An argument against materialism

[bahman]

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.

Are you a property dualist? Do you believe that matter in all its form is conscious?

Neither! I'm not any kind of an, "ist," because I do not accept any philosopher's descriptions of reality. Only living organisms are conscious, but life is just one of the possible attributes of that which exists, just as the physical attributes are, and life does not exist independently of the physical organisms it is the life of.

I am sorry but you said that you are materialist. Moreover, the discription you get is the definition property dualist.

[RCSaunders]

Properties can be measured by Science.

Some, but not all, physical properties can be measured, and most properties are not physical.

Importance, necessity, simplicity, historical, mathematical, and logical, are all properties but not physical properties. If you reduce everything to the physical, there is almost nothing that matters. All the past, all the future, all knowledge and all values have no physical existence.

[RCSaunders]

Are you a property dualist? Do you believe that matter in all its form is conscious?

Neither! I'm not any kind of an, "ist," because I do not accept any philosopher's descriptions of reality. Only living organisms are conscious, but life is just one of the possible attributes of that which exists, just as the physical attributes are, and life does not exist independently of the physical organisms it is the life of.

I am sorry but you said that you are materialist. Moreover, the discription you get is the definition property dualist.

Property dualism holds that there are two kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. That is not what I believe at all. I do not believe physical properties, life, consciousness, and mind are different kinds of properties, just different natural properties. Why do you have to put people in boxes.

[bahman]

Neither! I'm not any kind of an, "ist," because I do not accept any philosopher's descriptions of reality. Only living organisms are conscious, but life is just one of the possible attributes of that which exists, just as the physical attributes are, and life does not exist independently of the physical organisms it is the life of.

I am sorry but you said that you are materialist. Moreover, the discription you get is the definition property dualist.

Property dualism holds that there are two kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. That is not what I believe at all. I do not believe physical properties, life, consciousness, and mind are different kinds of properties, just different natural properties. Why do you have to put people in boxes.

Call life, consicousness and physical properties as you wish, so-called natural properties. You put all properties in one box but porperty dualist put them in two box. Regardless, consciousness is not a property of matter but mind.

[SteveKlinko]

Properties can be measured by Science.

Some, but not all, physical properties can be measured, and most properties are not physical.

Importance, necessity, simplicity, historical, mathematical, and logical, are all properties but not physical properties. If you reduce everything to the physical, there is almost nothing that matters. All the past, all the future, all knowledge and all values have no physical existence.

You have lost me now. I thought we were talking about Scientific Properties of things.

[RCSaunders]

Regardless, consciousness is not a property of matter but mind.

Not quite. Life is property of those physical entities called organisms. Some organisms have consciousness as an additional attribute (like animals, but not plants). Some conscious organisms have minds, that unique consciousness that is volitional, intellectual, and rational. There is consciousness without minds (in all animals except human beings) but no minds without consciousness.

[RCSaunders]

Properties can be measured by Science.

Some, but not all, physical properties can be measured, and most properties are not physical.

Importance, necessity, simplicity, historical, mathematical, and logical, are all properties but not physical properties. If you reduce everything to the physical, there is almost nothing that matters. All the past, all the future, all knowledge and all values have no physical existence.

You have lost me now. I thought we were talking about Scientific Properties of things.

Only you were. Science pertains only to the physical, that which can be directly perceived, i.e. see, hear, felt, smelled, and tasted, and all knowledge of the physical is based on what is perceived and deduced from that. Life, consciousness, and minds are certainly properties of physical entities, but cannot be physical properties because they cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. We don't know we see by seeing our seeing, we know we see because we do.

[bahman]

Regardless, consciousness is not a property of matter but mind.

Not quite. Life is property of those physical entities called organisms. Some organisms have consciousness as an additional attribute (like animals, but not plants). Some conscious organisms have minds, that unique consciousness that is volitional, intellectual, and rational. There is consciousness without minds (in all animals except human beings) but no minds without consciousness.

How do you define mind?

[SteveKlinko]

Some, but not all, physical properties can be measured, and most properties are not physical.

Importance, necessity, simplicity, historical, mathematical, and logical, are all properties but not physical properties. If you reduce everything to the physical, there is almost nothing that matters. All the past, all the future, all knowledge and all values have no physical existence.

You have lost me now. I thought we were talking about Scientific Properties of things.

Only you were. Science pertains only to the physical, that which can be directly perceived, i.e. see, hear, felt, smelled, and tasted, and all knowledge of the physical is based on what is perceived and deduced from that. Life, consciousness, and minds are certainly properties of physical entities, but cannot be physical properties because they cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. We don't know we see by seeing our seeing, we know we see because we do.

Ok. I like thinking about Conscious Sensory Experience like for Example the Experience of Seeing the Color Red. It does not make any sense that the Experience of Redness is merely some Property of the Neurons that are firing. For me, Redness is an Experience in my Conscious Mind that is a thing in itself. For me, Redness is a Conscious Phenomenon and is not a Property of something else. How the Experience of Redness is produced from Neurons firing is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

So now I would like to ask: What exactly is your Understanding and your Experience of Redness. If color blind, then pick any other Sensory Experience like the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, or etc..

[Belinda]

You have lost me now. I thought we were talking about Scientific Properties of things.

Only you were. Science pertains only to the physical, that which can be directly perceived, i.e. see, hear, felt, smelled, and tasted, and all knowledge of the physical is based on what is perceived and deduced from that. Life, consciousness, and minds are certainly properties of physical entities, but cannot be physical properties because they cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. We don't know we see by seeing our seeing, we know we see because we do.

Ok. I like thinking about Conscious Sensory Experience like for Example the Experience of Seeing the Color Red. It does not make any sense that the Experience of Redness is merely some Property of the Neurons that are firing. For me, Redness is an Experience in my Conscious Mind that is a thing in itself. For me, Redness is a Conscious Phenomenon and is not a Property of something else. How the Experience of Redness is produced from Neurons firing is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

So now I would like to ask: What exactly is your Understanding and your Experience of Redness. If color blind, then pick any other Sensory Experience like the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, or etc..

Another sensory experience I have is bending my elbow, which I did just a moment ago to lift my mug of tea.
I felt it in my mind/ was aware of lifting the mug

Proprioceptors in my elbow joint received the info and afferent nerves sent the info to my head, where the action and the subjective experience of the action became a short term memory.

Both aspects of the action are real aspects of the same thing: bending my elbow.

[SteveKlinko]

Only you were. Science pertains only to the physical, that which can be directly perceived, i.e. see, hear, felt, smelled, and tasted, and all knowledge of the physical is based on what is perceived and deduced from that. Life, consciousness, and minds are certainly properties of physical entities, but cannot be physical properties because they cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. We don't know we see by seeing our seeing, we know we see because we do.

Ok. I like thinking about Conscious Sensory Experience like for Example the Experience of Seeing the Color Red. It does not make any sense that the Experience of Redness is merely some Property of the Neurons that are firing. For me, Redness is an Experience in my Conscious Mind that is a thing in itself. For me, Redness is a Conscious Phenomenon and is not a Property of something else. How the Experience of Redness is produced from Neurons firing is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

So now I would like to ask: What exactly is your Understanding and your Experience of Redness. If color blind, then pick any other Sensory Experience like the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, or etc..

Another sensory experience I have is bending my elbow, which I did just a moment ago to lift my mug of tea.
I felt it in my mind/ was aware of lifting the mug

Proprioceptors in my elbow joint received the info and afferent nerves sent the info to my head, where the action and the subjective experience of the action became a short term memory.

Both aspects of the action are real aspects of the same thing: bending my elbow.

Exactly. The Hard Problem is to explain How your Conscious Mind has that Subjective Experience from your elbow.

[Dontaskme]

Exactly. The Hard Problem is to explain How your Conscious Mind has that Subjective Experience from your elbow.

From you're own direct experience of the bending elbow in the present immediate tense would mean it would be impossible to explain how that conscious experience is being experienced.

There is no way of knowing HOW an experience is experienced. There is only the experiencer and the experience in the exact same instantaneous knowing.

This assumed ''hard problem'' of trying to separate the experience from the experiencer is also an experience.

In reality Steve, there is simply no way or how the experiencer and experience can ever be separated into two things, known as knower and known. All mental knowing can only be known via past tense which never actually happens, only the immediate present is happening.

Believing there is a knowing how you are having an experience is like trying to jump over you're own shadow, it's impossible.

[RCSaunders]

Regardless, consciousness is not a property of matter but mind.

Not quite. Life is property of those physical entities called organisms. Some organisms have consciousness as an additional attribute (like animals, but not plants). Some conscious organisms have minds, that unique consciousness that is volitional, intellectual, and rational. There is consciousness without minds (in all animals except human beings) but no minds without consciousness.

How do you define mind?

"The Nature of the Mind," is my brief description of what I mean by, "mind." If you are serious, the following article and links therein provide a much fuller explanation: "The Physical, Life, Consciousness, and The Human Mind—A Preface".

[RCSaunders]

How the Experience of Redness is produced from Neurons firing is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Just how was it proved to you that neurons firing produces conscious experience?

[SteveKlinko]

Exactly. The Hard Problem is to explain How your Conscious Mind has that Subjective Experience from your elbow.

From you're own direct experience of the bending elbow in the present immediate tense would mean it would be impossible to explain how that conscious experience is being experienced.

There is no way of knowing HOW an experience is experienced. There is only the experiencer and the experience in the exact same instantaneous knowing.

This assumed ''hard problem'' of trying to separate the experience from the experiencer is also an experience.

In reality Steve, there is simply no way or how the experiencer and experience can ever be separated into two things, known as knower and known. All mental knowing can only be known via past tense which never actually happens, only the immediate present is happening.

Believing there is a knowing how you are having an experience is like trying to jump over you're own shadow, it's impossible.

I can follow a chain of Logic that concludes the Light that I Experience in my Visual field is part of what I am. But it does not Explain how that Light is presented to my Conscious Mind. Subjectively, the Light always seems apart from my Conscious Self.