Define Consiousness

[davidsmith73]

Which prompts the question - what is meant by 'law'?

a logical relationship.

So, do logical relationships and matter objectively exist ?

 

[davidsmith73]

I use theory in the "mental construct" sense. I think all laws are like this. Even criminal law. Murder exists. Mass attracts mass. But our "existing" laws are subjective appreciations of the underlying reality.

Yes, this is the central issue I am trying to apply to a mental monist philosophy such as Ian's.

Lets assume that a materialist is of the above opinion and they are considering a mental monist viewpoint. If reality is composed of experiences (qualia) rather than objective matter, then if a way is found to describe how the illusion of a physical world is created while at the same time describing how a subjective world is created, there is no need to introduce an objective element to this philosophy for the same reason that there is no need to do so within a materialist philosophy. In both philosophies, logical principles and descriptive laws are just that and the respective domains of matter and qualia are the reference subject. They just behave the way they do.

The main difference between the materialist philosophy and the mental monist one is that the latter does not have the hard problem of consciousness to deal with.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

Dynamic,

You seem to be arguing that the rules we use to describe how how things work are representative of some governing force that causes natural phenomenon to maintain it's order.

My question to you is, where do you draw the line from physical forces interacting with physical forces to a sub-physical force that governs everything... and more importantly what has convinced you that there is an 'external' force that drives everything - rather than things just being orderly by their own nature? Atoms don't think so why should they do anything else than what they do?

[I think your intuition might be a fundamental source of your theory.]

As far as "clear, scientific data" goes here, I am with David on this debate, although I am not entirely against Dynamic's theory either, but I think his theory might be rooted more deeply in personal experience, which by it's own nature, can't be logically derived from physical observation and is therefore very elusive to 'scientific enquiry'.

 

[hammegk]

Re: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

You seem to be arguing that the rules we use to describe how how things work are representative of some governing force that causes natural phenomenon to maintain it's order.

Natural phenomena is a good term.

My question to you is, where do you draw the line from physical forces interacting with physical forces to a sub-physical force that governs everything...

Here is the linchpin that destroys dualism as a logical choice. The question is "What *is* the monism?". Body or spirit? Non-life or life? Not-Conscious or Conscious? Material vs ~Material.

and more importantly what has convinced you that there is an 'external' force that drives everything - rather than things just being orderly by their own nature?

I'd say inherent, not external, and again mention -- by absolute first person certainty -- thought is an existent.

Atoms don't think so why should they do anything else than what they do?

[I think your intuition might be a fundamental source of your theory.]

You mean as you intuit that "Atoms don't think"? Of course not at human level, or at any life-as-we-define-it level. So what?

As far as "clear, scientific data" goes here, I am with David on this debate, although I am not entirely against Dynamic's theory either, but I think his theory might be rooted more deeply in personal experience, which by it's own nature, can't be logically derived from physical observation and is therefore very elusive to 'scientific enquiry'.

You fail to see that your stance -- and DD's -- presuppose the answer to the question, "What is the monism?'.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

Here is the linchpin that destroys dualism as a logical choice. The question is "What *is* the monism?". Body or spirit? Non-life or life? Not-Conscious or Conscious? Material vs ~Material.

I'm not sure what you're saying/ asking here, could you clarify please?

 

[hammegk]

Re: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

I'm not sure what you're saying/ asking here, could you clarify please? [/B]

I'll try, but please ask an actual question or two so I get some idea where we are not communicating.

 

[Atlas]

Re: Re: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

I'll try, but please ask an actual question or two so I get some idea where we are not communicating.

Can I ask. I am always confused.... I think you know that.

Where are you coming from again?

Dualism is false. Monism ain't right. Materialism doesn't have the answer either. How does your objective idealism split the difference and not become dualism.

Maybe dualism itself confuses me. There are several flavors besides mind/body, aren't there?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

what is meant by 'law'? [/i]
----------------------------
a logical relationship.
----------------------------
So, do logical relationships and matter objectively exist?

I hate to even ask, because it is going to seem like I am being deliberately obtuse just for the entertainment value.

What is meant by 'logical relationship'?

The main difference between the materialist philosophy and the mental monist one is that the latter does not have the hard problem of consciousness to deal with.

And then there is the hard problem of phnarsciousness. Phnarsciousness is that property rocks have which remains unexplained once you have explained everything else about a rock: its size, shape, weight, chemical composition, why it rolls downhill but not uphill, etc. Phnarsciousness is the most central and manifest aspect of the inner life of a rock, but no observation made from a third-person perspective can ever explain what it is like to be phnarscious.

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

Dynamic,

You seem to be arguing that the rules we use to describe how how things work are representative of some governing force that causes natural phenomenon to maintain it's order

I'm trying to figure out how you could possibly have gotten that idea. That's exactly what I'm arguing against.

 

[hammegk]

Re: Re: Re: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

Dualism is false.

Agreed.

Maybe dualism itself confuses me. There are several flavors besides mind/body, aren't there?

Sure, but they all in essence are the same: either the monism is Material (the stuff we perceive in the 4d space we perceive in), or the converse - Material. what ~Material *is*, spirit, mind, what ever your term of choice is, is isn't "matter" as physics defines it.

Monism ain't right.

I disagree. One choice is "most correct". Either choice works perfectly well for empirical scientific inquiry, and is not a question science can ever address. All one can do is trace the logical implications of each choice as it might be understood under ones' personal worldview; I call myself an objective idealist.

II says he is a subjective idealist, and I personally can see no difference between that stance and dualism.

Materialism doesn't have the answer either. How does your objective idealism split the difference and not become dualism.

Note that I don't split any difference; my choice is 100% ~Material monism. We could say thought, although I opt for "consciousness". That would be the ability to react as stimuli become available. Is "act" possible in the libertarian sense of free-will?. I would like to think such is actually the case -- mechanism unknown and unknowable.

 

[Atlas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

Note that I don't split any difference; my choice is 100% ~Material monism. We could say thought, although I opt for "consciousness". That would be the ability to react as stimuli become available. Is "act" possible in the libertarian sense of free-will?. I would like to think such is actually the case -- mechanism unknown and unknowable.

I thought the "objective" side of objective idealism was an acceptence of a true material reality, that is objective reality (where stimuli come from) is material. And subjective idealism denies the materiality of objective reality. (Shows what I know, dang it.)

You're so good at thumbnail philosophy. Can you correct that for me?

 

[hammegk]

You're so good at thumbnail philosophy.

LOL. You going to ask me for a loan???



The objective part of objective idealism denies that reality depends on the thought process *I* as consciousness perceive as the bag-o-bones *me*.

 

[Atlas]

You going to ask me for a loan???

That's funny...

Seriously, I'd really appreciate it... and I'm almost positive I can get it back to you a week from Tuesday.

Thanks in advance, Buddy.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

II says he is a subjective idealist, and I personally can see no difference between that stance and dualism.
[/B]

Dualism holds that both matter and minds exist, normally material substance and a substantial self. I only believe selves and qualia exist i.e I reject the existence of a mind-independent reality (NB a reality independent of all minds, not just my own).

Now I would certainly agree that Kant's idealism seems to involve a dualism due to his belief in the "thing in itself" (or nounema). The only way I could be said to be a dualist is that I believe in both experients and also their experiences. But that wouldn't normally be referred to as dualism.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Re: Re: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for David..

I'll try, but please ask an actual question or two so I get some idea where we are not communicating.

hammegk,

You said "Here is the linchpin that destroys dualism as a logical choice. The question is "What *is* the monism?". Body or spirit? Non-life or life? Not-Conscious or Conscious? Material vs ~Material." This is your question, not mine by the way, but now I'm curious, what do you think the linchpin is that destroys dualism as a logical choice?

 

[hammegk]

.... I'm curious, what do you think the linchpin is that destroys dualism as a logical choice?

One way to think about it is: Assume 'physical' exists; then, whatever effects or affects the 'physical', must also be physical -- or one is a dualist. Ditto if 'not-physical' is the assumption.

See the problem?

 

[davidsmith73]

What is meant by 'logical relationship'?

I think in this context, a mathematical relationship.

And then there is the hard problem of phnarsciousness. Phnarsciousness is that property rocks have which remains unexplained once you have explained everything else about a rock: its size, shape, weight, chemical composition, why it rolls downhill but not uphill, etc. Phnarsciousness is the most central and manifest aspect of the inner life of a rock, but no observation made from a third-person perspective can ever explain what it is like to be phnarscious.

But one can identify the nature of qualia simply by inspecting the contents of ones own consciousness. This makes your analogy irrelevant. Of course, there is nothing left to explain about the objective nature of a rock once you have explained its physical manifestations in full. However it is not an objective property that is being left unaccounted for. It is the perceptual phenomenon of a rock, or any other conscious experience, which relates to the hard problem of consciousness. Within a mental monist philosophy, the perceptual element which precedes the objective inference, i.e. the observation of size, weight, etc, is all that exists. There is no observation of some other objective reality. Therefore there is not need to explain how physical reality accounts for consciousness. Indeed it must be the other way round, how consciousness accounts for physical reality.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

What is meant by 'logical relationship'?
------------------------
I think in this context, a mathematical relationship

In this context then, what would a 'non-mathematical relationship' be? I know, I know. Sorry.

But one can identify the nature of qualia simply by inspecting the contents of ones own consciousness.

Things always start getting extra weird once we start talking about meta-qualia.

Are there things besides qualia that one can identify the nature of simply by inspecting the contents of one's own consciousness? Are there things that have natures completely independent of anything we could know about them? If so, is the nature of qualia exempt from this limitation (and if so, why)?

 

[hammegk]

I only believe selves and qualia exist ....

Yes, that's what I understood.

But that wouldn't normally be referred to as dualism.

Perhaps, but I don't see the reason why you contend they are a monism of One rather than a duality of Two.

 

[Filip Sandor]

One way to think about it is: Assume 'physical' exists; then, whatever effects or affects the 'physical', must also be physical -- or one is a dualist. Ditto if 'not-physical' is the assumption.

See the problem?

In physics there is a "strange" phenomenon known as quantum entanglement, which allows the polarization of separate photons to be interdependant on eachother even if the photons separated by thousants of miles of space and 20 foot thick lead walls. By observing the state of one photon the state of the other photon can be accurately inferred from the state of the first. Likewise, if the state of one photon is altered the other photon alters its own state accordingly - and this all happens at speeds that are faster than light to boot! Yup, this discovery has lead to some pretty "strange" physics alright, even a primitive form of teleporation is possible now. Maybe matter, space and 'physical' stuff isn't exactly what we imagined it as.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

In physics there is a "strange" phenomenon known as quantum entanglement...

"Consciousness is mysterious. Quantum mechanics is mysterious. If you find two mysteries, maybe they are the same."

This is what David Chalmers referred to as the 'Law of Minimization of Mystery'.