What's wrong with Materialism?

[blü 2]

If consciousness exists solely in the brain, then why are we conscious of things outside of the brain?

Because with sight, photons from 'outside' strike the lens of the eye, are received into the nervous system in the retina, the information processed in the brain, and if a reaction is required, the brain will make what it considers an appropriate reaction.

With sound, sound waves from 'outside' strike the ear. With smells, airborne chemicals from 'outside' reach us. With taste, those chemicals are usually from solids and brought into direct contact with the taste buds, the analyzing system. With touch, the skin (&c) reacts to direct contact with things 'outside'.

 

[blü 2]

H.P. Lovecraft's the Silver Key (one of his less-popular, non-horror stories) also does a good job at explaining Surrealism.

That's from his Dunsany period, a part of his oeuvre which I don't greatly admire, though overall I'm a big fan. (I find Dunsany wavers between witty and irritating too; but on a completely irrelevant sidenote, one of Dunsany's stories, 'My Talks with Dean Spanley', was the basis of a brilliant little movie, 'Dean Spanley' (2008) with notably fine performances from Sam Neill and Peter O'Toole.)

No, it's not that we think dreams are real. We don't give reality as much importance as you do. We're fine with things being surreal rather than real.

I didn't see that sentence coming, based on your prior words.

So you distinguish the real from the imaginary, and you don't assume your friend is dead just because your friend died in a dream, and you don't pay the IRS tax on the $5m salary increase you dreamed, and you act like a materialist when you need a doctor and in just about everything else.

As one who enjoys surrealism as an art form, I'm at a loss to see important differences between your view and mine.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Because with sight, photons from 'outside' strike the lens of the eye, are received into the nervous system in the retina, the information processed in the brain, and if a reaction is required, the brain will make what it considers an appropriate reaction.

With sound, sound waves from 'outside' strike the ear. With smells, airborne chemicals from 'outside' reach us. With taste, those chemicals are usually from solids and brought into direct contact with the taste buds, the analyzing system. With touch, the skin (&c) reacts to direct contact with things 'outside'.

Exactly! And that is exactly what I already knew you would say. Information from outside of us interacts with our brains which in turn translates that information into color, sound, smell, taste, etc... This is in my opinion, clear evidence showing that what we call "consciousness" does not exist solely in our brains. What we call consciousness is in fact a complex network of interactive streams of information extending far beyond our brains. Those external interactions are vital to our consciousness, for without those outside streams of information, we would not have awareness of anything outside of our brains. The universe as a whole is interactive and interconnected. We are just playing along with it.

 

[blü 2]

Information from outside of us interacts with our brains which in turn translates that information into color, sound, smell, taste, etc... This is in my opinion, clear evidence showing that what we call "consciousness" does not exist solely in our brains.

The 'color' (to take one example) exists nowhere else than the brain. Elsewhere eg red is just the wavelength 620-740 nm or so; and you won't even know that unless those particular photons strike your retina.

Likewise the 'taste' of salt exists nowhere but in your brain. Elsewhere it's just NaCl or MgCl2 and their hydrates.

And so on.

What we call consciousness is in fact a complex network of interactive streams of information extending far beyond our brains.

I don't think of consciousness in those terms; but regardless, our brains receive complex streams of sensory data, and respond to them solely within the brain. No examinable evidence suggests otherwise.

The universe as a whole is interactive and interconnected. We are just playing along with it.

If the universe is a unit then we'd have no need of telescopes and we'd know if other intelligent life were out there or not.

But we need telescopes, and we know of no extraterrestrial life at all, and we understand the universe in the terms unlocked by science as its enquiries advance.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The 'color' (to take one example) exists nowhere else than the brain. Elsewhere eg red is just the wavelength 620-740 nm or so; and you won't even know that unless those particular photons strike your retina.

Likewise the 'taste' of salt exists nowhere but in your brain. Elsewhere it's just NaCl or MgCl2 and their hydrates.

And so on.

I don't think of consciousness in those terms; but regardless, our brains receive complex streams of sensory data, and respond to them solely within the brain. No examinable evidence suggests otherwise.

If the universe is a unit then we'd have no need of telescopes and we'd know if other intelligent life were out there or not.

But we need telescopes, and we know of no extraterrestrial life at all, and we understand the universe in the terms unlocked by science as its enquiries advance.

I actually agree with you. All I am saying is that there is an internal/external connectivity there. Our brains allow for complex interactions to take place, but those interactive forces stem from outside of our brain and are then processed or computed by the brain. The brain is the receiver and the translator, but the brain is not the signal. I believe that the signal is fundamental, not how our brains interpret it. We can ingest chemicals into our bodies that change how our brains interpret those signals...red might even look green, but it is the signal, that interaction which is fundamental to our consciousness. But that's just my opinion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Materialism will accept the supernatural when the supernatural has a satisfactory definition and a satisfactory demonstration.

Meanwhile the supernatural is found in stories and dreams, and (just as its name suggests) not in nature. Things are either in nature ─ real, have objective existence ─ or they're imaginary (and/or non-existent).

And brain research will continue on the materialistic basis which is scientific method, and keep exploring consciousness and all the aspects of working brains and their health and disorders; and benefits will continue to flow from the increases in our understanding.

How should they proceed instead, in your view?

I don't equate 'supernatural' with 'metaphysical'. Supernatural describes phenomena that are beyond the laws of nature. Metaphysical is a division of philosophy that concerns the fundamental nature of being.

But I digress. I never implied or insinuated that any change in the process of brain research should be made. I simply stated it is, IMO, wrong for materialists to be dismissive of alternate metaphysical hypotheses regarding phenomena that science is unable to explain.

 

[atanu]

When you deny the existence of any object (or the subject itself) on the ground of it not being perceived, you admit an inference which itself is based on non-perception.

In other words, materialism is self refuting.

This was ignored. So, I am bumping it for reconsideration.

 

[blü 2]

I actually agree with you. All I am saying is that there is an internal/external connectivity there.

The sensory data are received in the brain. The brain interprets them and on that basis decides whether to react or not, and if so, how. The brain is informed about the external world. The external world is not informed about the brain ─ unless another brain is nearby to interpret any reaction or lack or reaction.

Our brains allow for complex interactions to take place, but those interactive forces stem from outside of our brain and are then processed or computed by the brain.

No, they only become 'forces' if the receiving brain thinks so, ie decides they require a reaction.

The brain is the receiver and the translator, but the brain is not the signal. I believe that the signal is fundamental, not how our brains interpret it.

The signal isn't even a signal unless it finds its way to a brain. Even then it isn't a signal if the brain doesn't respond to it ie doesn't choose a reaction; it's just background noise.

red might even look green

Haven't tried that one.

it is the signal, that interaction which is fundamental to our consciousness.

But it isn't the case that consciousness ceases in experiments and imprisonments involving sensory deprivation. The subject indeed becomes confused, disoriented, so it's not irrelevant to brain function (I don't know what specific effect it might have on the conscious state) but even if consciousness developed to better handle the external world, there's never a time when we're not in the external world.

 

[blü 2]

I don't equate 'supernatural' with 'metaphysical'.

Neither do I.

Supernatural describes phenomena that are beyond the laws of nature.

Such as?

it is, IMO, wrong for materialists to be dismissive of alternate metaphysical hypotheses regarding phenomena that science is unable to explain.

Which metaphysical hypotheses, specifically?

 

[Runewolf1973]

The sensory data are received in the brain. The brain interprets them and on that basis decides whether to react or not, and if so, how. The brain is informed about the external world. The external world is not informed about the brain ─ unless another brain is nearby to interpret any reaction or lack or reaction.

No, they only become 'forces' if the receiving brain thinks so, ie decides they require a reaction.

The signal isn't even a signal unless it finds its way to a brain. Even then it isn't a signal if the brain doesn't respond to it ie doesn't choose a reaction; it's just background noise.

Haven't tried that one.

But it isn't the case that consciousness ceases in experiments and imprisonments involving sensory deprivation. The subject indeed becomes confused, disoriented, so it's not irrelevant to brain function (I don't know what specific effect it might have on the conscious state) but even if consciousness developed to better handle the external world, there's never a time when we're not in the external world.

You have an interesting and rather logical argument. I'll have to give this some more thought because I think your interpretation makes sense. Now I have to figure out how that all fits into my worldview.

My opinion is that a signal is a signal and a force is a force whether the brain perceives that signal or force acting upon it or not. The rays of the Sun could be burning my skin without me even realizing it or being conscious of it doing so.

 

[blü 2]

You have an interesting and rather logical argument. I'll have to give this some more thought because I think your interpretation makes sense. Now I have to figure out how that all fits into my worldview.

Good hunting!

My opinion is that a signal is a signal and a force is a force whether the brain perceives that signal or force acting upon it or not.

Of course that's true of physical forces. I didn't read your post as speaking of physical forces.

Almost the only relevant force is gravity (not strictly a force, but it makes little difference). The EM force may come to mind with electric motors; the strong and weak forces almost never.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Good hunting!

Of course that's true of physical forces. I didn't read your post as speaking of physical forces.

Almost the only relevant force is gravity (not strictly a force, but it makes little difference). The EM force may come to mind with electric motors; the strong and weak forces almost never.

I only refer to real physical forces. The EM force in my opinion is very relevant since electromagnetism is present in the brain. The brain even emits waves of EM frequencies.

Perhaps those emitted EM waves are part of our consciousness (as in an interactive field of sorts) extending beyond the brain. I'm just speculating of course.

 

[atanu]

The 'color' (to take one example) exists nowhere else than the brain. Elsewhere eg red is just the wavelength 620-740 nm or so; and you won't even know that unless those particular photons strike your retina.
Likewise the 'taste' of salt exists nowhere but in your brain. Elsewhere it's just NaCl or MgCl2 and their hydrates.
And so on.

This is inexplicable to me. How do you know that 'salt' is in brain?

I don't think of consciousness in those terms; but regardless, our brains receive complex streams of sensory data, and respond to them solely within the brain. No examinable evidence suggests otherwise.

If the universe is a unit then we'd have no need of telescopes and we'd know if other intelligent life were out there or not.

But we need telescopes, and we know of no extraterrestrial life at all, and we understand the universe in the terms unlocked by science as its enquiries advance.

Do you mean that 'universe' is out there?

 

[blü 2]

This is inexplicable to me. How do you know that 'salt' is in brain?

There are salts throughout the body, including the brain.

But if you taste salt, you do this with those clever chemical receptors in your mouth called taste buds, and the ones good at detecting salt react so that relevant data are sent neurally to the brain; and the brain reacts to the data by registering the taste of salt for you. Salt on its own has no taste until that interpretive brain reaction adds it ─ there's nothing tasting it.

How do you figure it works?

Do you mean that 'universe' is out there?

To an onlooker I'm part of the universe. From my own subjective point of view, I'm in here perceiving the external world through my senses, and everything else that's real (and not a part, in one sense or another, of my body) is out there; including the universe.

 

[atanu]

There are salts throughout the body, including the brain.

But if you taste salt, you do this with those clever chemical receptors in your mouth called taste buds, and the ones good at detecting salt react so that relevant data are sent neurally to the brain; and the brain reacts to the data by registering the taste of salt for you. Salt on its own has no taste until that interpretive brain reaction adds it ─ there's nothing tasting it.

How do you figure it works?

It becomes more inexplicable.

Why should brain give a salty taste to salt (which according to you exists within and without) and sweet taste to glucose (which I presume exists within and without)?

To an onlooker I'm part of the universe. From my own subjective point of view, I'm in here perceiving the external world through my senses, and everything else that's real (and not a part, in one sense or another, of my body) is out there; including the universe.

What is an onlooker, what is universe, what is body, what is real and what is unreal? What are these things apart from brain?

And then what is brain? Is it that brain sees itself and knows "Well I see a brain and its chemicals reacting and generating the consciousness that allows me to see myself?"

BTW, a bonus question. Did your brain ever tell you "I am your brain and I am generator of your intelligence-consciousness"? Or is it that you interpreted the whole scenario like this? Are you real or is the brain real?

May be it is me alone, but enquiring in this way, the very premise of materialism becomes weird after a stage.

 

[blü 2]

Why should brain give a salty taste to salt (which according to you exists within and without) and sweet taste to glucose (which I presume exists within and without)?

How do you think taste buds work?

What is an onlooker, what is universe, what is body, what is real and what is unreal? What are these things apart from brain?

I begin with three assumptions: that a world exists external to the self; that the senses are capable of informing the self about this world; and that reason is a valid tool. (I have to assume them since I can't run an argument for them without having already assumed they exist.)

An onlooker, in this context, is someone not me, looking at my brain, which the onlooker perceives as part of objective reality.

The body is the brain and its physical support system (bones, muscles, limbs, organs, blood, gut, sinews, membranes, glands, hormones, and so on, and all the microorganisms that the body harbors and in many cases works with. In other words, when I catch the bus, it's what gets on the bus. If you wish to regard the brain as distinct from its immediate support system (blood supply, hormones, serum, meninges, and so on) then it's the principle center of the body's nervous system (more important than the sort-of-autonomous nervous systems of the heart and of the gut) and the organ that carries out the brain's functions, such as sense of self, memory, speech, reasoning, desires, instincts, conscience, decisions, and so on.

A thing has objective existence when it exists independently of the concept of it in any brain; and a thing with objective existence is real. Things that aren't real exist only as concepts in brains, with no real counterpart. I usually group them as 'imaginary'; certainly they don't exist outside the individual's mentation.

Did your brain ever tell you "I am your brain and I am generator of your intelligence-consciousness"? Or is it that you interpreted the whole scenario like this? Are you real or is the brain real?

In this context, there's no distinction between my brain functions and me, so 'my brain' doesn't tell 'me' anything. (On the other hand, it's not simply possible but usual to be able to have internal dialogs.)

If you want to know what research says about brains, get in the habit of reading the science page of a good newspaper or the site Science Daily, which I find excellent.

If you want a briefing on where we're up to in understanding how the brain functions, a book like Mariano Sigman's The Secret Life of the Mind' will do the trick.

May be it is me alone, but enquiring in this way, the very premise of materialism becomes weird after a stage.

Compared to what other view?

 

[atanu]

How do you think taste buds work?

But that was the question. Why blind processes started liking hot, sweet, sour etc. etc. Why blind processes wanted pleasure of senses?

I begin with three assumptions: ...

Thank you for the detailed response. Being preoccupied, I will need some time to reflect on what you said and respond. For now, I must say that there is nothing new that I do not know and there is nothing that answers my queries. More about that later. I will note two points.

First. Your assumptions are the key. They are problematic to say the least.

Second, is a clarification that I am seeking. It seems that the brain, in your view, first creates self consciousness which enables seeing and further representational pictures of mind, body, other bodies and also the world. Am I getting it correct?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Such as?

A couple of examples would be ghosts and anthropomorphic gods. I don't subscribe to the supernatural, and I'm confident that most, if not all materialists don't either, so it's not really relevant to this discussion.

Which metaphysical hypotheses, specifically?

I'll give you one to avoid convolution of discussion.

Consciousness, aka the (higher) Self or in eastern terminology, the Atman, that which is aware, is the essence of our individual existence. It is something beyond the mind and body which permeates it and is imperishable and eternal.

There are those that have had similar sense experience supporting this hypothesis, but it is not objective experience, because it is an experience of the individual and not the collective.

Which brings me, once again, back to my point. Materialism is predisposed to rejection of anything that cannot be experienced by the collective.

 

[blü 2]

But that was the question. Why blind processes started liking hot, sweet, sour etc. etc. Why blind processes wanted pleasure of senses?

Evolution, of course. Even the most primitive forms of life are built to react to food, grasshoppers know not to waste time gnawing plastic flowers, and animals can edit the suitability of food with the sense of taste ─ excellent, okay, careful, nonono. It's a survival device which has been edited to serve as a cultural device.

First. Your assumptions are the key. They are problematic to say the least.

But you post on RF so you must share at least the first two; and if you employ reason then you concur with all three.

Second, It seems that the brain, in your view, first creates self consciousness which enables seeing and further representational pictures of mind, body, other bodies and also the world. Am I getting it correct?

In some respected theories of infant development, it's posited that the newborn infant has no sense of identity separate from its mother; and that it doesn't acquire that for most of its first year, and after that only slowly. Yet even in its first few days it can make look at faces, within a couple of weeks it can focus its eyes, within a couple of months it can see colors, and so on. By instinct it responds to motherese (which both women and men use with infants, also by instinct) and early on begins to imitate gestures, expressions and sounds. Who first by single words, then in the third year by sentences of increasing complexity, speaks English, or Spanish, or Navajo, or as the case may be.

And after three or four years of this emerges a young person with a rounded sense of being Jack, or Jill, or as the case may be.

If you have any children, you'll know it's a totally engrossing process for a parent to watch.

 

[blü 2]

Consciousness, aka the (higher) Self or in eastern terminology, the Atman, that which is aware, is the essence of our individual existence.

The sense of self is very important in our culture, indeed.

It is something beyond the mind and body which permeates it and is imperishable and eternal.

Or else it's a function or by-product of a working brain. This view is at least supported by examinable evidence.

There are those that have had similar sense experience supporting this hypothesis, but it is not objective experience, because it is an experience of the individual and not the collective.

That is, it's not examinable evidence.

Which brings me, once again, back to my point. Materialism is predisposed to rejection of anything that cannot be experienced by the collective.

I'd say, a strong tendency to reject the objective existence of anything for which there is neither examinable evidence nor inference well-grounded in reason.