The Self-Contradictory Definition of Physicalism and the Indeterminate Nature of the Physical
Offline (To a large extent, this thread will serve as a critique of "physicalism" as defined in Wikipedia.)
Wikipedia defines physicalism (a.k.a. materialism) as follows:
Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things.
(source: Wikipedia: Physicalism)
Please note, according to this defintion, that physicalism holds that the only things that exist are PHYSICAL THINGS and that everything "is no more extensive than its PHYSICAL PROPERTIES (emphasis mine)".
Also, Wikipedia states the physicalism is whatever that which is defined by the science of physics:
The ontology of physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc.
(source: Wikipedia: Physicalism)
But "space" and "time" are clearly abstractions, not physical things at all. Also, what about information? Is information a physical thing?
Wikipedia gives the following rationale for why the term "physicalism" is preferred to the term "materialism:"
Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.
(source: Wikipedia: Physicalism)
Non-material (i.e. nonphysical) forces? Doesn't that blatantly contadict the definition of physicalism which holds that only the physical exists? Why call it "physicalism" if you believe in the reality of nonphysical forces?
And what about "matter?" Based on the theory of quantum mechanics, matter has a dualistic nature - namely, it reduces to either waves or particles. Probability waves are clearly mathematical abstractions and are therefore not physical. But what about particles? Well, physics represents particles as geometric points (i.e. abstractions) that have location in space (i.e. a nonphysical aspect) and time (i.e. a nonphysical aspect) but lack dimension (i.e. an immaterial aspect).
But doesn't a particle have "mass?" Yes, but what is mass? Well, mass is matter. But Newton's second law defines mass as follows: m = F/a...where "m" equals mass, "F" equals force, and "a" equals acceleration...Therefore we can conclude that matter (i.e. mass) is actually immaterial because we have already determined that force is immaterial.
But doesn't Einstein's special theory of relativity hold that matter is convertible with energy? Yes, but what is energy? It would appear that physics doesn't know?
"We have no knowledge of what energy is" - Richard Feynman (Nobel laureate in physics)
It seems to me that physics has reduced the physical world to an abstract process consisting soley of mathematical abstractions.
Merriam-Webster's third defintion of "matter" (listed below) is the one that seems to be most germane to what physics is actually describing.
3 a : the indeterminate subject of reality; especially : the element in the universe that undergoes formation and alteration b : the formless substratum of all things which exists only potentially and upon which form acts to produce realities
(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
But what is this "form" which acts on this formless substratum to produce all things? Mathematical abstractions?
To speak of mathematical abstractions as having causal-efficacy is sheer nonsense. Moreover, to speak of mathematical abstractions existing independently of a mind that abstracts is unintelligible. However, this is precisely what physicalism (which is based on the language of physics) reduces the physical world to - an abstract process comprised soley of mathematical abstractions.
Lenin (the Marxist revolutionary and Russian communist), realizing that the new advances in physics (i.e. the "theory of relativity" and "quantum mechanics" which I briefly discussed above) were undermining materialism (the metaphysical system upon which Marxism is based), argued that the defining property of the material world is that it is "an objective reality" existing outside the mind.
"For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside of the mind." - Vladimir Lenin
(source: Wikipedia: Dialectical materialism)
Okay. For the sake of argument, let's accept this definition of the physical or the material world - that it is "objective."
Wikipedia also defines physicalism as a position in the philosophy of mind which holds that consciousness is physical.
In contemporary philosoophy physicalism is most frequently associated with philosophy of mind, in particular the mind/body problem, in which it holds that the mind is a physical thing in all senses. In other words, all that has been ascribed to "mind" is more correctly ascribed to "brain".
(source: Wikipedia: Physicalism)
However, this position does not hold water. It clearly violates the definition of physicalism - namely, "that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties." Consciousness has no physical properties. Moreover, it violates Lenin's redefinition of materialism because it does not have the property of being objective. Consciousness is not objective; it is subjective.
Now, I have encountered more than a few atheists on this forum who will attempt to salvage materialism by arguing that consciousness is an "emergent property." This is tantamount to invoking "magic." But more than that, emergentism in regards to philosophy of mind is actually a DUALISTIC position because it holds that the mind is IRREDUCIBLE to the physical (i.e. supervenient physicalism) or that it is simply a nonphysical byproduct of the physical (i.e. epiphenomenalism).
Emergentism is a theory which came to popularity in the early twentieth century. It is a form of non-reductive supervenience, but one where reality is considered to supervene in a manner more akin to layers, rather than patterns within a single layer, as per later physicalism. These layers are said to be genuinely novel from each other (i.e., the psychological vs. the physical), and is thus a type of dualism.
(source: Wikipedia: Physicalism)
epiphenomenalism, also known as 'Type-E Dualism', is a view according to which some or all mental states are mere epiphenomena (side-effects or by-products) of physical states of the world.
(source: Wikipedia: Epiphenomenalism)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:And of course, as Strafio said, 'does not exist' does not really address the position she holds.Thanks for spelling out my position, but dude... is my avatar picture really that feminine?
(Don't worry... you're not first...)
Seriously, I thought I was certain that you were male, but then I became unsure here when Paisley referred to you several times with a feminine pronoun, and I didn't see you correct him.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline The fundamentals of reality in Physics are all really simple, essentially unstructured entities, or 'stuff' - energy, quarks and electrons, etc (virtually point like particles, described by a very small number of attributes) .
The idea that something as apparently complex as 'consciousness' is similarly fundamental makes no sense to me. To me , it is so clearly a form of process.
Take some simpler concept, like 'growth'. Many things clearly exhibit growth, but 'growth' is not a thing in itself, independent of things which 'grow'. Yet it can be manifest in many things not closely related in composition, from crystals, to black holes, to life-forms. Like 'consciousness' it is something that actual things do or manifest, due to their structure and the interaction of their components, not actually part of their physical composition.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:You have not responded to my point that employing the personal pronoun "I" presupposes "self-awareness"
I'm with you so far...
Paisley wrote:which in turn presupposes the existence of "awareness" itself.
This is the bit I'm questioning.
I agree I am self aware, but that this "awareness" is a "thing" that "exists"?
I don't think that reflects the way we use the word "aware".
This debate is over. I have little patience for stupidity.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline The fundamentals of reality in Physics are all really simple, essentially unstructured entities, or 'stuff' - energy, quarks and electrons, etc (virtually point like particles, described by a very small number of attributes) .
The idea that something as apparently complex as 'consciousness' is similarly fundamental makes no sense to me. To me , it is so clearly a form of process.
Take some simpler concept, like 'growth'. Many things clearly exhibit growth, but 'growth' is not a thing in itself, independent of things which 'grow'. Yet it can be manifest in many things not closely related in composition, from crystals, to black holes, to life-forms. Like 'consciousness' it is something that actual things do or manifest, due to their structure and the interaction of their components, not actually part of their physical composition.
Is the conversion of mass into energy a "thing in itself" or a "process?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:The fundamentals of reality in Physics are all really simple, essentially unstructured entities, or 'stuff' - energy, quarks and electrons, etc (virtually point like particles, described by a very small number of attributes) .
The idea that something as apparently complex as 'consciousness' is similarly fundamental makes no sense to me. To me , it is so clearly a form of process.
Take some simpler concept, like 'growth'. Many things clearly exhibit growth, but 'growth' is not a thing in itself, independent of things which 'grow'. Yet it can be manifest in many things not closely related in composition, from crystals, to black holes, to life-forms. Like 'consciousness' it is something that actual things do or manifest, due to their structure and the interaction of their components, not actually part of their physical composition.
Is the conversion of mass into energy a "thing in itself" or a "process?"
Mass is not converted into energy, energy already has the equivalent of mass ( e = mc2 , or m = e/c2 ), so an object with a lot of energy behaves as if it has more mass.
You are presumably thinking of the conversion of matter into energy, such as when an electron and a positron mutually annihilate and release two or more gamma ray photons. This is a process, in which physical entities change state, obviously.
Your point? What has the question to do with 'consciousness'? Are you just trying to clarify what we mean by a 'process'?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline This is the bit I'm questioning.I agree I am self aware, but that this "awareness" is a "thing" that "exists"?
I don't think that reflects the way we use the word "aware".
This debate is over. I have little patience for stupidity.
So, once again without even trying to address the argument you've decided to call it "stupid" because you don't agree with the conclusion.
I wonder what it was about the question "Does 'Hello' exist? If not, why not?" that unnerved you?
After all, you spent 6 posts dodging it and when there were no more diversionary tactics you've decided to run from the debate altogether.
Or maybe now you no longer think that I'm a girl, you've suddenly found me less interesting to talk to... 
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Is the conversion of mass into energy a "thing in itself" or a "process?"
Mass is not converted into energy, energy already has the equivalent of mass ( e = mc2 , or m = e/c2 ), so an object with a lot of energy behaves as if it has more mass.
You are presumably thinking of the conversion of matter into energy, such as when an electron and a positron mutually annihilate and release two or more gamma ray photons. This is a process, in which physical entities change state, obviously.
Yes, that was my thought - i.e. that matter and energy are convertible. (I was using "mass" and "matter" interchangeably.)
Your point? What has the question to do with 'consciousness'? Are you just trying to clarify what we mean by a 'process'?
The question I was asking is whether or not this process (i.e. the conversion of matter into energy) is a "thing in itself? Also, do you consider "energy" to be a "thing" or an "object?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Strafio wrote:This is the bit I'm questioning.I agree I am self aware, but that this "awareness" is a "thing" that "exists"?
I don't think that reflects the way we use the word "aware".
Paisley wrote:This debate is over. I have little patience for stupidity.
So, once again without even trying to address the argument you've decided to call it "stupid" because you don't agree with the conclusion.
I am calling it stupid because your conclusion is stupid. You believe that only physical things exist based on a faith-commitment to a materialist worldview. Consequently, you have arrived at the IRRATIONAL conclusion that consciousness does not exist. Why? Because you realize that consciousness does not have any physical property and the only way to keep your materialist worldview in tact is to deny the existence of consciousness. Denying the existence of consciousness is not an option here. I have little patience for this kind of intellectual dishonesty. If you believe that only the physical exists, then provide me with one physical property of consciousness. If you can't do that, then you have failed to make your case and this debate is over.
I wonder what it was about the question "Does 'Hello' exist? If not, why not?" that unnerved you?
After all, you spent 6 posts dodging it and when there were no more diversionary tactics you've decided to run from the debate altogether.
The reason I have been ignoring your question is because it is so ridiculous that it is not worthy of my time. The term "hello" is part of the English language. Language does not have any inherent existence except in the conscious minds of those who employ it. The bottom line is that saying "hello" presupposes consciousness.
Or maybe now you no longer think that I'm a girl, you've suddenly found me less interesting to talk to...
I have little patience for stupidity, whether male or female.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley wrote:Is the conversion of mass into energy a "thing in itself" or a "process?"
Mass is not converted into energy, energy already has the equivalent of mass ( e = mc2 , or m = e/c2 ), so an object with a lot of energy behaves as if it has more mass.
You are presumably thinking of the conversion of matter into energy, such as when an electron and a positron mutually annihilate and release two or more gamma ray photons. This is a process, in which physical entities change state, obviously.
Yes, that was my thought - i.e. that matter and energy are convertible. (I was using "mass" and "matter" interchangeably.)
BobSpence1 wrote:Your point? What has the question to do with 'consciousness'? Are you just trying to clarify what we mean by a 'process'?
The question I was asking is whether or not this process (i.e. the conversion of matter into energy) is a "thing in itself? Also, do you consider "energy" to be a "thing" or an "object?"
Energy is clearly physical, but not material in a strict sense, ie it is not matter, although matter and energy are inter-convertible. It is not a 'process'. It can be transported, has location, and can be stored in a static form, as in the mainspring of a clockwork mechanism.
A 'process' is 'something' we can refer to, as the 'object' of a sentence, so it is a 'thing' in that sense, but not an 'object' except in the grammatical sense. It is clearly in a different category from a physical object. It is 'something' which physical objects, and energy, or energy flows, can be involved in. It is an explicit extension into the time dimension of the concepts of form, structure and pattern, which we perceive as static, somewhat ordered, relationships between individual entities in a group. Actually 'pattern' and 'form' can apply to time sequences of events, such as music and bird-calls, and spoken words. Strafio's 'hello' can be manifest as a particular sequence of sounds, but also by a static pattern of visual symbols, or a sequence of movements in sign language.
The simple dichotomy you seem obsessed with, between 'material' and 'immaterial' is far too crude to capture these ideas. You need at least Tri-alism, not just Dualism 
....
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline You believe that only physical things exist based on a faith-commitment to a materialist worldview. Consequently, you have arrived at the IRRATIONAL conclusion that consciousness does not exist. Why? Because you realize that consciousness does not have any physical property and the only way to keep your materialist worldview in tact is to deny the existence of consciousness.
Bold words from a person who refuses to address the reasoning of their opponent. Once again you're stating your conclusion dogmatically and name calling anyone who disagrees with "stupid" or "irrational", without even listening to the argument against you. A person could hold to any belief with a tactic like that.
I, on the other hand, haven't stated anything dogmatically; I've merely raised questions. I question your use, or misuse, of the words "consciousness" and "existence".
I've suggested that we can judge whether you're really abusing these words by investigating how they operate in everyday language. So far you don't seem to be willing to take such an investigation. It seems you'd rather just assume that your arguments and position are without flaw, and to label any dissidence to them as "stupid" or "irrational".
I wonder what it was about the question "Does 'Hello' exist? If not, why not?" that unnerved you?
After all, you spent 6 posts dodging it and when there were no more diversionary tactics you've decided to run from the debate altogether.
The reason I have been ignoring your question is because it is so ridiculous that it is not worthy of my time. The term "hello" is part of the English language. Language does not have any inherent existence except in the conscious minds of those who employ it.
"Carrot" and "consciousness" are also part of the English language just like "hello" is, but you would say that carrots exist and consciousness exists. Why won't you say that "hello" also exists?
- Login to post comments
Offline That was pretty weak Paisley. He never once stated that consciousness is a non-existent entity of any kind, he simply wanted you to address the usage of it in context with the English language. Instead you toss more labels and name-calling. Sleep on it, come back in a week.
- Login to post comments
Offline That was pretty weak Paisley. He never once stated that consciousness is a non-existent entity of any kind, he simply wanted you to address the usage of it in context with the English language. Instead you toss more labels and name-calling. Sleep on it, come back in a week.
He denies the existence of consciousness. That qualifies as eliminative materialism. And if you are here to defend his viewpoint, then you are as irrational as he is.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Di66en6ion wrote:That was pretty weak Paisley. He never once stated that consciousness is a non-existent entity of any kind, he simply wanted you to address the usage of it in context with the English language. Instead you toss more labels and name-calling. Sleep on it, come back in a week.
He denies the existence of consciousness. That qualifies as eliminative materialism. And if you are here to defend his viewpoint, then you are as irrational as he is.
Once again, Paisley, no-one here, nor Dennett, denies the existence of the phenomenon we refer to as 'consciousness'. We disagree with people like you as what it represents, what it is a manifestation of, etc.
Your stubborn insistence in finding a label to attach to our world-views, and then rigidly interpreting everything we say within that framework, ignoring the real subtleties of actual individual positions, is very tiresome.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:He denies the existence of consciousness. That qualifies as eliminative materialism. And if you are here to defend his viewpoint, then you are as irrational as he is.
Once again, Paisley, no-one here, nor Dennett, denies the existence of the phenomenon we refer to as 'consciousness'. We disagree with people like you as what it represents, what it is a manifestation of, etc.
Your stubborn insistence in finding a label to attach to our world-views, and then rigidly interpreting everything we say within that framework, ignoring the real subtleties of actual individual positions, is very tiresome.
What's tiresome is attempting to rein in the stupidity that is running amok on this forum.
Your position on the subject of consciousness is as absurd as his. When pressed to explain your position, you give the completely ridiculous explanation that consciousness is an "abstract pattern."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley wrote:He denies the existence of consciousness. That qualifies as eliminative materialism. And if you are here to defend his viewpoint, then you are as irrational as he is.
Once again, Paisley, no-one here, nor Dennett, denies the existence of the phenomenon we refer to as 'consciousness'. We disagree with people like you as what it represents, what it is a manifestation of, etc.
Your stubborn insistence in finding a label to attach to our world-views, and then rigidly interpreting everything we say within that framework, ignoring the real subtleties of actual individual positions, is very tiresome.
What's tiresome is attempting to rein in the stupidity that is running amok on this forum.
Your position on the subject of consciousness is as absurd as his. When pressed to explain your position, you give the completely ridiculous explanation that "consciousness is an abstract pattern."
So now you're saying consciousness is a concrete pattern? You should be able to point some out then. Oh wait...you're not a materialist...but you now claim consciousness is concrete...
Then again, you believe your God is immaterial but has three forms . If you want to rein in stupidity you might have to start with yourself.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley wrote:He denies the existence of consciousness. That qualifies as eliminative materialism. And if you are here to defend his viewpoint, then you are as irrational as he is.
Once again, Paisley, no-one here, nor Dennett, denies the existence of the phenomenon we refer to as 'consciousness'. We disagree with people like you as what it represents, what it is a manifestation of, etc.
Your stubborn insistence in finding a label to attach to our world-views, and then rigidly interpreting everything we say within that framework, ignoring the real subtleties of actual individual positions, is very tiresome.
Your position on the subject of consciousness is equally absurd. When pressed to explain your position, you give the completely ridiculous explanation that "consciousness is an abstract pattern."
A 'pattern' in the sense I am using it is an abstraction, it is how we refer to our perception of an ordered, non-random, relationship between parts of some composite structure or collection of things, or events.
I refer to consciousness more as a process, or the manifestation of a process, ie a dynamic (ie with a time dimension included) pattern of interacting 'elements' of some kind, very closely connected with neuronal activity in the brain. Even when we make an effort to achieve a state of 'pure' awareness, there is still stuff happening to maintain that state, otherwise we would be asleep or unconscious, which are clearly different states, of progressively lower activity. There are clearly processes occurring in the brain below the level of conscious awareness, so it is associated with a certain kind of process.
We do not know how that works, but we are not denying there is something 'going on' in our conscious brain, that we have yet to explain at more than a very superficial level. A structureless elementary 'thing' cannot have distinct thoughts, memories, experiences, etc, which is my fundamental objection to the idea you have tried to put forward. To simply say that what makes the difference between conscious and non-conscious activity is the presence of some ethereal 'stuff doesn't really add anything. Where does it come from, and where does it go when we are in an un-conscious state, and how does it return when we 'wake-up'?
It makes more sense, and is more explanatory, to treat the 'magic ingredient' as a particular kind of pattern of activity in the brain (NOTE, Not an 'abstract' pattern), or an effect of such activity. This fits very closely with observations of physical brain activity which correlate with an individual's apparent state of consciousness, as determined by their behaviour and their verbal account of how they 'feel'.
Your concept of 'consciousness' sounds very much analogous to the 'phlogiston' theory of heat, which was once thought of as an otherwise undetectable fluid which could flow out of or enter an object as it cooled or warmed, or was released when something burned. We now see heat as a form of energy, the collective energy of vibration and movement of atoms and molecules of a 'hot' substance.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:What's tiresome is attempting to rein in the stupidity that is running amok on this forum.
Your position on the subject of consciousness is as absurd as his. When pressed to explain your position, you give the completely ridiculous explanation that "consciousness is an abstract pattern."
So now you're saying consciousness is a concrete pattern? You should be able to point some out then. Oh wait...you're not a materialist...but you now claim consciousness is concrete...
Then again, you believe your God is immaterial but has three forms . If you want to rein in stupidity you might have to start with yourself.
Your reading comprehension leaves something very much to be desired. When did I ever say that "consciousness is a concrete pattern?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Did you really just complain about someone making assumptions about your position rather than reading properly and addressing their argument?
Irony much!!
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Paisley wrote:What's tiresome is attempting to rein in the stupidity that is running amok on this forum.
Your position on the subject of consciousness is as absurd as his. When pressed to explain your position, you give the completely ridiculous explanation that "consciousness is an abstract pattern."
So now you're saying consciousness is a concrete pattern? You should be able to point some out then. Oh wait...you're not a materialist...but you now claim consciousness is concrete...
Then again, you believe your God is immaterial but has three forms . If you want to rein in stupidity you might have to start with yourself.
Your reading comprehension leaves something very much to be desired. When did I ever say that "consciousness is a concrete pattern?"
You pooh-poohed the idea that consciousness is an abstract pattern - in your binary view of things there can only be one other position, eh, pissant?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Your position on the subject of consciousness is equally absurd. When pressed to explain your position, you give the completely ridiculous explanation that "consciousness is an abstract pattern."
A 'pattern' in the sense I am using it is an abstraction, it is how we refer to our perception of an ordered, non-random, relationship between parts of some composite structure or collection of things, or events.
Is this "abstraction" physical?
I refer to consciousness more as a process, or the manifestation of a process, ie a dynamic (ie with a time dimension included) pattern of interacting 'elements' of some kind, very closely connected with neuronal activity in the brain.
Is this "manifestation" of a process physical? If so, what exactly constitutes its physical nature?
Even when we make an effort to achieve a state of 'pure' awareness, there is still stuff happening to maintain that state, otherwise we would be asleep or unconscious, which are clearly different states, of progressively lower activity.
Have you ever experienced "pure awareness?" If so, then how did you achieve this realization?
There are clearly processes occurring in the brain below the level of conscious awareness, so it is associated with a certain kind of process.
I am not denying the reality of any processes. However, I still wondering why the conversion of energy into matter and vice versa does not qualify as a process.
We do not know how that works, but we are not denying there is something 'going on' in our conscious brain, that we have yet to explain at more than a very superficial level. A structureless elementary 'thing' cannot have distinct thoughts, memories, experiences, etc, which is my fundamental objection to the idea you have tried to put forward.
I know that you are not denying that something is "going on" in our brain. But you are denying the existence or reality of awareness itself.
Does energy have structure? And what exactly is the structure of an electron - an elementary 'thing'?
To simply say that what makes the difference between conscious and non-conscious activity is the presence of some ethereal 'stuff doesn't really add anything.
When did I say the "difference between conscious and non-conscious activity is the presence of some ethereal 'stuff'?
The term "ethereal" is defined as...
"lacking material substance."
(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: ethereal)
I would argue that contemporary physics paints a picture of the objective phenomenal world as "lacking material substance." Certainly, it can be characterized as ephemeral and indeterminate. Whenever I raise this point and argue that both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics undermine materialism, you accuse me of making a straw-man argument because you do not subscribe to the materialism that I am describing (i.e. the materialism based on substantialism).
Now, it would appear that you want to have it both ways. You characterize my notion of consciousness as being nebulous and ethereal; yet you refuse to acknowledge that I can say the same thing about your notion of the material. I'm sorry to disappoint you. But you can't have it both ways!
Where does it come from, and where does it go when we are in an un-conscious state, and how does it return when we 'wake-up'?
I do not share your understanding of "unconsciousness." You believe "awareness" ceases to exist whenever we enter into a state of unconsciousness. Also, I am under the impression that you really don't believe that awareness itself exists.
I have already provided you with a link concerning "pure consciousness or pure awareness." It does not go anywhere. It just is...in the ever-present moment of now, providing the background for all the other states of consciousness (e.g. the waking state, the dreaming state, and the state of dreamless sleep).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya
It makes more sense, and is more explanatory, to treat the 'magic ingredient' as a particular kind of pattern of activity in the brain, or an effect of such activity. This fits very closely with observations of physical brain activity which correlate with an individuals apparent state of consciousness, as determined by his behaviour and his verbal account of how he 'feels'.
I have never denied that there are behavioral and neural correlates to mental states. I simply do not agree that identifying the behavioral and neural correlates establishes that consciousness (i.e. awareness itself) is physical. You keep saying that it is some kind of abstract pattern. But an abstract pattern is clearly not physical.
Your concept of 'consciousness' sounds very much analogous to the 'phlogiston' theory of heat, which was once thought of as an otherwise undetectable fluid which could flow out of or enter an object as it cooled or warmed, or was released when something burned. We now see heat as a form of energy, the collective energy of vibration and movement of atoms and molecules of a 'hot' substance.
And your concept of consciousness implies that my computer is necessarily endowed with subjective awareness.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley wrote:He denies the existence of consciousness. That qualifies as eliminative materialism. And if you are here to defend his viewpoint, then you are as irrational as he is.
Once again, Paisley, no-one here, nor Dennett, denies the existence of the phenomenon we refer to as 'consciousness'. We disagree with people like you as what it represents, what it is a manifestation of, etc.
Your stubborn insistence in finding a label to attach to our world-views, and then rigidly interpreting everything we say within that framework, ignoring the real subtleties of actual individual positions, is very tiresome.
What's tiresome is attempting to rein in the stupidity that is running amok on this forum.
Your position on the subject of consciousness is as absurd as his. When pressed to explain your position, you give the completely ridiculous explanation that consciousness is an "abstract pattern."
Are you *still* whining about Dennett? Jesus Christ Paisley.
Why don't you send him a fucking email and ask.
daniel(dot)dennett(at)tufts(dot)edu
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley wrote:Your position on the subject of consciousness is equally absurd. When pressed to explain your position, you give the completely ridiculous explanation that "consciousness is an abstract pattern."
A 'pattern' in the sense I am using it is an abstraction, it is how we refer to our perception of an ordered, non-random, relationship between parts of some composite structure or collection of things, or events.
Is this "abstraction" physical?
BobSpence1 wrote:I refer to consciousness more as a process, or the manifestation of a process, ie a dynamic (ie with a time dimension included) pattern of interacting 'elements' of some kind, very closely connected with neuronal activity in the brain.
Is this "manifestation" of a process physical? If so, what exactly constitutes its physical nature?
All these concepts bear the same relationship to 'physical' as concepts like 'height' or 'velocity' or 'similarity'...
And of course they do not fit into 'naive reductionist materialism', which is why I do not hold to that. They also do not require the 'quasi-physical' substrate of a dualist realm, either. That is what 'abstraction' means. It is a tool of thought, not a thing that exists apart from our thoughts.
BobSpence1 wrote:Even when we make an effort to achieve a state of 'pure' awareness, there is still stuff happening to maintain that state, otherwise we would be asleep or unconscious, which are clearly different states, of progressively lower activity.
Have you ever experienced "pure awareness?" If so, then how did you achieve this realization?
Logic. Something is required to distinguish 'pure' awareness from the state of unconsciosness.
BobSpence1 wrote:There are clearly processes occurring in the brain below the level of conscious awareness, so it is associated with a certain kind of process.
I am not denying the reality of any processes. However, I still wondering why the conversion of energy into matter and vice versa does not qualify as a process.
It is a process. I repeat, as when you brought this up before - and your point is...?
We do not know how that works, but we are not denying there is something 'going on' in our conscious brain, that we have yet to explain at more than a very superficial level. A structureless elementary 'thing' cannot have distinct thoughts, memories, experiences, etc, which is my fundamental objection to the idea you have tried to put forward.
I know that you are not denying that something is "going on" in our brain. But you are denying the existence or reality of awareness itself.
Does energy have structure? And what exactly is the structure of an electron - an elementary 'thing'?
I am not denying that beings can be 'aware', just that it is not a 'thing' which we can say 'exists', any more than that their height 'exists'.
'energy' does not seem to have intrinsic structure itself, the pattern of energy, such as in waves of electromagnetic energy - light, radio waves - determine the properties of that particular manifestation of energy.
Just as water does not have an intrinsic shape, the properties of a particular body of water determine the properties of that body - is it a moving ocean wave, droplets falling as rain, etc.
There has been some disagreement about electron 'structure', but this article seems to make sense to me - it is a wave structure.
BobSpence1 wrote:To simply say that what makes the difference between conscious and non-conscious activity is the presence of some ethereal 'stuff doesn't really add anything.
When did I say the "difference between conscious and non-conscious activity is the presence of some ethereal 'stuff'?
The term "ethereal" is defined as...
Quote:"lacking material substance."
(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: ethereal)
I would argue that contemporary physics paints a picture of the objective phenomenal world as "lacking material substance." Certainly, it can be characterized as ephemeral and indeterminate. Whenever I raise this point and argue that both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics undermine materialism, you accuse me of making a straw-man argument because you do not subscribe to the materialism that I am describing (i.e. the materialism based on substantialism).
Now, it would appear that you want to have it both ways. You characterize my notion of consciousness as being nebulous and ethereal; yet you refuse to acknowledge that I can say the same thing about your notion of the material. I'm sorry to disappoint you. But you can't have it both ways!
"lacking material substance" when applied to an 'thing', not to a process or attribute of a 'thing'. This is your persistent error.
[.quote]
Where does it come from, and where does it go when we are in an un-conscious state, and how does it return when we 'wake-up'?
I do not share your understanding of "unconsciousness." You believe "awareness" ceases to exist whenever we enter into a state of unconsciousness. Also, I am under the impression that you really don't believe that awareness itself exists.
I have already provided you with a link concerning "pure consciousness or pure awareness." It does not go anywhere. It just is...in the ever-present moment of now, providing the background for all the other states of consciousness (e.g. the waking state, the dreaming state, and the state of dreamless sleep).
Thee is no evidence that 'awareness' exists in any meaningful sense in dreamless sleep, and no need to postulate that it does, except from your presuppositions, or those of the writers of that article. Personal experience and internal perception prove nothing about the nature of the reality leading us to such experiences.
BobSpence1 wrote:It makes more sense, and is more explanatory, to treat the 'magic ingredient' as a particular kind of pattern of activity in the brain, or an effect of such activity. This fits very closely with observations of physical brain activity which correlate with an individuals apparent state of consciousness, as determined by his behaviour and his verbal account of how he 'feels'.
I have never denied that there are behavioral and neural correlates to mental states. I simply do not agree that identifying the behavioral and neural correlates establishes that consciousness (i.e. awareness itself) is physical. You keep saying that it is some kind of abstract pattern. But an abstract pattern is clearly not physical.
BobSpence1 wrote:Your concept of 'consciousness' sounds very much analogous to the 'phlogiston' theory of heat, which was once thought of as an otherwise undetectable fluid which could flow out of or enter an object as it cooled or warmed, or was released when something burned. We now see heat as a form of energy, the collective energy of vibration and movement of atoms and molecules of a 'hot' substance.
And your concept of consciousness implies that my computer is necessarily endowed with subjective awareness.
No it doesn't necessitate that, but it does allow for that possibility, given a computer with sufficiently subtle algorithms of an appropriate type which we have currently only the barest hints of.
Which raises the old 'zombie' question. Just how do you distinguish between a 'real' aware being and one that merely behaves exactly the same, which could in principle be programmed into a suitably complex robot or 'android'?
I am really not concerned with this distinction you are obsessed with, your idea of the 'physical' and 'non-physical'. We have a hierarchy of successively more holistic levels of description of what we perceive and conceive. at the base we have, arguably, matter/energy. Then we have organized patterns of the basics, both static, such as atoms/molecules, and dynamic, such as waves and living things. The 'attributes of such entities or groups of interacting entities are described by more-or-less abstract ideas such as pattern and process. Mind and consciousness are concepts well up this ladder.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
It would appear that Wittgenstein supported some form of "subjectivism" (the view that subjective experience is fundamental).
Also, Wittgenstein's thought has been described as supporting fideism (the view that faith is superior to reason in apprehending particular truths).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm with you so far...
This is the bit I'm questioning.
I agree I am self aware, but that this "awareness" is a "thing" that "exists"?
I don't think that reflects the way we use the word "aware".
My counter argument begins with this question:
Does "Hello" exist? If not, why not?
Also, Wittgenstein's thought has been described as supporting fideism (the view that faith is superior to reason in apprehending particular truths).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism
The quote is from the Tractatus, Wittgenstein's earlier work.
He later contradicted this position in his later work.
Also, I want it pointed out that I don't see Wittgenstein as some kind of authority.
I just found the methodology in Philosophical Investigations very effective in dispelling philosophical confusions.
I am also aware that he was a bit of a fideist, although I don't think he ever gave a philosophical/rational defense of it.
I think it was more that it appealed to his personal tastes.
Argh!! You too?
That's 5 people and counting...
I need a new avatar...