Opinions please / help me debate this theist

[bpesta22]

Greetings. Just wondering how skeptics here would evaluate the following argument. I'd really be interested in weaknesses in my counters to what this guy claims. It's long, but I think it's definately worth putting time into:

Theist: (in response to someone else's post):

I don't think you followed my point...Of course atheists have values. It's also a belief that is equally founded on faith, by the way. You don't know there is no god. You assume it. You must assume it, because the existence of a creator is a metaphysical question that resides outside the domain of empirical inquiry. If you disagree, then be careful -- you will have unwittingly validated the argument of the proponents of intelligent design.

The only truly faithless position is one of agnosticism -- a stand based upon a position of radical unknowing. Materialism is not agnosticism -- it is a metaphysical belief that, based purely on faith, holds there is nothing beyond the physical world. It's not a scientific position, because science does not engage in metaphysics. It cannot answer metaphysical questions because metaphysical questions are nonempirical questions, by definition.

So of course your materialist, naturalist position has values. It has a set of values like any religious worldview. That's exactly my point: You are fighting religion, but you don't seem to realize that you are also following one.

Keep in mind that when I use the word "religion" I am probably using it as a much broader category than you use the word. You seem to use the word "religion" very narrowly, to describe organized systems of beliefs in supernatural entities. But I'm using the word "religion" to mean any system of beliefs that rely upon faith rather than empirical evidence -- any metaphysics, that is. Naturalism, atheism, scientism -- any rejection of the supernatural -- is equally a metaphysics. A truly nonmetaphysical position would have to remain neutral with regard to the supernatural -- it could not assume it's presence nor absence without becoming metaphysical.

***

My reply:

How can one claim the atheist's faith is the same as the theists?

I don't believe in something I can't see/sense, verify empirically, or justify with logic. The theist DOES believe in something he/she can't see/sense, verify emprically or justify with logic.

One of the many things I don't believe in is god (however you want to define god). But, there's a whole host of other possible things I don't believe in (astrology, esp, bigfoot) by using the same type of rational process.

To say that these are qualitatively the same types of faith is wrong, imo.

The default mode has to be materialism-- believe only what can be verified. The burden isn't on us to prove that no gods exist (or know with certainty that no gods exist); the burden is on they who claim something other than the material exists.

I too think tolerance of different belief systems is fine. What irks me is the common assumption that these belief systems are all equally rational. They're not: Believing in something you can't see is different from not believing in something you cannot see.

***

Theist's counter:

Let's take for granted that what you say is true.

Your argument is a deductive argument which starts with the premise that belief in the nonempirical entities is inferior to nonbelief in nonempirical entities.

It's a rationalist argument, not an empirical one. It's a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.

I've never said theism is better than atheism. I've only said that a metaphysical argument in favor of theism or atheism is beyond the realm of empirical evidence.

However, with that said, I don't agree with your premise. Belief in nothing presupposes something. It makes nothing into something -- which is the metaphysical position Heidegger critiques in What is Metaphysics?

As soon as you make nothing into a foundational premise for atheism, you've made nothingness the foundation of an ontology -- which is a way of transforming what is nothing into something. If it were truly nothing, it could not be the basis of any metaphysics but a radically agnostic one.

The essence of your argument is that: belief in nothing is better than something. We should talk about empirical objects and beyond that nothing. But as Heidegger writes:

"What about this nothing? Is it an accident that we talk this way so automatically? Is it only a manner of speaking--and nothing besides?

However, what trouble do we take concerning this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity. But when we give up the nothing in such a way do we not concede it? Can we, however, speak of concession when we concede nothing? But perhaps our confused talk already degenerates into an empty squabble over words. Against it science must now reassert its seriousness and soberness of mind, insisting that it is concerned solely with beings. The nothing--what else can it be for science but an outrage and a phantasm? If science is right, then only one thing is sure: science wishes to know nothing of the nothing. Ultimately this is the scientifically rigorous conception of the nothing. We know it, the nothing, in that we wish to know nothing about it.

Science wants to know nothing of the nothing. But even so it is certain that when science tries to express its proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects."

***

My re-reply:

I think it's a straw man to say the atheist believes in nothing. There are many things I believe in, all can be verified. I just don't believe in the somethings people claim exist, but yet have no evidence for them.

It's not faith that makes me disbelief, it's lack of evidence. These are not the same, and if someone somewhere provided some evidence, I'd abandon my atheism.

***

Theist's re-reply:

The demand that religious people provide proof for their supernatural beliefs is not a legitimate scientific question. That demand is inconsistent with scientific reasoning.

Science never proves anything. What science does is strive to falsify alternative hypotheses. Read Karl Popper -- whose philosophy of science is probably the most widely accepted amongst scientists today.

Perhaps you recall the discussion of hypothesis testing in your statistics class.

In hypothesis testing, you do not prove the alternative hypothesis. The best you can hope for is a rejection of the null hypothesis.

If you used the hypothetico-deductive method of science in the attempt to prove something, you would fall into the error of "affirming the consequent, " which is a logical fallacy.

This is why students need to learn logic and scientific reasoning, so they don't make these kinds of errors.

You are using legalistic and not scientific language when you ask people to prove the existence of god. Science does not bother with such proofs. They are metaphysical questions and not legitimate empirical ones.

Science has its limits. It can only address empirical questions, and empirical questions are questions that can be falsified. Because the existence or inexistence of god is not a falsifiable question, it is not a legitimate scientific question.

Now, all of the above is not to say that you cannot make the deductive argument that it is better to believe in the inexistence of god rather than the existence of god. But let's just be clear that such deductions reside within the philosophical arena of metaphysics and not empirical science. If you agree, then I have nothing more to say on the topic. I'm not interested in arguing the merits of atheism vs theism; I only wish to point out that such arguments are not scientific arguments.

***

My final word:

I was using "proof" in the everyday sense-- didn't know you'd get all Popper on me. Theories are falsified in science, not individual statements. Individual statements can be either true-- facts-- or not true (granted we're talking true inductively). But, how's this for a modus tollens:

If god exists, then there should be evidence of him
There is no evidence of him, therefore,

God does not exist.

You seem to insist that whether a god exists or not is outside science. I disagree for two reasons: 1) many people in America attempt to pass off religious explanations for reality as scientific ones (e.g., the whole ID mess). Certainly, there are many theists who think that religious doctrine can explain reality. One obvious reason for theology is to explain reality. Given that it can't, comparing it to science in this regard is a valid criticism, at least in my opinion-- especially when science shows that religious explanations are wrong.

2) I think the scientific study of whether prayer works is one valid (but limited) way to test theology. Granted, since the science shows prayer doesn't work, one risks betting on the null, but were valid, reproducable, internally valid data available showing prayer worked, I'd no longer be an atheist. In this arena, using science to debunk supernatural claims (for weeping statues, or psychic ability, etc) is also a valid use of science to test the "metaphysical".

It's nice and convenient to label theological explanations different from scientific ones, especially when both attempt to explain reality. Separating it as metaphysical doesn't make it any less invalid. Though it might be a cure for cognitive dissonance, it seems like rose colored glasses to me.




Crap, this is long-- anyone still reading, your input is greatly appreciated!

[cyborg]

So he's basically saying that for every unsubstantiated idea that may be posited disbelief of that idea requires faith?

So if I posit that I have faith that I can cast spells and someone else says that they don't believe me that must mean that they now have faith in not believing that I can cast spells.

It sounds absurd right?

It only makes sense to use this defense when you don't really think you position is an idle positing of an idea but the way reality actually works. That is to say to him his god is real so none of what he says subsequently seems absurd to him.

[TobiasTheViking]

Can't really see what you can do better. But i still want to reply and commend you on your effort.

Good work :)

Sincerely
Tobias

Wishing he had some copporn to munch right about now, this is gonna be fuuuuunnyyy

[cyborg]

copporn.

LOL. Freudian-slip much?

[TobiasTheViking]

copporn.

LOL. Freudian-slip much?
Not at all, it was a quote.

Sincerely
Tobias

One mippippi, two mippippi, three mippippi.

[Iacchus]

How about this? Can you explain the existence of God or, anything else to a brick wall? So obviously the empirical evidence does not exist, in any sense of the word. You are merely assuming that it exists, as it all gets filtered through your mind. As for the brick wall? It is entirely dense, and incapable of assuming anything metaphysical.

[Tricky]

How about this? Can you explain the existence of God or, anything else to a brick wall?
You mean like trying to explain timespace to you?

So obviously the empirical evidence does not exist, in any sense of the word.

So why do you believe it? Because it feels right?

You are merely assuming that it exists, as it all gets filtered through your mind. As for the brick wall? It is entirely dense, and incapable of assuming anything metaphysical.

I think all skeptics are capable of concieving of metaphysical things. Many of us enjoy fantasy and fiction. So it is not a problem of understanding. However, when it comes to assumptions, you can assume absolutely anything, including the totally ludicrous. Why would you respect someone who assumes without evidence? Are all assumptions that are not based on any sort of empirical evidence equal? If not, why not?

[Mercutio]

Pest--

A few thoughts--although I may have fallen asleep halfway through your long post, so if I say things you already said, my apologies.

I can see a problem with your opponent's definition of atheism as a form of belief, even faith, because the belief that there is no god is a firm stance. Most atheists I know simply state that they do not see any reason to believe there is a god, putting the burden on anyone who makes the positive claim that one exists.

You, if I read you right though, do go so far as to say you believe there is no god. This plays into your opponent's argument. But...I can understand why you would hold such a belief. The next step hinges on the differences in "belief" itself. I have written in other threads here that there are things believed because of evidence, things believed in the absence of evidence, and things believed in spite of evidence. The belief there is no god, as a negative belief, cannot be because of evidence--there is always the possibility that you have not looked everywhere. I can see it as belief in the absence of evidence (although it is consistent with the observed evidence on so many things--so far, the evidence does not require a god). The trick is, for any reasonable definition of a god, any belief in a god is a belief in spite of evidence. Which sort of god does this theist believe in? One that performs miracles? Against all available evidence. Exists outside of space and time? Against all available evidence. The only sort of god that does not go against evidence is one that does nothing, that by definition has left no evidence of his, her, their, or its existance. And we already have a word for that--not "god", but "nothing".

[Iacchus]

You mean like trying to explain timespace to you?And if God has "always" existed, what then? ...

So why do you believe it? Because it feels right?Why would you believe anything to the contrary? Because it doesn't feel right?

I think all skeptics are capable of concieving of metaphysical things.Aside from suggesting everything manifests itself from the outside, right? Yep, you may as well start facing up to the brick wall now.

Many of us enjoy fantasy and fiction. So it is not a problem of understanding. However, when it comes to assumptions, you can assume absolutely anything, including the totally ludicrous.The only thing that makes it ludicrous, is the assumption that the mind which, is strictly metaphyiscal by definition, is not a witness to any of it.

Why would you respect someone who assumes without evidence?Exactly!

Are all assumptions that are not based on any sort of empirical evidence equal? If not, why not?And where is the mind which professes such things?

[bpesta22]

Thanks for the comments so far-- So, Merc, is strong Atheism rational / defensible.

I agree it depends on how you define god, but for every definition I've heard so far, there's no evidence (not counting empty definitions like "god is nature").

For a laugh, I did get chastized by an atheist for posting what I did. Here is his reply to me:

***

God's existence is not a scientific question, period. God is not operationalizable, definable. Therefore, it cannot be deduced logically or empirically. Being an atheist, if I were to want fellow atheists to push our agenda, it would concern me that you are making the question of God into a pseudoscientific proof. I feel that is a huge mistake and give ID more credibility based on its pseudoscientific reasoning. Scientists need to stick to the principles of science, not start with a metaphysical definition (if God exists) then use scientific reasoning from there.

The question of God vs no God is not falsifiable, that is a major reason for why ID should not be touted as a scientific theory. Your statement here based on lack of evidence is just as scientifically faulty as ID, because it makes a claim based on lack of evidence. Arguing in such a way will only give ID proponents more credibility, so that's why I think it should be avoided.

If your proof did fall into the realm of a scientific question, it's subject to Type II error (google it). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I really wonder whose side you're on. If you say that theological explanations are comparable to scientific ones, you are arguing in favor of the ID supporters. And really, please don't shoot us in the foot.

You're arguments are not comparing religion to science, you are comparing religion to atheism, which science is not about! It really sounds like you just want to push atheism, but you are compromising science in order to do so. Dogma.

[SkepticalScience]

Hey Bpesta. . .

As your poster, whether he has to be neutral about Santa Claus.

Following his logic, we have to be neutral about the Tooth Fairy right? Afterall, there COULD be a tooth fairy.

Any crazy notion that someone thinks of, COULD possibly be true. So why not believe them all?

There could, after all, be a Flying Spaghetti Monster right?

If there isn't, why couldn't there?

[bpesta22]

SS

lol, I just answered him with that question, but i used the pink unicorn thingy, as I think the FSM is getting WAY too much play.

[BJQ87]

You seem to insist that whether a god exists or not is outside science. I disagree for two reasons: 1) many people in America attempt to pass off religious explanations for reality as scientific ones (e.g., the whole ID mess). Certainly, there are many theists who think that religious doctrine can explain reality. One obvious reason for theology is to explain reality. Given that it can't, comparing it to science in this regard is a valid criticism, at least in my opinion-- especially when science shows that religious explanations are wrong.

If you assume God is not the creator of the universe then you assume he has no creation of, or power over science, whereas the theist assumes otherwise, many people choose the theist assumption, many people choose the atheist assumption. A theist that has supposed spiritual influences for his belief has reason to be a theist. An atheist has no reason to be more than an agnostic as an atheist has nothing more than a belief, beliefs based only upon such assumptions should not lead us to take a personal stand on the matter that is anything more than for the sake of educational argumentation. You say theology can't explain reality. That is only if the theology is not true. But if you do say theology can't explain reality, why then should we teach evolution in schools? Or maybe in accordance with your argument you disagree with teaching evolution in schools?

So if I posit that I have faith that I can cast spells and someone else says that they don't believe me that must mean that they now have faith in not believing that I can cast spells.

It sounds absurd right?

It only makes sense to use this defense when you don't really think you position is an idle positing of an idea but the way reality actually works. That is to say to him his god is real so none of what he says subsequently seems absurd to him.

But in fact if you can indeed actually cast spells then your claim doesn't sound absurd to you either, when to me it might sound a bit more absurd. Though I admit it would certainly sound less absurd if I knew you as a best friend since pre-school to be a trustworthy and alltogether sane person who doesn't believe everything he hears and needs good valueable reason to believe something.

[hammegk]

how's this for a modus tollens:

If god exists, then there should be evidence of him
There is no evidence of him, therefore,

God does not exist.

Yet many, and I'd posit most, humans see evidence (that convinces them) god exists, and find utility in that belief.

Materialists/atheists do not.

The definitions of Both Santa and the Easter Bunny can be checked for probability; until one defines god -- including the Noodley One himself -- god cannot be empirically tested for.

[Mercutio]

Thanks for the comments so far-- So, Merc, is strong Atheism rational / defensible.

I agree it depends on how you define god, but for every definition I've heard so far, there's no evidence (not counting empty definitions like "god is nature").
I would say it is defensible. The trick is, your stance has to be different from the theists in one very important aspect. Ask him (her?) what evidence it would take to change his mind. Could he admit that some particular evidence would cause him to cease to believe? I assume that you hold your belief because it is consistent withthe evidence, but that if the evidence merited it, you would change your belief. And that makes all the difference.

For a laugh, I did get chastized by an atheist for posting what I did. Here is his reply to me:
SS pretty much covered that...one tactic I like is to ask the theist if he believes in Thor, Ra, Zeuss, or a thousand other gods. Most will deny belief in all possible gods...so when they think of why they do not believe in those gods, they will know why you do not believe in their god.

[Iacchus]

Ask him (her?) what evidence it would take to change his mind. Could he admit that some particular evidence would cause him to cease to believe? I assume that you hold your belief because it is consistent withthe evidence, but that if the evidence merited it, you would change your belief. And that makes all the difference.Evidence? I thought there was no evidence, either way.

SS pretty much covered that...one tactic I like is to ask the theist if he believes in Thor, Ra, Zeuss, or a thousand other gods. Most will deny belief in all possible gods...so when they think of why they do not believe in those gods, they will know why you do not believe in their god.In terms of getting specific, I would tend to look at it more in terms of denying who your mother and father is (similar to denying one's culture), in which case most people would only admit to having one of each.

[Mercutio]

Evidence? I thought there was no evidence, either way.
And I thought you claimed to have evidence. Are you now, finally, admitting you have none?

There could easily be evidence for a god. That there is none is not evidence against one, but of course there could be evidence for one. (Just give me a sign, god, just make Iacchus post for a week without a logical error...or something equally improbable.)

In terms of getting specific, I would tend to look at it more in terms of denying who your mother and father is (similar to denying one's culture), in which case most people would only admit to having one of each.
I really don't care how you would look at it. The people Pest is talking with are several pages ahead of you.

[Iacchus]

And I thought you claimed to have evidence. Are you now, finally, admitting you have none?How would you know, in either case?

There could easily be evidence for a god. Oh, really?

That there is none is not evidence against one, but of course there could be evidence for one.Again, how would you know, if it were even presented to you?

(Just give me a sign, god, just make Iacchus post for a week without a logical error...or something equally improbable.)Hmm ... sounds like wishful thinking to me. ;)

I really don't care how you would look at it. The people Pest is talking with are several pages ahead of you.Sounds to me like the whole thing boils down to what one "wishes" to believe ... which, is strictly a matter of faith (http://dionysusforums.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=atheism&action=display&thread=1124735692).

[Dr Adequate]

His point seems to be that if he refuses to attach any meaning to the word "God", then the statements "God exists", and "God does not exist" are both equally meaningless. Wow, what a profound insight.

The same, of course, can be said of any other noun, such as "unicorns", or "cabbage".

If, on the other hand, we agree to speak English, instead of this amateur philosopher's made-up language, we find that it is meaningful, and correct, to say that unicorns don't exist, cabbage exists, and God doesn't exist.

[bpesta22]

Dr A.

Nice!

[bruto]

A subject much like this came up recently in a long and rather convoluted thread started by "Hypnopsi" asserting that Skepticism is a faith based cult of indoctrination.

I notice some of the same tendencies in your theist. For example, he conveniently redefines terms such as "religion" so that your lack of religion can suddenly become a religion itself. Similarly, he sees little or no difference between your "faith" that there is no God, based on lack of evidence of one, and your "faith" in rationality, and his "faith" that there is a god, based on the same lack of evidence (assuming he does not claim direct divine inspiration), thus defining just about anything that anybody asserts as a belief to be an act of faith. In a sense, the word can apply to all these things, but sensible people would acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between our faith in the things we see and feel and our faith in things we cannot. I think this blanket redefinition disfigures the word in both senses, not only misrepresenting what is meant by empirical evidence and logical inference, but also trivializing the actual act of faith as it is usually understood by people who take their spiritual lives and their faiths seriously. If faith consists of saying "theism and atheism are equally supportable or insupportable, so I'll take the prettier one" then it's a pretty limp rag of a faith.

This little gem stood out: Your argument is a deductive argument which starts with the premise that belief in the nonempirical entities is inferior to nonbelief in nonempirical entities.

Is it my imagination, or is that a bit of tautological nonsense? For the sentence to be useful at all, it requires that you acknowledge that there are such things as nonempirical entities, otherwise it's just a word. The same argument could be made of any noun or noun phrase you should wish to substitute for "nonempirical entities" as long as that noun represents something that either does not exist, cannot exist, or is not known to exist. I submit, for example, that your argument is a deductive argument which starts with the premise that belief in whangdepootnewahs is inferior to nonbelief in whangdepootnewahs. But if your opponent is going to take the position that God is so far out of the empirical realm that he cannot be argued about scientifically, then I think he must also accept that argument about god is entirely outside the realm of logical argument as well.

There's something to be said for that argument, which is reminiscent of William of Ockham, but it carries with it a couple of conditions, I think. One is that he must absolutely abjure and disavow the intrusion of religion into science. If he cannot do that then he is a hypocrite, pure and simple, and he cannot defend his position against scientific inquiry at the same time. He also cannot, as far as I can see, produce any argument except perhaps for personal revelation, whim, or reliance on authority for his faith. Any reference to divine agency in the world, now or ever, and any reference to logical inference from objects, events, or the nature of entities in the empirical realm as a basis of that faith violate his own assertion that it cannot be challenged by the demand for scientific evidence.

[HeavyAaron]

[QUOTE=bpesta22;1271625]Thanks for the comments so far-- So, Merc, is strong Atheism rational / defensible.

***

I, personally, have long sense held the view that agnosticism is the most skeptical position regarding the existance/nonexistance of a SNB.
It is both skeptical of theism and atheism. It is skeptical of theism due to weak/no evidense. It is skeptical of atheism as to decisively conclude the non-existance of a thing one must first determine everything that does exist and find that said item is not in that set or find a logical incongruity in the definition of said item. Since the definition of an SNB seems malleable enough that a definition which is self-consistant can be found and determining the set of all existant things is beyond impractical, admitting the possibility, if not the probability, of the existance of a SNB seems reasonable.

Am I actually in the minority here that concludes that agnosticism is more skeptical than atheism?

Aaron

[bpesta22]

Aaron-- the problem I have with agnosticism (to me) is it seems to assume that one must be certain about X before belief/disbelief in X is rational.

I disagree with this. Even scientific "facts" aren't known with certainty. Plus, we don't demand certainty as the burden of proof for anything else we believe/disbelieve in, so why do we insist that level of proof when talking about god?

I understand one has to define his god before I can argue he specifically doesn't exist-- but if I deem the probability of any defined god so low (or if you have to define god so vaguely that the concept becomes explanatorially-empty, as in saying god is "nature") then I think athiesm is rational, especially since I think the default mode is materialism.

[HeavyAaron]

Aaron-- the problem I have with agnosticism (to me) is it seems to assume that one must be certain about X before belief/disbelief in X is rational.

I disagree with this. Even scientific "facts" aren't known with certainty. Plus, we don't demand certainty as the burden of proof for anything else we believe/disbelieve in, so why do we insist that level of proof when talking about god?

I understand one has to define his god before I can argue he specifically doesn't exist-- but if I deem the probability of any defined god so low (or if you have to define god so vaguely that the concept becomes explanatorially-empty, as in saying god is "nature") then I think athiesm is rational, especially since I think the default mode is materialism.

bpesta,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I would generally agree with you if I agreed with your assertions, but there is one that I take issue with. You have asserted that the probability of the existance of a god is very low. I'm not claiming that it is high. In fact I have no means to establish even a guess as to what the odds are. I think that your objection is reasonable that demanding probability 0 or 1 before deciding on belief/disbelief is too high. However, I believe that debates usually focus on those values because those are the most likely values we might be able to obtain apriori. How, pray tell, could we ever hope to come accross a theorm which leads us to believe the odds are .23? It's not that placing beliefs on probability is such a bad thing (in fact I believe it's a given with all but the logical imparitives), but that assigning a probability estimate to the existance of an SNB seems so horribly impossible. I would be interested in hearing how you came about your estimate, however.

Aaron

[HypnoPsi]

Greetings. Just wondering how skeptics here would evaluate the following argument.I'm a 'theist' but I'll throw in my twopenny's worth as well. First of all it's pretty hard to weave together a post based on a current conversation but I'll do my best to cover the main points.

First of all, your opponent is correct to say that materialism is a faith. (The default position is, instead, probably realism.) The existence of fundamental M/E can never be proven in any way. Science is like throwing a tin of paint over something invisible and definging it's properties and dimensions and nothing more. We can never know what's actually in there. It could be fairy dust or golden goose eggs for all we know - as I often delight in pointing out to materialists.

Now, someone can be a theist and still belive in matter (that's a dualist who claims God created it all) but they definately cannot be an atheist unless they are a materialist (at least, not in any way I can fathom). So atheism is always, inevitably, faith-based because it requires the substance of things to be matter/energy (and, by extension, that consciousness is reducable to matter/energy).

So, is agnosticism the faithless default position? It possibly is - but, if so, then only when the individual agnostic is equally agnostic about causes of the physical (the "real" noumenal world of things-in-themselves) as well as about God and consciousness. For example, someone who says "I don't even know what the real, noumenal, world of things is or what consciousness is let alone what causes the other." would hold a truly agnostic position that would be very difficult to defeat logically by either the theist or the atheist.

So is the 'theists' position then 'faith-based' as so many firmly believe it is? Personally, I'm not convinced that it is 'faith-based' (though an afterlife - or pre-birth existence - definately is 'faith-based'). We have consciousness (and no explanation for it). We have a sense of self (or, some would say, just a sense of 'selfness' since identity is simple an entangled hierarchy of ideas). But in order to have that sense of self/selfness we require a sense of other/otherness as a reference point for that-which-is-not-self (otherwise, no sense of self).

That stable sense of very real beingness that permates everything in the world/universe is, at one and the same time, comprehended as being within our consciousness as well as being 'out there'. It is thus hardly surprising that it is appropriated by religions (or easily/willingly given over to religions) as "Our Father, who art in Heaven...", "Krishna consciousness", "Buddha mind", etc., etc.,.

But is it 'faith-based' (or not) to conclude that 'otherness' is "God"? The answer, somewhat obviously, depends upon how you define "God". One could ask: "Even if everything is consciousness what's the point in revering or even worshiping this 'thing' if all that seems to happen when you die is that your consciousness dissipates as the physical body ceases to function and decays?".

In that specific instance it might not be 'faith based' to be a theist - it just happens to be completely pointless to make a religion or 'spiritual philosophy' out of something that can't even comprehend you let alone be benevolent or malevolent towards you.

So the monothesit now comes into play, making a leap of faith and happily believing in a creator God who is all-wise, loving and who will sustain our identities when the physical body dies. Clearly that is a faith-based position.

But does monotheism require as much faith as atheism? My answer would have to be no since monotheism is a one degree leap of faith while the atheist has to make two. The monotheist just has to believe that his 'otherness' is intelligent just as he is intelligent and that he is just an outgrowth of it (which branch of a tree is the tree?) while the atheist has to believe that a fundamental, independent-of-anything-else, form of M/E exists and causes his consciousness - one step from default versus two steps from default, respectively.

The true agnostic sits back with a smug look on his face....

But let's add something else to the mix - the esotericist; the mystic who has dedicated years to contemplating the otherness. He says to us that selflessness is the true path. That what we call God is known in acts of genuine selflessness. That we recognise/remember our true, noble, nature when we are genuinely selfless. To many a monotheists bemusement (and many an atheists amusement) the mystic even has the gall to suggest that the true agnostic is someone he can work with.

What's going on? Is the Kingdom of Heaven really within us? Was the Buddha right when he described Enlightenment as being like awakening from a dream? (Religions do tend to start with mystics, don't they?) Unless we live the mystics life (an impractical solution) I think we're asking an unanswerable question.
_
HypnoPsi

[Mercutio]

Now, someone can be a theist and still belive in matter (that's a dualist who claims God created it all) but they definately cannot be an atheist unless they are a materialist (at least, not in any way I can fathom). So atheism is always, inevitably, faith-based because it requires the substance of things to be matter/energy (and, by extension, that consciousness is reducable to matter/energy).

[snip]

... I think we're asking an unanswerable question.
One does not have to be a materialist to be an atheist. I am not a materialist, and I am an atheist. Your last phrase is the key. As you say, the materialist must assume matter exists, as is cannot be proven. The idealist assumes thought exists, as it cannot be proven. Either monism, once assumed, can explain the appearance of the other, and so both are based on an axiomatic assumption of some sort. (BTW, an idealist need not believe that any sort of god exists, merely that thought is the basic building block of reality. I do oversimplify, but it is not my major point, so I don't care that I oversimplify.)

One could also be a pragmatist, and not take a position on which monism is "correct", since neither can be proven. The pragmatist takes positions on answerable questions, and as your last statement suggests, this is not one of them.

How then, could this person be an atheist? As Pest suggests, for the same reasons that scientists take a stand on the results of an experiment, even when those results are necessarily probabilistic and not absolute in nature. Pest happens to know quite a bit about the social-cognitive biases inherent in human belief systems, and has (if his experience is anywhere close to mine) seen time and time again that this or that "evidence of god" is explained much more simply as an artifact of human cognition. Occam does the rest.

Now, of course, we could hold out and say that we should, strictly speaking, remain agnostic, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...but practically speaking, that leaves us spinning our wheels in the same place. If we are looking for our keys, there is no use checking the same closet thirty times. We did not find them there--move on. It's not like we are welding the door shut; if later evidence suggests we should look in there again, we can do so. And the firm atheist stance here is pragmatic; it is not an irrevocable decision, but a decision made the same way that scientific decisions are made. The evidence does not point in this direction, despite looking for quite some time. Time to move on. If later evidence suggests we need to reconsider, great. In the mean time, the agnostic position is a waste of time.

[.13.]

The existence of fundamental M/E can never be proven in any way. Science is like throwing a tin of paint over something invisible and definging it's properties and dimensions and nothing more. We can never know what's actually in there. It could be fairy dust or golden goose eggs for all we know - as I often delight in pointing out to materialists.

Let's say the basic building blocks of protons and neutrons are matter/energy. Doesn't matter what we call it, the "thing" making up the protons etc. is still a real thing.

Now let's "throw a tin of paint" on that "invisible" M/E. (You seem to think visible as something humans can see with their eyes, certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.) We'll get the properties and dimensions of M/E. They are still incomplete and inaccurate but scientists are getting closer. At some point they hit a wall, they can't "see deeper" into M/E. Have we found the most basic structures of the universe? Maybe, maybe not. But if there are no evidence that there is something more basic why would we have to assume there is? We certainly shouldn't assume anything supernatural. Scientists will keep looking further ofcourse. But if the current basic building blocks can explain the natural world and there is no evidence to suggest there are more buildingblocks behind those there is no point in making wild fantasies.

After we "throw the paint" we have the properties and dimensions. What more do you need? Some nifty catchphrase you could throw around? The theories of smallest particles are complicated and you can't have a simple easily understandable explanation. But your lack of understanding of the theories and properties doesn't mean that matter is supernatural fairydust.

[bpesta22]

I think putting a specific number on the probability of a god existing would be misplaced precision indeed.

That said, I can think of all things I don't believe in for lack of evidence (astrology, esp, Santa), and I can put God somewhere in that continuum. No one's ever asked my for a specific p value on my non-belief in astrology before they would consider that nonbelief to be rational.

In other words, rational belief wouldn't be a yes (it's certain) no (it's impossible) dichotomy, but a continuum between those two values.

At some point, we have to draw a line in the continuum and say, yes or no it's rational to believe in X.

I think god's existence, however you want to define him, is toward the far end of the "no" on the continuum (perhaps not as far as santa, but still pretty far out!). Interestingly, given the various ways there are to define god, the closer the definition gets to the yes/maybe end of the continuum the more the definition of god becomes empty (as with deism-- some supernatural force that created but does not interact with the universe....a definition which offers no explanation for anything except "goddidit").

[Bri]

What would be the difference between belief in a diety and belief in intelligent life on other planets as far as rationality is concerned? Do those who feel it irrational to believe in the existance of a diety also feel the same way about the existance of intelligent life on other planets?

-Bri

[Bri]

At some point, we have to draw a line in the continuum and say, yes or no it's rational to believe in X.

Who gets to decide where X falls on the continuum, is the line the same for X as for Y, and then who gets to decide whether or not it's rational or irrational to believe in X? Should we take a vote on it?

-Bri

[bpesta22]

Who gets to decide where X falls on the continuum, is the line the same for X as for Y, and then who gets to decide whether or not it's rational or irrational to believe in X? Should we take a vote on it?

-Bri

Not sure. This gets one into trouble perhaps for stuff on the fence (maybe intelligent life on other planets is a good example) but when you're at the extremes, it's fairly obvious (I hope I'm not making the porno argument-- I know it when I see it).

I think how the courts do it might work, with different burdens of proof-- beyond a reasonable doubt would probably be a good one. For non belief, I think I can fairly say, I have no reasonable doubts about atheism. So, if that's the burden of proof for rational belief, then I think my belief's rational, esp. since I add the proviso that I'd be willing to examine any evidence anyone wanted to present for a god, and change my mind were the evidence valid.

[Bri]

I think how the courts do it might work, with different burdens of proof-- beyond a reasonable doubt would probably be a good one.

How much evidence overcomes burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What evidence is there for the non-existance of all dieties? What evidence is there for the existance of intelligent life on other planets? What evidence is there that black licorice is better than red or that George W. Bush is a bad president? Which of these beliefs would you consider irrational and why?

-Bri

[HypnoPsi]

One does not have to be a materialist to be an atheist.I disagree entirely - though I understand what you're trying to say with the monism argument. I think one could be both an amonotheist and an amaterialist but not genuinely atheist without being a materialist. (You could be fully agnostic about causality, physical causality or conscious causality, of course.)I am not a materialist, and I am an atheist. Your last phrase is the key. As you say, the materialist must assume matter exists, as is cannot be proven. The idealist assumes thought exists, as it cannot be proven.No. Only the materialist is required to assume matter exists. The idealist is not required to assume that thought exists. Your mistake here is a classic non sequiter which is affirming the consequent by misinterpretating the nature of evidence and/or what the burden of proof means.

Just becaue I cannot provide you with evidence that I have consciousness or thoughts does not mean that I should ignore the evidence of which I am aware. Everyone who declares themselves conscious should work from the premesis they declare. Consciousness is not without evidence - it is merely indemonstrable. There is a very big difference. And since nobody can declare they know they're not conscious we have an axiom.Either monism, once assumed, can explain the appearance of the other, and so both are based on an axiomatic assumption of some sort. (BTW, an idealist need not believe that any sort of god exists, merely that thought is the basic building block of reality. I do oversimplify, but it is not my major point, so I don't care that I oversimplify.)Don't sweat it. You are quite correct that an idealist, or amaterialist of any variety, need not believe in God. They need not believe in other consciousness either - but to not include the evidence for one's own consciousness in any position or theory (which should include all evidence) just because such is indemonstrable to another - is outright denailism.One could also be a pragmatist, and not take a position on which monism is "correct", since neither can be proven. The pragmatist takes positions on answerable questions, and as your last statement suggests, this is not one of them.Monism is a highly contestable concept. Unlike the agnostic, the monist does assume a faith based position, but in what exactly? Does his monism lean towards consciousness primary position (panpsychism, animism or pantheism) or towards a matter primary position (eliminativist materialism or physicalism)?

This is a crucial distinction, because if the monist assumes equilibrium of consciousness and matter he's little better than the agnostic, offering us no information of any relevance to uncovering the mysteries of the human condition and nature of the Universe.How then, could this person be an atheist? As Pest suggests, for the same reasons that scientists take a stand on the results of an experiment, even when those results are necessarily probabilistic and not absolute in nature. Pest happens to know quite a bit about the social-cognitive biases inherent in human belief systems, and has (if his experience is anywhere close to mine) seen time and time again that this or that "evidence of god" is explained much more simply as an artifact of human cognition. Occam does the rest.Again a non sequiter. Cognition is simiply the apperception of neural processing in consciousness. In choosing where to locate the experience/evidence of God (the sense of "Otherness" that, by necessity, accompanies the sense of "Selfness") we have absolutely no reason at all to conclude it is in the neurons because we have absolutely no evidence for the existence of matter, while we each, individually, have evidence of consciousness existing.Now, of course, we could hold out and say that we should, strictly speaking, remain agnostic, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...but practically speaking, that leaves us spinning our wheels in the same place. If we are looking for our keys, there is no use checking the same closet thirty times. We did not find them there--move on. It's not like we are welding the door shut; if later evidence suggests we should look in there again, we can do so. And the firm atheist stance here is pragmatic; it is not an irrevocable decision, but a decision made the same way that scientific decisions are made. The evidence does not point in this direction, despite looking for quite some time. Time to move on. If later evidence suggests we need to reconsider, great. In the mean time, the agnostic position is a waste of time.I, personally, agree that the agnostic position is a waste of time. To me it is clearly unscientific and anti-scientific since we are all supposed (ideally) to make a contribution to knowledge, defend theses and adopt various methodological and philosophical positions, etc.,. As such, I can respect the atheist - s/he is taking a stand on the nature of reality, unlike the agnostic, the amonotheist or the 'equilibrium monist'.

Where I disagree with atheist (or - better - those who have misappropriated the term) entirely lies in his/her claim not to be following a 'faith based' philosophy that is two degrees from default unlike the monotheist who is only one degree from default. The atheist has no evidence of matter or of it causing consciousness whereas the theist does have evidence of consciousness and merely lacks evidence that his Otherness is intelligent and interested in him or her.

Either way, if someone genuinely doesn't believe in matter then they're not an atheist, they are one of the alternatives outlined above.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

A subject much like this came up recently in a long and rather convoluted thread started by "Hypnopsi" asserting that Skepticism is a faith based cult of indoctrination.Which I clarified clearly in my opening post as refering to strong skepticism - the belief that one should be skeptical of (alleged) matters of faith as well as of testable claims.

I believe that variety of skepticism (atheistic materialism) is definately faith based.

I believe it is further a 'cult of indoctrination' because it is a sub-culture with a fetish for scientism, intollerant of dissent within it's ranks and embodying a very restrictive and exclusive set of views to which all members seem to adhere - and to which all others are compared.

I don't agree with the skepticism - particularly strong skepticism. Deal with it.
_
HypnoPsi

[Iacchus]

I believe it is further a 'cult of indoctrination' because it is a sub-culture with a fetish for scientism, intollerant of dissent within it's ranks and embodying a very restrictive and exclusive set of views to which all members seem to adhere - and to which all others are compared.It's funny isn't it? ;)

[Belz...]

I believe that variety of skepticism (atheistic materialism) is definately faith based. I believe it is further a 'cult of indoctrination' [...]

You've had an entire thread to support this idea and you failed, Hypno. Move on.

[HypnoPsi]

Let's say the basic building blocks of protons and neutrons are matter/energy. Doesn't matter what we call it, the "thing" making up the protons etc. is still a real thing.That "thing" is what Kant called the "noumenal", the 'thing-in-itself' as opposed to the "phenomenal" the 'thing-in-mind'.Now let's "throw a tin of paint" on that "invisible" M/E.Let's "throw a tin of paint" on the "noumenal" and not jump to the conclusion that it's made of (fundamental) M/E just yet.(You seem to think visible as something humans can see with their eyes, certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.)Let's assume you're not good at mind-reading and move along.We'll get the properties and dimensions of M/E....of the noumenalThey are still incomplete and inaccurate but scientists are getting closer.It's called superstring theory; but size doesn't matter it's the nature of the substance that is important. That is forever outside of our grasp (in the human condition at least).At some point they hit a wall, they can't "see deeper" into M/E....into the noumenalHave we found the most basic structures of the universe? Maybe, maybe not.So what if we have, so what if we haven't? Sub-atomics doesn't actually impinge upon the philosophical question of the substance of the noumenal.But if there are no evidence that there is something more basic why would we have to assume there is? We certainly shouldn't assume anything supernatural.Who's assuming anything "super"natural? Consciousness exists. We know that individually even if it is indemonstrable to others that we are conscious.

Fundamental M/E can never be observed. It's fairy dust. So what's the most logical, default, position re the nature of reality? Why believe in some unknown magic powder existing independently (of consciousness) and believe that it produces consciousness when we already have evidence for consciousness? It doesn't make any logical sense.Scientists will keep looking further ofcourse. But if the current basic building blocks can explain the natural world and there is no evidence to suggest there are more buildingblocks behind those there is no point in making wild fantasies.Again, it's not the existence of the noumenal that's in question - it's the substance of the noumenal that is the only thing of consequence.After we "throw the paint" we have the properties and dimensions. What more do you need?To practice science - nothing. To start making ontological claims that fundamental M/E exists and produces consciousness - evidence.Some nifty catchphrase you could throw around? The theories of smallest particles are complicated and you can't have a simple easily understandable explanation. But your lack of understanding of the theories and properties doesn't mean that matter is supernatural fairydust.I'm not and don't claim to be a sub-atomic physicist. I do, however, understand enough science, psychology and philosophy to know what measurement and observation is - and that it tells us nothing at all about the substance of particles and/or even superstrings.

Expecting reductionism to lead to an explanation of the substance of fundamental M/E is like chasing an unattainable pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And ignoring the hard problem of consciousness by thinking it just must just be neural activity isn't even remotely convincing either. (It wouldn't even be convincing if you conclusively proved the existence of fundamental M/E).

The materialist says it's all reducable to fundamental M/E and I say it's golden goose eggs. What's the difference?
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

I think god's existence, however you want to define him, is toward the far end of the "no" on the continuum (perhaps not as far as santa, but still pretty far out!).

Just out of curiosity: why do you think existence of a god is more propable than existence of Santa? Is it a gut feeling? I understand that feeling. When I don't know somethings for reasonable certainty I have that feeling. Sometimes it turns out right sometimes utterly wrong.

If it is indeed just a gut feeling, could it be influeneced by the fervor of believers?

[drkitten]

That "thing" is what Kant called the "noumenal", the 'thing-in-itself' as opposed to the "phenomenal" the 'thing-in-mind'.Let's "throw a tin of paint" on the "noumenal" and not jump to the conclusion that it's made of (fundamental) M/E just yet.Let's assume you're not good at mind-reading and move along....of the noumenalIt's called superstring theory; but size doesn't matter it's the nature of the substance that is important. That is forever outside of our grasp (in the human condition at least)....into the noumenalSo what if we have, so what if we haven't? Sub-atomics doesn't actually impinge upon the philosophical question of the substance of the noumenal.

Some people understand Kant.

Some people don't understand Kant.

Some people don't understand that they don't understand Kant.

[pgwenthold]

Just out of curiosity: why do you think existence of a god is more propable than existence of Santa? Is it a gut feeling? I understand that feeling. When I don't know somethings for reasonable certainty I have that feeling. Sometimes it turns out right sometimes utterly wrong.

If it is indeed just a gut feeling, could it be influeneced by the fervor of believers?

Actually, it's possible because Santa is much better defined than a god. The more defined it becomes, the easier it is to rule it out.

Thus, you can rule out that Santa lives at the North Pole pretty easily. How do you rule out something that "lives outside of time and space"?

That's why the first question regarding discussions of god has to be "define god."

[drkitten]

Just out of curiosity: why do you think existence of a god is more propable than existence of Santa?

Santa has a well-established definition that includes certain provably untrue attributes of reality. For example, everyone agrees that his house is at the North Pole, but there's no house there. Everyone agrees that he flies around in a sleight pulled by "eight tiny reindeer" (and reindeer are known to be physical objects), but no one ever finds reindeer prints on their roofs.

Of course, you could re-define Santa to live in an invisible and intactile house at the North Pole and to have his invisible sled pulled by invisible and print-less reindeer, but no one seriously considers such redefinitions. On the other hand, the idea of an intangible and undetectable God is a legitimate theological position and as such has to be taken seriously.

So if you like, you can express it as : Santa is exactly as implausible as a tangible God (such as Zeus), but less plausible (because there is more evidence against Santa) than the intangible God as defined by mainstream Christianity.

[Iacchus]

And ignoring the hard problem of consciousness by thinking it just must just be neural activity isn't even remotely convincing either.Yes, this is merely part of the mechanism by which to play back the medium.

[HypnoPsi]

What would be the difference between belief in a diety and belief in intelligent life on other planets as far as rationality is concerned? Do those who feel it irrational to believe in the existance of a diety also feel the same way about the existance of intelligent life on other planets?A materialistic answer would be that we already have a frame of reference for life existing on one planet so we have good reason to posit life elsewhere.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I think god's existence, however you want to define him, is toward the far end of the "no" on the continuum (perhaps not as far as santa, but still pretty far out!). Interestingly, given the various ways there are to define god, the closer the definition gets to the yes/maybe end of the continuum the more the definition of god becomes empty (as with deism-- some supernatural force that created but does not interact with the universe....a definition which offers no explanation for anything except "goddidit").What of the "godisit" explanation? That's clearly the default position.

If you accept that you are conscious and have "selfness" (even if you deny any definate "self"), you have to accept that you have more evidence for consciousness than you do for "matter" (particularly some, undefinable, fundamental form of M/E) - and that you require a sense of "other/otherness" (a "not-self" reference point) in order to construct "self/selfness".

As we all know, that sense of 'real beingness' "out there" (our 'otherness') is very easily appropriated by (or given over to) religions as "Our Father, who art in Heaven..." or "Krishna Consciousness", "Buddha Nature", etc.,.

Now, I can somewhat (but not entirely) accept as valid the criticism that this seems to lack any evidence of an afterlife or of "God" being interested in us, but I definately cannot see how atheism is more valid than something like panpsychism, animism, pantheism or even monism. Amonotheism would be logical enough though.
_
HypnoPsi

[bpesta22]

How much evidence overcomes burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What evidence is there for the non-existance of all dieties? What evidence is there for the existance of intelligent life on other planets? What evidence is there that black licorice is better than red or that George W. Bush is a bad president? Which of these beliefs would you consider irrational and why?

-Bri

Well, I think then it falls back on burden of proof issues. If you agree (seems like some dont) that materialism is the default mode, then I think it's up to the theist to prevent evidence for his / her god. If I cant sense it or verify it empirically, then it's up to you to convince me why I should believe it.

I think the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is overused" (because it's a catchy buzzword, and the OJ trial made it famous). I understand fairly well the idea of statistical power and Type II errors-- but I think there are cases where absense of evidence is compelling, and I think a personalized god is one example of where the lack of evidence suggests that not believing is rational. As PG says below, it's only the vaguely defined god that's hard to discount, but then the vague god becomes empty as an explanation for anything (and so worthless imo).

I think life on other planets is far more probable than the christian god, for example, given how many possible worlds there are that may have the right conditions for life (based on what I've read; not claiming expertise in astronomy, and with the proviso that I'm willing to change my belief based on input from astronomers).

For the other two, they seem to be in a different category-- we were talking about whether x exists; now you're asking for an evaluation of x along some dimension (e.g., tastes better; effectiveness as a president). I reckon we could compare sales of black to red lic; controlled taste tests, etc-- do science-- and come to some conclusion about the mean difference in taste between red and black lic. We could also compare bush's record on any number of issues to those of other presidents, but first you'd need to define what bad president means.

[.13.]

Actually, it's possible because Santa is much better defined than a god. The more defined it becomes, the easier it is to rule it out.

Thus, you can rule out that Santa lives at the North Pole pretty easily. How do you rule out something that "lives outside of time and space"?

That's why the first question regarding discussions of god has to be "define god."

Oh, I didn't think of that. Thanks for clarifying.

EDIT:
And thanks for drkitten too. All about definitions I see. Got to remember that.

[HypnoPsi]

I think I can fairly say, I have no reasonable doubts about atheism. So, if that's the burden of proof for rational belief, then I think my belief's rational, esp. since I add the proviso that I'd be willing to examine any evidence anyone wanted to present for a god, and change my mind were the evidence valid.If you have no reasonable doubts about atheism then you're extremely closed-minded. What evidence is there (what evidence can their ever be) that the noumenal world of 'things-in-themselves' is made of a fundamental form of M/E when the ultimate nature of the substance of things is outside our abilities to investigate/observe? What real evidence is there that this "matter", assuming it really exists, causes conciousness?

Atheists are just people who refuse to take things to their logical conclusion. They stop investigating when the questions become hard. If consciousness is EM radiation then it's everywhere - it isthe Universe; with the same holding true if you believe that consciousness occurs whenever there is a binary choice (thermostats, the sodium potassium pump in neurons) because nothing is at absolute zero and for all things there is an equal and an opposite reaction.

Theists, animists and panpsycists don't do that. They have evidence for consciousness (albeit indemonstrable evidence) and so include that data in constructing their model of reality. They have "self/selfness" and an overwhelming sense of very real, stable, beingness ("otherness") all around them. Are they justified in calling it "Our Father, who art in Heaven..."? Possibly, possibly not. But unlike the atheist they are being scientific about it by constructing a theory from the data rather than going looking for data (fundamental M/E) from the theory (atheism).
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

You've had an entire thread to support this idea and you failed, Hypno. Move on.I supported my ideas just fine - unless you have conclusive evidence for, one, matter and, two, matter producing consciousness. That's what materialistic atheism requires.

Call it a hunch, but something tells me you quite have that conclusive evidence yet.
_
HypnoPsi

[Iacchus]

Yes folks, and this message has been brought to you by the Consciousness Channel. :D

[HypnoPsi]

For example, everyone agrees that his house is at the North Pole,...Or Greenland.... or Lapland.but no one ever finds reindeer prints on their roofs.In Victorian times, didn't spring heeled jack leave hoove prints or roofs or something like that?
_
HypnoPsi

[Bri]

I think life on other planets is far more probable than the christian god, for example, given how many possible worlds there are that may have the right conditions for life (based on what I've read; not claiming expertise in astronomy, and with the proviso that I'm willing to change my belief based on input from astronomers).

Since intelligent extra terrestrials are presumably material, wouldn't that place extra terrestrials more on par with Santa Clause in that we might expect to find evidence of their existance if they existed, whereas there is no reason to believe that there would be any evidence of a diety even if one existed?

I reckon we could compare sales of black to red lic; controlled taste tests, etc-- do science-- and come to some conclusion about the mean difference in taste between red and black lic.

Of course, that's just determining which is more popular (black vs. red licorice). If you want to do that with theism vs. atheism, then there's no question which point of view would win out.

We could also compare bush's record on any number of issues to those of other presidents, but first you'd need to define what bad president means.

Regardless of what criteria you use, doesn't it come down to opinion as to whether you like or dislike Bush's record as a president? Are you saying that there must be a right answer and that any opposing belief is necessarily irrational? Or is it possible for two people to hold two opposing opinions about something and for both of those opinions to be rational?

Doesn't rationality actually come down to whether or not one's certainty about a belief is in line with the available evidence? If one's certainty level doesn't match the available evidence (or lack thereof), then perhaps that belief might be considered irrational. When it comes to the existance of a diety, the fact is that nobody knows for certain whether one exists or none exist. If one holds either belief as irrefutable fact rather than opinion, that belief might not qualify as rational since it doesn't fit the evidence. However, it is possible to be an "agnostic theist" or an "agnostic atheist" which is simply to admit that one doesn't know for certain but to still hold an opinion one way or the other.

Some also claim to be agnostic without holding an opinion either way, but that's usually either a claim of ignorance ("I don't know enough to form an opinion") or a claim that it is irrational to hold a belief without proof. But it seems to me that anyone with an opinion holds a belief without proof (that's precisely what an opinion is).

Mark Twain once said "I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

Shouldn't one be allowed to hold an opinion without being labeled irrational?

-Bri

[bpesta22]

Hyp.

I'm really having a hard time understanding what your meaning is? This isn't a slam or insult, but it seems like yer giving me the conclusion to an argument, and I haven't had the benefit of the beginning.

[bpesta22]

Bri-- I don't think you're successfully arguing me into a corner. Why should we expect proof of worlds light years away to be as readilly available as proof of a north poll living, xmas giving santa?

With the taste test example, if we had internally valid, repeatable data showing that the mean taste rating of black lic is 4.0 on a 7 point likert (with demonstrated reliability and validty) with a SD of .5, and the mean for red lic is 5.5 with an SD of .6, then I think one could state the fact that red lic tastes better. Whether you specifically thought it tasted better could be verified by asking you.

Popularity probably correlates with taste (fish ice cream doesn't sell well?) which is why I started there. How much we really wanted to know the answer would then determine how much effort we applied to constructing the taste test to be as controlled/sound as possible.

We all have opinions of bush, but there have to be objective criteria with which to judge a president's record. Your opinion may or may not be rational depending on how it squares with knwon facts in the area. To me, having the opinion that a god exists (at least a well defined one) is irrational because it's based not on any evidence but faith.

[HypnoPsi]

Well, I think then it falls back on burden of proof issues.I'm all for burden of proof issues - when someone is specifically trying to persuade someone of something.If you agree (seems like some dont) that materialism is the default mode, then I think it's up to the theist to prevent evidence for his / her god.And if you are in the correct default mode accepting that you are conscious and that you have a sense of realness of yourself and the world around you then you become... something like an animist, panentheist or panpsychist and wonder where any evidence is for this fundamental form of M/E and for it defiantely producing consciousness (somehow just in brains!).If I cant sense it or verify it empirically, then it's up to you to convince me why I should believe it.I can't sense fundamental M/E or verify it empirically and since absolutely nobody can even define what it's supposed to be this whole materialism/atheism malarky seems pretty naff.

Science is supposed to be data driven - not the opposite. To theorise a monotheistic God is perfectly valid because we have individual proof of consciousness, are intelligent and sense "beingness" all around us as other-than-self. There's no evidence that "otherness-to-Selfness" is an inteligent 'Father in Heaven' but it's a data-driven postulate.

Atheism is 100% counter to to the scientific method because it is theory driven - that some fundamental form of M/E exists and, futher that it produces consciousness. (I can accept materialism as a valid postulate because the physical exists but the next step, that it produces consciousness, is absolutely not justifiable scientifically until the first postulate is conclusively proven).I think there are cases where absense of evidence is compelling, and I think a personalized god is one example of where the lack of evidence suggests that not believing is rational.No, this is wrong. To have sense of "self/selfness" you require a sense of "other/otherness". It's there already the instant you accept you and that you are conscious. But is it right to rever or worship the "otherness"? That's the big question.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Hyp.

I'm really having a hard time understanding what your meaning is? This isn't a slam or insult, but it seems like yer giving me the conclusion to an argument, and I haven't had the benefit of the beginning.You'll have to be more specific.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

That "thing" is what Kant called the "noumenal", the 'thing-in-itself' as opposed to the "phenomenal" the 'thing-in-mind'.

Let's "throw a tin of paint" on the "noumenal" and not jump to the conclusion that it's made of (fundamental) M/E just yet.

No need to use fancy words. As I said it doesn't matter what we call it. We are still talking about the same thing. M/E, noumenal... doesn't matter. I rather use matter/energy as the label of the noumenal. I think that is most accepeted word for it. Point is it is real.


Let's assume you're not good at mind-reading and move along....


Could you clarify then what you mean by invisible?


It's called superstring theory; but size doesn't matter it's the nature of the substance that is important. That is forever outside of our grasp (in the human condition at least)....

As far as I know supersting theory is not a theory. Just a hypothesis. And what I understand it is ultimately testable when we get powerfull enough particle colliders.


So what if we have, so what if we haven't? Sub-atomics doesn't actually impinge upon the philosophical question of the substance of the noumenal.Who's assuming anything "super"natural? Consciousness exists. We know that individually even if it is indemonstrable to others that we are conscious.

My understanding of "substance" is in the reply before drkitten-quote. I thought you assumed supernatural by saying consciousness is caused by something "out of this world". If you didn't say that, correct me.


Fundamental M/E can never be observed. It's fairy dust. So what's the most logical, default, position re the nature of reality? Why believe in some unknown magic powder existing independently (of consciousness) and believe that it produces consciousness when we already have evidence for consciousness? It doesn't make any logical sense.

The noumenal exists and it exists independent of conscioussnes if I understood it correctly. We can measure its properties. We name it. Give it a definition. I find this kind of thinking pointles: "Dude, What is rock? I mean deep down! What is it? Man I'm getting intellectual right now...". And I don't mean here the studying of basic properties of the universe.

In my opinion noumenal gives rise to consciousness. I call that that noumenal, M/E. And what does it matter if we have evidence for existance of conscioussnes? Don't you want to know what produces it?


To practice science - nothing. To start making ontological claims that fundamental M/E exists and produces consciousness - evidence.

Correct me if I'm wrong: You think noumenal isn't the cause for conscioussnes? If that is the difference in our thinking why not stick with M/E as substitution of the noumenal. That's what most people call it.

As I said we measure and observe the noumenal and give it a definition. And as I said I find ontological questions pretty pointless, atleast the ones I have heard. I didn't claim noumenal produces consciousness, yet. I do it now. I think studies of the brain have given enough evidence to reasonably conclude that. Especially since there is no reason to think otherwise.


I'm not and don't claim to be a sub-atomic physicist. I do, however, understand enough science, psychology and philosophy to know what measurement and observation is - and that it tells us nothing at all about the substance of particles and/or even superstrings.

Expecting reductionism to lead to an explanation of the substance of fundamental M/E is like chasing an unattainable pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And ignoring the hard problem of consciousness by thinking it just must just be neural activity isn't even remotely convincing either. (It wouldn't even be convincing if you conclusively proved the existence of fundamental M/E).

The materialist says it's all reducable to fundamental M/E and I say it's golden goose eggs. What's the difference?

But isn't the substance same as properties? We know what the substance is when we know how it behaves in different conditions. Then we just make up new words and dictionary definitions if needed. What else would we need to know to understand it (noumenal, M/E...) better?

Some people understand Kant.

Some people don't understand Kant.

Some people don't understand that they don't understand Kant.

I admit I'm one of the people who don't understand Kant. I haven't even read Kant. I have just tried to stick with dictionary definitions of noumenal. That is why I would prefer to use M/E as substitute word for noumenal. If my use or understanding of noumenal is incorrect and it's not too much trouble to correct me, please do.

[Bri]

I don't think you're successfully arguing me into a corner.

Good, because that wasn't my intention.

Why should we expect proof of worlds light years away to be as readilly available as proof of a north poll living, xmas giving santa?

Actually, I was comparing the existance of intelligent extra-terrestrial life with the existance of a diety for which there is no reason to believe we would find any evidence of. The former is much closer to Santa than the latter, given that extra terrestrials are material.

With the taste test example, if we had internally valid, repeatable data showing that the mean taste rating of black lic is 4.0 on a 7 point likert (with demonstrated reliability and validty) with a SD of .5, and the mean for red lic is 5.5 with an SD of .6, then I think one could state the fact that red lic tastes better. Whether you specifically thought it tasted better could be verified by asking you.

Likewise, we could probably do the same with the debate over the existance of God. I don't think either data would be very reliable though, so in the end it comes down to either popularity or opinion -- take your pick.

We all have opinions of bush, but there have to be objective criteria with which to judge a president's record. Your opinion may or may not be rational depending on how it squares with knwon facts in the area.

So you believe that with all opposing opinions, one must be rational and the other irrational? How do you determine which is the rational one without proof? If you think that red licorice is better but it is "proved" that black is actually better using whatever "objective criteria" you wish to come up with, then you're irrational?

To me, having the opinion that a god exists (at least a well defined one) is irrational because it's based not on any evidence but faith.

There is evidence that gods exist. Of course, the quality of that evidence is another matter. Is there evidence that no gods exist?

-Bri

[.13.]

If consciousness is EM radiation then it's everywhere - it isthe Universe; with the same holding true if you believe that consciousness occurs whenever there is a binary choice (thermostats, the sodium potassium pump in neurons) because nothing is at absolute zero and for all things there is an equal and an opposite reaction.

In your example you assume that if EM radiation can cause consciousness then every pattern of EM can cause consciousness. There are certain patterns of EM radiation in our brains. If EM radiation is the cause, wouldn't it be reasonable to think it is the patterns of the radiation rather than the radiation itself?

I don't understand your binary choice example, could you explain it some more?

[bpesta22]

But why do I need to have evidence for not x, when x is something I can't sense, verify, etc. I hate to bring up the tired old pink unicorn example, but why would I be compelled to prove they don't exist?

Is it faith based or is it rational when one believes and asserts that pink unicorns don't exist? Does the answer here change when we substitute god for the pink unicorn. If so, why?

Perhpas we just disagree on the main thrust of my initial post. I still assert that "no belief in x" is qualitiatively different than "belief in x," when there is no evidence for x. To assume otherwise would force us to have to consider every absurdity as a possibility, unless you can suggest how one can prove a negative, and then justify why one has to prove a negative with certainty before disbelieving in it is rational.

[.13.]

To have sense of "self/selfness" you require a sense of "other/otherness". It's there already the instant you accept you and that you are conscious. But is it right to rever or worship the "otherness"? That's the big question.

Wouldn't the understanding of the concept of "otherness" through our cognition, be enough? Is consciouss otherness necessary?

Dictionary.com definition for cognition:
1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

If I have understood your posts on the other thread correctly you are saying cognition is part of the brain but awareness is not.

Why can't we have a sense of "self" (awareness?) just with cognitive processes and the information we gather from the material world. Call it noumenal if you wish to use fancy words. But you know what I mean: non-consciouss world that would exist even if we didn't.

[Bri]

But why do I need to have evidence for not x, when x is something I can't sense, verify, etc. I hate to bring up the tired old pink unicorn example, but why would I be compelled to prove they don't exist?

You shouldn't feel compelled to prove any opinion (actually, if you can prove an opinion it would cease to be an opinion and would instead be fact). But if you want to convince others of your opinion -- including the belief that there are no gods -- the burden would be on you to provide evidence. Lack of opinion is of course another matter, but I assume we're talking about a belief that there are no gods rather than simply a lack of opinion either way. It is difficult to provide evidence of no gods, since that would involve disproving all gods (essentially showing that none of them do or can exist).

Is it faith based or is it rational when one believes and asserts that pink unicorns don't exist? Does the answer here change when we substitute god for the pink unicorn. If so, why?

Without compelling evidence to the contrary, if one has a rational reason to be of the opinion that a pink unicorn exists then it would be a rational belief as long as the believer doesn't state that opinion as fact. Same goes for extra terrestrials (and extra terrestrial pink unicorns for that matter). Some people do have rational reasons for belief in God, though most will readily admit that they cannot prove that God exists.

Perhpas we just disagree on the main thrust of my initial post. I still assert that "no belief in x" is qualitiatively different than "belief in x," when there is no evidence for x. To assume otherwise would force us to have to consider every absurdity as a possibility, unless you can suggest how one can prove a negative, and then justify why one has to prove a negative with certainty before disbelieving in it is rational.

Many "absurdities" are possibile, and to state otherwise would simply be false. That doesn't mean there's any reason to believe in most of them, of course, but it also doesn't mean that belief in them is necessarily irrational.

-Bri

[PatKelley]

Just so folks know, this sense of "self" is also tenuous, and subject to occasional dissolution. Schizophrenic is a blanket term, which encompasses varieties of misperception specifically having to do with "self" and "other." When one hears voices, it is because a "self" attribute (one's own idle thoughts) are instead identified as "other." Others occur in which related experiences are confounded with recollections of "self" memories, and one becomes convinced that a related event happened to them. Still others occur in which the thoughts of self and other are indiscriminate, and so it appears there is no clear delineation at all between "self" and "other" - the fearing that others know one's thoughts, control one remotely, and so on. Finally, there is the psychotic break in which the very short term memory (which gives us continuity) is framed in terms of a related experience, the experience some have of "watching themselves." They are seeing the representation of themselves in a memory context of a related experience.

All of these point to the delineation of "self" and "other" indeed being physical properties, alterable, and subject to confusion, misperception, or even suppression.

Awareness is more indeterminate. It is the emergent property of the combination of the blocks of memory and experience (fast facial processors and associated emotional centers, memory and associative retrieval, "self" context very short term memory and delineation of self and very short term memory replay and longer term memory replay, and other and recognition of other as self analogue, and many other bits). In this complex interplay, where is awareness? Is it a single localized center, an emergent property of all of these mechanisms or just some? Could one be brain damaged in such a specific way as to knock out awareness alone, and how would we know? How do we even know anyone else is aware?

I'm something of "Turingist" myself. In some manner, the truth is immaterial if there is no distinction that can be made between an expert system feigning conciousness, and true conciousness. Similarly for the material world: if there is no experimental consequence to a deity, does it really matter if there is or is not?

[Belz...]

And ignoring the hard problem of consciousness by thinking it just must just be neural activity isn't even remotely convincing either.

Yes, this is merely part of the mechanism by which to play back the medium.

Oh NO! HypnoPsi and Iacchus have met. We're all doomed.

[HypnoPsi]

No need to use fancy words. As I said it doesn't matter what we call it. We are still talking about the same thing. M/E, noumenal... doesn't matter. I rather use matter/energy as the label of the noumenal. I think that is most accepeted word for it. Point is it is real.Since I'm a realist myself I'll happily accept that the words matter/energy are much more accepted and commonly used than noumenal but these words do mean subtly different things. The noumenal ('thing-in-itself') is used when contrasted against the pheonemenal ('thing-in-mind'), whereas the term "matter" (particularly in "materialism") refers to the inherent nature of objects. "Matter/Energy" is supposed to refer to a substance that exists independently. As an amaterialist I don't deny the physical universe exists. It's like believing in material mass but not in any ultimate material density.Could you clarify then what you mean by invisible?Actually it's kind of redundant to use the word invisible since we need assistance (in the form of maths, eyes or whatever) to measure anything. The point is just that we can't say what "matter" actually "is".As far as I know supersting theory is not a theory. Just a hypothesis. And what I understand it is ultimately testable when we get powerfull enough particle colliders.Yes, it's just a theory. And I believe you might be correct. Either way, again, the only point of importance is that we cannot ever know the real nature of matter. This is about form and content.My understanding of "substance" is in the reply before drkitten-quote. I thought you assumed supernatural by saying consciousness is caused by something "out of this world". If you didn't say that, correct me.I don't recall saying it but I'm happy to. Physicists already theorise about spacetime being projected holgraphically and something called C-Space (I honestly, have absolutely no idea what they're talking about at all) and that matter is actually the result of superstrings vibrating. Positing the "super"natural is hardly anything new. I'll happily say that God and consciousness exists a prior to it all.The noumenal exists and it exists independent of conscioussnes if I understood it correctly. We can measure its properties. We name it. Give it a definition. I find this kind of thinking pointles: "Dude, What is rock? I mean deep down! What is it? Man I'm getting intellectual right now...". And I don't mean here the studying of basic properties of the universe.

In my opinion noumenal gives rise to consciousness. I call that that noumenal, M/E. And what does it matter if we have evidence for existance of conscioussnes? Don't you want to know what produces it?Of course I do, but assuming that the noumenal gives rise to it is very obviously a fallacy of post hoc reasoning and fundamental M/E is just a proposition. Consciousness isn't a proposition and subsequently it is untennable to say that "matter" is the best causal candidate for all that exists.Correct me if I'm wrong: You think noumenal isn't the cause for conscioussnes? If that is the difference in our thinking why not stick with M/E as substitution of the noumenal. That's what most people call it.Well, personally, I think the monists might be onto something (particularly those who lean towards animism, panpsychism or panentheism as opposed to physicalists or elimininativist materialists) but I'd say I believe in God as cause of both consciousness and matter. So, no, I definately do not believe that the noumenal is the cause of consciousness. The reason I tend to use the word 'noumenal' is explained above - the word "matter" refers more to elemental density while 'noumenal' just refers to elemental mass.As I said we measure and observe the noumenal and give it a definition. And as I said I find ontological questions pretty pointless, atleast the ones I have heard. I didn't claim noumenal produces consciousness, yet. I do it now. I think studies of the brain have given enough evidence to reasonably conclude that. Especially since there is no reason to think otherwise.When brains are damaged there is a resulting degrading of information processing and thus of cognitive (sapient) experience. But that doesn't mean that consciousness (sentience) is affected.

There are three clear logical fallacies involved in thinking that brains produce consciousness. First, it's post hoc ergo propter hoc, which we've covered. Second, it's a fallacy of limited depth since we need to know the nature (in terms of elemental density) of brain matter (literally) before we start positing what it may or may not cause. And, third, it involves a double false analogy since consciousness (sentience) is not the same thing as cognition (sapience) and cognition is not the same thing as neural processing.But isn't the substance same as properties?Not exactly in this instance, no.We know what the substance is when we know how it behaves in different conditions. Then we just make up new words and dictionary definitions if needed. What else would we need to know to understand it (noumenal, M/E...) better?I think you're missing the point about the fundamental nature of things.I admit I'm one of the people who don't understand Kant. I haven't even read Kant. I have just tried to stick with dictionary definitions of noumenal. That is why I would prefer to use M/E as substitute word for noumenal. If my use or understanding of noumenal is incorrect and it's not too much trouble to correct me, please do.Don't sweat it, I'm only using the word noumenal in the dictionary sense as well :)
_
HypnoPsi

[hammegk]

In some manner, the truth is immaterial if there is no distinction that can be made between an expert system feigning conciousness, and true conciousness.
A rational materialist should conclude there is no difference. In any case, it is a question each life-form must decide for itself.

[Belz...]

A rational materialist should conclude there is no difference. In any case, it is a question each life-form must decide for itself.

I can't decide whether the first word of my sentence should be "fortunately" or "unfortunately." Anyhoo, it's not how science and reason work. "Hey let's decide for ourselves. None of that pesky truth, here! No, sir."

[hammegk]

If you are asserting that science defines truth, you are wrong. :)

[Belz...]

If you are asserting that science defines truth, you are wrong. :)

I am asserting that science strives to FIND truth and that it is the best tool we have to do that.

[.13.]

The noumenal ('thing-in-itself') is used when contrasted against the pheonemenal ('thing-in-mind'), whereas the term "matter" (particularly in "materialism") refers to the inherent nature of objects. "Matter/Energy" is supposed to refer to a substance that exists independently. As an amaterialist I don't deny the physical universe exists. It's like believing in material mass but not in any ultimate material density.


The reason I tend to use the word 'noumenal' is explained above - the word "matter" refers more to elemental density while 'noumenal' just refers to elemental mass.


Not exactly in this instance, no. I think you're missing the point about the fundamental nature of things.

I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean by material mass and material density? elemental mass/density? What do you mean by fundamental nature of things?

Aren't the basic buildingblocks of the univerese noumenal?

Tree is not noumenal. It it's made of molecules. Molecules are not noumenal those are made of atoms. atoms->electrons;protons;neutrons. If I recall physics correctly electrons aren't made of any smaller particles. So they are noumenal. Protons and neutron are made of quarks. Those are the "essence" of protons and neutrons. I'm not sure if quarks are made of smaller particles. For the sake of this discussion I assume there is not yet evidence for those particles. Just correct me if I'm wrong. Now the quarks are noumenal. They are not made of any other particles. I don't remember particle physics that well but there might be other particles that have no inner structures. Is this correct interpretation of thing-in-itself?

What else is there to a quark than its properties? Aren't the properties the fundamental nature of quarks?

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
If consciousness is EM radiation then it's everywhere - it isthe Universe; with the same holding true if you believe that consciousness occurs whenever there is a binary choice (thermostats, the sodium potassium pump in neurons) because nothing is at absolute zero and for all things there is an equal and an opposite reaction.In your example you assume that if EM radiation can cause consciousness then every pattern of EM can cause consciousness.Patterns of EM?There are certain patterns of EM radiation in our brains. If EM radiation is the cause, wouldn't it be reasonable to think it is the patterns of the radiation rather than the radiation itself?What scientific or logical reasons would a materialist give for doing that? How would s/he demonstrate or falsify that it occurs under certain conditions and not others?I don't understand your binary choice example, could you explain it some more?On this page: http://pp.kpnet.fi/seirioa/cdenn/doanimal.htm from the paragraph beginning "The maximal leniency of the position....." Dennett outlines his position that thermostats are intentional systems with beliefs about the world.

Defining Dennett's view as a binary choice example is quite simple - if the thermostat 'senses' that it's too hot it 'acts' to turn off the heating. If the thermostat 'senses' that it's too cold it 'acts' to turn on the heating.

Personally, while I disagree entirely with Dennett that thermostats have beliefs, I respect him for proposing a theory and defending it.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

...assuming that the noumenal gives rise to it is very obviously a fallacy of post hoc reasoning...

Could you explain? It's not obvious to me.


Second, it's a fallacy of limited depth since we need to know the nature (in terms of elemental density) of brain matter (literally) before we start positing what it may or may not cause.


Why would we need to know anything about the properties beyond molecular scale?


And, third, it involves a double false analogy since consciousness (sentience) is not the same thing as cognition (sapience) and cognition is not the same thing as neural processing.

Could you explain in more detail? Why is cognition not enough for consciousness?


Let's clarify few things:
What does consciousness do? What are its functions? Is there information flow from the brain to consciousness? What about from consciousness to the brain? What does consciousness do with that information? Can consciousness be altered?

[.13.]

Patterns of EM?

Simple sine wave compared to wave that contains the entire works of Iron Maiden.


What scientific or logical reasons would a materialist give for doing that? How would s/he demonstrate or falsify that it occurs under certain conditions and not others?

I was only pointing out your flaw in thinking that if EM produces consciousness then the whole universe must be consciouss. I wasn't trying to give any actual testable models for conscioussnes.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
To have sense of "self/selfness" you require a sense of "other/otherness". It's there already the instant you accept you and that you are conscious. But is it right to rever or worship the "otherness"? That's the big question.Wouldn't the understanding of the concept of "otherness" through our cognition, be enough? Is consciouss otherness necessary?As I indicated, believing that the "Other/Otherness to Self/Selfness" is aware and interested in us is the big question. Someone could very easily believe that it is for purely psychological reasons that so many find their "Other/Otherness" easily appropriated by (or willingly given over to) religions as "Our Father, who art in Heaven...", "Krishna Consciousness", "Buddha Nature", etc., and point blank refuse to revere or worship it.

Since I'm not trying to present any case for the Other/ness really being "God" that's not the issue for me. What I am saying is that "God" is a rational and data-driven postulate since I already know that consciousness and intelligence exist. Similarly, "matter" is a data driven postulate since we know something is definately going on every time we return to a room and find the hands on our watch have changed (observer-independent automation).

So we have two equally valid postulates and it is equally valid to believe in either. But the materialist goes from data-driven science to theory driven pseudoscience the instant he asserts brains produce consciousness because that is fallacious reasoning. It's a logical fallacy of limited depth because the cause of brain matter has not been demonstrated - only theorised as "matter".If I have understood your posts on the other thread correctly you are saying cognition is part of the brain but awareness is not.I am saying that cognition is the experience in consciousness of neural activity; notably information processing.Why can't we have a sense of "self" (awareness?) just with cognitive processes and the information we gather from the material world. Call it noumenal if you wish to use fancy words. But you know what I mean: non-consciouss world that would exist even if we didn't.I know of no world that would exist if absolutely no conscious beings existed.

Consider: all I have is sensory information and a sense of real beingness about things. When I type on the keyboard, pick up a mug or look above to the massive expanse of stars in the sky, I sense complete "realness" about it all. It all definately has "being". It exists. But what am I sensing when I sense this "real beingness"? Since everything comes to me via my senses that "beingness" I'm sensing must be something else. Am I projecting it? Possibly, possibly not. Maybe I'm intuiting it because of the stability of the world around me?

So, here's the thing: I have absolute proof of consciousness but no proof of matter at all and exist in a well ordered environment that seems to obey laws like gravity (all part of the "otherness" be-ing). Since I didn't order it all and write the laws (or, rather, I certainly don't have any recollection of doing such!) I have no other option but to conclude that the "Otherness" which is be-ing keyboards, mugs, tables, chairs laws of gravity and striped toothpaste did/is it since my folks assure me it was around long before I came along.

If that's not a good candidate for "God" I don't know what is.
_
HypnoPsi

[Mercutio]

If that's not a good candidate for "God" I don't know what is.
It isn't, and neither do I.

[Belz...]

Consider: all I have is sensory information and a sense of real beingness about things. When I type on the keyboard, pick up a mug or look above to the massive expanse of stars in the sky, I sense complete "realness" about it all. It all definately has "being". It exists. But what am I sensing when I sense this "real beingness"? Since everything comes to me via my senses that "beingness" I'm sensing must be something else. Am I projecting it? Possibly, possibly not. Maybe I'm intuiting it because of the stability of the world around me?

:words:

You just keep on claiming, don't ya ?

So, here's the thing: I have absolute proof of consciousness

We've been there, Hypno. You have nothing.

but no proof of matter at all and exist in a well ordered environment that seems to obey laws like gravity (all part of the "otherness" be-ing).

We've done that, Hypno. You still have nothing.

Since I didn't order it all and write the laws (or, rather, I certainly don't have any recollection of doing such!) I have no other option but to conclude that the "Otherness" which is be-ing keyboards, mugs, tables, chairs laws of gravity and striped toothpaste did/is it since my folks assure me it was around long before I came along.

If that's not a good candidate for "God" I don't know what is.

Wow. You've just come to the same conclusion the primitive tribesmen had. Now all you have to do is travel another 6000 years and you'll be right here and now with us.

[HypnoPsi]

I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean by material mass and material density? elemental mass/density? What do you mean by fundamental nature of things?I'm trying to get around the limitations of language. Perhaps it would be better if you just consider that we can only ever have sensory information about "things". From that we can agree that something has 'form' but we can never know it's 'content'.What else is there to a quark than its properties? Aren't the properties the fundamental nature of quarks?Bringing Kantian metaphysicis into the 21st century then, yes, we probably would ignore the tree and concentrate on the smallest known particles. (My understanding is that physicists are having most fun at the moment with gravitons and fermions in relation to superstring theory but, for our purposes, let's stick with quarks.) On this page: http://www.answers.com/topic/noumenon?method=6 we have this statement:

"Noumena are the basic realities behind all sensory experience. According to Kant, they are not knowable because they cannot be perceived, but they must be thinkable because moral decision making and scientific investigation cannot proceed without the assumption that they exist."

Even if we consider experimentation to be a way of observing quarks, we can still only ever have sensory experience of the "physical" world. You might not realise it but your question "Aren't the properties the fundamental nature of quarks?" is actually the same thing an amaterialist would ask in refutation of materialism. (Indeed, just a month or so ago a was at an evening lecture where a philosophy prof did just that.)

The substance that causes "things" to be and/or that "things" inherently are, is forever unknowable to us as a consequence of our being observers and "things" being observed. To truly know the "thing" we'd have to be the "thing" (but let's not get too mystical just yet :))
_
HypnoPsi

[hammegk]

It isn't ...
Merc, can you back that up a bit?

[Mercutio]

Merc, can you back that up a bit?
Anything in particular? I hardly know where to start...I suppose the cliffnotes version is simply that such a definition is so different from the way we use the world "god" that it can hardly be seen as "a good candidate" for the position. I mean...if I define footwear as consisting of pastry crusts with a sweet filling between them, I can claim to be able to eat boots...but we already have perfectly suitable definitions of footwear, and separate definitions of pies, and redefining the one as the other does not advance anything.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
...assuming that the noumenal gives rise to it is very obviously a fallacy of post hoc reasoning...Could you explain? It's not obvious to me.Claiming that brains cause consciousness is like claiming that electricity causes people to appear in a TV set. Just because consciousness (of the expressive and interactive kind) occurs with brains doesn't mean if follows from brains. Consider:

Science:
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." (From http://www.answers.com/science)

Pseudoscience:
"an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions" (From http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=502&deid=1525531015&gwp=11&curtab=502_1&linktext=Meaning%20%231)

In claiming the brain produces consciousness there are two other logical fallacies involved besides post hoc reasoning. The first is a fallacy of limited depth since we don't (and can't) know the ultimate cause/nature of the most fundamental form of M/E - and thus the ultimate nature of brain matter. The second error in reasoning brains as the cause of consciousness is a double false analogy fallacy. Consciousness (sentience) is not the same thing as cognition (sapience) and cognition is not the same thing as neural processing. (The best we can say is that cognition is the experience of neural processing - particularly information processing - within consciousness.)

It's perfectly fine, scientifically, to posit that "matter" exists because it's data-driven since we can observe that seeming stability of forms. But until "matter" is proven (and it can't ever be) it's always, and without exception, theory-driven to posit that brain matter causes consciousness. This is a crucial demarcation criteria between genuine science and pseudoscience because attempts to explain the unexplained with the unknown are always just empty words.Why would we need to know anything about the properties beyond molecular scale?See above. Descriptions of consciousness as caused by brain matter are always, ultimately, empty explanations. Note: I'm not saying that molecular and physical scale isn't important to doctors and psychologists, for example, trying to guage how 'conscious' a patient is but, technically, that's just conscious responsiveness.Could you explain in more detail? Why is cognition not enough for consciousness?Because there is a cognizer - I think, therefore I am. You can theorise that's actually an illusion somehow but it will never match an individuals direct experience. Philosophers like to ask why we're not just p-zombies (philosophical zombies), why we're aware at all if S-R (stimulus-response) is enough to explain our thinking and behaviour (and, by extension, are computers conscious - or all machines?).

A big part of the problem, almost universally recognised, is that we're asking unanswerable questions. Eliminativism (let's just say it's neural processing and ingnore the problem) doesn't seem to convince anybody. It's perfectly acceptable for materialists to hold posit matter exists, but they should admit that it's 'faith-based'.Let's clarify few things:
What does consciousness do? What are its functions? Is there information flow from the brain to consciousness? What about from consciousness to the brain? What does consciousness do with that information? Can consciousness be altered?Consciousness is experienced as being the observer of cognitive phenomena and as having agency (free will). (Saying it doesn't have these things, that they're illusionary, is theory since our experience is that we do.) Yes, there is information flow from the brain to consciousness - or at least neural/information processing is experienced in consciousness as cognition.

I would say that meditation demonstrates that there can be a flow of information from consciousness to the brain, since it is experienced as us making a conscious choice to change our lives resulting in new neural networks forming. I would further say that consciousness can be altered, as mystics claim, via acts of "selflessness", whereby we feel more alive and noble than our normal ego-self. It's indemonstrable, of course, but not without evidence to the individual.

Either way, when you really think about the logcial default and accept the nature of reality when we take experience to it's natural conclusion it is clear that consciousness-ism, as opposed to materialism, is the true default position. That doesn't mean there's a God, afterlife and angels playing harps on clouds, of course.
_
HypnoPsi

[Belz...]

Anything in particular? I hardly know where to start...I suppose the cliffnotes version is simply that such a definition is so different from the way we use the world "god" that it can hardly be seen as "a good candidate" for the position. I mean...if I define footwear as consisting of pastry crusts with a sweet filling between them, I can claim to be able to eat boots...but we already have perfectly suitable definitions of footwear, and separate definitions of pies, and redefining the one as the other does not advance anything.

Hummm... edible footwear.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
Patterns of EM?Simple sine wave compared to wave that contains the entire works of Iron Maiden.But what reason would any materialist of the EM varitey have for concluding one wave consciousness rather than others?I was only pointing out your flaw in thinking that if EM produces consciousness then the whole universe must be consciouss. I wasn't trying to give any actual testable models for conscioussnes.Well, hold on a second. Remember the difference between data-driven and theory-driven. Ignoring the fact that you still don't know the ultimate nature of fundamental M/E, why are you jumping from EM to patterns of EM?
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

As I indicated, believing that the "Other/Otherness to Self/Selfness" is aware and interested in us is the big question. Someone could very easily believe that it is for purely psychological reasons that so many find their "Other/Otherness" easily appropriated by (or willingly given over to) religions as "Our Father, who art in Heaven...", "Krishna Consciousness", "Buddha Nature", etc., and point blank refuse to revere or worship it.

Since I'm not trying to present any case for the Other/ness really being "God" that's not the issue for me. What I am saying is that "God" is a rational and data-driven postulate since I already know that consciousness and intelligence exist. Similarly, "matter" is a data driven postulate since we know something is definately going on every time we return to a room and find the hands on our watch have changed (observer-independent automation).

So we have two equally valid postulates and it is equally valid to believe in either. But the materialist goes from data-driven science to theory driven pseudoscience the instant he asserts brains produce consciousness because that is fallacious reasoning. It's a logical fallacy of limited depth because the cause of brain matter has not been demonstrated - only theorised as "matter".

I find your use of language confusing. You don't present case for Other/ness being "God". But you say "God" is a rational and data-driven postulate. Does that mean that you don't present it as consciouss and intelligent and it is rational to believe in non-conscious and not intelligent "God". "God" is not a good word to describe non-consciouss and not-intelligent universe. God in general language means conscious and intelligent being.

If we are talking about non-conscious and not-intelligent "otherness" let's not use the word 'otherness' either. I find it awkward. Let's use 'universe' instead. Or some other more common and descriptive word.

Let's use the word 'matter' also the way it is commonly used. So in our useage we refer to atoms and molecules and their macroscopic structures as matter.


I know of no world that would exist if absolutely no conscious beings existed.


I'm getting confused. Are you saying that consciousness is required for something to exist? If we didn't exist the universe wouldn't exist? What's your point?


Consider: all I have is sensory information and a sense of real beingness about things. When I type on the keyboard, pick up a mug or look above to the massive expanse of stars in the sky, I sense complete "realness" about it all. It all definately has "being". It exists. But what am I sensing when I sense this "real beingness"? Since everything comes to me via my senses that "beingness" I'm sensing must be something else. Am I projecting it? Possibly, possibly not. Maybe I'm intuiting it because of the stability of the world around me?

So your senses give you information and you believe that information comes from real objects. So do I. We both have agreed that universe is real.

You would be easier to understand if you'd use more precise language. There are so many redundancies that your meaning gets lost. Like "sense of complete realness", "It all definately has being", "It exists.". Just say that you feel the existence of stars and mugs. I'll understand your meaning.

I don't know what special meaning you have when you talk about "real beingess". I don't feel existance. I see the light from the stars and the mugs. I can feel the material pressing against my hand when I pick up the mug but I don't feel any special existence.

I don't understand what you mean by the last 5 sentences.


So, here's the thing: I have absolute proof of consciousness but no proof of matter at all and exist in a well ordered environment that seems to obey laws like gravity (all part of the "otherness" be-ing). Since I didn't order it all and write the laws (or, rather, I certainly don't have any recollection of doing such!) I have no other option but to conclude that the "Otherness" which is be-ing keyboards, mugs, tables, chairs laws of gravity and striped toothpaste did/is it since my folks assure me it was around long before I came along.


Here you use the word 'matter' again. Let's use the word 'matter' as I described earlier like it's commonly used. And again the meaning of this paragraph eludes me.


If that's not a good candidate for "God" I don't know what is.


If you are saying universe is god then god is not a proper word to describe it. It gets confusing.

[.13.]

dictionary.com:
cognition
1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

Your answer to my question why cognition isn't enough for consciousness wasn't satisfactory.

I'll try to ask it more precisely. Why can't knowledge of self come from perception, reasoning and judgement? Senses gather information for the brain. Then brain does reasoning based on all the senses. Why isn't that enough for the brain to come to a conclusion that I exist?

[HypnoPsi]

So, here's the thing: I have absolute proof of consciousnessWe've been there, Hypno. You have nothing.How would you know if I have proof of my being conscious? Do you deny you are conscious?but no proof of matter at all and exist in a well ordered environment that seems to obey laws like gravity (all part of the "otherness" be-ing).We've done that, Hypno. You still have nothing.Since I'm an amaterialist why on earth would it bother me that I have nothing to prove the existence of matter?
_
HypnoPsi

[hammegk]

Anything in particular? I hardly know where to start...I suppose the cliffnotes version is simply that such a definition is so different from the way we use the world "god" that it can hardly be seen as "a good candidate" for the position.
Agreed, but I'd say all we are discussing is the failure of language's ability to define the unknown. We often can't even manage with the known.


I mean...if I define footwear as consisting of pastry crusts with a sweet filling between them, I can claim to be able to eat boots...but we already have perfectly suitable definitions of footwear, and separate definitions of pies, and redefining the one as the other does not advance anything.
Is there not a category difference between the perceived-as-physical objects of everyday experience and the inconceiveable attributes or lack thereof of 'god'?

[Belz...]

How would you know if I have proof of my being conscious? Do you deny you are conscious?

Using your definition of conscious ? Yes.

Since I'm an amaterialist why on earth would it bother me that I have nothing to prove the existence of matter?

I think you should read my sentence again. YOU have NOTHING. WE have plenty.

Sheesh. And you're a psi ? Stay away from MY children.

[.13.]

"Noumena are the basic realities behind all sensory experience. According to Kant, they are not knowable because they cannot be perceived, but they must be thinkable because moral decision making and scientific investigation cannot proceed without the assumption that they exist."

Even if we consider experimentation to be a way of observing quarks, we can still only ever have sensory experience of the "physical" world. You might not realise it but your question "Aren't the properties the fundamental nature of quarks?" is actually the same thing an amaterialist would ask in refutation of materialism. (Indeed, just a month or so ago a was at an evening lecture where a philosophy prof did just that.)

So they are not knowable but they are thinkable. So they may not necessarily exist. Why even bother with anything beyond the measured properties? In science and in general. If you are as data driven as you say you are you can't claim there is any deeper realities beyond quarks and their properties. Why moral decision making and scientific investigation couldn't proceed without assuming they exist?

Could you explain that amaterialist thing you said about my question?

When scientists try to find the cause for consciousness in the brain why would they need to know anything beyond the molecular level? This time try to give a proper answer.

[.13.]

But what reason would any materialist of the EM varitey have for concluding one wave consciousness rather than others?

Well, hold on a second. Remember the difference between data-driven and theory-driven. Ignoring the fact that you still don't know the ultimate nature of fundamental M/E, why are you jumping from EM to patterns of EM?

I'm close to concluding you are just a pseudo-intellectual.

[HypnoPsi]

dictionary.com:
cognition
1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

Your answer to my question why cognition isn't enough for consciousness wasn't satisfactory.dictionary.com:
sapience
n : ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight

sen·tience
n.
1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.

You have not satisfactorily explained why cognition is enough to explain consciousnessI'll try to ask it more precisely. Why can't knowledge of self come from perception, reasoning and judgement? Senses gather information for the brain. Then brain does reasoning based on all the senses. Why isn't that enough for the brain to come to a conclusion that I exist?I'm not saying it can't work that way. I'm saying there is no evidence that it does work that way and that this position is forever locked into the realm of the theoretical - unlike our experience (which is of an observer with agency in the world).

It's fine to theorise as you have done so long as you recognise that it is just a theory-driven, pseudoscientific, faith-based position (should one believe in the above). Like it or lump it that is the way it is. We can only ever have sensory experience of noumenal reality and can never ever bridge the observer/observed divide to demonstrate that "matter" (as fundamental M/E) actually exists.

It will always be data-driven and scientific to theorise that fundamental M/E exists (thought still faith-based to believe in it) but until it's proven (which is impossible) it is never data-driven to conclude that brain matter produces consciousness.
_
HypnoPsi

[Iacchus]

I think you should read my sentence again. YOU have NOTHING. WE have plenty.You have nothing outside of what you "think" you know.

[HypnoPsi]

Is there not a category difference between the perceived-as-physical objects of everyday experience and the inconceiveable attributes or lack thereof of 'god'?Your "perceived-as-physical" is the sense of "beingness" that there is about noumenal forms - from a table and chair to the entire Universe. If someone is an amaterialist panpsychist, panentheist or animist, then the "beingness" of the Universe is more real, stable and enduring than the objects within it, which are transient.

If you are instead a materialist then everything is just believed to be sense experience (as neural activity), which would include both the idea of God and the ideas of a table and chair or the entire Universe.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
How would you know if I have proof of my being conscious? Do you deny you are conscious?Using your definition of conscious ? Yes.My definition of consciousness is that I am both self-aware and aware of the Universe "being" (and other bodies and forms therein) "being" in reference to me as 'other-than-my-self'. How do you differ? How would/could you ever know you are not self-aware and that you exist in a universe you sense as 'other-than-you' if you're not conscious to begin with? Describe why you deny my description.Since I'm an amaterialist why on earth would it bother me that I have nothing to prove the existence of matter?I think you should read my sentence again. YOU have NOTHING. WE have plenty.

Sheesh. And you're a psi ? Stay away from MY children.You're need to insult when you don't have an argument is noted. Precisely what (plenty of) evidence of evidence of matter existing do you have? Why exactly (be specific) do you think I have no evidence of my being conscious?
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

dictionary.com:
sapience
n : ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight

sen·tience
n.
1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.

You have not satisfactorily explained why cognition is enough to explain consciousness

I'm not sure what you meant by those definitions because you didn't use those words anywhere. But sapience atleast is product of the brain.

You are making a wild claim that consciousness is supernatural. You would have to back that up more thoroughly. There are all kinds of things in the brain like empathy, reasoning, learning, interpretation of senses and intuition. Manual, chemical and electrical manipulation of the brain does a lot of things to you. Even the sense of self isn't constant. There is not yet a definite mechanism for consciousness I know that. But it is more reasonable to believe it is produced by the brain rather than some separate entity. Can you say with a straight face that you are the one being rational?


I'm not saying it can't work that way. I'm saying there is no evidence that it does work that way and that this position is forever locked into the realm of the theoretical - unlike our experience (which is of an observer with agency in the world).

Forever locked into the realm of the theoretical. What does that mean?


It's fine to theorise as you have done so long as you recognise that it is just a theory-driven, pseudoscientific, faith-based position (should one believe in the above). Like it or lump it that is the way it is. We can only ever have sensory experience of noumenal reality and can never ever bridge the observer/observed divide to demonstrate that "matter" (as fundamental M/E) actually exists.

Hardly pseudoscientific and faith-based... Once again I ask you: What else do you need to know besides the properties of basic particles?


It will always be data-driven and scientific to theorise that fundamental M/E exists (thought still faith-based to believe in it) but until it's proven (which is impossible) it is never data-driven to conclude that brain matter produces consciousness.

Never data-driven to conclude brain matter produces consciousness? And one more time: Why would we need to go beyond the molecular scale to conclude that the brain is responsible for consciousness?

[HypnoPsi]

I'm close to concluding you are just a pseudo-intellectual.Don't sweat it, I've long since concluded that "skeptics" are anti-intellectual.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

So they are not knowable but they are thinkable. So they may not necessarily exist. Why even bother with anything beyond the measured properties? In science and in general.In all science we each have to accept that we can never know the ultimate nature of the noumenal - but that doesn't mean my mobile phone doesn't need charging every other day. I believe that we should consider it good science to define cognition as the experience of neural information processing. But the nature of the experiencer is an ontological issue. We are aware - we're not p-zombies (philosophical zombies) - and I, like the most others, am not going to deny the profundity of that fact.

If anyone wants me to believe that my consciousness is the result of matter then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that matter really exists first.If you are as data driven as you say you are you can't claim there is any deeper realities beyond quarks and their properties.Quite correct. Like the materialist I can only postulate what might be the ultimate cause. For now, all I know is that I sense "beingness" about the Universe and all forms within it. I sense no such thing as "matter" whatever that is supposed to be.Why moral decision making and scientific investigation couldn't proceed without assuming they exist?

Could you explain that amaterialist thing you said about my question?You'll have to be more precise about what statement in what post you're referring to and about what your prior question means.When scientists try to find the cause for consciousness in the brain why would they need to know anything beyond the molecular level? This time try to give a proper answer.See above. Science should accept that it can only function within natural ontological boundaries - namely that the ultimate nature and cause of consciousness and matter are scientifically unanswerable. Aside from these two things it should be open season on everything from cognition and striped toothpase to the nature of quasars, etc.,.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I'm not sure what you meant by those definitions because you didn't use those words anywhere. But sapience atleast is product of the brain.I'm okay-ish with this.You are making a wild claim that consciousness is supernatural. You would have to back that up more thoroughly.When? Where? How am I making a wild claim that consciousness is supernatural? Let's be absolutely certain here: my only claim is that I have have consciousness, self/other awareness and a sense of beingness about the Universe and all that's in it. That's all perfectly natural to me. From my perspective where everything is contained within "beingness" ("God") it is the "matter" hypothesis that is supernatural.

I have nothing to back up. I'm an amaterialist - meaning that I lack any belief in matter. When it comes to "God", I'm just adding up the things I do have knowledge of and using that word to describe them. Why shouldn't I think this way? Why should I bring in some fuzzy "matter" stuff.There are all kinds of things in the brain like empathy, reasoning, learning, interpretation of senses and intuition. Manual, chemical and electrical manipulation of the brain does a lot of things to you. Even the sense of self isn't constant.That's part of the reason why I use the word "selfness" - but I work from the position that there is a central "I" to which experiences of identity attach throughout life.There is not yet a definite mechanism for consciousness I know that. But it is more reasonable to believe it is produced by the brain rather than some separate entity.I don't believe that consciousness is created by some separate entity either. I am just as much within the "beingness" that I sense as it is within me. I sense no branch of the tree as separate from the tree.Can you say with a straight face that you are the one being rational?I can absolutely say with a straight face that that which I call "God" generates and fascilitates all things including our consciousnesses and that the view that our consciousnesses are, instead, just the result of neural activity (which is itself the result of some unknown magic powder called "matter") which will be snuffed out like a candle at the point of physical death is utterly alien to me in every way.Forever locked into the realm of the theoretical. What does that mean?There's nothing to compare, contrast or measure matter against. There's no way to define it - it's just a word used to denote the ultimate cause/nature of things.It's fine to theorise as you have done so long as you recognise that it is just a theory-driven, pseudoscientific, faith-based position (should one believe in the above). Like it or lump it that is the way it is. We can only ever have sensory experience of noumenal reality and can never ever bridge the observer/observed divide to demonstrate that "matter" (as fundamental M/E) actually exists.Hardly pseudoscientific and faith-based...Matter is still faith-based even though it is a data-driven postulate. That consciousness is produced by brains is pseudoscience because it is a fallacy of limited depth (among others) in that materialists are trying to explain the unexplained with the unknown. Look, it's hardly my fault that real science is data-driven, is it?Once again I ask you: What else do you need to know besides the properties of basic particles?To become a materialist I'd need to know that I'm sensing more than just beingness and information. Assuming the impossible occurred and you could demonstrate that noumenal forms were made of some real, independent, fundamental form of M/E, I can't even begin to imagine what would prove it fascilitated conscousness.Never data-driven to conclude brain matter produces consciousness?Absolutely never - though I think we should accept that neural activity is responsible for the cognitions that occur in consciousness.And one more time: Why would we need to go beyond the molecular scale to conclude that the brain is responsible for consciousness?And one more time: because consciousness, like matter, is an ontological issue. Everything else from quarks to cognition is fair game from science.

Here's where we are:

We have evidence of consciousness. We have no evidence of matter. Everything arrises as 'be-ing' in consciousness and we can never achieve more than sensory experiences or cognition of noumenal forms. What do we conclude is causal, something we do have evidence of or something we have do not have evidence of?

You're investigating a haunted house and you leave some medium or other alone in a room for a while, returning to find the place has been wrecked. The medium claims it was a poltergeist. What do you conclude was the causal agent of the wreckage, something you have evidence of or something you do not have evidence of?
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

And one more time: because consciousness, like matter, is an ontological issue. Everything else from quarks to cognition is fair game from science.

Here's where we are:

We have evidence of consciousness. We have no evidence of matter. Everything arrises as 'be-ing' in consciousness and we can never achieve more than sensory experiences or cognition of noumenal forms. What do we conclude is causal, something we do have evidence of or something we have do not have evidence of?

You just refuse to call the world material? Fundamental nature of matter is the most basic particles and their properties and behaviour that we can measure. If you claim there is something more fundamental beyond those properties I'd like some evidence.

You dodge the question why we would need to know matter beyond the molecular scale by claiming consciousness is an ontological question. Why is it ontological? why consciousness is different from other neurosciences? By your logic heart transplants can't work because we don't know the fundamental nature of hearts.

Your type of consciousness is useless without the brain. It relies on the brain to do everything. But the brain doesn't need consciousness. Having your kind of consciousness doesn't have any effect on my functionality in the world. You are just adding an extra layer to the mind which does not come from the brain. Where does consciousness come from anywhay?

[Belz...]

You have nothing outside of what you "think" you know.

That's the kind of empty sentence that, if true, applies to everyone anyway. So it's pointless to mention it either way.

[Belz...]

My definition of consciousness is that I am both self-aware and aware of the Universe "being" (and other bodies and forms therein) "being" in reference to me as 'other-than-my-self'. How do you differ? How would/could you ever know you are not self-aware and that you exist in a universe you sense as 'other-than-you' if you're not conscious to begin with? Describe why you deny my description.

I'm not sure that my "self" is so distinct from the rest of the world, is all.

You're need to insult when you don't have an argument is noted.

Oh, it wasn't a need. It was quite gratuitous.

Precisely what (plenty of) evidence of evidence of matter existing do you have? Why exactly (be specific) do you think I have no evidence of my being conscious?

Well, first off, as some said, we have evidence of the properties of matter, and strong evidence of its consistency across all "consciousnesses".

Second, how do you want me to explain LACK of evidence ?

[Tricky]

If anyone wants me to believe that my consciousness is the result of matter then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that matter really exists first.
What sort of demonstration are you looking for? If a hammer to the thumb does not convince you that matter exists, then I'm having a hard time envisioning what would.

Or is our charge to convince you of that which you have decided that you cannot be convinced?

[Iacchus]

That's the kind of empty sentence that, if true, applies to everyone anyway. So it's pointless to mention it either way.Yes, and if it applies to everyone, then perhaps we can begin to think of it in terms of universals? This is what we're trying to establish here isn't it?

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
Here's where we are:

We have evidence of consciousness. We have no evidence of matter. Everything arrises as 'be-ing' in consciousness and we can never achieve more than sensory experiences or cognition of noumenal forms. What do we conclude is causal, something we do have evidence of or something we have do not have evidence of?You just refuse to call the world material?I make perfectly good use of the word "material" in my day to day life. The noumenal forms around me are as solid to me as the noumenal forms around you. Being an amaterialist does not prevent me from being a realist or turn me into a solipsist. But to me, to use the word "matter" just means I'm saying that "be-ing" is "be-ing" matter/energy in whatever form I'm looking at.

As an amaterialist I lack belief in some independently existing form of fundamental M/E because I have no evidence for it. I believe in consciousness for very obvious reasons.Fundamental nature of matter is the most basic particles and their properties and behaviour that we can measure. If you claim there is something more fundamental beyond those properties I'd like some evidence.Not being a physicist I don't make speculations of this nature; though I understand some physicists and mathematicians believe that superstring theory is quite promising. But let's imagine that we've stopped at quarks. Unlike the materialist I'm being honest with myself. I'm admitting that all I have is information about noumanal forms and a sense of quarks "be-ing". I don't believe they have independent substance.You dodge the question why we would need to know matter beyond the molecular scale by claiming consciousness is an ontological question. Why is it ontological? why consciousness is different from other neurosciences? By your logic heart transplants can't work because we don't know the fundamental nature of hearts.No. For me it is scientific open season on everything from quarks to cognition. Go forth, measure, calculate and observe!

And I dodge no question - instead I just refuse to ignore the fact that I am self-aware and, subesequently, factor that into my summation of the default position.

Look, I have no burden of proof here at all. Absolutely none. It's perfectly valid for me as a skeptic of all materialistic explanations of consciousness to assume the negative position (that the molecular - or any other scale - cannot explain consciousness or why neural processing is comprehended by any observer at all as congitions).Your type of consciousness is useless without the brain. It relies on the brain to do everything. But the brain doesn't need consciousness.Hogwash. My experience - and yours I'll wager - is that the observed relies on an observer and not the reverse. Fell free to theorise all you want that this is a trick of perception but don't try to present the theoretical as fact.Having your kind of consciousness doesn't have any effect on my functionality in the world.Wrong. My experience (and, again, yours I'm sure) is of having agency and free-will - of being a decision maker. As per the above you are free to theorise this is simply a trick of perception but that does not make it true.You are just adding an extra layer to the mind which does not come from the brain. Where does consciousness come from anywhay?I add no extra layer to the mind at all. Try to understand this. I'm just working with what I have - an "I Am" along with "thoughts" and sense of the Universe and everything therein "be-ing" real. I'm adopting the default position untainted by beliefs or theories about some fundamental form of M/E as the cause and fascilitator of noumenal forms and my consciousness.

You're desparately trying to describe my position as claiming something, as having beliefs or adding something to the default because you, as a "skeptic" (I assume, and if I'm wrong I apologise), are too used to coming from that position with "believers" in all kinds of things.

For literally thousands of years philosophers have openly recognised and admitted that "matter" can never be proven, that it's just a "belief". Plato with his ideal forms, though I'm not a platonist personally, is even considered the 'Father of Western Philosophy'. To think that some small minority of "strong skeptics" (meaning materialistic atheists) can come along and turn everything on it's head, declare matter "real" and consciousness an illusion, is pointless futility.

The amaterialist adds nothing. It is the materialist who has adopted a faith based stance. And he can't provide evidence of any fundamental type of matter because he's never even seen any himself.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I'm not sure that my "self" is so distinct from the rest of the world, is all.How very Buddhist of you.

But if you sense the Universe and all therein as "real" then it shouldn't be too hard a leap for you to realise that this sense of "realness" along with all the 'information' you have about noumenal forms appears only and solely in *you*.

You sense "be-ing" not "matter".Oh, it wasn't a need. It was quite gratuitous.Perhaps you should just stick to the topic rather than letting your frustrations about your lack of ability to argue properly spill over.Precisely what (plenty of) evidence of evidence of matter existing do you have? Why exactly (be specific) do you think I have no evidence of my being conscious?Well, first off, as some said, we have evidence of the properties of matter, and strong evidence of its consistency across all "consciousnesses".We have strong evidence of the properties of (noumenal) forms and the comprehension of these forms as being real. We have no evidence at all of any fundamental substance actually being quarks, electrons and, ultimatly, all other noumenal forms. And due to the observer/observed divide we can never have any such evidence. That's why materialism, the belief in an independent, unobservable, untestable and unfalsifiable substance within noumenal forms, is unscientific, illogical and completely faith-based unlike amaterialism, which is the position absent belief in this idea.Second, how do you want me to explain LACK of evidence ?You wrote: "YOU have NOTHING. WE have plenty.". So I am asking you precisely what (plenty of) evidence of matter existing you have and why exactly (be specific) do you think I have no evidence of my being conscious?

If you can't back up your claims you shouldn't make them.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

As an amaterialist I lack belief in some independently existing form of fundamental M/E because I have no evidence for it.

What kind of evidence would be enough? Trickys hammer? I don't even understand you. Seriously, I can't even begin to imagine what do you want from matter so you'd believe its real and why the outside world is not enough. I don't understand what you mean by fundamental M/E.

I believe in consciousness for very obvious reasons.

By the way what are those reasons?


And I dodge no question - instead I just refuse to ignore the fact that I am self-aware and, subesequently, factor that into my summation of the default position.

That doesn't answer anything.


Look, I have no burden of proof here at all. Absolutely none. It's perfectly valid for me as a skeptic of all materialistic explanations of consciousness to assume the negative position (that the molecular - or any other scale - cannot explain consciousness or why neural processing is comprehended by any observer at all as congitions).

Since so many brain functions can be explained with brain matter why can't consciousness? Why is it special?


Hogwash. My experience - and yours I'll wager - is that the observed relies on an observer and not the reverse.

How does it rely on observer? All information processing is done by the brain.


Wrong. My experience (and, again, yours I'm sure) is of having agency and free-will - of being a decision maker. As per the above you are free to theorise this is simply a trick of perception but that does not make it true.I add no extra layer to the mind at all.

I don't have to theorise that it is a trick of perception I'm saying your model of consciousness is not necessary for my survival or functionality in society. Tell me what I would need your consciousness for when surviving/functioning? Computers can analyze data and make decisions.


You're desparately trying to describe my position as claiming something, as having beliefs or adding something to the default because you, as a "skeptic" (I assume, and if I'm wrong I apologise), are too used to coming from that position with "believers" in all kinds of things.

Maybe I don't understand your model of consciousness but from what I have gathered it is unnecessary.


For literally thousands of years philosophers have openly recognised and admitted that "matter" can never be proven, that it's just a "belief".

If the philosphers say so it doesn't mean it necessarily is so.

[HypnoPsi]

What sort of demonstration are you looking for? If a hammer to the thumb does not convince you that matter exists, then I'm having a hard time envisioning what would.A false analogy. Being an amaterialist does not mean one is arealist. Hammers and thumbs are real noumenal forms, and the sensory experience of bringing them violently together is certain to appear in the forefront of consciousness.

I believe there is a real physical world as much as anybody. I simply lack belief in it being composed of and constituted by some ultimate substance. If you want to know what would convince me that "matter" is real, you should begin by stating what has convinced you it is real.Or is our charge to convince you of that which you have decided that you cannot be convinced?I'm just engaging in a conversation about logic and nature of the default position. Nobody is forcing you to participate. Since the observer/observed divide certainly appears to exclude the possibilty of you having evidence of "matter" it seems quite certain that you 'just believe'.

What I'm curious to know is why anybody would consider it more logical to believe that the causal agent of reality is some unknown substance called "matter" rather than our conscious beingness within which everyone agrees we observe everything anyway?

The materialists' logic is: we have evidence of A but no evidence of B, so let's conclude B causes everything including A! I define that thinking as irrational. Since no materialist seems to know where to even begin trying to explain why they think it is rational or logical, it seems I must view it as just another 'faith-based' philosophy. That's fine - I can do that - I can (and do) respect everyone's right to their own faith. What I cannot respect is faith being presented as fact. Are you a materialist? Do you accept that it's simply a faith based position?
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

What I'm curious to know is why anybody would consider it more logical to believe that the causal agent of reality is some unknown substance called "matter" rather than our conscious beingness within which everyone agrees we observe everything anyway?

Are you saying that the material world is made of conscioussnes?

[Iacchus]

The materialists' logic is: we have evidence of A but no evidence of B, so let's conclude B causes everything including A! I define that thinking as irrational. Yes, the cart before the horse.

[hammegk]

Are you saying that the material world is made of conscioussnes?
That's a way to name your choice of monism if M/E isn't your choice. :)

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
As an amaterialist I lack belief in some independently existing form of fundamental M/E because I have no evidence for it.What kind of evidence would be enough? Trickys hammer? I don't even understand you. Seriously, I can't even begin to imagine what do you want from matter so you'd believe its real and why the outside world is not enough. I don't understand what you mean by fundamental M/E.I'm already a realist. I already believe that there is a physical universe and that noumenal forms exist within it. If I leave a clock ticking in a room and return to find the hands have changed automation tells me something physical is definately occurring. I've stubbed toes and even hit my thumb with a hammer once or twice while trying to hang up a picture frame, I'm sure.

As I said to Tricky, explaining why you believe that the substance of noumenal forms is "matter" would be a good start. Frankly, I'm not even sure I understand what materialists believe in let alone why they believe it.

Here's the deal, I can respect the materialist who admits his belief in matter is just that - a belief - and that his philosophy is faith-based. I can even respect the agnostic who says he hasn't got a clue about the whole matter/consciousness debate and won't take a stand without more information - though I prefer the materialist who'll defend his position much more because defending a proposition is good science.

What I can't respect is the materialist who tries to present his belief as fact. I can understand how the mind trick the materialist into thinking his belief is a fact, but when the individual materialist claims to be a practicing skeptic who adheres to the principles of logic and rationality I think it's proper that the debate be had and dishonesty be defined as dishonesty when it occurs.

Are you, by the way, a materialist? If you are do you accept that it's just a belief, a faith-based philosophy?I believe in consciousness for very obvious reasons.By the way what are those reasons?"I" am an observer and self-aware. It's indemonstrable to others of course, but by declaring it myself I am forced to factor it into my philosophy in order to adhere to the priniciples of logic, reason and science. Someone who doesn't declare they are a self-aware observer doesn't have to do that. But it's quite impossible to have someone say they know they're not a self-aware observer since they are denying the knower to begin with.And I dodge no question - instead I just refuse to ignore the fact that I am self-aware and, subesequently, factor that into my summation of the default position.That doesn't answer anything.I'm not actually trying to answer (or prove) anything for you since I don't see why I have any burden of proof. I'm asking you why we're not just p-zombies? Why you think our being self-aware thinkers and experiencers comes from brains and, ultimately, some unknown substance called "matter"?

If you declare yourself a materialists and admit that it is indeed just a faith-based belief system that's fine. I'll respect your beliefs and ask that you respect my choice to accept as real only that for which I have clear evidence.Look, I have no burden of proof here at all. Absolutely none. It's perfectly valid for me as a skeptic of all materialistic explanations of consciousness to assume the negative position (that the molecular - or any other scale - cannot explain consciousness or why neural processing is comprehended by any observer at all as congitions).Since so many brain functions can be explained with brain matter why can't consciousness? Why is it special?Maybe it's not. I'm just asking you why anyone should believe it is caused by brains without any evidence that it is caused by brains or that this "matter" stuff actually exists to produce brains in the first place.

As per Sagan's dictum, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I'm just a machine I'm a very unusual type since I can comprehend myself. I'm self-aware. You believe that's all caused by brain matter, right? I'm extremely skeptical of this. Without any evidence for this incredible and staggering assertion why shouldn't I assume the negative?My experience - and yours I'll wager - is that the observed relies on an observer and not the reverse.How does it rely on observer?I have no evidence for anything being observed without an observer and so assume the negative. That's sketpicism - and perfectly valid scientific methodology.All information processing is done by the brain.How do you *know* this? Why is this theory more persuasive to you than, say, the strong amaterialist's position that consciousness generates brains in the now? Materialism is certainly not as logical a conclusion as strong amaterialism since we have evidence of consciousness but no evidence of any genuine material substance fascilitating anything.My experience (and, again, yours I'm sure) is of having agency and free-will - of being a decision maker. As per the above you are free to theorise this is simply a trick of perception but that does not make it true. I add no extra layer to the mind at all.I don't have to theorise that it is a trick of perception I'm saying your model of consciousness is not necessary for my survival or functionality in society. Tell me what I would need your consciousness for when surviving/functioning? Computers can analyze data and make decisions.I am asserting no "model of consciousness" to begin with. I'm taking about how I, as someone who declares myself self-aware, am forced logically to factor that detail into my philosophical position. Science doesn't exclude any evidence, remember?You're desparately trying to describe my position as claiming something, as having beliefs or adding something to the default because you, as a "skeptic" (I assume, and if I'm wrong I apologise), are too used to coming from that position with "believers" in all kinds of things.Maybe I don't understand your model of consciousness but from what I have gathered it is unnecessary.It's no question of necessary or unnecessary. It's about being honest in logically defining the default position. "I Am" a self-aware being and have to consider the implications of that. I have no evidence at all of any "matter" and have to consider that as well. How then can the default position be "materialism"? That's all I'm asking?

If you're a materialist then why not just declare such, admit that it's faith based, respect my right to choose to believe in only that for which I have evidence and be done with it? Why would that be difficult?For literally thousands of years philosophers have openly recognised and admitted that "matter" can never be proven, that it's just a "belief".If the philosphers say so it doesn't mean it necessarily is so.If it isn't the case that matter is just a belief then what evidence are you aware of to support the claim that it's real?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
What I'm curious to know is why anybody would consider it more logical to believe that the causal agent of reality is some unknown substance called "matter" rather than our conscious beingness within which everyone agrees we observe everything anyway?Are you saying that the material world is made of conscioussnes?I'm saying that it's more logical to deem that the physical world of noumenal forms is facilitated by something known than by something that can only ever be speculated.

To me though, our definition of consciousness should be broadened to include the very prominent sense of enduring beingness that there is about the Universe and all things within it (including me/us). Since that beingness can only ever be sensed as part of our consciousnes it is, in my view, right and proper that we factor it in anyway.

As to those who believe that our particular consciousnesses collectively generate and fascilitate reality from moment to moment I'm not among their number. The beingness we sense, while part of us, is more than any of us. I do accept that their position is quite clearly more logical than the materialists though. In fact, I don't think believing in (believed in only) matter as the cause of consciousness is at all logical because it's completely theory-driven.

(Deeming that the manifest universe of noumenal forms is caused by some ultimate substance is fine because it's data-driven - though still just a belief.)
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
The materialists' logic is: we have evidence of A but no evidence of B, so let's conclude B causes everything including A! I define that thinking as irrational.Yes, the cart before the horse.Exactly.

What strikes me about these dabates is just how unwilling materialists are to actually declare themselves as materialists and admit it's just another faith-based belief system.

In doing that they're refusing to look through the telescope and thinking in exactly the same way that led people to conclude that, first, the Earth was flat and, second, that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

They seem to want people to take materialism as a self-evident truth without questioning it or considering perfectly valid alternatives which have more evidential support, all the while defining themselves as the defenders of logic, rationalism and data-driven science.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

"I" am an observer and self-aware. It's indemonstrable to others of course, but by declaring it myself I am forced to factor it into my philosophy in order to adhere to the priniciples of logic, reason and science.

How could you ever be sure you are consciouss and not a computer which evaluates itself consciouss.

boolean isConsciouss = TRUE;

...that kind of thing.

I can't be sure I'm not a biological computer who knows the language and behaviour of people. And I find computers more logical since we can demonstrate there are more than 1 computers. You have only 1 consciousness you can know.

Materialism is certainly not as logical a conclusion as strong amaterialism since we have evidence of consciousness but no evidence of any genuine material substance fascilitating anything.

As I asked above: How could you know you are consciouss and not a computer programmed to evaluate itself as consciouss?

You keep dodging the question. Brain has many functions, like memory reasoning and other stuff. Why do you consider consciousness something special? Now I'm giving you some reasons why believe the brain produces consciousness. Are you going to dodge or explain why consciousness is something special?


All information processing is done by the brain.
How do you *know* this? Why is this theory more persuasive to you than, say, the strong amaterialist's position that consciousness generates brains in the now? Materialism is certainly not as logical a conclusion as strong amaterialism since we have evidence of consciousness but no evidence of any genuine material substance fascilitating anything.

Didn't you say that consciousness is just an observer? Tell me something else then what consciousness does and the brain doesn't.


I am asserting no "model of consciousness" to begin with.

Silly me, I thought you atleast tried something. So all you have is consciousness exists?


I'm taking about how I, as someone who declares myself self-aware, am forced logically to factor that detail into my philosophical position. Science doesn't exclude any evidence, remember?

You actually have evidence?


It's no question of necessary or unnecessary. It's about being honest in logically defining the default position. "I Am" a self-aware being and have to consider the implications of that.

If something is unnecessary and it complicates the theory it is logical to drop it. Here is the question again:
Tell me what I would need your consciousness for when surviving/functioning? Computers can analyze data and make decisions.


If you're a materialist then why not just declare such, admit that it's faith based, respect my right to choose to believe in only that for which I have evidence and be done with it? Why would that be difficult?If it isn't the case that matter is just a belief then what evidence are you aware of to support the claim that it's real?

I'm not familiar with philosophy of materialism so I can't say if I am one or not. The matter in outside world is very real though. I've bumped my toes on it quite a few times. I know you'll come out saying: "How do you know it is not consciousness that hit your toe." How is consciousness responsible for something physical?


I have no evidence for anything being observed without an observer and so assume the negative. That's sketpicism - and perfectly valid scientific methodology.

Do you even realise how inane you sound? I'll try to top that. I know of no observer observing when there is nothing to observe. That's pretty close.


I have no evidence at all of any "matter" and have to consider that as well. How then can the default position be "materialism"? That's all I'm asking?


You are just not accepting the evidence. You are just being pseudo-intellectual who thinks his thoughts are profound and deep while repeating some ages old drivel when the philosophers didn't have acces to particle colliders and no understanding of particle physics. Trust me you don't come out as clever.

[.13.]

I'm saying that it's more logical to deem that the physical world of noumenal forms is facilitated by something known than by something that can only ever be speculated.


How is it speculation when we can do measurments?

[Tricky]

What I'm curious to know is why anybody would consider it more logical to believe that the causal agent of reality is some unknown substance called "matter" rather than our conscious beingness within which everyone agrees we observe everything anyway?
Well, the obvious reason would be that we have lots of evidence that matter existed before consciousness arose. The whole idea that consciousness is a fundamental building block seems to be the most extremely egocentric position to take. Lots of things exist which are not conscious. Can it be that humans are so enamored of their own intelligence that they think they create realilty with their minds?

Obviously, some do.

[bpesta22]

HypnoPsi

Could you perhaps step back and briefly summarize your argument without using jargon?

Jargon's fine-- not a criticism, it's just I still can't grasp the fundamentals of your argument.

If you feel it's worth the effort, please lay it out in layman's terms-- why is materialism irrational (or at least faith based)? Why are you so fascinated by consciousness, and what does that mean for reality?

Are you a theist? If so, what type of god do you believe in?

Oh, and I'm making a rule for internet debate-- call if 22, if you like: Anyone using the word "noumenal" in an argument, immediately loses the argument just as surely as if they'd made a reference to Hitler.

[hammegk]

... Can it be that humans are so enamored of their own intelligence that they think they create realilty with their minds?
Some appear to be so enamored of themselves they think human consciousness to be all the consciousness that exists.


bpesta what's wrong with :
noumenon

n : the intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception

?

[HypnoPsi]

How could you ever be sure you are consciouss and not a computer which evaluates itself consciouss.

boolean isConsciouss = TRUE;

...that kind of thing.I am self-aware, I have two eyes, arms, legs, a belly button and all the other bits and bobs. Maybe I am just a computer playing some crazy full immersion 3D game. The point is that I should evaluate my situation based upon what I have, experience and sense rather than on what I can theorise or I'd be eternally theorising infinite possibilities and combinations of possibilities.I can't be sure I'm not a biological computer who knows the language and behaviour of people. And I find computers more logical since we can demonstrate there are more than 1 computers. You have only 1 consciousness you can know.You can't be sure your not the last living alien in another dimension hooked up to a computer living the life of someone from a long extinct civilisation known as humanity either. But, again, theorising leads us nowhere.

You're right that I have only one consciousness that I can truly know - but I definately sense "beingness" other to my self in everything and everyone I encounter. I can't even contemplate how I'd have a sense of "self" without a reference point that is "other" to my "self". If I'm creating the physical universe and the actors within it, I certainly don't have any awareness or recollection of doing so.

So, in order to get down to the business or evaluating my situation I choose to deal with what is "real" to me (myself, other people, tables, chairs, the Sun, the Universe) rather than to make the goal impossible by including all that I can theorise. I'm only looking for a working philosophy, a default position that I can invest a degree of certainty in even if I can never truly know that I'm not a bored computer or lonely alien in a fancy mind-altering holodeck.

My experience right now, is that I'm currently sitting here typing this post. So I work with that rather than what I can only theorise.Materialism is certainly not as logical a conclusion as strong amaterialism since we have evidence of consciousness but no evidence of any genuine material substance fascilitating anything.You keep dodging the question. Brain has many functions, like memory reasoning and other stuff. Why do you consider consciousness something special? Now I'm giving you some reasons why believe the brain produces consciousness. Are you going to dodge or explain why consciousness is something special?See above - I'm evaluating my situation. To me, I am an "I", an observer, a sensor and experiencer of thoughts and things. In your mind you might experience it that the thinker is just a thought of a thinker like any other thought.

I'm not buying your arguement here that self-awareness isn't categorically different from thoughts. It's a constant while thoughts change. I'm not thinking the same things now that I was one hour ago - but I'm still "me" and still "self-aware".

Again, it is sentience and sapience and I'm definately not alone in defining thinker than thoughts as different. That's the "something special" in consciousness. Why should anyone believe they are the same when that goes against experience?Didn't you say that consciousness is just an observer? Tell me something else then what consciousness does and the brain doesn't.I don't recall ever saying that consciousness is just an observer. My experience is that "I" am an actor with agency as well. My experience is that I have free-will, make decisions and choose what to type in my posts. I lack evidence that this "I Am" that I have that does things is all just an illusion or trick of neural processing. That to me is theoretical and unsubstantiated by any evidence. So why should I consider it as true?I am asserting no "model of consciousness" to begin with.Silly me, I thought you atleast tried something. So all you have is consciousness exists?One more time: I am self-aware, aware of my thoughts, memories and surroundings and experience myself as an actor with agency in the world who makes decisions and choices about what to do. I'm a conscious being who lives in a world that I sense is "real" and I share this world with other beings that I sense are equally "real". Why should I add other things - that I don't have any sense of - to the mix.I'm taking about how I, as someone who declares myself self-aware, am forced logically to factor that detail into my philosophical position. Science doesn't exclude any evidence, remember?You actually have evidence?I have personal evidence that I'm conscious because I am it and experience my thoughts and world within it. It's indemonstrable to others, yes, but because I have it I should, logically, factor it in to my evaluation of my situation.If something is unnecessary and it complicates the theory it is logical to drop it. Here is the question again:
Tell me what I would need your consciousness for when surviving/functioning? Computers can analyze data and make decisions.I have no idea why we have consciousness - or even why we need it. But you don't just drop something from a theory (discard evidence) because you think you don't need it or can't find a way to include it properly. Science is about taking all the evidence and adding it up to see what it sums up to. I have evidence of consciousness but no evidence of matter and thus see no reason to believe I'm produced by "matter".If you're a materialist then why not just declare such, admit that it's faith based, respect my right to choose to believe in only that for which I have evidence and be done with it? Why would that be difficult?If it isn't the case that matter is just a belief then what evidence are you aware of to support the claim that it's real?I'm not familiar with philosophy of materialism so I can't say if I am one or not. The matter in outside world is very real though. I've bumped my toes on it quite a few times. I know you'll come out saying: "How do you know it is not consciousness that hit your toe." How is consciousness responsible for something physical?I've bumped my toes on physical objects a few times as well. I'm tapping my fingers against a very real physical object, my keyboard, right now to type this message. But I don't have any evidence that it's all made of some fancy substance called "matter".

As to the "how" of consciousness being responsible for the physical I really don't know and certainly don't claim any knowledge that my consciousness does generate and fascilitate the physical world. I do sense "realness/beingness" in physical things though - and in myself. So, I can safely say that between two possible causal candidates of the manifest Universe, consciousness and matter, consiousness (particularly including the beingness I sense) is the most logical choice of causal agent because I have evidence of consciousness but no evidence of matter. That doesn't prove to me or anyone else that the Universe is manifested by consciousness it's just the most logical candidate out of the two options. That all.I have no evidence for anything being observed without an observer and so assume the negative. That's sketpicism - and perfectly valid scientific methodology.Do you even realise how inane you sound? I'll try to top that. I know of no observer observing when there is nothing to observe. That's pretty close.Since I'm dealing with someone, indeed several people, who have decided to abandon logic and rationality about a specific topic - matter - because they know they're getting hammered, that I'm having to explain the most obvious things in painful clarity to you says more about you than it does about me. Since you can have no memory of a time when you never observed anything you cannot say such a state does or doesn't exist.I have no evidence at all of any "matter" and have to consider that as well. How then can the default position be "materialism"? That's all I'm asking?You are just not accepting the evidence. You are just being pseudo-intellectual who thinks his thoughts are profound and deep while repeating some ages old drivel when the philosophers didn't have acces to particle colliders and no understanding of particle physics. Trust me you don't come out as clever.Do you honestly think that philosophers have changed their attitude because we can define smaller bits of physical things? And I'm not denying any evidence for the physical universe. Do at least try to remember that. I agree that it's all real. Amaterialism is not arealism. Amaterialism is the position of no belief in any substance (matter) causing the physical due to their being no evidence for such.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

How is it speculation when we can do measurments?Because measuring something that's physically real doesn't tell us what causes it to be or what it's made of. Speculating it's made of consciouness or matter are both valid propositions - but consciousness is, logically, the stronger candidate because we have evidence of it existing but no evidence of matter as the substance of things.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
What I'm curious to know is why anybody would consider it more logical to believe that the causal agent of reality is some unknown substance called "matter" rather than our conscious beingness within which everyone agrees we observe everything anyway?Well, the obvious reason would be that we have lots of evidence that matter existed before consciousness arose.What evidence? You do understand that form is not the same thing as content don't you? I'm not denying physical forms at all.The whole idea that consciousness is a fundamental building block seems to be the most extremely egocentric position to take. Lots of things exist which are not conscious. Can it be that humans are so enamored of their own intelligence that they think they create realilty with their minds?

Obviously, some do.Well, I'm certainly not among those who believe that we create reality with our minds. I lean more towards saying that the "realness/beingness" I sense in things (which is also in my consciousness, and I believe in the consciousnesses of others) fascilitates them. I don't consider that to be "proof" that things work that way, but I do consider that to be a much, much more logical than the belief in some unknown substance.
_
HypnoPsi

[Tricky]

What evidence? You do understand that form is not the same thing as content don't you? I'm not denying physical forms at all.
It sure seems that you are denying physical forms, because consciousness is certainly not a tangible thing.

But let's just accept that what you say is true. Physical forms exist. They are made of something. What is that something? You say it is not necessarily matter, but could be something else. But whatever else it is has the same exact characteristics as what we have defined matter as having. I don't see where your concept of what constitutes physical forms adds any information whatsoever to the knowledge of physical forms. What's the point of simply calling matter something else?

Well, I'm certainly not among those who believe that we create reality with our minds. I lean more towards saying that the "realness/beingness" I sense in things (which is also in my consciousness, and I believe in the consciousnesses of others) fascilitates them.
But realness/beingness exists whether you sense it or not, at least that's what all evidence suggests. It sounds very much as if you are trying to assure yourself that you are essential to reality, even if only as a facilitator. That strikes me as hubris.

I don't consider that to be "proof" that things work that way, but I do consider that to be a much, much more logical than the belief in some unknown substance.
You have an odd concept of logic. You seem to be going through incredible contortions in order to deny that matter exists. What are your assumptions in this logic you speak of?

[HypnoPsi]

It sure seems that you are denying physical forms, because consciousness is certainly not a tangible thing.I think I know better than you what I am claiming I have and don't have evidence for.

I have evidence for physical forms and so believe in them. I sense the same "realness/beingness" in all physical forms I encounter as I sense in myself. Between a known thing, consciousness, and an unknown thing "matter", it is perfectly clear that consciousness (as "beingness") is a better candidate for the content of physical forms. That's not proof that things work this way but it is definately true that it's the more logical premise.But let's just accept that what you say is true. Physical forms exist. They are made of something. What is that something? You say it is not necessarily matter, but could be something else. But whatever else it is has the same exact characteristics as what we have defined matter as having.What characteristics have you defined "matter" as having? One of my arguments is that no materialist does define "matter". Go ahead and prove me wrong, define this theorised "substance" or all things?I don't see where your concept of what constitutes physical forms adds any information whatsoever to the knowledge of physical forms. What's the point of simply calling matter something else?This isn't about using or not using the word "matter" (or "energy") or calling the physical something else. I make as much use of the words "matter" and "energy" as everyone else when it's appropriate. Again, amaterialism is not arealism.

For all intents and purposes, it is quite clear that physical forms exist. Subsequently, speculating about the content of these noumenal things is completely warranted and positing "matter" as the content is a perfectly logical, rational and data-driven premise. But that's all it is - a premise. The same, of course, holds true for conscious beingness being the content of noumenal things.

But which premise is the stronger? The premise based on something that's known to exist or the premise based on something that's theoretical? Clearly the answer is the premise that's known to exist.But realness/beingness exists whether you sense it or not, at least that's what all evidence suggests.Exactly. Beingness is pretty nifty.[quote]It sounds very much as if you are trying to assure yourself that you are essential to reality, even if only as a facilitator. That strikes me as hubris.No, I'm pretty sure the Universe was around before I came along and will continue after my passing. I'm not among those who believe that we create reality from moment to moment, though I accept their position as more logical than the materialists'. The point is that every time I look at anything in the Universe, or even think about the Univese itself, I am only ever aware of it "be-ing". I'm never aware of any evidence for matter existing.

As an amaterialist I'm just choosing the rational, skeptical, approach. I assume the negative (about matter as the content of things) because there is no evidence for it existing.[quote]I don't consider that to be "proof" that things work that way, but I do consider that to be a much, much more logical than the belief in some unknown substance.You have an odd concept of logic. You seem to be going through incredible contortions in order to deny that matter exists. What are your assumptions in this logic you speak of?I don't go through any "contortions in order to deny that matter exists" - incredible or otherwise. Re-read your words and consider just how much they sound like a monotheist who insists that an atheist is in denial about their version of "God".

Let me repeat: amaterialism is not arealism. I have evidence for physical forms and sense everything as be-ing 'real'. I do not have any evidence at all that some undefined substance called "matter" is the actual content of these forms.

Would you say to a Buddhist or Hindu "You seem to be going through incredible contortions in order to deny that matter exists.", thinking that, surely, they just simply must secretly believe in "matter" and that this whole idea the transcendental ground of all being is discovered in Enlightenment is hogwash?

I don't agree with the whole "maya" (illusion) idea of Buddhism/Hinduism myself, but let me assure you that I really, genuinely, am an amaterialist (as in the substance/content of things). I'm a theist and sense that whatever God is, and I use the term loosely, that is what fascilitates everything - including me. I have absolutely no belief in matter as the substance of things at all. If you think I'm denying something then what is it you think I'm denying? What evidence is there for this "matter" of yours?
_
HypnoPsi

[Tricky]

I think I know better than you what I am claiming I have and don't have evidence for.
Well you're certainly not very effective at communicating it.

I have evidence for physical forms and so believe in them. I sense the same "realness/beingness" in all physical forms I encounter as I sense in myself.
So what does that mean? You have evidence for "physical forms"? What is the difference in your definition of "physical forms" and the dictionary definition of "matter"? Do you think that by renaming matter into something else that you can show that "matter" doesn't exist?

Between a known thing, consciousness, and an unknown thing "matter", it is perfectly clear that consciousness (as "beingness") is a better candidate for the content of physical forms.
It is about as clear as mud. Consciousness may be known to you, but not to everything. Physical forms exist without consciousness, in fact the overwhelming majority of the physical forms in the universe do not posess what anyone would define as consciousness. That makes consciousness one of the very worst candidates for the content of physical forms.

That's not proof that things work this way but it is definately true that it's the more logical premise.What characteristics have you defined "matter" as having?
Mass and volume are the two biggies. We can show they exist. Does consciousness have either of those two characteristics?

One of my arguments is that no materialist does define "matter". Go ahead and prove me wrong, define this theorised "substance" or all things?
Matter is that which occupies space and has mass. Oops. Sorry to prove you wrong. Of course, energy is different, but they are intracovertable. Materialists recognize both matter and energy, both of which are well defined by science and strongly supported by evidence.

This isn't about using or not using the word "matter" (or "energy") or calling the physical something else. I make as much use of the words "matter" and "energy" as everyone else when it's appropriate. Again, amaterialism is not arealism.
What is it then? Solipsism? Is everything in your mind?


For all intents and purposes, it is quite clear that physical forms exist. Subsequently, speculating about the content of these noumenal things is completely warranted and positing "matter" as the content is a perfectly logical, rational and data-driven premise. But that's all it is - a premise. The same, of course, holds true for conscious beingness being the content of noumenal things.
Bushwah! Consciousness itself relies on matter to exist, and in fact it relies on an extremely specialized form of matter. That is easy to show via observation and experimentation. Don't let your big brain convince itself how important it is to the universe.

But which premise is the stronger? The premise based on something that's known to exist or the premise based on something that's theoretical?
Conscousness is not "known to exist", in that it is not a "thing" but rather a description of one of the emergent properties of the brain. You want evidence? Remove the brain from a conscious being and see if it retains consciousness.

Exactly. Beingness is pretty nifty.No, I'm pretty sure the Universe was around before I came along and will continue after my passing. I'm not among those who believe that we create reality from moment to moment, though I accept their position as more logical than the materialists'.
LOL. You don't believe it even though find it more logical? You sound very confused.

The point is that every time I look at anything in the Universe, or even think about the Univese itself, I am only ever aware of it "be-ing". I'm never aware of any evidence for matter existing.

Yes, and I'm not aware of my hair (or lack of it) when I'm not thinking about it. But if somebody pulls on it, I become aware of it. And if someone whacks your thumb with a hammer, you become very aware of the matter... er... I mean "physical form"... of the hammer.

But just to clarify, what is the difference between be-ing and being? I'm never quite sure how your defining these concepts of yours.


As an amaterialist I'm just choosing the rational, skeptical, approach. I assume the negative (about matter as the content of things) because there is no evidence for it existing.I don't go through any "contortions in order to deny that matter exists" - incredible or otherwise. Re-read your words and consider just how much they sound like a monotheist who insists that an atheist is in denial about their version of "God".
I don't care if you call it matter or "physical forms" or even consciousness. There is something that fits the physical definition of what we call "matter". An incredible amount of evidence supports this. (They have equations and everything.) What have you got to add to or subtract from that evidence? A different name? Get serious! Show me a single demonstrable way that your concept of the universe would be observably different from the materialist concept of the universe.


Let me repeat: amaterialism is not arealism. I have evidence for physical forms and sense everything as be-ing 'real'. I do not have any evidence at all that some undefined substance called "matter" is the actual content of these forms.
You do have evidence, you just choose to call it something else . It behaves exactly as that stuff which most of the rest of us call "matter", but somehow you don't like that word. I can't understand why, or what your distinction is. It's like the old joke, "William Shakespeare's works weren't actually written by William Shakespeare, but by another author with the same name."


Would you say to a Buddhist or Hindu "You seem to be going through incredible contortions in order to deny that matter exists.", thinking that, surely, they just simply must secretly believe in "matter" and that this whole idea the transcendental ground of all being is discovered in Enlightenment is hogwash?
Well, you've lost me here. I am unaware that Buddhists or Hindus deny the existence of matter. Are you perhaps saying that your views on matter are of a religious nature and are therefore based on faith, hence not needing evidence?

But yeah, I might argue with a Buddhist that enlightenment is hogwash. They would have to show me that it was more than a quest for knowledge with a fancy name tacked on.


I don't agree with the whole "maya" (illusion) idea of Buddhism/Hinduism myself, but let me assure you that I really, genuinely, am an amaterialist (as in the substance/content of things). I'm a theist and sense that whatever God is, and I use the term loosely, that is what fascilitates everything - including me. I have absolutely no belief in matter as the substance of things at all.
It seems a hollow faith. You appear to believe in something (physical forms) which appear to be exactly the same as matter, but yet you demand evidence for "matter". Then, quixotically, you have no problem believing in a facilitating entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You appear to have widely varying standards of evidence.


If you think I'm denying something then what is it you think I'm denying? What evidence is there for this "matter" of yours?
You appear to be denying that there is evidence for matter. Again, I ask, what sort of evidence do you want?

[hammegk]

Good Ed, Tricky. YOU are asserting that Matter Exists; explain the facts you have that makes you 'think' so.

Or alternatively, feel free to assert Thought Does Not Exist.

[Tricky]

Good Ed, Tricky. YOU are asserting that Matter Exists; explain the facts you have that makes you 'think' so.

Or alternatively, feel free to assert Thought Does Not Exist.
Objectively observable, repeatable experiments (think hammer and thumb) show that matter, as it is defined, exists and has the properties that have been described.

And by the way, such a position is not incompatable with thought, as you seem to be implying.

[hammegk]

Objectively observable, repeatable experiments (think hammer and thumb) say nothing about what is being perceived or the properties that describe it.

Work that out using some Thought, or even better do so without Thought.;)

[Belz...]

Yes, and if it applies to everyone, then perhaps we can begin to think of it in terms of universals? This is what we're trying to establish here isn't it?

I would think that establishing an objective TRUTH would be more important than arguing semantics or philosophy.

[Belz...]

But if you sense the Universe and all therein as "real" then it shouldn't be too hard a leap for you to realise that this sense of "realness" along with all the 'information' you have about noumenal forms appears only and solely in *you*.

That's what I'm saying, Hyppo. I don't SENSE that my consciousness is so SEPARATE (read: distinct) from the rest of the universe. YOU try to give it special status by appealing to your subjective bias. You FEEL like you're different, and you want everybody else ot agree. I don't agree. I'm very MUCH part of the physical universe, thank you very much.

Perhaps you should just stick to the topic rather than letting your frustrations about your lack of ability to argue properly spill over.

Hypno, you couldn't convince a girl on the rebound of your claims if your life depended on it.

We have strong evidence of the properties of (noumenal) forms and the comprehension of these forms as being real. We have no evidence at all of any fundamental substance actually being quarks, electrons and, ultimatly, all other noumenal forms. And due to the observer/observed divide we can never have any such evidence.

Again, you are assuming that YOU have special status, independent of MY status or any other "consciousness". Now, if we had different perceptions of the universe... say, in your world gravity's acceleration was greater than mine, which might explain a number of things, I would agree. But since these things are constant ACROSS all people, then we are QUITE justified in beign certain that it is an objective reality.

That's why materialism, the belief in an independent, unobservable, untestable and unfalsifiable substance within noumenal forms, is unscientific,


In that case, NOTHING is scientific and science, philosophy and all forms of thought and action is useless and pointless.

If you can't back up your claims you shouldn't make them.

Couldn't agree more.

[Belz...]

What I'm curious to know is why anybody would consider it more logical to believe that the causal agent of reality is some unknown substance called "matter" rather than our conscious beingness within which everyone agrees we observe everything anyway?

We certainly do not agree. Nice try.

[Belz...]

What strikes me about these dabates is just how unwilling materialists are to actually declare themselves as materialists and admit it's just another faith-based belief system.

What strikes ME is YOUR inability to even consider that you could be wrong about this.

[Belz...]

Well, the obvious reason would be that we have lots of evidence that matter existed before consciousness arose. The whole idea that consciousness is a fundamental building block seems to be the most extremely egocentric position to take. Lots of things exist which are not conscious. Can it be that humans are so enamored of their own intelligence that they think they create realilty with their minds?

What TRICKY said!!

"Is there not something a trifle absurd in the spectacle of human beings holding a mirror before themselves, and thinking what they behold so excellent as to prove that a Cosmic Purpose must have been aiming at it all along?" -Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science, 1935

[HypnoPsi]

What is the difference in your definition of "physical forms" and the dictionary definition of "matter"? Do you think that by renaming matter into something else that you can show that "matter" doesn't exist?Do you not understand the difference between form and content? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

"Matter is commonly referred to as the substance of which physical objects are composed. In physics, it is everything that is constituted of elementary fermions. Philosophically, matter constitutes the formless substratum of all things, which exists only potentially and from which reality is produced. In the sense of content, matter is also used in contrast to form."Physical forms exist without consciousness, in fact the overwhelming majority of the physical forms in the universe do not posess what anyone would define as consciousness. That makes consciousness one of the very worst candidates for the content of physical forms.How so? I have consciousness and I'm physical. I don't sense that physical objects are 'self-aware' but I am saying that the beingness of things (that I sense in consciousness) is a better candidate for physical forms than some undefinable "matter". I have the sense that my car outside is "be-ing" right now and that it will still exist even when it's not in my thoughts.What characteristics have you defined "matter" as having?Mass and volume are the two biggies.Nope, those are properties of physical forms. How do you define the content? (I agree there is content, but I see no reason to believe it's something still undefined called "matter".)Matter is that which occupies space and has mass. Oops. Sorry to prove you wrong.What evidence do you have that that which facilitates mass and volume in space is "matter"? All you're doing is defining the properties of physical things and speculating that the content and/or substance of them is "matter".

I've said numerous times that's a perfectly valid, logical and rational, data-driven speculation. Save yourself the effort and just admit that it can only ever be a speculation - and, once believed in, a "faith-based" position. Matter can never be known to be "truth" - not ever. If you think it can then you're deluded....amaterialism is not arealismWhat is it then? Solipsism? Is everything in your mind?Amaterialism is not solipsism, arealism or nihilism. The universe and all forms and beings I communicate with in it are every bit as real to me as they are to a materialist. Why wouldn't it be when both materialists and amaterialists agree that the physical universe and our self-awareness is being fascilitated by something?

Amaterialism is just the absense of belief that some undefined substance called "matter" is the content of physical things.Bushwah! Consciousness itself relies on matter to exist, and in fact it relies on an extremely specialized form of matter.Prove matter exists and prove consciousness relies on matter exists.That is easy to show via observation and experimentation.How? What proof do you have of this?Conscousness is not "known to exist",If no knower is known to exist then how can "matter" be known to exist?in that it is not a "thing" but rather a description of one of the emergent properties of the brain.Subjective emergent property = letters of the alphabet arranged as words. Objective emergent property = linking up rivets and beams to buid a bridge. All we can say of brains is that information processing occurs when neurons get together. You can't open up someone's skull and see consciousness.You want evidence? Remove the brain from a conscious being and see if it retains consciousness.Removing a brain from a body ensures physical death and non-responsiveness. How can you prove that conclusively ends consciousness?I'm not among those who believe that we create reality from moment to moment, though I accept their position as more logical than the materialists'.LOL. You don't believe it even though find it more logical? You sound very confused.Nope. Not confused at all. Just because I believe there is at least one other view that is more logical than the materialists, it doesn't mean I don't find another model to be even more logical than that - for example, that beingness fascilitates things. It's there when I'm not conscious of things and I have no evidence of matter.But just to clarify, what is the difference between be-ing and being?I like the emphasis it gives to the word.

What's up? You seem to be getting a little frustrated about something. If you can't learn how to handle being in a faith based position I suggest you find a way to shift out of it because you're never going to get rid of that uncomfortable truth.I don't care if you call it matter or "physical forms" or even consciousness. There is something that fits the physical definition of what we call "matter".I'm not talking about the way we use the word "matter". I'm talking about it as it refers to the content of physical things. Either way, it's good to see you accept we can call that content 'consciousness'.An incredible amount of evidence supports this. (They have equations and everything.) What have you got to add to or subtract from that evidence? A different name? Get serious! Show me a single demonstrable way that your concept of the universe would be observably different from the materialist concept of the universe.My concept of the universe would not be observably different from the materialist concept in any way - except in terms of the ultimate, most fundmental content that fascilitates all things and/or enables them to be. The materialist believes that it's "matter". The amaterialist lacks belief in this because they have no evidence.

An amaterialist is someone who doesn't just believe things because it feels good, provides reassurance and makes sense, they base their views on real evidence. They ask the tough questions.You do have evidence, you just choose to call it something else.No, I'm pointing out that there is a distinction between form and content.Well, you've lost me here. I am unaware that Buddhists or Hindus deny the existence of matter.The doctrine that everything we see and think is an illusion is called "maya". Only Enlightenement is said to bring knowledge of reality.Are you perhaps saying that your views on matter are of a religious nature and are therefore based on faith, hence not needing evidence?No, I'm not. I don't believe physical reality is an illusion. (Neither am I a Buddhist or a Hindu.)But yeah, I might argue with a Buddhist that enlightenment is hogwash. They would have to show me that it was more than a quest for knowledge with a fancy name tacked on.Interesting. Personally I see the belief that all is matter and the belief that all is illusion as the reverse of each other. The materialist believes in matter and denies consciousness and the Buddhist believes in consciousness and denies all physical reality.

The Buddhist, having consciousness to begin with strikes me as more logical than the materialist who has sensory experience of physical forms only and no evidence of matter, but but positions are ultimately faith-based. My route is different, I believe what I have evidence for and deny what I don't have evidence for.You appear to believe in something (physical forms)My senses tell me that physical reality is real. Everything I think about physical reality suggests to me that it's real. Do you feel differently about physical reality?which appear to be exactly the same as matter, but yet you demand evidence for "matter".Again form and content are not the same thing. Ignoring that distinction doesn't make it go away.Then, quixotically, you have no problem believing in a facilitating entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever.What facilitating entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever do I believe in?You appear to be denying that there is evidence for matter.You're really quick on the uptake, aren't you?Again, I ask, what sort of evidence do you want?Do you think I don't already know - just as much as you - that it's not possible to ever provide evidence of matter!? Do you think I didn't know right from the very begining that all your efforts would be in vain? I set you all an impossible task and it staggers me to see the passion some of you have put into rising to the challenge. (Though I admire your gameness.)

No, you can't prove matter to me - or to you. You know that and I know that. We all know that. We are observers while the world is only ever observed. We can't link the two. Matter, the ultimate substance and most fundamental content of things, is always theory. Stop chasing yourself in circles. Materialism is a faith-based belief system/philosophy and it always will be.

You can't trump amaterialism or ever logically arrange things so that matter becomes more "real" than the knower (consciousness) for the very simple reason that you require an observer to believe matter is 'real' in the first place!

Trust me on this: all energy you waste on trying to argue the impossible is wasted and a philosophy based on consciousness will always be superior to a philosophy based on matter because both philosophies require a knower in the first place.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Good Ed, Tricky. YOU are asserting that Matter Exists; explain the facts you have that makes you 'think' so.

Or alternatively, feel free to assert Thought Does Not Exist.It's like they all have an obsessive compulsion or something...

I'm like "Here guys, look at my shiny impenetrable forcefield! Would anyone like to bang their head off of it in complete futility?" They can't seem to run at it fast enough :)

Again... and again... and again.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

Because measuring something that's physically real doesn't tell us what causes it to be or what it's made of. Speculating it's made of consciouness or matter are both valid propositions - but consciousness is, logically, the stronger candidate because we have evidence of it existing but no evidence of matter as the substance of things.

If you say quarks are only form that they have some underlying layers, you would have to give some evidence. Until you give evidence that there is something beyond the properties we can measure, materialism is not faith based.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by hammegk :
Good Ed, Tricky. YOU are asserting that Matter Exists; explain the facts you have that makes you 'think' so.Objectively observable, repeatable experiments (think hammer and thumb) show that matter, as it is defined, exists and has the properties that have been described.From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

"Matter is commonly referred to as the substance of which physical objects are composed. In physics, it is everything that is constituted of elementary fermions. Philosophically, matter constitutes the formless substratum of all things, which exists only potentially and from which reality is produced. In the sense of content, matter is also used in contrast to form."

Form and content are categorically different. Surely you understand that?Originally Posted by hammegk :
Or alternatively, feel free to assert Thought Does Not Exist.And by the way, such a position is not incompatable with thought, as you seem to be implying.Eliminativists/Radical behaviourists do theorise such. But theory is not evidence. Surely you understand that as well?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I don't SENSE that my consciousness is so SEPARATE (read: distinct) from the rest of the universe. YOU try to give it special status by appealing to your subjective bias. You FEEL like you're different, and you want everybody else ot agree. I don't agree. I'm very MUCH part of the physical universe, thank you very much.Actually I say that my sense of "I Am" has the same sense of "really being" as everything I sense so I don't really do as you claim or hold a position that is so different from you after all. At the very least, you're edging towards a position whereby you'll eventually realise that consciousness/beingness is a better explanation for things than some unsubstantiated "matter" even if you choose to keep believing the latter.Hypno, you couldn't convince a girl on the rebound of your claims if your life depended on it.What claims? Amaterialism is not a claim. It is materialism that is a claim and a belief sytem.We have strong evidence of the properties of (noumenal) forms and the comprehension of these forms as being real. We have no evidence at all of any fundamental substance actually being quarks, electrons and, ultimatly, all other noumenal forms. And due to the observer/observed divide we can never have any such evidence.Again, you are assuming that YOU have special status, independent of MY status or any other "consciousness".Where? When? How? I'm saying that I'm conscious and sense a real universe - I'm pretty sure the situation is the same from your perspective as well.Now, if we had different perceptions of the universe... say, in your world gravity's acceleration was greater than mine, which might explain a number of things, I would agree. But since these things are constant ACROSS all people, then we are QUITE justified in beign certain that it is an objective reality.Yes, we can and so, I believe and agree, we are quite justified in being certain that there is an objective physical reality.

Try to understand. Amaterialism is not solipsism, arealism or nihilism. My universe is exactly the same as yours, I'm sure. This is about nothing more than the difference between form and content. Objects have mass and occupy physical space which definately suggests to us that *something* fascilitates their existence. Amaterialism is just the absense of belief in that something being some indefinable substance called "matter".That's why materialism, the belief in an independent, unobservable, untestable and unfalsifiable substance within noumenal forms, is unscientific,
In that case, NOTHING is scientific and science, philosophy and all forms of thought and action is useless and pointless.Let me clarify something: given the existence of physical forms it's perfectly valid, scientifically, to postulate the existence of "matter" because that's a data-driven theory. But actually believing in matter and in a theory-based postulation that it fascilitates consciousness is definately unscientific. Clear?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
What I'm curious to know is why anybody would consider it more logical to believe that the causal agent of reality is some unknown substance called "matter" rather than our conscious beingness within which everyone agrees we observe everything anyway?We certainly do not agree. Nice try.Okay....

How can the observed ever be believed to be more real than the observer who has beliefs?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
What strikes me about these dabates is just how unwilling materialists are to actually declare themselves as materialists and admit it's just another faith-based belief system.What strikes ME is YOUR inability to even consider that you could be wrong about this.I could be wrong and something that is theoretical could turn out to be correct. But in evaluating my existence and establishing the default position I am right to deal with what I know rather than attempt to consider infinite possibilities.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

I am self-aware, I have two eyes, arms, legs, a belly button and all the other bits and bobs. Maybe I am just a computer playing some crazy full immersion 3D game. The point is that I should evaluate my situation based upon what I have, experience and sense rather than on what I can theorise or I'd be eternally theorising infinite possibilities and combinations of possibilities.

You can't be sure your not the last living alien in another dimension hooked up to a computer living the life of someone from a long extinct civilisation known as humanity either. But, again, theorising leads us nowhere.

I'm not talking about virtual reality. I'm talking about our brains existing in material world as biological computers. Not in some virtual reality.

So your position of having consciousness is faithbased because you can't differentiate between being a biological computer and conscioussnes.


You're right that I have only one consciousness that I can truly know - but I definately sense "beingness" other to my self in everything and everyone I encounter. I can't even contemplate how I'd have a sense of "self" without a reference point that is "other" to my "self". If I'm creating the physical universe and the actors within it, I certainly don't have any awareness or recollection of doing so.

So, in order to get down to the business or evaluating my situation I choose to deal with what is "real" to me (myself, other people, tables, chairs, the Sun, the Universe) rather than to make the goal impossible by including all that I can theorise. I'm only looking for a working philosophy, a default position that I can invest a degree of certainty in even if I can never truly know that I'm not a bored computer or lonely alien in a fancy mind-altering holodeck.

Your senses might be fooling you. I don't sense this otherness or beingness. And again, I'm not talking about bored computers or aliens. I'm talking about reality which is consistent to all observers.


I'm not buying your arguement here that self-awareness isn't categorically different from thoughts. It's a constant while thoughts change. I'm not thinking the same things now that I was one hour ago - but I'm still "me" and still "self-aware".

Again, it is sentience and sapience and I'm definately not alone in defining thinker than thoughts as different. That's the "something special" in consciousness. Why should anyone believe they are the same when that goes against experience?

Constant you say? I'm atleast not the same person that I was 10 years ago. And if it is constant it can't have memory or learn new things. Those would require a change in state. Constant consciousness if it is participating in your thinking would be just an input output system. Same input gives allways the same output. Sounds a lot like a computer to me. And because there is more evidence for computers than for consciousness (You have only your own. That is if you can tell the difference bewteen being a computer and consciouss) it's more logical to believe in computers.

I can't tell the difference between myself and my thoughts. I am my thoughts and my memory.


I don't recall ever saying that consciousness is just an observer. My experience is that "I" am an actor with agency as well. My experience is that I have free-will, make decisions and choose what to type in my posts. I lack evidence that this "I Am" that I have that does things is all just an illusion or trick of neural processing. That to me is theoretical and unsubstantiated by any evidence. So why should I consider it as true?

Could you give me something specific that consciousness does that the brain doesn't? Besides being an observer and being an actor. Because computers too can make decisions based on the available information.


I have personal evidence that I'm conscious because I am it and experience my thoughts and world within it. It's indemonstrable to others, yes, but because I have it I should, logically, factor it in to my evaluation of my situation.

Despite the danger of sounding repetitive: How do you know you are consciouss? If you have no way to differentiate between being a computer and consciouss then you are basing it on faith.


I have no idea why we have consciousness - or even why we need it. But you don't just drop something from a theory (discard evidence) because you think you don't need it or can't find a way to include it properly. Science is about taking all the evidence and adding it up to see what it sums up to. I have evidence of consciousness but no evidence of matter and thus see no reason to believe I'm produced by "matter".

You haven't yet given any evidence that we even need consciousness. Ofcourse we drop things that are unnecessary. Discard what evidence exactly? Since your evidence is not demonstrable to others, others are not required to consider it.

Why consciousness is necessary for my survival or functionality in the world populated by (supposedly) consciouss people?


Do you honestly think that philosophers have changed their attitude because we can define smaller bits of physical things?

I can't be sure but I would think most philosopher of the past would have thought a bit differently of the macroscopic world if they were given modern equipment and theories of matter. World was quite a mystery back then. It still is. But atleast we have a lot more understanding of what stuff is made of.

[HypnoPsi]

If you say quarks are only form that they have some underlying layers, you would have to give some evidence. Until you give evidence that there is something beyond the properties we can measure, materialism is not faith based.Wrong. To a materialist a quark is a "thing" - it's not just "nothing" - in the materialist view there is "something" that is a quark.

I'll happily agree with the materialist here, because I lack the belief that everything physical is just and illusion. There is something that is a quark. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

"Matter is commonly referred to as the substance of which physical objects are composed. In physics, it is everything that is constituted of elementary fermions. Philosophically, matter constitutes the formless substratum of all things, which exists only potentially and from which reality is produced. In the sense of content, matter is also used in contrast to form."

Usually, materialists admit that we can never know the "content" of "forms" and accept that materialism is a faith, but if you guys want to keep banging your heads off a brick wall feel free. Amaterialism is just the position that lacks that faith in material content as opposed to physical forms.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

Okay....

How can the observed ever be believed to be more real than the observer who has beliefs?

I wouldn't say observed is believed to be more real than observer. I would say equally real. If something has an effect on me my only logical conclusion is that it is real. Hallucinations might seem real while they are not real. But if they seem real enough I can't tell the difference.

[hammegk]

...I can't be sure but I would think most philosopher of the past would have thought a bit differently of the macroscopic world if they were given modern equipment and theories of matter. World was quite a mystery back then. It still is. But atleast we have a lot more understanding of what stuff is made of.
I'm sure they would have too. Please explain how "our understanding of what stuff is made of" is on a better footing than Democritus' had with his 'atoms'.

[.13.]

Wrong. To a materialist a quark is a "thing" - it's not just "nothing" - in the materialist view there is "something" that is a quark.

I'll happily agree with the materialist here, because I lack the belief that everything physical is just and illusion.

Wrong? Yes quark is a thing. So? Are you agreeing there is nothing beyond what we can measure? If so, what's your problem with matter? You are confusing me.

[.13.]

I'm sure they would have too. Please explain how "our understanding of what stuff is made of" is on a better footing than Democritus' had with his 'atoms'.

Well Democritus had just a crazy idea without experimental data that smallest pieces of matter are undividable. We have found those pieces, fermions and leptons. We can measure the basic particles of matter. I'd say we have come a long way from the good old times.

[HypnoPsi]

your position of having consciousness is faithbased because you can't differentiate between being a biological computer and conscioussnes.Nope. Biological computers are theory. That "I Am" self-aware isn't theory. I would still have the sense that "I Am" self-aware even if I'd never heard of computers, biological or otherwise. You'll have to prove to me that biological computers are real "material" things first before I can consider your idea true. Otherwise I just have my sense of beingness that exists in me as well as everything else.Your senses might be fooling you.They might be, but that's theory and theories about what I am are infinite. I can only deal with what I have here and now.I don't sense this otherness or beingness.You don't sense anything other than yourself? You don't sense that anything is 'real'? How then can you believe in "matter"?And again, I'm not talking about bored computers or aliens. I'm talking about reality which is consistent to all observers.So you do sense reality, observers and consistency in the Universe. Hmmm... are you claiming psychic intuition of matter or do you accept that the sense of 'realness' things have is something in your mind?And because there is more evidence for computers than for consciousness (You have only your own. That is if you can tell the difference bewteen being a computer and consciouss) it's more logical to believe in computers.Honestly, you people come up with the most ridiculous ideas. No matter how many things I observe I'm always going to have more evidence for the observer than anything else. Nothing can ever change that.I can't tell the difference between myself and my thoughts. I am my thoughts and my memory.So you believe that you're "thought". That's a good start. At least you're begining to recognise that you can only have thoughts. In Kantian terms that's "phenomena". You are justified in believing in "noumana", certainly; you are even justified in speculating that it's made of something. But you can never know that something like you know thoughts.Could you give me something specific that consciousness does that the brain doesn't?What brain? The phenomenal brain that consciousness conceptualises? Or the noumenal brain that you can never perceive and can only ever speculate produces consciousness.Besides being an observer and being an actor. Because computers too can make decisions based on the available information.What computer? The phenomenal computer that consciousness conceptualises? Or the noumenal computer that you can never perceive and can only ever speculate makes decisions based on available information?Despite the danger of sounding repetitive: How do you know you are consciouss? If you have no way to differentiate between being a computer and consciouss then you are basing it on faith."I Am" the perceiver of phenomena. It's logically impossible for me to say that "I" have faith in "me" existing because I would be that which has faith in "me" existing, meaning that I have confirmation that I exist and thus don't need fiath that I exist.

That's really all I can say about myself except that I have a sense of the universe being real and other people being real (and self-aware) that to me, is so real that it is "truth". I can theorise that it's all a sham, of course, but theorising all possibilities would be and endless pursuit, so I just take what I have and leave out all the rest.

As to differentiating my "self" - yes, I agree that's important. I have a sense of many things that are "other" to me and don't see how I could have a sense of "self" without that sense.You haven't yet given any evidence that we even need consciousness.So? I'm just saying that those of us who agree we have it should factor it in to our philosophy as we evaluate our situation and consider the default position. You haven't yet given any evidence that matter exists or that we need it to explain why physical forms have mass and volume in space. All we can really say is that something is fascilitating existence. There's no good reason why it must be some undefined "matter".Since your evidence is not demonstrable to others, others are not required to consider it.If someone wants to believe that I'm not conscious they're free to do so. I'm only talking about how those who declare themselves self-aware should evaluate their situation. If we both agree that we're conscious then we can discuss things. If you instead try to claim you know your not conscious I'd probably have to consider adding it to my sig as one of the daftest things I've ever heard.Why consciousness is necessary for my survival or functionality in the world populated by (supposedly) consciouss people?No idea whatsoever. I do know that my awareness is that I make decisions to do stuff and that I evaluate thoughts, though. All other possibilities are just theory.I can't be sure but I would think most philosopher of the past would have thought a bit differently of the macroscopic world if they were given modern equipment and theories of matter. World was quite a mystery back then. It still is. But atleast we have a lot more understanding of what stuff is made of.Actually ancient peoples had a very well developed theory of atoms (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0905226.html) and elements (earth, air, fire, water and spirit) even if it seems a little odd to us.

Why do you think reductionism would even trip up amaterialist philosophy? It's based on the fact that we can only ever have sensory experiences and never know what things are in and of themselves - which even includes those physical attributes we use to sense things. Indeed, if anything, reductionism, with all the quantum strangeness that is reported seems to be strengthening amaterialism.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I wouldn't say observed is believed to be more real than observer. I would say equally real.So would I - but I have no evidence of the involvement of any "matter" and neither do you.If something has an effect on me my only logical conclusion is that it is real.Quite correct.Hallucinations might seem real while they are not real. But if they seem real enough I can't tell the difference.Again, quite correct.

So, let's evaluate our situation and consider the nature of the default position by dealing only with what we have definate evidence of rather than including something like 'matter' which we don't any evidence of.

The default position is that beingness is everywhere, both within and containing all things, and that each and every "I Am" is a point of awareness (an individual consciousness) within that beingness and formed from that beingness.

You are absolutely free to believe in "matter", of course, if you want. Just remember that it is, undeniably, a belief system and not the logical or natural default position which by definition, to be tennable as truly default and untainted, needs to be absent of any faith-based philosophy such as materialism.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
Wrong. To a materialist a quark is a "thing" - it's not just "nothing" - in the materialist view there is "something" that is a quark.

I'll happily agree with the materialist here, because I lack the belief that everything physical is just and illusion.Wrong? Yes quark is a thing. So? Are you agreeing there is nothing beyond what we can measure? If so, what's your problem with matter? You are confusing me.You're confusing yourself. I'm saying that what we can measure is something, but we can never know what that something is. That truism is demonstrated clearly by the phenomena/noumena divide even if you deny any difference between the observer and the observed.

We have nothing except sensory experiences, cognitions and thoughts (phenomena). We can never, ever, know what 'things-in-themselves' (noumena) actually "are", even if we agree that they definately "are".

To make matter (content) synonymous with what is physical (form) doesn't help in the slightest because we still only experience phenomena rather than noumena and are still unable to explain what "physical matter" actually "is".

No mental gymnastics, no matter how elaborate, will ever make materialism trump amaterialism as the default position.

If you're like me then everything in your world seems like it's something real and not an illusion, and that it exists independently of your thinking about it or being aware of it. But why think that's all the result of some independently existing matter? Even your own materialism trips you up since it forces you to conclude that everything you experience is actually a model of reality that's being produced in your head.

You don't and can't ever know what reality is. You can't even experience it directly. It's all mediated by your senses. Unlike amaterialism, materialism will alway be nothing more than a belief system. It can never be made "true".
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

You're confusing yourself. I'm saying that what we can measure is something, but we can never know what that something is. That truism is demonstrated clearly by the phenomena/noumena divide even if you deny any difference between the observer and the observed.

That "something" is exactly what we can measure. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to any scientific theory. Untill you give some evidence that there even is any hidden "something" beyond that and show what currently unexplained phenomena it might explain, you are in the realm of supernatural.

[.13.]

What brain? The phenomenal brain that consciousness conceptualises? Or the noumenal brain that you can never perceive and can only ever speculate produces consciousness.

What computer? The phenomenal computer that consciousness conceptualises? Or the noumenal computer that you can never perceive and can only ever speculate makes decisions based on available information?


You are getting too dodgy. I thought we all have agreed that cognition and other functions are produced by the brain. Are you now trying to say that even those can't be explained because we don't know "fundamental M/E"?

And by computer I am refering to the brain. I just used a general term because even silicon computers can make decisions.

So are you going to answer or dodge:

Could you give me something specific that consciousness does that the brain doesn't? Besides being an observer and being an actor. Because computers too can make decisions based on the available information.


I'm not buying your arguement here that self-awareness isn't categorically different from thoughts. It's a constant while thoughts change. I'm not thinking the same things now that I was one hour ago - but I'm still "me" and still "self-aware".

Again, it is sentience and sapience and I'm definately not alone in defining thinker than thoughts as different. That's the "something special" in consciousness. Why should anyone believe they are the same when that goes against experience?


Constant you say? I'm atleast not the same person that I was 10 years ago. And if it is constant it can't have memory or learn new things. Those would require a change in state. Constant consciousness if it is participating in your thinking would be just an input output system. Same input gives allways the same output. Sounds a lot like a computer to me. And because there is more evidence for computers than for consciousness (You have only your own. That is if you can tell the difference bewteen being a computer and consciouss) it's more logical to believe in computers.

Looks to me as if your consciousness could be replaced by a computer.


If we both agree that we're conscious then we can discuss things. If you instead try to claim you know your not conscious I'd probably have to consider adding it to my sig as one of the daftest things I've ever heard.


I'm not consciouss in the way you think you are. Consciousness you suggest we have is clearly not necessary for me to function in a group of consciouss people. Or even for my survival. So it makes perfect sense to abandon the idea of consciousness as you present it.


Actually ancient peoples had a very well developed theory of atoms (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0905226.html) and elements (earth, air, fire, water and spirit) even if it seems a little odd to us.


I would call that a hypothesis rather than theory. Or maybe wild guess would be closest.

[HypnoPsi]

That "something" is exactly what we can measure. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to any scientific theory.Such as any type of belief about it's substance, then yes.Untill you give some evidence that there even is any hidden "something" beyond that and show what currently unexplained phenomena it might explain, you are in the realm of supernatural.So you're either saying "quarks are nothing" or "quarks are quarks" and hoping nobody will notice that quarks are thus an unexplained phenomena?

Well, I'm happy with that. You can have your word "matter" back so long as you admit that it refers to an unexplained phenomena rather than some substance or other.

You'll also, no doubt, accept that for science it's open season on everything from quarks to cognition and become agnostic about the whole consciousness/matter thing, yes? (I can respect that even though I still think that actually defending a position is a little bit more respectable.)

Stop trying to explain consciousness with some freaky substance or other that you can't even define!

I have this impenetrable forcefield right here that I can turn on at any time and you just can't seem to resist the temptation to run into it at top speed continuously like a man possessed no matter how dizzy you get.

Amaterialism is the default position. Materialism is a faith based position.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

Such as any type of belief about it's substance, then yes.

So you're either saying "quarks are nothing" or "quarks are quarks" and hoping nobody will notice that quarks are thus an unexplained phenomena?

Well, I'm happy with that. You can have your word "matter" back so long as you admit that it refers to an unexplained phenomena rather than some substance or other.

You'll also, no doubt, accept that for science it's open season on everything from quarks to cognition and become agnostic about the whole consciousness/matter thing, yes? (I can respect that even though I still think that actually defending a position is a little bit more respectable.)

Stop trying to explain consciousness with some freaky substance or other that you can't even define!

I have this impenetrable forcefield right here that I can turn on at any time and you just can't seem to resist the temptation to run into it at top speed continuously like a man possessed no matter how dizzy you get.

Amaterialism is the default position. Materialism is a faith based position.


Do you have evidence that quarks are something more than matter/energy with certain properties? Do you have a phenomenon that is unexplained and needs inner structure of quarks to explain it? And the big bang theory explains where that energy came from. What else do you need?

I've noticed the forcefield. It's there to keep reason out.

[Iacchus]

I wouldn't say observed is believed to be more real than observer. I would say equally real. If something has an effect on me my only logical conclusion is that it is real. Hallucinations might seem real while they are not real. But if they seem real enough I can't tell the difference.Monsters from the id!

[Belz...]

At the very least, you're edging towards a position whereby you'll eventually realise that consciousness/beingness is a better explanation for things than some unsubstantiated "matter" even if you choose to keep believing the latter.

No, I don't. I said I was PART of the universe, not the reverse.

What claims? Amaterialism is not a claim. It is materialism that is a claim and a belief sytem.

Yes, it IS a claim. You claim that modern science is wrong in its assertion that matter exists. Since this goes against the evidence we have and the resulting consensus, the burden is on YOU.

Where? When? How? I'm saying that I'm conscious and sense a real universe - I'm pretty sure the situation is the same from your perspective as well.Yes, we can and so, I believe and agree, we are quite justified in being certain that there is an objective physical reality.

Then what's your problem with "matter". You do know that "physical reality" is pretty much the SAME thing as "matter" ?

Amaterialism is just the absense of belief in that something being some indefinable substance called "matter".

Again, you seem to be entrenched in your war against that word. I don't see why. You claim things about not knowing this and that, and when accused of solipism you say "oh, no. I believe in a physical reality, but not in matter." What the hell does that mean ? What is this "matter" you speak of, anyway ?

But actually believing in matter and in a theory-based postulation that it fascilitates consciousness is definately unscientific. Clear?


No, not clear. The theory IS falsifiable. All we'd need is different physical laws for different people, and the entire edifice of science would collapse. It IS scientific.

[Belz...]

I could be wrong and something that is theoretical could turn out to be correct. But in evaluating my existence and establishing the default position I am right to deal with what I know rather than attempt to consider infinite possibilities.
_
HypnoPsi

Unfortunately for your position, however, you are still a far cry from establishing it as the "default".

[Tricky]

Do you not understand the difference between form and content? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

"Matter is commonly referred to as (1) the substance of which physical objects are composed. (2) In physics, it is everything that is constituted of elementary fermions. (3) Philosophically, matter constitutes the formless substratum of all things, which exists only potentially and from which reality is produced. In the sense of content, matter is also used in contrast to form
This distills your arguments down to their essence. You disregard definitions 1 and 2 (for which there is ample evidence) and focus entirely on definition 3. So what you are asking for is philosophical proof of matter. While philosophy has its purposes, determing the nature of things is not one of them, because no philosophy can ever be proved. No amount of evidence for 1 and 2 will ever convince you of the existence of 3. Well, I'm with you there. There cannot be any evidence of any "formless substances" because they are, by definition, formless. So what you are asking, is for materialists to give evidence of something that you have defined as without evidence.

I'm not sure why that's important to you, but hey, if philosophy is your bag, then be my guest. My feeling is that your particular line of reasoning, though, will never add anything useful to our body of knowledge.

Amaterialism is just the absense of belief that some undefined substance called "matter" is the content of physical things.
Matter is not undefined. It is simply not defined in the philosophical way that you demand. Definitions 1 and 2 above give perfectly adequate definitions for working in the real world. I'm not really all that concerned about hypothetical "formless substrata".

If you can't learn how to handle being in a faith based position I suggest you find a way to shift out of it because you're never going to get rid of that uncomfortable truth.
LOL. I'm not uncomfortable at all with physical definitions. It is you who seem to be taking a "faith based" position by demanding evidence of formless things. It will do you no good to try to shift the burden of proof. You are the one who claims matter is a formless substratum. Why don't you support that claim? I only claim it is well defined in the physical world (the only one we have evidence for) and I believe that claim has been well supported.

They ask the tough questions.No, I'm pointing out that there is a distinction between form and content.
There is a philosophical distinction. Not a real distinction. So why don't you show what that distinction is in a way that is more than simply defining them as different?

No, you can't prove matter to me - or to you. You know that and I know that.
As I have said many times, in science, there is no "proof" there is only evidence. I have ample evidence for matter as defined by everybody but philosophers. I ask you "what evidence would convince you" and you reply, "there is none".

Well I am willing to be convinced if you can provide evidence of this formless substratum. You are self-admittedly not going to be convinced by any evidence. Which of us has a faith-based belief?

[hammegk]

Faith is required when one chooses an axiom addressing what 'stuff' comprises "elementary fermions".

[Z]

Is Hypno still arguing this tired, old gag after getting his posterior handed to him previously?

Such as any type of belief about it's substance, then yes.So you're either saying "quarks are nothing" or "quarks are quarks" and hoping nobody will notice that quarks are thus an unexplained phenomena?

Boy, you need to learn a bit about quarks.

Stop trying to explain consciousness with some freaky substance or other that you can't even define!

Consciousness may be explainable (eventually) using protons, neutrons, and electrons - none of which is freaky or undefinable. Hence, consciousness could very well arise from matter.

I have this impenetrable forcefield right here that I can turn on at any time and you just can't seem to resist the temptation to run into it at top speed continuously like a man possessed no matter how dizzy you get.

We used to play this game when we were kids, too. The difference is, we grew out of it.

You're not impenetrable, unless you're referring to your ignorance and general stupidity.

Amaterialism is the default position. Materialism is a faith based position.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Both are faith-based positions. ALL are faith-based positions. The advantage of materialism is that it is supported by observation and consistancy, whereas more faith must be applied to DENY the existence of that which is observed.

[Iacchus]

How would you explain what heaven and hell consisted of, i.e., proton and neutron wise, if such a place exists? Sorry, I just had the weirdest dream.

[Z]

How would you explain what heaven and hell consisted of, i.e., proton and neutron wise, if such a place exists? Sorry, I just had the weirdest dream.

Show me that such places exist, and we'll get our scientific crews in there to find out what these places consist of - proton and neutron-wise. Otherwise, we might as well speculate on the atomic structure of Narnia.

Just remember - dreams are just dreams. Nothing more.

[Belz...]

Faith is required when one chooses an axiom addressing what 'stuff' comprises "elementary fermions".

Define "stuff" when referring to particles.

[Iacchus]

Show me that such places exist, and we'll get our scientific crews in there to find out what these places consist of - proton and neutron-wise. Otherwise, we might as well speculate on the atomic structure of Narnia.There's no need to, everybody else was already there. There were people to the left of me, to the right of me, up above and below, doing just about everything you could think of.

Just remember - dreams are just dreams. Nothing more.It's funny, but I had only fallen asleep for about 45 minutes, but it felt like I was on vacation for five freaken days. And the people were still yelling at me, "You had no right to do that!" even after I awoke.

[Belz...]

How would you explain what heaven and hell consisted of, i.e., proton and neutron wise, if such a place exists? Sorry, I just had the weirdest dream.

You have nothing but dreams, Iacchus.

[Belz...]

There's no need to, everybody else was already there. There were people to the left of me, to the right of me, up above and below, doing just about everything you could think of.

It's funny, but I had only fallen asleep for about 45 minutes, but it felt like I was on vacation for five freaken days.

Iacchus, how could anyone possibly believe that their dreams represent a true reality when EVERYTHING in every dream contains elements of your recent experience ? If you create dreams with your mind, how could they be real, etc. ?

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, how could anyone possibly believe that their dreams represent a true reality when EVERYTHING in every dream contains elements of your recent experience ? If you create dreams with your mind, how could they be real, etc. ?Well, I don't recall being amidst a bunch of people before I fell asleep. Neither do I recall thinking of many of the things that I "witnessed" there. However, if there was any interaction between the two existing worlds, it's what we would term "synchronicity." And this I firmly believe in.

[Belz...]

Well, I don't recall being amidst a bunch of people before I fell asleep. Neither do I recall thinking of many of the things that I "witnessed" there. However, if there was any interaction between the two existing worlds, it's what we would term "synchronicity." And this I firmly believe in.

First off, I didn't say the EXACT thing that happened in your dreams happened in real life. That was a strawman, and it BURNED. I said that ELEMENTS of the dreams are composited from YOUR experiences. I wrote down enough of my own dreams back in the day so as to know what I'm talking about.

Second, I don't see how this "synchronicity" is defined, here. If the elements of the dreams are different from the real world, you claim they are separate worlds and that this is expected. If the elements are the same, you claim that you expect this as well because you are "synchronised.". In other words, any and all evidence points to the same thing no matter what. Seems like your use of terms, like synchronicity, is merely a smokescreen to hide a poorly defined philosphy.

[Iacchus]

That's okay, you folks can get back to the original point of this thread. I see no point in discussing this any further. Sorry for the derail.

[hammegk]

Define "stuff" when referring to particles.
Define 'particles'. Like Democritus, we're still looking for one.

[Tricky]

Define 'particles'. Like Democritus, we're still looking for one.
Really? What does a particle accelerator accelerate?

[Belz...]

Define 'particles'. Like Democritus, we're still looking for one.

So what ? Not only do particles NOT have substance, they are also non-existent ?

So, what exists ?

[HypnoPsi]

Do you have evidence that quarks are something more than matter/energy with certain properties?In the sense that they are physical things, no - and that is exactly my point. Trying to make the issue disappear with semantics only glosses it over. Yes, the convention when discussing quarks is to use the terms matter/energy. So what? If the amaterialist get's bored with this evasion calls himself an asubstantialist it's still the same type of skepticism at the end of the day.

Ultimately, your argument seems to be that we should just believe matter is it's own substance. I point out that logically you can either have "something" or "nothing" only. If you think "the matter/energy of quarks is something" then you're agreeing that "something is the matter/energy of quarks". In scientific/philosophical terms my amaterialism wouldn't deny that because amaterialism isn't the same thing as arealism.

So we're now at the stage where "the matter/energy of quarks is something real" and/or "something real is the matter/energy of quarks". What's the "something real"? Evading the issue by capitalising on the fact that, historically, the term "matter" (along with "atom" and "element") has been appropriated by science from philosophy to refer to a sepcific level of reductionism and trying to make it linguistically impossible to discuss is nothing more than evasive cowardice.

It's also unwarranted because, historically, elements and atoms turned out to be something else we called matter and energy and again, it appears they're turning out to be something else people are calling "branes" and "superstrings".Do you have a phenomenon that is unexplained and needs inner structure of quarks to explain it?You'll have to explain the inner structure of quarks first. Or do you think they are "nothing"?And the big bang theory explains where that energy came from.No it doesn't. Physicists believe that the energy for the Big Bang came from a singularity which, by necessity, must have existed outside of spacetime since everything began in the Big Bang.

My understanding is that they're currently theorising that the singularity occured when two "branes" collided or something like that. Since my knowledge of physics is nowhere near this level, I must admit I don't even know what this means let alone how it's supposed to work.What else do you need?

I've noticed the forcefield. It's there to keep reason out.Nope. You just have to understand that I'm a philosophical amaterialist as opposed to a scientific amaterialist. That it all comes down to form and content. Even if you deny that the phenomana/noumena divide never allows you to know the true nature of your "matter/energy". You can only know your cognition of it. Your belief in matter is only your belief in your cognition of matter. The amaterialist is more of a realist about this than you are being since his thinking is more focussed upon the hard problem of his inability to know the noumenal rather than his comforting conclusions of his cognitions.
_
HypnoPsi

[Tricky]

In the sense that they are physical things, no - and that is exactly my point. Trying to make the issue disappear with semantics only glosses it over. Yes, the convention when discussing quarks is to use the terms matter/energy. So what? If the amaterialist get's bored with this evasion calls himself an asubstantialist it's still the same type of skepticism at the end of the day.
It sounds as if you are saying the equivalent of "Yes, physical meanings exist in the physical realm, but I'm talking about a different realm." And you call materialists of being evesive?

Ultimately, your argument seems to be that we should just believe matter is it's own substance.
What does this mean? Matter is its own substance? Do you want to dissect it to find what it is made of, and when you find that, dissect it to find what it is made of, until you get to the point where it is too difficult to dissect, then you say "Aha! There is no such thing as matter". It's like a kid who repeats "why" to a parent at the end of every answer, then concludes that since the parent can't answer an infinite number of "whys" that none of the earlier answers are correct.

While I'm all in favor of asking "why", when we get to the point that the only correct answer is "we don't know", I do not then conclude that we don't know anything.

[Z]

The amaterialist is more of a realist about this than you are being since his thinking is more focussed upon the hard problem of his inability to know the noumenal rather than his comforting conclusions of his cognitions.
_
HypnoPsi

Correction: the amaterialist is more of a solipsist idiot who thinks denying what his senses tell him exists is more reasonable than accepting that it represents what exists, to some extent - apparently. As such, I think we can safely lump the HypnoPsi amaterialist together with other philosophical losers such as acosmists and solipsists.

For example, in order for H-P to deduce that consciousness forms matter, he has to assume that consciousness exists prior to matter. Observation tells us exactly the opposite: that, while matter may exist without consciousness (aside from the observer), consciousness never exists (within our awareness) without matter. Therefore, to deduce that consciousness is a primary order lower than matter is, in fact, to place faith that our sensory input is faulty, mislead, or illusionary.

Ironically, H-P insists that things continue to exist even when he doesn't observe them - indicating that he thinks there is some 'underlying consciousness' maintaining things. Again, an issue entirely of faith, one contradicted by observation.

It takes a special breed of idiot to deny the only actual information we receive, our sensory input, in favor of fairy dust 'universal being-ness' consciousness.

[HypnoPsi]

You claim that modern science is wrong in its assertion that matter exists. Since this goes against the evidence we have and the resulting consensus, the burden is on YOU.The concensus is ad populum and proves nothing. And I'm not saying that science is wrong, per se, to have appropriated philosophical terms from ancient history like "matter", "atom" and "element". I can still be a scientific materialist and a philosophical amaterialist at the same time without any contradiction at all.

Do you believe that a "quark", if we imagine that as the lowest form of "thing" discovered, is "something" or "nothing"? My view is that both materialists and amaterialists agree that it's "something".I believe and agree, we are quite justified in being certain that there is an objective physical reality.Then what's your problem with "matter". You do know that "physical reality" is pretty much the SAME thing as "matter" ?"Pretty must the SAME things as" is not "exactly the same thing as". Again, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

"Matter is commonly referred to as the substance of which physical objects are composed. In physics, it is everything that is constituted of elementary fermions. Philosophically, matter constitutes the formless substratum of all things, which exists only potentially and from which reality is produced. In the sense of content, matter is also used in contrast to form."

And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form

"For practical purposes, Aristotle was the first to distinguish between matter (hyle) and form (morphe). To Aristotle matter is the undifferentiated primal element: it is rather that from which things develop than a thing in itself. The development of particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation, the acquiring of particular forms of which the knowable universe consists"

Are you trying to say that form is equal to content?Amaterialism is just the absense of belief in that something being some indefinable substance called "matter".Again, you seem to be entrenched in your war against that word. I don't see why.[/quote]I am not at all entrenched in any "war against that word" when it is used in science. I'm not even entrenched in any "war against that word" when it's used in philosophy. I'm just pointing out the difference between the two and that philsophical materialism is a belief system. All arguements against this are evasive at best and fallacious at worse.You claim things about not knowing this and that, and when accused of solipism you say "oh, no. I believe in a physical reality, but not in matter." What the hell does that mean?Your ignorance of philosophy and the difference between form and content is hardly for me to explain.What is this "matter" you speak of, anyway?It's philosophical materialists who speak of "matter", remember? As a philosophical amaterialist, I have no idea what they're referring to when they discuss this "matter" stuff. I agree quarks, etc., are "something" but that's all.But actually believing in matter and in a theory-based postulation that it fascilitates consciousness is definately unscientific. Clear?No, not clear. The theory IS falsifiable. All we'd need is different physical laws for different people, and the entire edifice of science would collapse. It IS scientific.Nope. It's only data-driven to postualte that "matter" is the content of "physical" forms. Jumping ahead to posit or even conclude that it fascilitates consciousness is to attempt to explain the unexplained with the unkown.

Get back to me when you understand the difference between scientific materialism and philsophical materialism. To help you understand consider the fact that amaterialism is being contrasted with materialism and not, strictly speaking, "matter". Philosophical materialism is asserting that things are made of "material" as opposed to "ideas" (from either us or some outside agent such as God).
_
HypnoPsi

[Z]

It sounds as if you are saying the equivalent of "Yes, physical meanings exist in the physical realm, but I'm talking about a different realm." And you call materialists of being evesive?


What does this mean? Matter is its own substance? Do you want to dissect it to find what it is made of, and when you find that, dissect it to find what it is made of, until you get to the point where it is too difficult to dissect, then you say "Aha! There is no such thing as matter". It's like a kid who repeats "why" to a parent at the end of every answer, then concludes that since the parent can't answer an infinite number of "whys" that none of the earlier answers are correct.

While I'm all in favor of asking "why", when we get to the point that the only correct answer is "we don't know", I do not then conclude that we don't know anything.

Bingo.

You notice, he harps upon how 'science' has stolen the term 'matter' from 'philosophy'. This is why he's upset by the materialist scientific point of view- because we KNOW that matter (and energy) absolutely exist, with as much surety as we know anything else; but consciousness is, itself, largely an unknown.

But for H-P, matter SHOULD be some infinitely irreducible 'stuff' - some sort of 'fairy dust' - that should make up EVERYTHING, because that is the 'philosophical' definition of 'matter' he is choosing to obsess over. Somehow, he thinks every version of 'materialist' (especially those EEE-Vil Atheist Materialists) obsesses over the same definition, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. This definition is a straw man, and really adds nothing to philosophy or science.

Problem is, without this definition, he can no longer make the claim that materialism is a 'faith-based cult of indoctrination' because the 'faith' aspect is reduced to mere observation.

[hammegk]

Really? What does a particle accelerator accelerate?
Actually, that's my question. Science will remain mute as to the choice matter or amatter; scientists either choose, or admit to being dualists.

[Tricky]

Actually, that's my question. Science will remain mute as to the choice matter or amatter; scientists either choose, or admit to being dualists.
LOL. Why not "semi-matter" or "matter-lite"? They each have the same amount of evidence as "amatter". Whereas matter has a tremendous amount of evidence.

But you said we're still looking for particles. I say we have found them and can put them in particle accelerators. If you are certain that they have not yet been found, why don't you just pop over to Los Alamos and tell them they're all out of jobs.

[hammegk]

LOL. Why not "semi-matter" or "matter-lite"?
Makes no difference to me what you choose if you're happy with it.


But you said we're still looking for particles.
No, I didn't. The question was what stuff are they composed of.

[Iacchus]

Correction: the amaterialist is more of a solipsist idiot who thinks denying what his senses tell him exists is more reasonable than accepting that it represents what exists, to some extent - apparently. As such, I think we can safely lump the HypnoPsi amaterialist together with other philosophical losers such as acosmists and solipsists.Consciousness is the basis of experience.

[Mercutio]

Consciousness is the basis of experience.
Circular as ever. Have you learned nothing in your time here?

[Tricky]

Makes no difference to me what you choose if you're happy with it.
So then "amatter" has no definition and no properties? This is in stark contrast to matter.

No, I didn't. The question was what stuff are they composed of.
I beg to differ

Define 'particles'. Like Democritus, we're still looking for one.
Defining a particle is very different from analyzing its content. It would be like saying, "That can't be a cake because I don't know what's in it."

[Belz...]

Do you believe that a "quark", if we imagine that as the lowest form of "thing" discovered, is "something" or "nothing"? My view is that both materialists and amaterialists agree that it's "something".

Then why do you say that "matter" is some kind of fairy dust ?

Are you trying to say that form is equal to content?

No, but one implies the other. If there is form, there is content. And vice versa.

that philsophical materialism is a belief system.

So is amaterialism.

Your ignorance of philosophy and the difference between form and content is hardly for me to explain.

My ignorance ? Interesting, coming from you. I don't consider sophistry to be philosophy.

[.13.]

Do you have evidence that quarks are something more than matter/energy with certain properties?

In the sense that they are physical things, no - and that is exactly my point.

In what sense do you have that evidence then?


It's also unwarranted because, historically, elements and atoms turned out to be something else we called matter and energy and again, it appears they're turning out to be something else people are calling "branes" and "superstrings".

Science evolves and makes corrections to theories. What's your point?


You'll have to explain the inner structure of quarks first. Or do you think they are "nothing"?

If the quarks are made of smaller particles then they have inner structure. If not they have no inner structure. I think that's how physicist say it.

I asked you if the innerstructure would be needed to explain anything. Especially in macroscopic world.


No it doesn't. Physicists believe that the energy for the Big Bang came from a singularity which, by necessity, must have existed outside of spacetime since everything began in the Big Bang.

I didn't say what the big bang was. All I said is that big bang is the explanation for the energy we have. What ever it specifically was.


Nope. You just have to understand that I'm a philosophical amaterialist as opposed to a scientific amaterialist. That it all comes down to form and content.

Get back to me when you understand the difference between scientific materialism and philsophical materialism. To help you understand consider the fact that amaterialism is being contrasted with materialism and not, strictly speaking, "matter". Philosophical materialism is asserting that things are made of "material" as opposed to "ideas" (from either us or some outside agent such as God).

Ideas forming the physical world? Do we live in a dreamland?


Even if you deny that the phenomana/noumena divide never allows you to know the true nature of your "matter/energy". You can only know your cognition of it. Your belief in matter is only your belief in your cognition of matter. The amaterialist is more of a realist about this than you are being since his thinking is more focussed upon the hard problem of his inability to know the noumenal rather than his comforting conclusions of his cognitions.

You can only know your cognition of consciousness?

As zaayrdragon said it:
Correction: the amaterialist is more of a solipsist idiot who thinks denying what his senses tell him exists is more reasonable than accepting that it represents what exists, to some extent - apparently. As such, I think we can safely lump the HypnoPsi amaterialist together with other philosophical losers such as acosmists and solipsists.

[Iacchus]

Circular as ever. Have you learned nothing in your time here?Do you deny that "you" exist?

[HypnoPsi]

Second, I don't see how this "synchronicity" is defined, here.Synchronicity is the experience that a coincidence isn't a coincidence. Example: you dream about someone bumping the back of your car and then getting out to apologise while wearing a batman costume. Later in the day... bump!... "Oh excuse me! I'm late for a fancy dress party and was obviously going a little too fast!".

Hmm.... Weird coincidence? Possibly? But what if that keeps happening (as many meditators who use creative visualization swear)? Skepticism is warranted for those it doesn't happen to, but what about the meditator? The skeptics skepticism doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it only means they have no evidence of it happening and thus no reason to believe it happens. The meditator who experiences this has to consider the implications of the evidence they have even if such is indemonstrable to others.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Really? What does a particle accelerator accelerate?A particle accelerator accelerates "something" that you call a particle. The label we give a thing isn't the thing itself any more than a map of Gibraltar is Gibraltar.

You can only ever know the "idea" of a particle as a phenomenalogical "thing-in-mind". You can't ever know the nature of the noumenal "thing-in-itself" particle.
_
HypnoPsi

[hammegk]

So then "amatter" has no definition and no properties? This is in stark contrast to matter.
Yeah, no more difference than aThought opposed to Thought.


I beg to differ
Okay.


"That can't be a cake because I don't know what's in it."
If you Think that a good analogy, your choice. I don't. I call it one of those Category Differences.

Please don't be offended, but, that's my last response to you, here, on this topic. :)

[HypnoPsi]

Whereas matter has a tremendous amount of evidence.Actually, the only thing you have a tremendous amount of evidence for is your idea of matter. Why conclude it's made of 'material'?

That's not an arguement that physical objects are definately made of ideas - at least not human (read: conscious) ideas - it's just pointing out that you don't know it is made of material rather than ideas.

The nature of our existence, with the insurmountable observer/observed and phenomena/noumena divide, means that we are, by necessity, creatures of subjective and objective idealism in that we can have an idea of things in mind and the idea of things existing when they're not in mind. How can we ever escape from idealism when matter itself is an idea?

I choose the designation of "amaterialist" rather than "idealist" because, like the materialist, the idealist proposes he knows the answer - or strongly believes in one. Technically, I suppose, I'm taking the more disreputable, agnostic, position of saying that "I don't know" and not standing for anything - or maybe not, since I definately support the view that consciousness has more evidence than some unknown "material", which only has the word "material" to describe it.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

So then "amatter" has no definition and no properties? This is in stark contrast to matter.How so? Attempts to define "matter", no matter how many times it is pointed out that form is not content, are always descriptions of physical properties. The instant you agree that a quark is "something" rather than "nothing" you are agreeing it has content and not just form.

A quark is "something" and "something" is a quark. Do you know what that "something" is?Defining a particle is very different from analyzing its content.You try getting some of your fellow materialists around here to realise that.
_
HypnoPsi

[DarkMagician]

There's no need to, everybody else was already there. There were people to the left of me, to the right of me, up above and below, doing just about everything you could think of. Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain't right,
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you.

Yes I'm, stuck in the middle with you,
And I'm wondering what it is I should do,
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face,
Losing control, yeah, I'm all over the place,
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Well you started out with nothing,
And you're proud that you're a self-made man,
And your friends, they all come crawlin',
Slap you on the back and say,
Please.... Please.....

Trying to make some sense of it all,
But I can see that it makes no sense at all,
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor,
'Cause I don't think that I can take anymore,
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Well you started out with nothing,
And you're proud that you're a self-made man,
And your friends, they all come crawlin',
Slap you on the back and say,
Please.... Please.....

Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain't right,
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you,
Yes I'm, stuck in the middle with you,
Stuck in the middle with you.
It's funny, but I had only fallen asleep for about 45 minutes, but it felt like I was on vacation for five freaken days. And the people were still yelling at me, "You had no right to do that!" even after I awoke.Well, that'll teach you to sleep on the job.

[Tricky]

How so? Attempts to define "matter", no matter how many times it is pointed out that form is not content, are always descriptions of physical properties.
You've never shown that form and content are different. You've only claimed it. It sounds very much as if you are doing no more than making a philosophical distinction based on your own unsubstantiated beliefs.

How so? Attempts to define "matter", no matter how many times it is pointed out that form is not content, are always descriptions of physical properties. The instant you agree that a quark is "something" rather than "nothing" you are agreeing it has content and not just form.
I strongly disagree. Saying that a quark is "something" means it has both content and form. Saying it is nothing means it does not exist, either in form or content. Are you going Iacchian here and trying to say that "nothing" is a thing that has form?

A quark is "something" and "something" is a quark. Do you know what that "something" is?
Do you mean what it is made of? Even if you could answer that by discovering "quark parts", your amaterialist school would then refuse to believe in them unless you could show what a quarks parts are made of, and so-on, ad infinitum. Do you seriously think this is a practical way to look at the universe?

You try getting some of your fellow materialists around here to realise that.
I'd be happy if I could get you to realise that.

[PatKelley]

Actually, the only thing you have a tremendous amount of evidence for is your idea of matter. Why conclude it's made of 'material'?

That's not an arguement that physical objects are definately made of ideas - at least not human (read: conscious) ideas - it's just pointing out that you don't know it is made of material rather than ideas.

The nature of our existence, with the insurmountable observer/observed and phenomena/noumena divide, means that we are, by necessity, creatures of subjective and objective idealism in that we can have an idea of things in mind and the idea of things existing when they're not in mind. How can we ever escape from idealism when matter itself is an idea?

I choose the designation of "amaterialist" rather than "idealist" because, like the materialist, the idealist proposes he knows the answer - or strongly believes in one. Technically, I suppose, I'm taking the more disreputable, agnostic, position of saying that "I don't know" and not standing for anything - or maybe not, since I definately support the view that consciousness has more evidence than some unknown "material", which only has the word "material" to describe it.
_
HypnoPsi
More solipsistic sophistry.

No one can prove reality to you, ergo it does not exist.

Argumentum ad nihil :Argument by denying the opposition has physical existance.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
Do you believe that a "quark", if we imagine that as the lowest form of "thing" discovered, is "something" or "nothing"? My view is that both materialists and amaterialists agree that it's "something".Then why do you say that "matter" is some kind of fairy dust ?"Material" infers "substance" and you have no idea what that substance is. "Matter" is like some magic word materialists use to hide behind when they're reminded that the nature of things is a mystery.

Our experience is that we have an "I Am" at the centre of some kind of field of being in which the universe, everything and everyone occurs - even the materialist has to believe this since he believes everything is produced in the brain, that we're unconsciously 'projecting' and 'constructing' a model of the world and of 'self' within it.Are you trying to say that form is equal to content?No, but one implies the other. If there is form, there is content. And vice versa.It certainly does. But why conclude that the content of forms is different from the realness you sense, the realness you sense will keep on fascilitating form when you're not thinking about them or even when you're not around to observe them?philsophical materialism is a belief system.So is amaterialism.How so? Idealism is a belief system, but amaterialism isn't idealism either. One can be both amaterialist and aidealist. Amaterialism is an absense of belief in some fundamental material content to forms. Just because I, personally, say that I find consciousness (in a broader sense than just 'self') a better candidate for causation doesn't mean that I have proof of this or that amaterialists are by necessity idealists - they could be agnostic.Your ignorance of philosophy and the difference between form and content is hardly for me to explain.My ignorance ? Interesting, coming from you. I don't consider sophistry to be philosophy.I commit no sophistry since I don't claim to have the answer. I will assert that giving something a label, using that label like it's a magic word with magic powers and thinking that explains things and attempting to disguise explanations of form as explanations of content most certainly is sophistry.

The bottom line: neither you nor I can ever know the answer via reasoning alone. All we can do in evaluate our situation as it is and construct a default philosophical position, untainted by beliefs, from there. Just because that obviously wouldn't include any "belief" in matter, does that mean we become idealists? Personally, I don't think it does because idealism is itself a "belief".

Our default position instead, while accepting realism, should acknowledge that our experience of consciousness is not solely limited to "Self/ness". We are aware of "Other/ness" as well and in our experience everything and everything we can think of in the universe and even the universe itself are all part of that "Other/ness" even if that isn't direct evidence that the "Other/ness" causes things to be.

When it comes to closure, which requires beliving in a cause of physical forms, we can choose either this broader sense of consciousness than 'self-consciousness' or we can choose 'matter'. But we cannot argue that matter is the better choice or stronger candidate because we only have evidence of consciousness and no evidence of 'material content'.
_
HypnoPsi

[Iacchus]

It's funny, but I had only fallen asleep for about 45 minutes, but it felt like I was on vacation for five freaken days. And the people were still yelling at me, "You had no right to do that!" even after I awoke.
Well, that'll teach you to sleep on the job.Well, they couldn't understand how I could transition so easily between one level and the next within the matrix of their reality ... only to finally elude them all by waking up. It was like, "What business do you having leaving!"

Oh well, I should probably start a new thread if I wish to discuss this further.

[Belz...]

Synchronicity is the experience that a coincidence isn't a coincidence. Example: you dream about someone bumping the back of your car and then getting out to apologise while wearing a batman costume. Later in the day... bump!... "Oh excuse me! I'm late for a fancy dress party and was obviously going a little too fast!".

Hmm.... Weird coincidence? Possibly? But what if that keeps happening (as many meditators who use creative visualization swear)? Skepticism is warranted for those it doesn't happen to, but what about the meditator? The skeptics skepticism doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it only means they have no evidence of it happening and thus no reason to believe it happens. The meditator who experiences this has to consider the implications of the evidence they have even if such is indemonstrable to others.
_
HypnoPsi

I've never seen a coincidence I couldn't explain.

[Belz...]

Actually, the only thing you have a tremendous amount of evidence for is your idea of matter. Why conclude it's made of 'material'?

Who ever sait it was ? Fundamental particles aren't made of anything, per se. You can't use a miniature spoon and dig into a quark.

[Belz...]

"Material" infers "substance" and you have no idea what that substance is. "Matter" is like some magic word materialists use to hide behind when they're reminded that the nature of things is a mystery.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a quark is truly fundamental, and that it is really a small curvature in the spacetime foam. The only reason why it interacts with other things is because of its fundamental properties as a fluctuation. We call it "matter" because it composes that which we call "matter", like a table. No matter how you see it, it's still just a damn curve in spacetime. In that scenario it has no substance, per se. But it's still a thing and it's still a building block of matter. So why the play on the word "matter" ?

But why conclude that the content of forms is different from the realness you sense, the realness you sense will keep on fascilitating form when you're not thinking about them or even when you're not around to observe them?

What are you talking about ? IT FOLLOWS from knowing that the realness of the universe is independent from your thought and that your thought is a result of the universe. Why does it seem strange to you ?

I will assert that giving something a label, using that label like it's a magic word with magic powers and thinking that explains things and attempting to disguise explanations of form as explanations of content most certainly is sophistry.

So what you want people to say, instead of:

"Matter exists."

is:

"Matter seems to exist." ?

Isn't that implied ?

Our default position instead, while accepting realism, should acknowledge that our experience of consciousness is not solely limited to "Self/ness". We are aware of "Other/ness" as well and in our experience everything and everything we can think of in the universe and even the universe itself are all part of that "Other/ness" even if that isn't direct evidence that the "Other/ness" causes things to be.

Again, you're assuming a distinction between self and other, which you are yet to establish.

[hammegk]

Again, you're assuming a distinction between self and other, which you are yet to establish.
If you assume otherwise, you are The Solipsist. What will you Think for us -- figments of Your imagination -- next?

"A quark is a curvature In Spacetime foam": what will you Think next? ;)


BTW, what most deem matter is what is perceived via the process we name photon interactions -- whatever those are. :)

[HypnoPsi]

Do you have evidence that quarks are something more than matter/energy with certain properties?In the sense that they are physical things, no - and that is exactly my point.In what sense do you have that evidence then?I'm an amaterialist, remember? I don't have (or claim to have) evidence of matter as the "something" which quarks are. I only agree that quarks are "something", meaning I agree they have some kind of substance. I'm, ultimately, agnostic about the cause of that substance.Science evolves and makes corrections to theories. What's your point?As useful a tool as it is for everything from the quantum to cognition, science can never provide us with an explanation as to the ultimate substance of things.If the quarks are made of smaller particles then they have inner structure. If not they have no inner structure. I think that's how physicist say it.But do you think they are "something" or "nothing"? Do you think quarks have "substance" or no "substance"?I asked you if the innerstructure would be needed to explain anything. Especially in macroscopic world.Something must explain why macroscopic forms are physically real. My sense is that the idealist, the materialist and the agnostic would all agree on that. They just don't agree on the answer or that it's answerable.I didn't say what the big bang was. All I said is that the big bang is the explanation for the energy we have. What ever it specifically was.And what is the energy that we have? That's the question. Is it something or nothing? I certainly believe that it's something.Ideas forming the physical world? Do we live in a dreamland?According to Kant and Hegel, we do. Personally, I'm not so sure. The important point is that we have evidence of ideas, while we have no evidence of the universe and all therein, inherently, being made of some kind of 'material'.You can only know your cognition of consciousness?Ultimately, yes. But the experience of physical reality and other beings is so much a part of us that I don't think solipsism is even possible let alone a good personal philosophy.As zaayrdragon said it.In otherwords, lacking an argument you'll go with ad hominem instead.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
Attempts to define "matter", no matter how many times it is pointed out that form is not content, are always descriptions of physical properties.You've never shown that form and content are different. You've only claimed it.This is nothing more than evasive sophistry.It sounds very much as if you are doing no more than making a philosophical distinction based on your own unsubstantiated beliefs.And what would my beliefs be?The instant you agree that a quark is "something" rather than "nothing" you are agreeing it has content and not just form.I strongly disagree. Saying that a quark is "something" means it has both content and form.You're really not very good at interpretation are you? You say you disagree and then proceed to agree that "something" rather than "nothing" means both form and content.Saying it is nothing means it does not exist, either in form or content.Wow, you're sharp, aren't you?Are you going Iacchian here and trying to say that "nothing" is a thing that has form?Nope. Amaterialism is not arealism. (One of these days you just might understand that.)A quark is "something" and "something" is a quark. Do you know what that "something" is?Do you mean what it is made of?[/quote]Praise the lord for small miracles! Yes. I mean, do you know what it's made of? Or, better, do you accept that you can't ever know what it's made of?Even if you could answer that by discovering "quark parts", your amaterialist school would then refuse to believe in them unless you could show what a quarks parts are made of, and so-on, ad infinitum.Wrong. My amaterialist school (dunno about others) is perfectly happy to accept quarks or even superstrings and branes if they turn out to be 'real'. To properly understand amaterialism it's necessary to properly undestand what material refers to. Since we can never know that what we call "matter" really is made of any "substance" or "fabric", amaterialism is just the position that is skeptical of claims that it is. Yes, amaterialism can go on forever because no fundamental or ultimate form of matter can never be verified - unlike consciousness.Do you seriously think this is a practical way to look at the universe?I have no qualms with theistic materialism or any type of monistic panpsychism or panentheism, but I find atheistic materialism to be utterly and completely nuts - and I mean really zany. You're all wasting your time mentally jerking off for no good reason, in my view.

Consciousness is clearly not reducable to innert "matter" since we're not p-zombies. And all attempts to define self-awareness as cognitive processes and cognitive processes as neural processes are false analogies and sophistry - or, worse, eliminativism which is just the unscientific denial of evidence. We are aware of ourselves, our thoughts and our surroundings.I'd be happy if I could get you to realise that.I am well aware that "defining a particle is very different from analyzing its content".

Being an amaterialist just means that I deny the belief(s) that what we call "matter" is truly "material", in the usual sense of the word, that it's the ultimate nature of reality and that it generates and fascilitates consciousness and/or that consciousness is reducable to it because there is no evidence to support these beliefs.
_
HypnoPsi

[Z]

I have no qualms with theistic materialism or any type of monistic panpsychism or panentheism, but I find atheistic materialism to be utterly and completely nuts - and I mean really zany. You're all wasting your time mentally jerking off for no good reason, in my view.

Whoa! You mean, you're OK with someone having both a faith in a fundamental M/E, AND a faith in an unseeable and unknowable God - but that you have a problem with someone having only ONE of those two faiths?

Let's face facts, Hyp - there is even less evidence, or reason to believe, in any God than there is in fundamental M/E. At least the supposed Fundie F/E makes up something we can observe; this supposed God does not.

The problem you have seems to be not with materialism - and I'm not refering about your fundie straw-man that you've been blazing here, lately - since you are, yourself, at least a partial believer in matter (or, as you call it, realism). After all, you agree that atoms and energy do exist - and it is from this that consciousness arises. There's no need to dig deep into fundamental M/E, nor is any scientist claiming that the need exists, to see what causes consciousness to be. The problem, it seems, is that you dislike the idea of atheism, for some reason. In fact, you've stated yourself that you'd rather see everything-that-is (whatever that is) defined as 'God', than to admit that God might not exist.

But let's be realists - you claim to be one, after all. Primary order of knowledge is awareness, period. Secondary is self vs. other, tertiary is sensory information. In none of these three categories of knowledge do we have any 'god'. God, in fact, as a coherent and useful concept, does not even appear until inferrence or imagination occurs. So while materialism and amaterialism, and idealism, may ultimately battle for which is more fundamental/default, theism of any stripe is low - VERY low - on this ladder.

Maybe there'd be less balking against your idiotic rantings if you'd drop the pretense against materialism and admit your true problem - that you dislike atheists who, luckily for them, base their atheism on a physicalist/realist position like your own. Because that's the real problem for you - that others could believe in the same objective universe that you do, believe in the same real matter, the same sciences, the same reality - and come to the conclusion that God does not exist, and that their observations of this reality is reasonable evidence of the same. That's your real problem - you came up with a different conclusion, and try as you might, you can't understand why other realists don't reach the same conclusions.

[Belz...]

If you assume otherwise, you are The Solipsist. What will you Think for us -- figments of Your imagination -- next?

I am precisely arguing AGAINST that. Consciousness is not some form of mystical observer.

"A quark is a curvature In Spacetime foam": what will you Think next? ;)

I was assuming something for the sake of argument. Or weren't you paying attention ?

[Belz...]

I have no qualms with theistic materialism or any type of monistic panpsychism or panentheism, but I find atheistic materialism to be utterly and completely nuts - and I mean really zany. You're all wasting your time mentally jerking off for no good reason, in my view.

This coming from someone who thinks consciousness, HIS consciousness, has a special value that the universe cannot have ? Gods are more probable than matter ? The hell ?

[Iacchus]

I am precisely arguing AGAINST that. Consciousness is not some form of mystical observer.Indeed it is.

[PatKelley]

{snip}
When it comes to closure, which requires beliving in a cause of physical forms, we can choose either this broader sense of consciousness than 'self-consciousness' or we can choose 'matter'. But we cannot argue that matter is the better choice or stronger candidate because we only have evidence of consciousness and no evidence of 'material content'.
_
HypnoPsi

Solipsistic sophistry. No evidence not in your own mind will suffice, ergo argumentum ad nihil.

[Iacchus]

Ah, well, what do we know outside of what we "think" we know? It sure sounds like mysticism to me.

[PatKelley]

Ah, well, what do we know outside of what we "think" we know? It sure sounds like mysticism to me.
Exactly. The first step in scientific discovery is to assume for the sake of argument that the world we observe is a physicality with nonarbitrary rules where causation precedes consequence. This tacit acceptance is so common as to be unspoken currently, but it should be reiterated that people are still free to reject the commonly accepted reality and substitute it with one of their own.

[kmortis]

Do you deny that "you" exist?

Yes, yes, in fact I do deny that "I" exist. Prove me wrong.

I, on the other hand, enjoy quite a nice little existance.

[.13.]

I'm an amaterialist, remember? I don't have (or claim to have) evidence of matter as the "something" which quarks are. I only agree that quarks are "something", meaning I agree they have some kind of substance. I'm, ultimately, agnostic about the cause of that substance.

As useful a tool as it is for everything from the quantum to cognition, science can never provide us with an explanation as to the ultimate substance of things.

How can you be so sure? And why not from quantum to consciousness?


But do you think they are "something" or "nothing"? Do you think quarks have "substance" or no "substance"?

Something must explain why macroscopic forms are physically real. My sense is that the idealist, the materialist and the agnostic would all agree on that. They just don't agree on the answer or that it's answerable.

And what is the energy that we have? That's the question. Is it something or nothing? I certainly believe that it's something.

According to Kant and Hegel, we do. Personally, I'm not so sure. The important point is that we have evidence of ideas, while we have no evidence of the universe and all therein, inherently, being made of some kind of 'material'.


Ideas that are in our heads. So what are those ideas evidence of?

Others have pointed out how you like to play with the word matter so I'll use a more awkward phrase like non-conscious cause for physical world. There is no evidence at all that there is consciouss causes for physical world. We haven't found consciousness in basic particles. So it is more reasonable to believe that there is non-consciouss cause for physical world. Consciousness would complicate things more than non-conscious mechanical explanation. So why not use the word matter as a synonym for non-consciouss cause? I don't care what matter fundamentally is. We don't even have words for it, yet. I'll just keep refering to physical as matter and the underlying fundamental nature of it is something non-conscious.

If you don't claim that the fundamental cause for matter is consciouss then we are talking about pretty much the same thing when we refer to matter? If so stop playing with words then.


Ultimately, yes. But the experience of physical reality and other beings is so much a part of us that I don't think solipsism is even possible let alone a good personal philosophy.


Consciousness is the observer of cognition but at the same time consciousness can only be experienced through cognition. So cognition is a requirement for consciousness. Doesn't that suggest rather strongly that the brain is the source of consciousness?


In otherwords, lacking an argument you'll go with ad hominem instead.


I found his view of your "philosophy" quite accurate.

[Tricky]

This is nothing more than evasive sophistry.
How so? I cannot see that you have made a clear distinction. Is that why you reply with accusations?
You're really not very good at interpretation are you? You say you disagree and then proceed to agree that "something" rather than "nothing" means both form and content.
I'm very good at BS detection, and my alarm is going off like a claxon. Exactly what is it I'm supposed to interpret, your circular explanations or your absent evidence?

Wow, you're sharp, aren't you?
Only by comparison.

Amaterialism is not arealism. (One of these days you just might understand that.)
And one of these days you might be able to explain it coherently, but I'm not holding my content-free breath.

Praise the lord for small miracles! Yes. I mean, do you know what it's made of? Or, better, do you accept that you can't ever know what it's made of?
Certainly if you take every advance in knowledge of particles and say "well what is that made of" it can't be done, because no answer will ever satisfy you. Is this what it means to be an "intellectual"?

Wrong. My amaterialist school (dunno about others) is perfectly happy to accept quarks or even superstrings and branes if they turn out to be 'real'.
How would you know if they are? You don't even seem to have a criteria for determining what is real. Evidence won't do the trick, that's for sure. You'll just call it "the difference between form and content of branes". I've asked you before what you evidence you would require to determine that matter was real, and you've said there is none. Why would we suppose you would answer any differently for any other evidenced thing?

Since we can never know that what we call "matter" really is made of any "substance" or "fabric", amaterialism is just the position that is skeptical of claims that it is. Yes, amaterialism can go on forever because no fundamental or ultimate form of matter can never be verified - unlike consciousness.
We can certainly learn more about the substance and fabric, and we do all the time. We can also learn more about consciousness (a term that has many many connotations). You can't even say for sure what consciousness is, yet you are willing to give this fairly undefined term the inside track on being the building block of reality in preference over well defined and well supported things? Why?

Does a flower contain matter? Absolutely, based on all non-philosophical definitions of matter. Does a flower contain consciousness? Um...

I have no qualms with theistic materialism or any type of monistic panpsychism or panentheism, but I find atheistic materialism to be utterly and completely nuts - and I mean really zany. You're all wasting your time mentally jerking off for no good reason, in my view.
Oooh. I feel so dirty. Be careful not to get any amatter on ya.


Consciousness is clearly not reducable to innert "matter" since we're not p-zombies. And all attempts to define self-awareness as cognitive processes and cognitive processes as neural processes are false analogies and sophistry - or, worse, eliminativism which is just the unscientific denial of evidence.
How do you know we're not p-zombies? A p-zombie would never recognize anything else. And I find it odd that you object to the unscientific denial of evidence, considering that your whole philosophy appears to be based on it.

We are aware of ourselves, our thoughts and our surroundings.
All of us are aware? Only humans? Only creatures with large brains? Only creatures with nervous systems? Only life forms? Exactly where do you draw the line on this "awareness"?

Sounds a bit circular to me. Are we aware of being conscious or are we conscious of being aware? Or are you perhaps, like so many humans, much enamored of your powerful thinking ability and have decided that it is the most important thing in the universe? It sure sounds that way to me.


I am well aware that "defining a particle is very different from analyzing its content".
Then why do you insist on knowing the "content" of matter before you will acknowledge its existence? You have higher standards for acceptance of those those things with evidence and definitions than you do for loosely defined concepts and no evidence. How strange!

Being an amaterialist just means that I deny the belief(s) that what we call "matter" is truly "material", in the usual sense of the word, that it's the ultimate nature of reality and that it generates and fascilitates consciousness and/or that consciousness is reducable to it because there is no evidence to support these beliefs.
Certainly there's no evidence that you would accept, because you have defined all evidence out of existence. And what have you gained? A feeling of intellectual superiority? Certainly there is nothing pragmatic about your philosophy. You won't be doing anything useful with it in this "material form" of a universe.

Or were you perhaps thinking of entering the religion business?

[Iacchus]

Ideas that are in our heads. So what are those ideas evidence of?The ideas that are in our heads.

[Belz...]

Indeed it is.

Indeed it ISN'T, you mean.

[Belz...]

Exactly. The first step in scientific discovery is to assume for the sake of argument that the world we observe is a physicality with nonarbitrary rules where causation precedes consequence. This tacit acceptance is so common as to be unspoken currently, but it should be reiterated that people are still free to reject the commonly accepted reality and substitute it with one of their own.

...although that would be not only counter-productive but also pointless.

[Belz...]

This is nothing more than evasive sophistry.

How so? I cannot see that you have made a clear distinction. Is that why you reply with accusations?

I think he meant HE used sophistry, Tricky. :)

[HypnoPsi]

More solipsistic sophistry.

No one can prove reality to you, ergo it does not exist.

Argumentum ad nihil :Argument by denying the opposition has physical existance.Amaterialism is not solipsism, sophistry or nihilism and no amount of arguing that it is will change that fact.

Amaterialism is just the position that points out that there is more to reality than 'matter' and that what we call 'matter' even turns out to be something else.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I've never seen a coincidence I couldn't explain.But what of someone who has?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Fundamental particles aren't made of anything, per se. You can't use a miniature spoon and dig into a quark.Very true, matter is not matter - it's energy. And were it not for other strong and weak forces, fields, laws and dimensions the "matter" that brains are made of wouldn't stick together as a physical object. Instead the whole shebang would disintegrate into... whatever it would disintegrate into.

Amaterialism doesn't deny reality or the clear value of scientific materialism. A million and one students in fields like biology, medicine and even many areas of chemistry, can get buy quite easily by using nothing more (or not very much more) than the classical 'solar-system' model of the atom and the lock-and-key model of molecules bonding by electrons occupying shells. (Why would someone even need to learn about advanced physics and bodies causing dents in space when they want to be a cell biologist or a computer scientist, for example?)

Amaterialism is just the position that points out this very limited (and limiting) narrative we call materialism has been socially constructed (and reinforced) and doesn't actually reflect reality in an accurate way.
_
HypnoPsi

[Iacchus]

Yes, yes, in fact I do deny that "I" exist. Prove me wrong.

I, on the other hand, enjoy quite a nice little existance.In which case "you" have nothing to say on the matter.

[HypnoPsi]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a quark is truly fundamental, and that it is really a small curvature in the spacetime foam. The only reason why it interacts with other things is because of its fundamental properties as a fluctuation. We call it "matter" because it composes that which we call "matter", like a table. No matter how you see it, it's still just a damn curve in spacetime. In that scenario it has no substance, per se. But it's still a thing and it's still a building block of matter. So why the play on the word "matter"?The word "matter" draws upon ideas of "materialism" and as this article (http://www.answers.com/physicalism) admits it's inadequate:

"Physicalism is the metaphysical position that everything is physical; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. Likewise, physicalism about the mental is a position in philosophy of mind which holds that the mind is a physical thing in some sense. This position is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it does not have any misleading connotations, and because it carries an emphasis on the physical, meaning whatever is described ultimately by physics -- that is, matter and energy."

But substituting the term materialism for physicalism (as the concept of matter actually being energy forces us to do) doesn't help at the end of the day either because it doesn't account for the non-physical space bodies occupy or traverse in some massless way that even includes 'spooky action-at-a-distance'. It's just an argument from semantics rather than one constructed from observation and experience. Your use of the term "spacetime foam" is a good example of the cognitive difficulty in accepting that everything physical arises (and disappears?) in the non-physical.

Amaterialism (even aphysicalism, to coin a term) is just that position which denies that the evidence we have accumulated supports materialism or physicalism and is skeptical of the claim that a purely materailistic and/or physical explanation of consciousness is actually valid.But why conclude that the content of forms is different from the realness you sense, the realness you sense will keep on fascilitating form when you're not thinking about them or even when you're not around to observe them?What are you talking about ?Realism!IT FOLLOWS from knowing that the realness of the universe is independent from your thought and that your thought is a result of the universe. Why does it seem strange to you ?It only seems strange to me in the limited narative of matrialism and physicalism. And our sense of the realness of ourselves and of the universe (and all therein) isn't independent of us or our thoughts since it all appears in consciousness. If it were completely independent of us we couldn't even have the experience of realness!I will assert that giving something a label, using that label like it's a magic word with magic powers and thinking that explains things and attempting to disguise explanations of form as explanations of content most certainly is sophistry.So what you want people to say, instead of:

"Matter exists."

is:

"Matter seems to exist." ?

Isn't that implied ?Nope. It's fine to say, in scientific terms, that "matter" and "energy" exist. You just have to add that non-physical and immaterial fields, forces and laws exist in reality (and in science) and as well - space being the biggest and bestest example!

That planets can cause a dent in space to produce a gravity-well that we observe and measure in relation to the mass of two objects as they are drawn to each other (with the heavier planet doing most of the drawing and the meteorite doing most of the crashing into it) isn't an illusion.

There's a dent, for lack of a better word, being formed in something - and calling that something "spacetime foam" only infers that at some level it must really be material or physical when instead we should accept the evidence we have - that there is an immaterial and non-physical ground that either allows forces, fields, laws, matter and energy to be or manifests itself as these things.

Without all this other funky immaterial and non-physical stuff brain matter wouldn't even hold together. All the quantum packets would just drift around the place aimlessly. What logical reason does the materialist or the physicalist have to flip the coin in favour of a material or physicalist explanation of consciousness?...our experience of consciousness is not solely limited to "Self/ness". We are aware of "Other/ness" as well and in our experience everything and everything we can think of in the universe and even the universe itself are all [u]part[u] of that "Other/ness"...Again, you're assuming a distinction between self and other, which you are yet to establish.Wrong. The sense of "Self/ness" and "Other/ness" both appear in unitary consciousness combined with the sense that they are real. And in our more noble and selfless moments the distinction between 'self' and 'other' breaks down; as exemplified by the Buddhist or Christan (etc.,) mystic who devotes themselves to meditating upon the Otherness and acts of selflessness who declares to us that all is One.

Physics, it seems, is confirming this.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

BTW, what most deem matter is what is perceived via the process we name photon interactions -- whatever those are. :)Massless!
_
HypnoPsi

[Z]

Oh, Hyppie, you're so funny!

Spacetime is the very fabric of the material universe itself, it seems. 'Ripples' or 'bumps' in spacetime seem to be the foundations of matter and energy; according to current theory, anyway. So your empty, baseless assertion that 'space' is the 'bestest' immaterial thing is just, flat, plain, wrong.

And as has been pointed out, so many times before, one need only go as far as atomic interaction level to create consciousness. No need to delve into 'fundamental M/E' or 'spacetime bumps' to understand consciousness. All we need is to be able to accurately understand, at the atomic level, the mass of fat and nerve cells wrapped in our skulls. The physical creates conciousness, and not even at a fundamental level; hence placing consciousness even further from being the 'basis of all things'. In fact, consciousness, itself, is like throwing a can of paint over reality and reading the curves.

[HypnoPsi]

Consciousness is not some form of mystical observer.Why not? Why not define nerual processing as the result of the physical energy and matter we know of and our awareness as the result of the non-physical and immaterial things we know of? (Cognition is therefore just the experience of the two meeting together.) Simple.
_
HypnoPsi

[Skeptical Greg]

Why not? Why not define nerual processing as the result of the physical energy and matter we know of and our awareness as the result of the non-physical and immaterial things we know of?
_
HypnoPsi
Uhhh, and which " non-physical and immaterial things " would that be ?

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
I have no qualms with theistic materialism or any type of monistic panpsychism or panentheism, but I find atheistic materialism to be utterly and completely nuts - and I mean really zany. You're all wasting your time mentally jerking off for no good reason, in my view.This coming from someone who thinks consciousness, HIS consciousness, has a special value that the universe cannot have ?I have said absolutely no such thing. If we adopt a more complete form of realism then I'm perfectly happy for the universe to generate and fascilitate "matter" (as quanta/packets of energy) and consciousness. And when have I ever said that MY consciousness has some unique value?Gods are more probable than matter ? The hell ?That depends how you define "God" as "otherness" it's experienced. The question is only if it's warranted to think it somehow intelligent (in any way we can understand)? As for Hell, I have no proof of it.

Look, the relationship to God is either an experience or it's qualia. If it's a relationship then that means there is a God/Soul distincition even if we end up asking "What branch of the tree is the tree?" and agreeing they are One. If "God" isn't a real experience then it's qualia, an idea formed without experience meaning that consciousness can't be viewed in purely physical terms. How did primitive man 'quale' God if the default is some kind of materialistic atheistic default position?

I think we're all that the point where we accept Other/ness in relation to Self/ness and that solipsism cannot be the true default position because it requires the belief that everything sensed as "Other-than-self" is being produced unconsciously. That definately allows you to assert that "God" might be an illusion but that's still a belief as opposed to the 'experience' of Other/ness and it doesn't explain where the quale that the Otherness creates and sustains everything came from in the first place.

Since reality is both physical and non-physical and the non-physical seems to produce and maintain the physical why not just accept that our subjective quale of "God" as fascilitator of things is matched in objective reality? Is it intelligent and concerned about us at all? All we can say is that in our more noble and selfless moments there is a shift within us that gives us a sense of purpose and aliveness.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

The first step in scientific discovery is to assume for the sake of argument that the world we observe is a physicality with nonarbitrary rules where causation precedes consequence. This tacit acceptance is so common as to be unspoken currently, but it should be reiterated that people are still free to reject the commonly accepted reality and substitute it with one of their own.Materialism gave way to physicalism as soon as it became clear that matter was just quanta/packets of energy. But when we consider that these packets of energy, in the form of photons, have no mass (please, no jokes about photons being non-catholic! :)) we have to ask what the word physical in physicalism means?

One thing is clear, if the words physical and physicalism survive the coming decades they'll either be used differently or we'll have to think away from the idea that they refer to anything like 'solid objects'. All we really have is a field (spacetime) and force(s) (energy) within it.

Science isn't just measuring and observing physical "things" any more. Were it not for these immaterial and nonphysical forces the "matter" that makes up our bodies and brains would just dissipate. On the macro scale, since planets can put a dent is space itself (creating a gravity well) that proves that non-physical things have to be thought of as being just as 'real' as "matter". (Belz thinks spacetime is made of foam for some reason, but hasn't quite explained why.)

Amaterialism isn't arealism. It's just the position which asks why the materialist/physicalist has only factored in physical stuff, claiming that's all there is and that this produces consciousness. What about all the non-physical stuff. What logic is involved in flipping a coin and saying consciousness is reducable to the posits of materialism?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

As useful a tool as it is for everything from the quantum to cognition, science can never provide us with an explanation as to the ultimate substance of things.How can you be so sure? And why not from quantum to consciousness?Let's say you and I are separated by a large cinema screen and I start prodding and pulling at it with my sticky-finger. Sometimes I run my finger across it and at other times, to really torture you, I start tapping at it in random and wildly separate locations. You've got your mass (a prod to create a bump), your energy (my finger running across the screen) and your gravity (my pulling to create a dent) and no explanation at all for the weird quantum tapping all over the place.

Ultimately you don't know what's causing any of this or why it occurs - you only know that it's happening. How then can we explain consciousness if we're still thinking in the primitive electrical fashion of hitting a bullet with a bullet? Consciousness is that which is aware of neural processing as it appears as cognitive phenomena.we have evidence of ideas, while we have no evidence of the universe and all therein, inherently, being made of some kind of 'material'.Ideas that are in our heads. So what are those ideas evidence of?See above. The brute fact that we are even aware of ideas and not just p-zombies shows that materialistic and physicalist ideas don't explain "us". Decartes realise this when he declared "I think, therefore I am" - meaning ideas are evidence of the "I am". Cognition is the awareness of information/neural processing.Others have pointed out how you like to play with the word matterWhich is an empty accusation since nobody has explained how I'm 'playing' with the word and I deny it....so I'll use a more awkward phrase like non-conscious cause for physical world. There is no evidence at all that there is consciouss causes for physical world.My argument is only that when we consider the nature of reality and that we have evidence for consciousness and none for some fundamental form of "matter" behind it all consciousness becomes a better candidate for causation. That's not a proof of causation by any means.We haven't found consciousness in basic particles.Perhaps we have found evidence that an intelligent purpose is behind it all and (some of us have) failed to recognise it?So it is more reasonable to believe that there is non-consciouss cause for physical world.Following the same logic, no evidence of any fundamental form of M/E means it's more reasonable to assuem an immaterial and non-physical cause for the physical world.Consciousness would complicate things more than non-conscious mechanical explanation. So why not use the word matter as a synonym for non-consciouss cause?What of the non-physical and immaterial field (spacetime) within which "matter" exists? What of the non-physical force which quantifies as "matter" (energy)? How can we assume a mechanical explanation for the existence of mechanics?I don't care what matter fundamentally is.You're not even remotely interested?We don't even have words for it, yet.Possibly not - unless we use terms like consciousness and qualia.I'll just keep refering to physical as matter and the underlying fundamental nature of it is something non-conscious.Since you assume the negative because you have no evidence of a conscious cause, I won't argue. But will you extend your definition until it becomes "a theorised underlying non-physical, immaterial and non-conscious cause"? Logically, you should.If you don't claim that the fundamental cause for matter is consciouss then we are talking about pretty much the same thing when we refer to matter? If so stop playing with words then.Again, how am I playing with words? My postulation is merely different from yours in degree in that I say "the best theory, supported by the evidence, is that the underlying non-physical and immaterial cause of the manifest universe is consciousness" (the evidence being that consciousness is known to exist to me while no fundamental form of M/E is known to exist). Both my postualtion and the one I've offered you to adopt are data-driven and, thus, rational and scientific.Consciousness is the observer of cognition but at the same time consciousness can only be experienced through cognition. So cognition is a requirement for consciousness. Doesn't that suggest rather strongly that the brain is the source of consciousness?Consciousness can only be defined and related to via cognition (as, say, sentience, self-awareness, Soul, etc.,.) so far as we know. Your logic is paradoxical because it basically just says that cognition is required for cognition to exist. The question is still what causes cognition rather than p-zombies?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

How so? I cannot see that you have made a clear distinction. Is that why you reply with accusations?I call your semantic evasiveness what it is. I've provided several citations and references to demonstrate that I'm not using the terms form and content in any special way. Everything from a chocolate bar to a planet has an internal substance and an external structure as everyone knows.

That leaves us with two options. Either you genuinely don't know the meaning of common English words, which is your responsibility to remedy, or you're claiming I'm using the words in an unconventional way, which is your responsibility to prove.Exactly what is it I'm supposed to interpret, your circular explanations or your absent evidence?I'm an amaterialist, remember? I'm not the one who's making any claims beyond that materialist has no evidence to support his view of reality.Amaterialism is not arealism. (One of these days you just might understand that.)And one of these days you might be able to explain it coherently, but I'm not holding my content-free breath.It is the absense of belief in some type of fundamental form of M/E and that there is any convincing evidence that matter produces consciousness. Simple.do you accept that you can't ever know what it's made of?Certainly if you take every advance in knowledge of particles and say "well what is that made of" it can't be done, because no answer will ever satisfy you. Is this what it means to be an "intellectual"?Being intellectual about things, if that means anything intelligible, must surely mean constructing a theory based upon all the evidence. Consider the cinema screen model I outlined in a post above. A sticky finger can push forward and make a lump in screen (matter) or pull back and make a dent (a gravity well). Extrapolating that to reality, it's clear we have immaterial and non-physical forces in operation - if we didn't our brian matter and everything else around us would just disintegrate into quantum soup.

Why posit that consciousness is produced by matter only and ignore the immaterial force and non-physical field that holds it all together? What reason does the materialist give for taking half the evidence and ignoring the other half?My amaterialist school (dunno about others) is perfectly happy to accept quarks or even superstrings and branes if they turn out to be 'real'.How would you know if they are? You don't even seem to have a criteria for determining what is real. Evidence won't do the trick, that's for sure. You'll just call it "the difference between form and content of branes". I've asked you before what you evidence you would require to determine that matter was real, and you've said there is none. Why would we suppose you would answer any differently for any other evidenced thing?What is real is that which is experienced and that which is objectively measurable. Consciousness is experienced and physical forms are objectively measurable - in non-physical space as immaterial quanta/packets of energy. I don't deny any of it is real. I only deny the materialist and/or physicalist claim that it's all reducable to material and/or physical things.We can certainly learn more about the substance and fabric, and we do all the time.If we're defining energy as the substance and space as the fabric then I'll agree that science is making good advances. The task you have - and it is a very, very, difficult one - is to break out of the materialistic and physicalist notions of substance and fabric meaning any "solid" thing.

On this side of the cinema screen we have matter. That "matter" was found to be reducable to energy (and so materialism gave way to physicalism). But what of the immaterial cinema screen and the other completely non-physical sice? That, surely, is unknowable to us - except that it exists and is manifest upon the screen as "energy" and, ultimately, "matter".We can also learn more about consciousness (a term that has many many connotations). You can't even say for sure what consciousness is, yet you are willing to give this fairly undefined term the inside track on being the building block of reality in preference over well defined and well supported things? Why?You're quite correct that I can't even say for sure what consciousness is; I think materialists and physicalists should also realise that. The only reason I give it the inside track is because it is known to exist while no fundamental form of M/E is known to exist.Does a flower contain matter? Absolutely, based on all non-philosophical definitions of matter. Does a flower contain consciousness? Um...Is the force that stops the protons, neutrons and electrons in the flower from disintigrating into quantum soup non-physical? Yes. Is the field within which the flower is manifest immaterial? Yes. Do we know of anything else that we experience as non-physical and immaterial? Yes - consciousness. That's not a proof, but it's a valid speculation.How do you know we're not p-zombies? A p-zombie would never recognize anything else.My self-awareness and cognitions are indemonstrable to you, yes, but they're not unknown to me. So the question is how does someone who accepts they are a self-aware cogniser evaluate themselves? Why would they conclude they're a p-zombie (a non-self-aware non-cogniser)?And I find it odd that you object to the unscientific denial of evidence, considering that your whole philosophy appears to be based on it.Really? What am I denying? I say I'm including more evidence than you.All of us are aware? Only humans? Only creatures with large brains? Only creatures with nervous systems? Only life forms? Exactly where do you draw the line on this "awareness"?That's a very good question. The only answer I can give is that more neurons means more cognition and more information processing. Maybe there is awareness without self-awareness? Who knows?Sounds a bit circular to me. Are we aware of being conscious or are we conscious of being aware?Or are they both the same thing?Or are you perhaps, like so many humans, much enamored of your powerful thinking ability and have decided that it is the most important thing in the universe? It sure sounds that way to me.Nope, I'm not a solipsist and would in fact argue that the 'otherness-to-me' might even be more important to all of us.Then why do you insist on knowing the "content" of matter before you will acknowledge its existence?Wrong. I completely and fully acknowledge and accept objective physical reality as "real" even though I don't know it's ultimate "content". Being a scientific materialist and a philsophical amaterialist are not contradictory positions. In the scientific usage of the words "matter" and "energy" are largely used to describe atoms and electron flow (along with potential, kinetic and thermal energy, etc.,), respectively. That's all perfectly fine with me.You have higher standards for acceptance of those those things with evidence and definitions than you do for loosely defined concepts and no evidence. How strange!Nope. See above. I don't do anything like that.Certainly there's no evidence that you would accept, because you have defined all evidence out of existence. And what have you gained? A feeling of intellectual superiority? Certainly there is nothing pragmatic about your philosophy. You won't be doing anything useful with it in this "material form" of a universe.

Or were you perhaps thinking of entering the religion business?And again, I'd say I'm insisting that all evidence be included rather than just some when it comes the ultimate nature of things and the cause of consciousness. When it comes to religion I believe we are entering a post-religion and post-materialism phase that is taking the form of some kind of generalised panentheism.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by PatKelley :
....should be reiterated that people are still free to reject the commonly accepted reality and substitute it with one of their own....although that would be not only counter-productive but also pointless.LOL, yup, that's a good way to describe atheists who've rejected the commonly accepted reality!
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
Why not? Why not define nerual processing as the result of the physical energy and matter we know of and our awareness as the result of the non-physical and immaterial things we know of?Uhhh, and which " non-physical and immaterial things " would that be ?Hmm... why do you think it is that protons, neutrons and electrons stick together to create elements and then molecules? They are all physical things (which are all ultimately immaterial energy) being acted upon by something non-physical that we can measure or at least define. It easier to understand at the macro-level of planets making a dent/gravity well in space. That mass can do this means that space (or, more accurately, spacetime) is a thing, albeit a non-physical and immaterial thing.

Were it not for all these non-physical forces (and the immaterial energy that quantifies as material atoms) your brain, along with your body and the entire planet would just disintigrate into packets of energy (quanta).

By what logic does the materialist and physicalist pick "matter" as the cause of consciousness ignoring the rest?
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

Let's say you and I are separated by a large cinema screen and I start prodding and pulling at it with my sticky-finger. Sometimes I run my finger across it and at other times, to really torture you, I start tapping at it in random and wildly separate locations. You've got your mass (a prod to create a bump), your energy (my finger running across the screen) and your gravity (my pulling to create a dent) and no explanation at all for the weird quantum tapping all over the place.

Ultimately you don't know what's causing any of this or why it occurs - you only know that it's happening. How then can we explain consciousness if we're still thinking in the primitive electrical fashion of hitting a bullet with a bullet? Consciousness is that which is aware of neural processing as it appears as cognitive phenomena.

Now there's a lot of assumptions. Or how do you know your analogy is even correct?


See above. The brute fact that we are even aware of ideas and not just p-zombies shows that materialistic and physicalist ideas don't explain "us". Decartes realise this when he declared "I think, therefore I am" - meaning ideas are evidence of the "I am". Cognition is the awareness of information/neural processing.

Ideas are only evidence of the brain doing some thinking. And didn't you agree that cognition is produced by the brain? So this awareness is also a brain function?


My argument is only that when we consider the nature of reality and that we have evidence for consciousness and none for some fundamental form of "matter" behind it all consciousness becomes a better candidate for causation.

How is it even a better candidate when there is no evidence of consciousness outside the brain?

And again you haven't shown any evidence that we would need to know the "fundamental nature of M/E" to do anything. Why aren't the properties of fundamental particles enough to explain the world and consciousness?


Perhaps we have found evidence that an intelligent purpose is behind it all and (some of us have) failed to recognise it?

If you have some of that evidence, please share.


Following the same logic, no evidence of any fundamental form of M/E means it's more reasonable to assuem an immaterial and non-physical cause for the physical world.

Non-physical cause for physical world? Where's the logic in that?

If fundamental M/E really is as you said unknowable, then it is also irrelevant. I'm not a philosopher but I still see how empty your "philosphy" is.


What of the non-physical and immaterial field (spacetime) within which "matter" exists? What of the non-physical force which quantifies as "matter" (energy)? How can we assume a mechanical explanation for the existence of mechanics?

You just assume space is immaterial? I'm not expert on spacetime but I would think that if it was immaterial it wouldn't bend near a large mass and certainly large masses wouldn't follow the curvature of spacetime. Non-physical force? How would a non-physical force affect physical objects? By magick?


You're not even remotely interested?

About something unknowable? If I fantasise about something it sure won't be about matter.


Possibly not - unless we use terms like consciousness and qualia.


Why would we use those?


Since you assume the negative because you have no evidence of a conscious cause, I won't argue. But will you extend your definition until it becomes "a theorised underlying non-physical, immaterial and non-conscious cause"? Logically, you should.

Why should I? It would be quite a leap of faith to assume that physical had non-physical causes.


Again, how am I playing with words? My postulation is merely different from yours in degree in that I say "the best theory, supported by the evidence, is that the underlying non-physical and immaterial cause of the manifest universe is consciousness" (the evidence being that consciousness is known to exist to me while no fundamental form of M/E is known to exist). Both my postualtion and the one I've offered you to adopt are data-driven and, thus, rational and scientific.


In that case all you have really evidence of is that you have consciousness. So your theory would have to be that it is your consciousness that is "fundamental M/E". Everything else is just speculation.

You think your "philosophy" is better evidence than what science has to offer?


Consciousness can only be defined and related to via cognition (as, say, sentience, self-awareness, Soul, etc.,.) so far as we know. Your logic is paradoxical because it basically just says that cognition is required for cognition to exist. The question is still what causes cognition rather than p-zombies?

I'm saying that cognition is required for consciousness. Or are you now saying that cognition = consciouseness? I thought we had agreed that cognition is caused by the brain, so are you now agreeing that consciousness is caused by the brain? So when you can only know consciousness through cognition doesn't that suggest quite strongly that the brain is the cause for consciousness?

And by the way when you type could you add empty lines above or below every quote. It would be easier to quote when I don't have to search for the paragraphs.

[HypnoPsi]

Now there's a lot of assumptions. Or how do you know your analogy is even correct?The idea of mass causing a curvature in spacetime comes from Einstein's 'General Theory of Relativity'. You might have heard of it? Okay, so, yes, it's "theory". But do you have a better one?Ideas are only evidence of the brain doing some thinking. And didn't you agree that cognition is produced by the brain? So this awareness is also a brain function?I'm saying cognition is the apperception of neural information processing in consciousness.My argument is only that when we consider the nature of reality and that we have evidence for consciousness and none for some fundamental form of "matter" behind it all consciousness becomes a better candidate for causation.How is it even a better candidate when there is no evidence of consciousness outside the brain?We have no evidence for any fundamental physical form of M/E existing outside of spacetime either (which it would have to be to fascilitate spacetime)! What we can say is that something non-physical and immaterial creates physical forces and material and that we certainly experience consciousness as immaterial.And again you haven't shown any evidence that we would need to know the "fundamental nature of M/E" to do anything. Why aren't the properties of fundamental particles enough to explain the world and consciousness?Because without non-physical and immaterial spacetime they'd all be in the same place at the same time! (Which, I suppose would be like the singularity that preceded the Big Bang.)

If you only had fundamental particles, which are actually immaterial quanta of energy instead of matter anyway, why would they stick together as atoms at all, never mind forming into every element in the periodic table (with a few isotopes for good measure) and bond as molecules? Isn't the reason why they don't just dissipate as important as their existence? What about the space they exist within (which can be curved to produce the physical "force" of gravity)? Isn't that important as well?

Why does the materialist and physicalist ignore these very real immaterial and non-physical phenomena when it comes to consciousness?Perhaps we have found evidence that an intelligent purpose is behind it all and (some of us have) failed to recognise it?If you have some of that evidence, please share.Maybe the regularity of things is enough. Why not?Non-physical cause for physical world? Where's the logic in that?Okay, let's consider the nature of gravity again. Whenever a body with mass occupies a position in space it causes a curvature in space (well, spacetime actually). Any other body with mass that's get's too caught up in that gravity well is drawn towards the centre of the larger body (actually, the masses of both bodies are drawn towards the centre of each other, but nevermind) and that 'attraction' is what we call a "physical force" (in this instance, gravitation).

Do you see? The rate or strength of that 'attraction' is relative to the combined mass of the two bodies and how much they curve space. There's not some spooky physical force pulling them together in spacetime. (Things get really tricky when you realise that there must be some way to combine this macro level with the micro, quantum, level of atoms and energy transference - but that's another story entirely, and physicists do not yet know what the answer is.)

The bottom line is, if it wasn't for these non-physical causes of physical forces there wouldn't be any planets to walk on or any atoms (and thus molecules) to produce bodies and brains. Why would immaterial quanta even quantify as packets of energy without some non-physical force? You ask where the logic is in that I ask where the logic is in atoms and gravity occuring on their own! (And, crucially, why the materialist and/or physicalist assumes that matter and/or physical forces are enough to explain consciousness?)If fundamental M/E really is as you said unknowable, then it is also irrelevant. I'm not a philosopher but I still see how empty your "philosphy" is.Hmm.... more specifically, what isn't irrelevant is the recognition of immaterial quanta being "matter" (or acting as if it's what we call "matter" somehow) and of alternations in something non-physical causing physical laws (as in the curvature of non-physical spacetime causing gravitation).You just assume space is immaterial? I'm not expert on spacetime but I would think that if it was immaterial it wouldn't bend near a large mass...Here's a good rule of thumb: everything smaller than the "material" atom is immaterial quanta and when we talk about "energy" we're talking about electron flow (along with M/E conversion as in thermal, kinetic and potential energy, etc.,).... and certainly large masses wouldn't follow the curvature of spacetime. Non-physical force? How would a non-physical force affect physical objects? By magick?No. Gravitation definately is a physical force. It's a measurement of the rate of 'attraction' between two bodies relative to their combined mass. Here's something from the Devil's Dictionary that I can't resist quoting. From http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitation?method=6

"The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportion to the quantity of matter they contain -- the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another. This is a lovely and edifying illustration of how science, having made A the proof of B, makes B the proof of A."

So spacetime is a non-physical thing (and definately an immaterial thing) that can curve resulting in what we measure as gravitational force - which is a physical force.will you extend your definition until it becomes "a theorised underlying non-physical, immaterial and non-conscious cause"? Logically, you should.Why should I? It would be quite a leap of faith to assume that physical had non-physical causes.Again, physical gravitational force has a non-physical cause. Atoms are different, but again it's certainly nothing "material" which keeps "matter" stuck together.You think your "philosophy" is better evidence than what science has to offer?I'm not offering evidence for any claim. I'm saying you can't see the trees for the forest.Consciousness can only be defined and related to via cognition (as, say, sentience, self-awareness, Soul, etc.,.) so far as we know. Your logic is paradoxical because it basically just says that cognition is required for cognition to exist. The question is still what causes cognition rather than p-zombies?I'm saying that cognition is required for consciousness.If consciousness is awareness and awareness is a cognition and cognitions are thoughts we are aware of then how did we cognise awareness without awareness to begin with?[/quote]Or are you now saying that cognition = consciouseness?[/quote]Not even remotely. Cognitive phenomena = thoughts while consciousness is that which is aware of thoughts.I thought we had agreed that cognition is caused by the brain, so are you now agreeing that consciousness is caused by the brain?I have not agreed that cognition is caused by the brain. Brains clearly process information but cognition is only part of the discussion when you have something that is aware of thoughts.So when you can only know consciousness through cognition doesn't that suggest quite strongly that the brain is the cause for consciousness?Nope, that we're using awareness and consiousness as synonyms does not explain or support your "thought thinks thoughts" or "cognition cognises congnitions" model because you need the exact phenomena to exist that you're trying to explain existing.And by the way when you type could you add empty lines above or below every quote. It would be easier to quote when I don't have to search for the paragraphs.

Well, since you left this to the end of your post I'm not about to start editing, but I'll try to remember from now on.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

The idea of mass causing a curvature in spacetime comes from Einstein's 'General Theory of Relativity'. You might have heard of it? Okay, so, yes, it's "theory". But do you have a better one?


How is that relevant to my question?


I'm saying cognition is the apperception of neural information processing in consciousness.


If consciousness is awareness and awareness is a cognition and cognitions are thoughts we are aware of then how did we cognise awareness without awareness to begin with? Not even remotely. Cognitive phenomena = thoughts while consciousness is that which is aware of thoughts.I have not agreed that cognition is caused by the brain. Brains clearly process information but cognition is only part of the discussion when you have something that is aware of thoughts.Nope, that we're using awareness and consiousness as synonyms does not explain or support your "thought thinks thoughts" or "cognition cognises congnitions" model because you need the exact phenomena to exist that you're trying to explain existing.

Damaging your brain alters your cognition. But cognition is not caused by the brain?


We have no evidence for any fundamental physical form of M/E existing outside of spacetime either (which it would have to be to fascilitate spacetime)! What we can say is that something non-physical and immaterial creates physical forces and material and that we certainly experience consciousness as immaterial.

Why is "outside" of universe now relevant to "fundamental M/E"? Why do you think we can say that it's something non-physical that creates physical forces?


Because without non-physical and immaterial spacetime they'd all be in the same place at the same time! (Which, I suppose would be like the singularity that preceded the Big Bang.)

You just assume spacetime is non-physical. How do you suppose then that large masses follow the curvature of space if it is non-physical?


If you only had fundamental particles, which are actually immaterial quanta of energy instead of matter anyway, why would they stick together as atoms at all, never mind forming into every element in the periodic table (with a few isotopes for good measure) and bond as molecules? Isn't the reason why they don't just dissipate as important as their existence? What about the space they exist within (which can be curved to produce the physical "force" of gravity)? Isn't that important as well?

We know the reason why they don't dissipate and that is the strong nuclear force. And that is a physical force. If the space was non-physical why do you think something physical would follow its curvature?

None of your post answerd why non-physical would be a cause for physical or how non-physical forces would affect physical objects. You just made an assumption that space is non-physical.

As I have said I would think that space is physical since it is curved by mass and mass follows that curvature. I might be wrong on that but I'll wait some one with more knowledge to comment on that.


Maybe the regularity of things is enough. Why not?


No. You would have to prove that the source of the regularity was intelligent.

[Belz...]

But what of someone who has?
_
HypnoPsi

Name your bet. Let's play.

[Belz...]

Very true, matter is not matter - it's energy.

Thank you. You have just admitted that matter exists.

[Belz...]

But substituting the term materialism for physicalism (as the concept of matter actually being energy forces us to do) doesn't help at the end of the day either because it doesn't account for the non-physical space bodies occupy or traverse in some massless way that even includes 'spooky action-at-a-distance'.

Non-physical space. Action at a distance. Boy, you sure dream up a number of things, don't you ?

[QUORE]It's just an argument from semantics rather than one constructed from observation and experience. Your use of the term "spacetime foam" is a good example of the cognitive difficulty in accepting that everything physical arises (and disappears?) in the non-physical.[/QUOTE]

If you don't know what the spacetime foam is, I certainly won't waste my time telling you. Do some reading on your own.

Amaterialism (even aphysicalism, to coin a term) is just that position which denies that the evidence we have accumulated supports materialism or physicalism and is skeptical of the claim that a purely materailistic and/or physical explanation of consciousness is actually valid.

Don't worry, I noticed that. However, amaterialism bases its assertion on... well... nothing.

There's a dent, for lack of a better word, being formed in something - and calling that something "spacetime foam" only infers that at some level it must really be material or physical when instead we should accept the evidence we have - that there is an immaterial and non-physical ground that either allows forces, fields, laws, matter and energy to be or manifests itself as these things.

Its still called PHYSICS, and no amount of "la-la-la-la-la" on your part is going to change that.

Without all this other funky immaterial and non-physical stuff brain matter wouldn't even hold together. All the quantum packets would just drift around the place aimlessly. What logical reason does the materialist or the physicalist have to flip the coin in favour of a material or physicalist explanation of consciousness?

Again, you wield "immaterial" like a club, here. You don't even seem to know what you're talking about.

And in our more noble and selfless moments the distinction between 'self' and 'other' breaks down; as exemplified by the Buddhist or Christan (etc.,) mystic who devotes themselves to meditating upon the Otherness and acts of selflessness who declares to us that all is One.

Physics, it seems, is confirming this.

Science confirms what ? That in moments of selflessness our "consciousness" encompasses the entire universe ? Evidence ?

[Belz...]

Look, the relationship to God is either an experience or it's qualia. If it's a relationship then that means there is a God/Soul distincition even if we end up asking "What branch of the tree is the tree?" and agreeing they are One. If "God" isn't a real experience then it's qualia, an idea formed without experience meaning that consciousness can't be viewed in purely physical terms. How did primitive man 'quale' God if the default is some kind of materialistic atheistic default position?


I think you misunderstand "default". By default, we don't mean "the first thing that you'd believe or think." It's actually, "the most reasonable thing to 'believe' based on evidence." Or, you could say the default is complete agnosticism, which is basically, "we know nothing," which isn't very practical.

[Belz...]

LOL, yup, that's a good way to describe atheists who've rejected the commonly accepted reality!
_
HypnoPsi

Not me. I accept the commonly accepted reality. But not because it's COMMONLY accepted.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
The idea of mass causing a curvature in spacetime comes from Einstein's 'General Theory of Relativity'. You might have heard of it? Okay, so, yes, it's "theory". But do you have a better one?How is that relevant to my question?How can it not be relevant? I'm laying it squarely before you that immaterial and non-physical phenomena are as relevant to a bodies mass maintaining coherence and functionality as material and physical phenomena. If neither gravitation or molecular bonding (as just two obvious examples out of many) existed then you wouldn't either.Damaging your brain alters your cognition. But cognition is not caused by the brain?Damaging the brain alters neural/information processing. What is then experienced in consciousness is obviously not going to be of the same standard.Why is "outside" of universe now relevant to "fundamental M/E"?Because M/E observations are measurements of activity within spacetime. How then can we think in terms of classical electron orbits and lock-and-key molecule bonds when we're talking about the fundamental nature of the whole Universe? That which fascilitates space and matter cannot be either space or matter (thus the whole superstring and branes stuff of adavanced physics).Why do you think we can say that it's something non-physical that creates physical forces?For exactly the reason I gave. Gravitation, in general relativity, is a curvature in non-physical spacetime which causes a gravity well around a massive body - the effects being most observable with planets. We measure their tendency to move towards each other (proportional to the overall mass of both bodies) and call this "physical force" of attraction "gravitation".

So it's the bending/curving of something non-physical (spacetime) and it's effects on bodies that we're calling 'gravity', 'attraction' and/or a 'physical force'.

The bottom line is that the non-physical spacetime that any massive body occupies (and this includes you and me) is just as important as the body itself; as is the immaterial quanta of energy (as waves) that, ultimately, behaves as particles.You just assume spacetime is non-physical. How do you suppose then that large masses follow the curvature of space if it is non-physical?I'm not a physicist so I can't answer the second part of your question which, to my mind, is asking for an explanation of general relativity, that I personally cannot provide.

In relation to the first part of your statement, what I can say is that while physicists (and all the rest of us) do indeed talk about "physical space" we're actually talking about the "area" (or, better, the "physical area") between or in relation to objects or points in space. Thus, in 2D we talk of a 1 meter squared "area" and in 3D we'll talk about a 1 meter cubed "area".We know the reason why they don't dissipate and that is the strong nuclear force. And that is a physical force.Yes, but this is partly a play on semantics and partly a problem with human cognition our need to objectify what we can quantify in order to make it sensible (in terms of comprehension).

These 'forces' are not in any way "physical objects" (like "material objects"). When thinking about forces it's actually better (though only slightly) to think of things like strong nuclear force as a force that acts upon something like "energy" that we conceptualise as a physical "physical object". (At the macro level of planets, "physical object" does have 'goodness-of-fit'.)If the space was non-physical why do you think something physical would follow its curvature?

None of your post answerd why non-physical would be a cause for physical or how non-physical forces would affect physical objects. You just made an assumption that space is non-physical.Well, you're repeating a question I've done my best, as a non-physicist, to answer above. It is useful, necessary even, to conceptualise "physical areas" within "space", but you have to remember we're really talking about spacetime. What sense does it make to say that time is a physical object? (Physical phenomena would be better, but you need to hold in mind that it - time - is utterly immaterial.)As I have said I would think that space is physical since it is curved by mass and mass follows that curvature. I might be wrong on that but I'll wait some one with more knowledge to comment on that.So long as you're accepting that "physical space" doesn't have "mass" then I don't see a problem with conceptualising it as "physical space" - until it leads to cognitive confusion whereby you objectify "physical space" as being "material" in nature.Maybe the regularity of things is enough. Why not?No. You would have to prove that the source of the regularity was intelligent.Since we measure our own intelligence in terms of our ability to act in an ordered fashion what else should we be looking for as signs of intelligence?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by Belz... :
I've never seen a coincidence I couldn't explain.Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
But what of someone who has?Name your bet. Let's play.What exactly are you referring to here?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
Very true, matter is not matter - it's energy.Thank you. You have just admitted that matter exists.I've said all along that philosophical amaterialism is not incompatible with scientific materialism.

Atoms, molecules and bodies, though they are really energy, are referred to as "matter" or "material" in science and that's just the way it is. Amaterialism isn't about denying that - it's about pointing out that this is a very incomplete, erroneous and downright misleading view and that, ultimately, what we call "matter" doesn't really exist as a "solid" thing in the way we conceptualise it.

More specifically, amaterialism is the absense of belief that the clockwork atom can explain consciousness.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

How can it not be relevant? I'm laying it squarely before you that immaterial and non-physical phenomena are as relevant to a bodies mass maintaining coherence and functionality as material and physical phenomena.

I was talking about your analogy specifically. How is that correct? In your analogy there is someone "outside" spacetime poking. Do you believe that?

Damaging the brain alters neural/information processing. What is then experienced in consciousness is obviously not going to be of the same standard.

So is cognition altered when brain is damaged?


Because M/E observations are measurements of activity within spacetime. How then can we think in terms of classical electron orbits and lock-and-key molecule bonds when we're talking about the fundamental nature of the whole Universe? That which fascilitates space and matter cannot be either space or matter (thus the whole superstring and branes stuff of adavanced physics).

As far as we can know there is nothing outside the universe maintaining it. Space is all there is. If you are going to say there is allways something facilitating something you'll end up with infinite regression.


For exactly the reason I gave. Gravitation, in general relativity, is a curvature in non-physical spacetime which causes a gravity well around a massive body - the effects being most observable with planets. We measure their tendency to move towards each other (proportional to the overall mass of both bodies) and call this "physical force" of attraction "gravitation".

Why do you assume spacetime is non-physical?


These 'forces' are not in any way "physical objects" (like "material objects").


I didn't say they were "physical objects". But they are physical forces. If they were non-physical, how would they affect physical objects? By magic?


Since we measure our own intelligence in terms of our ability to act in an ordered fashion what else should we be looking for as signs of intelligence?


Are you saying all order must be intelligent?

Your position on consciousness is not a scientific one. First you assume that there is unknowable cause for everything. Then you say the brain can't explain consciousness if we don't know that cause. You also say that the cause might be consciousness itself. How can we then scientifically examine consciousness?

[.13.]

I'm not buying your arguement here that self-awareness isn't categorically different from thoughts. It's a constant while thoughts change. I'm not thinking the same things now that I was one hour ago - but I'm still "me" and still "self-aware".

Constant you say? I'm atleast not the same person that I was 10 years ago. And if it is constant it can't have memory or learn new things. Those would require a change in state. Constant consciousness if it is participating in your thinking would be just an input output system. Same input gives allways the same output. Sounds a lot like a computer to me. And because there is more evidence for computers than for consciousness (You have only your own. That is if you can tell the difference bewteen being a computer and consciouss) it's more logical to believe in computers.



Could you give me something specific that consciousness does that the brain doesn't? Besides being an observer and being an actor. Because computers too can make decisions based on the available information.



Why consciousness is necessary for my survival or functionality in the world populated by (supposedly) consciouss people?


I'd like answers to these questions I've asked earlier. And a new one:
you said: "I'm not buying your arguement here that self-awareness isn't categorically different from thoughts."

Can you differentiate between you and your thoughts?

[Belz...]

What exactly are you referring to here?
_
HypnoPsi

Name a coincidence that you think cannot be explained.


.3.

[Belz...]

Atoms, molecules and bodies, though they are really energy, are referred to as "matter" or "material" in science and that's just the way it is.

Really energy ? How so ?

Amaterialism isn't about denying that - it's about pointing out that this is a very incomplete, erroneous and downright misleading view[...]

So... it's not denying it but it's saying that its erroneous ? What's the difference ?

More specifically, amaterialism is the absense of belief that the clockwork atom can explain consciousness.

It seems like it's more the belief that the clockwork atom CANNOT explain consciousness.

[HypnoPsi]

Non-physical space. Action at a distance. Boy, you sure dream up a number of things, don't you ?Not at all. When we talk about physical space we're just talking about the measured area between points and quantum entanglement demonstrates action across distance if not 'at-a-distance' (isn't the idea of identical particles even weirder? How does that support the idea of space as a physical thing?)If you don't know what the spacetime foam is, I certainly won't waste my time telling you. Do some reading on your own.If our conversation isn't two-way it's over.
_
HypnoPsi

[Belz...]

Not at all. When we talk about physical space we're just talking about the measured area between points and quantum entanglement demonstrates action across distance if not 'at-a-distance' (isn't the idea of identical particles even weirder? How does that support the idea of space as a physical thing?)

Space IS a physical thing, not a material thing. Its not composed of matter, but it IS part of the physical world. "beyond" the universe, there is no space.

If our conversation isn't two-way it's over.

What ? You want me to breast-feed you too ? I'm sure you can look up SOME things on your own.

[kmortis]

I've said all along that philosophical amaterialism is not incompatible with scientific materialism.

Atoms, molecules and bodies, though they are really energy, are referred to as "matter" or "material" in science and that's just the way it is. Amaterialism isn't about denying that - it's about pointing out that this is a very incomplete, erroneous and downright misleading view and that, ultimately, what we call "matter" doesn't really exist as a "solid" thing in the way we conceptualise it.

More specifically, amaterialism is the absense of belief that the clockwork atom can explain consciousness.
_
HypnoPsi

HypnoPsi,
Are you saying that since matter is just energy moving REALLY SLOWLY that it doesn't have a material existance? That our ability to manipulate the keyboard to carry on this conversation is an outgrowth of our consciousness?

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
How can it not be relevant? I'm laying it squarely before you that immaterial and non-physical phenomena are as relevant to a bodies mass maintaining coherence and functionality as material and physical phenomena.I was talking about your analogy specifically. How is that correct? In your analogy there is someone "outside" spacetime poking. Do you believe that?I do not believe there is someone "outside" spacetime poking, no.So is cognition altered when brain is damaged?It's more appropriate to first think in terms of someone who has been blinded via damage to the optic nerve. Cognition is obviously altered in that they can no longer see. So damage in general should be thought of as causing the complete loss of cognitive abilities (such as visual processing) or impairing them (as in a way similar to poor vision).

Consider damage to Broca's or Wernicke's areas. Most likely, you'd still be able to function relatively normally on a private level (excepting deep depression would likely occur) but everyone around you, even though they were still speaking English, would appear like they were speaking anything from a language that you were only slighly familiar with (giving you some chance of re-learning/rehabilitation via different neural networks) to completely incomprehensible martian that you couldn't understand no matter how much you tried.As far as we can know there is nothing outside the universe maintaining it. Space is all there is.That's not true. Several theories posit higher dimensional space and parallel universes, as in the Big Splat model. See here: http://prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php.6701.htmlIf you are going to say there is allways something facilitating something you'll end up with infinite regression.Which is, seemingly, one of three options. Either there is infinite regression or there is some ultimate m-brane wotsit that has somehow always been (basically it's own miracle) or there is a God. If you have other options, I'll certainly hear them.Why do you assume spacetime is non-physical?Personally, I think it's actually down to semantics really. Spacetime is not "matter" (neither is energy) - and that's an extremely hard concept to comprehend. The question we should be asking is - how does our objectifying of 'spacetime' as a physical thing work in cognition?

In psychology there is a difference between concrete and abstract thinking. My view is that objectifying spacetime and weak/strong force as physical leads to concrete thinking; a la materialism. To the discourse analyst this a very clear illustration of the division between (big "D") Discourse and (little "d") discourse and a good example how Discourse contains and shapes the form that the discourse takes.

In these terms you can consider me an eliminativist amaterialist (or even a neo-physicalist in that my commitment to realism implies a desire that people should learn to think in the abstract about what is abstract, rather than in concrete terms so that their cognitive model of reality better equates to reality.

Don't skeptics agree that people should understand reality in a more true and accurate way rather than in a way that is based upon fantasy and a subtle, and perhaps unconscious, form of social engineering that maintains the materialist status quo by giving it a false advantage?I didn't say they were "physical objects". But they are physical forces. If they were non-physical, how would they affect physical objects? By magic?See above. Your Discourse is, unintentially or not, framing the discourse in concrete terms. "Gravitational force" is just the tendency (and rate of attraction) of, say, planets to move towards each other as they are captured in each other's gravity wells. Your "force" isn't a "thing" - it's just a measurement of the rate of attraction caused by a curvature in spacetime by a massive bodies.

Look at it this way: "matter" and/or "physical object" referrs to everything down to atoms. Below that and we're into "inmmaterial" quanta, meaning "energy". If we're going to use the term "physical force" to refer to the measurable effects of spacetime curvature on "matter" and "energy" (or even flip it around so that we say "matter" and/or "energy" exerts a "physical force" on spacetime) then we have to, in logical and philosophical terms, define spacetime as something else. (In a sense, we already do by defining it as "spacetime")

Do you follow? We have "matter"/"energy" at one end and spacetime at the other with the term "physical force" referring to what goes on between them. To me, that makes good logical and philosophical sense in terms of comprehending the real differences between things in cognition.Since we measure our own intelligence in terms of our ability to act in an ordered fashion what else should we be looking for as signs of intelligence?Are you saying all order must be intelligent?[/quote]No, just that order is one thing we use to consider each other intelligent.

Scientific physicalism, though I'm not a convinced by it either, is much better than scientific materialism (for the obvious reason that what we call "matter" is actually "energy"). But consider the main assertion of physicalism - that consciousness is dependent upon physical forces (as well as gross matter). Well, what physical forces might they be? And why don't we refer to them as 'awareness' or 'intelligence'. Seriously, if information processing is 'intelligence' then why not say so? Why not posit spacetime as 'awareness'? There doesn't seem to be any reason not to.Your position on consciousness is not a scientific one. First you assume that there is unknowable cause for everything.Not exactly, though I'll admit I prevaricate between the agnostic and gnostic (unknowable versus knowable) philosophical positions.Then you say the brain can't explain consciousness if we don't know that cause. You also say that the cause might be consciousness itself. How can we then scientifically examine consciousness?That's a very good question - for those who desire to scientifically examine consciousness (and I'll happily admit that I'd love to know how we could do it). But I'm the amaterialist here. I'm the one absensent the belief that the scientific study of consciousness has demonstrated that it's just the result of material cogs and wheels working in a clockwork fashion.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

I'd like answers to these questions I've asked earlier.Could you give me something specific that consciousness does that the brain doesn't? Besides being an observer and being an actor. Because computers too can make decisions based on the available information.

Why consciousness is necessary for my survival or functionality in the world populated by (supposedly) consciouss people?And a new one:
you said: "I'm not buying your arguement here that self-awareness isn't categorically different from thoughts."

Can you differentiate between you and your thoughts?As far as I can see, your questions all relate to the same thing. Let's be clear about something, computers don't make (as in create) decisions, they process decisions. Information just acts like a set of switches that leads to one of several prearranged options.

My experience is that I definately do differentiate between me and my thoughts. The very statement "my thoughts" (or "your thoughts", as you use the term) identifies the distinction. This just Decartes - I think, therefore I am.

I would like some answers to my questions as well. Why should I believe a theory that doesn't match my experience (that self is a thought) and that consciousness is caused by matter?
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

HypnoPsi,
Are you saying that since matter is just energy moving REALLY SLOWLY that it doesn't have a material existance?I haven't said anything about energy moving really slowly at all - and I don't claim any special knowledge as to why it is that waves or wavicles appear as particles.

What I am saying is that our sensory experience of objects and forms is a type of visual and cognitive illusion that doesn't equate very well with the true nature of matter as actually being energy. The question is, are we limited (or not) in terms of our thinking ability as to how we comprehend that reality?That our ability to manipulate the keyboard to carry on this conversation is an outgrowth of our consciousness?Well, our experience is that we make a conscious choice to use a keyboard - it's theory to suggest that self-awareness and agency are a sham which really has a materialistic explanation.

As to where it all comes from.... that's a different question entirely. Personally, I struggle with both monism and idealism myself. The idea that both consciousness and objective reality share the same ground of being is a bit more persuasive to me than idealism, though.
_
HypnoPsi

[.13.]

It's more appropriate to first think in terms of someone who has been blinded via damage to the optic nerve. Cognition is obviously altered in that they can no longer see....

Simple yes would have been enough.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that the cognition depends on the brain but is not caused by it.


That's not true. Several theories posit higher dimensional space and parallel universes, as in the Big Splat model.

Those are just theories. We don't actually know if there are parallel universes.


Which is, seemingly, one of three options. Either there is infinite regression or there is some ultimate m-brane wotsit that has somehow always been (basically it's own miracle) or there is a God. If you have other options, I'll certainly hear them.

That m-brane might have also come to existence in the big bang. I don't know, I wouldn't want to speculate on that. I don't really consider infinite regression as possibility.


Personally, I think it's actually down to semantics really.

I won't even bother reading any further and the discussion on this topic is pretty much over.


No, just that order is one thing we use to consider each other intelligent.


So you admit you have no evidence for the intelligence behind matter.


But consider the main assertion of physicalism - that consciousness is dependent upon physical forces (as well as gross matter). Well, what physical forces might they be? And why don't we refer to them as 'awareness' or 'intelligence'. Seriously, if information processing is 'intelligence' then why not say so? Why not posit spacetime as 'awareness'? There doesn't seem to be any reason not to.

I'm not going to play your word games. If you want to redefine words you can play with yourself.


But I'm the amaterialist here. I'm the one absensent the belief that the scientific study of consciousness has demonstrated that it's just the result of material cogs and wheels working in a clockwork fashion.

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.

[kmortis]

I haven't said anything about energy moving really slowly at all - and I don't claim any special knowledge as to why it is that waves or wavicles appear as particles.

What I am saying is that our sensory experience of objects and forms is a type of visual and cognitive illusion that doesn't equate very well with the true nature of matter as actually being energy. The question is, are we limited (or not) in terms of our thinking ability as to how we comprehend that reality?Well, our experience is that we make a conscious choice to use a keyboard - it's theory to suggest that self-awareness and agency are a sham which really has a materialistic explanation.

As to where it all comes from.... that's a different question entirely. Personally, I struggle with both monism and idealism myself. The idea that both consciousness and objective reality share the same ground of being is a bit more persuasive to me than idealism, though.
_
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?