Opinions please / help me debate this theist

[hammegk]

.... everything is energy (this is in line with the understanding of modern physics), our cognition and awareness is some sort of self-imposed illusion?
Or perhaps, cognition & self-awareness is the result of consciousness/sentience/amatter modified by what is perceived as body & brain?

[kmortis]

Or perhaps, cognition & self-awareness is the result of consciousness/sentience/amatter modified by what is perceived as body & brain?


I'll admit that I have certain issues with this whole amaterial schtick. My number one question is, if everything is energy...what's doing the cognition? I mean we gots this meat here, right? It just smacks me as a touch too unnecessarily complex. Ok, I agree that matter=energy, but it's modified by a velocity.

Without matter, we can't cognate at all, can we?

[HypnoPsi]

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that the cognition depends on the brain but is not caused by it.I am saying that cognition is the apperception in consciousness of the neural/information processing that occurs in the brain. If there was no consciousness, a p-zombie scenario, then neural/information processing would just be neural/information processing and never cognised. If you can't understand that then, frankly, you seem to be lacking in some interpretation skills.You can believe what you want. You don't even have to admit to yourself your position is not a scientific one but based on faith. I understand you are just trying to rationalise your faith. I have no interest in trying to reason with you anymore.I think it's for the best that you do give up. You clearly cannot fathom the fact that my amaterialism is not a faith, rationalised or not, or any type of claim. Amaterialism is the absense of belief in matter being an independent thing in reality and an absense of belief that 'brain matter' causes consciousness. It is the opposite of amaterialism, which is usually defined as materialism, that is the claim, a rationalised faith, and a position which should not be allowed to assume a position above the burden of proof.

You're accusations of 'rationalised faith' at amaterialism are nothing more than a straw man.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Ok, (and understand, I am interesting in your POV, I am not attacking you) so if I understand you correctly, everything is energy (this is in line with the understanding of modern physics), our cognition and awareness is some sort of self-imposed illusion?Hello kmortis, and thank you. Yes, I definately support the view that everything we call matter is really energy (and that there are more things than energy accepted in modern physics as well such as the forces which hold it all together).

I don't think our self-awareness and cognitions are illusions but I would say that when we think in materialistic terms we are thinking erroneously about reality. My amaterialism is just the position that what we call 'matter' isn't the solid stuff we think it is and the denail that there is any good evidence at all that brain matter causes consciousness. It's not a claim or a faith.
_
HypnoPsi

[Belz...]

Hello kmortis, and thank you. Yes, I definately support the view that everything we call matter is really energy (and that there are more things than energy accepted in modern physics as well such as the forces which hold it all together).

So THAT's what all the fuss was about ? You don't like matter because you'd rather go the way of the woo-woo and just call it energy for convenience ?

[kmortis]

Hello kmortis, and thank you. Yes, I definately support the view that everything we call matter is really energy (and that there are more things than energy accepted in modern physics as well such as the forces which hold it all together).

I don't think our self-awareness and cognitions are illusions but I would say that when we think in materialistic terms we are thinking erroneously about reality. My amaterialism is just the position that what we call 'matter' isn't the solid stuff we think it is and the denail that there is any good evidence at all that brain matter causes consciousness. It's not a claim or a faith.
_
HypnoPsi

Ok, on a practical level, however, you do realize that treating the one like the other is not terribly useful? I mean, for example, you can't plug your computer into your desk and expect it to work.

I guess, on a purely theoritical level, I'll agree with you, but I faol to see how this POV helps anything other than at the quantum level. Here at the macro level, we observe energy and matter to be seperate entities.

My amaterialism is just the position that what we call 'matter' isn't the solid stuff we think it is and the denail that there is any good evidence at all that brain matter causes consciousness. It's not a claim or a faith.

Could you clarify this statment for me? On the one hand you seems to be stating that since all is energy (and conversly, all is matter, n'est pas?) that the "stuff that makes up the brain" (or the meat, in my parlance) isn't what causes consciousness. (like it or not, that IS a claim; and one that you will have to defend amongst all us materialists ;). This is not to denegrate you or it, just that is does defy the status quo, so you have to explain to us why we should adopt it instead of continuing on the path we're currently on) Ok, so if the meat isn't where consciousness resides...where does it reside?

Another issue I have with this POV is one of discernment. How do we, if everything is "really" energy, discern between what to our POV seems to be two seperate classes of "stuff"? As an illustration, I give you the Electronic Monk from Douglas Adams's book (I think it was "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency", but I could be wrong and it's really from "Long Dark Tea Time For the Soul") who sat on his horse for a LONG period of time because he fervantly believed that everything was a uniform shade of pink (his horse thought he was a nutter, but laked the capability to speak).

[Z]

kmortis DOES bring up a very valid and interesting point: regardless of what the 'fundamental stuff' is that's out there - whether it's 'matter' or not - is unrelated to the problem that HypnoPsi has with consciousness. As I've tried - and failed - to explain before, we don't have to go down to deep levels of fundamental m/e to explain consciousness; we merely have to go to the molecular - or possibly the atomic - level. And there is no denying that atoms and energies exist at that level - whatever they are comprised of.

So for H-P to make the claim that consciousness cannot arise from matter/energy is just that - a baseless claim. All the amaterialism in the world won't change the observed facts regarding mental process and cognition; one need not move to quantum levels to learn what's going on in that mass of fat and nerve cells we call the brain.

[Belz...]

Could you clarify this statment for me? On the one hand you seems to be stating that since all is energy (and conversly, all is matter, n'est pas?)

That's "n'est-ce pas ?", by the way.

[Belz...]

So for H-P to make the claim that consciousness cannot arise from matter/energy is just that - a baseless claim. All the amaterialism in the world won't change the observed facts regarding mental process and cognition; one need not move to quantum levels to learn what's going on in that mass of fat and nerve cells we call the brain.

Ah! But the quantum level is so useful to these people. Because it's poorly understood and uses difficult terms, they think they can use it for their purposes by making it appear as though it points to some form of fundamental consciousness or divine.