Why materialism is wrong regarding consciousness

[Fool]

Well the title to some extent is a click bait. But what follows is a serious attempt to compile from a few sources the main objections to the materialist approach to consciousness.

Texts from the following have been quoted.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/
The Illusionist
Geoffrey Madell, A principled sceptic's response - PhilPapers
http://cogprints.org/3481/1/An_empirical_case_against_materialism.pdf
Mind and Cosmos - Wikipedia

consciousness doesn't create physicality. consciousness is physical. consciousness = physical. similar to E = M(c*c)

matter doesn't create consciousness. matter is conscious - self-evident

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

consciousness doesn't create physicality. consciousness is physical. consciousness = physical. similar to E = M(c*c)

matter doesn't create consciousness. matter is conscious - self-evident

I would like you to express that only in physical notation like E = M(c*c). But you can't because what you say is physics. It is philosophy.

 

[Fool]

I would like you to express that only in physical notation like E = M(c*c). But you can't because what you say is physics. It is philosophy.

if you understand that everything exists along the electromagnetic spectrum, then you understand how consciousness is a thing and can be measured


What is the electromagnetic spectrum? | EarthSky.org


if brahman exists at this level, then its realized


http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

 

[atanu]

The hard problem of consciousness is that we have no definition of consciousness. But we can at least exclude some things from (a dualistic) consciousness.
1. Perception: we can follow the neurological path to a brain region. We know how injuries of that region influence perception. We can induce illusions of perception by electrical or trans cranial stimulation.

It was already detailed in the initial posts that we can correlate perception of pain to some function of pain in some location of brain.

But that does not explain why activation of certain areas of brain should translate to phenomenal pain. Further, the pain will be causative for diverse actions in different people. This too cannot be explained by the ‘pain-function’ catalogue that we may create.

Most even do not recognise that the first party quality of experience and the third party empirical measurements are of two different kinds and also originate in different subjects.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

if you understand that everything exists along the electromagnetic spectrum, then you understand how consciousness is a thing and can be measured


What is the electromagnetic spectrum? | EarthSky.org


if brahman exists at this level, then its realized


http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Sorry, I was wrong, it is religion, not philosophy. I hope your worldview works for you. I have another and that works for me.

 

[Fool]

Sorry, I was wrong, it is religion, not philosophy. I hope your worldview works for you. I have another and that works for me.

subjective


consciousness is physical and matter is conscious.

the problem is that idealists and realists both want to believe one creates the other. they don't. they are the same thing being manifested in varying forms at the 3rd dimension and lower dimensions

 

[atanu]

consciousness doesn't create physicality. consciousness is physical. consciousness = physical. similar to E = M(c*c)

matter doesn't create consciousness. matter is conscious - self-evident

I understand what you are telling. But that comes later., after one has known the awareness itself. At pragmatic level, my chair or my poo do not seem to be conscious.

See, I go by Vedanta, which teaches a practice involving discernment of the seen and the seer. By this discriminative exercise one is supposed to touch base—the pure objectless unpartitioned awareness. There is no subject-object division and no space-time in unpartitioned awareness. I can share the text as below:

Drig Drishya Viveka (Seer seen discrimination)

1. All objects are perceived by the senses. The senses are, in turn, perceived by the mind. The mind, in turn, is a movement that unfolds in Awareness. Awareness is not perceived by any other structure. It is its own perceiving.

2. The objects perceived by the senses appear to be constantly changing, while the senses, which perceive them, appear to be stable and unchanging.

3. On close inspection, however, the senses are realized to be constantly changing, while the mind, which perceives these changes, appears to be stable and unchanging.

4. Upon close inspection, however, the mind is seen to be constantly changing. The constantly changing mind can be seen due to the unchanging nature of Awareness.​

 

[atanu]

subjective

consciousness is physical and matter is conscious.

the problem is that idealists and realists both want to believe one creates the other. they don't. they are the same thing being manifested in varying forms at the 3rd dimension and lower dimensions

And that is actually dual aspect monism. Mind and matter are two aspects of awareness. Even as waves and particles are two aspects of quantum reality.

 

[Fool]

I understand what you are telling. But that comes much later. At pragmatic level, my chair or my poo do not seem to be conscious.

See, I go by Vedanta, which teaches a practice involving discernment of the seen and the seer. By this discriminative exercise one is supposed to touch base—the pure objectless unpartitioned awareness. There is no subject-object division and no space-time in unpartitioned awareness. I can share the text as below:

Drig Drishya Viveka (Seer seen discrimination)

1. All objects are perceived by the senses. The senses are, in turn, perceived by the mind. The mind, in turn, is a movement that unfolds in Awareness. Awareness is not perceived by any other structure. It is its own perceiving.

2. The objects perceived by the senses appear to be constantly changing, while the senses, which perceive them, appear to be stable and unchanging.

3. On close inspection, however, the senses are realized to be constantly changing, while the mind, which perceives these changes, appears to be stable and unchanging.

4. Upon close inspection, however, the mind is seen to be constantly changing. The constantly changing mind can be seen due to the unchanging nature of Awareness.​

"awareness is its own perceiving."


means its active, an action; so what you try to describe as non-physical is in fact itself physical, and perceptive of itself.


It's called insight


consciousness is a physical thing. it may not have a "definite" form but it definitely has an action and it is essential, fundamental, vital.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But to seem to feel pain is to be in pain.

This might be an accurate description of religious belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This might be an accurate description of religious belief.

Yeah, and to believe in your mind that physical, objective reality is independent of the mind is the "naturalistic" belief.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The mind-brain identity reduction is also not an option for us. Dennett’s narrative (From Bacteria to Bach and Back, 1917) asks to believe that it is very obvious: Under certain chemical and environmental conditions, life will emerge in time and develop organisms with large brains, and these organisms will of necessity be social organisms.

I was half-way through but got interrupted - (2017 I believe rather than 1917)

An example of how illogical the whole proposal is, is Dennett’s idea that language is simply the cumulative product of countless physical ingredients. This is blatantly false as there is no trace in nature even of primitive or protolanguages; all languages possess a full hierarchy of grammatical constraints.

Are you discounting bird-song, all the various communications of all other animals, including body language? And of course the language-teaching research involving primates, to claim that grammar (and structure) is the only thing defining language?

Dennett claims that the brain is “a kind of computer,” and mind merely a kind of “interface” between that computer and its “user.” Unlike AI fans, Dennett however grants that computers only appear to be conscious agents and the same is true of us. That vast abyss between objective physical events and subjective qualitative experience actually does not exist. Hence, that seemingly magical transition from the one to the other — whether a genetic or a structural shift — need not be explained, because it has never actually occurred. Dennett rejects the very datum that he is claiming to explain.

Well, he might be right (about our minds being essentially computers), given the ease with which we can switch off the human mind - at night during sleep and via various drugs to induce unconsciousness.

Dennett also truly seems confused and fanatic. While discussing zombies he actually equates humans to zombies by claiming humans too do not have real consciousness with qualia. First, how he knows this is beyond me. He too must be a zombie? Is he equipped with divine understanding? Second, a zombie could not ever imagine anything, since it would possess no consciousness at all, let alone reflective consciousness; that is the whole point of the metaphoric exercise of David Chalmer. The very fact that we can imagine, correctly or illusively, is the very sign of consciousness that Dennet vehemently denies. Dennet again and again mistakes the question of the existence of subjective experience for the entirely irrelevant question of the objective accuracy of subjective perceptions.

Perhaps he was talking about the unconscious, where much of our being lies, and for which we seemingly don't have much control. When one solves a problem in one's sleep, as I have done and no doubt others have done too, we must give credit where credit is due, but I have no control of that process. Perhaps he means this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, and to believe in your mind that physical, objective reality is independent of the mind is the "naturalistic" belief.

If you can prove that when anyone dies then physical reality ceases to exist (for everyone else and not just the deceased) then I might believe in such, but I will not be waiting long.

 

[Left Coast]

No, I don't even know that I exist as I. I am a skeptic, not an ontological solipsist. Funny how a part of your answer is nothing but in the end first person feelings/emotions.

Not just feelings/emotions. First person experiences of any kind - because that's literally all we have.

You can't believe that I believe differently, because it is absurd to you. To end then you believe as you do, because it makes sense to you. That is where we always end. How to make sense of reality. That is first person, you do it and I do it, I am just honest.

Is your claim that I'm not honest? I'm also being honest - I'm very honestly explaining to you that if solipsism is true, all epistemological bets are off.

So here is how I am not an ontological solipsist. That I have experiences, may not be correct if they come to me and are not mine, external causation. In a sense, the "I" is an illusion, that seems to work. Now what is outside my mind is that, which is different than me, but that is all. All I know about the "objective reality", I know as how it works for me. Some relationship are objective; i.e. e.g. gravity, others are intersubjective; e.g. that we communicate and some are subjective; e.g. how I make sense versus how you make sense.

Great, all you know is how it works for you - same here. I wasn't asking you to answer for anyone else, just yourself.

So go to back to the point - with these first person experiences you have where you can take in information about whatever-all-that-is-out-there, how do you tell if you're hallucinating and need to see a psychiatrist, or if you're actually perceiving something that's really "there" (whatever "there" may mean)?

Now your external causation is natural, mine is from God. And all you will do, if you argue against my belief, is that you take yours for granted, i.e. that you with reason, logic, evidence, knowledge and objective can show that my position is absurd or what ever. All I then point out, is the my position is not absurd in itself. It is absurd to you.

You are projecting ideas onto me that I haven't said.

The original point I made which you responded to is extraordinarily simple and obvious, and my guess is you most likely agree with it, even from your view that your deity creates your experiences.

Appealing to a natural world doesn't help you, it is just another figment of your imagination. It works both ways.

Yes, I know. That's why I said with solipsism all bets are off. The moon Is made of green cheese. The world is flat. White people are better than black people. Slavery is awesome. With solipsism, we have no basis for any rational analysis of our experiences. We could all be in the Matrix. This could all be a dream. Who knows?

You have no evidence, proof, knowledge of a natural world. You believe. I do too. I am just honest.

Again with the implication that I'm being dishonest. What is the basis for that?

I don't need to tie myself to the term "natural world" if that's your hangup. My point was about our experiences of whatever-that-stuff-is-out-there-that-we-experience. How do we experience it? What is the vehicle?

And I resent that you judge me based on a double standard. You assume a knowledge you don't have, and then judge me for not having knowledge. But neither do you. You have a belief system, which apparently works, though it is nothing but a figment of your imagination, just like mine.

I don't mind saying I have a belief system at all. You should respond to what I actually say.

My belief system is based on the only thing that can be called evidence of anything - sense experience. That's literally my entire point.

 

[LuisDantas]

There isn't a whole lot left to explain after recent years of neurological findings, now is there?

 

[Left Coast]

It goes both ways. In order to force a monist model, one cannot presume that the ‘datum’ (the experiencer) itself is illusion. It is ridiculous to reject direct experience claiming it to be representational or folk psychology but accept the third party data generated on brain, as if that is devoid of all representation. Either these guys think that we are fools and will accept anything or they themselves are fools who cannot even see that anomaly.

I don't want to speak for whoever "those guys" are. I don't think all materialists "reject direct experience." The question, I think, isn't whether experiences occur, but whether there is some stable "I" having those experiences. Buddhism also poses this question.

Or do you think I'm missing a different point?

Much simpler and elegant is the proposition that the very fabric of existence is awareness. In it evolves (and devolves) space-time-objects.

What's the evidence for it?

Consciousness is enormously complex, so I don't see how an entire universe of consciousness is simple.

One cannot see pure fabric of awareness (like in deep sleep) unless subject-object contrast is created (like in dream). This model proceeds from singularity and can explain all particular objects, physical or biological.

Any unfalsifiable model can explain whatever one wants it to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not just feelings/emotions. First person experiences of any kind - because that's literally all we have.

Yes, we agree

Is your claim that I'm not honest? I'm also being honest - I'm very honestly explaining to you that if solipsism is true, all epistemological bets are off.

No! Imagine that I am a Boltzmann Brain in a slightly larger universe than my brain. I am a program running on a computer, which simulates the rest of the universe. Imagine that is you. That is solipsism in practice. I can't know that and neither can you.
So do I know that you exist? No! Do you know that I exist? No!

Great, all you know is how it works for you - same here. I wasn't asking you to answer for anyone else, just yourself.

So go to back to the point - with these first person experiences you have where you can take in information about whatever-all-that-is-out-there, how do you tell if you're hallucinating and need to see a psychiatrist, or if you're actually perceiving something that's really "there" (whatever "there" may mean)?

I can tell I am hallucinating, if I am lucky based on prior experiences, memories, but I can't tell what is out there. Truth is in fact not correspondence alone(that is the belief that you are not a Boltzmann Brain), it is also coherence and pragmatic. That it fits together and makes sense. Hence I can't tell that if I am a Boltzmann Brain, where as I can tell I am hallucination based on internal experience.

You are projecting ideas onto me that I haven't said.

The original point I made which you responded to is extraordinarily simple and obvious, and my guess is you most likely agree with it, even from your view that your deity creates your experiences.

No, more latter.

Yes, I know. That's why I said with solipsism all bets are off. The moon Is made of green cheese. The world is flat. White people are better than black people. Slavery is awesome. With solipsism, we have no basis for any rational analysis of our experiences. We could all be in the Matrix. This could all be a dream. Who knows?

But this is not about solipsism. It is about whether the objective reality is fair and you can trust it, so that your experiences match, what they appear to be about. Even if you were an actual Boltzmann Brain, you were caused by something else and thus it is not solipsism.

Again with the implication that I'm being dishonest. What is the basis for that?

I don't need to tie myself to the term "natural world" if that's your hangup. My point was about our experiences of whatever-that-stuff-is-out-there-that-we-experience. How do we experience it? What is the vehicle?

That is unknown, other than it is caused by something not you. Thus again, not solipsism.

I don't mind saying I have a belief system at all. You should respond to what I actually say.

My belief system is based on the only thing that can be called evidence of anything - sense experience. That's literally my entire point.

But sense experience in itself is only sense experience. You clearly believe, it is about something, since you are not a solipsist and you answer me. Thus you take for granted, that you are in a universe, which independent of your mind is, as you experience in your mind. I would like evidence for that and that is what you can't give.
You in effect believe in a natural world and I believe in (my version of) God.

 

[Left Coast]

No! Imagine that I am a Boltzmann Brain in a slightly larger universe than my brain. I am a program running on a computer, which simulates the rest of the universe. Imagine that is you. That is solipsism in practice. I can't know that and neither can you.
So do I know that you exist? No! Do you know that I exist? No!

Right. You can't know if anything exists. Again, for the third time, all epistemological bets are off. That's what I've been saying this whole time.

I can tell I am hallucinating, if I am lucky based on prior experiences, memories, but I can't tell what is out there.

Great! So the way you determine whether you're hallucinating is based on - your sense experiences. Thank you.

Truth is in fact not correspondence alone(that is the belief that you are not a Boltzmann Brain), it is also coherence and pragmatic. That it fits together and makes sense. Hence I can't tell that if I am a Boltzmann Brain, where as I can tell I am hallucination based on internal experience.

I'm all about pragmatism. My experience of whatever-it-is-out-there acts exactly as I imagine an independent reality would, so I treat it as such. You're completely right, it could all be a dream. We could all be in the Matrix. But it's pragmatic for me to approach my experiences the way I do. And I can use my senses to observe, measure, experiment, and analyze my experiences to make sense of them, and it benefits me tremendously when I do so logically and by using empiricism as a standard. So yes, pragmatism FTW.

But this is not about solipsism. It is about whether the objective reality is fair and you can trust it, so that your experiences match, what they appear to be about. Even if you were an actual Boltzmann Brain, you were caused by something else and thus it is not solipsism.

Even if my experiences don't match exactly what reality appears to be about, that is honestly irrelevant to me because they act like they match. I put my hand on a hot stove and it hurts. So I avoid doing that and lo and behold, my hand doesn't hurt that way anymore. Yes that could all be a dream, but I don't care because this dream is all I know and I want a way to navigate it. And the way we navigate it is via our senses.

That is unknown, other than it is caused by something not you. Thus again, not solipsism.

Wrong. You appear to be missing the point. The sole vehicle we have for perceiving and possibly understanding whatever-it-is-out-there is our senses.

But sense experience in itself is only sense experience. You clearly believe, it is about something, since you are not a solipsist and you answer me. Thus you take for granted, that you are in a universe, which independent of your mind is, as you experience in your mind. I would like evidence for that and that is what you can't give.
You in effect believe in a natural world and I believe in (my version of) God.

I answered this above. I don't care if I'm wrong that the world outside my head is real, because it acts just like it is. And I benefit from acting like it is. I have no idea how you define God so I have no idea how that plays into any of this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... (We agree) ...

I answered this above. I don't care if I'm wrong that the world outside my head is real, because it acts just like it is. And I benefit from acting like it is. I have no idea how you define God so I have no idea how that plays into any of this.

Yikes. So you literally have no idea how to conclude the difference between a hallucination and a real experience? That is terrifying.

If you're just appealing to the problem of hard solipsism, then okay. In that case all bets are off and all beliefs are equally plausible, no matter how absurd. Appealling to a God doesn't help you, he's just another figment of your imagination.

Now please compare the 2 bolded parts and then tell me how they connect.

 

[Left Coast]

Now please compare the 2 bolded parts and then tell me how they connect.

If solipsism is true, appealing to a God doesn't help you ground your experiences as real. He's a figment of your imagination like anything else.

You have distanced yourself from solipsism, so I don't know how your version of God plays into how you interpret your experiences.