Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2017, 05:53 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 06:00 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(29-03-2017 03:57 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I never defined consciousness as the self. The problem is that our subjective experience can't be explained in terms of mere mechanism. Mind is an emergent property of the brain, but mental states are not identical to brain states. That is to say that the feeling of happiness is not identical to a rise in specific neurotransmitters; instead, happiness is property of the physical phenomena that can only be understood in terms of qualitative awareness.

According to Wikipedia: "The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes."

So if the experiences are happening to a physical body rather than just to consciousness per se, they are filtered through the body in such a way as to acquire the extra characteristics. Brain states are not all that are involved in creating mental states. You also have to take the body into account.

In other words, those experiences are happening to us, so of course they have "subjective characteristics."

Smartass

I wouldn't use Wikipedia for a source. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives much better explanations. But I don't see how you get past the problem that the body isn't conscious. You're ascribing qualitative properties of awareness to something that isn't aware. For example, how does the body and brain combination produce the subjective experience of color? What, specifically, about the physical components involved in this process of perception translates to your subjective experience of the color red?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2017, 06:00 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 09:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-03-2017 05:27 PM)Naielis Wrote:  HA you imbecile dogma refers to something that is taken to be unquestionably true.

No imbecile. In science that's know as a "fact". Science is a "method".
There are as many views about other topics, as there are people who practice the method. "Materialism" and woo have nothing to do with science. You've attempted to claim there is a connection where there is none.

Quote:I grew up in the city going to a progressive private school. I've been an atheist most of my life. I'm not some redneck out in southern Kentucky. Jesus Christ you assume so much. What happened to that line in your bio where you say you assume
nothing? Was that just for dramatic flare? Were you joking?

You certainly write like a redneck/woomonger. But where you went to school, or what you say you are now, (didn't you HERE once recently say you were an "agnostic theist" ?) or were, is irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is you posit a "problem" where there is none, AND you are unable to say how it is you determined that you would posit that what you see as "a missing explanation" is a "problem" that implies the missing information/explanation supports a non-materialist position, and why it necessitates "combat".
YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED the questions posed to you about your methodology. What are you afraid of ? We know. You have no methodology or rational categories. You pounced on a "problem" here as it fit your biases.


Quote:Not dishonest at all. I compared them later. Do you even know which part of my paper you're talking about?

Apparently you didn't read your own paper. You compared them at the beginning. Liar.

Quote:It was designed specifically to match my view.

Exactly. Biased, and ignorant. You have no evidence for dualism. You claim there is a "problem", (as you are so ignorant of science), yet you are incapable of discussing your methodology and categories, or how you determine there is a "problem" when you invoke it, or what it means.

Quote:Did you even click on the link I posted?

I did. It's not how educated people speak or write.

Quote:It's actually very saddening that you didn't bother to even google combatting to see that it's a word.

Spare me. What's even sadder is you think you are in a position (intellectually or any other way), to combat anything with your nonsensical woo, which and you cannot even justify.

Quote:Naturalists and materialists are not the same thing according standard definitions. They certainly aren't the same according to the definitions I gave in my paper.

No one cares what you said. You are STILL positing a "problem" where there is none. You don't get to define anything.

Quote:You are a great source of comedy for my teachers who got their Ph.D.s from Cornell and Harvard. Take a trip to northern Kentucky sometime. You might be surprised.

So you *claim*.
You are a great source of comedy for many more than a few here. Where your teachers got their degrees is totally irrelevant. You wrote a stupid idiotic very carelessly put-together paper with the same woo bullshit your wrote here before. Nothing is any different. You can't support your methods and categories and conclusions, or explain how you made them. Yet you claimed "epistemic certainty" ... but cannot even say how you got there, or justify the categories you write about.

You really should join the Christian Discord I'm on... you'd be a hit.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2017, 07:33 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 05:53 AM)Naielis Wrote:  For example, how does the body and brain combination produce the subjective experience of color? What, specifically, about the physical components involved in this process of perception translates to your subjective experience of the color red?

You've been REPEATEDLY told how what we know about brains / Neuro-science provides a perfectly coherent explanation of this. Your ignorance of LEARING, Psychology and perception is astounding.

You REFUSE to address the questions asked of you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-03-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 07:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 05:53 AM)Naielis Wrote:  For example, how does the body and brain combination produce the subjective experience of color? What, specifically, about the physical components involved in this process of perception translates to your subjective experience of the color red?

You've been REPEATEDLY told how what we know about brains / Neuro-science provides a perfectly coherent explanation of this. Your ignorance of LEARING, Psychology and perception is astounding.

You REFUSE to address the questions asked of you.

I've been told that neuroscience solves the hard problem many times yes. That does not make it so. You fail to provide the reduction. Chemistry can be fully reduced to and explain in terms of physics. But subjective experience cannot be reduced in this manner to the physical. How do you get the "what it is like to see red" from merely physical mechanism. You have yet to address this. You don't even understand the problem that you claim to have solved. I'll be listening when you perform a full reduction of consciousness.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2017, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2017 09:47 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 08:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 07:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You've been REPEATEDLY told how what we know about brains / Neuro-science provides a perfectly coherent explanation of this. Your ignorance of LEARING, Psychology and perception is astounding.

You REFUSE to address the questions asked of you.

I've been told that neuroscience solves the hard problem many times yes. That does not make it so. You fail to provide the reduction. Chemistry can be fully reduced to and explain in terms of physics. But subjective experience cannot be reduced in this manner to the physical. How do you get the "what it is like to see red" from merely physical mechanism. You have yet to address this. You don't even understand the problem that you claim to have solved. I'll be listening when you perform a full reduction of consciousness.

Wrong. You just didn't know enough to get what you were reading. You were given the answer IN THIS THREAD. There is NO REDUCTION. Every experience is multi-factorial, as anyone who has taken even rudimentary science knows.

I was about to give you the answer again. In light of your post about "pearls to swine' or whatever the fuck it was your insult was as you left, I'll just put you on ignore, you fucking idiot, and let you go your ignorant way. Some day you will figure it out. Meanwhile, DO continue to make a fool of yourself.

Jesus H Fucking Christ.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...082313.htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2017, 11:32 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 09:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 08:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I've been told that neuroscience solves the hard problem many times yes. That does not make it so. You fail to provide the reduction. Chemistry can be fully reduced to and explain in terms of physics. But subjective experience cannot be reduced in this manner to the physical. How do you get the "what it is like to see red" from merely physical mechanism. You have yet to address this. You don't even understand the problem that you claim to have solved. I'll be listening when you perform a full reduction of consciousness.

Wrong. You just didn't know enough to get what you were reading. You were given the answer IN THIS THREAD. There is NO REDUCTION. Every experience is multi-factorial, as anyone who has taken even rudimentary science knows.

I was about to give you the answer again. In light of your post about "pearls to swine' or whatever the fuck it was your insult was as you left, I'll just put you on ignore, you fucking idiot, and let you go your ignorant way. Some day you will figure it out. Meanwhile, DO continue to make a fool of yourself.

Jesus H Fucking Christ.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...082313.htm

Why does experience being multifactorial mean there is no reduction? If you are claiming that qualitative aspects of subjective experience are material then you have to reduce them fully into the material. You must be a reductionist. You have to explain why happiness feels like it does in terms of only matter and physical mechanism. You have yet to do this. There is no evidence for dualism. Metaphysical positions neither allow for nor require empirical evidence. Metaphysical positions lay the foundation for evidence as a concept.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2017, 11:45 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2017 11:48 AM by Naielis.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 09:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...082313.htm

"First-ever images of living human retinas have yielded a surprise about how we perceive our world. Researchers at the University of Rochester have found that the number of color-sensitive cones in the human retina differs dramatically among people -- by up to 40 times -- yet people appear to perceive colors the same way. The findings strongly suggest that our perception of color is controlled much more by our brains than by our eyes."

This is not contradictory to my thesis.

"Each subject was asked to tune the color of a disk of light to produce a pure yellow light that was neither reddish yellow nor greenish yellow. Everyone selected nearly the same wavelength of yellow, showing an obvious consensus over what color they perceived yellow to be."

This is evidence that we perceive colors the same. This further reinforces my position that subjective experience is an emergent property of brains.

"Over time, we were able to shift their natural perception of yellow in one direction, and then the other," says Williams. "This is direct evidence for an internal, automatic calibrator of color perception. These experiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors."

This is quite fascinating. Again, it isn't contradictory to my thesis. I think you should try rereading my paper. My point is that a specific property is missing in the ontology of the materialist. That property is consciousness. It is an emergent property of brains. And certain experiences correspond to certain brain states. But the brain states themselves are not identical to their corresponding experience. The conscious experience is an emergent property of the brain state. There's no "woo" here. I'm simply disagreeing with your theory of consciousness. Here's a good explanation: "Irreducible-Pattern: Emergent properties and laws are systemic features of complex systems governed by true, lawlike generalizations within a special science that is irreducible to fundamental physical theory for conceptual reasons. The macroscopic patterns in question cannot be captured in terms of the concepts and dynamics of physics. Although he does not use the language of emergence, Jerry Fodor (1974) expresses this view nicely in speaking of the ‘immortal economist’ who vainly tries to derive economic principles from a knowledge of physics and the distribution of physical qualities in space-time."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prope...nt/#EpiEme

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2017, 12:39 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
For what it's worth, I think Bucky is being unnecessarily rude and harsh here, and I think there is such a thing as a hard problem of consciousness. However, I also think that it is mostly semantic, and not something that we should really care about. For me, it's akin to the hard problem of gravity or the hard problem of electromagnetism. Both of these are mysterious forces that act at a distance, and we really don't know or understand the mechanism. But I doubt that there are very many (if any) physicists who lie awake at night in a cold sweat worrying about this problem. In both cases, we can describe the forces and their effects with great mathematical precision, and we can use these descriptions to make predictions, and to use the forces for our own benefit. And that's all we need. We don't need to know the exact mechanism, and nobody really cares.

Likewise, we don't know the exact mechanism that connects brain function with "qualia", but except for a small group of philosophers, nobody cares. We know that consciousness is a function of brains, we have no evidence of it existing in the absence of brains, and we are learning more and more about which types of brain process produce which elements of consciousness. Some people may find it interesting to speculate about the exact mechanism, but I see such speculation as much like theologians arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It might be an interesting intellectual exercise, but it's not meaningful or useful for most people. I will happily go through the rest of my life without knowing or caring about the answer to the hard problem of consciousness.

And that's why I will not read your paper. No offense, but I don't have the time, and I'm just not all that interested in the subject. I think you're chasing phantoms, and I think that's all any metaphysician is doing. Whatever floats your boat, but I just can't get interested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
30-03-2017, 01:48 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 12:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  For what it's worth, I think Bucky is being unnecessarily rude and harsh here, and I think there is such a thing as a hard problem of consciousness. However, I also think that it is mostly semantic, and not something that we should really care about. For me, it's akin to the hard problem of gravity or the hard problem of electromagnetism. Both of these are mysterious forces that act at a distance, and we really don't know or understand the mechanism. But I doubt that there are very many (if any) physicists who lie awake at night in a cold sweat worrying about this problem. In both cases, we can describe the forces and their effects with great mathematical precision, and we can use these descriptions to make predictions, and to use the forces for our own benefit. And that's all we need. We don't need to know the exact mechanism, and nobody really cares.

I obviously agree that he's being harsh. I don't think my writing is particularly good, but I never thought it was bad. I'm sorry if I seem a bit angry in my responses to Bucky. I'm just not accustomed to someone who's willing to go that far to insult someone. My paper is a research project I worked on for a year. Anyway I don't think the issues of the causes of gravity and electromagnetism are comparable to the hard problem of consciousness. They're easy problems according to the definition Chalmers lays out. Because we know how we might go about solving these issues, they aren't under the category of "hard". But consciousness presents a major issue for the reductive physicalist. We have a problem in understanding subjective experience in terms of merely physical mechanism. This is why I side with emergentism. Emergentism can be a physicalist ontology too. It just can't be a reductive physicalist view. All I'm saying is that the laws that govern consciousness aren't fully reducible to the laws of physics. Economics is another great example of a system in which the laws governing it can't be explained fully in terms of the laws of physics. I'm not looking to find an exact mechanism. I'm making a case against ontological materialism (some might call it reductive physicalism).

Quote:Likewise, we don't know the exact mechanism that connects brain function with "qualia", but except for a small group of philosophers, nobody cares.

Actually consciousness is a very hot topic among contemporary philosophers. I wouldn't say the numbers are small. And I don't think it matters that only philosophers care about the issue. The paper I wrote was on philosophy. We're in the philosophy section of the forum. We're having a discussion about philosophy. This isn't a question for the common person.

Quote: We know that consciousness is a function of brains, we have no evidence of it existing in the absence of brains, and we are learning more and more about which types of brain process produce which elements of consciousness. Some people may find it interesting to speculate about the exact mechanism, but I see such speculation as much like theologians arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It might be an interesting intellectual exercise, but it's not meaningful or useful for most people. I will happily go through the rest of my life without knowing or caring about the answer to the hard problem of consciousness.

And that's why I will not read your paper. No offense, but I don't have the time, and I'm just not all that interested in the subject. I think you're chasing phantoms, and I think that's all any metaphysician is doing. Whatever floats your boat, but I just can't get interested.

I would say it's an emergent property of brains. I'm a bit skeptical of the term "function" being used here. And I'm not saying this is useful for most people or that most people will care. I'm simply arguing a point that I care about and that I think is meaningful. I don't think it's on par with the speculation of theologians, but perhaps that's because I have an extremely negative view of Christianity. I take no offense from you not wanting to read my paper. I understand that you're not interested in the subject. Thanks for the fairness and honesty though. I don't think I'll get the same from Bucky.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2017, 01:51 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 11:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Why does experience being multifactorial mean there is no reduction? If you are claiming that qualitative aspects of subjective experience are material then you have to reduce them fully into the material.

Facepalm
Weeping

Thanks for proving YET AGAIN, you have not THE SLIGHTEST CLUE how brains function, how humans learn, how memory works, and what consciousness is.
Go get yourself an education, child.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: