Most irritating theological argument ever

[Interesting Ian]

II
I repeat, science cannot in principle explain consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why not?

Because science only deals with the objective physical realm ie that which is discernable from the third person perspective.

 

[Upchurch]

Because science only deals with the objective physical realm ie that which is discernable from the third person perspective.

What is the entire field of psychology, then?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Because science only deals with the objective physical realm ie that which is discernable from the third person perspective.

I'll buy that, except that it only works if you accept consciousness as apurely non-physical thing. If it is simply an effect caused by physical processes in the brain, then it is dsicernable from the third person perspective and would thus be explainable. Current science may not understand all of the physical processes behind but that doesn't mean that they never will.

 

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian

Yes, but I remind you that you originally said that consciousness is not supernatural. So are you willing to agree that God's consciousness is also not supernatural? Or is God's consciousness a special case? If so then why?

I don't postulate the existence of a god, therefore your question is meaningless to me.

Ossai

 

[Interesting Ian]

Because science only deals with the objective physical realm ie that which is discernable from the third person perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'll buy that, except that it only works if you accept consciousness as apurely non-physical thing. If it is simply an effect caused by physical processes in the brain, then it is dsicernable from the third person perspective and would thus be explainable. Current science may not understand all of the physical processes behind but that doesn't mean that they never will.

What you're saying here is that we can explain consciousness if we presuppose materialism.

But you should bear in mind that if we presuppose materialism, then in a sense, consciousness is already explained! It's simply a matter of understanding brain function.

 

[Upchurch]

What you're saying here is that we can explain consciousness if we presuppose materialism.

But you should bear in mind that if we presuppose materialism, then in a sense, consciousness is already explained! It's simply a matter of understanding brain function.

Not that brain function is total understood yet. After all, there is a lot going on, but essentially, this is correct. What's so wrong about that?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

What you're saying here is that we can explain consciousness if we presuppose materialism.

I suppose I am. But I see no way to explain anything about anything without either presupposing materialism or presupposing it's opposite. It's a crap shoot to be sure, but since materialism does a better job of expalining most other things, as far as I am concerned, I'll put my money on materialism.

 

[Upchurch]

It's a crap shoot to be sure, but since materialism does a better job of expalining most other things, as far as I am concerned, I'll put my money on materialism.

But even in a craps shoot, there are better bets than others.

If we were to presuppose immaterialism, then not only to have figure out what gives rise to consciousness, but we must also consider that our perceptions of the material world (which we most certainly have, as I see, feel, and hear the keyboard underneath my hands) are, in part or in full, illusionary. This begs the questions: which perceptions may we trust and what is the source of the illusion?

Presupposing materialism makes all these questions answerable, perhaps even consciousness eventually.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

But even in a craps shoot, there are better bets than others.

If we were to presuppose immaterialism, then not only to have figure out what gives rise to consciousness, but we must also consider that our perceptions of the material world (which we most certainly have, as I see, feel, and hear the keyboard underneath my hands) are, in part or in full, illusionary. This begs the questions: which perceptions may we trust and what is the source of the illusion?

Presupposing materialism makes all these questions answerable, perhaps even consciousness eventually.

Pretty much what I was trying to say, but you put it so much better.

 

[Roadtoad]

One element that seems to fuel this argument is the lack of a definition of God.

Considering that we're attempting to define something which may or may not exist, would this be considered a fool's errand? I would suspect it is.

Comments?

 

[Interesting Ian]

What you're saying here is that we can explain consciousness if we presuppose materialism.

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



I suppose I am. But I see no way to explain anything about anything without either presupposing materialism or presupposing it's opposite. It's a crap shoot to be sure, but since materialism does a better job of expalining most other things, as far as I am concerned, I'll put my money on materialism.

But you're giving out the wrong message. If you say you can explain consciousness, then people will think that you are indeed claiming you can explain consciousness. But what you're really claiming is that you can explain how the brain works. In order to explain consciousness you would need to explain what is it about physical stuff that it should entail conscious awareness. Explaining how the brain works does not achieve this. Not unless you literally equate behaviour with consciousness.

BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?

 

[Interesting Ian]

But even in a craps shoot, there are better bets than others.

If we were to presuppose immaterialism, then not only to have figure out what gives rise to consciousness, but we must also consider that our perceptions of the material world (which we most certainly have, as I see, feel, and hear the keyboard underneath my hands) are, in part or in full, illusionary. This begs the questions: which perceptions may we trust and what is the source of the illusion?

Presupposing materialism makes all these questions answerable, perhaps even consciousness eventually.

I first of all misread your post and thought it had started "If we were to presuppose materialism". I was astonished at the amount of understanding you were displaying. Then I read your last sentence and realised you were talking about immaterialism

Immaterialists hold that our very sensory perceptions constitute reality. Illusions are simply those perceptions which do not exhibit the usual regularities and correlations with other sensory experiences.

Materialism on the other hand holds that what we directly experience, the very smell of say coffee, is illusionary. The smell itself does not actually constitute part of the furniture of reality. It is the various molecules which give rise to the smell which are deemed to be real. In this sense materialism holds that everything we ever experience is illusionary. This is in stark contrast to immaterialism.

 

[Upchurch]

I first of all misread your post and thought it had started "If we were to presuppose materialism". I was astonished at the amount of understanding you were displaying. Then I read your last sentence and realised you were talking about immaterialism

One wonders how many writings on philosophy you must have misread in your life to come to the conclusions you do.

Materialism on the other hand holds that what we directly experience, the very smell of say coffee, is illusionary. The smell itself does not actually constitute part of the furniture of reality. It is the various molecules which give rise to the smell which are deemed to be real. In this sense materialism holds that everything we ever experience is illusionary. This is in stark contrast to immaterialism.

Absolutely 100% untrue. (That is, the opposite of true)

When I see, hear, and feel the keyboard underneath my hands as I type, materialism says that there is actually a physical, material keyboard there. Further, materialism gives us a mechanism to answer the questions:

• What is the keyboard?
• Why does it function the way it does?
• What are the elements of its composition?
• Where did it come from?
• Why is it on my desk and for what purpose?

Which, I believe answers your question/comment:

BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?

Materialism can explain vast amounts about the what we are perceive, including how we perceive.

According to immaterialism, the object I think I'm typing on isn't actually there, independent of myself as it certainly seems to be. No, the experiences I'm perceiving (sight, hearing, touch) are only there because I'm perceiving them, not because they have an existance of their own. No, it is a trick of the senses with no corrisponding independent reality behind it.

Ian, you bluster a great deal about how stupid materialism is and how wonderful immaterialism is, but when pressed, you present a world of universal consciousness and other new age tripe that isn't experiencable. Everything presented in materialism is experiencable. If it isn't, it is either hypothetical and yet to be shown or false.

Really, what exactly can you explain with immaterialism that can not be explained with materialism?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

But you're giving out the wrong message. If you say you can explain consciousness, then people will think that you are indeed claiming you can explain consciousness. But what you're really claiming is that you can explain how the brain works. In order to explain consciousness you would need to explain what is it about physical stuff that it should entail conscious awareness. Explaining how the brain works does not achieve this. Not unless you literally equate behaviour with consciousness.

BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?

I don't know enough about the science behind how the brain works to be able to say much about your comments one way or the other.

I will say this about what materialism explains, though. The best example I can think of is this; if I go to start my car in the morning and someone has come in the middle of the night and stolen the battery without my knowledge, my car will not start. Materialism expalins this very simply; the car, the battery, and myself all exist independantly of each other. Without the battery, the car can't start regardless of my own thoughts or desires.

The only alternative is that the car is all in my mind. If so, why doesn't the car start if I don't know that the battery ahs been taken? Why do I even need the battery or the car for that matter?

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know enough about the science behind how the brain works to be able to say much about your comments one way or the other.

Neither do I. However, I do know enough to know that it isn't out of the question that science may one day be able to explain consciousness.

Whereas, I will admit to not knowing enough about immaterialism to know what possible kinds of useful information can, or even has already, come from it.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Neither do I. However, I do know enough to know that it isn't out of the question that science may one day be able to explain consciousness.

I quite agree with you. The only reason I didn't say that in the post was that had Ian used the same argument from the opposite side (i.e. "Science may one day prove that consciousness is independant of the brain", or something similar) It would have sounded a lot like saying "well, you can't prove me wrong", which isn't really an argument at all and (back to the original topic of this thread) is annoying as all hell. I figured it would sound pretty much the same way to somoene arguing his point so I avoided it.

 

[Upchurch]

I figured it would sound pretty much the same way to somoene arguing his point so I avoided it.

Okay, that's valid. The reason I did make the point was because Ian has explicitely said that science and/or materialism can not explain consciousness. Which, to my mind, only goes to show either his narrow and focused understanding or his lack of understanding.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Okay, that's valid. The reason I did make the point was because Ian has explicitely said that science and/or materialism can not explain consciousness. Which, to my mind, only goes to show either his narrow and focused understanding or his lack of understanding.

Fair enough. It is a very common thing for people to think "Well since science can't explain Phenomenon X then [Insert Pet Theory Here] must be true". A lot of people don't seem to realize that sometimes "We don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer

 

[Interesting Ian]

When I see, hear, and feel the keyboard underneath my hands as I type, materialism says that there is actually a physical, material keyboard there. Further, materialism gives us a mechanism to answer the questions:

What is the keyboard?

Why does it function the way it does?

What are the elements of its composition?

Where did it come from?

Why is it on my desk and for what purpose?

Which, I believe answers your question/comment:

Materialism doesn't answer any of those questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Materialism can explain vast amounts about the what we are perceive, including how we perceive.

I think not.

According to immaterialism, the object I think I'm typing on isn't actually there, independent of myself as it certainly seems to be.

How can there seem to be a mind-independent reality since by definition such a reality must forevermore be beyond what we could possibly perceive?

No, the experiences I'm perceiving (sight, hearing, touch) are only there because I'm perceiving them, not because they have an existance of their own.

Huh?? I do not hold that sensory experiences have an existence of their own. I hold that such experiences are had by experiencers.

Ian, you bluster a great deal about how stupid materialism is and how wonderful immaterialism is, but when pressed, you present a world of universal consciousness and other new age tripe that isn't experiencable. Everything presented in materialism is experiencable.

On the contrary, nothing is. WE do not perceive this mysterious material world. All we are aware of are qualia. And according to the materialist, qualia are not really constitutive of the furniture of reality.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But you're giving out the wrong message. If you say you can explain consciousness, then people will think that you are indeed claiming you can explain consciousness. But what you're really claiming is that you can explain how the brain works. In order to explain consciousness you would need to explain what is it about physical stuff that it should entail conscious awareness. Explaining how the brain works does not achieve this. Not unless you literally equate behaviour with consciousness.

BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't know enough about the science behind how the brain works to be able to say much about your comments one way or the other.

You don't need to know anything about science. I'm talking about philosophy.

I will say this about what materialism explains, though. The best example I can think of is this; if I go to start my car in the morning and someone has come in the middle of the night and stolen the battery without my knowledge, my car will not start. Materialism expalins this very simply; the car, the battery, and myself all exist independantly of each other. Without the battery, the car can't start regardless of my own thoughts or desires.

The car won't start because the world operates according to physical laws of nature. I do not think the existence of such physical laws can be said to favour materialism.

The only alternative is that the car is all in my mind. If so, why doesn't the car start if I don't know that the battery ahs been taken? Why do I even need the battery or the car for that matter?

You clearly don't understand my position. I have never claimed that my position denies the external world operates according to physical laws. Simply because mind is the prime reality doesn't entail that the derived reality (ie the physical world) is entirely manipulable at will.