An argument against materialism

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2074
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

An argument against materialism

Post by bahman » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:25 pm

Randomness is the only option available for a materialist when it comes to decision. That is true since decision is uncaused cause and material process is deterministic. The experience of wanting is after decision is made (following Libet's experiement) therefore they are different phenomena. We however observe fantastic correlation between what we consciously want and what we get. Therefore materialism is wrong (because you cannot expect a random change always correlates with conscious want).

SteveKlinko
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:09 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:25 pm
Randomness is the only option available for a materialist when it comes to decision. That is true since decision is uncaused cause and material process is deterministic. The experience of wanting is after decision is made (following Libet's experiement) therefore they are different phenomena. We however observe fantastic correlation between what we consciously want and what we get. Therefore materialism is wrong (because you cannot expect a random change always correlates with conscious want).
Very Good. I like this thought.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:01 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:25 pm
you cannot expect a random change always correlates with conscious want
Yes you can. Survivorship bias.

Suppose that "decision" (caused OR uncaused cause - doesn't matter) happens before want.

Decision: coffee
Want: yes please!
Result: correlates with "we get coffee"

Alternative

Decision: coffee
Want: No thanks!
Result: No coffee.

If the "want" vetoes an idea you can't expect it to correlate with what we get.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2074
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:14 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:25 pm
you cannot expect a random change always correlates with conscious want
Yes you can. Survivorship bias.

Suppose that "decision" (caused OR uncaused cause - doesn't matter) happens before want.

Decision: coffee
Want: yes please!
Result: correlates with "we get coffee"

Alternative

Decision: coffee
Want: No thanks!
Result: No coffee.

If the "want" vetoes an idea you can't expect it to correlate with what we get.
The scenarios are like these when you are asked about coffee:

1)
Decision: Yes
Want: Yes
Result: You get the coffee (everything is fine)

2)
Decision: No
Want: No
Result: You don't get the coffee (everything is fine)

3)
Decision: Yes
Want: No
Result: You get the coffee but it is against what you want (conflict which we have never observed)

4)
Decision: No
Want: Yes
Result: You don't get the coffee but it is against what you want (conflict which we have never observed)

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:19 pm

bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:14 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:01 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:25 pm
you cannot expect a random change always correlates with conscious want
Yes you can. Survivorship bias.

Suppose that "decision" (caused OR uncaused cause - doesn't matter) happens before want.

Decision: coffee
Want: yes please!
Result: correlates with "we get coffee"

Alternative

Decision: coffee
Want: No thanks!
Result: No coffee.

If the "want" vetoes an idea you can't expect it to correlate with what we get.
The scenarios are like these when you are asked about coffee:

1)
Decision: Yes
Want: Yes
Result: You get the coffee (everything is fine)

2)
Decision: No
Want: No
Result: You don't get the coffee (everything is fine)

3)
Decision: Yes
Want: No
Result: You get the coffee but it is against what you want (conflict which we have never observed)

4)
Decision: No
Want: Yes
Result: You don't get the coffee but it is against what you want (conflict which we have never observed)
So it's a distinction without a difference?

The decision also correlates with coffee.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2074
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:22 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:19 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:14 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:01 pm

Yes you can. Survivorship bias.

Suppose that "decision" (caused OR uncaused cause - doesn't matter) happens before want.

Decision: coffee
Want: yes please!
Result: correlates with "we get coffee"

Alternative

Decision: coffee
Want: No thanks!
Result: No coffee.

If the "want" vetoes an idea you can't expect it to correlate with what we get.
The scenarios are like these when you are asked about coffee:

1)
Decision: Yes
Want: Yes
Result: You get the coffee (everything is fine)

2)
Decision: No
Want: No
Result: You don't get the coffee (everything is fine)

3)
Decision: Yes
Want: No
Result: You get the coffee but it is against what you want (conflict which we have never observed)

4)
Decision: No
Want: Yes
Result: You don't get the coffee but it is against what you want (conflict which we have never observed)
Not according to the Libet experiment.

The decision and want happen 7 seconds apart. They are in series, not in parallel.

So if No decision happens. No want needs to happen.
Of course not. Your decision is always in agreement with your conscious want. My point is that if decision is a random variable then we are dealing with a conflict in half of the cases.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:26 pm

bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:22 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:19 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:14 pm

The scenarios are like these when you are asked about coffee:

1)
Decision: Yes
Want: Yes
Result: You get the coffee (everything is fine)

2)
Decision: No
Want: No
Result: You don't get the coffee (everything is fine)

3)
Decision: Yes
Want: No
Result: You get the coffee but it is against what you want (conflict which we have never observed)

4)
Decision: No
Want: Yes
Result: You don't get the coffee but it is against what you want (conflict which we have never observed)
Not according to the Libet experiment.

The decision and want happen 7 seconds apart. They are in series, not in parallel.

So if No decision happens. No want needs to happen.
Of course not. Your decision is always in agreement with your conscious want. My point is that if decision is a random variable then we are dealing with a conflict in half of the cases.
OK.

Let me re-read the experiment design to make sure the state table above is representative...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest