Observational Monism

[Dancing David]

As the never ending duel continues between the monists and the pluralists , it occurs to me that there is what i percieve to be an error in monism. I hope to undetsand the POV, and perhaps change my mind about the error.

Everything is observed to be.

We can not prove that the thing exists outside of the observation.

But is it rational to then say that a tool of observation IE the mind. Is therefore the sole basis of the universe. I would like to undetsand this concept.

If the basis for saying that materialism is false is to say that you can't prove materialism through the material,
would not a coorelate also be
It is false to say that mind is the sole basis for the universe because mind is just a human concept of tool. Aren't you then using the mind to prove mind. The shoe fits and the sauce is good for the gander.

And if the world is all mind, why do video cameras work?

(I hope to learn from this)

i mean if we all sand our thought would we then say that Song was the basis of the universe?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dancing David
We can not prove that the thing exists outside of the observation.

...

If the basis for saying that materialism is false is to say that you can't prove materialism through the material,
would not a coorelate also be
Casual observation of mine: If nothing can be "proven" without some amount of universal doubt, how do you abandon one belief in favor of another?

I was just thinking about this because I was remembering reading a quote which read "more and more scientists are abandoning evolution (which is false (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html))" and "the theory of evolution cannot be falsified (which is also false (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html))".

[hammegk]

DD, so far as I'm aware, every ontological possibility can be expressed as mind, matter, or both, both being dualism.

Ergo, you have a binary choice iff you buy Stimpy's thinking, "if it effects or affects the material, it is by definition material".

And given my one, objective, incontrovertible data point --*I* "think" -- my monism of choice is mind. As stated a number of times previously, the fact that no life/non-life barrier exists with mind primary, and that HPC is the expectation rather than being a materialist's problem, are added reasons.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
DD, so far as I'm aware, every ontological possibility can be expressed as mind, matter, or both, both being dualism.

I certainly don't rule out the possibility for spirit, I just haven't seen proof to my mind's reason yet.

Ergo, you have a binary choice iff you buy Stimpy's thinking, "if it effects or affects the material, it is by definition material".

I think that you're pointing out the closed nature of Stimpy's deifinition, while I tend to agree with it, i will admit that it is a closed tautology, but then if the spirit is proven, I would tend to look for a material explanation, being of that habit.


And given my one, objective, incontrovertible data point --*I* "think" -- my monism of choice is mind. As stated a number of times previously, the fact that no life/non-life barrier exists with mind primary, and that HPC is the expectation rather than being a materialist's problem, are added reasons.

I agree with you, but I think that you are not one of the 'mind is all' types, if you are, you seem more reserved than some others.

My point would be that the logic is the same

you can't use material to prove materialism
you can't use mind to prove monism

I grant you that your stance is as neat as my 'the universe behaves as though it exists' stance and similar in being a neutral expression.

So , if you would where is the HPC, just giving me the full spelling will be enough for me to do a google search, thanks.

[whitefork]

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

Here's a link: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html

It's been discussed at great length in this forum.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Dancing David
And if the world is all mind, why do video cameras work?




And how do you know that video camera works???

Don't you need to perceive with your senses whether or not there is an image in the video?, until a human mind perceives the image captured by your camere, such image does not exist.

Q-S

[hammegk]

For some reason that escapes me, people seem to want to drag what I would call "animal consciousness" into the equation as a necessary observer. Sufficient, maybe, but why necessary?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Q-Source



And how do you know that video camera works???

Don't you need to perceive with your senses whether or not there is an image in the video?, until a human mind perceives the image captured by your camere, such image does not exist.

Q-S

Now i would say that is a really fine point! Prior to looking at the image, I could run it through a machine that would read the image and tell me that there was an image there, I could even generate a recognition program to say that a certain level of complexity would be needed to be called an image.

I know it is a dodge but what about that case where I can have the machine look at the tape and tell me there is an image. Does the image exist at that point or not.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
For some reason that escapes me, people seem to want to drag what I would call "animal consciousness" into the equation as a necessary observer. Sufficient, maybe, but why necessary?

Um , because it is the only accesible form of consiousness, wether or not it is immaterial or material as the basis it is the only known form.

If you can demonstrate an non-animal observer then you can have my nobel prize for defining consiousness!

The rest of it seems to come from a misundestanding of QM and the phrase 'observation collapsing the wave function'.

So what does HPC stand for?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
And how do you know that video camera works???

Don't you need to perceive with your senses whether or not there is an image in the video?, until a human mind perceives the image captured by your camere, such image does not exist.

Q-S

How would a (normal healthy blah blah blah) human percieve anything about the images being gathered by the camera if the camera were not in fact gathering images?

(And now, we have connected the two ends of logic and formed a circle...)

[Interesting Ian]

David,

Do you not realise that materialism is a monist position as well? Monism is normally contrasted with dualism.

And video cameras work because of physical laws.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Um , because it is the only accesible form of consiousness...

And this is a given, how? I'll go this far; either (1) -- *I* think, or (2) -- 'something' thinks & is "dreaming" me.

Then, assuming that (1) is correct, I'll agree that *you* also think so we have something to talk about.


So what does HPC stand for?
You got Kullervo on ignore????

Hard Problem of Consciousness.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

And this is a given, how? I'll go this far; either (1) -- *I* think, or (2) -- 'something' thinks & is "dreaming" me.

Then, assuming that (1) is correct, I'll agree that *you* also think so we have something to talk about.

But you aksed about something else, I don't not limit the possibility of consiousness to just animal creatures, part of being animistic. But the minute I would try to describe the consiousness of a mountain, it would be anthropomorphism. So until I can communicate with a mountain, with a degree of certainty that i am not hallucinating, it would be speculation and/or mysticism.


You got Kullervo on ignore????

No I put no one on ignore, I only put Sherlock Holmes on ignore so i could read the other peoples posts without distraction.


Hard Problem of Consciousness.

I see, thanks, now was that so hard to type hamme, there are many things that acronyms can stand for.

Thanks.

PS I read some of the Chalmers paper, interesting but needs some digestion, I am in violent disagreement with some of it already. Especialy that he zeros in on some of the most woo-woo explanations for consiousness, as allegedy scientific.
Thanks, are there other names than Chalmers.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
David,

Do you not realise that materialism is a monist position as well? Monism is normally contrasted with dualism.

And video cameras work because of physical laws.

I understand that, I just feel that the same arguments used to counter materialism can be used to counter monism.
And like Paul, I find it much more interesting when people talk about the differences in common , instead of the whole semantic argument thing.

[Q-Source]

Hello David,

Originally posted by Dancing David


Now i would say that is a really fine point! Prior to looking at the image, I could run it through a machine that would read the image and tell me that there was an image there, I could even generate a recognition program to say that a certain level of complexity would be needed to be called an image.

The machine would not "see" the image, the only thing that it would be doing is to capture a set of signals of colors and patters and then transmit them into a recognition program. Only a human mind can interpret those signals and see the image.


I know it is a dodge but what about that case where I can have the machine look at the tape and tell me there is an image. Does the image exist at that point or not.

No, it doesn't exist. THe only thing that exist is a bunch of codes and signals that the machine captures. The image only becomes an image when you see it.

Q-S

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Hello David,



The machine would not "see" the image, the only thing that it would be doing is to capture a set of signals of colors and patters and then transmit them into a recognition program. Only a human mind can interpret those signals and see the image.



No, it doesn't exist. THe only thing that exist is a bunch of codes and signals that the machine captures. The image only becomes an image when you see it.

Q-S

I agree psychologicaly there is not a 'sight' in the machine because there is not an 'awareness' to 'see' it. Okay so we agree on that.

So which way does the machine begin to converge on the idea of sight, when it can interpret the image and print out, 'that is a chair', or must it have something more complex to qualify as sight.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy, your only incontrovertible data point is "I think I think."

Material monism versus mental monism. Exactly what are the verifiable differences, again? Please tell me there are some.

~~ Paul

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I read some of the Chalmers paper, interesting but needs some digestion, I am in violent disagreement with some of it already. Especialy that he zeros in on some of the most woo-woo explanations for consiousness, as allegedy scientific.
Thanks, are there other names than Chalmers. I just pulled that link out of my Khyber pass. No endorsement implied - there are many others as you say.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Hammy, your only incontrovertible data point is "I think I think."
Yup; i.e. sentience exists.

What do you have? The same: you think you think. ;)


Material monism versus mental monism. Exactly what are the verifiable differences, again? Please tell me there are some.

~~ Paul

For the umpteenth time, either works. Pick the postion that best explains what you deem to be fact. Two facts to explain: life, and HPC. Other facts exist but those are the biggies imho.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yup; i.e. sentience exists.

What do you have? The same: you think you think. ;)


That's the point that I am making, the monist position can not be proved for the same reasons that the materialist position can not be proved. You think that you think, but that experience can not be used to directly prove that there is a 'mind' and that experience can not be used to prove that the brain is the soul(haha) source of experience.



For the umpteenth time, either works. Pick the postion that best explains what you deem to be fact. Two facts to explain: life, and HPC. Other facts exist but those are the biggies imho.

And this points out the difference between the philospohical position and the 'science' position. I find them to be both useful frames of reference.
Philosophy trys to figure things out purely through the process of 'reason', it tiries to see if 'logic' can't cut to the chase on certain issues. It is limited by whatever inherent limits that 'mind' or biology might put on the thought process.
Science trys to just makes statements (when it is ethical0 about the nature of the obsercation s and the outcomes of repeatable choices that can be 'verify-ed'. It is limited in that it is totaly based upon the observations and therefore can't get a root causes that can't be 'tested'.

I think that the main difference comes down to wther or not you want a 'final' answer to the questions. Philospohy would provide a definitive answer, life is inherent in all things, life is inherent in all that has soul,..etc.(sorry I don't really know all the positions). Science provides an arbitrary anwer based soley upon the definition of 'life'.

HPC, wow now that just points out the same difference, the philospher would like a definitive answer while the scientist should(but often doesn't) just say , these are the reasons I think that the brain is the source of awareness but the vote is still being counted.