Things you don't like about Materialism

[Darkstorn]

Cut out personal attacks and we may discuss.

It was a description of your argument, not your person. It cannot be considered a personal attack.

I also think your claim is foolish, for the same reasons he explained. I also find your argument weak and your conduct evasive and confused.

 

[1137]

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).

My sole issue with materialism is that it's dogmatically ingrained in us yet not even a well supported or logically plausible position.

 

[atanu]

It was a description of your argument, not your person. It cannot be considered a personal attack.

I also think your claim is foolish, for the same reasons he explained. I also find your argument weak and your conduct evasive and confused.

Okay. I differ. I would not say that you or your argument is foolish. But I am definitely asserting that your understanding is not based on deep contemplation.

Most people who believe that intelligence is created of interaction of inert materials, however are very sure that those inert processes allowed their intellect to be superior. Is there a formula to prove that? Do we know the mechanism of creation of self awareness?

Assuming, for argument sake, that your consciousness is created ( by whatever process), how do you know that process designed you for knowing the truth?
.......

The point is that nothing gives up its fundamental nature-property. If consciousness is the fundamental property of Brain then it would not give it up. You may beat gold out of shape but it remains gold.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. I differ. I would not say that you or your argument is foolish. But I am definitely asserting that your understanding is not based on deep contemplation.

Most people who believe that intelligence is created of interaction of inert materials, however are very sure that those inert processes allowed their intellect to be superior. Is there a formula to prove that? Do we know the mechanism of creation of self awareness?

Assuming, for argument sake, that your consciousness is created ( by whatever process), how do you know that process designed you for knowing the truth?

Oh, I am quite certain that it was not 'designed' for knowing the truth. It was designed to survive in certain environments. So, we are very inclined to attribute intention to objects when they have none. We are subject to many optical illusions as well as illusions of the other senses. Most people actually find logical reasoning to be quite hard unless they have had some sort of formal training. We jump to conclusions, are subject to illusions, are inclined towards confirmation biases, and are inclined to superstition.

No, we are definitely NOT 'designed' for knowing the truth.

But that doesn't mean we cannot figure out the truth, know our biases and weaknesses, and through thorough testing and observation eventually figure out where out intuitions go wrong and what is right.

It just means it can be hard to carry out this project.

 

[atanu]

Oh, I am quite certain that it was not 'designed' for knowing the truth. It was designed to survive in certain environments. So, we are very inclined to attribute intention to objects when they have none. We are subject to many optical illusions as well as illusions of the other senses. Most people actually find logical reasoning to be quite hard unless they have had some sort of formal training. We jump to conclusions, are subject to illusions, are inclined towards confirmation biases, and are inclined to superstition.

No, we are definitely NOT 'designed' for knowing the truth.

But that doesn't mean we cannot figure out the truth, know our biases and weaknesses, and through thorough testing and observation eventually figure out where out intuitions go wrong and what is right.

It just means it can be hard to carry out this project.

I know that evolution did not design us for discerning the truth. If our consciousness is a product of evolution (for which we have only speculation) then probably we do not have minds for thinking, we only have minds that happen to think.

Further, I do not know whether created intelligence can unravel its source or not. It is not ever seen that characters in a novel come to discern the mechanisms and motives eof the writer.

But suppose the consciousness (the competence for discernement) is the fundamental nature of existence, then science and all our knowledge is valuable. In this case the observations that point to continual evolution is not contraindicated.

Just saying.

 

[Polymath257]

I know that evolution did not design us for discerning the truth. If our consciousness is a product of evolution (for which we have only speculation) then probably we do not have minds for thinking, we only have minds that happen to think.

Further, I do not know whether created intelligence can unravel its source or not. It is not ever seen that characters in a novel come to discern the mechanisms and motives eof the writer.

But suppose the consciousness (the competence for discernement) is the fundamental nature of existence, then science and all our knowledge is valuable. In this case the observations that point to continual evolution is not contraindicated.

Just saying.

And I understand the concept. Is there *any* evidence that ia how things actually are? As far as I can see, the answer is no. I don't see consciousness except from brains. Arguably, we might be able to create artificial ones with silicon. But I see no reason to think that consciousness sis somehow fundamental to the structure of the universe as opposed to being a fluke of beings with complex brains.

 

[Nous]

Therefore?

Therefore your claim that something in that blurb explains the occurrence of organized, complex experiences, formation of memories, and veridical perceptions not acquired through the sensory pathways during clinical death (or immediately afterward) when the brain is not functioning is false.

 

[sayak83]

Therefore your claim that something in that blurb explains the occurrence of organized, complex experiences, formation of memories, and veridical perceptions not acquired through the sensory pathways during clinical death (or immediately afterward) when the brain is not functioning is false.

What has been shown is that the brain continues to function, and even increases in activity for a brief period after the heart stops. Therefore, a study of veridical NDE will only be believable if it can be shown using scanners that the brain was inactive during the time of the purported experience. The one single experience in the Parnia's paper had no such checks and neither were the sounds allegedly heard properly timed. Thus it's a worthless piece of data.

 

[Nous]

What has been shown is that the brain continues to function, and even increases in activity for a brief period after the heart stops. Therefore, a study of veridical NDE will only be believable if it can be shown using scanners that the brain was inactive during the time of the purported experience. The one single experience in the Parnia's paper had no such checks and neither were the sounds allegedly heard properly timed.

Once again. The blurb you linked to confirmed that there is detectable electrical activity in the brain for (what?) 20-30 seconds? No one disputes that, as far as I know. The patient's veridical perception in Parnia et al. occurred 2-3 minutes after his last shockable heartbeat. The AED does not instruct "Shock the patient!" until 2-3 minutes after the last shockable heartbeat. That is long after EEG activity has ended.

 

[serp777]

I reject materialism because according to the findings and theories of modern physics it simply isn't a true thesis. Bosons, which include photons, gluons and the force-carrying gauge bosons, are not objects that have mass and volume (matter), and, are certainly no less “fundamental” than objects that have mass and volume. Indeed, if anything, bosons would seem to be the more fundamental. Matter isn't even a conserved quantity. Energy and other fundamental quantities are. I cannot conceive how a conserved quantity would be less fundamental than a quantity that isn't conserved.

If everyone had your willingness, even eagerness, to see and understand things from "the other side," the world would be a much smarter place. I sometimes get irritated when speak of materialism in lossey-goosey ways (materialists are probably not the ones who are most guilty of this). But other metaphysical theses are spoken of imprecisely. Personally I think people should be sentenced to prison for using vague and inaccurate language. But other than that, I don't really have a solution.

The most rational definition of materialism would be that everything behaves according to physical laws--E.G. that there is no supernatural causation.

 

[atanu]

And my *guess* is that this consciousness is, in essence, a program operating in the brain that is running during wakefulness and in dreaming but not (as much) during the sleeping phase.

Well that is a guess, but it raises many unanswerable questions. I will pose only a few.

1. If our waking state intellect is just a program output, what is that intellect’s discerning competence?
2. Is there any program state that has self awareness?
3. What or who created the program of which your consciousness is a state?

Nice analogy, but I don't consider consciousness to be a substance with phases. I see it more as a program with different program states. In fact, there are distinct difference in our consciousness even during times of the day.

Neither do I.

Well, there is a scientific question here: does the sense of 'I' actually precede the intellect? I have to admit that I am skeptical. There are a great number of quite intelligent animals that don't appear to have a specific sense of self-identity. In fact, since only fairly advanced brains seem to show this, I might suggest that a sense of self is a fairly late development in the course of life and is probably less well grounded in our behavior than many might like to think.

Sense of identity drives all our thoughts and actions. A man, a dog, a cat all follow their identities. A joey right after birth instinctively travels over mother kangaroo’s belly, gets into the pouch and latches onto the nipple. This act is not in the scope of conscious intellect, but actions occur in accordance with identity.

Mental storing genetic information?? You might want to re-phrase that one.

This was answered separately.

But I get what you are asking: what is it that distinguishes 'me' from 'you' in our brain states? At this point I do not know. I do know that people have very different *patterns* of brain 'usage' which depend on a great many factors. Again, I see consciousness as related to the *pattern* of brain functioning (the running of the program) and not the differences in the substrate (the specific CPU).

That I think is an honest and mature answer.

This I can answer with a definitive yes. There are *huge* differences in how the brain functions in these three cases. And differences between these and those in a coma, or in 'conscious sedation', or under anesthetics, etc.
…
Well, certainly we can detect differences in the brains of people in these different states. I'm not sure what you mean by 'capture the reality' here. But yes, we can tell the differences in these states from brain scans.
...
But the brain scans *can* tell of this state. More so, they can say why the verbal areas of the brain are shut off (so why we cannot talk of this), etc.

Yes. Electrical signatures can convey correlative data of states - the manifestations, of the forms and probably we can use those for correlations in most cases to predict behaviour. But we cannot capture the first party subjective state. We cannot capture the huge amount of subjective information that are linked to the ‘Identity’ and its accumulated memories.

Correlates are only waking state records and do not represent subjective nature of consciousness, which have different forms in different states. Correlates cannot explain the ‘quailia’ of these states. Correlates do not represent the gross waking world, the subtle dream world, and the mindless-timeless deep sleep consciousness. All that we get is an external viewer’s waking state recording of electrical signals that do not translate to unified view of a subject.Correlates cannot represent or explain the identity consciousness. Correlates cannot represent the various memories (conscious and unconscious) that influence the behaviour and brain states.

Correlates cannot represent the paradigm changing non dual consciousness, which, can only be recorded from third party perspective, which is recorded of a dualistic world, when the meditator is experiencing the non-dual. What is signature of infinite “I”, which is devoid of all memory? One can record only a dualistic picture. It is imposition of an imaginary picture on nothingness.

Let me re-state this. Suppose a meditator is abiding in a non dual consciousness. There is no subject-object division in his consciousness. He is experiencing the memory free non dual mind, as it is. This experience, as per spiritualists, is paradigm changing. But the neuroscientist begins his recording in a waking state paradigm of subject-object division in a gross world. The first party non dual consciousness and the third party mesarement from dualistic consciousness state are different.

Further, the forms of consciousnesses in waking, dreaming, and sleeping: gross, subtle and unknowing, respectively, are the forms in the eyes of the meta-consciousness that knows-sees -links these states so that the “identity’ is intact. No record can record this meta-consciousness nor can any computer simulate this.

Why not? What else is required for an explanation? Suppose we get correlates to each brain state to the place that we can 'read the mind' of people through brain scans. We can determine their intentions, their thoughts, their plans, what stte of consciousness they are in, etc simply by looking at their brains. How does that NOT give an explanation of consciousness? What else do you think is required?

The mere fact that something goes on in your brain when you think does not explain what thinking essentially is.

I’ll give an analogy. When we were investigating magnetism, we found that it was 'correlated' to the movement of charge. This correlation was detailed and specific. Because of this, it was accepted as an explanation of magnetism. We understand when magnetism is produced, how to use it, etc. So we have an explanation.

Why is consciousness so different? If we find neural correlates of conscious states and they are reliable and specific, how is that NOT an explanation?

Simple. ‘Movement’ caused by magnetism is objectively measurable whereas consciousness is not. Consciousness is of the subject that knows and measures. It is not of an object. How can a subject measure a subject?

To understand consciousness we need to fully understand the ‘Identity’, the genetic memory, and the thoughtless/objectless consciousness of deep sleep and non dual experience from the subjective point of view.

Further, correlation is not causation. Consider an example. I run a gas mixture on a chromatograph and based on correlation to pre-known elution times, I identify the constituent components and determine their quantities. So, for example, I say that methane’ in the mixture is 60%. But I am really not sure whether the component is methane. To determine whether it is methane we need to obtain a pure sample of methane and run other tests. In short we have an objective measurement on the actual object.

How do you you do that with consciousness? We have only its signatures in many different states. No one has ever packed a little bit of consciousness in a bottle. Nor its effects have ever been measured objectively like in case of magnetism, because qualia is not measurable. And no one can record the meta-consciousness that sees-knows the changing states of consciousness-mind.

One further example. I study crude oils. I get samples from variety of geographical locations and geological ages. There are many tests through which we can identify the source of an unknown oil. That is possible because we have made correlations with actual oils. But these correlates do not explain the mechanism or genesis of the oils. That is another study, which is possible because we have samples etc.
………

Finally and most fundamentally, the consciousness that we see in waking, dreaming, and sleeping are states/forms of one ineffable consciousness that links these experiences. It is your inner Self that sees-experiences. Correlates cannot touch that. You cannot measure that.

 

[atanu]

And I understand the concept. Is there *any* evidence that ia how things actually are? As far as I can see, the answer is no. I don't see consciousness except from brains. Arguably, we might be able to create artificial ones with silicon. But I see no reason to think that consciousness sis somehow fundamental to the structure of the universe as opposed to being a fluke of beings with complex brains.

I agree.

Yet, I differ. The implications of experiencing the non dual, objectless consciousness is profound beyond the reasoning mind. So leave it at that.

If you truly wish to enjoy a mango, eat it. Trying to describe its shape and colour and recording its electrical signal etc. will not give you a bit of hint about its astounding taste.

 

[Polymath257]

Well that is a guess, but it raises many unanswerable questions. I will pose only a few.

1. If our waking state intellect is just a program output, what is that intellect’s discerning competence?
2. Is there any program state that has self awareness?
3. What or who created the program of which your consciousness is a state?

1. Not the program output, but the running program. it is the program for wakefulness: attention and consciousness.
2. There is a program *for* self-awareness. It makes a model of self, including possibilities, and presents it to the other processes in the brain.
3. Why must there be a 'who'? It is a result of the increasing complexity of brain functioning over evolutionary time. The computer analogy isn't perfect, but is is a decent analogy.

Sense of identity drives all our thoughts and actions. A man, a dog, a cat all follow their identities. A joey right after birth instinctively travels over mother kangaroo’s belly, gets into the pouch and latches onto the nipple. This act is not in the scope of conscious intellect, but actions occur in accordance with identity.

Yes, instinct. As in evolutionary programming.

Yes. Electrical signatures can convey correlative data of states - the manifestations, of the forms and probably we can use those for correlations in most cases to predict behaviour. But we cannot capture the first party subjective state. We cannot capture the huge amount of subjective information that are linked to the ‘Identity’ and its accumulated memories.

Correlates are only waking state records and do not represent subjective nature of consciousness, which have different forms in different states. Correlates cannot explain the ‘quailia’ of these states. Correlates do not represent the gross waking world, the subtle dream world, and the mindless-timeless deep sleep consciousness. All that we get is an external viewer’s waking state recording of electrical signals that do not translate to unified view of a subject.Correlates cannot represent or explain the identity consciousness. Correlates cannot represent the various memories (conscious and unconscious) that influence the behaviour and brain states.

Correlates cannot represent the paradigm changing non dual consciousness, which, can only be recorded from third party perspective, which is recorded of a dualistic world, when the meditator is experiencing the non-dual. What is signature of infinite “I”, which is devoid of all memory? One can record only a dualistic picture. It is imposition of an imaginary picture on nothingness.

Let me re-state this. Suppose a meditator is abiding in a non dual consciousness. There is no subject-object division in his consciousness. He is experiencing the memory free non dual mind, as it is. This experience, as per spiritualists, is paradigm changing. But the neuroscientist begins his recording in a waking state paradigm of subject-object division in a gross world. The first party non dual consciousness and the third party mesarement from dualistic consciousness state are different.

Further, the forms of consciousnesses in waking, dreaming, and sleeping: gross, subtle and unknowing, respectively, are the forms in the eyes of the meta-consciousness that knows-sees -links these states so that the “identity’ is intact. No record can record this meta-consciousness nor can any computer simulate this.

I really don't see the fundamental issue here. Suppose we manage (and I am certainly not saying this has been accomplished) to find a set of correlates that allows us to say 'when this happens in the brain, this person will report experiencing that'. So we have a correspondence between measurable brain states and reported qualia. How is that NOT an explanation of the qualia?

Suppose we were able to measure the brain of the person who is meditating and say from those measurements that this person is experiencing the loss of subject-object division. How is that NOT a sufficient explanation of that experience in terms of brain state?

The mere fact that something goes on in your brain when you think does not explain what thinking essentially is.

It is if you can track it to the degree of saying what the person is thinking at each time based on what goes on in the brain.

Once again, I do not claim we have that capability yet. But we are much farther along than most people realize. We can now read basic thoughts from brain scans.

Simple. ‘Movement’ caused by magnetism is objectively measurable whereas consciousness is not. Consciousness is of the subject that knows and measures. It is not of an object. How can a subject measure a subject?

But suppose we are able to find correlates for each conscious state. So we can tell what conscious experience the person will report based on a brain scan. Isn't that, then, a measurement of consciuosness?

To understand consciousness we need to fully understand the ‘Identity’, the genetic memory, and the thoughtless/objectless consciousness of deep sleep and non dual experience from the subjective point of view.

OK, I think I disagree. I do not have to experience the same qualia as you in order to understand consciousness. I merely have to be able to predict which qualia you experience based on what your brain scan says.

Further, correlation is not causation. Consider an example. I run a gas mixture on a chromatograph and based on correlation to pre-known elution times, I identify the constituent components and determine their quantities. So, for example, I say that methane’ in the mixture is 60%. But I am really not sure whether the component is methane. To determine whether it is methane we need to obtain a pure sample of methane and run other tests. In short we have an objective measurement on the actual object.

But that is why we have to correlate the reported experiences with the measured brain states. Once a correspondence is established, the correlation/causation issue is resolved.

How do you you do that with consciousness? We have only its signatures in many different states. No one has ever packed a little bit of consciousness in a bottle. Nor its effects have ever been measured objectively like in case of magnetism, because qualia is not measurable. And no one can record the meta-consciousness that sees-knows the changing states of consciousness-mind.

At least initially, the measurement is the report of the person experiencing the qualia. After we get sufficient correspondences between brain states and reported qualia, we *do* have a way of measuring the qualia.

One further example. I study crude oils. I get samples from variety of geographical locations and geological ages. There are many tests through which we can identify the source of an unknown oil. That is possible because we have made correlations with actual oils. But these correlates do not explain the mechanism or genesis of the oils. That is another study, which is possible because we have samples etc.

I agree. And the quation about how consciousness became possible in evolutionary history is different than knowing what consciousness is right now.

Finally and most fundamentally, the consciousness that we see in waking, dreaming, and sleeping are states/forms of one ineffable consciousness that links these experiences. It is your inner Self that sees-experiences. Correlates cannot touch that. You cannot measure that.

Actually, there are many experiments that show there is NOT a continuous connection between experiences. In point of fact, the mind continuously re-writes the raw sensory data *before* it becomes conscious. I'd suggest reading 'Consciousness Explained' by Danial Dennett for some very wild examples (yes, the title is an over-statement of what he did).

 

[Polymath257]

I agree.

Yet, I differ. The implications of experiencing the non dual, objectless consciousness is profound beyond the reasoning mind. So leave it at that.

The experience may not be the reality. It is a brain state. If we can determine from brain scans that you are experiencing that non-duality, then we have all that is required.

If you truly wish to enjoy a mango, eat it. Trying to describe its shape and colour and recording its electrical signal etc. will not give you a bit of hint about its astounding taste.

And I agree. So, unless we are able to transfer qualia from one person to another, you would say we don't understand qualia?

 

[Nous]

The most rational definition of materialism would be that everything behaves according to physical laws

Where did you get that definition? Provide your source.

@Laika defined "materialism" in the OP, with a definition that is essentially the same as all of these:

materialism | Definition of materialism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Philosophy
The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.​

the definition of materialism

the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.​

Definition of MATERIALISM

1a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see[1] matter 2)​

These definitions make clear that "materialism" is a monistic metaphysical thesis with a single posit: "matter".

Your definition doesn't mention "matter". But makes a claim about "everything" and "physical laws," definitely indicating pluralism, not a monistic thesis.

--E.G. that there is no supernatural causation.

Name all of the "physical laws" you know of. Explain how "physical laws" cause things to behave. What is the "physical law" that caused you to post the strange definition of "materialism"?

 

[Darkstorn]

But I am definitely asserting that your understanding is not based on deep contemplation.

How could you possibly know that? You're the one who seems to be losing an argument against materialism.

If your understanding was based on "deep contemplation," wouldn't defeating your opposition be a trivial matter instead of this seemingly endless uphill battle against better logic than the one you'be been able to present? Just saying.

I also pretty much agree with Polymath's reply to this same post.

Furthermore, I think his argument is not only beer than yours, it also somehow manages to go mostly over your head.

You talk of deep contemplation but the main thing I've noticed about you here is that you barely even understand the points you're arguing against.

 

[serp777]

Where did you get that definition? Provide your source.

@Laika defined "materialism" in the OP, with a definition that is essentially the same as all of these:

materialism | Definition of materialism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Philosophy
The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.​

the definition of materialism

the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.​

Definition of MATERIALISM

1a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see[1] matter 2)​

These definitions make clear that "materialism" is a monistic metaphysical thesis with a single posit: "matter".

Your definition doesn't mention "matter". But makes a claim about "everything" and "physical laws," definitely indicating pluralism, not a monistic thesis.

Name all of the "physical laws" you know of. Explain how "physical laws" cause things to behave. What is the "physical law" that caused you to post the strange definition of "materialism"?

Where did you get that definition? Provide your source.

I never said I got it from anywhere but its the natural progression of the standard definition. The reason it made sense to update the definition as such is because the underlying physics, including quantum mechanics for example, go well beyond that of simple matter, and so the progression of materialism is to find the foundation of nature. We know, for instance, that the universe is mostly composed of fields. I suggested this as a more rational definition to make it consistent with the universe, in other words im providing a definition that I think is better, which should be pretty obvious. And its not like words cannot change their definitions if there is a good reason to do so especially since material is defined and operates according to physical laws. So the definition goes one layer deeper.

Name all of the "physical laws" you know of.

No, that would be completely unnecessary. I can give you some examples, such as the heisenberg uncertainty principle or something from QFT or general relativity. There may or may not be a theory of everything as well, but in my submission that would be the holy grail

Explain how "physical laws" cause things to behave

This is a strawman. I never said physical laws cause things to behave. Particles, their interactions, and quantum fields are described and operate according to physical laws. The particles and their interactions with each other and corresponding quantum fields determine causal results. But they all affect causality as determined by their respective physical laws.

What is the "physical law" that caused you to post the strange definition of "materialism"?

This is a bizarre red herring and is completely redundant due to your previous statement. If i had explained how physical laws caused things to behave then it would be moot to go on to answer this pointless question.

 

[atanu]

The experience may not be the reality. It is a brain state. If we can determine from brain scans that you are experiencing that non-duality, then we have all that is required.

That is true. And brain is an experience of waking state of consciousness. No?

Okay. Okay. To avoid people becoming angry I say "And brain may be an experience of waking state of consciousness?" Can we contemplate on that?

And I agree. So, unless we are able to transfer qualia from one person to another, you would say we don't understand qualia?

I also agree that a huge library of verbal reports and their corresponding pictures will form a basis of a correlation and medicine etc. But there will be two main issues.

No one will be willing to exchange electrical signals for a first hand experience of orgasm.

Again, I know angry folks will say "Well we will induce orgasms through chemicals". Yet an experiencer is an experiencer.

I will stop here. I thank you profusely for being patient with me. Best.

 

[Polymath257]

That is true. And brain is an experience of waking state of consciousness. No?

Okay. Okay. To avoid people becoming angry I say "And brain may be an experience of waking state of consciousness?" Can we contemplate on that?



I also agree that a huge library of verbal reports and their corresponding pictures will form a basis of a correlation and medicine etc. But there will be two main issues.

No one will be willing to exchange electrical signals for a first hand experience of orgasm.

Again, I know angry folks will say "Well we will induce orgasms through chemicals". Yet an experiencer is an experiencer.

I will stop here. I thank you profusely for being patient with me. Best.

I don't see a fundamental issue here. There is a difference between the measurement of a supernova and a supernova. There is a difference between the measurement of a charge and a charge. So, yes, the first person experience is what a person will want. That doesn't mean it is something other than a brain state. It just means my brain is different than your brain, so my brain states are different than yours. I don't see a huge mystery here.

 

[Nous]

I never said I got it from anywhere but its the natural progression of the standard definition.

What you stated is nothing close to materialism, which is a monistic metaphysical thesis that posits the existence of matter.

Apparently you recognize that the actual definition of materialism is unjustifiable. Just as I said, the findings and theories of modern science prove the thesis of materialism utterly false.

If you come up with any arguments to the contrary, let me know.

This is a strawman. I never said physical laws cause things to behave. Particles, their interactions, and quantum fields are described and operate according to physical laws. The particles and their interactions with each other and corresponding quantum fields determine causal results.

You mentioned "supernatural causation" for some reason. What was that reason?

What causes "things to behave"?

I asked you to name all the "physical laws" you know of. At best, you named one (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle--which some people would dispute is a law of nature.. You haven't name any laws that account for your behavior of writing your post with the fake definition of materialism. Can you name any such laws?