Regarding Franko...

[c4ts]

Someone once told me that reality was defined by two leprechauns and a chess board. I figure he was drunk or stoned at the time.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Oh, don't go Franko on us, Ian.



Besides...Dualogical Squirrelism...hrmm...kinda has a ring to it. Might have to rethink this whole Physicalist thing.

Hello, I'm an agnostic atheist compatabilist dualogical squirrelist? I can pull that off...

Yeah you're right. Sorry PixyMisa One thing you'll note about me is that I get pis*ed off very easily and hence have a propensity to resort to insults LOL.

 

[PixyMisa]

So why can't we just do that? Treat consciousness as a basic ontological existent. Or if you're not entirely happy about that say the source is from "God" or the infinite ultimate reality or whatever.

OK. This is tricky for me, because I'm used to using materialist explanations (because they work).

We have a consciousness. And then... what? How does this give rise to the two big observations - the Universe, and multiple, (apparently) independent consciousnesses?

Don't worry, I won't. I won't ever expect an answer. Consciousness is not in principle susceptible to a scientific explanation.

Now, here we have a significant claim. No waffle. This is actually - no sarcasm - interesting.

Why do you think that consciousness is not in principle susceptible to a scientific explanation?

No the Universe need not have a source. There is nothing inherently absurd about it acausally springing into being without reason or rhyme.

If you assume consciousness pre-exists, and take the idealist position, this follows.

To a materialist, it is of concern. Depending on what the answer is, it may well be unknowable. Which would be annoying.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yeah you're right. Sorry PixyMisa One thing you'll note about me is that I get pis*ed off very easily and hence have a propensity to resort to insults LOL.

'Sokay.

 

[Interesting Ian]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it doesn't. This is what idealism holds, at least for the "physical" Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Idealism holds that objects are perceptions. That's not what the Universe appears to be. It's backwards.

I see a tree. It appears to be a tree. It does not appear to be the perception of a tree, which is another thing entirely.

Appearing to be a perception is meaningless. I agree it appears to be a tree. But that tree is constituted by a family of visual and tactile sensory perceptions. After all possible perceptual observations of a tree have been made, then you have said all that can be said about the tree. There is nothing more to the tree. Least of all is there some mysterious material reality existing in abstraction of all possible perceptions of it.

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

Materialists advocate a wholly unknowable reality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- which follows consistent rules and can be consistently observed by independent consicousnesses -

We can all agree that empirical reality follows consistant rules.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which in some mysterious
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- or not mysterious -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
manner gives rise to our sensory perceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In other words, the Universe is what it appears to be.

Not at all. This is what idealists advance. A banana really is yellow. A materialist would hold that the yellowness as experienced is only apparent. It is a result of the interpretation by the brain of the reflection of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength off the banana. The banana really is firm to the touch. The materialist would say that the feeling of firmness is a result of the electrical repulsion force between the electrons in my finger tips and the electrons near the surface of the banana. The materialist would have us believe we are systematically deluded in all things. That reality is vastly different from what it appears to be. That is the preposterous position they are forced into.

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

No we don't. In no shape or manner does science require materialism. If anything subjective idealism is more consistant with science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subjective idealism denies objective reality. There is no reason for there to be physical laws, or indeed any coherent pattern. Science doesn't work very well in this situation.

There is no reason? What reason is there for physical laws under materialism? Why isn't reality wholly random and chaotic? Under the particular form of subjective idealism that I espouse physical laws are simply a manifestation of God's Will. Thus in my metaphysic there is a rationale for physical laws. But under materialism it is wholly mysterious why there should be physical laws.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying it's a dream is meaningless. What is meant by describing it as a dream?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subjective "reality". A dream is about the closest single word in our language

but whether materialism is correct or idealism is correct, the totality of physical facts will be very similar. So why call one a dream and the other not? What milage is gained by describing reality as a dream?

Edited to add

I won't be responding anymore tonight. it's 3.15am and I want to read some Harry Potter before falling to sleep!

 

[justsaygnosis]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it doesn't. This is what idealism holds, at least for the "physical" Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Idealism holds that objects are perceptions. That's not what the Universe appears to be. It's backwards.

I see a tree. It appears to be a tree. It does not appear to be the perception of a tree, which is another thing entirely.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Materialists advocate a wholly unknowable reality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- which follows consistent rules and can be consistently observed by independent consicousnesses -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which in some mysterious
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- or not mysterious -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
manner gives rise to our sensory perceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In other words, the Universe is what it appears to be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morover they hold that phenomenal consciousness is one and the same thing or reducible to particular physical processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes. "One and the same thing" sounds kind of odd to me, but I'll certainly grant you reducible.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No we don't. In no shape or manner does science require materialism. If anything subjective idealism is more consistant with science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subjective idealism denies objective reality. There is no reason for there to be physical laws, or indeed any coherent pattern. Science doesn't work very well in this situation.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It most certainly does not. As empirical reality is equated with our very sensory perceptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's idealism, yes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then by definition the Universe is what it appears to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By the definition of idealism. You've already assumed that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying it's a dream is meaningless. What is meant by describing it as a dream?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subjective "reality". A dream is about the closest single word in our language

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believers in what? Materialism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Idealism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Er . . yeah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heh. Tough luck for the dualists.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really are utterly clueless aren't you Pixiepants?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have you caught an infection from Franko?



Perception isn't necessarily consensus. Anyone can perceive a tree and assign that tree an origin and function that is completely out of touch with consensual agreement among sober and rational beings. Facts, provable and longstanding are sane basis' for forming hypothesis that will spurn us to investigate further possibilities on earth and in the universe.
Is there going to be ongoing argument on any topic or opinion....take it to the bank there will be.

 

[Franko]

Pixie, you are my champion of rational thinking!

Perhaps you could prove that you mean what you say (another hypocrite A-Theist religious fanatic), by providing some evidence for your beliefs?

What makes you believe you have more “free will” then the Moon does?

How can something which you claim is non-conscious (TLOP) control something you claim is conscious (YOU)? Isn’t that like saying your CAR controls YOU?

How does this belief make YOU and Pixymisty “Rational”?

 

[Franko]

Franko:
So long as someone is observing it. You have heard of the double slit experiment – haven’t you?

If no one is watching, the results are totally different then when someone is watching

martinm:
Only if you refer to inanimate objects as 'someone'.

What do you mean by that martinm? When there is no observer, the particle goes through both slits, but as soon as you observe the waveform collapses.

You want to think of a world of “matter”. But the Universe is made of Energy. In what way does a pattern exist if there is no “entity” capable of perceiving the pattern. Without an entity to perceive a pattern there is no pattern – all would just be “random” data there would be no patterns, because there would be nothing to perceive a pattern.

 

[Martin]

Define 'observer'.

 

[justsaygnosis]

How can something which you claim is non-conscious (TLOP) control something you claim is conscious (YOU)? Isn’t that like saying your CAR controls YOU?



If it's out of gas I have to put fuel in to make it start up again, if it's got a mechanical problem I fix it or bring it to someone who can, etc. etc. so in many ways my car does exert control over me.
Sliding downhill on ice forces me to respond to the situation at hand but offers me little control over it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Appearing to be a perception is meaningless. I agree it appears to be a tree.

So far so good.

But that tree is constituted by a family of visual and tactile sensory perceptions. After all possible perceptual observations of a tree have been made, then you have said all that can be said about the tree. There is nothing more to the tree. Least of all is there some mysterious material reality existing in abstraction of all possible perceptions of it.

Well, that is simply a restatement of idealism.

But I see the problem - we simply have different definitions of what "is" means. This is not a problem I am used to dealing with.

We can all agree that empirical reality follows consistant rules.

OK.

Not at all. This is what idealists advance. A banana really is yellow. A materialist would hold that the yellowness as experienced is only apparent. It is a result of the interpretation by the brain of the reflection of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength off the banana. The banana really is firm to the touch. The materialist would say that the feeling of firmness is a result of the electrical repulsion force between the electrons in my finger tips and the electrons near the surface of the banana. The materialist would have us believe we are systematically deluded in all things. That reality is vastly different from what it appears to be. That is the preposterous position they are forced into.

Again, you only think it is odd because you are an idealist. (You are an idealist, aren't you? Just want to make sure I don't have this mixed up.) To a materialist, all your uses of the word "is" are incorrect.

The word "is" does not translate.

There is no reason? What reason is there for physical laws under materialism? Why isn't reality wholly random and chaotic? Under the particular form of subjective idealism that I espouse physical laws are simply a manifestation of God's Will. Thus in my metaphysic there is a rationale for physical laws. But under materialism it is wholly mysterious why there should be physical laws.

That physical laws are God's will is not an explanation, it is a defintion. It does not reduce the problem in any way.

but whether materialism is correct or idealism is correct, the totality of physical facts will be very similar. So why call one a dream and the other not? What milage is gained by describing reality as a dream?

OK. Here's the deal. (At least as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong. )

Materialism assumes the material world exists, independent of consciousness. The material world follows physical laws. It doesn't matter to materialism what those laws are, just that there are laws. All else follows from this.

Idealism assumes that consciousness exists. The observations that this consciousness makes follow a set of rules. It doesn't matter what these rules are, just that there are rules. All else follows from this.

(Both state that things follow a set of laws, because otherwise they'd be inconsistent with our observations and would be dead meat.)

Now, each position assumes one of the two hard problems, and leaves the other open:

Materialism has to explain how consciousness arises from matter.

Idealism has to explain why there is an observable universe.

Now, some questions from a materialist standpoint:

We always associate consciousness with a particular material body - the brain. Brains are observed without consciousness, but not vice-versa. Why? Why does material damage to the brain materially affect consciousness? Why do we observe multiple consciousnesses?

Consciousness (as a phenomenon) is a recent thing as far as we can tell. Evidence gathered by following our consistent rule set indicates that the universe is perhaps 15 billion years old, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that multi-cellular life first appeared about 600 million years ago. There was nothing we can recognise as conscious during this time. What was this (universal) consciousness doing all this time?

These questions simply don't arise (or are trivial) in a materialist philosophy. There may be equivalent questions, but I'm not sure what they are.

I won't be responding anymore tonight. it's 3.15am and I want to read some Harry Potter before falling to sleep!

Yeah, Harry Potter does that to me too

See you in a day or so - I'm trying to reduce my JREF addiction (Yeah, like that'll work. Until my next anime shipment comes in...)

 

[PixyMisa]

What makes you believe you have more “free will” then the Moon does?

Observation.

How can something which you claim is non-conscious (TLOP) control something you claim is conscious (YOU)?

Hello? Franko? Anyone home?

We do not say that the laws of physics control us.

Try the word "constrain". We can agree to that.


Oh, and gravitons still don't have charge.

 

[Franko]

The big problem in the metaphysics of quantum mechanics is the question of where to place the split between the observer and the observed. The astonishing finding of von Neumann (1955) is that its placement is irrelevant to any measured event. The Feynman rules for the world below the split and the classical rules for the world above the split are so clever that the split is moveable. This is the brilliant manner in which the quantum duality avoids the difficulties encountered by the previous dualities of Plato, Descartes and Kant. Previous dualities contained inconsistencies when the two sides were compared. There are no inconsistencies between the two halves of the quantum duality. Present quantum theory, with its flexible split placement, allows the neural correlates of awareness to be above the split (the neural correlates of awareness become the observer) and the remaining (unconscious) neural activity to be below. This is the placement advocated by von Neumann (1955), Wigner (1961) and Stapp (1993). Stapp, in particular, has been lucid in writing about the conscious act being connected with the reduction process.

what's wrong with von Neumann?

I'm more conscious then CAR, so with CAR, I would be the observer.

 

[Franko]

Pixychixy:

Oh, and gravitons still don't have charge.

Sure Darling, and there is no evidence for "God", and people who don't believe in consequences for their actions (A-Theists) will behave just as morally as those who do believe.

... That's why we should abolish all the prisons, and make baby-killing cheap and legal!

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure Darling, and there is no evidence for "God"

Which there isn't. If you have some, we'd be most interested.

and people who don't believe in consequences for their actions (A-Theists)

Ah. Well, if that's what an A-Theist is, then I'm not an A-Theist. Glad we cleared that up.

will behave just as morally as those who do believe.

... That's why we should abolish all the prisons, and make baby-killing cheap and legal!

Sorry, Franko, I don't agree with you. Some people should be locked up, for the good of society. I'm sorry that you can't see this.

By the way:

Graviton

A theoretical particle having no mass and no charge that mediates (carries) the gravitational force. The graviton is a boson. The existence of a graviton has not yet been confirmed experimentally, although string theory predicts the existence of gravitons as closed strings with the minimum possible energy. It is also theorized that gravitons interact with leptons and quarks.

Gravitons clearly cannot have charge, or the gravitational force would be subject to the electromagnetic force. While this would have some interesting applications (anti-gravity, for a start), if it were true, all major bodies in the Universe (planets, stars, galaxies) would disintegrate instantly. This would be bad.

 

[scribble]

Ah! Ok, so you don't think consciousness need a source?

I don't care to discuss it with you. Any further comment by me would be insulting.

-Chris

 

[MRC_Hans]

PixyMisa

*snip* if it were true, all major bodies in the Universe (planets, stars, galaxies) would disintegrate instantly. This would be bad.

You can say that again, thats where I keep all my things!

But I suspect Frank0's version of graviton is different. The QM version is very small, since it represents the smallest quantum of gravity, thus even a dust particle will contain gazillions of gravitons, and Frank0 has said:

"1 Graviton = 1 Soul = 1 Life"

And obviously, this would get complicated, so perhaps you should explain a little of YOUR gravitons, Frank; how you discovered them, documentation, and such. You might as well practice now, the Nobel Comitee will want to see it.

Hans

 

[Guest]

Pixy :

There is no white rabbit.

There is no spoon.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I don't care to discuss it with you. Any further comment by me would be insulting.

-Chris

Fine if that's your attitude. Why don't you put me on ignore if that's the way you feel about me?

 

[scribble]

Fine if that's your attitude. Why don't you put me on ignore if that's the way you feel about me?

I've considered it, but I don't like to go to that length if I can avoid it. Hope springs eternal -- I keep thinking people might change.

-Chris