There's nothing unreal about knowing, or about brain functions. They're produced by biochemistry and bioelectricity,
Then surely you know the mechanism or you can arrange a demo for me? You can bring a brain out of living system and ask it to assert “I think therefore I am”. It is painful to hear again and again that consciousness is produced by biochemistry without any direct evidence or any mechanism to prove that. This is science?
If biochemistry produces consciousness then that produced consciousness would not be able to determine objective truth about its creation. This is well postulated by Godel that either the human mind is infinitely superior than any machine or there exists unsolvable problems. In other words, a mechanism cannot know itself.
Yes, our sensory input, particularly from the five classic senses, informs us about the world external to the self; and on a moment-to-moment basis, the monitoring of the data for relevance and meaning is highly automated by our evolution.
This is conjectural and unfalsifiable. Relevance to whom? Meaning to whom? You cannot answer this without referring to conscious subjects like us.
Materialism requires the following four statements about reality to be true: Our conscious perceptions exist; The conscious perceptions of other living entities, different from our own, also exist; There are things that exist independently of, and outside, the conscious perception; Things that exist independently of, and outside, conscious perception generate the conscious perception.
Statement 1 is self evident for everyone and is very close to the famous ‘I think, therefore I am’. If one can be sure of anything at all, it is that one’s conscious perceptions exist. So statement 1 is the one absolute certainty one can ever have. Statement 2 requires that there are other conscious entities, like other people or animals. This is a logical leap, based on our empirical everyday experiences. We see pain and joy of others. We interact based on mutual understanding.
Statement 3, on the other hand, requires a more significant leap of faith, since it postulates an entirely new category – namely, inanimate things outside conscious perception – for which we can never have any direct evidence. In animate matter do not tell us “We exist”. How do we know that brain is not hallucinating or not?
Statement 4 is most difficult and is actually absurd. It postulates that objects that you cognise and that you can never be sure to exist are actually responsible for your own consciousness. It postulates that abstractions generate what is concrete. It postulates that the seen generates the seer; that the known generates the knower. It is absurd. How can what you see out there generate your consciousness?
You admit that materialism presently lacks a complete reductionist program of consciousness.
But I will point out that the electrochemical processes are not remotely related causally to the phenomenal consciousness. The Hard problem of consciousness does not relate to measurable parameters. Suppose that an event in cortex correlates with a particular consciousness. But think. We are conscious of what? Are we conscious of the passing nerve current? No. Of the stimuli that originated it on the surface of the body? No.. We are not aware of any of these things.
Now, let us suppose that physicalism is correct. Physicalism entails that the world is ‘out there’ and that the contents of your mind are a reconstruction, architected and hosted by brain, of that external reality. The tables, chairs, walls, windows, computers, books, floor, etc., which we experience are not really the real things, but merely hallucinated copies inside head. So, the real world is some abstract realm of interacting electromagnetic interactions. We can never know the actual physical world out there. the implication is that you live your entire life locked within this brain-constructed hallucination. A world outside and independent of mind is a non-provable abstraction, regardless of how good the theoretical reasons to believe in it may be.
Further suppose that the world is ‘out there’ and that the contents of your mind are a reconstruction in brain. If it were true, your mind would still be the sole carrier of reality you can know. So, Physicalism with respect to consciousness is self refuting. Eventually, it boils down to a distorted version of mentalism that promises that you see/know only a copy of what is real and that is what ‘MIND’ is.
What a fall. How can you do science with an imprisoned mind that is nothing but a series of electronic reconstructions in brain?
But on top of that we're capable of purposeful examination of reality, exploring, describing and seeking to understand and explain what we find. This is what science does better than any known alternative method, and scientific method includes continual rechecking of our conclusions and searching for inconsistencies. Science is always a work in progress.
As detailed above, physicalism promises that you know only an abstraction of what is out there. And as what you know is all brain constructed you cannot have any competence for determining truth value of propositions.
I think I've pointed out to you before how I address this ─ with three assumptions. That a world exists external to me, that our senses are capable of informing us about this world, and eah.that reason is a valid tool. I have to assume them since I can't demonstrate that any of them is correct without first assuming it is already correct.
Yeah. All your assumptions are falsified above. I will summarise again.
You cannot prove objectively an external world outside your own awareness. As we saw above, brain takes in data and presents us an interpreted version. How do we ever ever confirm that brain gives us an objective picture of external world? Finally, if consciousness is a product of mechanism, there will be unsolvable (Godel). Mechanism cannot understand itself.
So your premise of materialism is built on house of cards. Note that I do not equate materialism with science, the methodological naturalism.
And I think I've also pointed out that your going on the net and having conversations like this one, and putting reasoned arguments, shows that you and I share those assumptions, so that we're talking to each other from within the same arena.
Yeah. If we are sharing a consciousness that is foundation of all cognition, then our shared word is real. And our reasoning not dependent on a created product but a real ontological reality.
We know a great deal about reality ─ it provides air, water, food, shelter, family, society; and our knowledge makes clocks, cars, computers, medicines, materials, Mars rovers, on and on.
It was materialism that discovered that; and exactly what the experiments mean is still a matter of debate, even among the best-informed and smartest. That's science in action!
No. Science in action is true. It is true since consciousness is true and not a created effect of mechanism.
Idealism implies that wishing will change reality as such. But no, we have not one authenticated example of magic, let alone a description of how it works. We have no authenticated cases of telepathy, clairvoyance, teleportation, divination, and so on, no useful distinction between 'supernatural', 'immaterial', and 'spiritual' on the one hand, and 'imaginary' on the other.
Why should it? You are assuming that consciousness is limited a manifest thoughts, sensations, and feelings of individuals only. That assumption is faulty.
Consciousness is of the nature of knowledge and it imparts the ability to discern. A man’s conscious volition is less 5% of all processes that occur unknown to individual’s mind. A man is not able to volitionally control much of his own processes. Why we should expect a man’s will to change environment?
But even then. Power of our mental causations are known. We can will bodily and mental changes. We can change brain (plasticity).We can do control aspects of consciousness that we can concentrate and attend to.
Well, so far all the real evidence is against you. And there's nothing inexplicable-in-principle about awareness. Even computers and microorganisms can at times act like aware things. And it wasn't idealists who discovered and are exploring DNA.
Not all. If the consciousness is the ontological primitive that underlies all discernments, no physical laws are violated. OTOH, there would be no ‘Hard Problem of Consciousness’ to explain away. Similarly many findings of quantum mechanics that militate against ‘localism’ and ‘realism’ can be explained smoothly. There will be no need to postulate unprovable ‘many world’ and similar theories to explain extremely small cosmological constant. All mental causations and effects of meditation etc. can be explained better.
there are no ultimates, no absolutes, in science. By contrast, in idealism all statements are true, since truth isn't dependent on reality. Qualia are simply evolved responses to particular sensory inputs; they do more directly and efficiently what the numbers in red down the side of his vision did for Arnie's terminator.
There are currently a set of absolutes as per the Standard Model.
I freely concede that materialism presently lacks a complete reductionist program of everything. But idealism doesn't have an explanation for reality at all, nor is it looking. Next time you get your car fixed or your chest x-rayed, make sure you're deal with materialists.
When you mature, you are likely to concede more. He he.
Please set out the definition of 'consciousness' in this sense, so that we can isolate it from other phenomena. If it's a state, what parameters are necessary for that state to exist? If it's a real thing, what are we actually looking for to bring into the lab? If it's an idea, well, it only exists in brains that contain that idea. Which is it?
I understand
Consciousness as jnana (knowledge) as per the Vedas.
Jnana can be a)
Prajnana (the potential pre
jnana, which is non dual and devoid of subject-object division) and
Vijnana (manifest knowledge: perceptions, thoughts, feelings. This manifest knowledge is after subject-object object division). The tool/mirror of consciousness is mind, comprising of: mentation, intellect, ego identity, and memory.
Anyone interested for more:
Ah, my dear colloquist, these discussions have made us both sharper over time! Very healthy exercise.
Agree. Finally I agree.
