Every time someone goes screaming "materialism" I like to have a chuckle

[1137]

As always the "mind reduces to the brain" absurdity has risen up again. And as always I discussed my evidence against it at length only to be met with cries of "you haven't presented anything!" So where one such materialist, as usual, couldn't even address the points enough to acknowledge their existence, I'll repost them for their peers. Can't wait to see how differently it goes this time!

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

 

[George-ananda]

Can't wait to see how differently it goes this time!

I am a non-materialist myself, but had to chuckle (sorry) at the naïve optimism above.

The above four things are good food for thought topics but are just the start for an endless debate on consciousness with no concurrence of thought in sight between the two schools.

We need something beyond thought arguments to break through the debate. We need real world things to point to also. What settled it (belief in non-materialism) for me was my study of the paranormal with my conclusion that things do really happen that should not happen if materialism was correct. Eventually the rolling snowball overwhelmed me and changed me from a materialist to a non-materialist.

 

[dfnj]

As always the "mind reduces to the brain" absurdity has risen up again. And as always I discussed my evidence against it at length only to be met with cries of "you haven't presented anything!" So where one such materialist, as usual, couldn't even address the points enough to acknowledge their existence, I'll repost them for their peers. Can't wait to see how differently it goes this time!

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

Is the brain like a computer or is the brain more like a TV receiver. The brain may be a TV receiver and what you experience as consciousness is a signal coming from God.

 

[atanu]

As always the "mind reduces to the brain" absurdity has risen up again. And as always I discussed my evidence against it at length only to be met with cries of "you haven't presented anything!" So where one such materialist, as usual, couldn't even address the points enough to acknowledge their existence, I'll repost them for their peers. Can't wait to see how differently it goes this time!

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

Point no. 2 is enough.

 

[HonestJoe]

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

Different things, not necessarily entirely separate. Nobody is saying the mind is matter, only that the mind is a consequence of matter.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

That’s just a complicated way of saying “We can’t be certain of anything”. That applies equally to saying the mind is the consequence of something other than matter though.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

”Of nature” isn’t really clearly defined here. You’re inventing some kind of dividing line which has no apparent reason to exist. What exactly makes the things you list “against nature”, makes anything “of nature” and actively prevents anything “of nature” going “against nature”?

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

There is no such concept as “biologically modern”. I’m not sure it is clear when consciousness developed in any species but there’s no reason to imagine it happened as a binary switch. Other species of animal have varying levels of consciousness after all, some that are arguably very close to our own.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect the issue of how consciousness arises will be resolved by the sciences within the next twenty years or so, if not sooner.

 

[Shad]

1.

Assertion without evidence.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

Those are all natural sources having an influence on the brain. Nothing you said in any ways support the idea the mind is not of nature. In fact it shows you are cluelessly providing evidence for the opposite of your claim by using methodological naturalism as your evidence. IE a nature based source influencing a nature based organ.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

You are misrepresenting UPR. It was about tool use not consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

As always the "mind reduces to the brain" absurdity has risen up again. And as always I discussed my evidence against it at length only to be met with cries of "you haven't presented anything!" So where one such materialist, as usual, couldn't even address the points enough to acknowledge their existence, I'll repost them for their peers. Can't wait to see how differently it goes this time!

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

You made a claim here, but gave no reason to think there is a violation of the law of identity in any way. Everything that the mind does, matter can do. And we know where in the matter it is done.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

So what? yes, we have to be conscious to know something. A computer has to be on to accept information. That doesn't mean that consciousness is immaterial. That is a property of how we acquire knowledge, not in the ultimate nature of reality.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

But the mind *doesn't* violate any laws of physics. In no way does it 'go against nature'. In fact, every single physical law holds during every mental event. Which, again, is a good sign that mental events are physical.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

Sorry, but the evidence for this singular event is rather poor and contradicted by a mass of other evidence. In particular, we simply don't have the resolution in the record to say that the spread was 'at one time' as opposed to, say, happening over 1000 years. Nor is there any real reason to associate the Upper Paleolithic Revolution (in art and such) as the rise of a 'higher consciousness' as opposed to a simple improvement in technology.

 

[Polymath257]

Is the brain like a computer or is the brain more like a TV receiver. The brain may be a TV receiver and what you experience as consciousness is a signal coming from God.

Except that with TVs and radios, we have *other* methods of receiving the transmissions and those transmissions leave *physical* evidence of their existence. In the case of consciousness, there is no independent evidence for a transmission. In fact, the evidence points to the brain being *where* consciousness occurs and the processes in thebrain being the explanation for the observed mental activities.

In a transmission, we have a single receiver that responds to variations in the signal. That is NOT what happens in the brain. Instead, we have different locations in the brain that mediate different aspects of mental events. This is not at all like a receiver and is more of an example of a computer operating on sensory and stored information (memory!).

In many ways, the transmitter 'explanation' seems like a smokescreen thrown up without any evidence to deny the simpler explanation of a material basis for consciousness. It is like denying that there is gravity and, instead, there are little gnomes that push us down to the earth in exactly the way gravity would.

 

[Nous]

A few observations on metaphysics, most of which I've already said before:

(1) We definitely cannot conclude any form of monism by way of the scientific method or logic. I.e., we cannot conclude that "all things that exist are of the nature X" either empirically or logically, because we cannot deduce what is included in "all things." We cannot empirically or logically determine that the z-thing does not exist.

This does not mean that any expression of monism is false. It only means that we cannot logically or empirically conclude it.

(2) To date, the scientific method has demonstrated the nature of the empirical universe is mathematics, namely, objective relations between quantities. The nature of the known empirical universe is not verbal concepts, but relations between quantities. E=mc2 denotes a relation between 3 (or 4) quantities, not a configuration of verbal or non-mathematical concepts. This fact implies the thesis of mathematical realism.

(3) The fact that humans (and, I believe, many other animals) are (at least in some circumstances) able to choose between available options indicates at least one of two propositions: (1) consciousness exhibits a different nature than any purely empirical object or phenomenon that we know of; (2) something other than or in addition to the empirical universe exists.
Regardless which of those 2 propositions one wishes to choose, the fact unequivocally indicates that consciousness or the something else is capable of affecting the empirical universe. I.e., consciousness or the something else is not merely some inert thingamajig (e.g., inert experience).

(4) The whole of observation (3) is good and cogent with another fact: The denial that humans are able to choose between available options is self-stultifying. A person who is unable to choose between available options is unable to choose between a true or false answer to the question of whether humans are able to choose between available options.

(5) I don't have anymore deep thoughts on metaphysics at the moment. But I would like to preserve my option to post further ones later, in case one pops into my head.

 

[Nous]

And what the hell does this topic have to do with evolution vs. creationism? Nothing. The topic is metaphysics.

 

[Nous]

Except that with TVs and radios, we have *other* methods of receiving the transmissions and those transmissions leave *physical* evidence of their existence. In the case of consciousness, there is no independent evidence for a transmission.

How does anesthesia work? I believe the current theory is that it works by disrupting EM waves.

 

[Nous]

But the mind *doesn't* violate any laws of physics. In no way does it 'go against nature'. In fact, every single physical law holds during every mental event. Which, again, is a good sign that mental events are physical.

Define "physical," please.

 

[1137]

Different things, not necessarily entirely separate. Nobody is saying the mind is matter, only that the mind is a consequence of matter.

If mind is not matter and it exists, materialism is false.

That’s just a complicated way of saying “We can’t be certain of anything”. That applies equally to saying the mind is the consequence of something other than matter though.

We can be certain of things - specifically the existence of the Self and consciousness. Matter is not one of these things.

”Of nature” isn’t really clearly defined here. You’re inventing some kind of dividing line which has no apparent reason to exist. What exactly makes the things you list “against nature”, makes anything “of nature” and actively prevents anything “of nature” going “against nature”?

Having the properties of nature. Mindless, material, deterministic nature. Nature does not think or choose, and it cannot act differently. Human minds can do all of the above.

There is no such concept as “biologically modern”. I’m not sure it is clear when consciousness developed in any species but there’s no reason to imagine it happened as a binary switch. Other species of animal have varying levels of consciousness after all, some that are arguably very close to our own.

It actually is clear, it happened during the upper paleolithic revolution. And other species going against nature doesn't damage the rejection of materialism at all - it strengthens it.

 

[1137]

I suspect the issue of how consciousness arises will be resolved by the sciences within the next twenty years or so, if not sooner.

So faith.

 

[1137]

Assertion without evidence.

So like matter you believe minds take up space, can be accessed by others, act linearly, etc? Can you please provide evidence of this?

Thosere all natural sources having an influence on the brain. Nothing you said in any ways support the idea the mind is not of nature. In fact it shows you are cluelessly providing evidence for the opposite of your claim by using methodological naturalism as your evidence. IE a nature based source influencing a nature based organ.

Cool. So I can self regulate without higher consciousness? I can grow technology in my garden? You materialists believe the wierdest **** I swear.

Youe misrepresenting UPR. It was about tool use not consciousness.

Wrong. It was a rise in higher consciousness, not only including advances in tool use but things like abstract thought, art, religion, culture, etc. Maybe actually look into it?

 

[1137]

You made a claim here, but gave no reason to think there is a violation of the law of identity in any way. Everything that the mind does, matter can do. And we know where in the matter it is done.



So what? yes, we have to be conscious to know something. A computer has to be on to accept information. That doesn't mean that consciousness is immaterial. That is a property of how we acquire knowledge, not in the ultimate nature of reality.



But the mind *doesn't* violate any laws of physics. In no way does it 'go against nature'. In fact, every single physical law holds during every mental event. Which, again, is a good sign that mental events are physical.



Sorry, but the evidence for this singular event is rather poor and contradicted by a mass of other evidence. In particular, we simply don't have the resolution in the record to say that the spread was 'at one time' as opposed to, say, happening over 1000 years. Nor is there any real reason to associate the Upper Paleolithic Revolution (in art and such) as the rise of a 'higher consciousness' as opposed to a simple improvement in technology.

I'm not bothering with you till you give me my $100.

 

[HonestJoe]

If mind is not matter and it exists, materialism is false.

In the context you’re twisting, the mind is energy, which is material.

We can be certain of things - specifically the existence of the Self and consciousness. Matter is not one of these things.

The could be combinations of matter and energy. They could be forms of energy we don’t yet understand. You can’t definitively say they’re not “material” any more than you could definitively say they are.

Having the properties of nature. Mindless, material, deterministic nature. Nature does not think or choose, and it cannot act differently. Human minds can do all of the above.

You just made up that definition. What relevance does it have to reality? Why can’t something natural make a choice? Why can’t something natural believe it’s making a choice when it’s actually following a predetermined path?

It actually is clear, it happened during the upper paleolithic revolution. And other species going against nature doesn't damage the rejection of materialism at all - it strengthens it.

It’s not as clear as you make it out to be (nothing is as clear as you make it out to be!) but regardless, it wasn’t what you appear to be imagining it to be. As I said, it was a social shift, not a “consciousness” one.

 

[Shad]

So like matter you believe minds take up space, can be accessed by others, act linearly, etc? Can you please provide evidence of this?

Yes it is called the brain. Next!

Cool. So I can self regulate without higher consciousness? I can grow technology in my garden? You materialists believe the wierdest **** I swear.

This is nothing but nonsensical babble addressing nothing I said. Strawman.

Wrong. It was a rise in higher consciousness, not only including advances in tool use but things like abstract thought, art, religion, culture, etc. Maybe actually look into it?

I have hence why I pointed out you are misrepresenting it. It was not a conscious shift but development based on tool use. Without tool use you have no evidence of art, culture, religion, etc, etc. Try again.

Perhaps materialists are not discussing your topics as you babble as per your replies when faced with any disagreement.

 

[1137]

In the context you’re twisting, the mind is energy, which is material.

The could be combinations of matter and energy. They could be forms of energy we don’t yet understand. You can’t definitively say they’re not “material” any more than you could definitively say they are.

Except we know what properties matter/energy have, and what properties minds have. So we know that the properties not only don't match but straight contradict.

just made up that definition. What relevance does it have to reality? Why can’t something natural make a choice? Why can’t something natural believe it’s making a choice when it’s actually following a predetermined path?

So you think, for example, that a planet chooses to orbit it's star? That a flower chooses where it grows? The ocean decides to make waves? Materialism.... Gods help us.

It’s not as clear as you make it out to be (nothing is as clear as you make it out to be!) but regardless, it wasn’t what you appear to be imagining it to be. As I said, it was a social shift, not a “consciousness” one.

"But **** science, it doesn't match my faith." Wow.