Materialism

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

If we want to get to the answers, then our answer itself must somehow cope with the paradoxical nature of existence.

If you truly believe that the nature of existence is paradoxical, then you are fool for looking for an answer. No answer exists.

You cannot answer a question like "How does something come from nothing." without somehow including the paradox in your answer.

If it is a paradox, it has no answer. You are trying to answer questions that don't mean anything.

You have chosen to assume that the World is not a logically self-consistent thing, and in doing so, you have abandoned reason. I said before that this way lies madness.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Jethro]

Forget the deus-ex-machina. I am neither a deist or a theist or an anything-ist.

You misunderstand the term deus-ex-machina. In this case I'd say your INFINITY falls under definition 3.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Paul:



Memories are physical. The phenomenal experience of having a memory isn't physical.

Memories are physical??? What possible conceivable meaning could this assertion have?? A memory is a recollection of past events. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything physical!

I'm sorry Win, but I'm not going to agree with you simply because you're not a materialist. Materialists might automatically agree with each other. But sorry, I've got more integrity than that.

 

[Win]

Ian:

Memories are physical??? What possible conceivable meaning could this assertion have?? A memory is a recollection of past events. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything physical!

Well, your computer has a memory. It's physical. Similarly, you have a memory and it's physical. Your phenomenal experience of memory isn't.

I'm sorry Win, but I'm not going to agree with you simply because you're not a materialist. Materialists might automatically agree with each other. But sorry, I've got more integrity than that.

Don't think that you should, Ian. Agree with me 'cause I've convinced you, or not 'cause I haven't.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Memories are physical??? What possible conceivable meaning could this assertion have?? A memory is a recollection of past events. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything physical!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, your computer has a memory. It's physical. Similarly, you have a memory and it's physical. Your phenomenal experience of memory isn't.

We use the same word. But that doesn't mean to say it has the same meaning whatsoever. As I have insinuated, saying memory is physical is simply an abuse of the English language. Memory is an experience by the very definition of the word.

 

[Jethro]

Do you agree with the statement that memories are stored in physical form in certain locations in the brain? And if not, how do you explain the fact that brain damage can remove memories from access by our conciousness?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

I'm sorry Win, but I'm not going to agree with you simply because you're not a materialist. Materialists might automatically agree with each other. But sorry, I've got more integrity than that.

Your insinuation that materialists always agree with each other is demonstrated false in this very thread, where not long ago I was disagreeing with Paul, and agreeing with Win, on a point of this Mary discussion.

Materialists may agree on the big points, but we often disagree on the details. The same goes for any other group. Of course, often times these disagreements have more to do with different definitions of words, then with an actual difference of position, as was the case in my disagreement with Paul.

Likewise, I think this is the case with this memory issue. What Win is calling the memory is what you would call the physical correlate of the memory. Likewise, what you are calling the memory is what Win is calling the experience of the memory.

Neither one is an "abuse of the English language". The fact that you don't agree on the word usage is just a reflection of the fact that the English language is somewhat vague and ill-suited to such discussions. In order to have a logical discussion using the English language, it is necessary to provide specific definitions for the terms you use. The fact that you and Win have chosen different sets of definitions says nothing at all about the content of your arguments.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



Your insinuation that materialists always agree with each other is demonstrated false in this very thread, where not long ago I was disagreeing with Paul, and agreeing with Win, on a point of this Mary discussion.

Materialists may agree on the big points, but we often disagree on the details. The same goes for any other group. Of course, often times these disagreements have more to do with different definitions of words, then with an actual difference of position, as was the case in my disagreement with Paul.

But of course. People spend half their time arguing at cross purposes.

Likewise, I think this is the case with this memory issue. What Win is calling the memory is what you would call the physical correlate of the memory. Likewise, what you are calling the memory is what Win is calling the experience of the memory.

Yes.

Neither one is an "abuse of the English language". The fact that you don't agree on the word usage is just a reflection of the fact that the English language is somewhat vague and ill-suited to such discussions. In order to have a logical discussion using the English language, it is necessary to provide specific definitions for the terms you use. The fact that you and Win have chosen different sets of definitions says nothing at all about the content of your arguments.

I'll disagree with that last one. It is quite clear what the word memory means, and it doesn't mean information, or anything else physical. I would say that you are particularly guilty of not assigning the correct meaning to words. Indeed people have told me in paltalk that this is the reason why they do not read my posts when I get into arguments with people. Namely because it's all about arguing the meaning of words. I suspect they particularly had in mind my arguments with you. I find it quite remarkable that scientists (not just you but apparently all of them) fail to understand what words such as "evidence", "causality" and "memory" etc etc mean.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

I'll disagree with that last one. It is quite clear what the word memory means, and it doesn't mean information, or anything else physical.

Oh Ian, get real. Here's the first definition from Websters:

1 a : the power or process of reproducing or recalling what has been learned and retained especially through associative mechanisms b : the store of things learned and retained from an organism's activity or experience as evidenced by modification of structure or behavior or by recall and recognition

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll disagree with that last one. It is quite clear what the word memory means, and it doesn't mean information, or anything else physical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh Ian, get real. Here's the first definition from Websters:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 a : the power or process of reproducing or recalling what has been learned and retained especially through associative mechanisms b : the store of things learned and retained from an organism's activity or experience as evidenced by modification of structure or behavior or by recall and recognition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does that contradict my definition?? We normally need a mechanism to remember, sure. But if there is an afterlife, and we still have memories, perhaps we could have memories without any associative mechanisms. What do you think?

(or as Win would say, the phenomenal experience of memories without any associative mechanisms. )

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

How does that contradict my definition?? We normally need a mechanism to remember, sure. But if there is an afterlife, and we still have memories, perhaps we could have memories without any associative mechanisms. What do you think?

That's a nypothesis we could discuss, but it shouldn't taint the general definition of memory, which includes both the store and the process. If we want to be specific, we could say memory store and memory recall or some such.

I don't care who or what is having the memory, be they dead, alive, or in between: There has to be a store.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
That's a nypothesis we could discuss, but it shouldn't taint the general definition of memory, which includes both the store and the process. If we want to be specific, we could say memory store and memory recall or some such.

I don't care who or what is having the memory, be they dead, alive, or in between: There has to be a store.

~~ Paul

Why?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

Why?

Because the definition of memory recall is that it is recalling a stored memory. That's what memory means. If the experience consists of conjuring up an image from nothing, that is not memory recall, but hallucination.

You might propose that the ghost is recalling a memory stored somewhere other than a physical brain, but it has to be stored somewhere.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
Because the definition of memory recall is that it is recalling a stored memory. That's what memory means. If the experience consists of conjuring up an image from nothing, that is not memory recall, but hallucination.

You might propose that the ghost is recalling a memory stored somewhere other than a physical brain, but it has to be stored somewhere.

~~ Paul

Well you can define memory like that if you like. But the pertinent point is why can't it be a natural attribute of the soul, or essential self, that it is aware not of just present occurrences, but of everything that has ever happened? Moreover, maybe the brain "filters out" memories rather than storing them.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

Well you can define memory like that if you like. But the pertinent point is why can't it be a natural attribute of the soul, or essential self, that it is aware not of just present occurrences, but of everything that has ever happened? Moreover, maybe the brain "filters out" memories rather than storing them.

Sure, the memories could be stored in some kind of global matrix, but that is still a store. And my brain could be a complex addressing mechanism that finds "my memories" in the matrix. I think there is sufficient evidence that my memories are really stored in my brain, though, don't you?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
Sure, the memories could be stored in some kind of global matrix, but that is still a store. And my brain could be a complex addressing mechanism that finds "my memories" in the matrix. I think there is sufficient evidence that my memories are really stored in my brain, though, don't you?

~~ Paul

No, I don't think there is any evidence. And I still don't see anything wrong with the hypothesis that memory (or the phenomenological experience of memory if you prefer) is an intrinsic attribute of the essential self.

 

[hammegk]

You might propose that the ghost is recalling a memory stored somewhere other than a physical brain, but it has to be stored somewhere.

~~ Paul

Thanks, Paul.

What is the ??? that recalls the memory stored -- say in the brain?

An algorithm? Thinking about the physical changes needed to update the algorithm, what controls that? Don't you just keep postulating a new (in your case physical) control mechanism?

At the minimum we would arrive at dualism being a "possibility", but why not go the last step? I'm more & more certain the choice of mind rather than body is the most defendable as representing the "real world". Obviously, science says unequivocably that our old & current perceptions are very very very correct as to predictions of a future perception.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

No, I don't think there is any evidence. And I still don't see anything wrong with the hypothesis that memory (or the phenomenological experience of memory if you prefer) is an intrinsic attribute of the essential self.

Wow, so all the ways in which memory is affected by brain damage, drugs, alcohol, stroke, trauma, and so forth is a result of changes to the matrix addressing mechanism, not to the actual memory itself? I'm surprised that damage to the addressing mechanism so perfectly mimics what we'd expect from damage to the memory. In particular, I'm surprised that the results would be selective rather than pervasive.

Even if the "essential self" is the source of memory experiences, there still needs to be a store. Otherwise, where does this essential self dredge up the memories? Perhaps the essential self has access to all of history, so it's not recalling from a store but rather from history itself. Then history is just the store. Also consider how complicated that would be. If I was recalling an idea I'd had a year ago, it would not only have to scan back and find the source of the idea, but it would have to scan back to find out whether I'd ever had the thought before, so it could make the thought feel familiar.

If you want my ghost to have my memories after I die, wouldn't it be easier to just figure out a way to extract the memories from my brain and haul them around?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:

What is the ??? that recalls the memory stored -- say in the brain?

Some brain mechanism that can activate the memory, thus causing various other brain mechanisms to "relive" their aspects of the memory. Obviously we don't understand the entire mechanism yet, but see my sig.

An algorithm? Thinking about the physical changes needed to update the algorithm, what controls that? Don't you just keep postulating a new (in your case physical) control mechanism?

Yes, a new control mechanism. But I don't need an infinite stack of them, so what's the problem?

At the minimum we would arrive at dualism being a "possibility", but why not go the last step? I'm more & more certain the choice of mind rather than body is the most defendable as representing the "real world". Obviously, science says unequivocably that our old & current perceptions are very very very correct as to predictions of a future perception.

Why go the last step if we don't need to? And when we do, we have the horribly sticky issue of how the nonphysical portion interacts with the physical brain without itself being physical. No one seems willing to address that problem. I don't understand your final sentence.

~~ Paul

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Ian said:
Wow, so all the ways in which memory is affected by brain damage, drugs, alcohol, stroke, trauma, and so forth is a result of changes to the matrix addressing mechanism, not to the actual memory itself? I'm surprised that damage to the addressing mechanism so perfectly mimics what we'd expect from damage to the memory. In particular, I'm surprised that the results would be selective rather than pervasive.

Even if the "essential self" is the source of memory experiences, there still needs to be a store. Otherwise, where does this essential self dredge up the memories? Perhaps the essential self has access to all of history, so it's not recalling from a store but rather from history itself. Then history is just the store. Also consider how complicated that would be. If I was recalling an idea I'd had a year ago, it would not only have to scan back and find the source of the idea, but it would have to scan back to find out whether I'd ever had the thought before, so it could make the thought feel familiar.

If you want my ghost to have my memories after I die, wouldn't it be easier to just figure out a way to extract the memories from my brain and haul them around?

~~ Paul

The only two ways I can see for someone who wants to assert that memories are not a physical part of the brain would be to assert that when the non-physical self experiences a memory it makes it's own copy that is not accessible at the time.

Or you can assert that the brain does not store the memories but simply processes them and brain damage just causes strange processing behaviors.

Neither are likely, there have just been too many accidents, experiments, and studies that show physical modifications to the brain having direct effects on the memory.