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

[Spectrum]

"Materialism" was killed long ago by Berkeley.
The focus is now on Physicalism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

The point is, all consciousness, from proto to human self-consciousness, is conditioned by the living body and brain, and interacting within its external environment. Whenever the living body and brain (the critical variable) are destroyed or dead, that is the end of 'consciousness' of living entities. QED.

unless.. the OP is suggesting that there is some sort of 'consciousness' that manifest in the body and brain, and thereafter survives physical death. If that is the case, then such an idea should not be in the 'Philosophy of Science' section.

[Quotidian]

Different words for the same thing. The stanford entry says 'Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical.'

Physicalism and materialism are to all intents interchangeable.

You don't need to talk about evidence of past-life memories to establish the difference in principle between the physical and mental realms (even though there is such evidence). It is a distinction which can be established on rational grounds, on the basis that ideas (symbolic systems/number/language) are not reducible to physical forms and cannot be explained with sole reference to physical laws.

The end of the consciousness in a particular individual is clearly not the end of consciousness per se, but only of that instance of consciousness.

[Logicus]

I am probably asking for it, but I have never been one to refrain from something out of fear of reprisals.

With the exception of Quotidian and the OP, I don't think anyone here has made a clear distinction between Brain and Mind. I have seen a lot of talk about the brain is this, or structures in the brain are thought to, and my favorite: "The goal of neuroscience is not moral advancement; it’s to understand how the brain works."

It should be obvious that the Mind is not the Brain. The brain is an organ in the body. Much of it is concerned with regulating bodily functions and processes, or deciphering and presenting the objective world to the creature we inhabit. Mind is something else: The thinking being is not part of the physical organ called the brain.

The brain is the necessary organ for connecting the creature to a consciousness not of itself (I assume some of you knew this was coming). It is this that animates us, and it is this that is gone at death. Damage to the brain will interfere with the connection to this consciousness, leading to the belief that the damage has "destroyed" part of the mind. I don't see it as that kind of direct relationship. It is direct when the injury does something like cause blindness or other problems within the creature, but not when it involves higher functions and consciousness.

I know, Gene, that this will appear absurd to you. You, like all of us, were raised in a culture where the scientific mode of thought is the underlying metaphysic of our lives. It is difficult to think in any other terms. Trust me, my ideas are not as radical as some here, but I do harbor some different notions. Take them or leave them, but you might give it some thought.

[Naughtorious]

If this is a spiritual implication of NDE to infer human 'soul' then tell me why everything in the world has a 'soul'. Example for this would be pennies. They have the same energy force you see in people.

If this is a non-spiritual implication of NDE to infer the basis of our consciousness being seperated from what is physical then I do agree to an extent. Our mind, body, world and brain are fascinating.

[Janus D Strange]

"Materialism" was killed long ago by Berkeley.
The focus is now on Physicalism.


The point is, all consciousness, from proto to human self-consciousness, is conditioned by the living body and brain, and interacting within its external environment. Whenever the living body and brain (the critical variable) are destroyed or dead, that is the end of 'consciousness' of living entities. QED.

unless.. the OP is suggesting that there is some sort of 'consciousness' that manifest in the body and brain, and thereafter survives physical death. If that is the case, then such an idea should not be in the 'Philosophy of Science' section.

If you smash the radio, transmission ceases. Does that logically entail that the transmission originated in the radio?

It is easy to think of the brain analogously, if you want to.

Physicalists argue that, for example, taking drugs changes perception, therefore consciousness must be in the brain. If you change the channel on the radio (take drugs) you will hear a different transmission (enjoy a different kind of perception), does that entail that the transmission is in the radio (that consciousness is 'in' the brain)?

How would you ever know from 'where' it originates? You can't observe it or measure it. Since it is not an empirical object, if you can't cope with its indeterminacy your only recourse is to deny its existence. But you have no idea what the term 'existence' could even mean in relation to consciousness.

[Spectrum]

If you smash the radio, transmission ceases. Does that logically entail that the transmission originated in the radio?

It is easy to think of the brain analogously, if you want to.

Physicalists argue that, for example, taking drugs changes perception, therefore consciousness must be in the brain. If you change the channel on the radio (take drugs) you will hear a different transmission (enjoy a different kind of perception), does that entail that the transmission is in the radio (that consciousness is 'in' the brain)?

How would you ever know from 'where' it originates? You can't observe it or measure it. Since it is not an empirical object, if you can't cope with its indeterminacy your only recourse is to deny its existence. But you have no idea what the term 'existence' could even mean in relation to consciousness.

What about smashing the radio transmitter built by humans. I think the radio analogy don't work because, radio transmitters are built by humans with consciousness.

From the above, I am not implying that 'consciousness' is "in" the brain or body. 'Consciousness' is a resultant, an emergence from conditions of conditioned reality. It is just like 'Sandy' emerging into existence, but there is no 'Sandy-in-itself', there are merely conditions of a limited conditioned reality.

[Janus D Strange]

(Nested quote removed.)

What about smashing the radio transmitter built by humans. I think the radio analogy don't work because, radio transmitters are built by humans with consciousness.

From the above, I am not implying that 'consciousness' is "in" the brain or body. 'Consciousness' is a resultant, an emergence from conditions of conditioned reality. It is just like 'Sandy' emerging into existence, but there is no 'Sandy-in-itself', there are merely conditions of a limited conditioned reality.

I don't think it matters for the analogy who made the radio it's just an analogy. Most physicalist seem to believe that consciousness is generated by the complexity of the brain, that it essentially 'is' physical brain activity. How do we know it is not inherent in the quantum foam, for example, and is 'transceived' by the brain, rather than generated by it. I am not actually arguing for a substance duality a la Descartes. I think, for us, the only reality is the inter-subjective reality of human ideas, knowledge and perception.

What is a 'conditioned reality'; conditioned by what? Does the term 'reality' even have any meaning if you divorce it from experience? What does 'physical' mean if you divorce it from experience. All our terms are derived from, and applicable to, experience.

[Spectrum]

(Nested quote removed.)

I don't think it matters for the analogy who made the radio it's just an analogy. Most physicalist seem to believe that consciousness is generated by the complexity of the brain, that it essentially 'is' physical brain activity. How do we know it is not inherent in the quantum foam, for example, and is 'transceived' by the brain, rather than generated by it. I am not actually arguing for a substance duality a la Descartes. I think, for us, the only reality is the inter-subjective reality of human ideas, knowledge and perception.

What is a 'conditioned reality'; conditioned by what? Does the term 'reality' even have any meaning if you divorce it from experience? What does 'physical' mean if you divorce it from experience. All our terms are derived from, and applicable to, experience.

I agree with an inter-subjective reality. Conditioned reality is conditioned by this intersubjectivity. Since you mentioned Eastern philosophy, note dependent-origination. Point is we should ensure whatever reality is, we should not stretched it to the 'unconditioned'.

[Syamsu]

I do, however, think that as time goes on we will hopefully have a better understanding of what we’re dealing with. But the OPs tacit suggestion that, having only begun, neuroscience has already hit a dead-end and we should default to the supernatural, is a suggestion that I for one don’t take seriously. The rest of your post isn’t exactly clear… more about free will and the scourge of science I presume. There are some materialistic scientists who actually think that the complexity of our brains allow for something like free choice, albeit not the tradition notion. Others are not so optimistic. The intellectually honest approach is to have, as a society, an open and evolving discussion of these questions given our increasing knowledge of the world. The hyperboles and hysterical demonization of science won’t get you very far.

Murderous rage is my natural emotional response to whomever doesn't acknowledge my human spirit subjectively, regardless if it is a scientist or any other. On a massive scale science is directly causing destruction and surpression of knowledge which explains things in terms of freedom. Religion, common knowledge and ideology which posits freedom, and also science theories which posit freedom, they are violently opposed by the majority in science.

You don't understand what I write, but then you don't understand freedom at all. Your knowledge about freedom is in fact surpressed and destroyed, so as that you can only come up with ideas about how people's behaviour is forced. That is not an open discussion, not putting ideas side by side and see which one works best.

[Quotidian]

[deleted by contributor]

[Syamsu]

(Nested quote removed.)


This is a philosophy forum. If you use such expressions I sincerely believe you ought to be banned, regardless of your views.

Well what is a reasonable emotional response then when all your emotions are directly attacked in a deliberate, open and intellectually sophisticated way by a very large group of people with much influence in your life?

And ofcourse in answering what is a reasonable emotional response consider that ANY emotional response would be the target of attack by these people, for the very reason that it is emotional.

[Quotidian]

I had deleted the comment although I see you have now commented on it.

You ought to concentrate on presenting your ideas in clear and intelligible English.

[Janus D Strange]

"Well what is a reasonable emotional response then when all your emotions are directly attacked in a deliberate, open and intellectually sophisticated way by a very large group of people with much influence in your life?

And ofcourse in answering what is a reasonable emotional response consider that ANY emotional response would be the target of attack by these people, for the very reason that it is emotional."





Syamsu, are you referring to people in these forums or people in your 'real' life?

[Syamsu]

Syamsu, are you referring to people in these forums or people in your 'real' life?

Both, but mainly the majority of intellectuals, scientists, many posters on these forums.

Consider the current situation, where for example if you go to wiki to find out how free will works, that there is virtually no practical knowledge there. Yet in daily life people often talk in terms of choosing. Is that really a normal situation?

It means there is still common, and religious, knowledge about freedom, but this knowledge is being surpressed by a happenstance conspiracy of like-minded intellectual thugs. Moreover this common and religious knowledge about freedom is not unshakeable. The credibility of it can be diminished, as well as the logic used with the words can vary (use the word choose to describe a situation where the result is forced). So as to say that the chance of an individual in society to become genuinely deeply confused about freedom is greatly increased through science. That is to cause deep identity-crises for people.

When Gene obliges that as far as he is concerned people can have any "spiritual fetish" they want, and then at the same time outright dismisses theory in terms of freedom to explain things, where the agency is left a subjective issue, is disengenious. "spiritual fetish" is a very mildly insulting term. But there is very widespread intellectual thuggery to systematically insult all acceptance of subjectivity.

[Teh]

Both, but mainly the majority of intellectuals, scientists, many posters on these forums.

Consider the current situation, where for example if you go to wiki to find out how free will works, that there is virtually no practical knowledge there. Yet in daily life people often talk in terms of choosing. Is that really a normal situation?

It means there is still common, and religious, knowledge about freedom, but this knowledge is being surpressed by a happenstance conspiracy of like-minded intellectual thugs. Moreover this common and religious knowledge about freedom is not unshakeable. The credibility of it can be diminished, as well as the logic used with the words can vary (use the word choose to describe a situation where the result is forced). So as to say that the chance of an individual in society to become genuinely deeply confused about freedom is greatly increased through science. That is to cause deep identity-crises for people.

When Gene obliges that as far as he is concerned people can have any "spiritual fetish" they want, and then at the same time outright dismisses theory in terms of freedom to explain things, where the agency is left a subjective issue, is disengenious. "spiritual fetish" is a very mildly insulting term. But there is very widespread intellectual thuggery to systematically insult all acceptance of subjectivity.

Why don't you investigate Conway - Kochen "Free Will Theorem"?