Things you don't like about Materialism

[Koldo]

For you (because it is your thread) and for those who are not constrained by their allegiance to any philosophy.

I would just like to add that what Kaku means by 'consciousness' involves even thermostats.

 

[atanu]

I would just like to add that what Kaku means by 'consciousness' involves even thermostats.

Why not? Thermostats contain elements of human intelligent embedded. They did not naturally evolve.

And then when Kaku talks of consciousness of thermostat he does so in order to devise a quantitative scale for measuring consciousness. Self consciousness gets the highest point. And as shown in the video he does not negate a seer-consciousness bringing up the manifest universe.

I do not claim that he is correct or the other party is correct. It is about keeping the mind open.

 

[Koldo]

Why not? Thermostats contain elements human intelligent. They did not naturally evolve.

I am just explaining that what he means by 'consciousness' is not what one would generally understand by the term.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why not? Thermostats contain elements of human intelligent embedded. They did not naturally evolve.

And then when Kaku talks of consciousness of thermostat he does so in order to devise a quantitative scale for measuring consciousness. Self consciousness gets the highest point. And as shown in the video he does not negate a seer-consciousness bringing up the manifest universe.

I do not claim that he is correct or the other party is correct. It is about keeping the mind open.

It also has to be accepted that Kaku uses language very metaphorically and poetically. I really doubt he thinks there is a literal cosmic symphony though he uses such terms to describe the laws of nature. It's safe to say he's far more "animated" in his communications than Sagan and Tyson and even Bill Nye all combined could ever hope to be.

 

[Polymath257]

Why not? Thermostats contain elements of human intelligent embedded. They did not naturally evolve.

No, thermostats are physical devices. We humans assembled them, but there is no reason to think they have anything like consciousness.

And then when Kaku talks of consciousness of thermostat he does so in order to devise a quantitative scale for measuring consciousness. Self consciousness gets the highest point. And as shown in the video he does not negate a seer-consciousness bringing up the manifest universe.

I do not claim that he is correct or the other party is correct. It is about keeping the mind open.

All I can say is that if a thermostat can be said to be conscious, then we need another word for what humans are.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All I can say is that if a thermostat can be said to be conscious, then we need another word for what humans are.

Even from a human psychological perspective, I think we need another word. Such as, for moments when we may have no conscious awareness of what is going on, but yet are capable of responding--appropriately so--to stimuli we receive. Such as, someone who has blacked out, from their perspective they may be unconscious, but to those around them, they are displaying signs of consciousness.
Sort of like when we ask "what really is dead, what defines it, when does it happen?"

 

[Polymath257]

Even from a human psychological perspective, I think we need another word. Such as, for moments when we may have no conscious awareness of what is going on, but yet are capable of responding--appropriately so--to stimuli we receive. Such as, someone who has blacked out, from their perspective they may be unconscious, but to those around them, they are displaying signs of consciousness.
Sort of like when we ask "what really is dead, what defines it, when does it happen?"

I also think of situations like 'conscious sedation' where commands can be followed but there is no memory after.

 

[atanu]

It also has to be accepted that Kaku uses language very metaphorically and poetically. I really doubt he thinks there is a literal cosmic symphony though he uses such terms to describe the laws of nature. It's safe to say he's far more "animated" in his communications than Sagan and Tyson and even Bill Nye all combined could ever hope to be.

Yeah. I posted Kaku’s video as an example to show that Philosophical materialistic claims regarding QM is only one side.

Probably no quantum physicist ascribes to the idea of a personal God. But many do ascribe to Relational Quantum Mechanics, which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer dependent.

 

[Jumi]

That is the problem. The physical structure of the brain is intact. Why is it not acting anymore? Does it mean there is something more than just the physical that puts the machinery in motion. A switch or something?

Just visualise a dead person. Why the dead person cannot proclaim “I am”, if consciousness is only a property of physical structure of brain?

There are many physical switches for the brain. Just having one off and it doesn't matter if the structure is otherwise intact and where a patient can potentially be revived again with minor or no damage.

There are also mental switches where activity can be minimized...

 

[atanu]

All I can say is that if a thermostat can be said to be conscious, then we need another word for what humans are.

Self conscious.

 

[Jumi]

Probably no quantum physicist ascribes to the idea of a personal God. But many do ascribe to Relational Quantum Mechanics, which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer dependent.

I'm not that deep into QM, but generally speaking I've thought the observation of small particles is dependent on the method used to observe them. If you're going to give the system outside energy, obviously it will change it's behavior somewhat.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It doesn't bother me anymore. It used to when I was trying to be religious but since I've lost faith, it's fine. I voted positive.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That is still not evidence for consciousness being produced by the brain. It is evidence for consciousness no longer able to be processed by the brain.

If information/consciousness are in biophotons or virtual particles for instance, and the brain is the central processing unit, that takes the information that the energy/light/biophotons/virtual particles puts into it and provides it as understandable activity on the physical plane....the information/consciousness would exist in energy/light, not the brain.

Damage the brain, and yes the brain no longer processes what the energy/light puts into it.
Doesn't mean that the energy/light is destroyed. Doesn't mean that information in energy/light is destroyed.
It is possible to transfer the properties of one quantum particle such as a photon to another even if the two are at a far distance. Photons or light particles teleport to another location when their properties are disturbed.

Of COURSE it's evidence that consciousness requires a brain to exist. Perhaps not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but verifiable evidence all the same. Add to that the fact that there is ZERO evidence of consciousness EVER existing WITHOUT a brain, and the evidence becomes all the stronger.

Certainly it is POSSIBLE that consciousness can exist without a physical brain, but but to suggest that it DOES without any evidence to back up the claim is ridiculous. It's POSSIBLE that all of reality is just a dream that I'm having and you don't even exist. But I'd be pretty stupid to suggest that all of reality IS just a dream I'm having, since I have absolutely no evidence that it's actually so.

 

[Nous]

Consciousness is a process in the brain.

What parts of the brain? Describe that "process" by which conscious experience and free will are produced. Be sure to cite the findings by which to deduce your claims.

It is eliminated when the brain stops functioning.

How did you deduce that? See:
Do reports of consciousness during cardiac arrest hold the key to discovering the nature of consciousness?

And there is zero evidence of any sort of 'broadcast' in spite of those who dearly wish there was.

Cite the studies you are referring to.

 

[Polymath257]

What parts of the brain? Describe that "process" by which conscious experience and free will are produced. Be sure to cite the findings by which to deduce your claims.

Well, one problem is that you seem to think that consciousness is a singular process. In fact, it is controlled in various ways by many different parts of the brain: planning in the frontal lobe. Awareness in the brain stem. Certain coordination activities in the associative areas.

How did you deduce that? See:
Do reports of consciousness during cardiac arrest hold the key to discovering the nature of consciousness?

http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Parnia/Parnia-Medical hypotheses_2007-69-933-937.pdf

Since we know that the brain will 'fill in' gaps in various ways (for example, the visual blind spot), this is hardly as convincing as it might seem initially to someone unaware of how brains function.

Cite the studies you are referring to.

Numerous studies going back to the introduction of high-speed bullets. You are grasping at straws.

BTW, do you agree on the word 'physicalism' for my stance about everything reducing to the properties of quantum particles?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Thank you for your detailed response.

So, what do we say about origin of life and consciousness? It seems that brain itself does not control the neuronal mechanism and is not able to assert “I will live”. It seems that some unknown process actually makes it work or makes it stop.

"It seems that brain itself does not control the neuronal mechanism and is not able to assert “I will live”."

What are you basing that claim on? Just because a dying brain can't assert 'I will live' when it's being deprived of the oxygen it requires to function does not in any way suggest that the brain doesn't control neural functions.

That's like saying that the driver of a car doesn't control the vehicle, because when the driver is sudden'y paralyzed by a stroke the driven is no longer able to control the car.

 

[Mister Emu]

Do you have any specific issues or criticism of materialism you'd like to have addressed?

The biggest self-contained issue, that is other than that I find it miserable in regards to its relationship with reality, I have with materialism is its inability to provision, or rather its rejection of, morality.

Consciousness is a physico-chemical process in the brain.

That is a statement of belief about what will be discovered, not what has been. There is no single brain process, nor a group of processes we can definitively say creates consciousness, no material mechanism determined by which consciousness can be produced.

ALL evidence supports that conclusion. NONE suggests there is a 'broadcast' of any sort involved.

Not meeting your standard for acceptance is not the same as not existing.

 

[Profound Realization]

Of COURSE it's evidence that consciousness requires a brain to exist. Perhaps not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but verifiable evidence all the same. Add to that the fact that there is ZERO evidence of consciousness EVER existing WITHOUT a brain, and the evidence becomes all the stronger.

Certainly it is POSSIBLE that consciousness can exist without a physical brain, but but to suggest that it DOES without any evidence to back up the claim is ridiculous. It's POSSIBLE that all of reality is just a dream that I'm having and you don't even exist. But I'd be pretty stupid to suggest that all of reality IS just a dream I'm having, since I have absolutely no evidence that it's actually so.

There is no evidence that matter produces/creates consciousness.

Under your own philosophy, it would be ridiculous and stupid to suggest that it does.
I personally don't consider anyone ridiculous or stupid for presenting philosophical ideas. . are you alive and free to do so?

There is evidence that the brain processes consciousness, that they are interconnected...but not produces/creates consciousness.

Information: such as memory, logic, data, knowledge/intelligence/instruction.... in your opinion does it make more sense that these exist in the brain or that they exist in vibrations of energy/light?

So, when the brain is destroyed, in your opinion.... is energy and information destroyed with it?

 

[QuestioningMind]

There is no evidence that matter produces/creates consciousness.

Under your own philosophy, it would be ridiculous and stupid to suggest that it does.
I personally don't consider anyone ridiculous or stupid for presenting philosophical ideas. . are you alive and free to do so?

There is evidence that the brain processes consciousness, that they are interconnected...but not produces/creates consciousness.

Information: such as memory, logic, data, knowledge/intelligence/instruction.... in your opinion does it make more sense that these exist in the brain or that they exist in vibrations of energy/light?

So, when the brain is destroyed, in your opinion.... is energy and information destroyed with it?

"There is no evidence that matter produces/creates consciousness. "

Simply repeating that there is no evidence doesn't make it so. The very fact that if you damage a physical brain you can affect the consciousness that brain produces is EVIDENCE that it is the physical brain which is producing the consciousness.

"Information: such as memory, logic, data, knowledge/intelligence/instruction.... in your opinion does it make more sense that these exist in the brain or that they exist in vibrations of energy/light?"

It makes far more sense that they exist as a product of the brain, because there has never been an example of logic, memories, data, knowledge/intelligence, existing WITHOUT a physical brain. PLEASE do show me an example of these attributes existing as 'vibrations of energy/light' WITHOUT a physical brain. If you can't, why would you possibly keep suggesting that it's true?

 

[Profound Realization]

Materialism is defined as:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.In contrast to idealism, materialism concedes the primacy of material, not consciousness. Which means, material exists before consciousness, material creates and determines consciousness, not vice versa. Materialists believe that material is the ultimate origin of the existing world, and they aim to explain the world via materialistic reasons. (Materialism | Wikiwand)

There is an association between materialism as the obsessive and destructive desire for material possessions and earthly goods at the expense of the divine such as wealth, power, fame, etc. Its also closely associated with atheism, nihilism, communism, evolution, social Darwinism, etc and therefore treated negatively by many religious adherents for being in direct opposition and a threat to their beliefs. Secular critics often describe materialism as a faith, a dogma, a religion, or an excessive faith in scientific materialism (aka. "scientism").

Speaking as someone with strong materialist sympathies, I'm curious to better understand why it is so common for people on RF to dislike materialism and what I could do that would help improve its reputation. Do you have any specific issues or criticism of materialism you'd like to have addressed?

(Edit: Its not the whole story but I voted "positive" in the Poll).

I can easily deduce materialism to be false.

What is matter? Anything that has mass and volume. Light, sound, and other energy phenomena's are not matter.

I am also confident that a photon to photon collision would convert light directly into matter. Non-matter giving birth to matter rather than matter giving birth to non-matter. I'm also confident that if all matter were destroyed and deduced, all that would be left is light/energy. (When antimatter and matter annihilate.)

So, non-matter such as light/phenomena's of energy is the fundamental substance in all of Nature, and not a substance as in matter.

"There is no evidence that matter produces/creates consciousness. "

Simply repeating that there is no evidence doesn't make it so. The very fact that if you damage a physical brain you can affect the consciousness that brain produces is EVIDENCE that it is the physical brain which is producing the consciousness.

"Information: such as memory, logic, data, knowledge/intelligence/instruction.... in your opinion does it make more sense that these exist in the brain or that they exist in vibrations of energy/light?"

It makes far more sense that they exist as a product of the brain, because there has never been an example of logic, memories, data, knowledge/intelligence, existing WITHOUT a physical brain. PLEASE do show me an example of these attributes existing as 'vibrations of energy/light' WITHOUT a physical brain. If you can't, why would you possibly keep suggesting that it's true?

You seem to be mixing the two up.

You give evidence that when a brain is damaged, it is no longer able to PROCESS consciousness and yet present it as if the brain PRODUCES consciousness to begin with. A large, misleading difference.

If it makes sense to you, how do you make sense that everyone has the same exact brain yet everyone with a brain are all completely different, housing vastly different memories, intelligence, experiences, beliefs, awareness levels, logic, knowledge, instruction?

So, you're suggesting that energy and information are and can be destroyed?