Materialism

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Rusty,


I am a bit puzzled by your use of causality here. You are aware, aren't you, that materialism does not hold that the physical world is causal? Indeed, the laws of nature are not causal. Anyway, if you "agent" functions according to the laws of nature, then how does your position differ from materialism?

Stimpson J Cat I do not have much time left today.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I am coming to realize that you do not even understand your own argument.

These are Stimpson J Cat quotes:

I have no idea what you mean by the "causal bit" not crossing over? An interaction is an interaction. If the interaction can be observed (directly or indirectly), and described with logical rules, then how is it different from any other physical interaction

I use causal bit to differentiate between a causal action and a non-causal interaction. You claim that all interactions are causal.

Rusty,

I use the scientific definition of physical. Something is physical if it interacts with something else that is physical, and the things which we can directly empirically observe are taken to be physical by definition.

So physical things are things that interact with other physical things? Very poor definition, but ok.

I do not have the time to discover your quote where you state that materialism is "all things are made of one substance and that substance is physical", so this will suffice:

then it necessarily follows that either the fact that you were thirsty was a purely physical phenomenon (materialism),

Now you are asserting that TLON are non-causal? You are a very confused cat! TLON are causal, they are an explanation of the causality. You need to go back to science 101!

Causal:
Something is causal if it's occurance neccesitates an effect.

Why does my striking of the match neccesitate the match head bursting into flame? This can be explained through TLON, because TLON are explanations of cause.

Perhaps you think that something is not causal if it contains any randomness. That is not so, something is causal if it's occurance neccesitates an effect. So if a random occurance necceistates an effect then this random occurance was causal. It was not caused, but was causal.

I am tempted to ignore the rest of your post permanently, but you are obviously highly intelligent. I simply cannot understand why you are being so obtuse.

I must go, I will be back tommorrow or the next day to address the remainder of your post.

 

[Guest]

Rusty

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, he just conveniently forgets all the points you already made when it looks like his position is under threat. You have to keep repeating yourself in every post or he just backslides all the time.

Now you are asserting that TLON are non-causal? You are a very confused cat! TLON are causal, they are an explanation of the causality. You need to go back to science 101!

Nah...send him to room 101...containing an endless repeat-loop audio tape of Franko discussing logical deism.....

I am tempted to ignore the rest of your post permanently, but you are obviously highly intelligent. I simply cannot understand why you are being so obtuse.

He has a belief system to defend.

 

[Q-Source]

UCE

I took the time to read some of the multiple links that you have provided to support your opinions. However, most of them in fact contradict your own line of reasoning. I wonder if you have noticed that before.

One of the solutions to the Mind/Body Problem (if there is any ) is proposed by Idealism, which the author describes as lunatic:

A fourth view is that there are no physical phenomena, there are only ideas in our minds. Contrary to popular opinion, therefore, there really aren't any pencils, mountains, or matter. The whole physical world is all in our minds. This lunatic view is called idealism, and it was held by Bishop Berkeley, who preferred, however, to say that pencils were ideas rather than that pencils don't exist.

BTW, this site is just a bad-spelling strawmen of materialism, i.e. materialism does not deny that people have mental states.

Anyway, the fundamental principle of Idealism is just a belief: for the physical world to be a mere mental representation in our minds, we have to believe that there is a Metamind generating this illusion. You've already conceded this point when I asked you why you said not to have beliefs:

Q-Source
You believe in the Metamind

UCE
This is indeed belief, but given that materialism is false and that an objective reality exists, the metamind must also exist. My 'belief' is that solipsism is false. I see solipsism or the metamind as the only logical possibilities once materialism is demonstrated to be false. Some form of dualism might be possible but I am yet to hear a convincing solution to the binding problem.

Quite strange if we consider that in nobeliefs.com, they clearly state that beliefs are internal to the individual and they do not necessarily require external validation. There is no way to achieve knowledge of the external world if we don’t confront the representations in our minds with the external physical world.

The site is not working so I couldn't quote the exact words. My point is that all your philosophy relies on nothing else than a belief. And this belief cannot be proved because its mental by nature.

Q

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

I already told you, I define "matter" to mean "everything that exists". Is that how you define Mind? If so, then how does your philosophy differ from mine, and how do you explain the existence of human consciousness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Mind' encompasses all that exists. All that exists exists within Mind.

That's exactly how I define "Universe". Now, is that it? Does it have any other characteristics, or is it just synonymous with Universe?

I didn't say your dreams were reality, Stimpy. I said that when you have dreams they appear like reality to the dreamer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is irrelevant. The only analogy that you could draw from that is that reality appears like reality to the Meta-Mind. That says absolutely nothing about why reality appears like reality to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your mind is a sub-division of the metamind. Your mind is part of the metamind. The seperation is an illusion.

I could as easily say that your mind is a part of the Universe, and that the separation that dualists are always talking about is an illusion. What's the difference, other than the fact that under my framework, the scientific method can be used to try to understand how the mind works, and under yours, it (for some as yet unexplained reason) cannot?

I know that dreams are not reality. That is enough to refute your argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? All I was doing was demonstrating that mind can create the illusion of reality. It does it when you dream. It also does it when you are awake, since the version of reality you experience is indeed an illusion. The only difference is the source of the information used to generate the illusion.

No, you demonstrated that human minds can create the illusion of reality. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing about "Mind".

And as I said before dreams appear like reality to the dreamer. If you were dreaming now then how would you know?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you are not claiming that reality is my dream. You are claiming that reality is a dream of the Meta-Mind, and that I am a part of that dream. Do you not see the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You and the Meta-mind are One. Atman=Brahman. All our minds are as leaves, the metamind is the tree. We share the same root.

This is nonsense. It amounts to nothing more than the Solipsistic argument that reality is just my dream. Is it my dream, or the Meta-Mind's dream? If I am the Meta-Mind, then your Idealism is just Solipsism wearing a funny hat. If I am a part of the Meta-Mind, then your argument falls apart, because the fact that my mind can create an illusion of reality which it alone observes bears absolutely no relevance to the argument that the Meta-Mind can create an objective reality that all minds observe.

No, it demonstrates that human minds can create the illusion of matter. It demonstrates absolutely nothing whatsoever about this hypothetical Meta-Mind of yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are examining the respective claims of "matter makes mind" and "mind makes matter". We are agreed that minds can create the illusion of matter. They do so when dreamind, and they do so when awake - remember Kant, Stimp?

You are still playing word games. There is a difference between a human mind and this "Mind" you keep talking about. You cannot assert that Mind makes matter on the basis that human minds create the illusion of matter. Not unless you are asserting that the Mind is a human mind, and that reality is somebodies dream. And even if this is what you are asserting, it is referentially incoherent.

WHEN YOU ARE DREAMING it FEELS LIKE reality. Or are you a freak?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. As I already pointed out, this is beside the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the whole point. Mind creates the illusion of a material world.

My mind is not "Mind". The material World is not my dream World. you analogy is pure nonsense. You can assert that reality is a dream in some hypothetical Meta-Mind, but you cannot cite human dreams as evidence that this is the case, nor do they constitute an explanation of how it works.

once again, what does any of this have to do with the Meta-Mind. My mind is not the Meta-Mind. The Meta-Mind is not a human mind. So far, you have provided no definition of this Meta-Mind other than to say it is everything that exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have, actually. It encompasses all that exists, including your mind. Your mind can be the metamind. That is what happens during 'mystical Union'.

Once again, this tells me nothing. So the Meta-Mind encompasses all that exists. How do you go from this to the claim that it is, in fact, a "mind".That is, how do you conclude that it is capable of dreaming up a reality? All you are doing is assuming that reality is a dream in some mind. This tells us nothing about how reality works, and certainly gives us no insight into the nature of that mind, or how it dreams up reality. It is just one in an infinite chain of utterly useless unfalsifiable hypotheses.

All you are doing is positing the existence of some mind, which you claim is somehow qualitatively similar to human minds, and which generates reality as some sort of dream. This is pure anthropomorphic nonsense!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, yes.....anthropomorphism is the ultimate heresy....

No, not heresy. Just naive and silly.

I can point out that ducks fly, but that is hardly an explanation for how flight works. And it is certainly not an explanation for how helicopters fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither you nor I have an explanation as to how the mind generates an illusion of material reality from some sort of base information. This is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether mind has the capability of creating the illusion of a material world, and we have agreed that it does indeed have this capability.

No, we already agree that human minds have the ability to create the illusion of a material world. This bears absolutely no relevance to the question of whether reality is a dream in some Meta-Mind. And unlike your idealism, materialism provides a method for trying to figure out how human minds create dreams. Your idealism does not even make the attempt!

And I have told you again and again that human minds are sub-divisions of the Metamind.

"There is only One Consciousness, and it is all that exists." (Shroedinger)

As I said before, this tells me nothing. You still need to explain how the Meta-Mind creates reality. Simply pointing out that human minds create the illusion of matter in dreams does not do this. All you have is an unsupported, and unsupportable, assertion.

Human minds create the illusion of matter. The Meta-Mind creates real matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have forgotten everything I told you about Kant, even though you have been told a hundred times. All you ever experience is THE ILLUSION of matter. All the meta-mind needs to do is store the information. Come on Stimp, you know this stuff...

And all the Universe needs to do is store the information. You are just playing word games here. How is your Meta-Mind different than the Materialistic conception of the Universe? What additional characteristics does it have? And why do you think it has them?

You can argue that real matter is somehow illusory too, but this does not change the fundamental fact that there is clearly a difference between dreams and reality. And it doesn't resolve the fact that you still haven't defined "Meta-Mind".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I HAVE! It is the root of all that exist. It encompasses all that exists. It is also the root of your own mind and everybody-elses.

If that is all it is, then you just have Materialism. Your Meta-Mind is just the universe. What else do you claim about it, that makes it an actual mind, instead of just "all that exists"?

Is it everything that exists? Is it a human mind? Does it share some characteristics with human minds? If so, which ones? And what are its characteristics that it does not share with human minds?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human minds, in their normal state, are limited to the knowledge of one host brain. Human minds are capable of losing this one-host identification and 'stepping backwards' and becoming the metamind. You say mysticism is poorly specified. Well, I'm telling you now that mystical Union is the experience of discovering that ones consciousness is the entirety of consciousness - Union with the metamind. That is precisely what mystics have always reported!

You still haven't told me what the Meta-Mind is!

Your argument seems to have deteriorated to : "You can't clearly specify and define this. You cannot give me a mechanism"

Well, I can, but it will take a whole book. Provide me with a postal address and I will send it to you. It is unavailable in Germany.

Consciousness and Berkeleys Metaphysics

But then you don't really want to know, do you Stimp?

You said you had a simple explanation. Clearly that was a lie.

Don't bother sending me the book. I am not interested in pointless metaphysical speculation.


Rusty,

Stimpson J Cat I do not have much time left today.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I am coming to realize that you do not even understand your own argument.

These are Stimpson J Cat quotes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what you mean by the "causal bit" not crossing over? An interaction is an interaction. If the interaction can be observed (directly or indirectly), and described with logical rules, then how is it different from any other physical interaction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I use causal bit to differentiate between a causal action and a non-causal interaction. You claim that all interactions are causal.

I never claimed that. On the contrary, interactions are not, in general, causal. Causality is an emergent phenomena of Quantum Mechanics.

I use the scientific definition of physical. Something is physical if it interacts with something else that is physical, and the things which we can directly empirically observe are taken to be physical by definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So physical things are things that interact with other physical things? Very poor definition, but ok.

Why is it a poor definition? It is clear, concise, and unambiguous.

I do not have the time to discover your quote where you state that materialism is "all things are made of one substance and that substance is physical", so this will suffice:

Perhaps because I never said that? I reject ontological materialism as meaningless. I reject ontology itself as meaningless. I am one person you will never see here going on about "substances".

then it necessarily follows that either the fact that you were thirsty was a purely physical phenomenon (materialism),
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you are asserting that TLON are non-causal? You are a very confused cat! TLON are causal, they are an explanation of the causality. You need to go back to science 101!

Somehow I doubt that. I can assure you that the Laws of Nature, at least as we currently understand them, are neither causal nor deterministic. As somebody who has taken graduate level courses in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, I feel pretty confident on this point.

Causal:
Something is causal if it's occurance neccesitates an effect.

Why does my striking of the match neccesitate the match head bursting into flame? This can be explained through TLON, because TLON are explanations of cause.

Trust me, I understand how combustion works very well.

Perhaps you think that something is not causal if it contains any randomness. That is not so, something is causal if it's occurance neccesitates an effect. So if a random occurance necceistates an effect then this random occurance was causal. It was not caused, but was causal.

It just so happens that my field of expertise is stochastic nonlinear dynamics and statistical analysis. Believe me, you aren't telling me anything I don't already know.

I am tempted to ignore the rest of your post permanently, but you are obviously highly intelligent. I simply cannot understand why you are being so obtuse.

How am I being obtuse? I think you are reading things into my position that I have not said.

Let me reiterate my position, just so there is no confusion.

1) I am a scientific materialist. Scientific Materialism is nothing more than the philosophical basis of the scientific method.

1a) I define physical to be that which can be either directly, or indirectly, observed, where indirect observation refers to observing the effect that something which cannot be directly observed has on something that can.

1b) I assume that reality functions according to consistent logical rules, and that it is possible, at least in principle, to determine those rules from observation.

2) I do not think that ontology is a meaningful concept.

3) I reject any hypothesis that is not, at least in principle, falsifiable.

4) I do not believe any claim unless there is substantial reliable evidence to support it.


That said, the main problem I am having with the arguments you have presented thus far are these two points:

1) You have asserted that the interaction between the "agent" and the brain is one-way. We know of no one-way interactions anywhere in nature. On what basis have you concluded this?

2) You have asserted that the agent is neither deterministic nor random. I know of only one formal definition for random, and that is "non deterministic". What precisely do you mean by random, and how is random different for simply "not deterministic". What characteristic does something which is random have, which something which is just not deterministic does not necessarily have?

Dr. Stupid

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE, the fact that the human mind can construct a (usually strange) reality during dreams, although irrelevant to the Metamind, would be more compelling if we knew that a congenitally blind, deaf, and dumb person had realistic dreams. In other words, if we knew that contact with the physical world isn't necessary for realistic dreams. I bet it is.

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

UCE

I took the time to read some of the multiple links that you have provided to support your opinions. However, most of them in fact contradict your own line of reasoning. I wonder if you have noticed that before.

One of the solutions to the Mind/Body Problem (if there is any ) is proposed by Idealism, which the author describes as lunatic:

I had noticed. Indeed I have mentioned it several times. The author goes to great lengths to logically disprove the other systems, but chooses to dismiss mentalism as "lunatic".

BTW, this site is just a bad-spelling strawmen of materialism, i.e. materialism does not deny that people have mental states.

Doesn't it?

It does if it wants to be coherent. Synasthesia has denied that qualia exist. Materiaists on this board regularly declare consciousness to be 'an illusion', not that they ever explain what this actually means.

My point is that all your philosophy relies on nothing else than a belief. And this belief cannot be proved because its mental by nature.

Well, we'd best agree to disagree on that one. My position is that of Robert Anton Wilson. Materialism is false, and that is not a belief but an empirical fact. I don't expect people here to swallow that, but I nevetheless maintain it to be the case.




Paul :

UcE, the fact that the human mind can construct a (usually strange) reality during dreams, although irrelevant to the Metamind, would be more compelling if we knew that a congenitally blind, deaf, and dumb person had realistic dreams. In other words, if we knew that contact with the physical world isn't necessary for realistic dreams. I bet it is.

Why is this relevant?

 

[davidsmith73]

Been reading this thread with interest.
If I may jump in a little further back in the argument!

Stimpy said:

"For me, "matter" is just a convenient label. This is where the primary distinction between materialism and idealism lies. When you ask "what exists", a materialist will answer "matter", and an idealist will answer mind, but without any additional explanation, both of those replies are equally devoid of meaning. You might as well say it is made of Ether.

The difference is what happens when you follow up with "What is matter?" or "What is mind?". The materialist will proceed to give you the best description for what matter is that the scientific method can provide, and will endeavor to continue to improve this description through further scientific investigation, whereas the idealist can only offer vague metaphors and speculation."

I agree with the first parapgraph. The second I have a problem with and i think it may have to do with my definition of materialism but anyway...
The materialist will give a description of how matter behaves which I believe is different from what matter is. Also, materialism endows certain qualities onto matter as being somehow more real than others. For example under the materialist philosophy, real qualities are things like position and momentum. These are accepted as being more real than qualities like wetness or the redness of red because position and momentum can be described according to mathematical principles whereas qualia cannot. This acceptance in the superior reality of so-called primary qualities over secondary ones (what I understand as qualia) has been a consequence of the history of science and philosophy and the success of materialism in describing our quantitative observations.

So my first question to Stimpy would be - do you think that secondary qualities like wetness and redness are real in the same sense as mathematical descriptions like position and momentum are real ? or do you think there is a difference between them and if so what is the difference ?

 

[davidsmith73]

I don't see how it's easily distinguishable from the brain processes, because I have no idea how those processes seem or feel. Do you? Perhaps qualia are precisely the experience of those processes.


The very notion of suggesting that we "feel a physical process" necessarily puts us in a dualistic position does it not ?

(edited because something I wrote didn't make sense!)

I'm begining to see the problem (perhaps )
The materialist view is advocating one realm. It says that the dualistic categories of qualia vs physical belong to one realm but instead of creating a philosophy that encompases both categories, it choses to retain the dualistic interpretation of physical reality and discards the qualia which leaves us with the hard problem.

 

[Guest]

Stimpson :

That's exactly how I define "Universe". Now, is that it? Does it have any other characteristics, or is it just synonymous with Universe?

It is not synonymous with Universe, since 'Universe' is already a label for the perceived physical Universe. 'Mind' is a container for that physical Universe. Refering to the mental level of existence as 'Universe' may have its uses, but it is likely to complicate this debate.

Your mind is a sub-division of the metamind. Your mind is part of the metamind. The seperation is an illusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could as easily say that your mind is a part of the Universe, and that the separation that dualists are always talking about is an illusion. What's the difference, other than the fact that under my framework, the scientific method can be used to try to understand how the mind works, and under yours, it (for some as yet unexplained reason) cannot?

The reason, Stimp, is that you claim mind is part of the physical Universe on the grounds that this enables science to investigate it with no regard for the fact that science itself eliminates mind from its method!!!!

By contrast I claim mind is the context within which the Physical Universe exists in the first place....****thus providing a philosophical answer to a philosophical question instead of sticking my head in the sand and trying (hopelessly) to use science to answer a non-scientific question****

In addition, if the Universe is made of matter you have great difficulties explaining what 'mind' is, as has been painfully demonstrated on this board almost continually for the last 2 years! By contrast if the Universe is really made of 'Mind' then claiming that your mind is part of the Universe poses not the slightest problem at all!

Yes, we know that my solution means science can't touch it. That does not prevent my answer being the logical one and yours being a load of non-sensical materialistic gibberish. If the Universe is made of mind, then more mind is easy to explain. If it is made of matter then you are left with the Hard Problem. YAWN.

No, you demonstrated that human minds can create the illusion of reality. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing about "Mind".

'Mind' does the same thing.

You and the Meta-mind are One. Atman=Brahman. All our minds are as leaves, the metamind is the tree. We share the same root.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is nonsense. It amounts to nothing more than the Solipsistic argument that reality is just my dream. Is it my dream, or the Meta-Mind's dream?

The metamind provides the environment and the data. You dream your dream.

If I am the Meta-Mind, then your Idealism is just Solipsism wearing a funny hat.

Mysticism is indeed Solipsism wearing a funny hat - but you have to understand it first. All these questions have answers for those who bother to go looking for them.

If I am a part of the Meta-Mind, then your argument falls apart, because the fact that my mind can create an illusion of reality which it alone observes bears absolutely no relevance to the argument that the Meta-Mind can create an objective reality that all minds observe.

Well, your confusion is due to the fact that you do not understand the way idealistic metaphysics works. I have offered to send you a book about it. You say you aren't interested.....

You are still playing word games. There is a difference between a human mind and this "Mind" you keep talking about.

Is there?

http://members.aol.com/trikshaiva/

Trika Shaivism is a form of Hindu religion that believes in one God, which they call ParamaShiva, who creates the universe within Himself out of his own pure cosmic conscious Being.

ParamaShiva literally means "Supreme Auspiciousness". He is considered to be essentially pure infinite featureless consciousness (called Shiva). But this Shiva aspect has an active creative side called Shakti. It is this ever-active Shakti that creates, operates, and destroys endless universes.

Our own consciousness, which appears so tiny and limited, is not just a part of the cosmic consciousness, but actually is the supreme consciousness in total! It just appears small and limited due to creative activity of supreme conscious Shakti which has a veiling deluding aspect (Maya Shakti). It is through this veiling deluding power that Shakti then transforms the supreme conscious experience into the experience of infinite finite conscious beings inhabiting different limited non-sentient universes. The discovery and overcoming of this Maya Shakti is then the key to spiritual liberation - the realization of one's own true nature and complete liberation from the wheel of Karma - of life and death. This process whereby the Supreme Consciousness hides from itself through its own veiling power, and then liberates itself through seeing itself as it really is, is described in 36 steps.....

You continue...

I have, actually. It encompasses all that exists, including your mind. Your mind can be the metamind. That is what happens during 'mystical Union'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, this tells me nothing. So the Meta-Mind encompasses all that exists. How do you go from this to the claim that it is, in fact, a "mind".That is, how do you conclude that it is capable of dreaming up a reality? All you are doing is assuming that reality is a dream in some mind.

Yes, I am pointing out that a relationship between mind and matter as described here provides a means whereby mind can create the illusion of matter, by contrast to the materialists who just flap around in a quagmire of logical backwardness.

This tells us nothing about how reality works, and certainly gives us no insight into the nature of that mind, or how it dreams up reality.

Doesn't it?

Not in a basic outline form like this it doesn't, but these answers are available to those who seek them. There is a whole world of literature and traditions that deal with these things. The fact that you and the other materialists write them off as meaningless even though you know little or nothing about them is your loss. But do not assume these things are not known. And don't expect me to ram them down your unwelcoming throat just to prove they exist.

Ah, yes.....anthropomorphism is the ultimate heresy....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not heresy. Just naive and silly.

If you say so.

No, we already agree that human minds have the ability to create the illusion of a material world. This bears absolutely no relevance to the question of whether reality is a dream in some Meta-Mind.

Doesn't it?

Your memory is short and selective, Stimp. We were discussing whether 'mind creates matter' or 'matter creates mind' makes more sense. We have now agreed that mind creates the illusion of matter when you dream, and that your perceptions of a material world when awake is also an illusion. You have a 2 and a 2. Why such a struggle to make 4?

And unlike your idealism, materialism provides a method for trying to figure out how human minds create dreams.

Your bottom line, as usual. Science can't use this hypothesis so I will reject it, even if materialism is illogical and idealism is the only basis of a TOE. How sad. Materialism turned into sciences sacred cow.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I have told you again and again that human minds are sub-divisions of the Metamind.

"There is only One Consciousness, and it is all that exists." (Shroedinger)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said before, this tells me nothing. You still need to explain how the Meta-Mind creates reality.

I offered you a book, Stimp....

Simply pointing out that human minds create the illusion of matter in dreams does not do this. All you have is an unsupported, and unsupportable, assertion.

I offered you a book, Stimp. You say you don't want it!

And all the Universe needs to do is store the information. You are just playing word games here. How is your Meta-Mind different than the Materialistic conception of the Universe?

It exists in an eternal present instead of an illusory linear time, and it is made of mind. Matter is mere information.

What additional characteristics does it have? And why do you think it has them?

It would take me 10 pages to answer that. One step at a time.

If that is all it is, then you just have Materialism. Your Meta-Mind is just the universe. What else do you claim about it, that makes it an actual mind, instead of just "all that exists"?

All that exists is a mind.

You still haven't told me what the Meta-Mind is!

It is ISNESS. It is all BEING. It is 'I' - every "I".

I believe its self-definition in the OT was "Tell them that I am sent you".

Don't bother sending me the book. I am not interested in pointless metaphysical speculation.

You are pretty desperate to go on being able to deride it as pointless, continually accuse me of not being able to define it, but when I offer to supply you with the information you claim does not exist you decline my offer.

 

[Guest]

The very notion of suggesting that we "feel a physical process" necessarily puts us in a dualistic position does it not ?

(edited because something I wrote didn't make sense!)

I'm begining to see the problem (perhaps )

Perhaps you are.....

Yes, "I feel a physical process" is the equivalent to "I can see a 650nm wavelength". But you do not see a wavelength. You see red.

The materialist view is advocating one realm. It says that the dualistic categories of qualia vs physical belong to one realm but instead of creating a philosophy that encompases both categories, it choses to retain the dualistic interpretation of physical reality and discards the qualia which leaves us with the hard problem.

Absolutely correct. I have said many times that materialism is effectively a denial that mental states even exist. Most materialists reject this although a few have been forced to claim the non-existence of qualia or that consciousness is an illusion. Those that reject it and subsequently attempt to provide a materialistic explanation of the relationship between brain processes and qualia always end up in a logical quagmire known as the hard problem. They have to state "qualia IS a brain process" although "IS" cannot mean "identical" (since they have completely different descriptions) and if "IS" does not mean "identical" then brain processes and qualia MUST differ but the materialist is logically prevented from providing an explanation as to the nature of the difference. Dualism simply accepts the difference but runs into the binding problem explaining how they interact. Which leaves platonistic idealism to suggest that the matter is made of mathematical information existing in the realm of 'Mind'.

 

[hammegk]

My point is that all your philosophy relies on nothing else than a belief. And this belief cannot be proved because its mental by nature.

Q

Er, Q, that's exactly what UCE has been saying.

What isn't "mental by nature". *I* think sure is.

 

[Q-Source]

Er, Q, that's exactly what UCE has been saying.

Yeah. What I was trying to say is that he holds that position but at the same time he wants to give the impression that is not based on a mere unsupported belief.

To me, this is the easiest answer to the Hard Question

UCE:
if the Universe is really made of 'Mind' then claiming that your mind is part of the Universe poses not the slightest problem at all!

Of course

What isn't "mental by nature". *I* think sure is.

Everything outside our minds. *I* sure is mental.

 

[Guest]

Just to clarify :

Any understanding of metaphysics rests on a mixture of experience, intuition and belief (and logic of course), neccesarily so because we are talking about the realm of the subjective. But the basic root tenet that consicousness is the true root of reality I believe to be logically inevitable, and indeed it was not until I fully accepted and felt I had publicly demonstrated its logical inevitablility did anything really change for me. I felt I had proved this to myself, and I believe that this certainty was required for further progress. Maybe for others faith alone suffices to get them through the conceptual door, but it wasn't enough for me. That is how I see it, anyhow.

 

[Jethro]

Well, call me a silly materialist, but I still fail to see why conciousness and awareness cannot be emergent properties of physical systems.

The physical state of the brain most certainly affects one's mental state. Anyone who has ever sustained a brain injury, hallucinated while suffering from a fever, taken a psychotropic drug, experienced TMS, or even dated a woman for more than a month can verify that. Well, if the "mind" is so influenced by the purely physical, why cannot it be purely physical?

So, what about the universe resulting from conciousness? Well, I am a concious being. I observe the universe. I also apparantly observe other concious beings. From what I can gather, these concious beings observe pretty much the same universe that I do. Well, if the universe is a product of the mind, why have all our minds come up with pretty much the same thing? Not to mention the fact that said universe contains evidence that it has existed independently of our conciousnesses. If it is because, as I think you say, we all share the same conciousness, why is there no evidence for this shared conciousness? Surely if we did share conciousness things like ESP and remote viewing would have claimed the million dollars by now?

Well, if the physical universe appears to exist independently of conciousness, and conciousness does NOT appear to exist independently of the physical universe, that would indicate to me that the conciousness is part of the physical universe, not the other way around.

 

[Guest]

Well, call me a silly materialist, but I still fail to see why conciousness and awareness cannot be emergent properties of physical systems.

You're a silly materialist....

The physical state of the brain most certainly affects one's mental state. Anyone who has ever sustained a brain injury, hallucinated while suffering from a fever, taken a psychotropic drug, experienced TMS, or even dated a woman for more than a month can verify that. Well, if the "mind" is so influenced by the purely physical, why cannot it be purely physical?

You've read this thread and you're asking me that?

You might think of it like two sides of a coin - bend one of them and the other bends with it - but there are still two sides to the coin....

So, what about the universe resulting from conciousness? Well, I am a concious being. I observe the universe. I also apparantly observe other concious beings.

Which means we can agree to dispense with solipsism (for humans).

From what I can gather, these concious beings observe pretty much the same universe that I do. Well, if the universe is a product of the mind, why have all our minds come up with pretty much the same thing?

Nobody is contesting that we share the same perceived objective reality. We are talking about how it exists.

Not to mention the fact that said universe contains evidence that it has existed independently of our conciousnesses.

That depends upon your conception of time. From the piint of view of consciousness it is always "now", always has been and always will be.

If it is because, as I think you say, we all share the same conciousness, why is there no evidence for this shared conciousness?

Many people argue that there is, and it has been ignored. e.g. the "hundredth monkey effect", not that I want to take the thread off-topic. The proof is logical, not experimental.

Surely if we did share conciousness things like ESP and remote viewing would have claimed the million dollars by now?

It isn't that simple......

Well, if the physical universe appears to exist independently of conciousness, and conciousness does NOT appear to exist independently of the physical universe, that would indicate to me that the conciousness is part of the physical universe, not the other way around.

Things aren't always the way they seem. Understanding the relationships between time, matter, consciousness, past, future and present can reveal more than one way of looking at it.

 

[Valmorian]

Many people argue that there is, and it has been ignored. e.g. the "hundredth monkey effect", not that I want to take the thread off-topic. The proof is logical, not experimental.

As you said, not to take this off topic, but it should be pointed out that the so-called "hundredth monkey" effect is based upon a lie:

There's some information about it here:
http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html

There MAY be some sort of shared consciousness, but the hundredth monkey 'phenomenon' is not good evidence to support it.

 

[Jethro]

You're a silly materialist....

Nobody is contesting that we share the same perceived objective reality. We are talking about how it exists.

Right, and I (and many others) would argue that it exists as an independent objective reality independent of any conciousness observing it.

That depends upon your conception of time. From the piint of view of consciousness it is always "now", always has been and always will be.

Okay, but surely you would agree that there is evidence, even just in the form of one's own memories, that something other than now exists. We call this something "the past," and there is a great deal of evidence that at some point in the past, the universe existed and human conciousness as we know it did not. Not to mention the fact that, in the macroscopic world anyway, things appear to exist independent of their being observed.

Many people argue that there is, and it has been ignored. e.g. the "hundredth monkey effect",

You are aware that the hundredth monkey effect is a myth? e:f,b. But anyway, as you said, let's keep this on topic. Perhaps then a new thread or links to old ones that contain such evidence?

not that I want to take the thread off-topic. The proof is logical, not experimental.

Link to said proof?

It isn't that simple......

okey.

Things aren't always the way they seem. Understanding the relationships between time, matter, consciousness, past, future and present can reveal more than one way of looking at it.

Well, one way I would describe materialism is the assumption that things are as they seem, more or less.

 

[Interesting Ian]

As you said, not to take this off topic, but it should be pointed out that the so-called "hundredth monkey" effect is based upon a lie:

There's some information about it here:
http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html

There MAY be some sort of shared consciousness, but the hundredth monkey 'phenomenon' is not good evidence to support it. [/B]

Gosh! Oh well! So much for the hundredth monkey phenomenon! One would be ill-advised to question what Skep Dick asserts!

 

[Jethro]

Gosh! Oh well! So much for the hundredth monkey phenomenon! One would be ill-advised to question what Skep Dick asserts!

Since I am fairly certain that's sarcasm I smell, perhaps another source:

* We were just informed that Ken Keyes, Jr. in the early 1970's, after reading Joe Campbell's works extensively, decided to see how far this story he developed, would evolve. It's a story that he made up; however, isn't this really how things work. We can learn from this story's metaphor about what needs to happen in order for a community to change.

More sources to follow as I find them, if necessary.

Okay, here's a good one:

Confronted with this information, myth creator Watson responded with a monkey mea culpa (Whole Earth Review, Fall 1986): "It is a metaphor of my own making, based . . . on very slim evidence and a great deal of hearsay."

But anyway, howabout some linkages to real evidence and/or that logical proof that UCE mentioned? I apologize for my neediness, but the JREF forums are not my usual hangout.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Since I am fairly certain that's sarcasm I smell, perhaps another source:
More sources to follow as I find them, if necessary.

I never said I believed in the hundredth monkey phenomenon. But one would be ill-advised not to believe in it because of Robert Todd Carroll say so. He's as thick as f*ck and a liar to boot.

But by all means supply more sources.