An argument against materialism

[bahman]

THe brain is the seat of consciousness and experience.

And what is consciousness?

It is the energetic field emitted from neural matter. It is what the brain does.

And what consciousness does?

[Terrapin Station]

In other words, no regard for particular relations and particular materials being necessary for specific properties to obtain.

Yep, you can put it like that. Do you know something I don't?

Properties are not the same if there's a difference in relations. So consciousness doesn't continue past death.

[owl of Minerva]

"An argument against materialism
Post by bahman » Wed May 05, 2021 2:34 pm
Let's assume all our experiences, decisions, and causation (EDC) are the buy product of the matter process. The question is why EDC is coherent always. Why things are the way they are like they are coherent and not incoherent. "
......................................................
The answer is we do not know. So there cannot be a realistic argument against materialism, or one favoring materialism, until we do know. How matter produced consciousness, first as sensation in animals and then as self awareness in humans is attributed to the brain. We could question the process; how dense matter (energy) interacts with fine matter, also energy: electricity, the three forces, and the electromagnetism field, to form a coherent process. If randomly determined it is an amazing feat. Some physicists question where did laws come from and why is it fine tuned to be coherent.

[Conde Lucanor]

Emergence properties are not even necessary since the matter follows the laws of physics. The matter acts blindly. The question is why something which is not necessary exists and is not arbitrary.

From where did you get that emergent properties and laws of physics run in different paths? If you get 2 atoms of hydrogen (a gas) and one of oxygen (another gas), and put them together, you get water (a liquid). That follows physical laws and creates emergent properties.

[uwot]

Properties are not the same if there's a difference in relations. So consciousness doesn't continue past death.

Well, Sculptor was making the claim that consciousness

...is the energetic field emitted from neural matter. It is what the brain does.

Nobody knows what consciousness actually is, but if it is the field generated by neural matter, then it is at least in part electromagnetic. We know that em fields don't collapse if the relations than generated them change or cease to be. We know that some of the stars we can see blew up a long time ago, but the energetic field emitted from them can still be seen from any sufficiently distant point in the universe. Granted you would need brain scanners several orders of magnitude more sensitive than currently available to detect distant brainwaves, but that might just be can engineering problem.

[Terrapin Station]

Properties are not the same if there's a difference in relations. So consciousness doesn't continue past death.

Well, Sculptor was making the claim that consciousness

...is the energetic field emitted from neural matter. It is what the brain does.

Nobody knows what consciousness actually is, but if it is the field generated by neural matter, then it is at least in part electromagnetic. We know that em fields don't collapse if the relations than generated them change or cease to be. We know that some of the stars we can see blew up a long time ago, but the energetic field emitted from them can still be seen from any sufficiently distant point in the universe. Granted you would need brain scanners several orders of magnitude more sensitive than currently available to detect distant brainwaves, but that might just be can engineering problem.

I don't at all agree with "Nobody knows what consciousness actually is." Consciousness is simply the properties of a subset of brain states, from the spatiotemporal situatedness of the brain states in question.

As with everything, that's an issue of dynamic relations of materials. "Dynamic relations" are the energy part. You don't have consciousness of you don't have particular sorts of dynamic relations (or energy) and you don't have consciousness if you don't have particular sorts of materials. We don't know exactly the full scope of materials or dynamic relations necessary, but we at least know that biologically functioning brains of a certain complexity qualify.

Maybe Sculptor had in mind "energy alone" (which is something I personally believe is incoherent), but I'm assuming he simply meant dynamic states of matter. In either case, as with everything, if the relations of materials or relations of material processes (dynamicism) are different in any manner, that amounts to different properties obtaining, so while "energy continuing" is the case if conservation is correct, any difference will amount to different properties obtaining, which means that many states will not at all have conscious properties, so saying that consciousness would continue as a set of different dynamic relations in different materials doesn't follow.

Re the light emitted from a star continuing after the star dies, the light emitted from the star isn't the star. Of course, it can tell us something about the star, but it isn't itself the star of even "part of the star."

[uwot]

I don't at all agree with "Nobody knows what consciousness actually is." Consciousness is simply the properties of a subset of brain states, from the spatiotemporal situatedness of the brain states in question.

Well, on the one hand everybody knows what consciousness is; as Descartes pointed out, it's the only thing we know for sure. On the other hand, while I have no expertise in philosophy of mind, it seems to me that we are in a similar position with regard to mind as we are with gravity. We know it exists and can see the effects and the sort of bodies that generate gravity, but we don't know how. There are lots of theories, but no definitive answer.

As with everything, that's an issue of dynamic relations of materials. "Dynamic relations" are the energy part. You don't have consciousness of you don't have particular sorts of dynamic relations (or energy) and you don't have consciousness if you don't have particular sorts of materials. We don't know exactly the full scope of materials or dynamic relations necessary, but we at least know that biologically functioning brains of a certain complexity qualify.

I think we are some way off from fully understanding consciousness, although AI might teach us some interesting things in fairly short order.

Maybe Sculptor had in mind "energy alone" (which is something I personally believe is incoherent), but I'm assuming he simply meant dynamic states of matter. In either case, as with everything, if the relations of materials or relations of material processes (dynamicism) are different in any manner, that amounts to different properties obtaining, so while "energy continuing" is the case if conservation is correct, any difference will amount to different properties obtaining, which means that many states will not at all have conscious properties, so saying that consciousness would continue as a set of different dynamic relations in different materials doesn't follow.

I'm not suggesting it does and I have absolutely no reason to believe it would. But I can't rule it out either.

Re the light emitted from a star continuing after the star dies, the light emitted from the star isn't the star. Of course, it can tell us something about the star, but it isn't itself the star of even "part of the star."

I'm playing Devil's advocate to be honest; I'm not a dualist but I know people who are and they would simply point out that the mind isn't the body. Idealists might argue that since mind is the only thing we know to exist, ontological parsimony demands that we assume it is the only thing that exists.

[Terrapin Station]

Re "fully understanding," I wouldn't say that the idea of that even makes much sense. We never "know everything" about anything, partially simply because of what knowledge is.

Re skepticism that mind is simply brain structure and function, I don't take any of it seriously at all. Just like I don't take idealism at all seriously, or religious beliefs, or any sort of wacky thing that many people believe (including plenty of scientific ideas--like, as I mentioned above, the notion that energy could occur "by itself," or like the idea that space and/or time are anything like substances or containers, or the many wacky ideas surrounding quantum mechanics and the fact that a lot of those ideas are due to mathematics reification, etc.)

[Skepdick]

Re "fully understanding," I wouldn't say that the idea of that even makes much sense. We never "know everything" about anything, partially simply because of what knowledge is.

Re skepticism that mind is simply brain structure and function, I don't take any of it seriously at all. Just like I don't take idealism at all seriously, or religious beliefs, or any sort of wacky thing that many people believe (including plenty of scientific ideas--like, as I mentioned above, the notion that energy could occur "by itself," or like the idea that space and/or time are anything like substances or containers, or the many wacky ideas surrounding quantum mechanics and the fact that a lot of those ideas are due to mathematics reification, etc.)

You frown upon reification and yet you reify "beliefs".

Obviously Physics is mathematical reification. That's how all knowledge representation/ontology engineering works!

When you ontologically commit yourself to some mathematical construct and you end up making accurate predictions about reality, that's all it takes for a model to "obtain" in science.

[RCSaunders]

I don't at all agree with "Nobody knows what consciousness actually is." Consciousness is simply the properties of a subset of brain states, from the spatiotemporal situatedness of the brain states in question.

Just curious at this point, TS. I know exactly what, "my consciousness," is, but as for any other consciousness, I only have the testimony of other individuals (which I have no reason to doubt--why would they lie about being conscious if they weren't) and the behavior of other creatures, which seems inexplicable if they are not conscious. While I'm sure other organisms are conscious, I have no idea what their consciousness is to them, and it does not matter, so long as all organisms are conscious of the same physical reality.

My question is about your description of consciousness as, "the properties of a subset of brain states, from the spatiotemporal situatedness of the brain states in question." There are animals with no specific organ that could be identified as a brain at all, and others with neurological systems with no centrality, yet all their behavior seems to depend on some kind of conscious awareness. If they are conscious, it certainly cannot be as you describe human consciousness. Do you think such creatures are conscious or just display complex patterns of behavior that appear to be conscious. Does a lobster actually experience anything?

I think they do, and I would call that experience, "consciousness," though a very primitive form. I readily admit, I have no evidence of any lobster consciousness, but then, I don't have evidence any other organism's consciousness.

[uwot]

Re "fully understanding," I wouldn't say that the idea of that even makes much sense. We never "know everything" about anything, partially simply because of what knowledge is.

I suppose it depends on what you think knowledge is, but the rest of it looks like philosophical scepticism.

Re skepticism that mind is simply brain structure and function, I don't take any of it seriously at all.

Fair enough. Personally, while I could easily accept that mind is limited to a functioning brain, there is clearly something that is currently very mysterious about the relationship between the mechanics of brain functions and the sensations they provoke.

Just like I don't take idealism at all seriously, or religious beliefs, or any sort of wacky thing that many people believe (including plenty of scientific ideas--like, as I mentioned above, the notion that energy could occur "by itself," or like the idea that space and/or time are anything like substances or containers, or the many wacky ideas surrounding quantum mechanics and the fact that a lot of those ideas are due to mathematics reification, etc.)

Well, the idea of 'pure energy' is just science fiction hokum. Energy is fundamentally movement, so ya can't have movement without something moving. Reification in science is ontology in philosophy; it's simply having a model for causal mechanisms that you believe in. Any competent scientist or philosopher knows not to nail their colours to the mast and will retain a healthy scepticism; including about 'common sense'. Dunno if you watched this last time I posted it, you might not think it relevant, but it could be saying something about mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XheAMrS8Q1c

[Sculptor]

And what is consciousness?

It is the energetic field emitted from neural matter. It is what the brain does.

Tcha! Well nobody knows what consciousness really is, which is weird given it's the only thing we know for certain exists. But fuck it, I can go along with this consciousness as energetic field, materialist thing.

Everything in the universe is not fully understood. Not electricity, not gravity, heat. We tend to focus on consciousness because it's unique to living things whilst being invisible - and we love to SEE things. Sight is the master of all senses.
But we can't see atoms, and the model for them is a theory preserved for only so long as it is useful. But some things demand that an atom is mostly empty space, with forces which are also pretty mysterious that effects other stuff around it. Oddly something like iron which as we know is mostly nothing refused to let stuff pass through it. Yet some stuff does.
We like to pat ourselves in the back saying we know how it all works. But we still are quietly horrified that there is no WHY.

Science allows us to describe the universe. It only explains in as much as the description works. But a child can floor a scientist by keep in asking why. So consciousness is like something else that we also do not really understand. An energy field.

The mad thing is if you think of the flow of thoughts as a change in a field, and accept the conservation of energy as a rule, any conscious state will be an influence on the universe for as long as there is a universe. Whoops-a-daisy, looks very like survival of consciousness, which is totally against my atheist principles.

Not sure about this stuff.
If the flow of thoughts is a change in an energy field, that only means that it can change the structure of the brain. That's what learning is. Brain cells that are used a lot, get reproduced, and pathways that are used get re-inforced. The brain is Darwinian too!
Consciousness does not get to influence the universe by itself. The universe pretty much does not give a damn.
We are a tiny part of a very thin biological scum on a remote and insignificant planet revolving around a minor star in a second class spiral arm of one of billions of galaxies.
That would be a massively hybrisitic claim that our wee selves could influence anything.
ANd no . There is no survival,: consciousness disappears when the brain rots in the ground.

[Sculptor]

And what is consciousness?

It is the energetic field emitted from neural matter. It is what the brain does.

And what consciousness does?

wot

[Terrapin Station]

]Well, the idea of 'pure energy' is just science fiction hokum. Energy is fundamentally movement, so ya can't have movement without something moving. Reification in science is ontology in philosophy;

?? Reification is a type of projection. It's positing something that only exists as a mental phenomenon--like meaning, or concepts, or desires--as something that exists in the external/objective world.

[uwot]

?? Reification is a type of projection. It's positing something that only exists as a mental phenomenon--like meaning, or concepts, or desires--as something that exists in the external/objective world.

As I frequently point out, in my view any given word is pretty much meaningless without some context. Reification is different things in different fields, but the general theme is modelling. In science it is a fallacy to argue that because a model has instrumental value, it is therefore correct. The equivalent fallacy understood in philosophical terms is to argue that because a narrative is coherent, it is therefore true.