Materialism

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Whilst mental monism solves the philosophical mind-body problem at a stroke, it nonetheless encounters substantial technical problems, because it must give an explanatory account of the structure and function of the natural world, including the mind itself.

It seems to say that the mind/body problem is solved, then goes on to say that there are still problems explaining how the body (and the rest of the natural world) are constructed by the mind. Doesn't sound solved to me.

In other words, we replaced "how does the body produce the mind?" with "how does the mind produce the body?" We be getting nowhere fast.

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

It seems to say that the mind/body problem is solved, then goes on to say that there are still problems explaining how the body (and the rest of the natural world) are constructed by the mind. Doesn't sound solved to me.

In other words, we replaced "how does the body produce the mind?" with "how does the mind produce the body?" We be getting nowhere fast.

~~ Paul

Not quite true. The first problem is completely unsolvable - it is logicaly unsolvable. The second problem is just difficult, not logically impossible. Minds turn information into something which appears to us as matter. We are left with questions about the role of that part of the physical world we call the brain gives rise to analytical thought. It is the analytical bit of it the 'brain' provides - not the Beingness part of it, if you follow.

 

[Guest]

Stimpson

That doesn't change the fact that your philosophy is ultimately solipsistic. Science requires the rejection of solipsism. Simply hiding it under a layer of abstraction is not sufficient.

I don't see why this is true. I don't see how it makes any difference to science provided solipsism isn't true for you.

Which is irrelevant, since interpretation of QM is not science, and not a part of Quantum Theory. You therefore cannot claim that Quantum Theory supports your beliefs. And either way, whoever wrote that page you linked to was simply dead wrong.

Well....I think that is a matter of opinion and I am going to leave it at that.

Irrelevant. The problem with Solipsism, with respect to science, is that science requires that reality be something external to our perceptions, rather than the perceptions themselves. The specific differences between your philosophy and classical solipsism don't make any difference.

They do if the same objective reality is shared between us, but I've already explained this.....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, instead you are proposing that we are all, in fact, the same person
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not 'person'. All our consciousness are part of the same Consciousness. We are different people. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Individuality is our right as humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is just semantics.

I couldn't disagree more. It is a very important philosophical point because it is the basis of Humanism. My right to be an individual is very important to me, and to you.

You, on the other hand, hold that your perceptions are a dream in some mind. On what basis do you then conclude that other people have conscious minds? You can't conclude it from your observations, because you have already assumed that your observations are an illusion......

I think I've already demonstrated with it isn't an assumption, and I am happy to allow others to decide for themselves whether that claim stands up.

Why conclude that those other people have minds just like yours, which are all part of the same metamind? Why not just conclude that your own mind is the only one in the metamind, and that you just dreamed up the other ones to keep you company?

Because I would go mad very quickly.

See my previous explanation of why this does not work. How do you draw the line?

Exactly the same place you draw the line now, Stimp. The scientific method remains unchanged.

Anyway, the above is a non-statement, since saying that it is describable by materialism is equivalent to saying that it is describable by science. The question is, how do you decide whether it is or not?

I don't understand the problem. If you cannot design an objective test for something (e.g. detecting internal consciousness in somebody else) then it is de facto not a scientific question.

Are you saying that any phenomena which we are able to describe with science falls into the category of physical, and only those which cannot don't? If so, then this is just a God of the gaps type argument. What makes you think that anything at all lies in the second set?

Logic, experience and history.

What are you talking about? Certainly there is a difference between the real World, and the abstract mathematical description of it. But I do not think that there is any distinction between our so-called "internal realm", and the objective reality that is described by science. On the contrary, I think that my "internal realm" is simply a part of objective reality.

I know you believe that. I am beyond the point were I can be bothered to go on demonstrating to you why this doesn't make sense. Enough other people here understand why.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot use science to determine which phenomena are subject to science, because to do so would be to assume a-priori that science can be applied to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, so you use philosophy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How? What is your method for making the decision? How do you verify that the decision you have made is correct?

Logic, experience and intuition.

Even if, as you believe, there are parts of reality that science cannot describe (the supernatural), that doesn't mean that you can describe them some other way. If science is the only reliable method for describing reality, then any parts of reality that science cannot describe, simply cannot be described.

This amounts to a rejection of all non-positivistic philosophy. In terms of the history of philosophy this view is indeed history.

OK, let's forget the whole solipsism thing, and just focus on this point. Like a materialist, you assume that reality obeys logical rules, and that we all experience that reality in some way.

The pertinent questions are:

1) Why make the additional assumptions about a metamind, or about our minds all being a part of it? Why not simply assume that this reality exists, and then rely on science to tell us about it?

Because there is a philosophical logical problem claiming that 1st-person consciousness arises from matter. Everything logically follows from the Hard Problem and its solution. The first step has to be an acceptance that the Hard Problem is real, an understanding of the true nature of the problem and subsequently the realisiation of what the answer must be.

2) Since you posit the existence of stuff that cannot be described by science, what method do you propose for describing it, and determining which stuff is describable by science and which isn't? Remember that in order to be useful, there must be some form of verification built in.

You are still defending the use of scientific standards in philosophy. Philosophy isn't any use if you do that because it just leads to logical positivism which is stale, sterile and widely rejected because of this.

I am confused. Are you saying that we should believe this stuff, even though there is no evidence to support it, because you think it will bring people together, and make them more comfortable with reality?

The evidence is logical, not experimental, and a growing number of people know that is watertight. It has nothing to do with belief.

Aren't you aware that the majority of religious people would consider the beliefs you have presented to be every bit as heretical as atheism? Indeed, many would say that it is worse than atheism.

That comes from a heavily Christian-influenced viewpoint. Yes, many Christians and Muslims would probabaly consider it heretical. The majority of the others would be likely to accept it, and I believe that in time Christianity and Islam would find it less unpalatable than atheism.

And since what you are offering is just another religion, what makes you think that it is going to be any more successful than any other in bringing people together?

Because it is compatible with all of them.

 

[Guest]

RE :

"Compatible with all of them."

Beyond all the arguments about logical vs experimental proof of ontological claims I think the real issues here isn't the ontology itself but the wider implication. I found an article which probably illustrates what I mean. At the end of the day I think that Humanism is the yardstick by which we must protect our freedoms rather than a desire to protect sciences claim to be able to deliver the truths about consciousness and existence.


The Quiet Exodus: Where Have All The Humanists Gone?

I am optimistic enough to believe that Humanism, Mysticism and science can all co-exist. The article refers to Aldous Huxley and I think he is a good example of someone who shared this view, and tried to communicate it. I thoroughly recomend "Island" to anyone who is interested in his verdict.

Anyway - this is why I don't think it is appropriate to take the ontological and metaphysical arguments any further here. Much more needs to be taken into account, particularly of the historical reasons why we are where we find ourselves now. The bottom line is that I feel that my philosophical position is imposed upon me by logic, but that the reality that I am a human being imposes upon me the neccesity to be a humanist, and to defend humanism. The dynamics between these differing forces are hard to resolve. Maybe Schopenhauer expressed the reality of the situation most clearly and accessibly. He accepted the ontological neccesity of idealism but he also accepted human nature.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

The first problem is completely unsolvable - it is logicaly unsolvable.

Wow! Why is it logically impossible that the mind is a product of the brain?

~~ Paul

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

That doesn't change the fact that your philosophy is ultimately solipsistic. Science requires the rejection of solipsism. Simply hiding it under a layer of abstraction is not sufficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see why this is true. I don't see how it makes any difference to science provided solipsism isn't true for you.

Because it makes absolutely no sense to say that solipsism isn't true for me, but that it is true for the metamind, and then to turn around and say that I am the metamind.

If my mind exists independently of the metamind, then solipsism isn't true for the metamind. If it does not, then it is meaningless to say that solipsism is true for the metamind, but not for me.

Essentially, all you are saying is that solipsism is, in fact, true, and that the fact that it doesn't seem to be true to me, is just an illusion.

With respect to science, this amounts to saying that the axioms of science are really false, but just seem to be true to me. As I pointed out before, such a position is either meaningless, or false. If reality truly behaves in such a way as to completely indistinguishable from the physical reality posited by science, then it is meaningless to say that it is not. And if it does not, if as you have claimed, there are phenomena that effect the physical World, but are not subject to science, then science is invalid.

Which is irrelevant, since interpretation of QM is not science, and not a part of Quantum Theory. You therefore cannot claim that Quantum Theory supports your beliefs. And either way, whoever wrote that page you linked to was simply dead wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well....I think that is a matter of opinion and I am going to leave it at that.

You can tell yourself it is a matter of opinion, but it clearly is not. Even those scientists whose names you are constantly tossing around in your appeals to authority, would tell you that it is a philosophical interpretation of QM, and not actual science.

Irrelevant. The problem with Solipsism, with respect to science, is that science requires that reality be something external to our perceptions, rather than the perceptions themselves. The specific differences between your philosophy and classical solipsism don't make any difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They do if the same objective reality is shared between us, but I've already explained this.....

But you have already claimed that there is no "us". That we are all the same metamind, and that our individuality is an illusion. In other words, you are claiming that reality is not objective, but rather that it just seems to be.

Not 'person'. All our consciousness are part of the same Consciousness. We are different people. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Individuality is our right as humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just semantics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't disagree more. It is a very important philosophical point because it is the basis of Humanism.

Please don't drag Humanism into you confused religion. I am a Humanist, and I can assure you the you metamind fantasies play no role in it whatsoever. If you need a metaphysical crutch to assure you that Humanism is correct, that's fine. But don't try to pretend that it is a necessary component.

My right to be an individual is very important to me, and to you.

Careful there, UCE. One might get the impression that the only reason you believe in individuality is because you want it to be true.

You, on the other hand, hold that your perceptions are a dream in some mind. On what basis do you then conclude that other people have conscious minds? You can't conclude it from your observations, because you have already assumed that your observations are an illusion......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I've already demonstrated with it isn't an assumption, and I am happy to allow others to decide for themselves whether that claim stands up.

I certainly don't remember such a demonstration. In fact, I don't recall you ever providing a demonstration of any of the metaphysical claims you have been making. All I have seen is assertions.

Why conclude that those other people have minds just like yours, which are all part of the same metamind? Why not just conclude that your own mind is the only one in the metamind, and that you just dreamed up the other ones to keep you company?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I would go mad very quickly.

And this is relevant how? Did you have a logical reason, or did you just decide to believe it because otherwise you would get lonely? In other words, do you just believe it because you want it to be true, or do you actually have a logical reason?

See my previous explanation of why this does not work. How do you draw the line?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly the same place you draw the line now, Stimp.

Obviously not, given that you draw the line on one side of phenomenal consciousness, and I draw it on the other.

The scientific method remains unchanged.

Not if you posit the existence of supernatural phenomena, it doesn't.

Anyway, the above is a non-statement, since saying that it is describable by materialism is equivalent to saying that it is describable by science. The question is, how do you decide whether it is or not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand the problem. If you cannot design an objective test for something (e.g. detecting internal consciousness in somebody else) then it is de facto not a scientific question.

I would tend to agree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in such a case, there would not be any logical reason to believe that it exists at all. Fortunately, this isn't the case for consciousness.

Are you saying that any phenomena which we are able to describe with science falls into the category of physical, and only those which cannot don't? If so, then this is just a God of the gaps type argument. What makes you think that anything at all lies in the second set?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logic, experience and history.

Could you please be a little more vague.

How? What is your method for making the decision? How do you verify that the decision you have made is correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logic, experience and intuition.

Ditto.

Even if, as you believe, there are parts of reality that science cannot describe (the supernatural), that doesn't mean that you can describe them some other way. If science is the only reliable method for describing reality, then any parts of reality that science cannot describe, simply cannot be described.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This amounts to a rejection of all non-positivistic philosophy. In terms of the history of philosophy this view is indeed history.

It is easy to disprove. Just provide an alternative method for providing verifiable reliable explanations for real phenomena.

1) Why make the additional assumptions about a metamind, or about our minds all being a part of it? Why not simply assume that this reality exists, and then rely on science to tell us about it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because there is a philosophical logical problem claiming that 1st-person consciousness arises from matter. Everything logically follows from the Hard Problem and its solution. The first step has to be an acceptance that the Hard Problem is real, an understanding of the true nature of the problem and subsequently the realisiation of what the answer must be.

I cannot accept that the Hard Problem as a real problem, because I am not a dualist. Under Materialism, there is no Hard Problem.

You are essentially claiming that materialism is false, by taking a nonsensical version of dualism, calling it materialism, and then showing that it makes no sense.

2) Since you posit the existence of stuff that cannot be described by science, what method do you propose for describing it, and determining which stuff is describable by science and which isn't? Remember that in order to be useful, there must be some form of verification built in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are still defending the use of scientific standards in philosophy. Philosophy isn't any use if you do that because it just leads to logical positivism which is stale, sterile and widely rejected because of this.

I defend the scientific standards because they are the only standards that give reliable results. I could give a rats ass that positivism is widely rejected, or that it is considered stale. It is logically coherent, which is big step above any philosophy based on the incoherent concept of ontology.

I am confused. Are you saying that we should believe this stuff, even though there is no evidence to support it, because you think it will bring people together, and make them more comfortable with reality?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence is logical, not experimental, and a growing number of people know that is watertight. It has nothing to do with belief.

It isn't logical, or experimental? What the Hell is it? Oh, I know, it is imaginary!

You've lost touch with reality and slipped off into la-la land.

And since what you are offering is just another religion, what makes you think that it is going to be any more successful than any other in bringing people together?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because it is compatible with all of them.

That statement shows a truly profound lack of understanding of what the majority of the followers of those religions actually believe.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

UcE said:
Wow! Why is it logically impossible that the mind is a product of the brain?

~~ Paul

I think we have been here before, Paul. IMO, anyone who thinks that claim has not been sufficiently defended here wasn't watching. I have no intention of defending it yet again. There's no point.


Stimpson :

I'm not sure there is any point in my continuing to discuss this with you either. If you want to understand idealistic metaphysics then I'm not stopping you, but if you can't accept any means of understanding anything apart from hard science then we have reached an impasse. I have explained what I think is wrong with your position, and you just repeat it.

edited :

Logical positivism is so widely discredited now that I do not feel the need to argue against it.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Logical positivism is so widely discredited now that I do not feel the need to argue against it.

First, the discredit of LP is not so wide as you'd like it to be and it is only referred to the linguistic aspects of the doctrine. BUT the bits that remaind current and never discredited are summarized in this quote of Schlick:

"When are we sure that the meaning of a question is clear? Obviously if and only if we are able to exactly describe the conditions in which it is possible to answer yes, or, respectively, the conditions in which it is necessary to answer with a no. The meaning of a question is thus defined only through the specification of those conditions...
The definition of the circumstances under which a statement is true is perfectly equivalent to the definition of its meaning.
... a statement has a meaning if and only if the fact that it is true makes a verifiable difference. "

And that part is wich renders many of your points meaningless.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

I think we have been here before, Paul. IMO, anyone who thinks that claim has not been sufficiently defended here wasn't watching. I have no intention of defending it yet again. There's no point.

Can you summarize the argument in a short paragraph, for those of us who can't keep all this in our heads and walk a straight line at the same time?

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

UcE said:
Can you summarize the argument in a short paragraph, for those of us who can't keep all this in our heads and walk a straight line at the same time?

~~ Paul

The argument has been re-arranged in may different ways - the knowledge argument, Chalmers Hard Problem, Schroedingers cat, the "What is the mind/body problem" paper, the "what is it like to be a bat" paper. We've been through all this. Basically, all forms of dualism lead to the binding problem which leaves us to choose between the proposal that mind gives rise to the illusion of matter or that matter gives rise to the illusion of mind. If you choose the latter then you are left with all the above-mentioned problems, which are all manifestations of the same problem : namely that materialism posits that the matter is real, yet it is the qualia which we actually KNOW is real. So materialism is challenged with bridging an unbridgeable chasm between 3rd-person and 1st-person whereas mentalism simply affirms what is actually perceived to be the case - i.e. that ultimately existence is mental and not physical. There is no way to disguise the fact that materialism cannot bridge this gap. Any debate about the relationship between 3rd-person brain processes and 1st person qualia always ends up with the materialist being unable to even provide definitions which allow a proper analysis of the problem - they define the problem out of existence, and claim that this means that it isn't a problem. Attempts to defend materialism from logical arguments against it which are derived from the fact that observed reality is non-physical always result in the materialist trying to equate brain processes and qualia - they are somehow "the same" AND "different" simultaneously. This is unavoidable because materialism somehow has to cope with the fact that it is itself monistic but perceived reality is either dualistic or idealistic. There is a fundamental problem here. I think the answer to the problem is hard to see because we have set up a false absolute distinction between these three ontologies. I think that understanding the situation depends in figuring out not whether mentalism, materialism or dualism are 'correct' but how they relate to each other. In their own ways all three have elements of 'correctness'.

Maybe part of the answer is to do with time. If you look at the Universe from the perspective of a linear time which 'flows' past us then materialism is the correct model (apart from the fact the 'we' seem to be missing from it). If instead you look from the perspective of an ever-present NOW then mentalism is the correct model. Physics needs the materialistic model in order to function. But it is mentalism which represents our true predicament in reality - for us it is always NOW, and the world we actually experience is a mental one which contains a physical one. Only in our abstract materialistic models does the physical one contain the mental one, and it does so because the founding assumptions of that materialistic model dictate that this be true.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You said that it is logically impossible that mind follows from brain. Can you present the logical argument? That's the part I seem to be missing.

You say "Basically, all forms of dualism lead to the binding problem which leaves us to choose between the proposal that mind gives rise to the illusion of matter or that matter gives rise to the illusion of mind." Okay, fine, so let's reject dualism and be done with it.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

... Okay, fine, so let's reject dualism and be done with it.

~~ Paul

Who already hasn't, other than (maybe?) Win?

The choice is which brand of monism is most logical. I have one data point -- mental -- *I* think.

Tell us again when science will answer the alternative : "matter makes consciousness" ? Or even "how"?

(sometime after answering how it "makes life", of course.... )

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk, now I'm thoroughly confused. If we've all rejected dualism, then why are we going on and on about the mind/body problem? In particular, why did UcE say this:

Basically, all forms of dualism lead to the binding problem which leaves us to choose between the proposal that mind gives rise to the illusion of matter or that matter gives rise to the illusion of mind. If you choose the latter then you are left with all the above-mentioned problems, which are all manifestations of the same problem : namely that materialism posits that the matter is real, yet it is the qualia which we actually KNOW is real.

I'm not sure why you're any more convinced that "I think" than that "I'm a computer programmed to think." Nor do I see why that's more fundamental than "I can bang my head against a wall."

You make it sound as if answering "how does matter make consciousness" is significantly harder than answering "how does mind make matter?" If you think it is, I fear you have a step in the latter derivation that goes something like "then a miracle occurs."

And I still don't know why it's logically impossible for brain to make mind.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

First, the discredit of LP is not so wide as you'd like it to be and it is only referred to the linguistic aspects of the doctrine. BUT the bits that remaind current and never discredited are summarized in this quote of Schlick:

"When are we sure that the meaning of a question is clear? Obviously if and only if we are able to exactly describe the conditions in which it is possible to answer yes, or, respectively, the conditions in which it is necessary to answer with a no.

Why??

 

[Guest]

You said that it is logically impossible that mind follows from brain. Can you present the logical argument? That's the part I seem to be missing.

This is a "can't see the wood for the trees" situation. Maybe the reason some people can't see the problem is because it is so simple. You are very familiar with the 'logical argument' - I gave you a list of several, all of which we have been through before. My last post was a simple explanation of how all of those logical arguments work.

You say "Basically, all forms of dualism lead to the binding problem which leaves us to choose between the proposal that mind gives rise to the illusion of matter or that matter gives rise to the illusion of mind." Okay, fine, so let's reject dualism and be done with it.

I was never trying to defend dualism. I'm not a dualist.

I'm not sure why you're any more convinced that "I think" than that "I'm a computer programmed to think." Nor do I see why that's more fundamental than "I can bang my head against a wall."

Well, for a start "I think" is misleading because 'thought' can be used to me the analytical part of the process rather than the Beingness of the process. A simple "I am" sums it up better. The analogy with the computer doesn't really work since we cannot ever determine whether a computer can be conscious. It might be able to carry out an analytical process but we can't state that it is aware of that process. So your question boils down to "Why is I think more fundamental than I can bang my head against a wall?" The answer is an obvious one. Even the experience of your banging your head against the wall comes to you in the form of a mental experience - from the visual image of the wall to the pain in your head it is all just qualia. You experience the qualia, not the wall itself.

You make it sound as if answering "how does matter make consciousness" is significantly harder than answering "how does mind make matter?" If you think it is, I fear you have a step in the latter derivation that goes something like "then a miracle occurs."

The reverse is true. The first is not "significantly" harder than the second. The former is impossible and the latter is effortless. All the problems with the latter are psychological ones - no different to the the flat-earthers not being able to understand why the Earth must be round. If you think about it it was always obvious that the Earth was round, and should have been so to every person who ever saw a ship disappear over an horizon. But they were accustomed to thinking about the Earth as flat and they could not re-arrange their concepts to cope with a round Earth, regardless of the fact that to you and I it is a self-evident fact. The reality you experience is mental. It is the only 'reality' you will ever know. The material world you think you see is only ever known to you via qualia. Every night when you dream your mind takes 'information' and turns it into the experience of a physical world. We already know that minds do this. Yet for materialism to be true we must somehow conclude that this phenomenal world which is the only world we ever know does not actually exist. For materialism to be true the physical world must be real and the mental world must be an illusion, even though we already know that the mental world has the innate capacity to create illusions of a material world and even though we already know that several different logical arguments have been supplied as to why it is logically impossible for this process to work the other way around. As somebody already said in this thread : "Materialism is in a state of denial". It claims that which we directly know to be real to be 'actually' an illusion and that which we know to be an illusion to be 'actually' real. Because of this 'upside-down assumption' we are left with a whole host of inpenetrable mysteries like non-locality, Schroedingers cat and the Hard Problem. Turn your assumptions the "right way up" and suddenly all three of these 'mysteries' immediately make sense. The practical problem is that all of the logical arguments in the world, and all of the pointing to ships on a horizon, seem to make no difference to a person who has already decided that their materialistic/flat-Earth concept of the world must be defended.

 

[Jethro]

If conciousness comes before matter, then why does one's mental state depend on the physical state of the brain?

 

[Guest]

If conciousness comes before matter, then why does one's mental state depend on the physical state of the brain?

The content of a human mind is clearly dependent on the physical state of the brain, at least partially. The debate isn't about the content but about the awareness of the content. This is what the Philosophical-zombie formulation of the argument is about. Materialism can only provide evidence that there is a close correlation between the brain state and the subjective experience - it's fatal problem is explaining why the subjective experience exists at all. To understand the situation you need to think carefully about the relationship between what you call "I" and what you call "what I am experiencing". This is all meaningless to the materialist because he is unable even to provide usable definitions to work from - for the materialist the brain state IS the mental state, even though this statement makes no apparent sense. The materiaist is forced to argue that the P-zombie is an incomprehensible thing which cannot exist - seemingly unaware that the only reason it is incomprehensible to him is because he has assumed a metaphysic that does not even recognise the difference between subjective and objective. Some materialists even start arguing that 'somehow' the subjective realm 'must be' a subset of the objective realm. He can't explain how or why - he just insists that it "must be so". The only reason it "must be so" is that the alternative is that materialism is false. There are a whole collection of different logical arguments against materialism, and the materialist rebuttals always consist of :

1) Assuming materialism is true.
2) Re-defining the problem under materialistic terms instead of the terms that actually describe reality provided in the argument.
3) Claiming 'the problem doesn't exist if you assume materialism."
4) Demanding that proof be supplied as to why it is unacceptable to start your rebuttal with an assumption of the conclusion.

edited :

5) When it is explained that assuming your conclusion is not acceptable the materialist will then try to claim that the anti-materialist has done the same thing - that he has "assumed" that materialism is false at the start of his argument. But this is not true because the logical arguments against materialism always start with the observation that subjective consciousness does indeed exist and contains "things" which aren't objectively describable (qualia). So the mentalist/dualist has assumed nothing at all. He starts what he directly knows to exist exists - he starts with the mental reality which is the very thing which are ultimately trying to explain the existence of.

What it boils down to is that the reality we are ultimately trying to explain the existence of is a mental reality but that the only model which allows science to provide an answer is a model of a physical reality. Therefore accepting the glaringly obvious truth that reality is actually mental implies acceptance that materialistic science cannot fully explain consciousness. Most materialists find this impossible to accept and point blank refuse to do so.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE, I cannot for the life of me understand your position. You say you are not a dualist, but then you go on and on about the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem only exists if we accept dualism.

Science cannot yet explain consciousness, but I see no logical reason why it can't continue on the road to an explanation. All this talk does not appear to include a logical proof that the road is a dead end. If there is such a proof, could you simply give me a link to it?

Sure, it is "effortless" to explain our experiences as originating from a global mind, but only if you're satisfied with an explanation such as "well, it's obvious how it works." I see no way to improve the explanation beyond this hand waving.

Even the experience of your banging your head against the wall comes to you in the form of a mental experience

Yes, the experience is an experience, by definition. But the actual banging is real and I see no reason why it can't be the fundamental reality, rather than the mental model of it.

For materialism to be true the physical world must be real and the mental world must be an illusion, even though we already know that the mental world has the innate capacity to create illusions of a material world and even though we already know that several different logical arguments have been supplied as to why it is logically impossible for this process to work the other way around.

The fact that we have dreams is not evidence that the real world is a product of them, particularly since you can't find someone who has "realistic" dreams without having first experienced the real world. (If you could, that would be significant.) I think it's telling that the "reality" in most dreams is illogicial, inconsistent, and impossible.

Now, could you pick the best logical argument and give me a link?

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

Paul :

UcE, I cannot for the life of me understand your position. You say you are not a dualist, but then you go on and on about the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem only exists if we accept dualism.

The Hard Problem exists so long as you accept that reality appears to be dualistic. Maybe you could describe me as a pseudo-dualist. The physical world is a reality maintained by the Metamind. Your mind is also derived from the Metamind, but not in the same way that the physical world is. Therefore ultimately mental monism is correct, but there is a dualistic nature to the way reality works.

Science cannot yet explain consciousness, but I see no logical reason why it can't continue on the road to an explanation.
All this talk does not appear to include a logical proof that the road is a dead end. If there is such a proof, could you simply give me a link to it?

You have seen several proofs before, Paul. I'm not going back to them again.

Sure, it is "effortless" to explain our experiences as originating from a global mind, but only if you're satisfied with an explanation such as "well, it's obvious how it works." I see no way to improve the explanation beyond this hand waving.

The perhaps you should read some Hegel or some Berkeley or some Schopenhauer or some Ken Wilber or some Robert Anton Wilson.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the experience of your banging your head against the wall comes to you in the form of a mental experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, the experience is an experience, by definition. But the actual banging is real and I see no reason why it can't be the fundamental reality, rather than the mental model of it.

The reality you know of, and are trying to explain is a mental experience. It is as much a mental experience as your thoughts are. It is physics, matter, space and time which are THE MODEL. These things are abstract concepts invented by humans to describe the behaviour of their mental experiences. We already know which one of these things is a model and which is the thing being modelled. And yet you are telling me you see no reason why the thing which is actually a model can't be that which is real, and you see no reason why the thing we are ultimately modelling can't be the model!

The existential situation :

The only reality YOU KNOW is mental, and there exists an abstract mathematical MODEL called materialism/physics which we have created to describe the behaviour of that mental reality.

The materialist claim :

The materialist claim is that the abstract mathematical MODEL is actually the fundamental reality and the only reality WE KNOW EXISTS is in fact 'a model'.

Somebody has got the model and the reality mixed up. Who do you think it is?

The fact that we have dreams is not evidence that the real world is a product of them, particularly since you can't find someone who has "realistic" dreams without having first experienced the real world.

Not true. The British Home Secretary was blind from birth but claims to have no problem imagining what the world looks like. And I am not claiming that the world is a product of your dreams - I am merely observing that one of the things we know our minds are capable of is creating the illusion of a physical world out of information.

Now, could you pick the best logical argument and give me a link?

I'd rather not. I think we have been there and I know what the materialist 'rebuttals' will be.

Perhaps you can answer me this :

Given that our true existential situation is that the only reality we know is mental and that physics/matter is quite definately an abstract model we have created, how do you justify your claim that "there is no reason not to believe that physics/matter is the true reality and the mental realm is a model."

The reason is that this prima facie the opposite of the situation we find ourselves in. I do not understand why the burden of proof is on me to provide evidence to you as to why you should not assume something which is the diametric reverse of what appears to be true.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

UcE, I cannot for the life of me understand your position. You say you are not a dualist, but then you go on and on about the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem only exists if we accept dualism.

Science cannot yet explain consciousness, but I see no logical reason why it can't continue on the road to an explanation. All this talk does not appear to include a logical proof that the road is a dead end. If there is such a proof, could you simply give me a link to it?

Steps again, because you must be an evil clone who really wasn't here for the argument that has been going on since I got here.:

HPC exists if we accept materialism.
Evidence suggests that perhaps materialism is not true.
UE offers alternative belief system.

Everyone on this board refuses to accept what UE says, disagrees with it out of obstinance, and refuses to allow their own belief systems to adapt.

I have no idea how he has the constitution to continue posting here. He must enjoy being frustrated.

Perhaps the so-called "materialists" should accept that their are problems with their belief systems (such as no free will) and modify them accordingly. No one says it's all or nothing. No one says you either have to have your physicalism or UE's idealism. But UE does say there are problems, and physicalism needs to deal with them.