Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consciousness is not an object it is the aggregate phenomenon of what the brain, a material object does - yet without the brain their is no consciousness.
Good point.
Consciousness is Subjective. It is entirely dependent upon the Knower. That also implies that Consciousness is unique, generated entirely through the life and sensory experiences of the Knower. Once the Knower ceases to exist, so does the Consciousness.
I would also point out that even with a brain, it is possible for Consciousness not to exist. In fact, Consciousness exists only in one part of the brain. You can even suppress Consciousness using drugs.
Objectively...
Mircea
03-23-2013, 12:56 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Good point.
Consciousness is Subjective. It is entirely dependent upon the Knower. That also implies that Consciousness is unique, generated entirely through the life and sensory experiences of the Knower. Once the Knower ceases to exist, so does the Consciousness.
I would also point out that even with a brain, it is possible for Consciousness not to exist. In fact, Consciousness exists only in one part of the brain. You can even suppress Consciousness using drugs.
Seriously? Defend "Atheism is more 'logical' than theism"? Who's asking? Or better.... why?
An individual's belief in a theistic (Christian) God entity is not based on any logical interpretation, only on an assumption that the bible is somehow inerrant.
By distinct and measurable comparison, an individual's "belief" in atheism, in other words, a conviction that there is no God, is based entirely on the astounding lack of any empirical evidence to support theism. It's a belief that died out a few hundred years ago but just doesn't know it yet!
Oh come ON, Mystic! Logic can NOT be used to establish a premise? Have you not heard of The SM?
If I logically surmise that the earth is indeed spherical, and not flat, I then posit a logical hypothesis and proceed, via a logical plan, to determine the true shape of this planet.
I arrive at an entirely logic-driven set of data, from which I make logical deductions, and come to an entirely LOGICAL conclusion.
You can't really believe that logic is NOT the best way to a reasonable premise, now can you, Big M?
Say... what have you been sipping this afternoon, old pal? I thought I was the only one hereabouts taking oxy-morphone today! But even then, I wouldn't be abandoning common sense.
Pay better attention, rifle old friend. What logical syllogism will produce the premise that a non-conscious, non-subjective, non-intelligent materialism is the source of consciousness, qualia or intelligence?
Logic is used to proceed from premises that are taken as GIVEN. It can NOT be used to establish the premise . . . that must be a brute fact. Your materialism premise is not a brute fact and cannot even be substantiated by philosophical analysis because it cannot account for consciousness and intelligence. Logic has nothing to do with whether or not your starting PREMISE is valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I might be able to clarify this. A logical argument cannot establish its own premises. In any logical argument, there are some some statements that cannot be proven within the argument itself. This does not mean, however, that one logical argument cannot support the premises of another. So, for example, if argument A is based on premises P1, P2, and P3, then A cannot establish these premises as conclusions. However, there could be another argument, B, that has, say, P1 as the conclusion of a different set of premises. Ultimately, the only thing that cannot, even in principle, be defended by logic is the formalism of logic itself. You can't use logic to prove the validity of logic itself. Anyway, it is not quite true to say that logic "has nothing to do with whether or not your starting premise is valid." To get at the premise in question, you just need to establish a different argument - one that does not include the premise you are trying to prove. (What counts as a "given" or "brute fact" is relative to a given argument, unless your "brute fact" is something essential to all logic, such as, say the law of noncontradiction.")
In the case of materialism: I would agree with Mystic that materialism, as a premise, is not very strong. If someone can show us how to derive consciousness from materialism (i.e., solve the hard problem) then I will be happy to sing a different tune. But, as I've already said, atheism and materialism are not the same, so giving up on materialism does not mean that you have to be a theist. David Chalmers, for example, very famously gave up on materialism (he became a property dualist - or, more specifically, an epiphenomenalist), but he is not a theist.
Thanks Galenwoof. I was being too focused on the specific premise of materialism as regards consciousness, qualia, and intelligence. I find your acceptance of property dualism a bit disingenuous. If consciousness is indeed central and basic to the natural world . . . how can a conscious reality NOT be a God?
Thanks Galenwoof. I was being too focused on the specific premise of materialism as regards consciousness, qualia, and intelligence. I find your acceptance of property dualism a bit disingenuous. If consciousness is indeed central and basic to the natural world . . . how can a conscious reality NOT be a God?
I don't know if I believe in property dualism (I was just pointing to Dave Chalmers as an example in my previous post), but I'd say it works better than the current forms of materialism. As for consciousness, the term is used in so many ways that I don't generally say that consciousness is central and basic to the natural world. I do say that qualia, or the qualitative aspects of reality, are fundamental in roughly the same sense that they are intrinsic to the nature of a living brain, even if the brain is in dreamless sleep. As I see it, consciousness is a higher-level phenomenon. As for how the fundamental qualitative aspects of reality can fail to be God, I think that here again we have a difference in terminology. I think the term "God" is only of interest if God is some sort of intelligence who has (theism) or had (deism) some sort of plan in mind when originally designing the universe. I don't buy this concept. If you want to expand the notion of God to include something roughly like "Fundamental Reality is sorta like a brain in dreamless sleep" - which is to say, there is some deep metaphysical potential for conscious experience and intelligence intrinsic to the nature of reality, then I guess you are welcome to call this God, if you want. On my view, however, Reality "wakes up" little by little through the biological evolution of life. By this way of thinking, if you want to call consciousness "God" then God was not always intelligent, might not be necessarily good, and did not plan to create a world. "Reality-as-God" found herself gradually waking up via gradually increasing awareness (as increasingly complex nervous systems evolved). Also, by this way of thinking, God would have no logical choice other than to be an Existentialist and a Solipsist. From the standpoint of Reality as a whole, existence is absurd, there are no "others," and there is no "higher power" to turn to for answers about ultimate meaning or purpose. Meaning and purpose would have to evolve along with God's increasingly complex forms of awareness. The thing is: All of this can be said without using the word "God" and I'd say that the real meaning of the process is clearer if we avoid the word. (Things get more messy with the non-temporal nature of the quantum vacuum, and the concept of "eternal inflation," but that's another story for another day.)
.... I think that here again we have a difference in terminology. I think the term "God" is only of interest if God is some sort of intelligence who has (theism) or had (deism) some sort of plan in mind when originally designing the universe. I don't buy this concept....
I accept naturalism, but materialism is a much more limited premise.
The two are awfully similar, depending on which definitions you're using.
Quote:
My goal is to find a way to incorporate qualia into the naturalistic (tho not necessarily materialistic) approach of physics. Again, I would really love to see this conversation continue over in the Philosophy forum, where I have already laid out many of the key concepts. Also, this this discussion is more appropriate there, since the debate between theism/atheism has very little to do with the debate over materialism and its alternatives.
Neuroscience also has very little to do with philosophy, so the discussion is no more off topic here than there.
Anyway, my reaction to the hard problem is similar to my view of vitalism - it's dualists trying to define a problem into existence to save a reason to believe. Of course materialism is going to have a problem with something invented to make certain brain functions sound mystical. But until those dualists can provide evidence that there's some non-materialistic mechanism required for observed brain functions, I see no reason to go along with the idea that one part of the body requires magic to work.
And as I asked before, even assuming this is a problem how are non-materialistic (or non-naturalistic, whichever) approaches superior in answering this question? It's great to point out a problem in our current understanding, but until you can show that any approach has an advantage over materialism in answering that problem isn't really an issue with materialism so much as it is a problem in current human knowledge about brain function.
Pay better attention, rifle old friend. What logical syllogism will produce the premise that a non-conscious, non-subjective, non-intelligent materialism is the source of consciousness, qualia or intelligence?
First off, this question has nothing to do with atheism.
But even so, why would anyone want to turn to philosophy to answer a question about medicine or biology? That approach has been less that fruitful in the past - no reason to think this time is any different.
Anyway, my reaction to the hard problem is similar to my view of vitalism - it's dualists trying to define a problem into existence to save a reason to believe.
I've done a lot of reading on this (I have a master's degree in this crap) and I can promise you that you are completely missing the mark on this - as least as far as the vast majority of professional philosophers are concerned. For most philosophers of mind, dualism is synonymous with defeat. The whole point of the game in philosophy of mind, since at least the 60s onward, has been to find a naturalistic monism. I mentioned Dave Chalmers as an example of non-theist property dualist. (Dualism was considered basically dead in philosophy of mind until 1996 when Chalmers published his book.) I've read a lot of his stuff, and I actually hung out with him in person for about a week. I can assure you that he is not real happy about being a dualist. As I said, admitting dualism is, essentially, a way of admitting defeat. He does his best to put a good face on it, but ending up in this position was certainly not his first choice. You are totally fooling yourself if you think that most modern philosophers of mind are engaged in anything less than an all-out war on dualism. (Yes, some are openly dualist, and some are pushing theism, but the majority are not.) Once you get deep into the logical arguments, you realize that the questions are far more profound than you ever imagined, and fully defensible answers are (for now) seemingly impossible to find.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
