An argument against materialism

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=473128 time=1601050907 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473039 time=1600964490 user_id=15238]
"Overlapping attributes of position in space-time" seems to describe interaction rather well. Some do. I haven't thought that but out so there might be a better definition, but that one is sufficient?
[/quote]
Well, if you have interaction between subsets then you have one system.
[/quote]

That's the heart of metaphysics. We draw the line according to purpose. Sometimes we need the parts, sometimes we need the whole. Using too much or too little information is inefficient and counter-productive.

Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The correct level of detail to use depends entirely on what you're trying to do. The whole idea of emergence is that - moving from one metaphor at one level of understanding to another metaphor a higher (more complex because of additional variables or relationships) level of understanding.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4741
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:48 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:21 pm
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:21 pm "Overlapping attributes of position in space-time" seems to describe interaction rather well. Some do. I haven't thought that but out so there might be a better definition, but that one is sufficient?
Well, if you have interaction between subsets then you have one system.
That's the heart of metaphysics. We draw the line according to purpose. Sometimes we need the parts, sometimes we need the whole. Using too much or too little information is inefficient and counter-productive.

Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The correct level of detail to use depends entirely on what you're trying to do. The whole idea of emergence is that - moving from one metaphor at one level of understanding to another metaphor a higher (more complex because of additional variables or relationships) level of understanding.
I don't that there is an emergence from a materialistic point of view.
Advocate
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=473153 time=1601056751 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473136 time=1601052525 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=473128 time=1601050907 user_id=12593]

Well, if you have interaction between subsets then you have one system.
[/quote]

That's the heart of metaphysics. We draw the line according to purpose. Sometimes we need the parts, sometimes we need the whole. Using too much or too little information is inefficient and counter-productive.

Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The correct level of detail to use depends entirely on what you're trying to do. The whole idea of emergence is that - moving from one metaphor at one level of understanding to another metaphor a higher (more complex because of additional variables or relationships) level of understanding.
[/quote]
I don't that there is an emergence from a materialistic point of view.
[/quote]

*doubt

That is correct. It's on the "spiritual" side where the contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, must be accounted for. It's a division between layers of complexity in the metaphors we use to describe material reality.

A cluster of water molecules can be described as wet in a way no particular number of them can be. Emergence is essentially relationship, an additional understanding that occurs when parts are brought together.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4741
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:59 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:48 pm That's the heart of metaphysics. We draw the line according to purpose. Sometimes we need the parts, sometimes we need the whole. Using too much or too little information is inefficient and counter-productive.

Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The correct level of detail to use depends entirely on what you're trying to do. The whole idea of emergence is that - moving from one metaphor at one level of understanding to another metaphor a higher (more complex because of additional variables or relationships) level of understanding.
I don't that there is an emergence from a materialistic point of view.
*doubt

That is correct. It's on the "spiritual" side where the contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, must be accounted for. It's a division between layers of complexity in the metaphors we use to describe material reality.

A cluster of water molecules can be described as wet in a way no particular number of them can be. Emergence is essentially relationship, an additional understanding that occurs when parts are brought together.
Here is my argument for emergence. Consider a system made of some parts, each part has some properties. The system has another set of properties according to materialist point of view of emergence. But there must be a reason why the system has this specific set of properties rather than another properties. This means that the the state of system is a function of some properties. But the only properties which available are avaiable are properties of parts. Therefore, each property of the system is a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
Advocate
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=473164 time=1601059264 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473156 time=1601057030 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=473153 time=1601056751 user_id=12593]

I don't that there is an emergence from a materialistic point of view.
[/quote]

*doubt

That is correct. It's on the "spiritual" side where the contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, must be accounted for. It's a division between layers of complexity in the metaphors we use to describe material reality.

A cluster of water molecules can be described as wet in a way no particular number of them can be. Emergence is essentially relationship, an additional understanding that occurs when parts are brought together.
[/quote]
Here is my argument for emergence. Consider a system made of some parts, each part has some properties. The system has another set of properties according to materialist point of view of emergence. But there must be a reason why the system has this specific set of properties rather than another properties. This means that the the state of system is a function of some properties. But the only properties which available are avaiable are properties of parts. Therefore, each property of the system is a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
[/quote]

All words have a meaning.
Emergence is a word.
Emergence has meaning.

Words are useful to the extent their meaning represents a state of affairs that can be manipulated.
Emergence is used in practical ways to distinguish between attributes of individual things and groups of those things which are different.
Therefore the word emergence does real work not accomplished by other words and is meaningful.

Also, GTFO. :P You're doing the cart/horse thing. Language is descriptive, not proscriptive.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4741
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:12 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:41 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:03 pm *doubt

That is correct. It's on the "spiritual" side where the contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, must be accounted for. It's a division between layers of complexity in the metaphors we use to describe material reality.

A cluster of water molecules can be described as wet in a way no particular number of them can be. Emergence is essentially relationship, an additional understanding that occurs when parts are brought together.
Here is my argument for emergence. Consider a system made of some parts, each part has some properties. The system has another set of properties according to materialist point of view of emergence. But there must be a reason why the system has this specific set of properties rather than another properties. This means that the the state of system is a function of some properties. But the only properties which available are avaiable are properties of parts. Therefore, each property of the system is a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
All words have a meaning.
Emergence is a word.
Emergence has meaning.

Words are useful to the extent their meaning represents a state of affairs that can be manipulated.
Emergence is used in practical ways to distinguish between attributes of individual things and groups of those things which are different.
Therefore the word emergence does real work not accomplished by other words and is meaningful.

Also, GTFO. :P You're doing the cart/horse thing. Language is descriptive, not proscriptive.
Any thing that we experience, a thought for example, is a property of matters. It just magnifies when you have a specific configuration.
Advocate
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=473183 time=1601062466 user_id=12593]
Any thing that we experience, a thought for example, is a property of matters. It just magnifies when you have a specific configuration.
[/quote]

You lost me there but also am high ATM so..
Dimebag
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Dimebag »

Any thing that we experience is not only a property of the configuration of matter but also the interactions of that configuration with our specific sensory system. There is no sound without ears, no vision without eyes and visual cortexes. Alan Watts knew this.
Advocate
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=473192 time=1601063884 user_id=5396]
Any thing that we experience is not only a property of the [b]configuration of matter[/b] but also the interactions of that configuration with our specific sensory system. There is no sound without ears, no vision without eyes and visual cortexes. Alan Watts knew this.
[/quote]

Watts is a moron in a number of ways we don't have a word for yet, but yes, there are three layers of filter, the biological, the cultural (basically the subconscious), and the psychological (the story we tell ourselves about who we are and how we fit in, favorite color and all that). That's the layers between Actuality and reality (to us, vs. "Reality" - our consensus experience).
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:58 pm Any thing that we experience is not only a property of the configuration of matter but also the interactions of that configuration with our specific sensory system. There is no sound without ears, no vision without eyes and visual cortexes. Alan Watts knew this.
Except in Dreams and hallucinations. I have had the experience of having a Dream where I am in a raucous crowded room with lots of people talking and other noise. After waking up during that Dream I was pleasantly treated to the absolute Silence of my bedroom.
Dimebag
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Dimebag »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:15 pm
Dimebag wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:58 pm Any thing that we experience is not only a property of the configuration of matter but also the interactions of that configuration with our specific sensory system. There is no sound without ears, no vision without eyes and visual cortexes. Alan Watts knew this.
Except in Dreams and hallucinations. I have had the experience of having a Dream where I am in a raucous crowded room with lots of people talking and other noise. After waking up during that Dream I was pleasantly treated to the absolute Silence of my bedroom.
Yes, the question would be, can a person without eyes still dream visually. Obviously not if they had lost them from birth as the visual perceptual system would not be sufficiently trained in the forms of the world to simulate them. But a recently blinded person would surely have dreams and visual hallucinations or imaginings. Ultimately the brain must be responsible for assembling the world we see, but when we are in the waking state, the brain takes the lead of the eyes, filling in details where it is uncertain.
User avatar
DanDare
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:52 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by DanDare »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:54 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:55 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:10 pmMaterialism claims that consciousness is the result of process in matter.
I'm a materialist. Only the material exists ontologically, but material includes everything that exists and has the nature it has independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of that existence, and therefore includes all physical entities, all living entities (organisms), all conscious entities (animals), and all intellectually/volitionally conscious animals (human beings). Life, consciousness, and mind are attribute of material existence, just as all the physical properties are attributes of material existence. Life, consciousness, and mind are as natural as all the physical properties but are only properties of some physical entities.

No physical process produces or causes life, the life property makes physical life processes possible. No living process produces consciousness, the consciousness property makes the consciousness of living organisms possible. No consciousness process produces mind, it is the mental properties of volition, intellect, and rationality that makes the minds of conscious organisms possible.

Your premise is wrong.
You can say that Mental Properties are purely Material but it is not a very satisfying proposition when it comes to simple sensory Experiences, like the Sight of Red, the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, the Touch of a rough surface. These things have no Material Explanation. They are purely Conscious Experiences in the Mind. The existence of these Sensory Experiences or Sensations, if you like, is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
There is no way to tell if consciousness or those quality of experience things you mention are anything other than localized phenomena arising from the material conditions where they seem to occur. We do know that reported conscious experience, and behavior, can be altered by changes to the brain. The simplest inference is then that consciousness is an epiphenomenon.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

DanDare wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:29 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:54 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:55 pm
I'm a materialist. Only the material exists ontologically, but material includes everything that exists and has the nature it has independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of that existence, and therefore includes all physical entities, all living entities (organisms), all conscious entities (animals), and all intellectually/volitionally conscious animals (human beings). Life, consciousness, and mind are attribute of material existence, just as all the physical properties are attributes of material existence. Life, consciousness, and mind are as natural as all the physical properties but are only properties of some physical entities.

No physical process produces or causes life, the life property makes physical life processes possible. No living process produces consciousness, the consciousness property makes the consciousness of living organisms possible. No consciousness process produces mind, it is the mental properties of volition, intellect, and rationality that makes the minds of conscious organisms possible.

Your premise is wrong.
You can say that Mental Properties are purely Material but it is not a very satisfying proposition when it comes to simple sensory Experiences, like the Sight of Red, the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, the Touch of a rough surface. These things have no Material Explanation. They are purely Conscious Experiences in the Mind. The existence of these Sensory Experiences or Sensations, if you like, is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
There is no way to tell if consciousness or those quality of experience things you mention are anything other than localized phenomena arising from the material conditions where they seem to occur. We do know that reported conscious experience, and behavior, can be altered by changes to the brain. The simplest inference is then that consciousness is an epiphenomenon.
But if Consciousness is not actually part of the Brain itself, but rather Consciousness is connected to the Brain, then you can make other inferences. Take a look at the Connection Perspective for Consciousness: http://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
User avatar
DanDare
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:52 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by DanDare »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:32 pm
DanDare wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:29 am There is no way to tell if consciousness or those quality of experience things you mention are anything other than localized phenomena arising from the material conditions where they seem to occur. We do know that reported conscious experience, and behavior, can be altered by changes to the brain. The simplest inference is then that consciousness is an epiphenomenon.
But if Consciousness is not actually part of the Brain itself, but rather Consciousness is connected to the Brain, then you can make other inferences. Take a look at the Connection Perspective for Consciousness: http://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Yes its possible to declare PM / CM, but there is no way to show that CM is actually separate and distinct. You personally can experience things and see no way to connect the having of that experience to physical situations but that in no way shows that they are not. This level of reality brings us to the limits of knowledge. It is possible that the experience of "seeing red" is perfectly conforming to material reality but we cannot show it in any way. It may be that the experience is not capable of being produced by a physical mechanism but whatever alternate mechanism actually does this impinges, it seems, in no other way that can be tested or detected.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

DanDare wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:16 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:32 pm
DanDare wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:29 am There is no way to tell if consciousness or those quality of experience things you mention are anything other than localized phenomena arising from the material conditions where they seem to occur. We do know that reported conscious experience, and behavior, can be altered by changes to the brain. The simplest inference is then that consciousness is an epiphenomenon.
But if Consciousness is not actually part of the Brain itself, but rather Consciousness is connected to the Brain, then you can make other inferences. Take a look at the Connection Perspective for Consciousness: http://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Yes its possible to declare PM / CM, but there is no way to show that CM is actually separate and distinct. You personally can experience things and see no way to connect the having of that experience to physical situations but that in no way shows that they are not. This level of reality brings us to the limits of knowledge. It is possible that the experience of "seeing red" is perfectly conforming to material reality but we cannot show it in any way. It may be that the experience is not capable of being produced by a physical mechanism but whatever alternate mechanism actually does this impinges, it seems, in no other way that can be tested or detected.
There is a way to test Conscious Space if we speculate further about things. If Quantum Mechanics is the conduit between Physical Space and Conscious Space then we can perform Experiments using certain QM principles as in: http://www.theintermind.com/MachConExpe ... riment.asp
Post Reply