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

[blü 2]

If science had somehow made Philosophy unimportant you'd have a point. Sadly we can see that this is because academia has a severe bias towards scientism/materialism and has for a few decades. Those on the left were trained before such a bias was introduce, those on the left after. So really we're looking at actual scientists vs indoctrinated materialists.

But we're not talking about philosophy, are we?

Your irrepressible chuckle at the mention of materialism would be rather ill-founded if the facts are against you, no?

And as far as I can see, all the available facts, all the available science, are against you. You don't respond to posts where I point this out either.

Not that I wish to spoil your chuckle, but you might enjoy it more if your own view were tenable in open discussion.

 

[1137]

And as far as I can see, all the available facts, all the available science, are against you. You don't respond to posts where I point this out either.

Not that I wish to spoil your chuckle, but you might enjoy it more if your own view were tenable in open discussion.

I can say all day "the science supports flat Earth! It supports creationism!" But id still be wrong.

 

[blü 2]

I can say all day "the science supports flat Earth! It supports creationism!" But id still be wrong.

You would indeed.

But what realistic alternative to materialism are you offering, and on the basis of what evidence?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

.. But id still be wrong.

Seems to be your main modus operandi ... being wrong, that is.

 

[atanu]

...
Second, where are those spiritual transmitters? Must be very close. Since I become aware of anything i suddenly see within a few hundreds of milliseconds, then a rapid calculation of the time it takes to....

It is close. The sense of "I am" awareness is that. Can you see or grasp or measure it?

 

[shunyadragon]

It is close. The sense of "I am" awareness is that. Can you see or grasp or measure it?

No, because it is a belief without objective verifiable evidence.

 

[blü 2]

No, because it is a belief without objective verifiable evidence.

I think that's true for the time being, but not in principle. I think consciousness is a state, or a set of states, which we'll get to understand in due course.

On the other hand subjectively I completely agree ─ the sense of self is a datum, not an assumption or conclusion, right there in the middle of our everything.

 

[osgart]

Subjectivity dont lie, if anyone has courage to explore it for themselves. There is great evidences in knowing your own subjective experience. To where the science of consciousness shows itself to be heady, and arrogant in masse. Its seems so's are deceptive, as if numbers dont lie, and all those peer review groups are just those of a large clique.

They would rob people of their ability to define themselves, and to come to knowledge of self by reasoning alone within themselves, and examining their own subjective experience to objectively see to themselves who and what they are.

Im extremely tired of groupspeak science magisteria i get on rf.

If you let things become you, then perhaps they will if you let it. With a little courage to explore ones own self objectively, and not being reliant on so called second hand factish nonsense, one can recognize the strength of individuality, and that you cant lump sum everybody because everybody is different.

I would end by saying their is a vast amount of self alone exploration that with self objectivity toward the subjective self, is knowledge that is priceless beyond any probe could possibly compare.

The English language is on its own the best philosopher. The people who originated the language didnt waste time on idle meanings.

There is a vast wealth of knowledge to be gained all alone.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that's true for the time being, but not in principle. I think consciousness is a state, or a set of states, which we'll get to understand in due course.

On the other hand subjectively I completely agree ─ the sense of self is a datum, not an assumption or conclusion, right there in the middle of our everything.

I was primarily referring to narrow view of @atanu from his theistic perspective concerning 'consciousness' and reflects a history of his posts of what constitutes 'I am.' I am a theist also, but I do not put such a narrow perspective and limits as to what 'consciousness.'

From the scientific perspective I have no problem with the 'mind and consciousness' naturally evolved with the brain,

 

[siti]

Was this not you?

"But this was a burst of technological creativity - it says nothing at all about the "advent of higher consciousness".

Yep - that was me - my point was that the "advent of higher consciousness" could very well have happened 100,000 years earlier (or even more) - making more sophisticated tools is evidence of of advancing technology, not advancing consciousness.

 

[atanu]

On the other hand subjectively I completely agree ─ the sense of self is a datum, not an assumption or conclusion, right there in the middle of our everything.

Oh. Thanks.

think that's true for the time being, but not in principle. I think consciousness is a state, or a set of states, which we'll get to understand in due course.

Okay, I am an optimist fool. Let me try again. When you say 'a set of states', is there any commonality among these states that tells us that all these states are of one same thing? When we see three states of water we know that the three states are are different arrangements of same molecule.

 

[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.

Why is this thread in Evolution vs. Creationism forum?

 

[blü 2]

Oh. Thanks.

None more welcome!

When you say 'a set of states', is there any commonality among these states that tells us that all these states are of one same thing? When we see three states of water we know that the three states are are different arrangements of same molecule.

A 'brain state' refers to the condition of the brain ─ the particular interrelationship of its physical functions ─ at a particular moment or period. Consciousness, it seems clear to me, must arise from particular functions of the brain which produce it. It seems less likely to me that one single function does the job. (I've also mentioned I think the nonconscious brain does nearly all the work, even when we're wakeful and alert.)

I'm aware of at least two approaches to consciousness in research. One walks directly up to the question by enquiring into how exactly anaesthesia works ─ the direct biochemically caused cessation of consciousness in a restorable, non-damaging way. The other is theories of what consciousness is for, that's to say, when we consciously address matters we're considering, and when we simply do them with the nonconscious brain (like driving while you're talking to your passenger). I think I've mentioned Global Workspace as the leading hypothesis ─ it has some experimental confirmation by now, and last time I looked it had no strong rivals.

So are the brain states of one same thing? If as I think they're plural then they combine to produce the range of phenomena we experience as consciousness, which can mean simply awake (if I recall aright, you think sleep is a conscious state, which I don't), or (being awake) aware, or mulling, or concentrating, or debating with oneself, or as the case may be.

No, not like states of water: more like different orchestrations of various brain functions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Subjectivity dont lie, if anyone has courage to explore it for themselves.

Subjectivity does not lie nor tell the truth.

There is great evidences in knowing your own subjective experience. To where the science of consciousness shows itself to be heady, and arrogant in masse. Its seems so's are deceptive, as if numbers dont lie, and all those peer review groups are just those of a large clique.

They would rob people of their ability to define themselves, and to come to knowledge of self by reasoning alone within themselves, and examining their own subjective experience to objectively see to themselves who and what they are.

Im extremely tired of groupspeak science magisteria i get on rf.

If you let things become you, then perhaps they will if you let it. With a little courage to explore ones own self objectively, and not being reliant on so called second hand factish nonsense, one can recognize the strength of individuality, and that you cant lump sum everybody because everybody is different.

I would end by saying their is a vast amount of self alone exploration that with self objectivity toward the subjective self, is knowledge that is priceless beyond any probe could possibly compare.

The English language is on its own the best philosopher. The people who originated the language didnt waste time on idle meanings.

There is a vast wealth of knowledge to be gained all alone.

Worse than an alien conspiracy!

 

[Polymath257]

If science had somehow made Philosophy unimportant you'd have a point. Sadly we can see that this is because academia has a severe bias towards scientism/materialism and has for a few decades. Those on the left were trained before such a bias was introduce, those on the left after. So really we're looking at actual scientists vs indoctrinated materialists.

Interestingly, it is partly because of the work of those on the left that materialism has won out.

 

[viole]

It is close. The sense of "I am" awareness is that. Can you see or grasp or measure it?

Not yet. But I suspect that one day we will be able to.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

It is close. The sense of "I am" awareness is that. Can you see or grasp or measure it?

In fact, it is so close, it is in the brain. And no transmission is required at all.

I see several assumptions made here that I find to be quite unlikely.

1. That awareness is a singular thing. I see it as much more likely to be a collection of interconnected processes.

2. That the circuitry that determines 'I am' will forever be out of reach of our measurements. Again, I find it likely that we will uncover several different aspects that fall under this heading of 'I am' with it only being an illusion that they are a unity.

3. We can certainly measure various degrees of consciousness through a variety of means.

4. The focus on subjectivity, to me, seems like a serious red-herring. A detector doesn't detect itself directly, but that doesn't mean it isn't material. There are many things we don't know about how the brain works, but all available evidence is that it can and does manage all the aspects of consciousness.

5. How can I know if I am conscious in the same way you are? I *think* I am conscious, but it seems from what you and others describe, my experiences may be different in kind from yours. maybe even to the place that what I 'experience' isn't really 'experience' from your point of view. How can I know?

6. To me, subjectivity is the least important part of discovering how reality works. OK, so such and such happened to me. That is a single event that may or may not give any hint about more general truths. It's on the order of saying that detector picked up red light. Without context and a physical background, that isn't very meaningful as far as i can see.

 

[osgart]

Subjectivity does not lie nor tell the truth.



Worse than an alien conspiracy!

Subjectivity tells one the truth of themselves and what they choose to be and also what they are to themselves.

Taking away the truth of self alone knowledge and self creation, and the importance of self reflection is a potential conspiracy. Subjectivity isnt meaningless by a long shot.

What produces objectivity is subjective beings having objective motives. I can be thoroughly objective of my own subjectivity and uncover knowledge.

 

[shunyadragon]

Subjectivity tells one the truth of themselves and what they choose to be and also what they are to themselves.

So terribly 'begging the question' that you just bite yourself in the butt.

Taking away the truth of self alone knowledge and self creation, and the importance of self reflection is a potential conspiracy. Subjectivity isn't meaningless by a long shot.

Subjectivity is only meaningful to those who believe it.

What produces objectivity is subjective beings having objective motives. I can be thoroughly objective of my own subjectivity and uncover knowledge.

I cannot even respond to this.

 

[osgart]

Subjectivity is only meaningless to a robot. Or its some sort of a trick.

Your own Personal experience and personal feelings dont mean anything to you? Come and go like the wind i suppose.
Signifying nothing to you or anybody else.

I highly doubt that.