Enlightenment & Materialism

[DavidHenry]

That's true. Once you subjectively create the definition, you have a template by which to sort things. However, it remains a debatable question as to whether the sorting of things through a subjective template can be considered an objective process.

-

If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

[Ataraxia]

I'm going to jump out on a limb here just because I always wanted to know how monkeys feel when they do that and it breaks and they go hurtling towards the ground:

What is "mind"? What is "consciousness", and is it different to "mind"?

At bottom, mind is what we define it to be. Since language has more than enough useless synonyms I'm going to resist saying that mind and consciousness are the same thing, but I'm happy if others want to do that. Instead I'll say that "mind" is that dimension within consciousness comprised of the intricate web of abstract "thought stuff" (ok, just thoughts if that's too poetic for you).

You didn't jump out on a limb at all.All you said is mind is thought stuff.So what is "thought stuff"?

Consciousness, on the other hand, is the seatless, sourceless, selfless set of all differentiated things (i.e. existence). In short, to me, consciousness is its content, not a thing that engages content from some aforementioned source. When you consider the world of phenomena, empirical and abstract, and then try and relate this back to a source whence such things are experienced, the source becomes just another phenomenon.

And then you say : "consciousness is its content".What does that even mean?

In my view you haven't told me anything of what mind or consciousness IS.Other than a collection of thoughts.How have you answered any of these questions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_probl ... sciousness

A hamster in a roll cage does it. There really is no free will.

Fine,there's no free will.

[David Quinn]

That's true. Once you subjectively create the definition, you have a template by which to sort things. However, it remains a debatable question as to whether the sorting of things through a subjective template can be considered an objective process.

If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

How has the sanity of these people been determined?

-

[Ataraxia]

What Dan said.

So far all he said was mind is "thought stuff".I'm none the wiser.

It can mean whatever we want it to mean. It can mean pure awareness, or the sum total of all conscious experience in the Universe, or the sum total of one's own perceptions, or the decision-making processes within the brain - whatever.

So "thought stuff" or the sum total of "thought stuff".Still nothing.

In light of your answer to what is mind,how does it make your arm move?

DQ:If I consciously move my arm, then my own individual awareness of the environment and the decision-making processes in my brain seem to be a couple of factors, among countless other factors, which cause my arm to move.
-

Ok,so brain, plus........I know this one now,thought stuff, right?

[David Quinn]

How have you answered any of these questions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_probl ... sciousness

The article states:

Various formulations of the "hard problem":

* "Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?"
* "How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
* "Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
* "Why do qualia exist?"
* "Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
* "Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

To answer these questions properly, I would need to know what kind of answer would satisfy you. Are you looking for evolutionary explanations? Neurological explanations? Philosophical explanations?

For example, the above questions can easily be answered in evolutionary terms. It has been to our evolutionary advantage to have a developed consciousness which can distinguish between things, create sophisticated models, adapt to changing circumstances, formulate plans, etc. Those human or ape species which didn't sufficiently develop this faculty would have been wiped out.

Philosophically, they are easily answered too. For example:

Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?

Where else can a rich inner life come from, if not from what is not itself? All things come from what are not themselves - e.g. light comes from darkness, life comes from non-life, consciousness comes from non-consciousness, and so on.

In other words, philosophically speaking, the question is trivial.

DQ: What Dan said.

A: So far all he said was mind is "thought stuff".I'm none the wiser.

We're reaching the limits of words here. It is a matter for you to look inwardly and determine for yourself what is meant by mind. If you can clearly identify what you mean by mind, then you can begin to talk about it and we can have a discussion. But you can't expect Dan or myself to do this inward work for you.


-

[DavidHenry]

That's true. Once you subjectively create the definition, you have a template by which to sort things. However, it remains a debatable question as to whether the sorting of things through a subjective template can be considered an objective process.

If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

How has the sanity of these people been determined?

-

I think you know what I meant.
The category of vehicles doesn't contain anything that isn't worthy of meeting its definition, ie, the definition is objective, otherwise we could place anything in there.

[Ataraxia]

Philosophically, they are easily answered too. For example:

Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?

Where else can a rich inner life come from, if not from what is not itself? All things come from what are not themselves - e.g. light comes from darkness, life comes from non-life, consciousness comes from non-consciousness, and so on.

In other words, philosophically speaking, the question is trivial.

The mind body/problem is trivial?This will certainly be news to the worldwide philosophy community.

So,in your view the answer to that question is "consciousness comes from non-consciousness".If you were to have David Chalmers on the reasoning show would he consider that any sort of a coherent answer?I very much doubt he would.

DQ: What Dan said.

A: So far all he said was mind is "thought stuff".I'm none the wiser.

We're reaching the limits of words here. It is a matter for you to look inwardly and determine for yourself what is meant by mind. If you can clearly identify what you mean by mind, then you can begin to talk about it and we can have a discussion. But you can't expect Dan or myself to do this inward work for you.

Fair enough, I understand this is at the edge of word limitations but I asked a fairly straight forward question.It seems to me you and Dan aren't saying anything meaningful here in regard to what is mind other than "mind(or consciousness) is everything other than what it is not".

That answer can be given for every question that includes a noun, and while technically correct often isn't saying an aweful lot in regard to a specific question.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

Ah, the No true Scotsman fallacy.

Universal consciousness sounds like a concept that's being reified

How would you say that it sounds like it is being reified? I agree that it is a concept. Consciousness is a concept. Universal consciousness is a differentiation from individual consciousness, not a reification. "Cup" is a concept, although a physical cup is not.

...very poor form....!!

Two exclamation points indicate that you are coming from a place other than pure logic.

Furthermore:

Sure we do, if I cut your arm off, you're still aware, but if you're beheaded, then it's lights out.
Universal consciousness sounds like a concept that's being reified....very poor form....!!

This is an example of argument from intimidation.

[Isaac]

So Dan, have you decided your discussion with me is over?

I would like it if you continued.

[DavidHenry]

This is an example of argument from intimidation.

Elizabeth.
You don't strike me as smart enough to warrant anymore of my time.

[brokenhead]

This is an example of argument from intimidation.

Elizabeth.
You don't strike me as smart enough to warrant anymore of my time.

...thus proving Elizabeth's point.

[bert]

isaac:

I am a materialist. I hold that mental phenomena do not exist, the only thing that exists are physical phenomena. I am an epiphenomalist, in the sense that I believe the mind cannot have an affect on the physical world. I deny altogether that there is a "mind" separate from the physical substrate of the brain. It is still useful to use the word "mind" though, in the sense of the total electrical and chemical activity of the brain.

So really, from my perspective, the mind can't cause anything. The mind simply does not exist, neither does consciousness. Both are simply ways of talking about certain physical brain states.

as materialists state:" mind is the accidental product of matter", which is equivalent of saying that a remote controller - or any other human-made object - accidentally produced man and the mind, and the reasoning that reified it. materialists have to swallow their own statements. they use their intelligence(such as it applies) to deny mind's existence! oour evidence of seperate existence lies in our rreaction to things ; my feeling is my apperception, .. Ego; for waht I feel is 'consciouness as I', which may not be felt by anyone else.

[DavidHenry]

This is an example of argument from intimidation.

Elizabeth.
You don't strike me as smart enough to warrant anymore of my time.

...thus proving Elizabeth's point.

Elizabeth had no point.

[bert]

What do you wanna know?

-

What is "mind"?

What is "consciousness", and is it different to "mind"?

In light of your answer to what is mind,how does it make your arm move?

I remember trying to explain this before.

ever-present like the Ether, thought may be looked upon as dynamic; inescapably we are in and of it. it always changes our shape and degree of consciousness, a work neither incomplete nor completing. man is a vehicle of thought, and thought governs the world. brain, nerves , body etc. are the media of thought, when thought is dynamic in brain, nerves,etc. we say it is 'the mind', which may have a peculiar relationship with The Mind behind it all: here Scientists mistake the 'means' for the cause. if the mind has any seat it is rather in the whole body than in any particular part; because thought is a sequent impression of feeling and all things mingle all the time - identity by identifying, and the price suffering(and even more thought). So, Identity is an obsession, a complex of wholed parts of personalities, all working in towards each other.. a puzzlated ego: a resurging catacomb where the ghost-like reawakened seek in us their reality.

[Dan Rowden]

So Dan, have you decided your discussion with me is over?

I would like it if you continued.

I'll get back to it. The fat lady isn't even warming up.

[Dan Rowden]

Isaac,

If you artificially replace the environment of a central nervous system there's no necessary reason that it won't function like the standard organic system. My point was that environment is necessary and that I can see no boundary to that environment other than that which we arbitrarily construct.

I disagree with you here, the physical separation of the human body from the rest of the environment is a clear boundary. One is a living biological organism, the other is an inert substrate, how is that arbitrary?

It's arbitrary because no actual boundary exists other than that which we construct. I defy you to show the boundary between anything at all, let alone the body and its environment. This is an important point in terms of thinking about what things really are. Boundaries are simply inferences within consciousness. They have no reality beyond this. One cannot demonstrate either the connection or separation of objects beyond the level of inference. There's no way to get past this level of perceptual inference no matter how closely we look at things - it's the bottom line whatever perspective we take. But that's getting away a tad from the issue at hand --- when I said that a brain can't function if you deprive it of oxygen, I could have added any number of other things. If you consider the functioning of anything, brain or otherwise, you find that the causes of not only its ability to function but its very existence cannot be demarcated to a finite set other than arbitrarily. This is why I say that whilst we might declare the brain a necessary cause of consciousness, it is not a sufficient cause. In the end, only Reality itself is a sufficient cause (of anything).

As to qualia: where is "red" in your perspective? A bunch of neural pathways and synapses that light up when a person says they see "red" isn't "red" - is it? It's a bunch of brain activity that we associate with the subjective experience of "red".

The only thing that I would add is that the brain activity is dependent on the incoming sensory stimulation, so "red" is the brain activity in response to wavelengths of visible light of a certain wavelength.

There you go, you're already branching out making "red" more than just the firing of neural paths and synapses. This is what I'm saying ultimately becomes arbitrary (which is fine for scientific work, but not so great for philosophical inquiry). It's also why I'm saying these things are not "red". What is "red" is the subjective experience of "red". A=A

The physicalist perspective of consciousness doesn't deal with epiphenomena very effectively. It basically just says the physical state is that experience, which is unsatisfactory.

How is it unsatisfactory? If experience is not just the physical state, what else is it? I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is anything else.

Well, hopefully as we move along I might convince you that the physicalist perspective, is, at least, insufficient to capture consciousness in a neat explicatory box.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm going to jump out on a limb here just because I always wanted to know how monkeys feel when they do that and it breaks and they go hurtling towards the ground:

What is "mind"? What is "consciousness", and is it different to "mind"?

At bottom, mind is what we define it to be. Since language has more than enough useless synonyms I'm going to resist saying that mind and consciousness are the same thing, but I'm happy if others want to do that. Instead I'll say that "mind" is that dimension within consciousness comprised of the intricate web of abstract "thought stuff" (ok, just thoughts if that's too poetic for you).

You didn't jump out on a limb at all.All you said is mind is thought stuff.So what is "thought stuff"?

I did go out on a limb, you were just too big a wuss to follow me out there :) Anyway, by "thought stuff" I simply mean the content of the conscious; the relationships and interplay between abstract entities we refer to as "thoughts" (logic, language etc). The dynamics that are hopefully happening as you're reading this. Those dynamics are happening, right?

Consciousness, on the other hand, is the seatless, sourceless, selfless set of all differentiated things (i.e. existence). In short, to me, consciousness is its content, not a thing that engages content from some aforementioned source. When you consider the world of phenomena, empirical and abstract, and then try and relate this back to a source whence such things are experienced, the source becomes just another phenomenon.

And then you say : "consciousness is its content".What does that even mean?

Look around you. Look into "your" thoughts. See it all? That's consciousness. The set of all those differentiated things is the body of consciousness. It's not some core entity that engages or experiences those things, because that doesn't explain anything anymore than saying God made the universe explains anything. If there is a "seat" of consciousness which somehow engages and experiences phenomena (which is what the ego strives to believe so as to give itself concretion), where the hell is it? What is it? It is some sort of primal, base existence? Does it have causes, a core and seat of its own? A core of the core, looking at consciousness looking at stuff? Infinite regress, anyone?

If you think about it you'll see that all such notions constitute nothing more than new differentiated entities that appear just like anything else. i.e. they are just addictions to the set of phenomena (appearances/things) that I'm saying constitute what consciousness is.

[illrod]

If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

because every single one of those people chose to agree with it.

And define sane.

[Isaac]

Kevin Solway,

I hold that mental phenomena do not exist, the only thing that exists are physical phenomena.

Yes, I would agree with that. But I would also agree with the idea that physical phenomena do not exist, and the only thing that exists are spiritual (unbounded) phenomena.

Kevin do you agree with Dan that the physicalist perspective is insufficient to capture consciousness in a neat explicatory box?

It doesn't sound to me like you guys are in agreement. Which is disconcerting because it's my impression that you're both enlightened.

Well, hopefully as we move along I might convince you that the physicalist perspective, is, at least, insufficient to capture consciousness in a neat explicatory box.

Dan - Glad to see your sticking with me! Very interesting reply! No boundaries, eh?

Well, I'll give it some thought, and I'll try to find some free time in the very near future to continue our discussion. Bogged down with school at the moment.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan - Glad to see your sticking with me! Very interesting reply! No boundaries, eh?

Well, I'll give it some thought, and I'll try to find some free time in the very near future to continue our discussion. Bogged down with school at the moment.

That's ok, but just keep in mind I didn't say there are no boundaries. I'm just saying they don't possess any inherent reality and are just inferences within consciousness. i.e. consciousness has a role in their creation. If there were no boundaries at all we wouldn't perceive differentiated things.

[David Quinn]

Where else can a rich inner life come from, if not from what is not itself? All things come from what are not themselves - e.g. light comes from darkness, life comes from non-life, consciousness comes from non-consciousness, and so on.

In other words, philosophically speaking, the question is trivial.

The mind body/problem is trivial?This will certainly be news to the worldwide philosophy community.

So,in your view the answer to that question is "consciousness comes from non-consciousness".If you were to have David Chalmers on the reasoning show would he consider that any sort of a coherent answer?I very much doubt he would.

Where else could it come from?

Chalmers might not find this answer scientifically interesting, but nonetheless it is a fundamental truth which goes right to the heart of the matter.

A lot of people have the desire to make consciousness more mysterious than it really is, but they are just playing with themselves. At root, there is no more mystery to the arisal of consciousness than there is to the arisal of trees or clouds or anything else in the universe. Things simply come from other things.

We're reaching the limits of words here. It is a matter for you to look inwardly and determine for yourself what is meant by mind. If you can clearly identify what you mean by mind, then you can begin to talk about it and we can have a discussion. But you can't expect Dan or myself to do this inward work for you.

Fair enough, I understand this is at the edge of word limitations but I asked a fairly straight forward question.It seems to me you and Dan aren't saying anything meaningful here in regard to what is mind other than "mind(or consciousness) is everything other than what it is not".

I actually gave several definitions of mind - e.g. pure awareness, the sum total of all conscious experience in the Universe, the sum total of one's own perceptions, the decision-making processes within the brain. None of them resonate with you?

-

[David Quinn]

DQ: That's true. Once you subjectively create the definition, you have a template by which to sort things. However, it remains a debatable question as to whether the sorting of things through a subjective template can be considered an objective process.

DH: If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

DQ: How has the sanity of these people been determined?

DH: I think you know what I meant.
The category of vehicles doesn't contain anything that isn't worthy of meeting its definition, ie, the definition is objective, otherwise we could place anything in there.

By "objective", then, you must mean "what we subjectively keep fixed for a period of time".

-

[Beingof1]

David Quinn:

Ataraxia:
So,in your view the answer to that question is "consciousness comes from non-consciousness".If you were to have David Chalmers on the reasoning show would he consider that any sort of a coherent answer?I very much doubt he would.

David:
Where else could it come from?

The same place the totality came from maybe?

Let me see if I understand you?

Chemical/electric energy combined with amino acids makes a 'conscious' decision to become conscious? Is this what you are saying?

How does that make a lick of sense?

Chalmers might not find this answer scientifically interesting, but nonetheless it is a fundamental truth which goes right to the heart of the matter.

Chalmers is a philosopher.

A lot of people have the desire to make consciousness more mysterious than it really is, but they are just playing with themselves. At root, there is no more mystery to the arisal of consciousness than there is to the arisal of trees or clouds or anything else in the universe. Things simply come from other things.

Did your consciousness determine this conclusion?

What 'thing' did the totality come from?

Is this your vanity clinging to this untenable position?

[David Quinn]

Let me see if I understand you?

Chemical/electric energy combined with amino acids makes a 'conscious' decision to become conscious? Is this what you are saying?

No, it would have evolved in incremental steps, with the occasional quantum leap - just as the wings of a bird did, or the formation of the eye.

Perhaps the first step would have been an RNA molecule in the primeval soup acquiring, through the chance workings of genetic mutation, an ability to react to a certain kind of environmental event in a survival-enhancing way.

Chalmers might not find this answer scientifically interesting, but nonetheless it is a fundamental truth which goes right to the heart of the matter.

Chalmers is a philosopher.

Not if he can't recognize and appreciate fundamental philosophic truths.

Nowadays, many who are called "philosophers" are quasi-scientists, but without any scientific expertise, who try to make sense of science. They are neither scientists nor philosophers.

A lot of people have the desire to make consciousness more mysterious than it really is, but they are just playing with themselves. At root, there is no more mystery to the arisal of consciousness than there is to the arisal of trees or clouds or anything else in the universe. Things simply come from other things.

Did your consciousness determine this conclusion?

Nature determined it, of which my consciousness is a part.

What 'thing' did the totality come from?

By its very nature, the totality didn't come from anywhere. It isn't a thing.

-

[Beingof1]

David Quinn:

Beingof1:
Let me see if I understand you?

Chemical/electric energy combined with amino acids makes a 'conscious' decision to become conscious? Is this what you are saying?

David:
No, it would have evolved in incremental steps, with the occasional quantum leap - just as the wings of a bird did, or the formation of the eye.

How many bird wings and eyes forming have you seen exclusive of consciousness?

Perhaps the first step would have been an RNA molecule in the primeval soup acquiring, through the chance workings of genetic mutation, an ability to react to a certain kind of environmental event in a survival-enhancing way.

You used the word 'perhaps', can I use it to? Perhaps I am the voice of your innermost heart. Perhaps I am responding to you drawing me here. Perhaps there is more to your consciousness that you have yet to experience if you would just allow yourself to care and be open to expansion.

Did you know that the energy it takes to form amino acids decomposes them at the same time? They barely have enough time to be detected.

Abiogenesis - poof. Do your homework if you are going to propagate dogma.

My question still stands, you know, this one:

Chemical/electric energy combined with amino acids makes a 'conscious' decision to become conscious? Is this what you are saying?

Not in any known science is this possible. It is why heat seeks cold, electricity seeks ground, and light expands into the dark. I have never known of electricity seeking consciousness, have you?

It is impossible to form more than a postulate(and with no proof) when the amino acids decompose upon forming. Abiogenesis is an article of faith in blind belief.

Beingof1:
Chalmers is a philosopher.

David:
Not if he can't recognize and appreciate fundamental philosophic truths.

Nowadays, many who are called "philosophers" are quasi-scientists, but without any scientific expertise, who try to make sense of science. They are neither scientists nor philosophers.

David - David, shake the cobwebs out man.

You just used science with a 'perhaps' to try to make consciousness a subset of the universe. You are attempting the futile and if you do not open your mind and let light in, you are going to stay on a merri go round and keep saying silly things.

Here is the loop:
"Consciousness is a thing of the universe."
"How do you know"?
"I plunged deep outside my consciousness and deduced this fact."

Nature determined it, of which my consciousness is a part.

Which part of nature? Where does nature begin and your consciousness end?

Here is another contradiction you are in. You say there are no boundaries in the totality, with one exception, our consciousness.

How long will you stay in conflict with the essence of what you are?

Beingof1:
What 'thing' did the totality come from?

David:
By its very nature, the totality didn't come from anywhere. It isn't a thing.

Could you point out this 'thing' called your consciousness so we can all have a clear understanding of its thingness?

Another contradiction; you say in another thread:

The I-illusion is the belief that one really exists in an independent manner. It is an illusion because no such entity exists.

Now you want to make it impossible not to be in the I-illusion by making consciousness a subset thingy of the totality.

Why can you not see the crystal clear contradiction you are in?