An argument against materialism

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 2460
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482239 time=1606652492 user_id=14793]
[quote=DanDare post_id=482208 time=1606626997 user_id=11252]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482140 time=1606595530 user_id=14793]

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
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]
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
[/quote]

Quantum blah blah <poof> consciousness!

No. "Conscious space" is not separate from physical space, it's a subset of it.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:28 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:21 pm
DanDare wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:16 am

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
Quantum blah blah <poof> consciousness!

No. "Conscious space" is not separate from physical space, it's a subset of it.
The detection of Conscious Space is completely conceivable and testable given the right point of view: http://theintermind.com/#Conceivability. But it could as you say, be a subset of Physical Space. However, it is not inconceivable for there to be a separate Conscious Space connected to Physical Space. Time will tell which Speculation is correct.
Advocate
Posts: 2460
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482277 time=1606671550 user_id=14793]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482250 time=1606660091 user_id=15238]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482239 time=1606652492 user_id=14793]

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
[/quote]

Quantum blah blah <poof> consciousness!

No. "Conscious space" is not separate from physical space, it's a subset of it.
[/quote]
The detection of Conscious Space is completely conceivable and testable given the right point of view: http://theintermind.com/#Conceivability. But it could as you say, be a subset of Physical Space. However, it is not inconceivable for there to be a separate Conscious Space connected to Physical Space. Time will tell which Speculation is correct.
[/quote]

That option is indistinguishable from fiction.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:48 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:39 pm
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:28 pm Quantum blah blah <poof> consciousness!

No. "Conscious space" is not separate from physical space, it's a subset of it.
The detection of Conscious Space is completely conceivable and testable given the right point of view: http://theintermind.com/#Conceivability. But it could as you say, be a subset of Physical Space. However, it is not inconceivable for there to be a separate Conscious Space connected to Physical Space. Time will tell which Speculation is correct.
That option is indistinguishable from fiction.
You have no way to Explain how something like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt can happen as a result of Neurons Firing. These Conscious Experiences refuse to be stuffed back into the Neurons. It is highly Scientific to give them a place to Exist in, namely some sort of Conscious Space. There is no known Physical Space explanation for these Experiences.
Advocate
Posts: 2460
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482298 time=1606680168 user_id=14793]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482297 time=1606679337 user_id=15238]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482277 time=1606671550 user_id=14793]

The detection of Conscious Space is completely conceivable and testable given the right point of view: http://theintermind.com/#Conceivability. But it could as you say, be a subset of Physical Space. However, it is not inconceivable for there to be a separate Conscious Space connected to Physical Space. Time will tell which Speculation is correct.
[/quote]

That option is indistinguishable from fiction.
[/quote]
You have no way to Explain how something like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt can happen as a result of Neurons Firing. These Conscious Experiences refuse to be stuffed back into the Neurons. It is highly Scientific to give them a place to Exist in, namely some sort of Conscious Space. There is no known Physical Space explanation for these Experiences.
[/quote]

That's because they're empirical questions and neuroscience had only just begun. Why the rush to have all the answers? Why use the consciousness of the gaps argument?
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:56 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:02 pm
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:48 pm That option is indistinguishable from fiction.
You have no way to Explain how something like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt can happen as a result of Neurons Firing. These Conscious Experiences refuse to be stuffed back into the Neurons. It is highly Scientific to give them a place to Exist in, namely some sort of Conscious Space. There is no known Physical Space explanation for these Experiences.
That's because they're empirical questions and neuroscience had only just begun. Why the rush to have all the answers? Why use the consciousness of the gaps argument?
Neuroscience has not just begun. Science realized the Correlation between Neurons firing and Conscious Experience over a Hundred years ago. And for over a Hundred years everyone was expecting that there will be some new property of Neurons to Explain it. But there is Zero, and I mean Zero, understanding of what Conscious Experiences could be, or how it is that Neurons produce them. There are no Hints or even any Clues. Science is completely baffled. Scientists have tried to stuff Experiences like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt back into the Neurons for over a Hundred years. These Experiences will not be stuffed back into the Neurons. There is no reasonable approach for even conceptualizing how this could be done. It makes much more Logical and Scientific sense to propose that there is a conceptual place like Conscious Space where these Experiences happen, and that the Brian is connected to this Space. Science is going nowhere with the Century old hope that these Experiences can be shown to be in the Neurons. Science needs to think outside the box on this.
Advocate
Posts: 2460
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482337 time=1606696342 user_id=14793]
Neuroscience has not just begun. Science realized the Correlation between Neurons firing and Conscious Experience over a Hundred years ago. And for over a Hundred years everyone was expecting that there will be some new property of Neurons to Explain it. But there is Zero, and I mean Zero, understanding of what Conscious Experiences could be, or how it is that Neurons produce them. There are no Hints or even any Clues. Science is completely baffled. Scientists have tried to stuff Experiences like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt back into the Neurons for over a Hundred years. These Experiences will not be stuffed back into the Neurons. There is no reasonable approach for even conceptualizing how this could be done. It makes much more Logical and Scientific sense to propose that there is a conceptual place like Conscious Space where these Experiences happen, and that the Brian is connected to this Space. Science is going nowhere with the Century old hope that these Experiences can be shown to be in the Neurons. Science needs to think outside the box on this.
[/quote]

^^ This is what's known as intellectual hubris. "If we don't have all the answers right now, there must be an explanation we can pull out of our asses that will do the job instead." Besides which, most questions about consciousness don't even make sense because they ignore the empirical nature of themselves or they don't acknowledge the difference between "why" and "how" at all. We know for certain that there are neural correlates to each experience, yes? If we admit that, the rest is Merely empirical. If not, you're not talking about any brain/mind scenario i would recognize as related to Reality.

Also, over a hundred years is almost literally nothing in an intellectual sense.
User avatar
DanDare
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:52 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by DanDare »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:21 pm 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
That is the use of lay "quantum == magic" understanding of Quantum Physics. It doesn't hold any water scientifically.
User avatar
DanDare
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:52 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by DanDare »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:02 pm You have no way to Explain how something like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt can happen as a result of Neurons Firing. These Conscious Experiences refuse to be stuffed back into the Neurons. It is highly Scientific to give them a place to Exist in, namely some sort of Conscious Space. There is no known Physical Space explanation for these Experiences.
Not knowing how qualities are held by matter does not mean that they are not, or provide confirmation that there is "some other realm" for it. That is an argument based on a lack of knowledge, not a positive argument.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Advocate wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:16 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:32 am Neuroscience has not just begun. Science realized the Correlation between Neurons firing and Conscious Experience over a Hundred years ago. And for over a Hundred years everyone was expecting that there will be some new property of Neurons to Explain it. But there is Zero, and I mean Zero, understanding of what Conscious Experiences could be, or how it is that Neurons produce them. There are no Hints or even any Clues. Science is completely baffled. Scientists have tried to stuff Experiences like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt back into the Neurons for over a Hundred years. These Experiences will not be stuffed back into the Neurons. There is no reasonable approach for even conceptualizing how this could be done. It makes much more Logical and Scientific sense to propose that there is a conceptual place like Conscious Space where these Experiences happen, and that the Brian is connected to this Space. Science is going nowhere with the Century old hope that these Experiences can be shown to be in the Neurons. Science needs to think outside the box on this.
^^ This is what's known as intellectual hubris. "If we don't have all the answers right now, there must be an explanation we can pull out of our asses that will do the job instead." Besides which, most questions about consciousness don't even make sense because they ignore the empirical nature of themselves or they don't acknowledge the difference between "why" and "how" at all. We know for certain that there are neural correlates to each experience, yes? If we admit that, the rest is Merely empirical. If not, you're not talking about any brain/mind scenario i would recognize as related to Reality.

Also, over a hundred years is almost literally nothing in an intellectual sense.
I would look at it more as a Hail Mary Pass. I'm getting nothing from all the experts so I had to try something. The lack of understanding about Consciousness is so stark that we really have to get outside the box. I think doing Experiments like this will at least stimulate new ways of thinking about Consciousness that might lead to some eventual breakthrough by someone somewhere someday.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

DanDare wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:29 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:21 pm 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
That is the use of lay "quantum == magic" understanding of Quantum Physics. It doesn't hold any water scientifically.
It's just plain weird to reject that QM has something to do with Consciousness. One of the most accepted points of view of QM says that Consciousness is involved in the results of certain Experiments. Consciousness has been implicated since the very beginning of QM. It makes perfect Scientific sense to do Experiments specifically to explore the QM connection with Consciousness. My Machine Consciousness experiments are completely Scientific.
Last edited by SteveKlinko on Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

DanDare wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:31 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:02 pm You have no way to Explain how something like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt can happen as a result of Neurons Firing. These Conscious Experiences refuse to be stuffed back into the Neurons. It is highly Scientific to give them a place to Exist in, namely some sort of Conscious Space. There is no known Physical Space explanation for these Experiences.
Not knowing how qualities are held by matter does not mean that they are not, or provide confirmation that there is "some other realm" for it. That is an argument based on a lack of knowledge, not a positive argument.
Seriously, how do you propose to even start stuffing something like the Color Red, or the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt back into the Neurons? Rhetorical, because I know not you nor anyone else on the planet can even begin to Explain this. But let's look at the Visual System to get a feel for the problem. From the Inter Mind, Arguments For the Inter Mind #1:

It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we experience. Rather the Brain seems to deconstruct the image with the goal of detecting elementary properties of the image like lines, edges, motion, and color. There do not seem to be any downstream Visual Areas that are involved with reconstructing the CL Scene that we experience from all the deconstructed properties that the Brain detects. The only place where there is a good undistorted image is on the Retina of the Eye. The other various stages of processing are highly warped and distorted maps of the retina. The highest stages don't really even map at all. The highest stages seem to be involved in image recognition and the lower stages seem to be for mechanical control of focus and eye convergence. But we find that there are artifacts from the downstream processing stages that become visible in our CL Scene. For example there are some edge enhancement and shading effects that are generated in V1 that can be experienced in the CL Scene. Also if there is a damaged area in V1 then an equivalent blacked out area will appear in the CL Scene. Similarly if there is damage to the Color areas then the Color experience will be impaired or completely missing. So it seems that whatever is creating the CL Scene must use and be in contact with all the processing stages at the same time. The actual CL Scene is a kind of overlay of all the areas. It seems that the data available at these processing stages are hints as to what the CL Scene should look like. This data must be the input to the Conscious Mind (CM). It seems that there is a lot of processing that has to take place to reintegrate all the Visual Area processing results into the seemingly perfect CL Scene that we experience. There is a Processing Gap. We could just say that the CM monitors the Physical Mind (PM) Visual Areas and creates this Scene itself. I think it is more instructive to propose that there must be a whole new aspect of the Mind that consists of further processing stages that monitor the PM and generate the CL Scene that the CM perceives. This of course is the Inter Mind (IM). It should also be mentioned that this process of combining the processing results of the various areas of the Visual system to create the single CL Scene is called Binding. The fact that no one knows how this is accomplished is called the Binding Problem. I think that the Binding processing might eventually be found to be located in the Inter Mind.
Advocate
Posts: 2460
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482429 time=1606740390 user_id=14793]
[quote=DanDare post_id=482378 time=1606721484 user_id=11252]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482298 time=1606680168 user_id=14793]
You have no way to Explain how something like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt can happen as a result of Neurons Firing. These Conscious Experiences refuse to be stuffed back into the Neurons. It is highly Scientific to give them a place to Exist in, namely some sort of Conscious Space. There is no known Physical Space explanation for these Experiences.
[/quote]
Not knowing how qualities are held by matter does not mean that they are not, or provide confirmation that there is "some other realm" for it. That is an argument based on a lack of knowledge, not a positive argument.
[/quote]

Seriously, how do you propose to even start stuffing something like the Color Red, or the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt back into the Neurons? Rhetorical, because I know not you nor anyone else on the planet can even begin to Explain this. But let's look at the Visual System to get a feel for the problem. From the Inter Mind, Arguments For the Inter Mind #1:

It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we experience. Rather the Brain seems to deconstruct the image with the goal of detecting elementary properties of the image like lines, edges, motion, and color. There do not seem to be any downstream Visual Areas that are involved with reconstructing the CL Scene that we experience from all the deconstructed properties that the Brain detects. The only place where there is a good undistorted image is on the Retina of the Eye. The other various stages of processing are highly warped and distorted maps of the retina. The highest stages don't really even map at all. The highest stages seem to be involved in image recognition and the lower stages seem to be for mechanical control of focus and eye convergence. But we find that there are artifacts from the downstream processing stages that become visible in our CL Scene. For example there are some edge enhancement and shading effects that are generated in V1 that can be experienced in the CL Scene. Also if there is a damaged area in V1 then an equivalent blacked out area will appear in the CL Scene. Similarly if there is damage to the Color areas then the Color experience will be impaired or completely missing. So it seems that whatever is creating the CL Scene must use and be in contact with all the processing stages at the same time. The actual CL Scene is a kind of overlay of all the areas. It seems that the data available at these processing stages are hints as to what the CL Scene should look like. This data must be the input to the Conscious Mind (CM). It seems that there is a lot of processing that has to take place to reintegrate all the Visual Area processing results into the seemingly perfect CL Scene that we experience. There is a Processing Gap. We could just say that the CM monitors the Physical Mind (PM) Visual Areas and creates this Scene itself. I think it is more instructive to propose that there must be a whole new aspect of the Mind that consists of further processing stages that monitor the PM and generate the CL Scene that the CM perceives. This of course is the Inter Mind (IM). It should also be mentioned that this process of combining the processing results of the various areas of the Visual system to create the single CL Scene is called Binding. The fact that no one knows how this is accomplished is called the Binding Problem. I think that the Binding processing might eventually be found to be located in the Inter Mind.
[/quote]

"We don't know, therefore x." is called the argument from ignorance, and it's a logical fallacy.
Advocate
Posts: 2460
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482422 time=1606739382 user_id=14793]
[quote=DanDare post_id=482377 time=1606721364 user_id=11252]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482239 time=1606652492 user_id=14793]
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
[/quote]

That is the use of lay "quantum == magic" understanding of Quantum Physics. It doesn't hold any water scientifically.
[/quote]

It's just plain weird to reject that QM has something to do with Consciousness. One of the most accepted points of view of QM says that Consciousness is involved in the results of certain Experiments. Consciousness has been implicated since the very beginning of QM. It makes perfect Scientific sense to do Experiments specifically to explore the QM connection with Consciousness. My Machine Consciousness experiments are completely Scientific.
[/quote]

That's like saying quantum mechanics is what makes water molecules wet. Sure, it's involved, but the difference in scale is such that it's literally completely different things.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Advocate wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:59 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:46 pm
DanDare wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:31 am Not knowing how qualities are held by matter does not mean that they are not, or provide confirmation that there is "some other realm" for it. That is an argument based on a lack of knowledge, not a positive argument.
Seriously, how do you propose to even start stuffing something like the Color Red, or the Standard A Tone, or the Taste of Salt back into the Neurons? Rhetorical, because I know not you nor anyone else on the planet can even begin to Explain this. But let's look at the Visual System to get a feel for the problem. From the Inter Mind, Arguments For the Inter Mind #1:

It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we experience. Rather the Brain seems to deconstruct the image with the goal of detecting elementary properties of the image like lines, edges, motion, and color. There do not seem to be any downstream Visual Areas that are involved with reconstructing the CL Scene that we experience from all the deconstructed properties that the Brain detects. The only place where there is a good undistorted image is on the Retina of the Eye. The other various stages of processing are highly warped and distorted maps of the retina. The highest stages don't really even map at all. The highest stages seem to be involved in image recognition and the lower stages seem to be for mechanical control of focus and eye convergence. But we find that there are artifacts from the downstream processing stages that become visible in our CL Scene. For example there are some edge enhancement and shading effects that are generated in V1 that can be experienced in the CL Scene. Also if there is a damaged area in V1 then an equivalent blacked out area will appear in the CL Scene. Similarly if there is damage to the Color areas then the Color experience will be impaired or completely missing. So it seems that whatever is creating the CL Scene must use and be in contact with all the processing stages at the same time. The actual CL Scene is a kind of overlay of all the areas. It seems that the data available at these processing stages are hints as to what the CL Scene should look like. This data must be the input to the Conscious Mind (CM). It seems that there is a lot of processing that has to take place to reintegrate all the Visual Area processing results into the seemingly perfect CL Scene that we experience. There is a Processing Gap. We could just say that the CM monitors the Physical Mind (PM) Visual Areas and creates this Scene itself. I think it is more instructive to propose that there must be a whole new aspect of the Mind that consists of further processing stages that monitor the PM and generate the CL Scene that the CM perceives. This of course is the Inter Mind (IM). It should also be mentioned that this process of combining the processing results of the various areas of the Visual system to create the single CL Scene is called Binding. The fact that no one knows how this is accomplished is called the Binding Problem. I think that the Binding processing might eventually be found to be located in the Inter Mind.
"We don't know, therefore x." is called the argument from ignorance, and it's a logical fallacy.
I never say we don't know therefore x. I do say we don't know so maybe x. You have misapplied the Argument from Ignorance. Your usage would imply that anytime we don't know the answer to a problem that it would be a fallacy to try to look at the problem in different ways.
Post Reply