Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I'm not a "materialist" but perhaps close enough to answer.

The answer is that, indeed, illusions are material in that they can only exist in the context of a physical substrate (a brained body).



In humans visible light consists of photons of a wavelength between 400THz (red) and 790THz (violent). Many animals can visually perceive ultraviolet and infra-red light. Humans perceive all frequencies from infra-red upwards as heat (lower frequencies tend to simply pass though us).

The main reason (aside from having eyes) that visible light is not usually thought of in terms of temperature is that infra-red is far more dominant in the environment than higher frequencies, so we routinely receive enough of those frequencies to feel them. By contrast, ultra-violet is a higher frequency and thus far hotter, but it is also vastly less prevalent in our environment. If it was, life on Earth could not survive.



This seems like a long way of saying that the answer to Chalmers's hard problem of consciousness remains elusive.

Cognising relative quantities, aka mathematics, is certainly naturally selected. Numerous species can count, including "gorillas, rhesus, capuchin, and squirrel monkeys, lemurs, dolphins, elephants, birds, salamanders and fish". (Google)

Dogs might not count, as such, but they certainly know the difference if they receive fewer treats than another. Social species need to keep track of favours so that some members of a group are doing all the giving while others just take.

Thank you Sy Borg!

Do you think that when the materialist claims that consciousness is an 'illusion', is that considered a euphemism for the meta-physical? For example, when you dichotomized the answer (your answer) by correctly assigning, only one piece to the puzzle, as a" physical substrate" (which we can all agree on), you forgot to assign the second piece as meta-physical (i.e., the color red, sentience, Will, intentionality, love, etc. etc..).

Hello, I am glad to see you back after a while. It does seem that metaphysics is often being dismissed in philosophy. Even from the materialist perspective, it all ideas are aspects of evolutionary consciousness there doesn't seem to be a way of accounting for way in which ideas, including love, time, happiness and Will arise in all cultures. The languages vary and the specifics of the ideas are different according to geographical and historical contexts but most conceptual ideas seem to exist universally. It does suggest some aspect of consciousness which has inherent archetypal ideas. This, from my point of view, does suggest some underlying basis for metaphysics.

Hello Jack!

Thank you. Actually, when you think about it, (in consciousness) not only is the discourse much about discouraging the either/or approach (instead of embracing the appropriate both/and) consciousness is both material and immaterial. But what we are left with is the question over primacy. For instance, "St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

In that case it's a little of both working together (subjective sentience/feeling and objective logic/intellect). It's all a matter of degree.

To this end, given that the feeling of human Will (for happiness, purpose, Being, etc.) is metaphysical, I would argue that the metaphysical takes primacy in human causation. In other words, what primarily causes human behavior (why do we do the things that we do)? Is it because we want to feel a something? What is that something?

Even if it's emergent instinct, the mysterious explanations of genetically coded anthropic conditions are partially beyond the physical because of our self-awareness and volition (we don't act on instinct alone). Our human motivations are different. It's called one's quality of life (quality over quantity). And so we are left with what it is that causes us to want to live and be a somebody? We typically want to feel pleasure and avoid pain, whatever that may be.

The short, the two part question there is: either/or, or both/and? And also, which takes primacy? Or, does it also depend on the happenstance? In discussing behavioral features of human consciousness and causation, I would consider the primacy of quality over quantity. Is quality metaphysical? What would it look like if we didn't have quality?

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that someone sees that it consciousness cannot be reduced to an either/ or of materialism or idealism. Until I started writing on this site and TPF I never saw that the two positions were opposed fiercely. I was familiar with Skinner's behaviourist materialism and had read a little of Dennett's ideas. There is so much debate on the topic and I would say that the discussion on it. I am fairly impressed with the positions of Sy Borg, who seems to be coming more from a materialist perspective and Belindi, who is coming from more of an idealist approach, because they are not going to the extremes. They are listening to both arguments and trying to look in depth, rather than some people who seem to come from a completely one-sided approach.

The interaction between the material aspects and those beyond it is extremely complex. It may be difficult to determine which came first. I did have some discussion about it with Wayfarer on TPF, who comes from a Buddhist perspective. He argues that it is likely that the mind and matter both emerge from a higher order. I agree with that and think that this is the basic perspective of most esoteric philosophies, including esoteric traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. There are scientists who incorporate the esoteric aspects traditions too, like Fritjof Capra, Paul Davies and David Bohm.

I am not trying to suggest that the esoteric thinkers have the complete or better knowledge. But, some of these thinkers seem to have read and thought about this in a thorough way. The aspect which I dislike about forum discussion is that many people seem to wish to just argue on a fairly superficial level and don't appreciate reading philosophy. Of course, I don't wish to look down on anyone because every person is entitled to think as they choose and there is no obligation to read. However, the problem may be the opposite where some are critical of those who do read writers like Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel. These writers didn't come from the scientific approach of the twentieth first century, but it may be that they captured ideas of importance, which may become lost in the blur of information overload, especially on the internet.

The issue of idealism and materialism is complex. Even with reading about it there is a need for reflection and there may not be clear cut answers because human knowledge is limited.

[3017Metaphysician]

Thanks, Sy Borg, for the link

At this stage I lean tentatively towards neuroscientist, Christof Koch's interpretation of IIT, simplified in this article:

https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-u ... e416ff344a

There is an element of Sartre in the passages about intentionality as defining consciousness, even although I guess Sartre did not discuss livers or other components of living bodies in the context of consciousness.

Panpsychism is on the table however psyches can't attach to things such as quantities of H2O that lack intentionality. Can it?

The "Whole" and associated comments about integration of information chime nicely with Spinozan necessity , and hard determinism. We aren't fatalists : the future does not exist yet and this fact shows the difference between e.g. a quantity of H2O and some other entity( liver, tree, toadstool, human)that unlike the glass of H2O does have a care to the future.

The other theme that also accords with Spinozan ontology is the connection between physical brain and mental mind. Spinoza said the mind is the idea of the body, thus showing what the connection is between mind(or 'consciousness') and brain(or body proper+ brain). The connection is indissoluble so we know that consciousness (or 'mind') implies environment (or brain and body proper and so forth to commensal organisms to breathable air and food supplies).

Belindi !

Perhaps in panpsychism, the qualities of the mind attach themselves to material quantities much like the mind-body problem, in that when I decide to move my arm, it moves.

Self-awareness and volitional existence are indeed a force of human nature. This 'force' of one's awareness has many other far reaching impacts relative to mental phenomena. For instance, in physics Heisenberg taught us that the connection between mind and matter are essential to quantum mechanics.

The Heisenberg Principle of Observation:
1. Every event is changed by the observation of that event.
2. The momentum of an event is changed by observation.

According to the scientific principles of physics, as awareness
is raised about the facts of starvation in nursing homes, the
practice of starvation will change.

This powerful force of self-awareness can only be described (or explained to some degree) through qualitative means. Conversely, material quantitative methods are a given in a physical word. Qualitatively then, self-awareness seems to be distinct over genetically coded emergence, as in everydayness it involves the choice to make observations about other people, things, including our own selves. I keep coming back to subject-object dynamics. The human existential elements that involve behavior are necessary for the concept of anthropy to even exist. Using reason, there does not seem to be any way to avoid it... . In other words, if we say purpose does not exist, then quality of life doesn't either.

[Sy Borg]

I'm not a "materialist" but perhaps close enough to answer.

The answer is that, indeed, illusions are material in that they can only exist in the context of a physical substrate (a brained body).



In humans visible light consists of photons of a wavelength between 400THz (red) and 790THz (violent). Many animals can visually perceive ultraviolet and infra-red light. Humans perceive all frequencies from infra-red upwards as heat (lower frequencies tend to simply pass though us).

The main reason (aside from having eyes) that visible light is not usually thought of in terms of temperature is that infra-red is far more dominant in the environment than higher frequencies, so we routinely receive enough of those frequencies to feel them. By contrast, ultra-violet is a higher frequency and thus far hotter, but it is also vastly less prevalent in our environment. If it was, life on Earth could not survive.



This seems like a long way of saying that the answer to Chalmers's hard problem of consciousness remains elusive.

Cognising relative quantities, aka mathematics, is certainly naturally selected. Numerous species can count, including "gorillas, rhesus, capuchin, and squirrel monkeys, lemurs, dolphins, elephants, birds, salamanders and fish". (Google)

Dogs might not count, as such, but they certainly know the difference if they receive fewer treats than another. Social species need to keep track of favours so that some members of a group are doing all the giving while others just take.

Thank you Sy Borg!

Do you think that when the materialist claims that consciousness is an 'illusion', is that considered a euphemism for the meta-physical? For example, when you dichotomized the answer (your answer) by correctly assigning, only one piece to the puzzle, as a" physical substrate" (which we can all agree on), you forgot to assign the second piece as meta-physical (i.e., the color red, sentience, Will, intentionality, love, etc. etc..).

Might this be a matter of language? What some call metaphysics, I would call "information" or "undiscovered physics". Metaphysics looks to me like a black box for the unknown, just as some use God as a black box for phenomena not understood.

At this stage I lean tentatively towards neuroscientist, Christof Koch's interpretation of IIT, simplified in this article:

https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-u ... e416ff344a

It's basically soft panpsychism, which does not treat consciousness as a "thing" but a continuum. Certainly not illusory. The self and the ego, however, are rather more ephemeral and deceptive. Perhaps pundits sometimes conflate consciousness with aspects of the self?

I also question (and much more strongly) the casual terming of biology as "life", and everything else as "non-living". This is a biocentric view, based on the difference between a living being and a corpse. The "life" has gone.

However, failing annihilation via explosions or extreme radiation, life continues after death, only in a less integrated manner. As our gut bacteria run out of food they start eating the gut lining and work outwards. As body systems shut down, many cell and microbe communities die, overrun by bacteria, fungi and viruses that would have otherwise been controlled by macrophages. I also see galaxies, stars and planets as living entities, just that their lives have a different general configuration to those biological entities. Again, their exclusion is biocentric, as though the only possible model of life must involve cells, DNA and a hungry metabolism.

Sy Borg!

Thank you for that. I'm just getting back in the saddle so I need time to research some stuff. I just wanted to say that your use of the word concepts of 'information' and 'undiscovered physics' is very intriguing. I think the notion of 'information' most of us embrace on many levels with few exceptions. Whether it's cosmological black holes or human consciousness, 'information' does seem to be at the heart of the equation. As such, the rub is higher level mathematical equations/ability (describing most physical things like black holes) are also abstract qualities of human consciousness. Do we categorize mathematical ability as physical, metaphysical or informational? And if it's informational, what is its purpose? And; what, where, when and how did that feature of informational ability propagate and come into Being? And finally, is 'information' sentient?

Anyway, great stuff, thank you Sy! I will check your link and offer some other possibilities as applicable. I like your wholistic view of biology... . I remember reading top-down v. bottom-up but forgot many of its tenets...

It's a quasi-dualist view, where two intertwined properties exist - energy and information, stuff and its configuration.

Stuff must have some kind of configuration, information. Given that the emptiest space possible still has vacuum energy, stuff and its configuration are absolutely everywhere, it's just a matter of its density and order. So some stuff, like asteroids, has a great deal of energy (E=MC²) but a relatively simple structure, while a silicon chip has far less energy but is much more information dense.

[Belindi]

In the the sense of information as described by Sy Borg we still must presume information -rich silicon chips are information-inert when they lack the intelligent 'consciousness' of humans. The intelligent 'consciousness' of humans is a way of adapting to environment that's peculiar to humans. Sure, individuals of other species have psyches , but individuals of other species lack self-consciousness.

[Sy Borg]

In the the sense of information as described by Sy Borg we still must presume information -rich silicon chips are information-inert when they lack the intelligent 'consciousness' of humans. The intelligent 'consciousness' of humans is a way of adapting to environment that's peculiar to humans. Sure, individuals of other species have psyches , but individuals of other species lack self-consciousness.

Orcas, dolphins and other cetaceans, elephants, chimps, corvids, and more ... plenty of other animals are self aware. However, they have a far weaker ability to to sense the passing of time than humans, just as humans often have a far weaker sense of smell.

Only humans can mentally "time travel" at will - recalling memories or projecting possible futures. So our apparent unique self-awareness is an expansion of a more basic sense of self, like a child's. It's simpler, more straightforward and spontaneous, less strategic and controlled.

[3017Metaphysician]

Thank you Sy Borg!

Do you think that when the materialist claims that consciousness is an 'illusion', is that considered a euphemism for the meta-physical? For example, when you dichotomized the answer (your answer) by correctly assigning, only one piece to the puzzle, as a" physical substrate" (which we can all agree on), you forgot to assign the second piece as meta-physical (i.e., the color red, sentience, Will, intentionality, love, etc. etc..).

Hello, I am glad to see you back after a while. It does seem that metaphysics is often being dismissed in philosophy. Even from the materialist perspective, it all ideas are aspects of evolutionary consciousness there doesn't seem to be a way of accounting for way in which ideas, including love, time, happiness and Will arise in all cultures. The languages vary and the specifics of the ideas are different according to geographical and historical contexts but most conceptual ideas seem to exist universally. It does suggest some aspect of consciousness which has inherent archetypal ideas. This, from my point of view, does suggest some underlying basis for metaphysics.

Hello Jack!

Thank you. Actually, when you think about it, (in consciousness) not only is the discourse much about discouraging the either/or approach (instead of embracing the appropriate both/and) consciousness is both material and immaterial. But what we are left with is the question over primacy. For instance, "St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

In that case it's a little of both working together (subjective sentience/feeling and objective logic/intellect). It's all a matter of degree.

To this end, given that the feeling of human Will (for happiness, purpose, Being, etc.) is metaphysical, I would argue that the metaphysical takes primacy in human causation. In other words, what primarily causes human behavior (why do we do the things that we do)? Is it because we want to feel a something? What is that something?

Even if it's emergent instinct, the mysterious explanations of genetically coded anthropic conditions are partially beyond the physical because of our self-awareness and volition (we don't act on instinct alone). Our human motivations are different. It's called one's quality of life (quality over quantity). And so we are left with what it is that causes us to want to live and be a somebody? We typically want to feel pleasure and avoid pain, whatever that may be.

The short, the two part question there is: either/or, or both/and? And also, which takes primacy? Or, does it also depend on the happenstance? In discussing behavioral features of human consciousness and causation, I would consider the primacy of quality over quantity. Is quality metaphysical? What would it look like if we didn't have quality?

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that someone sees that it consciousness cannot be reduced to an either/ or of materialism or idealism. Until I started writing on this site and TPF I never saw that the two positions were opposed fiercely. I was familiar with Skinner's behaviourist materialism and had read a little of Dennett's ideas. There is so much debate on the topic and I would say that the discussion on it. I am fairly impressed with the positions of Sy Borg, who seems to be coming more from a materialist perspective and Belindi, who is coming from more of an idealist approach, because they are not going to the extremes. They are listening to both arguments and trying to look in depth, rather than some people who seem to come from a completely one-sided approach.

The interaction between the material aspects and those beyond it is extremely complex. It may be difficult to determine which came first. I did have some discussion about it with Wayfarer on TPF, who comes from a Buddhist perspective. He argues that it is likely that the mind and matter both emerge from a higher order. I agree with that and think that this is the basic perspective of most esoteric philosophies, including esoteric traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. There are scientists who incorporate the esoteric aspects traditions too, like Fritjof Capra, Paul Davies and David Bohm.

I am not trying to suggest that the esoteric thinkers have the complete or better knowledge. But, some of these thinkers seem to have read and thought about this in a thorough way. The aspect which I dislike about forum discussion is that many people seem to wish to just argue on a fairly superficial level and don't appreciate reading philosophy. Of course, I don't wish to look down on anyone because every person is entitled to think as they choose and there is no obligation to read. However, the problem may be the opposite where some are critical of those who do read writers like Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel. These writers didn't come from the scientific approach of the twentieth first century, but it may be that they captured ideas of importance, which may become lost in the blur of information overload, especially on the internet.

The issue of idealism and materialism is complex. Even with reading about it there is a need for reflection and there may not be clear cut answers because human knowledge is limited.

Yes Jack thank you. For our discussion purposes, I think if you meditate or focus on the different concepts of Quality and Quantity and the distinctions therein, you can see both are unique and required for consciousness. In the end, with much of existence, as philosophers, we are more often than not charged with the task of unraveling backward causation (in one instance, the why/how associated with finding meaning and purpose), and those intrinsic forces (of conscious beings/consciousness) that come along with it. Kind of analogous to music, someone created it then later on someone else figured it out (music theory or otherwise). And part of those mysteries relate to the unending force behind the will to embrace meaning, purpose and once again, one's own quality of life. An intrinsic or innate need of sorts, unique to sentient beings.

Anyway, you mentioned Paul Davies so I thought you would enjoy a kind of summary to our discussion. The fundamental impacts of observation, choice, self-awareness on a quantum scale, all partially speak to quality and meaning. The interminable will to seek purpose. And the metaphysical part is the emotive part (sentient Beings within the universe) driving it all, for which there is no escape. Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being.

[The Beast]

What is fundamental is the concept of “essence before substance” and “this which exist always existed” So, there is more empirical knowledge to support consciousness or the I think proposition. The dialectical procedure to say otherwise is a paradox. Or to say that the existence of the procedure is the same as its non-existence. Along the way we label percentages of both non-existence/existence in the philosophical discourse, or we engaged in the levels of thinking to better the understanding. A materialistic view of consciousness could take the premises with a materialistic method forth in an altered or extended semantical definition of the properties. To some effect, the term evolution may be thought of virtual in the present discourse or deny it altogether as illusory for only the present reality exists. Hence the dialectical method is now “virtual knowledge” reserving illusory as an absurdity. In this manner the phrase consciousness is an illusion becomes consciousness is absurd to in contrast say consciousness is a multi-dimensional concept integrated in a manifold of virtual and real dimensions. It is that these dimensions may be considered levels of thinking and the levels of awareness may be subdivisions of the former. A more interesting view of consciousness is whether the evolutionary content is self-directed or deterministic or both as is the manifold.

[3017Metaphysician]

What is fundamental is the concept of “essence before substance” and “this which exist always existed” So, there is more empirical knowledge to support consciousness or the I think proposition. The dialectical procedure to say otherwise is a paradox. Or to say that the existence of the procedure is the same as its non-existence. Along the way we label percentages of both non-existence/existence in the philosophical discourse, or we engaged in the levels of thinking to better the understanding. A materialistic view of consciousness could take the premises with a materialistic method forth in an altered or extended semantical definition of the properties. To some effect, the term evolution may be thought of virtual in the present discourse or deny it altogether as illusory for only the present reality exists. Hence the dialectical method is now “virtual knowledge” reserving illusory as an absurdity. In this manner the phrase consciousness is an illusion becomes consciousness is absurd to in contrast say consciousness is a multi-dimensional concept integrated in a manifold of virtual and real dimensions. It is that these dimensions may be considered levels of thinking and the levels of awareness may be subdivisions of the former. A more interesting view of consciousness is whether the evolutionary content is self-directed or deterministic or both as is the manifold.

Good thoughts!!! I think much like the illusion or relativity of time itself, a similar paradox exists between free-will and determinism (self-directed v. deterministic as you say). It's appropriate to analogize to the quantum level of 'conscious understanding' when observing how material things behave. Hence we have both determinism and indeterminism that exists in a material sense. Perhaps another interesting view is whether they exist independently of one another or together in a paradoxical fashion transcending the rules of logic. In other words, is there a default pattern of information (as Sy Borg alluded) exchange that leads to a greater good of some kind. And can we access the information both on a humanistic and scientific level? Wheeler's PAP would probably say yes that unknowingly, we constantly interact with an indistinguishable system.

In practical terms, the scientific level of interaction would be the comprehension of mathematics itself and how it describes (and to some degree explains) the universe. The humanistic level involves the sentient nature of Beings who possess a will to have (in order to seek) purpose and meaning. I wonder if those metaphysical things like the Will, and mathematics themselves are fixed, innate, a priori, intuitive, transcendental (Kant) and so on... ? The common denominator so to speak there certainly relates to consciousness or phenomenology. Or, the distinctions between subject-object, quality and quantity... .

It seems much of conscious phenomena usually involve, as you say, 'percentages' along a 'continuum' when contemplating things like essence and existence, material and non-material, so on and so forth.

[Belindi]

In the the sense of information as described by Sy Borg we still must presume information -rich silicon chips are information-inert when they lack the intelligent 'consciousness' of humans. The intelligent 'consciousness' of humans is a way of adapting to environment that's peculiar to humans. Sure, individuals of other species have psyches , but individuals of other species lack self-consciousness.

Orcas, dolphins and other cetaceans, elephants, chimps, corvids, and more ... plenty of other animals are self aware. However, they have a far weaker ability to to sense the passing of time than humans, just as humans often have a far weaker sense of smell.

Only humans can mentally "time travel" at will - recalling memories or projecting possible futures. So our apparent unique self-awareness is an expansion of a more basic sense of self, like a child's. It's simpler, more straightforward and spontaneous, less strategic and controlled.

I accept the correction, Sy Borg. However I'm not sure about what you are saying with regard to information-rich silicon chips as information medium suited to humans compared with information-rich silicon chips as an information medium suited to other intelligent species such as cetaceans etc.

Are you saying that the human predilection for silicon chips information can't be compared with some other animals' predilection for smell information? I think I have been guilty of speciesism.

My revised point is much the same as before . It is that an information medium whether that be smells, sound waves, or silicon chips , is inert until along comes an intelligent animal that can learn information from some aspect of its environment.

[Consul]

As far as I can see, illusionism (as a form of eliminativism) about phenomenal consciousness is a minority view among materialists.

Could be, but within the group of Materialists that like to write books and talk about it, there are way more that are likely to be Illusionists.

Well, Keith Frankish and Daniel Dennett are champions of illusionism (illusionistic eliminativism) about phenomenal consciousness. François Kammerer, Jay Garfield, and Georges Rey endorse it too.

"There is no phenomenal consciousness; there is nothing ‘that it is like’ to be me. To believe in phenomenal consciousness or ‘what-it’s-like-ness’ or ‘for-me-ness’ is to succumb to a pernicious form of the Myth of the Given."

(Garfield, Jay L. "Illusionism and Givenness." In Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness, edited by Keith Frankish, 73-82. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2017. p. 73)

"I defend what Frankish calls 'strong illusionism', whereby consciousness doesn't exist nowhere, nohow (in particular, not, as 'weak' illusionism proposes, as a real, instantiated state or property about which people simply have false beliefs)."

(Rey, Georges. "Taking Consciousness Seriously – as an Illusion." In Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness, edited by Keith Frankish, 197-214. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2017. p. 197n1)

"I and a few others are prepared to conclude…that there really are no phenomena answering to our usual concepts of qualia, consciousness and experience."

(Rey, Georges. "Better to Study Human Than World Psychology." In: Galen Strawson et al., Consciousness and its Place in Nature, edited by Anthony Freeman, 110-116. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006. p. 113)

[JackDaydream]

Hello, I am glad to see you back after a while. It does seem that metaphysics is often being dismissed in philosophy. Even from the materialist perspective, it all ideas are aspects of evolutionary consciousness there doesn't seem to be a way of accounting for way in which ideas, including love, time, happiness and Will arise in all cultures. The languages vary and the specifics of the ideas are different according to geographical and historical contexts but most conceptual ideas seem to exist universally. It does suggest some aspect of consciousness which has inherent archetypal ideas. This, from my point of view, does suggest some underlying basis for metaphysics.

Hello Jack!

Thank you. Actually, when you think about it, (in consciousness) not only is the discourse much about discouraging the either/or approach (instead of embracing the appropriate both/and) consciousness is both material and immaterial. But what we are left with is the question over primacy. For instance, "St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

In that case it's a little of both working together (subjective sentience/feeling and objective logic/intellect). It's all a matter of degree.

To this end, given that the feeling of human Will (for happiness, purpose, Being, etc.) is metaphysical, I would argue that the metaphysical takes primacy in human causation. In other words, what primarily causes human behavior (why do we do the things that we do)? Is it because we want to feel a something? What is that something?

Even if it's emergent instinct, the mysterious explanations of genetically coded anthropic conditions are partially beyond the physical because of our self-awareness and volition (we don't act on instinct alone). Our human motivations are different. It's called one's quality of life (quality over quantity). And so we are left with what it is that causes us to want to live and be a somebody? We typically want to feel pleasure and avoid pain, whatever that may be.

The short, the two part question there is: either/or, or both/and? And also, which takes primacy? Or, does it also depend on the happenstance? In discussing behavioral features of human consciousness and causation, I would consider the primacy of quality over quantity. Is quality metaphysical? What would it look like if we didn't have quality?

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that someone sees that it consciousness cannot be reduced to an either/ or of materialism or idealism. Until I started writing on this site and TPF I never saw that the two positions were opposed fiercely. I was familiar with Skinner's behaviourist materialism and had read a little of Dennett's ideas. There is so much debate on the topic and I would say that the discussion on it. I am fairly impressed with the positions of Sy Borg, who seems to be coming more from a materialist perspective and Belindi, who is coming from more of an idealist approach, because they are not going to the extremes. They are listening to both arguments and trying to look in depth, rather than some people who seem to come from a completely one-sided approach.

The interaction between the material aspects and those beyond it is extremely complex. It may be difficult to determine which came first. I did have some discussion about it with Wayfarer on TPF, who comes from a Buddhist perspective. He argues that it is likely that the mind and matter both emerge from a higher order. I agree with that and think that this is the basic perspective of most esoteric philosophies, including esoteric traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. There are scientists who incorporate the esoteric aspects traditions too, like Fritjof Capra, Paul Davies and David Bohm.

I am not trying to suggest that the esoteric thinkers have the complete or better knowledge. But, some of these thinkers seem to have read and thought about this in a thorough way. The aspect which I dislike about forum discussion is that many people seem to wish to just argue on a fairly superficial level and don't appreciate reading philosophy. Of course, I don't wish to look down on anyone because every person is entitled to think as they choose and there is no obligation to read. However, the problem may be the opposite where some are critical of those who do read writers like Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel. These writers didn't come from the scientific approach of the twentieth first century, but it may be that they captured ideas of importance, which may become lost in the blur of information overload, especially on the internet.

The issue of idealism and materialism is complex. Even with reading about it there is a need for reflection and there may not be clear cut answers because human knowledge is limited.

Yes Jack thank you. For our discussion purposes, I think if you meditate or focus on the different concepts of Quality and Quantity and the distinctions therein, you can see both are unique and required for consciousness. In the end, with much of existence, as philosophers, we are more often than not charged with the task of unraveling backward causation (in one instance, the why/how associated with finding meaning and purpose), and those intrinsic forces (of conscious beings/consciousness) that come along with it. Kind of analogous to music, someone created it then later on someone else figured it out (music theory or otherwise). And part of those mysteries relate to the unending force behind the will to embrace meaning, purpose and once again, one's own quality of life. An intrinsic or innate need of sorts, unique to sentient beings.

Anyway, you mentioned Paul Davies so I thought you would enjoy a kind of summary to our discussion. The fundamental impacts of observation, choice, self-awareness on a quantum scale, all partially speak to quality and meaning. The interminable will to seek purpose. And the metaphysical part is the emotive part (sentient Beings within the universe) driving it all, for which there is no escape. Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being.

Thanks for the link to the Paul Davies video. The emphasis he gives to consciousness and your own point about 'quality' seems to me to point to the significance of consciousness as the central aspect of human experiences. The idea of consciousness an illusion is in the opposite direction as a way of undervaluing the nature of the inner world of experience and its intrinsic source of meaning. It is materialism, and with a slant towards undervaluing human meaning and worth. In a way, it is a specific ideology which could be used to say that human consciousness and feelings don't matter. As it is, the animal kingdom and other aspects have been undervalued through the mechanistic picture of Newtonian- Cartesian dualism. The idea of consciousness as an illusion may go even further as a means of suggesting that human beings can be seen as objects, and of insignifiant value.

[Consul]

"There is no phenomenal consciousness; there is nothing ‘that it is like’ to be me. To believe in phenomenal consciousness or ‘what-it’s-like-ness’ or ‘for-me-ness’ is to succumb to a pernicious form of the Myth of the Given."

(Garfield, Jay L. "Illusionism and Givenness." In Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness, edited by Keith Frankish, 73-82. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2017. p. 73)

"I and a few others are prepared to conclude…that there really are no phenomena answering to our usual concepts of qualia, consciousness and experience."

(Rey, Georges. "Better to Study Human Than World Psychology." In: Galen Strawson et al., Consciousness and its Place in Nature, edited by Anthony Freeman, 110-116. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006. p. 113)

The conceptual problem is that…

"Though the terms “experience” and “something it”s like for…’ are commonly used more or less in the way just suggested to identify the notion of consciousness, it must be said right off that their interpretation is subject to doubt and controversy that can affect one’s fundamental ideas about the topics treated here. Anyone wanting to think carefully about consciousness must face the fact that the basic terms of discussion are infused with complex disagreements from the start."

Charles Siewert: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cons ... tionality/

For example, Frankish doesn't actually deny the existence of experience simpliciter, but only the existence of experience with phenomenal properties. For he acknowledges a (functional) sort of experience with "quasi-phenomenal properties".
("A quasi-phenomenal property is a non-phenomenal, physical property (perhaps a complex, gerrymandered one) that introspection typically misrepresents as phenomenal." – K. Frankish)

As for Nagel's famous definition of phenomenal consciousness in terms of a special feature called "what-it-is-like-ness", I tend to agree with Lycan:

"What, then, of 'what it's like'? That phrase is now ambiguous, as between phenomenal character, i.e., a quale in the strict sense, and the conscious experience of such a quale, or rather what one knows in virtue of having such an experience. (And like the plural 'qualia' itself, 'what it's like' has a deplorably more general use, as an umbrella term for whatever one find puzzling about consciousness, subjectivity, etc.) It is long past time to recognize (…) that the phrase 'what it's like' is now worse than useless: it is positively pernicious and harmful, because nothing whatever is clarified or explained by reference to it, and its tokening as a buzzword typically sends the struggling mind of even the most talented philosopher into yet another affect-driven tailspin of confusing a welter of distinct issues. So, please, just say no. (None of this will stop me from devoting a good deal of chapter 5 to the 'what it's like' locution, but I will do so very carefully and in a critical rather than knee-jerk manner.)"

(Lycan, William G. Consciousness and Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. p. 77)

[Sy Borg]

My revised point is much the same as before. It is that an information medium whether that be smells, sound waves, or silicon chips , is inert until along comes an intelligent animal that can learn information from some aspect of its environment.

There are now learning machines, though. Give them the right physical interface and they can readily use the information in the silicon chip.

[Belindi]

My revised point is much the same as before. It is that an information medium whether that be smells, sound waves, or silicon chips , is inert until along comes an intelligent animal that can learn information from some aspect of its environment.

There are now learning machines, though. Give them the right physical interface and they can readily use the information in the silicon chip.

Right. We are back to the problem of AI 'consciousness'. Obviously one doesn't want to make the Cartesian mistake of regarding sentient creatures as machines. Can an AI experience pain or joy? We will never know, and a humanoid robot can produce crocodile tears or convincing smiles and laughter.

Can a humanoid robot behave irrationally? I daresay it can be programmed to do so at random intervals.The machine can also be programmed, I suppose, to need to sleep and dream. The one thing an AI machine can't ever do is care about the whole environment as humans know wholeness, especially during a peak experience. Thus the AI machine can't be a Dasein who has a gestalt vision of the Whole. Sorry about the New-Agey tone of "Whole" but I can't think of a synonym.

[SteveKlinko]

As far as I can see, illusionism (as a form of eliminativism) about phenomenal consciousness is a minority view among materialists.

Could be, but within the group of Materialists that like to write books and talk about it, there are way more that are likely to be Illusionists.

Well, Keith Frankish and Daniel Dennett are champions of illusionism (illusionistic eliminativism) about phenomenal consciousness. François Kammerer, Jay Garfield, and Georges Rey endorse it too.

"There is no phenomenal consciousness; there is nothing ‘that it is like’ to be me. To believe in phenomenal consciousness or ‘what-it’s-like-ness’ or ‘for-me-ness’ is to succumb to a pernicious form of the Myth of the Given."

(Garfield, Jay L. "Illusionism and Givenness." In Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness, edited by Keith Frankish, 73-82. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2017. p. 73)

"I defend what Frankish calls 'strong illusionism', whereby consciousness doesn't exist nowhere, nohow (in particular, not, as 'weak' illusionism proposes, as a real, instantiated state or property about which people simply have false beliefs)."

(Rey, Georges. "Taking Consciousness Seriously – as an Illusion." In Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness, edited by Keith Frankish, 197-214. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2017. p. 197n1)

"I and a few others are prepared to conclude…that there really are no phenomena answering to our usual concepts of qualia, consciousness and experience."

(Rey, Georges. "Better to Study Human Than World Psychology." In: Galen Strawson et al., Consciousness and its Place in Nature, edited by Anthony Freeman, 110-116. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006. p. 113)

Good list.