Spiritualism vs. Materialism

[Nakosis]

What makes you think that information is not physical?

Ciao

- viole

Because the color pink doesn't really exist. It's not a physical reality. However the brain provides the experience of seeing pink. It somehow creates the information required from physical data for the consciousness to experience. Yet doesn't correlate to physical reality.

 

[Gambit]

Given that Bunyip and myself have come to heads on this exact same question, it should be clear that the nature of the distinctions are subtle.

If consciousness is immaterial, then materialism does not hold true. It's that simple.

 

[Gambit]

Yea, my spirituality led me to type words on this Ipad.

Do you think that my words are ultimately moved by my spirituality, whatever that means?

You do, because you just argued that your "spirituality led [you] to type words on [your] Ipad."

 

[Nakosis]

Not just the supernatural but also belief that consciousness is primary puts on in the 'Spiritualism' umbrella of the OP. 'Materialists' believe consciousness is an emergent property of physical matter.

Yes, I saw that later. Spiritualism is fairly broad. Materialism is very narrow, like I think you told me.

I think I assumed materialism had to allow for the subjective experience of qualia. Seems silly not to, yet I'm not finding where this is explained.

Even allowing for concepts and thoughts, this doesn't explain consciousness.

 

[viole]

You do, because you just argued that your "spirituality led [you] to type words on [your] Ipad."

I did not argue. i was sarcastic. Can spiritulity be sarcastic?

Maybe it is time you define what you mean with spiritulity, so that we can avoid further confusion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

Potential state?

If you observe a superposition of states, like in the double slit experiment, would you say that this superposition is potential?

No, because observation collapses the wave function.

What do you mean? It has the potential of being a superposition of states?

A superposition is a state of potentiality. Upon observation, it (one of the possibilities) becomes actualized.

 

[Nakosis]

Yea, my spirituality led me to type words on this Ipad.

Do you think that my words are ultimately moved by my spirituality, whatever that means?

Ciao

- viole

Words ultimately originated in your consciousness to be received by another consciousness. The transfer of information was through physical means.

So how does materialism explain the conscious part of the process?

 

[viole]

No, because observation collapses the wave function.



A superposition is a state of potentiality. Upon observation, it (one of the possibilities) becomes actualized.

And how do you know?

It could be that the two observers ( one for each outcome) are now in a superposition of states.

I assume you are not confident with all interpretationsof QM. Isn't that so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

I did not argue. i was sarcastic. Can spiritulity be sarcastic?

I don't have time for your sarcastic comments. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Maybe it is time you define what you mean with spiritulity, so that we can avoid further confusion.

I have already defined spiritualism in the OP. Besides, we were discussing a side issue. You previously argue that only the physical exists because the physical influences the mental. I counter that argument by bringing to your attention that the mental also influences the physical (e.g. when I decide to raise my arm, it rises. Imagine that!). So, unless you have something more than a sarcastic comment to divert attention away from this fact, I will assume you are conceding the point.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think I assumed materialism had to allow for the subjective experience of qualia. Seems silly not to, yet I'm not finding where this is explained.

At least within the literature I've read materialism is associated with eliminativism about qualia. See the work of someone like Dennett as an example (Quining Qualia is a good read). Philosophers who consider the hard problem of consciousness to be real are typically naturalists but not materialists. They are either panpsychists (a form of idealism) or property dualists, typically.

 

[Gambit]

I assume you are not confident with all interpretationsof QM. Isn't that so?

The term "familiar" is more appropriate here than the term "confident." Your assumption is wrong. I am familiar with all the interpretations. But more to the point, I am familiar with the many-worlds interpretation - an interpretation that has a couple of unresolved problems.

There is an unresolved problem with many-worlds: What constitutes an observation? When does the world split? (source: pg. 162, "The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner)

 

[lovemuffin]

I'm not sure it's right to see the "split" as a real event. It's possible to model the MW interpretation by treating the enormous phase space of QM as being real. Time-like histories are paths in the phase space, and the "split" simply represents the point at which two paths diverge.

Beyond that, the problem of "observation" is not specific to MW anyway, and there are definitions where "observation" doesn't require anything like a sentient observer, just a particular kind of physical interaction.

 

[Nakosis]

The common materialist explanation for consciousness.

"None is needed, because in truth and fact, the way the brain works in generating “multiple drafts” and producing a final outcome (as a thought) renders any “pilot” redundant. In these type of theories, Dennett’s and mine (at the quantum level) we see that the “soul-pilot” emerges as an illusion. Our own brain has been complicit in this in creating the illusion there is someone or something behind the eyes, and pulling the strings. There isn’t."
Brane Space: Materialism is NOT "self-refuting"!

Basically saying consciousness does not exist. Consciousness is an illusion yet not really proving the illusion. Just a theory? unsubstantiated?

I have to accept the existence of consciousness until the illusion is proven and can be duplicated.

 

[Nakosis]

At least within the literature I've read materialism is associated with eliminativism about qualia. See the work of someone like Dennett as an example (Quining Qualia is a good read). Philosophers who consider the hard problem of consciousness to be real are typically naturalists but not materialists. They are either panpsychists (a form of idealism) or property dualists, typically.

Since it can't be explained, argue there is nothing to explain?

 

[viole]

I don't have time for your sarcastic comments. Say what you mean and mean what you say.



I have already defined spiritualism in the OP. Besides, we were discussing a side issue. You previously argue that only the physical exists because the physical influences the mental. I counter that argument by bringing to your attention that the mental also influences the physical (e.g. when I decide to raise my arm, it rises. Imagine that!). So, unless you have something more than a sarcastic comment to divert attention away from this fact, I will assume you are conceding the point.

A rope running though a pulley and weighted by a mass, can also pull my arm.

Is the rope spiritual?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Words ultimately originated in your consciousness to be received by another consciousness. The transfer of information was through physical means.

So how does materialism explain the conscious part of the process?

How? No idea, we have no clue about consciousness.

What I know is that this process of transfer between consciousness required some joules of energy to be carried out. Every thought that goes inside your head burns energy (try to be spiritual or in love without eating).

Does the spiritual require watts of power in order to be instantiated?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

I'm not sure it's right to see the "split" as a real event. It's possible to model the MW interpretation by treating the enormous phase space of QM as being real. Time-like histories are paths in the phase space, and the "split" simply represents the point at which two paths diverge.

This interpretation appears to dispense with all causality. And if we dispense with all causality, then all we are left with are correlations and observation with no causal explanation. Therefore, anyone who adopts such a view cannot argue that brain states cause mental states because he or she has dispensed with causality.

 

[Gambit]

A rope running though a pulley and weighted by a mass, can also pull my arm.

Is the rope spiritual?

What kind of stupidity is this? Do you not believe you have the capacity to perform voluntary acts?

 

[lovemuffin]

This interpretation appears to dispense with all causality. And if we dispense with all causality, then all we are left with are correlations and observation with no causal explanation. Therefore, anyone who adopts such a view cannot argue that brain states cause mental states because he or she has dispensed with causality.

we're approaching territory in which I have even less idea than usual what I'm talking about but as far as I know, that's not really correct, at least according to how causality is defined physically. It's already the case that mechanical laws (quantum or classical) are time-symmetric, and the reference to "future" and "past" isn't really inherent in the models, but how we use them. The same use can apply to interpreting paths in phase space.

 

[viole]

What kind of stupidity is this?

I am serious.

What makes you think that the chain of events that led your muscles to be flexed in order to raise your hand is fundamentally different than a rope pulled by a weight? Just because you are conscious and the rope isn't?

That would beg the question that conscious processes are not reduceable to the laws of physics, like the rest. And since consciousness can be affected by the physical, as we have already seen, I think that that there are good reasons to believe that our intentions have the same ontological state as that little rope.

Ciao

- viole