• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why materialism is wrong regarding consciousness

Willamena

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

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.
What is the significance of proceeding from "singularity?"
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
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.

Solipsism as ontological is not true. So stop using that. I used God because my belief works for me, since it brings me comfort to believe in God and that I am thus not a Boltzmann Brain. It is my psychology and it works for me.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Solipsism as ontological is not true. So stop using that. I used God because my belief works for me, since it brings me comfort to believe in God and that I am thus not a Boltzmann Brain. It is my psychology and it works for me.

Got it. But I hope you'll understand that that is not a good reason for anyone else to believe your God exists. The time to believe something is when there is (good) evidence for it, as I said from the beginning.
 

LiveBetterLife

Active Member
That is an unsupported claim without any reasoned argument to back it up.

All of this stuff is unsupported. It's just a bunch of philosophical academics circle jerking and tickling each other.

Not a particularly high standard for evidence and not required to understand the world.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Got it. But I hope you'll understand that that is not a good reason for anyone else to believe your God exists. The time to believe something is when there is (good) evidence for it, as I said from the beginning.

Yes, of course. But a good reason is subjective. You have a good reason as you to believe as you believe, but that might not work for me. Just like how I believe might not work for others.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ah so desu ka, you do it on purpose.

It is not hard to be a pain in the somewhere-
above-the- socks.

Tty something more challenging?

Have you considered, that I understand, that how I am to someone, may not be, how I perceive myself?
You are aware that tiresome is subjective, right?
But okay, I will bite - what do you suggest?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
All of this stuff is unsupported. It's just a bunch of philosophical academics circle jerking and tickling each other.

Not a particularly high standard for evidence and not required to understand the world.

Well, I get what you are saying, yet such subjects can matter, because they tie together to how we treat each other as humans. They are parts of worldviews and humans do fight over worldviews.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The scientific assertion that brain states cause mental states is not derived merely from correlation, but from causation. Scientists have literally done experiments in which they have stimulated parts of the brain and observed the effect that stimulation has on consciousness. And those effects have been observed to be consistent and predictable, to the point that scientists have been able to map which parts of the brain are responsible for which aspects of conscious experience.

Again, we have demonstrated more than inference of causation. We have literally demonstrated that brain states affect states of consciousness.

This doesn't make sense. If I want to know if you're in pain, I can ask you. Or I can observe that you yelp or scream in pain, etc. Now, it's true I can't literally feel your pain myself. So sure, you could be lying, or I could be mistaken - my eyes could be deceiving me. But that is true of literally any phenomena we ever observe. What we observe could be inaccurate. Heck, what we observe could be a completely fabricated delusion. We could all be in the Matrix. Unless we're going to throw out all observation as useless because we can't confirm that we're not in the Matrix, then this pain example is fundamentally no different than any other.

Yes, as much as we can derive any information about anything in the world based on its physical/behavioral properties.

Nonsense.

It's not impossible at all. That is absurd. If you've ever had a headache and taken ibuprofen and felt better, you have personally, directly experienced the causal relationship between consciousness and its physical/biological properties.

I am sad that you seem to have not read the posts. You have raised some points that have already been refuted. As I am now tied with something critical, I will not be able to respond in detail.

But I consider it foolish to consider correlation between behaviour (measurable) and brain states (measurable) to indicate causation for subjective experience (immeasurable). Certain movements of piano keys or certain paintings gladden the heart. There are two components in this: a) sprouting of of glad thoughts subduing the sad thoughts temporarily and b) the discernment of the thoughts. The former behavioural aspect of generation of glad thoughts is caused to some extent by piano strokes. But the discernment of the thoughts is not caused by the piano strokes. Discernment is not born. Thoughts are born.

How does a particular brain state translate to discernment? No. There is no such linkage, either demonstrated or theorised.

The competence of discernment, unity of experience, the qualitative aspects of experiences, language, the power of intentional stance to alter environment and brain states etc etc, point to me that the competence of discernment — consciousness, is the foundational fabric of existence. We are the consciousness.

And this model is useful. We are directors over our thoughts and our choices.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
What is the significance of proceeding from "singularity?"

Singularity was a wrong word choice. I meant ‘non dual’.

Regarding this, I request your attention to post 5 and particularly the following from post 5.

....there is the irreducible unity of apprehension, without which there could be no coherent perception of anything at all, not even disjunctions within experience. For example, without an unitive consciousness inking waking, dreaming, and sleeping states of existence, there cannot be an unitive experience of self across these states. It is a unity that cannot be reduced to some executive material faculty of the brain, as this would itself be a composite reality in need of unification by some still-more-original faculty, and so on forever. And whatever lay at the “end” of that infinite regress would have to possess an inexplicable prior understanding of the diversity of experience that it organizes. This is the problem of understanding and organising the discrete brain events to an analog narrative, and primarily the awareness of “I am” woven through all our experiences.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Are you discounting bird-song, all the various communications of all other animals, .....

No. Then should I not be looking for bird-man intermediate song too?

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.

So. We are controllers of computers?

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.

Not really.

Dennet denies the direct personal experience as illusion.

Philosophy That Stirs the Waters

“The elusive subjective conscious experience — the redness of red, the painfulness of pain — that philosophers call qualia? Sheer illusion.”

Dennett writes as if he is a scientist. That is a veneer that hides his philosophical bias.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I am sad that you seem to have not read the posts. You have raised some points that have already been refuted. As I am now tied with something critical, I will not be able to respond in detail.

But I consider it foolish to consider correlation between behaviour (measurable) and brain states (measurable) to indicate causation for subjective experience (immeasurable). Certain movements of piano keys or certain paintings gladden the heart. There are two components in this: a) sprouting of of glad thoughts subduing the sad thoughts temporarily and b) the discernment of the thoughts. The former behavioural aspect of generation of glad thoughts is caused to some extent by piano strokes. But the discernment of the thoughts is not caused by the piano strokes. Discernment is not born. Thoughts are born.

How does a particular brain state translate to discernment? No. There is no such linkage, either demonstrated or theorised.

The competence of discernment, unity of experience, the qualitative aspects of experiences, language, the power of intentional stance to alter environment and brain states etc etc, point to me that the competence of discernment — consciousness, is the foundational fabric of existence. We are the consciousness.

And this model is useful. We are directors over our thoughts and our choices.

You know, if you presented data, and showed
how it is indicative or a non material aspect, that would
be more reasonable than just saying "this is so" and
"this is not so".

Phrases like "competence of discernment" sound like
gobbledy, and I dont see any data being presented.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, of course. But a good reason is subjective. You have a good reason as you to believe as you believe, but that might not work for me. Just like how I believe might not work for others.

No, sorry. There are rational/well-founded reasons to believe a thing is true, and there are irrational/unfounded reasons. If you believe the moon is made of green cheese, you are simply incorrect, and your reasons for believing are irrational/unfounded. If you believe it's made of rock, minerals, etc. you have good/rational reasons to believe that.

If we're talking about a proposition that's unfalsifiable, then by definition we never have rational/well-founded reason to believe such a thing, because by definition its accuracy can never be confirmed in any way. So all we can ever be is agnostic about such things.

So while a belief might "work for you" in the sense that it makes you feel good, that doesn't mean that it's rational or has good evidence to support it. White supremacy makes white supremacists feel good, I'm sure. That doesn't mean their views are rational or evidence-based.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I am sad that you seem to have not read the posts. You have raised some points that have already been refuted.

You had multiple posts that were quite lengthy. I'm noticing a pattern... ;)

So I wanted to take your thoughts piece by piece. I'm happy to go back and wade through what else has been said.

As I am now tied with something critical, I will not be able to respond in detail.

As always, I understand. Life happens. :greenheart:

But I consider it foolish to consider correlation between behaviour (measurable) and brain states (measurable) to indicate causation for subjective experience (immeasurable).

1) Subjective experiences are measurable. We do it all the time. We ask the person who is having it what they're experiencing.

2) Again, we have not merely established correlation. Causation in science is established via controlled experiment - manipulation of an independent variable to observe its effect on a dependent variable. We have done this with the brain (e.g. electrical stimulation of particular areas) and consciousness (measured by asking the subject how their conscious experience changes).

Certain movements of piano keys or certain paintings gladden the heart. There are two components in this: a) sprouting of of glad thoughts subduing the sad thoughts temporarily and b) the discernment of the thoughts. The former behavioural aspect of generation of glad thoughts is caused to some extent by piano strokes. But the discernment of the thoughts is not caused by the piano strokes. Discernment is not born. Thoughts are born.

How does a particular brain state translate to discernment? No. There is no such linkage, either demonstrated or theorised.

I don't know what "discernment" means in this context. Do you mean the person having the thoughts "discerning" that the thoughts are happy? Or "discernment" of a scientist trying to determine what emotion the person is feeling?

And this model is useful. We are directors over our thoughts and our choices.

We have the same amount of control over our thoughts and actions whether the model is true or not. Models describe reality, they don't create it. The usefulness of a model is in its testability and explanatory power. A model may have lots of explanatory power, but if we have no way to test it, its explanatory power is essentially irrelevant.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
You had multiple posts that were quite lengthy. I'm noticing a pattern... ;)

So I wanted to take your thoughts piece by piece. I'm happy to go back and wade through what else has been said.

As always, I understand. Life happens. :greenheart:

:)


1) Subjective experiences are measurable. We do it all the time. We ask the person who is having it what they're experiencing.

2) Again, we have not merely established correlation. Causation in science is established via controlled experiment - manipulation of an independent variable to observe its effect on a dependent variable. We have done this with the brain (e.g. electrical stimulation of particular areas) and consciousness (measured by asking the subject how their conscious experience changes).

How are my joy at seeing the paintings as your avatars and your joy at reading my lighthouse post comparable or measurable?

A person can relate his elation and you can also record brain pictures. But nether the verbal nor the brain pictures express the elation.

I don't know what "discernment" means in this context. Do you mean the person having the thoughts "discerning" that the thoughts are happy? Or "discernment" of a scientist trying to determine what emotion the person is feeling?

Yeah. This is the key point. The emotions: positive or negative, are thoughts. But the thoughts need to be known by the conscious agent, to registered as a happy state or a agony state.

We have the same amount of control over our thoughts and actions whether the model is true or not. Models describe reality, they don't create it. The usefulness of a model is in its testability and explanatory power. A model may have lots of explanatory power, but if we have no way to test it, its explanatory power is essentially irrelevant.

May be. But, consider the case, when a person’s belief is that the mental factors are all caused by brain chemicals and there is no conscious agent with control over those those so-called chemical interactions. How the control will work? And how do you explain the effect of mentality on environment, on moods, on brain plasticity?

OTOH, Gita tells us “The senses are superior to inert matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and He, the person is higher than the intelligence.”. In this case, the person is considered a discerner-seer of the mind-intellect. Meditators who by and by gain control over mind can control their state.

But that is only a small part of meditation,
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
How are my joy at seeing the paintings as your avatars and your joy at reading my lighthouse post comparable or measurable?

I ask you, the experiencer, to describe and compare them. We do this literally every day in healthcare. We have rating scales for pain, for depression, for anxiety. Every single day, people experiencing these conscious states quantify them for us. And we can use those measurements to quantify how effective treatment is. And lo and behold, when people's quantifiable scores go down, they qualitatively report to us they are happier and satisfied with their treatment.

A person can relate his elation and you can also record brain pictures. But nether the verbal nor the brain pictures express the elation.

The fact that I can't literally experience your pain exactly as you experience it does not mean we have no ability to study it or systematically affect it. Again, we do this literally every day in medicine. And it works.

Yeah. This is the key point. The emotions: positive or negative, are thoughts. But the thoughts need to be known by the conscious agent, to registered as a happy state or a agony state.

We learn socially how to label our emotions as children. We learn what happiness is, what sadness is, what anger is, etc. And our parents/guardians teach us this entirely through behavioral observation and modeling. They can't get in our heads any more than a scientist can. And yet, we all generally turn out to be able to ID our emotions. So we don't need to be able to access the "qualia" directly to be able to communicate and understand (and even empathize) with each other's inner lives.

May be. But, consider the case, when a person’s belief is that the mental factors are all caused by brain chemicals and there is no conscious agent with control over those those so-called chemical interactions. How the control will work? And how do you explain the effect of mentality on environment, on moods, on brain plasticity?

You seem to be critiquing one particular version of materialism, which I'm not necessarily wedded to. I think there is a conscious agent who makes (constrained) choices. But I also think the Buddhists have a point that the agent I call "myself" is not some stable, eternal thing. It is constantly changing, molding, and being molded in concert with the world around it.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I ask you, the experiencer, to describe and compare them. We do this literally every day in healthcare. We have rating scales for pain, for depression, for anxiety. Every single day, people experiencing these conscious states quantify them for us. And we can use those measurements to quantify how effective treatment is. And lo and behold, when people's quantifiable scores go down, they qualitatively report to us they are happier and satisfied with their treatment.

The fact that I can't literally experience your pain exactly as you experience it does not mean we have no ability to study it or systematically affect it. Again, we do this literally every day in medicine. And it works.

We learn socially how to label our emotions as children. We learn what happiness is, what sadness is, what anger is, etc. And our parents/guardians teach us this entirely through behavioral observation and modeling. They can't get in our heads any more than a scientist can. And yet, we all generally turn out to be able to ID our emotions. So we don't need to be able to access the "qualia" directly to be able to communicate and understand (and even empathize) with each other's inner lives.

You seem to be critiquing one particular version of materialism, which I'm not necessarily wedded to. I think there is a conscious agent who makes (constrained) choices. But I also think the Buddhists have a point that the agent I call "myself" is not some stable, eternal thing. It is constantly changing, molding, and being molded in concert with the world around it.

I am critiquing both the reductive and eliminative versions. Reasons were already given in first few posts.

1000 assertions that third party verbal reports or brain images of ‘orgasm’ equal ‘osgasm’ cannot make the assertions true.

Let me put it in another way.

I record correlations of my behaviours and subjective experiences with brain images.

Then, Dennett like, I conclude that the brain images constitute the mind. The experiencer (myself) and the experiences are illusions. Basically it amounts to that.
 
Top