Consciousness

[Tricky]

Consciousness has been an issue on many threads here. Various people have various definitions. I think the dictionary does the best job with:
Mirriam-Webster
Consciousness - the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought

Does consciousness go away when you sleep? Certainly you have sensations when you sleep, perhaps even thoughts, especially when dreaming.

What about things like breathing. You don't normally have to "think" about breathing, but you can hold your breath if you choose to do so.

Other bodily functions (like digestion) are mostly beyond your control, but are they influenced by consciousness?

What is the simplest creature in which you think consciousness exists?

I'll add my input later, but just wanted to get this started.

[Tricky]

D'oh! I realize there is a "Consciousness Explained..." thread. This one is for us dumb-asses who have never studied philosophy and think "The Hard Problem" can be solved with Viagra.

Does consciousness go away when you sleep?


Rather obviously the answer to that is no.


Other bodily functions (like digestion) are mostly beyond your control, but are they influenced by consciousness?


Yes.


What is the simplest creature in which you think consciousness exists?


I personally think consciousness is all-pervading and exists in all living things to a certain extent. Maybe even plants....... :)

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I personally think consciousness is all-pervading and exists in all living things to a certain extent. Maybe even plants....... :)

Geoff

Do you think that plants are equally conscious to us i.e it's an on or off thing. Or maybe that they are less conscious and that there are varying degrees of consciousness?

Or something entirely different?

Thanks :)

Sou

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Geoff

Do you think that plants are equally conscious to us i.e it's an on or off thing. Or maybe that they are less conscious and that there are varying degrees of consciousness?

Or something entirely different?

Thanks :)

Sou
Thanks Sou. I meant to bring that up.
Does consciousness exist in various definable levels? Is it a continuum?

Another queston.
What is the "most conscious" you have ever been?

Originally posted by Soubrette


Geoff

Do you think that plants are equally conscious to us i.e it's an on or off thing. Or maybe that they are less conscious and that there are varying degrees of consciousness?

Or something entirely different?

Thanks :)

Sou

Well there are varying degrees of consciousness within the class of beings we label human. Some of them are instensely aware of who and what they are and what sort of world they live in, others live their lives in a state of virtual zombiehood and might as well be dead by the time they hit 15 - these are the people who live their lives on autopilot and fill their days with passive activities like watching TV soap operas and never even ask themselves the big questions about life, let alone get anywhere near finding any answers. Then there are clearly varying degress of consciousness throughout the animal kingdom. If (If...) consciousness is primary, then plants also should be allotted their share of consciousness, however minimal this may be.

Originally posted by Tricky

Thanks Sou. I meant to bring that up.
Does consciousness exist in various definable levels? Is it a continuum?

Another queston.
What is the "most conscious" you have ever been?

When I thought I was about to die in a car crash. Heightened states of consciousness are when you are intensely aware of the present - of the NOW - rather than being lost in memories of the past, expectations of the future and the humdrum processes of the mind. Higher consciousness is being intensely aware of the present moment - and ultimately being aware that the present moment is all that there really is. Being highly conscious is when time seems to stop and you are intensely aware of 'Being'.

:)

[Frostbite]

I think any living organism is somewhat conscious. As soon as it perceives something, wether it's heat, light, radiation, pressure, sound waves or whatever, and reacts to it, then it has some kind of conscience. A plant may have 0.00001% of our conscience but it still reacts to its environment.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


When I thought I was about to die in a car crash. Heightened states of consciousness are when you are intensely aware of the present - of the NOW - rather than being lost in memories of the past, expectations of the future and the humdrum processes of the mind. Higher consciousness is being intensely aware of the present moment - and ultimately being aware that the present moment is all that there really is. Being highly conscious is when time seems to stop and you are intensely aware of 'Being'.

:)
I agree. The time I remember was when I had a summer job as an assistant air conditioner installer. We had to install ducts in a big factory and I had to work on scaffolding for the first time. I was terrified, and intensely aware of where I could grab on to things, where my feet were, whether I was completely balanced, and most of all, how far away the floor was and how much I would dislike falling. However, after getting used to it after a couple of weeks, I became much less "conscious".

[Michael Redman]

In my opinion, if, under your definition of conscious, a sleeping person is not unconscious, I think your definition varies from that used in standard English. Maybe the concept you're calling consciousness is better described in some other way.

Do you have volition when you're asleep?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Well there are varying degrees of consciousness within the class of beings we label human. Some of them are instensely aware of who and what they are and what sort of world they live in, others live their lives in a state of virtual zombiehood and might as well be dead by the time they hit 15

Geoff,

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Babies and animals are conscious, however they are not self-aware.

I remember when was the first time that I was self-aware about my existence in this world.

I was about 5 years old, and for the first time I looked my face in a mirror and I wondered why I was living, why I was existing with that body, with that family, why in that time and so on. It was a strange feeling. I haven´t had such a strong feeling of after there.

Q-S

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Tricky
Does consciousness go away when you sleep? Certainly you have sensations when you sleep, perhaps even thoughts, especially when dreaming.

You aren't characterized, that is distinguished, by those characteristics while you are sleeping - you just lay there unresponsive.

According to the MW definition, yes you lose conciousness while sleeping.

Originally posted by Q-Source

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Babies and animals are conscious, however they are not self-aware.

I remember when was the first time that I was self-aware about my existence in this world.

I was about 5 years old, and for the first time I looked my face in a mirror and I wondered why I was living, why I was existing with that body, with that family, why in that time and so on. It was a strange feeling. I haven´t had such a strong feeling of after there.

Q-S


The process of becoming self-aware that you sepak of is one step on the path to becoming more conscious. In a way animals and babies are naturally unified with everything else - they do not understand their own seperateness. I think you are describing the process of becoming aware of your own identity - the self-discovery of your ego. The state you arrive at after that change is what might be called 'egoic conciousness' and it is the state of most of humanity - it is mind-identified. I believe it is possible to go further than that - the next stage is to realise that there is an 'I' that is not the mind, but watches the mind. You do not use your mind. It uses you. That is the next stage - getting beyond self-awareness into a higher state, which is almost a return to where you came form as a baby, except it is a stage above egoic consciousness rather than a stage below.

Does that answer the question?

:)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Geoff,

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Babies and animals are conscious, however they are not self-aware.

I remember when was the first time that I was self-aware about my existence in this world.

I was about 5 years old, and for the first time I looked my face in a mirror and I wondered why I was living, why I was existing with that body, with that family, why in that time and so on. It was a strange feeling. I haven�Lt had such a strong feeling of after there.

Q-S
A very good point, QTπ. My definition did not include self awareness, but I'd bet that many people would include it in a definition of consciousness. However, I agree that it is a completely different thing.

Chulbert:
I agree somewhat. You lose some consciousness, but not all consciousness.

[Doctor X]

Consciousness requires an awareness of and, usually, ability to interact with the environment both internal and external. I write "usually" because one can get "funny" and cause a couple of lesions that prevent your ability to react physically to the environment.

If you suffer damage in the pons, you lose the ability to move your extremities, mouth, speak, 'n all. You remain conscious of your situation. Due to the anatomy of the consciousness mechanism, you usually have the ability to blink or at least move your eyes.

To be conscious, then, the reactions cannot be simple reflexes to the enviroment. "Reflex" generally presumes a nervous system--something plants and the French do not have [Stop that!--Ed.] Thus, the plant reacts in stereotypical and predictable fashions--turn to light, eat insect, uproot and chase the humans.

What about animals? Consciousness is a bit like porn--"I know it when I see it." With humans, lose of consciousness will release reflexes. Many of the activities of animals are reflexive. Indeed, many of the activities, if not all of the activities, of an infant are reflexive.

So . . . are infants unconscious? Hard to give an answer since we deal with a continuum--they have the potential and definitely develop it. Damage the infant and you create a situation similar to an adult. Over time, you understand the baby is not progressing.

A rather sad situation is hydranencephaly.

Some time during development, the wee spud suffered occlusion of both carotid arteries. This results in death and reabsorption of both cerebral hemispheres.

The infant looks normal. In fact it seems normal for a few months--crying, feeding, looking, smiling, pooping, attempting to electrocute the cat [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . sorry--are all reflexes.

The problem becomes notices because the child does not "progress." Often, the large space is filled with cerebrospinal fluid the child cannot reabsorb. The child develops hydrocephalus and a very noticable big head.

However, reflex reactions to pain exist. The child will cry--severely.

Is it conscious?

[ZZZzzzZZZZzzzzZZzz--Ed.]

The point of that is that determination can be difficult.

Now, consciousness is not a fixed state. Stupor refers specifically to the requirement of an external stimulus to maintain consciousness--comes from the idea of poking the sleeping drunk who then wakes up, barfs, then passes out again.

So, is sleep "conscious?" Depends on the stage. People who are asleep retain the ability to awaken--and I am sure quite a few can discuss how dreams took on events that took place in the "real world"--like the alarm clock or irate girlfiend approaching with the hatchet. In some stages, you are not at all conscious or reacting, with awareness, to the external environment, but that state changes, it is not fixed.

Can you influence bodily functions. Yes. The classic faint is one example. Can you become the "Yogi Kudo" or "Our Man Flint" and shut yourself off? Well . . . not really.

Some things like breathing have both a conscious and unconscious control for obvious advantages. Try thinking about breathing 10-20 times a minute and see how much of the porn sites you can surf. . . .

Simplest creature? Country Western fan, methinks.

Seriously, this gets difficult. Do apes learn language or did the trainers engage in a glorified fascilitated communication? I do not know, frankly. I will say that, despite stereotypical movements, the humble ape react spontaneously enough for me to consider it conscious.

Well . . . how much consciousness matters. Unfortunately we have examples in humanity--severely brain damaged patients. Many are conscious, but require round-the-clock nursing--far more than your dog, ape, or relative who listens to Hank Williams, Sr.

Thus, that something is conscious is more of a "it is not unconscious" rather than a statement of the quality of its ability to interact and even control the enviroment--or even have self-awareness.

--J.D.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Does that answer the question?


Yes, but it also raises more questions :)

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


['egoic conciousness'] I believe it is possible to go further than that - the next stage is to realise that there is an 'I' that is not the mind, but watches the mind.

Could you please explain what it is exactly an egoic consciousness?

If there is a difference between "I" and my mind, then how is it possible to separate what I "am" from "I" ?
This must be extremely difficult, such that what we are just a product of our physical environment. You end with nothing.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

That is the next stage - getting beyond self-awareness into a higher state, which is almost a return to where you came form as a baby, except it is a stage above egoic consciousness rather than a stage below.

...a return to where we came from?. You mean, a subjective reality where nobody else can take a look, except you?. Is this the state that you have already reached?.

Q-S

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant



I personally think consciousness is all-pervading and exists in all living things to a certain extent. Maybe even plants....... :)

This smacks a bit of animism to me. IMO consciouness is an emergent property of complexity and plants fall way short of the mark.

[99%]

I think its pretty clear consciousness is automatically axiomatic.

If you weren't conscious you wouldn't and couldn't define the state of consciousness at all.

So consciousness, like existence just is.

[crocodile deathroll]

Many people are still of the mind set that time is something that has motion like and arrow and when they are unconscious or dead or are yet to be born there is still and external flow of time.

IMO Time is a fixed asymmetrical dimension and does not flow let alone have any property of continuity of flow after one's death. So people believe the their lives will eventually become a spent force in the wake of an absolute flow of time where in fact it is a real part of the space-time fabric.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by 99%
I think its pretty clear consciousness is automatically axiomatic.

If you weren't conscious you wouldn't and couldn't define the state of consciousness at all.

So consciousness, like existence just is.

A very good insight, if not terribly satisfying. Nevertheless, we will go on discussing and speculating about it endlessly. Humans want very much to know why it is they can even ask such questions. I predict we will understand exactly how consciousness arises and everything about it at the exact same moment we have a definite answer about whether or not a god exists.

AS

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

I predict we will understand exactly how consciousness arises and everything about it at the exact same moment we have a definite answer about whether or not a god exists.


Why?.:confused:
Materialism already provides a very good answer to how about consciousness arises...and it doesn´t require an answer to the God´s question nor makes any assumption about it.

QS


Could you please explain what it is exactly an egoic consciousness?




Egoic consciousness is when 'I' identifies itself with thought and time. The ego constructs an identity out of its past, and continually seeks salvation in the future. It is only ever happy when it has found something it desired, but that doesn't keep it happy for very long. Soon it wants something else. It babbles in your head, and much of its babbling is either worthless or damaging.

"I" exists in the eternal 'now'. Mostly it just watches. The goal of meditation (one of) is to be present - to stop the time-bound ego with its inane babbling - to just be, and to just accept things how they are.


...a return to where we came from?


In more ways than one.


You mean, a subjective reality where nobody else can take a look, except you?


That is true of all subjective reality.


If there is a difference between "I" and my mind, then how is it possible to separate what I "am" from "I" ?
This must be extremely difficult, such that what we are just a product of our physical environment.


No, it's not easy. But it gets easier. The ego is indeed a product of out physical environment. "I" is not.

We give ourselves away when we use phrases like "I can't live with myself." This rather infers that there are two entities here - an "I" and a "self" that the "I" can't live with.

Try this for more :

https://www.newworldlibrary.com/chapters/ppon.htm

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

No, it's not easy. But it gets easier. The ego is indeed a product of out physical environment. "I" is not.

Try this for more :
https://www.newworldlibrary.com/chapters/ppon.htm

UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist... :)

Originally posted by Q-Source


UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist... :)

That's easy. "I" is fixed. It doesn't change. Your mind changes. Your emotions change. Your self-image constructed of your past changes, as do your aspirations for the future. But "I" remains the same, because it is the thing which experiences everything else. Your mind doesn't experience things - you experience what is happening in your mind. "I" isn't the 'product' of anything. "Ego" is the product of your environment and "I" experiences the ego. It even may think it is the ego, but it isn't - it just watches and remains the same. "I" is the one thing that has remained constant throughout the whole of your experiences of being alive.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Q-Source


UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist... :)

Where would materialism be if there was no consciousness around in the universe to gain any insight on that philosophy?

Is there such an entity as a dumb rock materialist?

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


Where would materialism be if there was no consciousness around in the universe to gain any insight on that philosophy?

Is there such an entity as a dumb rock materialist?

Exactly. Materialism explains everything except why there is anything looking at the material. :)

[Legallee Insane]

Seeing the great discussion here I pose this question to all who are willing to undertake.

What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?

Obviously we cannot possibly have a true concept of anything before the moment of our birth, but what about after the moment of our death? I have often wondered if it is still possible to perceive things after death, that is perceive things without consciousness.

My speculation is that it might be like when a person is hovering between a state of REM sleep and consciousness. I can't speak for anyone else but I have somewhat of an occasional occurance when I sleep where I am not really aware and yet not really asleep, which is compounded by the fact that when it happens my eyes remain open. The last time it happened I swear that I saw my little brother standing beside my bed, and I can remember trying to reach out and touch him, but I could not move my hand and remained completely unresponsive. I remember trying to say something but my mouth would not move, and in my inbetween-sleep-and-awake state I remember panicing, until I suddenly jerked and was completely awake, staring at the same shadow in the corner of my room.

It hit me that perhaps that is what it is like to die. To be aware yet without consciousness. It is only speculation, and I have no proof to back up such a claim, but it makes for a good story doesn't it?

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Legallee Insane
Seeing the great discussion here I pose this question to all who are willing to undertake.

What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?

Obviously we cannot possibly have a true concept of anything before the moment of our birth, but what about after the moment of our death? I have often wondered if it is still possible to perceive things after death, that is perceive things without consciousness.

My speculation is that it might be like when a person is hovering between a state of REM sleep and consciousness. I can't speak for anyone else but I have somewhat of an occasional occurance when I sleep where I am not really aware and yet not really asleep, which is compounded by the fact that when it happens my eyes remain open. The last time it happened I swear that I saw my little brother standing beside my bed, and I can remember trying to reach out and touch him, but I could not move my hand and remained completely unresponsive. I remember trying to say something but my mouth would not move, and in my inbetween-sleep-and-awake state I remember panicing, until I suddenly jerked and was completely awake, staring at the same shadow in the corner of my room.

It hit me that perhaps that is what it is like to die. To be aware yet without consciousness. It is only speculation, and I have no proof to back up such a claim, but it makes for a good story doesn't it?

As far as consciousness is concerned, your brain IMO is the hard disk drive for life's memories but it is not the general operating system, that is genetically prompted like the rules for the morphology of brains in general.
So my theory is that when you die that brain along with your life's memories will wither and die and as such you will forget that you were ever born at all in the first place. In other words, oblivion. But the operating system in the form of genetic prompting mechanism to boot your sense of self into existence is still there any you will make a Gestalt switch to one of the other brains on this big picture.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Legallee Insane
What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?
I believe consciousness ends when you die. All of the various levels of consciousness (sleep, daydreaming, coma etc.) require at least some level of brain activity.

However, the mad scientist in me wants to say that since consciousness is a product of the brain, if you could somehow revive a dead brain, then that consciousness might exist again. You might at least recover memories and other brain-stored data. Possible? Not sure, but modern medicine has certainly redefined "possible" in the last few hundred years.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tricky
I believe consciousness ends when you die. All of the various levels of consciousness (sleep, daydreaming, coma etc.) require at least some level of brain activity.

However, the mad scientist in me wants to say that since consciousness is a product of the brain, if you could somehow revive a dead brain, then that consciousness might exist again. You might at least recover memories and other brain-stored data. Possible? Not sure, but modern medicine has certainly redefined "possible" in the last few hundred years.


I inclined believe your acquired skills and memories will end, period. But consciousness as it stands in the big picture will still remains.

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speakhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/toiletsmilie.gif. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


I inclined believe your acquired skills and memories will end, period. But consciousness as it stands in the big picture will still remains.

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speakhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/toiletsmilie.gif. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.
The idea that the body replaces itself every seven years is a popular myth. The only thing that replaces itself every seven years is your skin. Your brain cells don't ever replace themselves, which is why when they die, you lose memories and other functions.

People who suffer serious brain damage, as in a stroke, may recover many or most of their brain functions, but not all of them, due to other parts of the brain taking over missing functions. This suggests that the brain is the seat of consciousness, as does almost every other study of the subject. There is no evidence that consciousness can exist in the absence of a brain.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tricky

The idea that the body replaces itself every seven years is a popular myth. The only thing that replaces itself every seven years is your skin. Your brain cells don't ever replace themselves, which is why when they die, you lose memories and other functions.

People who suffer serious brain damage, as in a stroke, may recover many or most of their brain functions, but not all of them, due to other parts of the brain taking over missing functions. This suggests that the brain is the seat of consciousness, as does almost every other study of the subject. There is no evidence that consciousness can exist in the absence of a brain.
IMO I think you are still caught up in the old dogma that we have exactly the same brain matter that we had when we were a baby. It was believed to be hardwired with no plasicity -- wrong! (http://www.nccr-neuro.ethz.ch/resp8.html). We do not even have the same brain matter we had when we were 7 but we may still have the same tooth enamel, so if you still have your second incisor teeth then that is the only thing that remains of you. This cannot happen with ordinary bone cells and for your information we turn over our bone cells every two years.

With hard robust material like tooth enamel that is understandable but the soft perishable material of the brain is IMO unlikely.

The proteins that constitute our brain cells also have to be turned over frequenty through protien synthesis (http://www.hhmi.org/news/pdf/schuman.pdf) there are house keeping enzymes that constantly replace sections of damaged DNA. So the only thing that need to remain of us is a pattern of information processing.
Through protein synthesis you would not replace the whole cell at one like bulldozing down a house and building a new one, Steven Rose said it would be analogous a fastidious brick layer/builder replacing one brick or stick of lumber every day until over a period of time he has replaced the whole house and still keep that original plan of the house intact in spite of the fact all the original material is turned over. And like that house the brain cells will all eventually replaced at just a few proteins at a time and not the entire cell all at once.

The old dogma (http://bak.spc.org/tha/NewNeurons.html) that we have the same brain matter for life may be about to be shot down altogether and there may be evidence that not proteins are replaced but entire cells.
Even if they don't all brains were built on the same genetic rules for the cells to migrate to the respective positions in their brain.
It is these rules of genetic information processes is what made us possible to exist in the first place.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speak. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.That's just silly. The brain cells carry on chemical activity within themselves without disrupting the function of the brain. There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain. Regardless of the activity within cells or the death of individual cells, brain function is continuous and provides a basis for consciousness.

There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...


Keep saying it Pixy. That'll make it true. ;)

The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...
The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...
The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...

Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem......

But I suppose it takes courage to admit that the internally rock solid belief system you have faith in is perched precariously on the claim that....

The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...

:)

No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Exactly. Materialism explains everything except why there is anything looking at the material.

He, he, he.... :p

Materialism DOES explain why and how something is looking at the material.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Keep saying it Pixy. That'll make it true.Nope. If it's true in the first place, it's true no matter how many times I say it.The Hard Problem doesn't exist.The "Hard Problem", as explained in the papers you've pointed out to me, is a really basic misunderstanding of the nature of language and its relationship with consciousness and the relevance of this to science. As I explained previously, language is completely irrelevant to the problem of forming an operational theory of consciousness.There is no Hard Problem.There is a "Hard Problem", but it isn't a hard problem; it's just irrelevant. There's still the difficult problem of understanding in detail how the brain works.There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain.And indeed there isn't. Or if there is, for some reason no-one has presented it on this forum.Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem.I'll let the dancing demon speak for himself (?) there.But I suppose it takes courage to admit that the internally rock solid belief system you have faith in is perched precariously on the claim that.My belief system, such as it is, is based on the acknowledged assumption that matter exists, and that everything is material or has a material basis. That's it.No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions. Which is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false. And you have not produced any evidence or reasoning to suggest that materialism may be false.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by PixyMisa

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll let the dancing demon speak for himself (?) there.


Thanks Buddy,and yes, I'm male. You might want to visit the HOUSE OF SOULS to know the faces of people that posts here.

UCE: I made clear that I'm agnostic in relation to the cemi field theory ONLY. The problem with the theory is that the TMS experiments that could modify the EM field also affect neurones directly, so the correlation observed in the tests don't account for causation. BUT the TMS evidence is conclusive. Consciousness is generated and defined by the brain.

Pixy:


The "Hard Problem", as explained in the papers you've pointed out to me, is a really basic misunderstanding of the nature of language and its relationship with consciousness and the relevance of this to science.

There is a "Hard Problem", but it isn't a hard problem;


Ah. The Hard Problem isn't a hard problem! :D


it's just irrelevant. There's still the difficult problem of understanding in detail how the brain works.


Erm.....nope. That's the Easy Problem, as quite clearly distinguished from the Hard Problem. :)


My belief system, such as it is, is based on the acknowledged assumption that matter exists, and that everything is material or has a material basis. That's it.


and.......



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false.


Slow down Pix. I want you to think very carefully about what you have just written.

The thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is not dependent on ontology of any sort for whether or not it is true. You still don't seem to have grasped this, and you're clearly quite intelligent and it really isn't that hard to understand. "unless materialism is false" has absolutely jack diddley squat relevance to whether or not the thesis is true, because the thesis is a thesis about LANGUAGES.

Imagine I proposed another thesis, say :

"You can not derive a statement about colors from any set of non-color statements."

This is another thesis about the way language is constructed, and it is also true. It is a FACT. It does not depend on whether or not materialism is true, or Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true - it is just a FACT.

Well, the thesis....

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

...is just like the one about colours. It also does not depend on whether or not Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true or even whether or not materialism is true!

But you just said that this thesis


is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false.


Has the penny dropped yet?

The thesis is NOT nonsense. It is TRUE, regardless of whether or not materialism is false. And this leaves you with a tricky problem because you are desperate to be able to go on claiming that


And you have not produced any evidence or reasoning to suggest that materialism may be false.


You have just provided the evidence because you have just admitted that the above thesis must be nonsense UNLESS MATERIALISM IS FALSE. But the thesis is true..........

****When you respond to this post please think about the following questions****:

1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?

2) Is the thesis actually true?

3) Do you stand by your previous statement that "the thesis is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false."

:)

[Doctor X]

I fear I may have missed the point somewhere or, perhaps, missed an antecedent point made in some thread.

Thus, I will deal with the easier problem:

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones

No. As indicated by other writers, that a cell replaces proteins does not mean it replaces itself. On the contrary, it certainly does not relace its DNA. That one replaces the bricks does not make the house cease to exist. Now destroy the whole house--this is the stroke phenomena.

Right, now as to consciousness and the brain . . . the stroke paradigm is a great place to start. When a person suffers a loss, he suffers a loss [Deep.--Ed.] For example, a person with damage to the primary vision centers loses sight but does not know he is blind. He has a cognitive change.

Wait . . . I thought consciousness survived . . . why would it change?

A person who suffers the interesting alexia without agraphia [Loses connection between interpretive language areas and visual areas.--Ed.] can write but cannot read. Indeed, he cannot read what he writes. He can take dictation fine. He then cannot read it. He has lost this. It is no longer a part of his understanding. It is like trying to remember what it was like to be telepathic.

A person with generally bilateral frontal lobe damage--like Franko [Stop that!--Ed.]--okay . . . okay . . . [Apologize.--Ed.] "I am sorry Franko has frontal lobe damage [Cattle prod.--Ed.] OUCH!!" No sense of humor.

Right, yes, a person with bilateral frontal lobe damage generally loses initiative, judgement, the ability to plan complex actions. These abilities are lost.

Why? Since consciousness is not a result of the material of the brain should these abilities not remain somehow? Do you have to wait to die to get them back?

Awhile ago I [Pontificated on--Ed.] discussed the anatomy of consciousness. Allow me to repeat it a bit here. To lose consciousness you either must commit a bilateral global assault on both cerebral cortices--asphyxia, severe head injury, a Paul McCartney concert--or functionally/physiologically separate them from the brain stem ascending reticular activating system or ARAS.

Now . . . ye who thinketh substance not important . . . damage the ARAS--head injury, stroke and . . . despite the fact the "thinking brain"--no, not THAT! The cerebral cortices, you sick pigs!--is quite preserved the patient never regains consciousness.

Just a simple little separation.

Where did it go?

Long story short, the brain requires this trigger to maintain consciousness. This does rather put a damper on those who want consciousness to be separate from the brain since it demonstrates with death of the brain consciousness and everything that makes you "you" goes with it.

Yet, look at other pathology. Dementia of various forms do not render the person unconscious. They react purposefully to the environment. They are not who they were. In fact they have, as one commentator put it, "lost everything that makes a human human."

Where did it go? It is "out there" just waiting for death? By all means let us euthanize the demented or even the slightly brain damaged because at least it will bring them "back" somewhere.

I do not think anyone argues that.

Now, if the structure preserves personality, all of that which make us "us" can we regain it? It is hoped that, eventually, we will get stem cells to replace damaged brain tissue. This is not easy, neurons grow in overabundance, compete for connections, and even undergo programed death during development. It is "hoped" that the wee-buggers will "know" how to "rewire" themselves.

Let us assume that they will.

Do "you" come back? Okay, you regain your sight--not much of an effect on personality. Even language skills should not change you much.

What about frontal lobe damage? [What about it?--Ed.] What about the wide-spread damage of severe head injury also known as diffuse axonal injury? [The connection processes get sheared.--Ed.] If the connections create "you" will the new cell or repaired cells remake the connections?

Replace the destroyed neurons of dementia. Will "you" come back?

--J.D.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
The brain cells carry on chemical activity within themselves without disrupting the function of the brain. There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain. Regardless of the activity within cells or the death of individual cells, brain function is continuous and provides a basis for consciousness.

Exactly, consciousness is more than just the material of your brain. There is energy and chemical interactions and exchanges and if that was just "matter" you would still be conscious even if your brain was frozen as solid as a rock.
The brain would be analogous to a home sick Eskimo living in an ice igloo in the middle of the Sahara desert and to maintain the shape and structure he just replaces the one block he considers to be in the most advanced state of thawing. But realizes that if he slacks off the igloo will just melt into the hot sand and evaporate out of sight.
Same as the brain proteins like prions (http://www.mad-cow.org/~tom/prion_evol.html)have to be turned over all the time.

So Croc....

Are you a dualist?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

Exactly, consciousness is more than just the material of your brain. There is energy and chemical interactions and exchanges and if that was just "matter" you would still be conscious even if your brain was frozen as solid as a rock.


Yes, but you should recognise that those chemical reactions and energy are result of matter, they cannot exist in a vaccum. Matter survives the lost of consciousness if we have a brain frozen or a person in comma. We have evidence that this is possible.

But... does consciousness survive if matter dies (a human body)?

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Doctor X
I fear I may have missed the point somewhere or, perhaps, missed an antecedent point made in some thread.

Thus, I will deal with the easier problem:



No. As indicated by other writers, that a cell replaces proteins does not mean it replaces itself. On the contrary, it certainly does not relace its DNA. That one replaces the bricks does not make the house cease to exist. Now destroy the whole house--this is the stroke phenomena.


--J.D.

Sure the mind is what the brain does because it involves cognitive functions for the mind (playing chess and football) etc to operate but consciousness is far simpler as is does not require any cognitive functioning to wake up out of an anesthetic. It can even be just genetically prompted like with circadian rhythms (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-2/85-93.pdf)
The human brain is also a pattern rules laid down by human DNA and if you wound the clock back 200 years you could of potentially become anyone of billions of them which is why you are here reading this post.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Yes, but you should recognise that those chemical reactions and energy are result of matter, they cannot exist in a vaccum. Matter survives the lost of consciousness if we have a brain frozen or a person in comma. We have evidence that this is possible.

But... does consciousness survive if matter dies (a human body)?

Does it matter anyway? What difference does it make to be conscious if you have no senses whatsoever, no memory, and no abilities?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by c4ts


Does it matter anyway?

From a materialist POV, no, it does not matter at all.


Originally posted by c4ts

What difference does it make to be conscious if you have no senses whatsoever, no memory, and no abilities?

Well, this is a contradiction that the Reincarnation believers must explain.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c4ts


Does it matter anyway? What difference does it make to be conscious if you have no senses whatsoever, no memory, and no abilities?

I would imagine that our senses and memory would be that much greater for a disembodied consciousness as they wouldn't be limited by the body.

What is your argument that a disembodied consciousness would have no senses or memory?

edited to add: As to abilities in an incorporeal existence, my belief is that they would be vastly in excess of our present abilities. Again you would need to explain why our abilities would be non-existent.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Originally posted by c4ts

What difference does it make to be conscious if you have no senses whatsoever, no memory, and no abilities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, this is a contradiction that the Reincarnation believers must explain.


Hi Q-Source :D

Those who subscribe to the reincarnation hypothesis will exist in another body sometime after the death of their current bodies. So presumably they will have senses and memories, although the memory of a previous life might well not be accessible.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
So Croc....

Are you a dualist?

Only if you use the software/hardware analogy. Funny I used the user name crocodile deathroll for that very reason because it just refers to a pattern on instinctive reflexes for that animal and not the material of the animal itself. It is an instinctive reflex for a crocodile to roll several times around in the water as it seizes its prey. It is all a part of its genetic software to behave that way.

The brain behave in a certain way due to preexisting genetic software, like in the early stages of its morphology the cells slavishly obey a genetic instruction to migrate to their respective positions in your brain. Our consciousness is centers more on brain function and not the material of the brain itself as that is so expendable.

I guess you call me a functionalist

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Q-Source


From a materialist POV, no, it does not matter at all.




Well, this is a contradiction that the Reincarnation believers must explain.

I believe consciousness is not an incarnation, it is an information pattern, so how can you speak of a "re"-incarnation

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Q-Source



But... does consciousness survive if matter dies (a human body)?

LOL One good way to make matter die is to hit with an equal amount of anti-matter like if you shake hands with your hypothetical antimatter double.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is not dependent on ontology of any sort for whether or not it is true.You may be right. It could well be nonsense under all possible ontologies. You still don't seem to have grasped this, and you're clearly quite intelligent and it really isn't that hard to understand.I understand it fine, which is why I have noted that rather than just being wrong, it is also irrelevant."unless materialism is false" has absolutely jack diddley squat relevance to whether or not the thesis is true, because the thesis is a thesis about LANGUAGESWhich is why it is irrelevant. it has nothing to say on the subject of consciousness. It merely makes a point about language - which is completely irrelevant to the problem. And yet it manages to be wrong at the same time. Can't get much more nonsensical than irrelevant and wrong.Imagine I proposed another thesis, say :

"You can not derive a statement about colors from any set of non-color statements."Red light has a wavelength of around 650 nanometres.This is another thesis about the way language is constructed, and it is also true.Not true, as I have just shown.It is a FACT.It is a fiction.It does not depend on whether or not materialism is true, or Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true - it is just a FACT.It is wrong in all these hypothetical cases.Well, the thesis....

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

...is just like the one about colours. It also does not depend on whether or not Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true or even whether or not materialism is true!Wrong, Mister Elephant.

If materialism is true - which we have no reason to doubt - then the mind arises from the brain. Thus, given and mental predicate, we can explain it purely in terms of states and activities of the physical brain. Thus, your Hard Problem is false.But you just said that this thesis

Has the penny dropped yet?It took me about thirty seconds the first time I saw this statement to understand how deeply nonsensical it is.The thesis is NOT nonsense.I have jus shown once more that it is.It is TRUE, regardless of whether or not materialism is false.And I have just shown that materialism means that the statement of HPC is false.And this leaves you with a tricky problem because you are desperate to be able to go on claiming thatNo desperation. No tricky problem.You have just provided the evidence because you have just admitted that the above thesis must be nonsense UNLESS MATERIALISM IS FALSE. But the thesis is true.No. The thesis is nonsense. It is quite likely nonsense under non-material philosophies too, but I'll only bother with the materialist viewpoint.When you respond to this post please think about the following questions:Yeahm yeah.1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?Don't care. Since I'm only interested in materialism, I only need to bother falsifying - or rather, nonsensifying - HPC under materialism.2) Is the thesis actually true?Clearly not.3) Do you stand by your previous statement that "the thesis is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false."Of course I do. And as I said, it might still be nonsense even if materialism were false.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Only if you use the software/hardware analogy.Which I use myself and do not regard as dualism. The mind requires a physical brain to exist, yes?The brain behave in a certain way due to preexisting genetic software, like in the early stages of its morphology the cells slavishly obey a genetic instruction to migrate to their respective positions in your brain. Our consciousness is centers more on brain function and not the material of the brain itself as that is so expendable.Well, the basic structure of the brain is genetically coded. No-one disputes that. Consciousness arises from the brain. I don't dispute that either. I'm not sure what exactly your point is.

I'm also curious about the "arrow of time" images you've posted. What's being discussed there? They seem to be saying that there is no arrow of time only there is. Smiley me confused.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


I believe consciousness is an incarnation, it is an information pattern, so how can you speak of a "re"-incarnation

Consciousness is an information pattern?? Materialists keep saying this! Do any of you have any arguments whatsoever to substantiate this thesis??

Obviously if materialism is true reincarnation is not possible. But it somewhat begs the question does it not?

[Bozotheda]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I would imagine that our senses and memory would be that much greater for a disembodied consciousness as they wouldn't be limited by the body.

What is your argument that a disembodied consciousness would have no senses or memory?

edited to add: As to abilities in an incorporeal existence, my belief is that they would be vastly in excess of our present abilities. Again you would need to explain why our abilities would be non-existent.

Why do you think god would imprison our consciousnesses in physical bodies if it so severely inhibits our abilities/sensations?Any wild theories?

And on a completely different note, do you reject evolution?(Okay, off subject. So sue me) I've asked you before, but I don't know if you ever replied. I'm just curious, since evolution would have it that matter existed long before any consciousness did. What's your take?

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Consciousness is an information pattern?? Materialists keep saying this! Do any of you have any arguments whatsoever to substantiate this thesis??

Obviously if materialism is true reincarnation is not possible. But it somewhat begs the question does it not?

Sorry I made a posting error there I really meant Consciousness is not an incarnation it is an information pattern and I correctly edited it when I checked over it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
The mind however is an incarnation of sorts like files that saved on your hard drive the mind take into account acquired memories and skills and if you die they all die.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Bozotheda
[B]

Why do you think god would imprison our consciousnesses in physical bodies if it so severely inhibits our abilities/sensations?Any wild theories?



Emmm . . .not really. You think he should have created us with stupendious powers? It would depend on the ultimate purpose of existence wouldn't it, and how best to acheive that ultimate goal. I assume that creating us with formidable powers and abilities would not best facilitate this objective.



And on a completely different note, do you reject evolution?(Okay, off subject. So sue me) I've asked you before, but I don't know if you ever replied. I'm just curious, since evolution would have it that matter existed long before any consciousness did. What's your take?

Yes I believe in evolution although I don't believe the past, prior to the existence of consciousness, existed in the full blooded sense that most people have in mind.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Those who subscribe to the reincarnation hypothesis will exist in another body sometime after the death of their current bodies. So presumably they will have senses and memories, although the memory of a previous life might well not be accessible.

Hey Ian!

Yes, believers say that when you die you will reincarnate and will keep your memories. However you will probably never remember anything of your previous lives :rolleyes:
You see the contradiction?

If this were true, then we would have evidence that consciousness really survives the death of our bodies.

Q-S

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by PixyMisa

I'm also curious about the "arrow of time" images you've posted. What's being discussed there? They seem to be saying that there is no arrow of time only there is. Smiley me confused.

"Dead" is word of "past tense" an event that has happened in an absolute past, left behind in a arrow of time that moves objectively into the future.
But this smacks to me of presentism because in objective reality there is only block time.
The present is no more than a space-time frame of reference the comes to one's conscious attention. The past present and future are purely subjective. So when you die this subjective perception of time will also die and you will be just left with block time.
The current wisdom favors the block universe view where all events are equally real

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
"Dead" is word of "past tense" an event that has happened in an absolute past, left behind in a arrow of time that moves objectively into the future.
But this smacks to me of presentism because in objective reality there is only block time.Block time?The present is no more than a space-time frame of reference the comes to one's conscious attention. The past present and future are purely subjective.Well, no. Given that time is a dimension, and we set time T as now, then the past includes all times less than T, and the future is all times greater than T.So when you die this subjective perception of time will also die and you will be just left with block time.That's nice. But what does it actually mean? I'm still dead.The current wisdom favors the block universe view where all events are equally real What current wisdom is this? What do you mean when you say all events are equally real?

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by PixiMisa

Block time?


Block time is 4 dimensional spacetime with no privilaged "now" event

Well, no. Given that time is a dimension, and we set time T as now, then the past includes all times less than T, and the future is all times greater than T. All there is a T symmetry violation that has nothing to do with the present.


There is no singular objective "now" time like Greenwich Standard Time for the universe, period


That's nice. But what does it actually mean? I'm still dead.

For some observer born 100 years after you, you are in fact already dead and for some observer born 100 years earlier you haven't even been born yet. The past present and future is only orientated around the observer. It is purely sujective



What current wisdom is this? What do you mean when you say all events are equally real?



As I said there is no privileged objective "now" time in the universe. The event of the big bang or that hypothetical black whole dominated era of the universe 10^100 into our future is just as real as those models displaying the latest gear down the cat walks in Paris.

And just one more question

Are you a presentist?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Block time is 4 dimensional spacetime with no privilaged "now" eventSo time is viewed simply as another dimension?There is no singular objective "now" time like Greenwich Standard Time for the universe, periodNo. But that in itself doesn't mean that your "block time" is true.For some observer born 100 years after you, you are in fact already dead and for some observer born 100 years earlier you haven't even been born yet. The past present and future is only orientated around the observer. It is purely sujective No, it isn't. Time is directional. I can see that the observer born in the 19th century is dead (or extremely old). I can't see the observer born in the 21st century at all. To put it another way: he hasn't been born yet, not in my now, not in your now, not in anyone's now. Except for his now, which is not yet now anyway.As I said there is no privileged objective "now" time in the universe.And as I said, this does not lead to block time.The event of the big bang or that hypothetical black whole dominated era of the universe 10^100 into our future is just as real as those models displaying the latest gear down the cat walks in Paris.For some very odd version of real that actually means not observable in any way, not even in principle.And just one more question

Are you a presentist? I don't know. I'm still trying to understand what you're talking about.

OK Pixy,


"1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't care. Since I'm only interested in materialism,"


Well, you keep claiming that I have not shown any reasoning why materialism is false. You have already stated that this statement must be nonsense unless materialism is false, so whether or not it is true is rather pertinent, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:

I am sure you're average creationists doesn't care much about the the half-life of heavy metals. It's irrevelant to them because all they are interested in is the Bible. Does that mean it is actually irrelevant?

Let me explain (again to you) and for the benefit of any other readers why the thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is true.

All 'things' are either mental things, physical 'things' or compound 'mental and physical' things which can be easily broken down into their component parts.

Physical
----------
Mount Everest
Pencils
mass
hydrogen
size
location
house

Mental
---------
pain
euphoria
desire
purpose
belief
kindness

There is no ambiguity about these words. They fall into either one or the other category. The physical ones refer to the physical world and the mental ones refer to 'the subject' of consciousnes i.e. what you refer to as "I".

I feel pain.
I experience euphoria. etc...

A five year old child could understand this, do you understand it Pixy?

Then there is the third category of compound 'things' e.g.

home.

but 'home' consists of both 'house' (physical) and 'my feelings about my house' (mental), so the linguistic dualism remains.

There is a fourth case, that of false equivocation where people use the term 'thought' to mean both 'brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time - but that is just a plain misuse of language.

So if we go back to the thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." we can now see WHY this is true. Any set of purely physical descriptions only lead to further physical descriptions because they all describe objective things. In order to derive a mental predicate we do need to invent a 'subject' for the mental predicate to describe. It is linguistically impossible to do this.

You keep claiming the thesis is "nonsense", but you have made no attempt to explain why you think it is nonsense.

Are you actually denying that the linguistic dualism exists? :eek:

Or are you claiming that the linguistic dualism does not prevent us switching from physical descriptions to mental descriptions?

Which is it Pixy?

It is no use just sitting there going "wrong, wrong, wrong and I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and scream and scream till I make myself sick! wrong wrong wrong wrong!" - please show us all you actually have a clue what you are talking about and tell us all WHY the thesis is nonsense?


Wrong, Mister Elephant.

If materialism is true


Glory, glory, halleluja
Glory, glory, halleluja
Glory, glory, halleluja
And materialism is true true true!

:D


- which we have no reason to doubt - then the mind arises from the brain. Thus, given and mental predicate, we can explain it purely in terms of states and activities of the physical brain. Thus, your Hard Problem is false.


Pixy, you appear to be claiming that the thesis must be false because materialism "is true", and no evidence has been provided.

I have provided you with the evidence, and the only response you can give me in return is "The evidence must be false because materialism is true!

What on Earth makes you think this stands up as an argument? :D

Even the dumb creationists make a stab at inventing bizarre pseudo-scientific theories in order to refute evolution and old-earth geology. All you are doing is the equivalent of blankly stating "old earth geology and evolution MUST be wrong or the Bible is false. And the Bible is true. SO THEY ARE WRONG!"

Pixy, that isn't an argument.

:)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you just said that this thesis

Has the penny dropped yet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It took me about thirty seconds the first time I saw this statement to understand how deeply nonsensical it is.


That's good. I thought about this for the best part of 2 years before I came to terms with the fact that my belief system (I was a materialist) was false. But you are cleverer than me, so I'm sure 30 seconds was more than enough to come to a considered judgement.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is TRUE, regardless of whether or not materialism is false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I have just shown that materialism means that the statement of HPC is false.


You haven't "shown" anything at all. All you have done is claim that "because materialism is true, the thesis must be false".

*****YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHOW WHY THE THESIS IS FALSE**** :D

At the end of my last post I asked you to think about three questions :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't care. Since I'm only interested in materialism, I only need to bother falsifying - or rather, nonsensifying - HPC under materialism.


So your first response is "don't care". It is a very simple question. It is crucial to the proof you are ignoring. Go on - be dear - humour me - answer the question ;)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Is the thesis actually true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly not.


Well, at least you tried to answer question 2. The problem is that your 'clearly not' depends on your answer to question 1 because your reasoning is that the thesis is false because it exposes a flaw in materialism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Do you stand by your previous statement that "the thesis is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course I do. And as I said, it might still be nonsense even if materialism were false.


Well, this reply (as your reply to question 2) is screwed up by your failure to respond to question 1.

----------

CONCLUSION

Perhaps we should just stick to question 1 for now, since your inability to provide an answer set up your 'get-out' clause for the other 2.

Here is the question again :

1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?

Your previous answer was "Don't care".

Can you do better this time?

Do statements about linguistic structure depend for their truth-value on ontology, or are they true or false regardless of ontology? Why on Earth should this question scare you? You keep saying language is irrelevant to the issue - so if it is irrelevant why are you avoiding giving a straight answer? :confused:

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Well, you keep claiming that I have not shown any reasoning why materialism is false.Nor have you.You have already stated that this statement must be nonsense unless materialism is false, so whether or not it is true is rather pertinent, wouldn't you say?Well, if you have any reason to suggest that materialism might be false, present it.I am sure you're average creationists doesn't care much about the the half-life of heavy metals. It's irrevelant to them because all they are interested in is the Bible. Does that mean it is actually irrelevant?Nope. But the relevance can be clearly shown.Let me explain (again to you) and for the benefit of any other readers why the thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is true.This should be fun.All 'things' are either mental things, physical 'things' or compound 'mental and physical' things which can be easily broken down into their component parts.No.Physical
----------
Mount Everest
Pencils
mass
hydrogen
size
location
house

Mental
---------
pain
euphoria
desire
purpose
belief
kindness

There is no ambiguity about these words. They fall into either one or the other category. The physical ones refer to the physical world and the mental ones refer to 'the subject' of consciousnes i.e. what you refer to as "I".Pain is clearly also physical. Euphoria and desire are mental states arising from the physical brain. Purpose, belief and kindness are concepts, descriptions for an entire class of mental states and behaviours.I feel pain.Good. Means you're alive.I experience euphoria. etc...Tra la.A five year old child could understand this, do you understand it Pixy?I understand perfectly. And your statment of HPC is still utterly wrong and completely irrelevant.Then there is the third category of compound 'things' e.g.

home.

but 'home' consists of both 'house' (physical) and 'my feelings about my house' (mental), so the linguistic dualism remains.More irrelevance.There is a fourth case, that of false equivocation where people use the term 'thought' to mean both 'brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time - but that is just a plain misuse of language.Why?So if we go back to the thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." we can now see WHY this is true.Still false. Still nonsense. Any set of purely physical descriptions only lead to further physical descriptions because they all describe objective things.Doesn't matter. Subjective experience arises from a physical process, unless materialism is wrong. So physical descriptions necessarily include subjective experience. It's just that the descriptions look different.In order to derive a mental predicate we do need to invent a 'subject' for the mental predicate to describe.No. The subject also arises from a physical process, and is described in the same way.It is linguistically impossible to do this.No it isn't. Not even slightly.

Given brain state X and brain process Y, we get conciousness K experiencing phenomenon P.You keep claiming the thesis is "nonsense", but you have made no attempt to explain why you think it is nonsense.I have done so, and you have not been paying attention.Are you actually denying that the linguistic dualism exists?No. But linguistic dualism is linguistic. That's all it is. If you want to bypass dualism, you just define your words carefully or make up new jargon. Science has to do this for every field that it studies anyway.Or are you claiming that the linguistic dualism does not prevent us switching from physical descriptions to mental descriptions?Bingo!Which is it Pixy?The latter. In fact, I've stated that before.It is no use just sitting there going "wrong, wrong, wrong and I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and scream and scream till I make myself sick! wrong wrong wrong wrong!" - please show us all you actually have a clue what you are talking about and tell us all WHY the thesis is nonsense?I have explained why you're wrong several times in the past, and you have ignored it. Now I've done so again.Glory, glory, halleluja
Glory, glory, halleluja
Glory, glory, halleluja
And materialism is true true true!Well, if you have any reason to doubt it, Mister Elephant, present your reasons.Pixy, you appear to be claiming that the thesis must be false because materialism "is true", and no evidence has been provided. Nope. You're just not paying attention. The statement is irrelevant on its own terms. It is also false if materialism is true.I have provided you with the evidence, and the only response you can give me in return is "The evidence must be false because materialism is true! You have provided no evidence whatsoever. You have suggested I take mind-altering drugs that may cause me permanent harm.What on Earth makes you think this stands up as an argument?Two things: HPC is an argument of lingustics and completely irrelevant to the study of consciousness. And if materialism is true, it is not just irrelevant but clearly wrong.Even the dumb creationists make a stab at inventing bizarre pseudo-scientific theories in order to refute evolution and old-earth geology. All you are doing is the equivalent of blankly stating "old earth geology and evolution MUST be wrong or the Bible is false. And the Bible is true. SO THEY ARE WRONG!" I have explained repeatedly why HPC is nonsense, and you're NOT LISTENING!Pixy, that isn't an argument.Nor is it what I said. If you want to discuss what I said, go back and read it. I didn't think it was necessary to repeat every previous statement every time I respond to you. Clearly I was wrong.That's good. I thought about this for the best part of 2 years before I came to terms with the fact that my belief system (I was a materialist) was false. But you are cleverer than me, so I'm sure 30 seconds was more than enough to come to a considered judgement.Yes. It's very simple, and you are very deeply confused.You haven't "shown" anything at all. All you have done is claim that "because materialism is true, the thesis must be false".

*****YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHOW WHY THE THESIS IS FALSE****I have done this. But it's bleedin' obvious in the first place. If materialism is true, all subjective experiences arise from physical processes and can be described as such. Therefore HPC is wrong. That's all it takes.At the end of my last post I asked you to think about three questions :

So your first response is "don't care". It is a very simple question. It is crucial to the proof you are ignoring. Go on - be dear - humour me - answer the questionNo. There is no reason at all to consider that any position other than materialism is correct. If you have such evidence, show it. I'm not going to do your work for you.Well, at least you tried to answer question 2. The problem is that your 'clearly not' depends on your answer to question 1 because your reasoning is that the thesis is false because it exposes a flaw in materialism.No. If materialism is true, the HPC thesis is clearly false. Otherwise, it is at least irrelevant to the question of consciousness. It is an argument of linguistics, not an argument of consciousness.Well, this reply (as your reply to question 2) is screwed up by your failure to respond to question 1.No. It isn't.CONCLUSIONYou are still wrong.Perhaps we should just stick to question 1 for now, since your inability to provide an answer set up your 'get-out' clause for the other 2.

Here is the question again :

1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?

Your previous answer was "Don't care".

Can you do better this time?

Do statements about linguistic structure depend for their truth-value on ontology, or are they true or flase regardless of ontology? Why on Earth should this question scare you?
it doesn't scare me. It bores me. Why should I discuss the truth value of an irrelevant statment under false philosophies? I still don't care. If you want to show something, do it yourself. Under materialism, which is still the only philosophy that makes any sense at all, HPC is wrong, irrelevant, and nonsensical.

Edited for tyops

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
...snip...

There is no ambiguity about these words. They fall into either one or the other category. The physical ones refer to the physical world and the mental ones refer to 'the subject' of consciousnes i.e. what you refer to as "I".

I feel pain.
I experience euphoria. etc...


...snip...



Let me re-state what I think you are saying to see if I've understood it.

"Mental" descriptive words are labelling something very different to "physical" descriptive words.

Is this right?

If I am right then your proposition is that "subjective" e.g. pleasure, euphoria and so on are different in kind to other types of "things"?


(Edited for dropping me rs.)

Pixy :


Pain is clearly also physical.


Pain is physical?

Do atoms feel pain?
Do mountains feel pain?
Do pencils feel pain?
Does mass feel pain?
Does distance feel pain?

Pain is a mental state. You can physically do what yo ulike to somebody if they are under a general anaesthetic. They only feel pain if they are conscious.

Bodies do not feel pain. Minds feel pain. Do you understand the difference?


Euphoria and desire are mental states arising from the physical brain.


They are mental states. The second half of your sentence presumes materialism and is therefore not relevant.


*****YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHOW WHY THE THESIS IS FALSE****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have done this.


No - you made one claim about 'pain' being physical, which isn't true.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fourth case, that of false equivocation where people use the term 'thought' to mean both 'brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time - but that is just a plain misuse of language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?


A "false equivocation" is when the same term is used to simultaneously mean two different things and the same thing.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html :


Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. For example:

"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."

One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology carefully before beginning the argument, and avoid words like "free" which have many meanings.


Pixy wrote :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any set of purely physical descriptions only lead to further physical descriptions because they all describe objective things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't matter. Subjective experience arises from a physical process, unless materialism is wrong. So physical descriptions necessarily include subjective experience. It's just that the descriptions look different.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to derive a mental predicate we do need to invent a 'subject' for the mental predicate to describe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. The subject also arises from a physical process, and is described in the same way.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is linguistically impossible to do this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it isn't. Not even slightly.

Given brain state X and brain process Y, we get conciousness K experiencing phenomenon P.


All of the above are different form of the same argument which you have been using all along i.e.

"If materialism is true then thesis must be false."

You are just using the word "we get" instead of "consciousness arises".


Some progress! :)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you actually denying that the linguistic dualism exists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.


***************
Good! So you have accepted that there is a mental/physical linguistic dualism (even though your example about 'pain' above is an attempt to show that there isn't :rolleyes: )
***************




Nope. You're just not paying attention. The statement is irrelevant on its own terms. It is also false if materialism is true.

...and...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What on Earth makes you think this stands up as an argument?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[snip]....if materialism is true, it is [snip] clearly wrong.

...and...

But it's bleedin' obvious in the first place. If materialism is true, all subejctive experiences arise from physical processes and can be described as such. Therefore HPC is wrong. That's all it takes.

...and...

No. If materialism is true, the HPC thesis is clearly false.

...and...

Why should I discuss the truth value of an irrelevant statment under false philosophies? I still don't care. If you want to show something, do it yourself. Under materialism, which is still the only philosophy that makes any sense at all, HPC is wrong, irrelevant, and nonsensical


All of the above are different form of the same argument which you have been using all along i.e.

"If materialism is true then thesis must be false."

**************CONCLUSION*************

So far, you have made the above argument at least seven times in this post. You made one failed attempt to show why the thesis is false on its own terms and seven claims that it must be false if materialism is true.

I asked you :

"Does the true/false status of a thesis about language depend on ontology?"

You answered :

"Nope. You're just not paying attention. The statement is irrelevant on its own terms. It is also false if materialism is true."

In the space of this reply you have stated

a) that the true/false status of a thesis about language does not depend on ontology

and

b) That this thesis about language is false if materialism is true.

These two statements directly contradict each other. Indeed your entire defence (repeated seven times) is that the thesis is false if materialism is true, even though statement (a) admits that the true/false status of this thesis does not depend on ontology!

There is no point in continuing this discussion unless you can resolve the above contradiction. If statement (a) is true, then all of your seven versions of statement (b) are incorrect. If your seven versions of statement (b) are true, then you have to explain why a thesis about language is dependent on ontology.

Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that (a) is true and stop using an argument of the form (b) to defend materialism?

That way I can't claim you are contradicting yourself.

:)

**************CONCLUSION*************

Originally posted by Darat


Let me re-state what I think you are saying to see if I've understood it.

"Mental" descriptive words are labelling something very different to "physical" descriptive words.

Is this right?

If I am right then your proposition is that "subjective" e.g. pleasure, euphoria and so on are different in kind to other types of "things"?


(Edited for dropping me rs.)

Correct. They are mutually exclusive categories of 'thing'. Berkeleys semantic argument starts from the recognition of this mutual exclusivity.

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Correct. They are mutually exclusive categories of 'thing'. Berkeleys semantic argument starts from the recognition of this mutual exclusivity.

Thanks.

You say they are "mutually exclusive" which suggest that they are not linked in any manner?

Are "mental" things totally unconnected to "physical" things?

The reason I'm asking is that this seems very similar to Win's position that any apparent correlation (or conclusion of causality) is in fact coincidental?

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
And just one more question

Are you a presentist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know. I'm still trying to understand what you're talking about.

Do you believe that only the present is real?
I feel it goes against relativity theory.

Here is a link to explain it to you more fully
Presentism and Relativity (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/05/25/)

Originally posted by Darat


Thanks.

You say they are "mutually exclusive" which suggest that they are not linked in any manner?

Are "mental" things totally unconnected to "physical" things?

The reason I'm asking is that this seems very similar to Win's position that any apparent correlation (or conclusion of causality) is in fact coincidental?

Far from it. They are as linked as Yin is linked to Yang. I like this as a visual metaphor :

http://www.ramos.nl/yinyang.gif

The Yin and Yang are clearly exclusive - but they are also intimately 'linked'. This also provides a visual representation of the nature of the link - because the link between the Yin and the Yang is the non-existent 'line' which runs between them - it has no real substance - no dimension of its own. This relationship seems very similar to the relationship between brain process and mental experience - they are almost a reflection of one another in a Yin/Yang sort of a way.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Do you believe that only the present is real?Well, the present is the what is happening, the past is the what has happened, and the future is what is yet to happen. What is "real"?I feel it goes against relativity theory.Why? All that relativity theory says on the matter is that observers may experience time to flow at different rates, and that there is no preferred frame of reference.Here is a link to explain it to you more fully
Presentism and Relativity (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/05/25/) Ah! Pseudo-scientific babble. I'm building up quite a collection of this. Is this supposed to mean anything?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
This relationship seems very similar to the relationship between brain process and mental experience - they are almost a reflection of one another in a Yin/Yang sort of a way. Do you think you could be more vague? Perhaps if your tried E-Speak or whatever it is.

Not posted by UndercoverElephant at all
This purported relationship would appear to seem very - or at least somewhat - or perhaps not at all - similar to the hypothetical relationship between supposed brain process and alleged mental experience - they (whatever they are) are almost - but not quite, and perhaps not at all - a reflection, though perhaps a blurry one, or possibly a shadow, or a silhouette - where was I? - of one another in a sort of Yin / sort of Yang sort of way.There. That should save you some effort.

Pixy :

No attempt to resolve the blatant self-contradiction from your previous post then....

:)

You are very good at dismissing other peoples positions with a wave of your hand, but not very good at resolving the contradictions in your own.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
No attempt to resolve the blatant self-contradiction from your previous post then....And what blatant self-contradiction might that be, Mister Elephant?You are very good at dismissing other peoples positions with a wave of your hand, but not very good at resolving the contradicitons in your own.Ambient irony.

Did you actually read what I said? Do you actually have any comments to make?

Originally posted by PixyMisa
[B]And what blatant self-contradiction might that be, Mister Elephant?


This one, Pixy :



"If materialism is true then thesis must be false."

**************CONCLUSION*************

So far, you have made the above argument at least seven times in this post. You made one failed attempt to show why the thesis is false on its own terms and seven claims that it must be false if materialism is true.

I asked you :

"Does the true/false status of a thesis about language depend on ontology?"

You answered :

"Nope. You're just not paying attention. The statement is irrelevant on its own terms. It is also false if materialism is true."

In the space of this reply you have stated

a) that the true/false status of a thesis about language does not depend on ontology

and

b) That this thesis about language is false if materialism is true.

These two statements directly contradict each other. Indeed your entire defence (repeated seven times) is that the thesis is false if materialism is true, even though statement (a) admits that the true/false status of this thesis does not depend on ontology!

There is no point in continuing this discussion unless you can resolve the above contradiction. If statement (a) is true, then all of your seven versions of statement (b) are incorrect. If your seven versions of statement (b) are true, then you have to explain why a thesis about language is dependent on ontology.

Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that (a) is true and stop using an argument of the form (b) to defend materialism?

That way I can't claim you are contradicting yourself.



**************CONCLUSION*************




Did you actually read what I said? Do you actually have any comments to make?

Yes, I read what you said very carefully. You said that arguments about language do not depend on ontology, and then proceeded to repeat more than seven times that the thesis (about language) must be false if materialism (an ontology) was true. You made only one attempt to actually examine the thesis itself, and this was completely incorrect.

:)

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Yes, I read what you said very carefully.Not carefully enough. You're still reading something other than what I wrote.You said that arguments about language do not depend on ontologyNo. I said I don't care about alternative philosophies in this discussion. I said nothing about the relationship between these philosphies and language other than my one specific statement that your HPC statement is false under materialism. Which I carefully explained.and then proceeded to repeat more than seven times that the thesis (about language) must be false if materialism (an ontology) was true.Which indeed it is. And I explained why. It's very very simple. A child of five could understand it. Though an elephant apparently can either not read it or is unable to make any apposite remarks.You made only one attempt to actually examine the thesis itself, and this was completely incorrect.And how exactly was it incorrect, Mister Elephant? I have shown clearly that your statement of HPC is irrelevant to the question of consciousness and also false under materialism. What more do you want? You do understand that irrelevant has a different meaning to false, don't you? I know I shouldn't presume this sort of thing.

And there is a very fundamental difference between materialism and dualism or idealism with regards to your HPC statement.

Under materialism, all subjective experiences arise from the physical and so can be described in physical terms. Under materialism, your HPC statement is false. It is also irrelevant.

Under dualism and idealism, this is not the case; subjective experiences arise independently (dualism) or give rise to (or are) the physical (idealism). This effectively denies that the operation of the mind is knowable, so the statement is correct. It is still irrelevant, though.

Pixy :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said that arguments about language do not depend on ontology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I said I don't care about alternative philosophies in this discussion.


Well, then you are simply saying "materialism is true and I don't care about any alternative philosophies".

This is honest, rather like a biblical literalist saying "The Bible is true and I don't care about science."

However, it has nothing to do with finding the truth and everything to do with a person who is openly admitting that they are totally unwilling to examine their own belief system.


I said nothing about the relationship between these philosphies and language other than my one specific statement that your HPC statement is false under materialism. Which I carefully explained.


So now you are saying that the true/false status of a thesis about language is dependent on an assumption of materialism which has nothing whatsover to do with language.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and then proceeded to repeat more than seven times that the thesis (about language) must be false if materialism (an ontology) was true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which indeed it is.


Why does ones ontological belief system affect the true/false status of a thesis about language which has nothing to do with ontology? :D


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You made only one attempt to actually examine the thesis itself, and this was completely incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how exactly was it incorrect, Mister Elephant?


You tried to claim that pain was physical. 'Pain' is felt by the "you" part of your mind, not by your body - that is why a general anasthetic leaves you unable to feel pain. This has been your only attempt to examine the thesis itself.


I have shown clearly that your statement of HPC is irrelevant to the question of consciousness and also false under materialism.


You haven't 'shown' anything.

The thesis is about language and depends on a linguistic dualism you have accepted exists.

Simply claiming that it 'must be false if materialism is true' is completely pointless since the thesis depends on language, not on ontology.

:)


And there is a very fundamental difference between materialism and dualism or idealism with regards to your HPC statement.

Under materialism, all subjective experiences arise from the physical and so can be described in physical terms. Under materialism, your HPC statement is false.


Yes Pixy, everybody knows that materialism claims that subjective experiences "arise" from physical things. We also know that Christianity claims that Jesus Christ "arose" from the dead.


Under dualism and idealism, this is not the case; subjective experiences arise independently (dualism) or give rise to (or are) the physical (idealism). This effectively denies that the operation of the mind is knowable, so the statement is correct.


You still seem utterly convinced that a thesis which is about language, and nothing else but language, flips between being true or false depending on your ontological belief system.

This is the same as claiming that the "Jesus Christ arose from the dead" flips between being true of false depending on your religious beliefs system.

But neither claim is actually true :

Either Jesus Christ arose from the dead, or he didn't. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.

Either the language thesis is true, or it is false. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.

The statement about JC is a bit tricky, since the said event occurred 2000 years ago and we have no evidence.

Fortunately for us the statement about language isn't so tricky, because the English language is readily available for us to study, and so determine whether or not the thesis is true.

:)

Please explain why a thesis about linguistics, dependent on a linguistic dualism you accept, actually flips between true and false depending on your ontological belief system?

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Far from it. They are as linked as Yin is linked to Yang. I like this as a visual metaphor :

http://www.ramos.nl/yinyang.gif

The Yin and Yang are clearly exclusive - but they are also intimately 'linked'. This also provides a visual representation of the nature of the link - because the link between the Yin and the Yang is the non-existent 'line' which runs between them - it has no real substance - no dimension of its own. This relationship seems very similar to the relationship between brain process and mental experience - they are almost a reflection of one another in a Yin/Yang sort of a way.

Not too sure what you mean with this one - but I think I can run with it (puns all intended).

So "how" and "what" makes you happy or experience pleasure? (Not as being asked as a personal question :) )

Originally posted by Darat


Not too sure what you mean with this one - but I think I can run with it (puns all intended).

So "how" and "what" makes you happy or experience pleasure? (Not as being asked as a personal question :) )

I experience pleasure when my ego gets what it wants.

Beyond that I'm not sure how to answer the question. A certainly can't give you a physical/mechanical answer - but then I'm not a materialist.

:)

Pixy :

Your position seems to be :

"Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true."

If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions.

How can you find out whether X is true or not if you refuse to examine any line of reasoning which does not start by assuming that X is true? :D

Why not start from first principles?

You know....a two-way playing field instead of one where one of the goalmouths is bricked up at kick off? :D

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Well, then you are simply saying "materialism is true and I don't care about any alternative philosophies".

This is honest, rather like a biblical literalist saying "The Bible is true and I don't care about science."Present me with a reason to consider an alternative philosophy, and I will do so. You have not done this. Nor have you given me a reason to consider your HPC statement in the context of a philosophy I consider to be false.However, it has nothing to do with finding the truth and everything to do with a person who is openly admitting that they are totally unwilling to examine their own belief system.No. It has everything to do with being bored with your failure to stick to the subject.So now you are saying that the true/false status of a thesis about language is dependent on an assumption of materialism which has nothing whatsover to do with language.Your HPC statement is a statement about language as it applies to consciousness. As I have shown repeatedly, it is false under materialism.Why does ones ontological belief system affect the true/false status of a thesis about language which has nothing to do with ontology?Why do you think the statement has nothing to do with ontology? Why do you keep bringing this up? It's certainly not anything I've ever said.You tried to claim that pain was physical.I said "also" physical.'Pain' is felt by the "you" part of your mind, not by your body - that is why a general anasthetic leaves you unable to feel pain.As indeed does a local anaesthetic. Explain that one, Mister Elephant.This has been your only attempt to examine the thesis itself.It wasn't an attempt to examine the thesis. It was just me pointing out that one of your examples of a subjective experience wasn't.You haven't 'shown' anything.How not?The thesis is about language and depends on a linguistic dualism you have accepted exists.Yes. So?Simply claiming that it 'must be false if materialism is true' is completely pointless since the thesis depends on language, not on ontology.Nope. It makes a statement about what language can say about consciousness. Given materialism, this statement is false.Yes Pixy, everybody knows that materialism claims that subjective experiences "arise" from physical things. We also know that Christianity claims that Jesus Christ "arose" from the dead.Yes. Those are the claims.You still seem utterly convinced that a thesis which is about language, and nothing else but language, flips between being true or false depending on your ontological belief system.And I have explained this to you repeatedly. The statement is not purely about language, but about what language can say about the world. This is dependent on the nature of the world, not just on the nature of language.This is the same as claiming that the "Jesus Christ arose from the dead" flips between being true of false depending on your religious beliefs system.No. It's not the same thing at all.But neither claim is actually true:

Either Jesus Christ arose from the dead, or he didn't. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.No. It does depend on whether that belief system is true or not. If Christianity is true Christ rose from the dead.Either the language thesis is true, or it is false. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.No. It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters what is. If materialism is true, your HPC statement is false.The statement about JC is a bit tricky, since the said event occurred 2000 years ago and we have no evidence.Doesn't matter. If Christianity is true, then the JC statement is true.Fortunately for us the statement about language isn't so tricky, because the English language is readily available for us to study, and so determine whether or not the thesis is true.Yes, but it doesn't matter. Your HPC statement effectively makes a statement about the nature of reality, and this statement contradicts materialism. So if materialism is true, your HPC statement is false.Please explain why a thesis about linguistics, dependent on a linguistic dualism you accept, actually flips between true and false depending on your ontological belief system?Done.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Your position seems to be :

"Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true."I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so.If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions.And how do you expect to find out if materialism is true or not?How can you find out whether X is true or not if you refuse to examine any line of reasoning which does not start by assuming that X is true?Ambient irony.

Mister Elephant, I invite you to examine your own position with regard to HPC.

Again, I have repeatedly invited you to provide me with a reason to consider alternatives to materialism. You have thus far declined.Why not start from first principles?Because they don't get you very far. You have to make an assumption to proceed. Materialism seems to be the most useful of the possible assumptions.You know....a two-way playing field instead of one where one of the goalmouths is bricked up at kick off?Would you care to discuss HPC and any of the points I've raised rather than dancing about saying "What if materialism is wrong?" when you haven't provided any evidence or reasoning to suggest such a thing?

Pixy


Why does ones ontological belief system affect the tr