do not all perceive things the same way. Nor do we make the same judgements about the things we do perceive in similar ways. And this is a fundamental fact about the human condition that no appeal to external reality can overcome.

And yet the external reality exists regardless.

 

[Nick227]

In observers? Yes. See the other thread.

You believe that there's an observer inside the brain? Can you just confirm this.

Literally anything I have ever experienced. Playing silly semantic games and trying to claim that all anyone ever experiences is consciousness is both irrelevant and pointless, as I have covered multiple times in both threads.

Ha ha. How is pointing out an accepted fact irrelevant and pointless? You're a funny guy, Nonpareil. You're making my evening.

But let's go one step back. What have you experienced that is not neural representation? Please answer. Then we can look at consciousness.

Solipsism is incoherent.

What! How is solipsism even vaguely relevant? Why do you skeptics always trot out the word "solipsism" at the slightest hint of trouble, apparently in the belief that it will somehow make all the nasty ideas go away!

And yet the external reality exists regardless.

Regardless of what? I'm not saying there's no external reality. I'm saying that all we know is consciousness. You apparently have never known consciousness. Are you the fabled p-zombie?

 

[marplots]

And yet the external reality exists regardless.

It would be silly to think otherwise.

 

[Nonpareil]

You believe that there's an observer inside the brain? Can you just confirm this.

Inside the brain? No. The brain is the observer. Or, if you want to get exceptionally pedantic, the joint system created by the brain and the rest of the nervous system is the observer.

Ha ha. How is pointing out an accepted fact irrelevant and pointless?

It's pedantry and word games.

I do not play word games.

If you have a point, get to it.

What! How is solipsism even vaguely relevant?

"All you can ever know is that you exist, nothing else." Solipsism in a nutshell. Also, your pedantry in a nutshell.

This is hardly complicated.

 

[tsig]

Without.

What is your point?

The point is not to have a point.

 

[tsig]

Which one is that? The one with God and homeopathy or the one without?

The one where cars are real and the cops are not your friend.

 

[tsig]

You believe that there's an observer inside the brain? Can you just confirm this.



Ha ha. How is pointing out an accepted fact irrelevant and pointless? You're a funny guy, Nonpareil. You're making my evening.

But let's go one step back. What have you experienced that is not neural representation? Please answer. Then we can look at consciousness.



What! How is solipsism even vaguely relevant? Why do you skeptics always trot out the word "solipsism" at the slightest hint of trouble, apparently in the belief that it will somehow make all the nasty ideas go away!




Regardless of what? I'm not saying there's no external reality. I'm saying that all we know is consciousness. You apparently have never known consciousness. Are you the fabled p-zombie?

You have a lot of observations for a non existent observer.

 

[marplots]

The one where cars are real and the cops are not your friend.

That's the boring one. The one where Datura root extract doesn't really allow me to talk to God and the ghost of my grandfather doesn't give me advice in my dreams. That's the one where my bad decisions have consequences and where my wife left me for sleeping with her sister. Just that one time. Well, the one time she knows about anyhow.

That's the one where I won't win the Powerball lottery and where I'll die without a happy-ever-after and where nice people get cancer. I know that one. There's never anything good on TV in that one.

 

[marplots]

Isn't there some formal definition of observation? Something about an interaction between material things?

In that definition, no observer is required as far as I recall. I think it's framed more like, "an observation takes place" without reference to an observer at all.

 

[Nick227]

Inside the brain? No. The brain is the observer. Or, if you want to get exceptionally pedantic, the joint system created by the brain and the rest of the nervous system is the observer.

If that is so, then why is not everything being processed by the brain and nervous system present in conscious awareness?

If these things are "the observer," then how come most of what's going on within them is apparently hidden?

"All you can ever know is that you exist, nothing else." Solipsism in a nutshell. Also, your pedantry in a nutshell.

I'm saying there not someone that can know even this. Worse than solipsism! It's called Materialism.