The relationship between science and materialism

[UndercoverElephant]

Wow, too much all at once.

Is there a noumenal chair?

It might be a mistake to call it a "chair" at all. There is a noumenal cause of your experiences of a chair. There's two of them actually. The "noumenal chair-like-thing" is the distal cause and the "noumenal brain process" is the proximal cause. But noumenal things must not be confused with physical things.

If so, what is its basis? Is it the same basis as the noumenal brain?

They belong to the same ontological category, yes. Both are part of noumenal reality - things as they really are.

What does it mean for Being to experience when it is not a thing?

This is what lifegazer couldn't understand - "There is this thing", he kept saying, "which experiences the world!" "It's not a thing", I replied. "It's a NOTHING." Are you now claiming that whatever is experiencing the world must be a thing? If so, we could get lifegazer back here, since you now accept the critical first premise in his argument.

 

[Taffer]

Darat

In the materialist system, naturalism is built in to the structure. It's defined to be true before any evidence of any type is actually assessed. In my system it is defined to be unknown and you can never prove it is true because in essence it is an attempt to prove a negative. You cannot prove that supernaturalism is not true. All you can do is say that none of the clear and undisputed empirical evidence available up till this point indicates that supernaturalism is true, and that therefore is a justified and reasonable belief, informed by science, that supernaturalism is not true.

But you cannot prove this.

Geoff

Cannot prove a negative, Geoff. Is this the evidence for your metaphysic? That 'we' can't prove you wrong? Please...

 

[Taffer]

So, Geoff, there are, in fact, two tables in front of me: The table 'in and of itself' and the table 'as experienced by me'?

Also, do you have any evidence for anything other then physical processes going on inside my head?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Cannot prove a negative, Geoff. Is this the evidence for your metaphysic? That 'we' can't prove you wrong? Please...

Would please you stop posting nonsense in my thread? You clearly haven't got a CLUE what the debate is about. Your question is utterly irrelevant and based on ZERO understanding of the conversation that is happening. GO AWAY and scribble on somebody-else's thread.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So, Geoff, there are, in fact, two tables in front of me: The table 'in and of itself' and the table 'as experienced by me'?

READ THE THREAD FROM THE START AND STOP ASKING ME STUPID QUESTIONS.

 

[chriswl]

It does if you know what "neccesary" and "sufficient" mean.

I'm not going to repeat my statement. Just read it again. I'm the one who's speaking English here.

WRONG.

Wrong that there can be matter without mind? What about the universe a billion years ago? Or is time really something that is in our mind also?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Wrong that there can be matter without mind? What about the universe a billion years ago?

Matter exists in minds. Matter is physical stuff. It's the keyboard that is in front of you. But that is part of the world as humans experience it. The world as humans experience it didn't exist a billion years ago because there weren't any humans. No humans = No human minds = No matter. What there was, was the noumenal version of the Universe. But that isn't made of matter.

Or is time really something that is in our mind also?

We haven't mentioned time yet, but it is bound to come up. The Noumenal world is not time-bound in the way we are, no. Time is one of the key concepts discussed by people like Heidegger and Sartre (and Husserl). There are many questions to be asked and answered about it. Too many for this post.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Your logical problems only start when you claim that this "thing" is physical i.e. when you assert physicalism as an ontological truth.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by this. I have no idea what physical "is". If I accept the description of string theory, then physical "stuff" seems to be vibrating strings of "what?", "extended spacetime?". I have no clue what any of that means. In the grand scheme it all arises in Being, which I consider to be the great mystery underneath it all. I'm not sure what it means to say that I am a physicalist or a materialist expcept to say that there is this abstraction that helps to make explanations possible. I don't pretend to uderstand what it is or what it means or to want to reify it, though. "Matter" seems to me to be a word that we use so that we can speak of how these abstractions end up like what we see in the world around us.

The only issue that I have had is with the idea that we cannot, even in theory, explain consciousness through recourse to these abstractions. I think we can, but I think it requires a radical break with the language that we have been using to describe it. This is going to sound like California New-Age speak, but I think it makes more sense to say that "feeling happens", "thinking happens", "experiencing happens" -- all within a confined space with one additional happening "making sense of the whole mess of it so as to coordinate responses to the outside world happens".

Again I am going to use dualistic language to describe something that I do not see as dualistic -- these happenings "happen" through neuron firing "seen" from the inside. They are not things, but action.

Ultimately it devolves back to the same "source" -- Being.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I have no idea what physical "is".

So why have you spent the last week defending a claim that reality is physical?

If I accept the description of string theory, then physical "stuff" seems to be vibrating strings of "what?", "extended spacetime?". I have no clue what any of that means.

Understanding my position will help sort that problem out too.

In the grand scheme it all arises in Being, which I consider to be the great mystery underneath it all. I'm not sure what it means to say that I am a physicalist or a materialist expcept to say that there is this abstraction that helps to make explanations possible.

Physicalism is more than that. It is a claim that physical reality is the foundational level of reality. QM drove a coach and horses through that a long time go, but for some reason loads of people haven't realised this yet.

Kant anticipated QM. Regarding the ontological error, the philosophers got there first.

I don't pretend to uderstand what it is or what it means or to want to reify it, though. "Matter" seems to me to be a word that we use so that we can speak of how these abstractions end up like what we see in the world around us.

Correct. But physicalism is a claim that the world-as-it-is-in-itself is also made of physical things. This is what leads to all the problems, because the world-as-it-is-in-itself isn't made of the physical objects which feature in your experiences. Physical things are ONLY abstractions. Physicalism claims they are the ultimate reality......as well as features of experiences.

The only issue that I have had is with the idea that we cannot, even in theory, explain consciousness through recourse to these abstractions.

Why'd you want to explain consciousness in terms of an abstraction?

Anybody seeing Husserl's point yet?

Ultimately it devolves back to the same "source" -- Being.

....NOT matter.

 

[cyborg]

Physicalism is more than that. It is a claim that physical reality is the foundational level of reality. QM drove a coach and horses through that a long time go, but for some reason loads of people haven't realised this yet.

Kant anticipated QM. Regarding the ontological error, the philosophers got there first.

Oh I sure as HELL hope you aren't going to use QM in a non-mathematical way because you WILL have your ass chewed out.

QM - the least understood and most absued scientific theory ever.

 

[Taffer]

Would please you stop posting nonsense in my thread? You clearly haven't got a CLUE what the debate is about. Your question is utterly irrelevant and based on ZERO understanding of the conversation that is happening. GO AWAY and scribble on somebody-else's thread.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was simply asking a question. If you are unable or unwilling to answer it, then say so.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Cyborg

I have deliberately not mentioned QM. I want people to figure that one out for themselves, precisely because of the reaction it usually provokes.

Now please calm down and follow the debate.

Geoff

 

[Taffer]

READ THE THREAD FROM THE START AND STOP ASKING ME STUPID QUESTIONS.

I see you've totally ignored my second question. Your dodge is noted.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was simply asking a question. If you are unable or unwilling to answer it, then say so.

If you'd read even a quarter of my posts, you wouldn't need to ask the question. Either ask a sensible question or stop posting in this thread. If you don't know why it's a stupid question then read the last three pages again.

 

[cyborg]

I have deliberately not mentioned QM. I want people to figure that one out for themselves, precisely because of the reaction it usually provokes.

It provokes that reaction precisely because I can see that when you meantion it again it will:

1) Have nothing to do with the mechanics of quanta
2) Be used in a wishy-washy way that ignores the mathematical nature of the theory

Now please calm down and follow the debate.

If you insist on absuing mathematics and science then you're going to piss people off. You already made dishonest use of a flawed mathematical construction you didn't understand before abondoning it as 'unimportant' when it was summarially torn apart.

This is a simple bit of advice for you: do not start talking about QM unless you really know what it is. You will have your ass handed to you. Again.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So why have you spent the last week defending a claim that reality is physical?

Perhaps we have a communication problem and are not so far apart. I tried to tell you at the beginning that all of this depended on the level of description and that I think the description at the level of "matter" is sufficient to give an account of consciousness, even if it is not a full account.

I thought I made it clear at the outset that I have no clue ultimately what we mean by the word "matter". I guess I was wrong for assuming that you knew I was working at this other level of description.

Physicalism claims they are the ultimate reality......as well as features of experiences.

OK, but that isn't how I was using the term. I meant it in terms of a level of description where we can more easily talk about this stuff.

Why'd you want to explain consciousness in terms of an abstraction?

To get a better handle on it. We describe most everything in terms of an abstraction. Why should consciousness be any different? We also need to look further down (yes, metaphor), but that doesn't mean that we can't explain it, in theory, at this level using the abstraction.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Cyborg,

You are now attacking something you have predicted I am going to post. I have to ask you the same thing I asked taffer. Unless you are going to ask a sensible question, please stop posting in this thread.

Geoff

 

[hammegk]

They aren't? Are you suggesting some brains might not be capable of exhibiting consciousness because they lack some mysterious extra ingredient? And that they might be physically indistinguishable from brains that can be conscious?

The materialists first, and greatest hurdle to jump, is the emergent property we call "life". Therefor, yes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps we have a communication problem and are not so far apart.

I think the problem was that it has taken a monumental effort on my part to get anybody to listen to me long enough to figure out what I was trying to say. Which is why I started out by asking people to suspend their belief in physicalism and think about it from "outside the physicalist box". You claimed you already do that. But it is only now that I am seeing signs of it actually happening. As soon as it did, things have become easier. Communication is possible.

I tried to tell you at the beginning that all of this depended on the level of description and that I think the description at the level of "matter" is sufficient to give an account of consciousness, even if it is not a full account.

And I kept telling you I agreed, and that the problem was the claim of physicalism and the confusion about the status of "being".

 

[cyborg]

You are now attacking something you have predicted I am going to post.

So the next time we hear you uttering QM it won't be in the context of a philosopher who had nothing to say about photons right?

It didn't take much of a post to abuse QM - and I would say it's more than reasonable to predict no improvement.

Unless you are going to ask a sensible question, please stop posting in this thread.

Firstly I do not take kindly to being asked which threads I should post in. You are not a moderator. I couldn't care less if I post something and you don't like it. That's just too damn bad. If you want more control over the discussion you'll just have to go elsewhere.

Secondly you have failed to answer where you get your mind detector from. Go answer that then.