Things you don't like about Materialism

[QuestioningMind]

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.



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?

"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."

STILL waiting for you to provide an example of consciousness existing WITHOUT a physical brain. I keep agreeing that it's POSSIBLE, but without any evidence, it's silly to accept it as being true.

"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?"

Everyone has the EXACT SAME BRAIN???? NO THEY DON'T! Everyone possesses their OWN unique brain, with it's own unique history. Every person has their own unique experiences, thus creating its own unique memories. Since every person's brain isn't exposed to the exact same knowledge, it's OBVIOUS that all brains won't possess the same knowledge. ***EDIT***

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

Never said that energy could be destroyed. But OF COURSE information can be. Your computer uses electrons to store information. But if you you drop your computer into a bathtub filled with water, all of that information will be destroyed.

But honestly, before this goes on any longer, how about providing your EVIDENCE that consciousness CAN exist WITHOUT a brain? For some reason you seem to avoid addressing that point as if it were the plague.

 

[Profound Realization]

"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."

STILL waiting for you to provide an example of consciousness existing WITHOUT a physical brain. I keep agreeing that it's POSSIBLE, but without any evidence, it's silly to accept it as being true.

"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?"

Everyone has the EXACT SAME BRAIN???? NO THEY DON'T! Everyone possesses their OWN unique brain, with it's own unique history. Every person has their own unique experiences, thus creating its own unique memories. Since every person's brain isn't exposed to the exact same knowledge, it's OBVIOUS that all brains won't possess the same knowledge. You REALLY need to rethink this moronic line of reasoning.

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

Never said that energy could be destroyed. But OF COURSE information can be. Your computer uses electrons to store information. But if you you drop your computer into a bathtub filled with water, all of that information will be destroyed.

But honestly, before this goes on any longer, how about providing your EVIDENCE that consciousness CAN exist WITHOUT a brain? For some reason you seem to avoid addressing that point as if it were the plague.

I'm not exactly sure why you're asking. I never claimed otherwise. Ever consider that that is the reason why I'm avoiding something I never even claimed in the first place?

Now, on the other hand... if you're claiming that the brain creates/produces consciousness... it would on you to provide your evidence. ***STAFF EDIT*** The brain being damaged is evidence for the brain not being able to process consciousness, not create/produce consciousness. Do you understand the difference?

We both can agree that consciousness and the brain interact and are interconnected.

Regarding the unique experiences and such, thanks for indirectly and unconsciously proving my point . You're still having conflict discerning the difference between similar material anatomy and differing consciousness. "Moronic" line of reasoning, a judgement from you upon something evidently too deep for your current awareness.
Now, since its "moronic" to you...perhaps you can provide evidence that since human beings have similar anatomy in brain structuring, that it's the material brain itself that creates/produces experience, awareness, memory, intelligence, knowledge rather than processes those. Wouldn't it be unique history and external environment then that creates/produces these rather than the brain itself according to what you said? Is it the brain creating/producing its history and environment or the brain processing history and environment?

What parallels do you consider between a CPU and a human being and/or it's brain when it comes to information and/or consciousness?

 

[atanu]

"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.

So, you now mean that oxygen is controller of brain that is controller of consciousness? Tell us on what all things consciousness depends?

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.

Have't you got it reverse?

Surely, breath is controller-driver of the body-brain. But where is the control of the breath?

 

[atanu]

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

That is an important point. The so called neural correlates are all based on first party descriptions of people. This does not indicate causality and more importantly, people who describe their states can only describe what they experience within their limited mental-sensual realm. We know nothing of the subconscious and how that accumulates yet we assume that consciousness is only the manifest thoughts.

Then, inexplicably, some (too eager?) neurobiologists turn the table, and start claiming that the mental states described by people are caused by the correlating neural states. It is like a scientist a finding a positive correlation between rainfall and whiskey consumption, and then theorising that whiskey consumption causes rainfall. (Well that may be true).

 

[atanu]

What is your evidence for this assertion?

It was not meant as an assertion and I am sorry it appears that way. It is an observation of the present.

I don't know whether I will be able to satisfy you, since some of us are fixed into the paradigm that the third party measurements on manifest objects can only provide evidence. But I will try to record my justification as best as I can.

Consciousness gives rise to seer and knower. Thoughts come next as predictions of past and future. When consciousness in the present, is at the base of all our seeing, knowing and theorising, why do we need a third party observation of consciousness? And is it possible? Who will see the seer?

Now, if we consider the present, we find that Existence-Consciousness is a pair. One without the other will not be meaningful.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

I think you are wrong about colliding photons giving rise to matter, but I'll have to think about that one more. If it happens, it is a non-linear effect and so is a very rare occurrence.

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.

OK, so the definition of matter is too limited. Let's extend it to 'physical'. Then light is definitely physical: it obeys physical laws that are pretty well understood. Let's face it, no modern materialist denies the existence of photons. But photons are particles that carry energy, spin, momentum, etc. They are physical things.

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.

On the contrary, we can point, in many cases, to specific areas of the brain that do the various aspects of consciousness: memory, for example, planning for another. There is NO evidence that the brain is processing something 'else' as opposed to simply processing the sensory data and its own internal state.

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?[/QUOTE]

Why in the world do you think people all have the exact same physical brain???? That is so demonstrably false it is laughable. Even at the macroscopic level, there are many individual differences: differences in amount of growth of different areas, etc. At the microscopic level, there are huge differences between individuals in the connections between neurons (which are made and destroyed based on experience). There are also great chemical differences between people: for example, some sorts of depression are linked to low levels of serotonin in some areas of the brain.

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

Energy can be transformed, but consciousness is NOT a form of energy (in the technical, physics sense). When we die, our energy becomes heat (for the most part).

And yes, information can be destroyed. It is, in fact, a common thing: erase a hard drive and you have destroyed information. Measure a quantum particle and you have created it.

 

[Grandliseur]

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

Despite one previous answer, I do have one gripe.

Materialists do not seem to stick to their guns, to their belief system. In the philosophy of materialism, I reject consciousness, I reject the notion of life. All things boil down to the mechanics of chemical reactions, mechanical interactions, electromagnetic impulses, and computational things that only mimic life or consciousness. There is nothing higher than the interactions already mentioned.

This is why scientists still try to create life in laboratories because that is the guiding principle in materialism - namely, that life is not life but simple processes that come about naturally when conditions are perfect for it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm not exactly sure why you're asking. I never claimed otherwise. Ever consider that that is the reason why I'm avoiding something I never even claimed in the first place?

Now, on the other hand... if you're claiming that the brain creates/produces consciousness... it would on you to provide your evidence. Why you are avoiding this plague and lying about another as your response is the plague. The brain being damaged is evidence for the brain not being able to process consciousness, not create/produce consciousness. Do you understand the difference?

We both can agree that consciousness and the brain interact and are interconnected.

Regarding the unique experiences and such, thanks for indirectly and unconsciously proving my point . You're still having conflict discerning the difference between similar material anatomy and differing consciousness. "Moronic" line of reasoning, a judgement from you upon something evidently too deep for your current awareness.
Now, since its "moronic" to you...perhaps you can provide evidence that since human beings have similar anatomy in brain structuring, that it's the material brain itself that creates/produces experience, awareness, memory, intelligence, knowledge rather than processes those. Wouldn't it be unique history and external environment then that creates/produces these rather than the brain itself according to what you said? Is it the brain creating/producing its history and environment or the brain processing history and environment?

What parallels do you consider between a CPU and a human being and/or it's brain when it comes to information and/or consciousness?

"Now, on the other hand... if you're claiming that the brain creates/produces consciousness... it would on you to provide your evidence. "

And I HAVE provided such evidence. Not in-controversial evidence, but evidence none the less. The fact that you're unable to provide ANY evidence certainly suggests that there's greater reason to believe that a physical brain IS required for consciousness that to believe that consciousness can exist WITHOUT a brain. Again, your claim is POSSIBLE... but to suggest that it's TRUE without any actual evidence is silly and moronic.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, you now mean that oxygen is controller of brain that is controller of consciousness? Tell us on what all things consciousness depends?



Have't you got it reverse?

Surely, breath is controller-driver of the body-brain. But where is the control of the breath?

"So, you now mean that oxygen is controller of brain that is controller of consciousness? Tell us on what all things consciousness depends?"

No. I never said that oxygen is the CONTROLLER of the brain. Why would you make such an ignorant statement? Oxygen is simply required for the brain to continue functioning. And all of the evidence we have thus far suggests that a functioning brain is REQUIRED to produce consciousness.

"Surely, breath is controller-driver of the body-brain. But where is the control of the breath?"

Again, no, breathe is NOT the 'controller' of the body-brain. Oxygen, as well as other nutrients are required for the body to FUNCTION, but it's the brain that appears to control the body. Your lungs function automatically due to signals being sent by the brain, so again, it's the brain that controls your breathing. .

 

[Nous]

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.

Cite all of the evidence you know of that shows how neurons, electrical activity or any "parts of the brain" produce conscious experience and volitional behavior.

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.

Obviously your claims here do not refute the findings of the studies cited by Parnia such as those of the studies of cardiac arrest survivors who "demonstrated that paradoxically human mind and consciousness may continue to function during cardiac arrest"--and, not just during clinical death, but immediately after, when the brain still wasn't functioning in any way that should allow a person to process sensory signals and form memories.

Numerous studies going back to the introduction of high-speed bullets.

Prove it.

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

Define "physical".

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think materialism can be dangerous when it is the only driving ideology of a society. It is endless distractions that pull people in and make it easier not to care about people and events. Even truth- because people thought a lot more about truth before materialism overtook modern society. What I mean is: they wanted to know what truth is. They investigated it and thought about it seriously.

 

[Nous]

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.

Exactly like the very fact that if you damage a TV set you can affect the picture s is EVIDENCE that it is the physical TV set which is producing the TV show.

What do you think the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc refers to.

 

[Polymath257]

Cite all of the evidence you know of that shows how neurons, electrical activity or any "parts of the brain" produce conscious experience and volitional behavior.

ALL of it? Sorry, but I cannot post a full textbook on neurology.

Obviously your claims here do not refute the findings of the studies cited by Parnia such as those of the studies of cardiac arrest survivors who "demonstrated that paradoxically human mind and consciousness may continue to function during cardiac arrest"--and, not just during clinical death, but immediately after, when the brain still wasn't functioning in any way that should allow a person to process sensory signals and form memories.

Prove it.

Why? It is an explanation that agrees with all the evidence and doesn't have the difficulty of non-measurable phenomena.

Define "physical".

Anything made from or a property of quantum particles or collections of the same.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Oops I made a comment about consumerism mistakenly, not necessarily materialism

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly like the very fact that if you damage a TV set you can affect the picture s is EVIDENCE that it is the physical TV set which is producing the TV show.

What do you think the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc refers to.

The difference is, of course, that we can measure radio waves in other ways that do not involve TVs. Do you have any evidence of consciousness without brains?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Okay, I'll try to do it right this time. Materialism doesn't account for a lot of things. I'm sorry that isn't more precise, but it's a long list. Materialism doesn't deal in feelings or ethics very well.

 

[Nous]

ALL of it? Sorry, but I cannot post a full textbook on neurology.

Cite 3 studies that show how neurons, electrical activity or any "parts of the brain" produce conscious experience and volitional behavior.

Why? It is an explanation that agrees with all the evidence [/quote} You don't understand why it's important to cite evidence rather than just make claims that aren't supported by evidence?

Again, I am just asking for the evidence by which to deduce your claims. Your claims do not refute the findings of the studies cited by Parnia such as those of the studies of cardiac arrest survivors who "demonstrated that paradoxically human mind and consciousness may continue to function during cardiac arrest".

 

[Nous]

The difference is, of course, that we can measure radio waves in other ways that do not involve TVs.

That's a detail that doesn't change the fact that the claim is an example of the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Do you have any evidence of consciousness without brains?

The studies that Parnia refers to demonstrate that during (or immediately after) clinical death people had complex, logical experiences, memory formation and even veridical perceptions that were not obtained through their senses. Parnia's AWARE study is one.

 

[Polymath257]

Cite 3 studies that show how neurons, electrical activity or any "parts of the brain" produce conscious experience and volitional behavior.

A few from the last year or so:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170727141804.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170922094036.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412160346.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161031113128.htm

I can find many more if you wish.

Now your turn: cite 3 studies that suggest otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

That's a detail that doesn't change the fact that the claim is an example of the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

On the contrary, if there is no transmission, it is the brain that is producing the consciousness.

The studies that Parnia refers to demonstrate that during (or immediately after) clinical death people had complex, logical experiences, memory formation and even veridical perceptions that were not obtained through their senses. Parnia's AWARE study is one.

And the conclusions are, at the very least, problematic with most scientists finding physical explanations to be more plausible.