Achilles Heel of Materialism (experience, organization, religion, science, Articles)

[michel]

Like No*s, I agree with you. I think though that there is a 'need' for some people to have everything 'fit' tidily into some sort of scientific 'slot' - for them it is a safety net. And if that makes them happy, who are we to judge?......

[oracle]

Originally Posted by Atofel

The problem you run into with this assertion is how does our conscious experience, with all of its vividness, depth and quality, come from the grey matter in our brains. When I am looking into one of our desert sunsets here in Tucson, can that dramatic experience truly be reduced to the abstract numbers and formulas we have in science?

But the thing is, is that the gray matter in our brains have everything to do with conscious experience. There's no evidense that some ethereal spirit is the cause of conscious experience.

Now when you see an environmental stimulus such as a sunset in Arizona, there is a lot of perceptual and neural processing involved. In this case, the stimulus for vision is light, in which photon particles are refracted by the lens into the retina. Now the retina consists of rod and cone receptors, which are stimulated by light. These rods and cones are distributed in a specific way. Anyways these receptors transduce light into electricity. Then we have the convergence of receptors into ganglion cells with different degrees of convergence. These ganglion cells are connected to the optic nerve fibers, which long story short, lead to the visual cortex of the brain.

Now you should also understand the fact that when both eyes are damaged to the point that one becomes blind, they are still able to have visual experiences in the mind's eye. However when the visual cortex is damaged, nothing can be visually percieved or visualized.

So let me ask, what evidense is there that our consious experiences, with all of its vividness, depth and quality, has nothing to do with the neurons in our brain?

Now I do not reduct our consious experiences to digits and formulas, I only use that as an analogy. Scientists often use anologies, such as the operating system or binary code of computers to explain certain aspects of the brain. The brain is much more complex than a computer however, and much phenomina still cannot be explained, so they can only theorize and make assumptions on how the conscious mind works.

Originally Posted by michel

Like No*s, I agree with you. I think though that there is a 'need' for some people to have everything 'fit' tidily into some sort of scientific 'slot' - for them it is a safety net. And if that makes them happy, who are we to judge?......

Actually I would say that the purpose is to remove subjective reality from objective reality. What you believe doesn't change what is objectively there, in this case there's a lot of evidense that atofel disregards by assuming that the conscious mind is not relative to the neurons in our brain.

[Nick Soapdish]

Excellent analysis Deut. Btw, welcome back... I can always rely on you giving unforgiving criticism.

To your first point, I concede on the basis of being a little sloppy and a little dishonest. Of course, not [all] materialists do not agree with this notion. For example, there is quite a few materialists that seem to like David Chalmer's ideas. Basically, his theory is that all matter is conscious, and that human consicousness does not arise out of the particular organization of matter in our brain.

Even though Chalmer is here at the University of Arizona, I find his ideas to be a bit off the wall. Anyway, I specifically addressed the emergence theory because it seems to be the championed position of most materialists these days. If you have other theories that you believe are more robust, feel free to suggest them.

As for your second point, I am not sure the comparison to physics works. Unlike materialism, physics does not claim to be a complete system. Even if one is troubled by Heisemburg's uncertainty, they can still find a general usefulness in physics. However, with materialism, if a person is troubled with the problem consciousness imposes, it puts the entire possibility of materialism into question.

Also, I would agree that there is nothing in materialism that claims everything is knowable, but in my opinion many people are attracted to it on the basis that it is compatible with that idea. Most materialists I talk to have a sort of optimism that nothing is outside the reach of science and that everything can be reduced to the language of mathematics.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by atofel

However, with materialism, if a person is troubled with the problem consciousness imposes, it puts the entire possibility of materialism into question.

The "entire possibility" no less. Oy vey!

Get a grip: a person being "troubled" puts "the entire possibility" of nothing in question.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by atofel

Btw, welcome back... I can always rely on you giving unforgiving criticism.

Thanks, but you're wrong. I forgive you.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Oracle

Did you fully read everything I said? It seems that you took my words out of context. I also explained that neurons only account for a portion of the conscious mind. Science has yet to fully explain the conscious mind, so any assumptions we make are just assumptions.

Sorry if I did.

When you say "science has yet to fully explain", are you expecting that science is capable of fully explaining it?

Originally Posted by Oracle

The neurons (particles), only constitute a portion of what the consiousness is. However from what I believe, a consciousness can only exist when you have particles, it is essential. That is why we have free will and angels presumably do not, because they are not material.

I find this suggestion odd. It seems to me that it is the material world is the one regulated by predictable laws. It is the part of our reality that we can empirically observe and measure. It seems any unpredictability in our experience must originate from that which our instruments cannot measure.

Furthermore, in quantum mechanics it is the wave that represents probabilistic uncertainty, not the particle. Once a quantum state has been resolved, the wave function is said to have collapsed to a specific outcome, and produce a particle.

Originally Posted by Oracle

You cannot have spacetime without matter and vice versa. This is probably why religions teach the twofold/threefold nature of man. We are like quantum mechanical entities, with wave/particle duality.

It is an interesting idea. We do see many dualities in science:

space vs. time
wave vs. particle
matter vs. energy

Originally Posted by Oracle

I would say that the purpose of that perspective is to get rid of subjectivism.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Oracle

So how much neuroscience and perceptual psychology have you studied so far Atofel?

I have only dabbled in it as a hobby. Most of my reading has been with consciousness, but I also have a couple of text books on neuroscience.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Now when you see an environmental stimulus such as a sunset in Arizona, there is a lot of perceptual and neural processing involved. In this case, the stimulus for vision is light, in which photon particles are refracted by the lens into the retina. Now the retina consists of rod and cone receptors, which are stimulated by light. These rods and cones are distributed in a specific way. Anyways these receptors transduce light into electricity. Then we have the convergence of receptors into ganglion cells with different degrees of convergence. These ganglion cells are connected to the optic nerve fibers, which long story short, lead to the visual cortex of the brain.

Ok...

Originally Posted by Oracle

Now you should also understand the fact that when both eyes are damaged to the point that one becomes blind, they are still able to have visual experiences in the mind's eye. However when the visual cortex is damaged, nothing can be visually percieved or visualized.

I agree. I have read about a case where someone had brain damage and he could no longer perceive colors. Nothing was wrong with his eyes or his optical nerves, but everything he saw was black and white or scales of grey. Not only that, but he could no longer imagine color, no matter how hard he tried.

Originally Posted by Oracle

So let me ask, what evidense is there that our consious experiences, with all of its vividness, depth and quality, has nothing to do with the neurons in our brain?

First of all, I did not say conscious experience has nothing to do with neurons in the brain. I have no doubt that for any conscious experience there will be certain neuron clusters in our head that will be blazing away with activity. My point is that the information we can extract and measure from our scientific instruments is insufficent to give us a complete picture of consciousness.

One way to think of it is that we are only looking at one side of a coin through empirically observation. There is another side to that coin that cannot be viewed by our physical senses.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Now I do not reduct our consious experiences to digits and formulas, I only use that as an analogy. Scientists often use anologies, such as the operating system or binary code of computers to explain certain aspects of the brain. The brain is much more complex than a computer however, and much phenomina still cannot be explained, so they can only theorize and make assumptions on how the conscious mind works.

True. The firing of neuron is not a binary operation. A neuron can have different types and magnitutes of firings. But I understood you were just using it as an illustration.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Actually I would say that the purpose is to remove subjective reality from objective reality. What you believe doesn't change what is objectively there, in this case there's a lot of evidense that atofel disregards by assuming that the conscious mind is not relative to the neurons in our brain.

See above.

[oracle]

Originally Posted by atofel

Sorry if I did.

When you say "science has yet to fully explain", are you expecting that science is capable of fully explaining it?

Science may or may not, I don't really have expectations.

Originally Posted by atofel

I find this suggestion odd. It seems to me that it is the material world is the one regulated by predictable laws. It is the part of our reality that we can empirically observe and measure. It seems any unpredictability in our experience must originate from that which our instruments cannot measure. Furthermore, in quantum mechanics it is the wave that represents probabilistic uncertainty, not the particle. Once a quantum state has been resolved, the wave function is said to have collapsed to a specific outcome, and produce a particle.

Ok. Since the consciousness exists in brainwaves, perhaps the conscious mind also represents probabilistic uncertainty, in the case of free will which is the freedom of choice.

Originally Posted by atofel

It is an interesting idea. We do see many dualities in science:
space vs. time
wave vs. particle
matter vs. energy

Perhaps the consciousness also exists on a neuron/brainwave duality.

Originally Posted by atofel

I have only dabbled in it as a hobby. Most of my reading has been with consciousness, but I also have a couple of text books on neuroscience.

Me too, but psychology is what I really love to dabble in. I've only read a bit on neuroscience. What textbooks on neuroscience do you have? I have "Principles of Neurology" by Maurice Victor and Allan H. Ropper [which is mainly consists of the clinical side of neurology] but I've only skimmed through some chapters when I was doing research on the endocrine system.

Originally Posted by atofel

I agree. I have read about a case where someone had brain damage and he could no longer perceive colors. Nothing was wrong with his eyes or his optical nerves, but everything he saw was black and white or scales of grey. Not only that, but he could no longer imagine color, no matter how hard he tried.

First of all, I did not say conscious experience has nothing to do with neurons in the brain. I have no doubt that for any conscious experience there will be certain neuron clusters in our head that will be blazing away with activity. My point is that the information we can extract and measure from our scientific instruments is insufficent to give us a complete picture of consciousness.

Ok. I agree. However we can only speculate since it's not proven with evidense. We can only grasp what is objectively is in front of us for the time being. Although it is worthwhile, you have to filter out speculation and assumptions, otherwise it's not science.

Originally Posted by atofel

One way to think of it is that we are only looking at one side of a coin through empirically observation. There is another side to that coin that cannot be viewed by our physical senses.

OK.

Originally Posted by atofel

True. The firing of neuron is not a binary operation. A neuron can have different types and magnitutes of firings. But I understood you were just using it as an illustration.

Since a neuron has different types and magnitudes of firings, I would say it's in a way comparable to how electronics works. Say that your neurons are circuits. I have forgotten most of my understanding of electronics [I'm a telecommunications technition BTW]. I'm really trying hard to recollect what I've learned, but I think I remember information is sent through circuits through binary codes: where you have "gates" that open and close. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I would say this can be somewhat comparable to neurons firing, and their sequences of firing are like binary code.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

The "entire possibility" no less. Oy vey!

Get a grip: a person being "troubled" puts "the entire possibility" of nothing in question.

Are you suggesting that people should not question their beliefs? If I have a contradiction or conceptual problem in my beliefs, you think I should just ignore it?

Or perhaps when I said "put into question", you heard "spit on it and then throw it out the window".