Lucid Dreaming

[rppa]

If we are talking about the fundamental science, physics, then that only deals with the physical. But consciousness is not physical.

Then what do EEGs pick up, that allow doctors to distinguish between sleep and waking?

 

[Interesting Ian]

From Interesting Ian
It simply requires an understanding of science. (1)Science deals with the physical world and (2)consciousness is not part of the physical world. That is to say the task of fundamental science is to discern patterns in the world of the sensory experienced (ie qualia) and describe them utilising theories. (3)But consciousness, or selves, or experiencers are not themselves experienced and are not therefore part of the physical world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The highlighting is mine, in order to break down what you said.

(1) Agreed
(2) No, that is your opinion

No, it is not an opinion. I've posted my proof.

(3) No, we can observe the effects of others' consciousness. This is where experimental science comes into it. Just as you might bombard a particular kind of matter with neutrons to form a hypothesis, you can examine the effects of anothers' consciousness. Direct observation is in the realm of observational science, not experimental science.

Read what I say later on in the post you are responding to. I said:

"The actually sensation of pain does not figure into the physical facts about the pain according to our prior definition of the physical. Nor can we infer the sensation of pain since, unlike an electron, the (phenomenological) pain does not play a part in any description of our behaviour. The pain per se cannot play a part because pain per se is not part of the objective publicly accessible realm. Only the neural correlates of the pain can play any fruitful role in our theories".

Allow me to explain more fully:

The world is either physically closed or it is not physically closed. (physical closure means that all change in the world proceeds according to physical laws. In particular my behaviour is simply the result of the states of my brain which change according to previous states of the brain and input from the senses).

a) If it is physically closed then my behaviour can be wholly accounted for from a 3rd person perspective. You simply need to have a comprehensive knowledge of how brains work. Consciousness per se doesn't influence my behaviour, the neural correlates of consciousness do this. But the firing of neurons simply follow physical laws. The only way that consciousness could influence behaviour is if what we do follows physical laws and if you subscribe to the rather dubious notion of "causal overdetermination" (i.e both physical events in the brain wholly account for my behaviour, and simultaneously, my intentions also wholly account for my behaviour! ). But even setting aside the difficulties of such a notion, if you do this then you have to equate consciousness with brain function (which is essentially the tenet of materialism anyway). But you can't do this because in my previous post I showed this is unintelligible.

b) The world is not physically closed. Now under this scenario we can indeed indirectly observe consciousness. Your consciousness per se influences your behaviour*, so in observing your bodily behaviour I am indirectly observing your consciousness. Unfortunately, by definition, your consciousness would not then be physical. What we have here is interactive dualism.

* Actually your consciousness must influence your behaviour. It is unintelligible to suppose otherwise. Note that this need not in itself necessarily contradict materialism. See my post last night in this thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Interesting Ian
My opinion is never influenced by materialists because their position is manifestly absurd and quite clearly wrong. What they do is to presuppose the correctness of the materialist metaphysic. Thus they believe they are discovering things about consciousness when discovering the functional (causal) role that the neural correlates of consciousness play

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is an assumption they are making. Many would feel that it is a reasonable assumption, but nevertheless it's an assumption.

However regardless of WHERE this consciousness lies (in our head, in the ether, wherever) it is observable by it's results. Not as observational science but as experimental science with which we can model hypotheses.

See above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Interesting Ian
Consciousness is certainly not measurable. Indirectly observable? Well, I rather think that the materialist would say it is directly observable

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are referring to 'orthodox' materialism.

Reductionist materialism? Well yes I am. It seems to me that non-reductionist materialism cannot distinguish itself from epiphenomenalism -- in which case you have to deny free will. This again is unintelligible. See my argument in other thread (link already provided).

I'm tentatively a materialist myself but do not assume consciousness to be directly observable. To experiment on the basis that the neurons in our heads comprise our entire consciousness is certainly an assumption, without further knowledge no the subject.

In their defence however, how would you FIND such knowledge?
Hence their necessity to assume this until proven otherwise.

Sorry, you've lost me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Interesting Ian
Your argument no doubt will be that materialism stipulates this to be so; it is an axiomatic premise of materialism. But this makes your definition of materialism an arbitrary one
[..]
Now you will no doubt say that by observing the grimace, or at least by observing the neurons fire, then you are observing the toothache since materialism holds that the toothache and its neural correlates are one and the same thing, or at least aspects of the same thing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth and make a lot of assumption regarding my belief
As such the rest of your post is misdirected

That argument is directed against reductionist materialism. Non-reductionist materialism is even more silly (if that were possible).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Interesting Ian
ie we need to hypothesise electrons in order to explain certain aspects of reality

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Exactly as we would have to hypothesise to explain certain aspects of consciousness.
Experimental science.

See my argument above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Interesting Ian
Conscious experiences in other words are irreducibly private

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, and not unlike our knowledge of subatomic particles a century or two ago

Subatomic particles are not private. They are publicly accessible. I explain in my previous post why they are different from consciousness. Obviously I failed to explain myself clearly enough. Oh well, I shall do better when explaining for my forthcoming website.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Then what do EEGs pick up, that allow doctors to distinguish between sleep and waking?

It certainly ain't consciousness. The neural correlates of consciousness perhaps.

 

[Z]

Your 'posted proof' was entirely fallacious, Ian... what remains is that you have no better reason to believe that consciousness is non-physical than to believe it is physical. Further, since 'free will' is another notion which is in question, your rejection of any philosophy that denies 'free will' is just as faith-based as your rejection of 'physical consciousness'.

It is merely your opinion - nothing more. You have neither scientific proof nor sound reason against a physical consciousness, nor scientific proof nor sound reason for absolute free will. Admitting that these are your opinions rather than facts would at least show you possess a measure of intellectual integrity - alas, we already know what level of integrity to expect out of you.