The relationship between science and materialism

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's worse than that. We can't kill insects.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's worse than that. We can't kill insects.

You're joking, I know. You don't really believe that we can't kill insects because insects have some sort of consciousness.

 

[chriswl]

No. You have an experience of a physical chair. Also, nothing is "inside a noumenal brain" because the noumenal correlate of a brain is non-spatial.

OK, but the experience does involve the noumenal correlate of my brain and the noumenal correlate of the chair in some way? And they give rise to an experience of a physical chair and a mind that has the experience?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I do not see how you can claim that the Being and the Neutral are the same sort of existent.

They aren't. They are ontologically distinct. They have different properties. They are only "the same" in so much as they both appear on the noumenal side of the description of reality and not the phenomenal side.

You have finessed this issue by saying that Being is nothing, yet endowed it with various attributes, such as its ability to interact with the Neutral. You could say that the Neutral is nothing, too, but I think that messes things up.

Yes, the neutral entity is the place where all of the "information" or "complexity" of the world exists. Nothing/Being can't serve that purpose.

In any event, you have an interaction problem: How does nothing interact with something? It's the dualism interaction problem in another guise.

It's not really a problem - i.e. it's not a logical problem. But there certainly are questions to be asked about how the Zero interacts with the neutral entity. Unfortunately any attempt to describe this "interaction" in detail will require a discussion of quantum mechanics. That's why Penrose is interested in neurons. I can propose at least one way this could work, and it would come from Bohm. The trouble is if I start talking about Bohm and QM this thread will turn into the standard JREF thread about QM. We can do it if you like though.....

Geoff.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Where is my memory?

~~ Paul

That depends what you mean by "memory". Do you mean "the act of remembering?" or "the information that is stored in my memory"?

The experience of remembering isn't anywhere, because it's an experience.
The information is encoded somewhere in the noumenal correlate of your brain.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, but the experience does involve the noumenal correlate of my brain and the noumenal correlate of the chair in some way?

Yes. The noumenal correlate of the chair is the distal cause of your experience of a chair. The noumenal correlate of your brain is the proximal cause of that experience.

And they give rise to an experience of a physical chair and a mind that has the experience?

Not quite. They are both neccesary components of the system, but you need the Zero/Being/Nothing/Subject to complete the picture.

 

[Soapy Sam]

(Replying to Chriswl)

One other thing. Since you keep trying to equate science and truth, I ought to explain what truth means to me. For me, there are only language games - no absolute language in which to express absolute truth. So any statement in English which appears to be true is only true within the context of the language game it is occuring in.

Do you recognise a difference between language and experience? For example, I can state here that if you fly a kite in thunderstorms often enough, you are in for a shock - albeit probably quite a brief one.

Now we can say that in any language you want, so long as we agree our definitions in advance. It will be true in all of them.

The experience is real. If the statement describes the experience as observed, then it too would appear to be real.

Would you dispute this?

(I do not , you appreciate, seriously suggest testing the truth or falsehood of the statement.)

If by "language games" you mean you can alter the definitions of words to change the meaning of the statement, all I can say is ginger apples nong nong silpurslity fod. But you knew that.


For you, the context is always scientific materialism and what you call "true" really means "true within the context of the language game of scientific materialism." But you think that is REAL truth. And you seem to think that everybody else ought to accept it as truth (if they want to be reasonable).

There is language and there is reality. Language is part of reality and may, or may not , describe reality. It does not exist outside reality. It does not create reality. There was lightning long before there was language. It kills non sentient creatures too.


You dismiss other peoples language games (like the language game of the bible) as worthless and the people who use them to be intellectually dishonest.

Nobody at Sunday School seemed to think it was a game. They thought it was reality.
They were wrong. I may be wrong too. But not that wrong. The bible is worthless to me.If you find it useful, go for it. My advice is not to rely on the geometry in the OT. It's pre- Greek.

Underlying this whole edifice is physicalism.

Hooey . Underlying reality is more reality.Turtles all the way down.


Take it away and suddenly your "truth" becomes only one of many. Which is why people like you find it so impossible to let go of it, wrong though it is. "But it's not wrong! Prove it's wrong!" goes the voice in your head.....where's your critical eye when it comes to physicalism? Have you ever seriously considered the possibility it could be wrong?

Have you ever considered the possibility you are just playing word games?
Your notion of truth is the most subjective one I ever heard. If you actually mean this, we can't believe anything you say at all, can we? (Including your definition of truth of course. Oh aye, language has it's limits, especially if used self referentially. Like any tool, you need to know how to use it).
I'll try this one more time. Language describes reality- often badly. It does not create it.

Geoff.

Apologies for late arrival in the thread.

 

[chriswl]

Not quite. They are both neccesary components of the system, but you need the Zero/Being/Nothing/Subject to complete the picture.

But this Zero/Being/Nothing/Subject has a relation to the noumenal correlate of it's brain that is different to its relation with the noumenal correlate of, say, a chair. It's attention can switch at will from a chair to a table but always the same brain is involved. That seems like a kind of "structure" that is inherent to the noumenon.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Soapy Sam

Do you recognise a difference between language and experience?

Yes.

For example, I can state here that if you fly a kite in thunderstorms often enough, you are in for a shock - albeit probably quite a brief one.

Now we can say that in any language you want, so long as we agree our definitions in advance. It will be true in all of them.

Yes.

The experience is real. If the statement describes the experience as observed, then it too would appear to be real.

"real"? How the property "real" be applied to a statement? Are you trying to say "true?"

Would you dispute this?

Yes. Statements aren't real or non-real. They are either true or not true with respect to their own language game.

If by "language games" you mean you can alter the definitions of words to change the meaning of the statement, all I can say is ginger apples nong nong silpurslity fod. But you knew that.

I mean there are certain types of discourse which share a set of underlying assumptions which are understood as shared by all the people using that language game.

Have you ever considered the possibility you are just playing word games?

I'm not playing a game. I am certainly trying to analyse how language might cause philosophical problems if used in a poorly-thought-out way.

Your notion of truth is the most subjective one I ever heard.

Yes, coherentists are often accused of this.

If you actually mean this, we can't believe anything you say at all, can we?

We can believe things to be true within a certain context of understanding things. As for Absolute Truth? That's best left for the more religious amongst us.

Science is not absolute truth. Science is quite good at exposing claims from other language games which are false, but this does not give it any right to claim absolute truth itself.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But this Zero/Being/Nothing/Subject has a relation to the noumenal correlate of it's brain that is different to its relation with the noumenal correlate of, say, a chair.

Yes. That is why chairs don't have minds.

It's attention can switch at will from a chair to a table but always the same brain is involved.

I'm not sure I understand where this question is coming from. Can you rephrase or clarify it?

That seems like a kind of "structure" that is inherent to the noumenon.

The neutral entity has structure. In my spin on neutral monism it is mathematical structure.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio

I don't know which part of what you quoted you are refering to here.

That is a contentious question. Kant says no. That hasn't stopped people from trying. There is no agreement on the answer to your question. I can understand either a "yes" or a "no" as a response. Most of my argument would apply even if one answered "no", anyway.

"No agreement." And I disagree with your last statement here. Most of your argument is completely circular without a means of independently verifying this.

By specifying it entirely in terms of things which are both non-mental and non-physical. Those things are mathematical entities and nothing/everything/being.

If you are negatively defining "noumenal", there is no end to what might be non-mental and non-physical! You can't know there is one, several, or zero non-mental and non-physical things. If you have no agreement on whether you can know of the existence of noumena, you cannot rely on negative definition to clear it up.

Or experiences are phenomenal. What's the question here?

So...all this stuff about noumenal is beyond experience. It is assumed, not evidenced, and assumed through a negative definition that presupposes that there must be a monistic explanation for apparent dualism.

It didn't get "pushed" here. "Here" is where it came from. "Here" is where it belongs. "Here" it can be dualistic without it being a problem. It's only a problem when applied to the noumenal world.

Older ways of getting around the problems of dualism got around it by assuming a god above and beyond the rules of materialism and idealism, in order to connect the two isms... you have a monism instead of a god, but the logic is still the same.

So there are two difficulties with your critique: (1) I didn't push it anywhere, it's back in the place it was always supposed to be and (2) because it is where it is supposed to be instead of being "pushed" to the noumenal world where it doesn't belong, it doesn't cause a problem.

Sure, so long as you assume the existence of a "reality" that you cannot, in your view, have access to. While you are at it, can we assume my daughter a pony?

...and in doing so it solves the problem. I am not seeing why it is a problem to refer to the phenomenal world dualistically. The whole reason our language is dualistic is because it evolved to discuss the phenomenal world. Where is the problem? I see no problem.

No, there is no problem, as long as you can assume, negatively, without evidence, that there is something that makes dualism make sense.

That is correct, Merc. Do you want me to write it in bold?

Just making sure I understood.

Because they do go away, Merc. Please explain why they don't. In terms of the phenomenal world, I see no problem in calling my mind my mind and my body my body. Why is that a problem?

No problem. Our language works that way, and we understand you. No problem using "sunrise" either, even though it does not describe earth-rotation.

Where....exactly?

You keep saying there is a problem but you haven't said what it is.

You have made this claim at least five times in your post but failed on each occasion to provide an example of a problem caused by talking dualistically about the phenomenal world.

Geoff

The problem is, dualism's non-interaction of isms has prompted you to make up a fictional* monism to rule over them. Rather than either accept that one or the other monism may explain the perception of the other, or accepting that you cannot know through human perception what things might be real but unperceivable.

*fictional is a radical behavioral term, not intended to disparage your example.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Chris.

Just noticed this:

But this Zero/Being/Nothing/Subject has a relation to the noumenal correlate of it's brain....

There is only one Zero/Being/Nothing/Subject. There are lots of brains.

Two zeroes are still the same zero. 0 + 0 = 0.

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Merc

No problem. Our language works that way, and we understand you. No problem using "sunrise" either, even though it does not describe earth-rotation.

Exactly. In fact I will remember this example and use it in the future.

Geoff asks: Where....exactly [is the problem]?

Mercutio replies:

The problem is, dualism's non-interaction of isms has prompted you to make up a fictional* monism to rule over them.

Yep. Otherwise I'd have to claim my mind didn't exist and that would be stupid.

Rather than either accept that one or the other monism may explain the perception of the other.....

Logic forced me to accept that. Either that or eliminativism. That was the choice. I chose neutral monism. Eliminative materialism is ridiculous. Idealism is a reaction to eliminative materialism. Neutral monism makes sense to me.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Mercutio

Most of your argument is completely circular without a means of independently verifying this.

Something like this point was recognised by Heidegger (with regard to metaphysics). His response was to say that we should not be worried about circles in principle, we should just make sure we find the correct way of entering the circle.

Geoff

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sorry, but given my background the ethical dimensions are very important to me.

I have a question. Can we be conscious but not awake or aware? Does consciousness necessarily entail awakeness and awareness?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry, but given my background the ethical dimensions are very important to me.

I have a question. Can we be conscious but not awake or aware? Does consciousness necessarily entail awakeness and awareness?

Yes, I think it entails at least one of those things. I don't think it entails "awakeness" if that is the opposite to "dreaming", for example. If I have a lucid dream I am definately conscious of something.

There's an important difference between the sort of consciousness that humans have and the sort of consciousness most animals have, though. We are self-conscious. We are aware we are aware. Most animals are just aware. Not self-aware. They don't know they are going to stop existing one day, for example. BTW I'm not sure whether to include animals like whales and elephants and apes at this point.

I guess, though, you are talking about people with permament degenerative brain disorders and things like that, yes?

If so, then I agree that we have a very difficult ethical question, but I'm still not sure what this has got to do with my ontological position. Perhaps if you could explain it a bit more about what you are thinking?

Personally I think euthansia should be more easily available and that people should be less worried about the ending of pointless suffering.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What about someone in a coma? Could they be conscious? They still have brainwave activity on an EEG. What sort of consciousness would they have?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What about someone in a coma? Could they be conscious? They still have brainwave activity on an EEG. What sort of consciousness would they have?

If there is brainwave activity going on then I see no reason to believe there isn't any consciousness accompanying it. I'm not sure I am in a better position than you to speculate on the contents of the consciousness of a person in a coma. That's about what the brain is doing, not ontology. You are the neurologist.

 

[Jeremy]

They don't know they are going to stop existing one day, for example.

So, religious people are not fully conscious?

Would it be correct to say that there exist as many physical (phenomenal) worlds as there exist observers?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So,basically everything that a neurologist does to assess "state of consciousness" is simply inflicting a torture chamber on someone in a coma?

They are conscious. We can check in many people that the pathways for audition, somatosensation, and vision are completely intact from receptor to cortex, though they do not respond. So by this rubric, they see, hear, and feel and are conscious of it, correct?