An argument against materialism

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Scott Mayers »

SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:56 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:38 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:23 pm
But the Energy that the Brain uses is already all accounted for in the Heat generated and other Physiological processes. There is no unaccounted for Energy that can be converted to Consciousness.
Matter is 'stored energy'. Heat Energy is the general random movement of particles, and in many cases is just a reflection of lost forms of different energy not necessarily accounted for. We cannot actually convert all forms of energy. If we could that would be very ideal.

Any information exchange is energy. [See this question asked and answered by a variety of other professionals on this here: https://www.quora.com/Does-information- ... -particles] To discuss your prior post on specific phenomena, like the color perception of say 'red' versus 'green' or to some other sense, this is more complex and may need a digression on computation and STRUCTURES.
That's all just standard Particle Physics. Has nothing to do with Consciousness or the occurrence of Sensory Experiences
It was on this very question BETWEEN a variety of physicists and demonstrates that they too cannot come to agreement. The QM physicist believes it is not (3rd? comment) but his odd justification suggests action at a distance, for instance. However, you can even find some fair argument about consciousness as being both material and not which fits in with all the views to some degree. This topic is open most relevantly to any of the hard sciences because they deal with 'material' concepts.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:36 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:56 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:38 pm
Matter is 'stored energy'. Heat Energy is the general random movement of particles, and in many cases is just a reflection of lost forms of different energy not necessarily accounted for. We cannot actually convert all forms of energy. If we could that would be very ideal.

Any information exchange is energy. [See this question asked and answered by a variety of other professionals on this here: https://www.quora.com/Does-information- ... -particles] To discuss your prior post on specific phenomena, like the color perception of say 'red' versus 'green' or to some other sense, this is more complex and may need a digression on computation and STRUCTURES.
That's all just standard Particle Physics. Has nothing to do with Consciousness or the occurrence of Sensory Experiences
It was on this very question BETWEEN a variety of physicists and demonstrates that they too cannot come to agreement. The QM physicist believes it is not (3rd? comment) but his odd justification suggests action at a distance, for instance. However, you can even find some fair argument about consciousness as being both material and not which fits in with all the views to some degree. This topic is open most relevantly to any of the hard sciences because they deal with 'material' concepts.
Nobody knows what Consciousness is and that's why there is no agreement between all the Speculations. For me, I don't see any possibility for Consciousness to be explained by any known Scientific principle. Consciousness does not seem to be any kind of Matter, or any kind of Energy, or even some aspect of Space. It will have to be something New that Science does not recognize yet.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Scott Mayers »

SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm Nobody knows what Consciousness is and that's why there is no agreement between all the Speculations. For me, I don't see any possibility for Consciousness to be explained by any known Scientific principle. Consciousness does not seem to be any kind of Matter, or any kind of Energy, or even some aspect of Space. It will have to be something New that Science does not recognize yet.
Nobody knows? Not that this could be true, but when I hear this it is the same assuring that you wouldn't accept any evidence to the contrary. This isn't a question like whether there is or is not a god. We know that some phenomena exists to which we call, "consciousness". The question of whether this will be satisfactorily answered in a way that all will agree may be more rational. This topic tends to cross the boundary of many people's religious beliefs. As such, if religion still exists, it may be impossible to get agreement as to even a definitively provable solution. But 'nobody knows' is not logically fair to assert.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=482951 time=1607027841 user_id=11118]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482948 time=1607026086 user_id=14793]
Nobody knows what Consciousness is and that's why there is no agreement between all the Speculations. For me, I don't see any possibility for Consciousness to be explained by any known Scientific principle. Consciousness does not seem to be any kind of Matter, or any kind of Energy, or even some aspect of Space. It will have to be something New that Science does not recognize yet.
[/quote]

Nobody knows? Not that this [i]could[/i] be true, but when I hear this it is the same assuring that you wouldn't accept any evidence to the contrary. This isn't a question like whether there is or is not a god. We [i]know[/i] that some phenomena exists to which we call, "consciousness". The question of whether this will be satisfactorily answered in a way that all will agree may be more rational. This topic tends to cross the boundary of many people's religious beliefs. As such, if religion still exists, it may be impossible to get [i]agreement[/i] as to even a definitively provable solution. But 'nobody knows' is not logically fair to assert.
[/quote]

It's a pattern. If science didn't recognize this, neuroscience and psychology couldn't exist.
Post Reply