Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[h_k_s]

@Consul
I can accept that reductive materialism/physicalism is false, because it cannot explain the fact that mental states are real, yet also accept that there is a form of physicalism that can explain just how it is that mental states are real. It's just that I have not encountered the idea before. Is there a name for this type of physicalism (the one that can explain how it is that mental states are real)? Just how does one describe consciousness in this other type of physicalism?

BTW, I accept there is only one type of substance- I'm a substance monist.

Before quirks and quarks and all things Hawkinsonian, I believed that neutrons were the monist substances, and that they then split into electrons and protons and went on to do their thing in nuclear physics. But that is science, not philosophy. Science can be as bad as religion and superstition at times, when science becomes a religion of sorts.

[Consul]

As for the explainability of mind/consciousness in materialistic terms, the neuroscience of consciousness is still in its infancy. There is also the neuroscience of cognition and intelligence (cognitive neuroscience), which already has explanatory success.

[Tamminen]

There is no such thing as the subject, since there are many different subjects (and subjective perspectives)

I have this body and these memories. This makes me an individual subject you know by the name Tamminen. I can say: “I am Tamminen” or “I am a man” or “I have lived such and such a life”, but also “I am so lucky to be this person instead of someone who suffers all the time”. And so forth. Now who is the “I” who speaks this way? I know I could as well be someone else, so I say these things as the subject of my given properties, not as the individual subject Tamminen. I am not my properties, my properties are given to me. I can accept or deny or rebel against what I am. I transcend my identity. This is what 'transcendental subject' means. And this general subjectivity is what is common to all individual subjects. How they are connected with each other concretely is another question, which I have written about elsewhere.

[Atla]

Well I see Western neutral monism as quite problematic, to some degree it's still based on dualism.
Is "ultimate reality all of one kind"? Basically we could say that that's correct (and it's not a substance), but then it makes no sense to call this one kind neutral between mental and material.
Instead of collapsing the two ways of thinking into one way of thinking (which would have "solved" philosophy), we added a third way of thinking. Now we have neutral, and mental+material. So we try to figure out how the mental+material relate to the neutral.

I reject neutral monism, because we don't have any positive conception of the nature of the allegedly neutral entities—unless neutral monism is actually a mental monism: "The most frequent type of objection to the traditional versions of neutral monism is that they are all forms of mentalistic monism: Berkleyan idealism, panpsychism, or phenomenalism." – https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/
Moreover, when the neutral entities are said to be neither mental nor physical, this is what abstract entities are usually said to be; but the neutral ones are regarded as concrete entities.

By the way, in his classification (in Mind and its Place in Nature, 1925), Charlie Broad mentions nine(!) forms of neutralism: http://www.ditext.com/broad/mpn14.html

As for the nature of ultimate reality, there are four possibilities:
1. purely mental
2. purely physical
3. both mental and physical
4. neither mental nor physical (neutral)

All the options you listed are wrong. Reality isn't mental, it's not physical, "neutrality" isn't neutrality between the mental/physical, and neutrality has no actual nature or substance. (Both dualism and substance theory are nonsense.)

[Consul]

As for the nature of ultimate reality, there are four possibilities:
1. purely mental
2. purely physical
3. both mental and physical
4. neither mental nor physical (neutral)

All the options you listed are wrong. Reality isn't mental, it's not physical, "neutrality" isn't neutrality between the mental/physical, and neutrality has no actual nature or substance. (Both dualism and substance theory are nonsense.)

What additional options are there?

[Maxcady10001]

I have to agree with Tamminen, materialism is absurd. It is entirely reliant on the imagined concepts of cause and effect, it also presupposes a world that's unconditioned (an impossibility).

As imagined concepts, cause and effect are not directly experienced, only inferred after a combination of several frequently experienced sensations form the idea. It is similar to a superhero, that is, in it's magnified sensations through habitual experience. It is easy to imagine a superman, because everyday we're alive we feel strength. There's an understanding of what it means to be stronger. However there is no superman beyond the imagined idea.

With cause and effect, it is not strength magnified but subjectivity. The cause acts as a do-er, and the effect a receiver. Materialism is entirely reliant on this subject-object/cause-effect relationship. For the materialist, a stone crushes a branch. The stone has been attributed with subjectivity. Obviously replace the stone with any material you like. Material acts on more material. How can materialism deny subjectivity when it is the very thing that makes it real?

The cause-effect relationship is a copy of the subject-object relationship. They both assume a constant, a thing that does. But the cause-effect relationship is the copy because cause is attributed with subjectivity, and not the other way around. Obviously, if there is no subject, there can be no cause, with nothing to attribute cause with. What is a thing without it's attributes?

As I said earlier, materialism also posits an unconditional world. Everything is conditioned, based on a premise. I can speak to you based on the premise that I have access to the internet. Without a condition or a premise a thing does not exist. It has no relation or platform to exist. If the world is entirely materialistic, It is in-itself, and unconditioned, meaning it cannot exist. The definition of a thing, is it's relationship to other things. If a thing has no relations, what is it?

Why is materialism even worth discussing, when it posits a world independent of sensation? How can it deny what proves it's existence?

Also, although materialism is absurd for denying subjectivity, there are much better ways of doing it. Just the realization that there are no constants, results in a denial of subjectivity.

[Consul]

As I said earlier, materialism also posits an unconditional world. Everything is conditioned, based on a premise. I can speak to you based on the premise that I have access to the internet. Without a condition or a premise a thing does not exist. It has no relation or platform to exist. If the world is entirely materialistic, It is in-itself, and unconditioned, meaning it cannot exist. The definition of a thing, is it's relationship to other things. If a thing has no relations, what is it?

If the whole world is one big physical thing, it can very well be self-existent/-subsistent. (Independence is a traditional defining feature of substances.)

Why is materialism even worth discussing, when it posits a world independent of sensation? How can it deny what proves it's existence?
Also, although materialism is absurd for denying subjectivity, there are much better ways of doing it. Just the realization that there are no constants, results in a denial of subjectivity.

There's a difference between eliminative materialism about subjective experience and reductive materialism about it, the latter of which is ontologically conservative, because it affirms its existence. There is also a nonreductive materialism that affirms its existence too.
The difference between reductive (equative/constitutive) materialism and nonreductive (emergentive/causative) materialism is that according to the former subjective experiential properties ("qualia") or events/states are constituted by or composed of ("lower-level") objective neural properties or events/states (and are thus identical with complex neural properties/events/states), whereas according to the latter subjective experiential properties or events/states are caused or produced by ("lower-level") objective neural properties or events/states (and are thus different from, but dependent and supervenient on, complex neural properties/events/states ).

[Maxcady10001]

Thoughts of the world as a unity or "one big physical thing" is, again, an extrapolation from the unity of the subject. Another posited constant. If the world is indeed a susbstance, all things are only modifications of the substance, but if this is the case there is no room for the existence of the substance because there is no discernible difference between those modified things and the substance.

How could a thing undergo change and yet remain itself? This is the easiest refute of the subject, and consequently all concepts reliant on the subject, like substance, cause and effect. But more on the substance.

The substance, as a self sustained thing, would assume indivisibility. The world is comprised of parts, and dimensions, hence the world has limits. There cannot be limits on what is indivisible, were there an end to substance there would be more than substance. But there are clearly limits or dimensions in the world, hence an end to substance, which means there is more than substance.

Also, there is an important distinction to be made between what is local and what is not. Substance requires certain things to be true at only certain levels of reality, but this is an absurdity. There aren't levels of reality. For there to be levels, there would need to be something else that realizes reality. Or better phrased, it would take more than sensation to make things real at a next level of reality. But we must ask if there is more than sensation, and the answer is of course not, hence there cannot be more levels of reality.

Anyway, all forms of materialism need the imagined concepts of cause and effect, hence they need the attribute of subjectivity, so whether one form of materialism denies or another affirms it, doesn't really matter. But I understand the mistake I made in lumping them all together and saying all materialism denies it.

[Sculptor1]

All empirical evidence of consciousness is based upon material. Specifically it is neural material. Without it there is nothing of the kind.
So I think you might want to extend your understanding of matter to include the unique organisations of matter to include such things as information, data, and consciousness.

I think all phenomena of consciousness have material correlates, but this does not mean that consciousness can be reduced to material processes. It is more like an instrumental relationship. And the subject itself has no material correlates..

If consciousness is a property of matter; Consciousness cannot exist without matter, then simply enough materialism is far from absurd. It is simply the case that it is in fact reducible. Matter is clearly far more complicated than suspected.
I can prove the reducibility of consciousness and matter by simply opening up your cranium and messing about with your brain. In a few short moments I can alter your consciousness with a wooden spoon; a few well chosen drugs or make you forget your own name with a scalpel.

[camel]

I question materialism as well. If materialism is true, then everything can be explained by physical properties. I have thoughts, desires, goals, beliefs, knowledge- they are realities, and yet none of those things have physical properties, therefore materialism is false.

Well, first of all nothing is true and nothing is false, we are all subjective to our own thoughts and phylosophies, therefor, since we don't have an objective example to rely on, philophy hangs on a single thread called belief. But anyway, in my opinion, materialism is a superficiality it's the
it's the first layer of everything, kind of when you meet someone, you only have the physique to rely on at first but you know there is so much more depth to what you see. Well here it's kind of the same; you'll find the most important things in life not materializable which makes sense with how greedy we can be
so thank **** there is so much more than what meets the eye because everything would be hella boring.

[Maxcady10001]

@Sculptor1

A refutation of consciousness being reducible to matter in it's simplest form - there is no sign of consciousness outside of oneself.

It is impossible to discover consciousness in matter, hence any searching for it would only be an act of cutting meat. So digging out someone else's brain with a spoon or scalpel is not altering consciousness.

Consciousness, self awareness, or better addressed simply as sensation, excludes the possibility of others existing. For another to exist, there would have to be the sensation of others' sensation. I wouldn't even call this subjectivity, because sensation is all-inclusive of reality. Meaning all that is real is sensed, so what external influence is there to make sensation only subjective? Any idea of objectivity supposes there are other sensations outside of the sensations known, which means a reality apart from reality. An impossibility.

Obviously, if senses are only our own, reality is only our own, consciousness cannot be found in matter.

Obvious retort - what if I stab myself in the head or take a pill? Isn't consciousness affected through matter then?

No, there is no experience of matter in these acts, only sensation. Through sensation there can only be sensation. The limit of a thing is another of the same type. The limit of a feeling is another feeling. Any attempts at altering consciousness, is a change in sensations. From the swallowing of a pill to the dizziness in your head, you only feel.

The idea that consciousness can be reducible to matter is absurd because consciousness is not found in other people. Of course this is only one of the reasons, I listed others in two earlier posts.

[Sculptor1]

@@Sculptor1

A refutation of consciousness being reducible to matter in it's simplest form - there is no sign of consciousness outside of oneself.

false. There is abundant evidence of consciousness.

It is impossible to discover consciousness in matter, hence any searching for it would only be an act of cutting meat. So digging out someone else's brain with a spoon or scalpel is not altering consciousness.

My suggestion is a simple enough to understand empirical experiment in which the inductive conclusion is sound.

Consciousness, self awareness, or better addressed simply as sensation, excludes the possibility of others existing.

How do you work that out? A bold assertion without basis.

For another to exist, there would have to be the sensation of others' sensation. I wouldn't even call this subjectivity, because sensation is all-inclusive of reality. Meaning all that is real is sensed, so what external influence is there to make sensation only subjective? Any idea of objectivity supposes there are other sensations outside of the sensations known, which means a reality apart from reality. An impossibility.

There is ample evidence that what I experience is also experienced by other people and even my dog. Conducting simple demonstrations which can only be the result of consciousness are no brainers throughout the animal kingdom.

Obviously, if senses are only our own, reality is only our own, consciousness cannot be found in matter.

Empty solipsism is self defeating. Tell me this - why should I believe that you are conscious?

Obvious retort - what if I stab myself in the head or take a pill? Isn't consciousness affected through matter then?

Obviously yes.

No, there is no experience of matter in these acts, only sensation. Through sensation there can only be sensation. The limit of a thing is another of the same type. The limit of a feeling is another feeling. Any attempts at altering consciousness, is a change in sensations. From the swallowing of a pill to the dizziness in your head, you only feel.

You have just contradicted yourself.

The idea that consciousness can be reducible to matter is absurd because consciousness is not found in other people. Of course this is only one of the reasons, I listed others in two earlier posts.

It's pointless having a conversation with a person that denies the existence of myself. Since I do not exist consciously why the hell are you responding to my posts?

[Maxcady10001]

Can you please enlighten me as to what a simple demonstration of consciousness is? Of course it'll be the first of it's kind in all history.

[Sculptor1]

Can you please enlighten me as to what a simple demonstration of consciousness is? Of course it'll be the first of it's kind in all history.

You just did it.

[Maxcady10001]

Reading words on a screen is a demonstration of consciousness? How so?