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.
I'd like to take a moment to re-connect all this talk about qualia and subjectivity with the central theme of this thread. My "dual-aspect" approach brings with it some good news/bad news for folks like Trans who are pushing for a more hard-core ontological materialism:
Good News: Non-physical beings cannot be conscious on the dual-aspect view because the qualia that constitute conscious experience are physical processes. So any conception of god, or souls, that is grounded on the idea that gods, souls, angels, etc. are non-physical is ruled out by the logic of dual-aspect theory.
Bad News: Dual-Aspect theory does not get rid of the logical gaps into which god can still squeeze - especially if God is conceive in a loose pantheistic manner (i.e., not "conscious"). In other words, Dual-Aspect theory does not provide a knock-out punch against dualism/theism. There is nothing logically absurd about denying the premises of the theory. (It is "just a theory" after all.)
Good News, or Bad News, depending on how you look at it: Dual-Aspect theory does not rule out the natural possibility that gods, souls, angels, etc., might exist in physical form - albeit, perhaps, in a physical form that is not testable by current science (e.g., physical beings existing in other universes within the multiverse). Thus dual-aspect leaves some naturalistic gaps into which naturalistic conceptions of god could fit. (E.g., the infinite multiverse might have always already evolved some sort of physically-based Cosmic Conscious awareness.)
Bad News: MPhD can have his cake and keep eating it too. Since, according to my theory, the potential for qualia is fundamental to Reality, there is plenty of room to take the ball and run in fully mystical directions with it. In fact, the fundamentality of qualia basically just is a sort of mysticism, if you think about it. This goes back to my post about the "Goddess" (i.e., the mystery of Existentialist Absurdity). Of course this is not "bad news" for me, but it is bad news for some people who want to deal knock-out punches to the noses of theists.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-14-2018 at 01:20 PM..
How about that Well, We agree then. At least Mystic can hardly say we were ganging up on him or that the conclusions we both come to somehow support his beliefs.
I just wonder what was so hard about the question and why I got the idea that it was claiming that materialism what qualia is in terms of biochemical mechanism. Still, I'm content with this.
How about that Well, We agree then. At least Mystic can hardly say we were ganging up on him or that the conclusions we both come to somehow support his beliefs.
I just wonder what was so hard about the question and why I got the idea that it was claiming that materialism what qualia are in terms of biochemical mechanism. Still, I'm content with this.
Gaylen is masterfully trying to put forth an untenable proposition that will preclude the need for a "Subject" (God) to provide the fundamental subjectivity he knows MUST exist. You seem ill-equipped even to see the reason he is mounting this Herculean philosophical quest. The psychological denial of the experience of self (homunculus) that is inextricably embodied in the materialist view of Reality is incomprehensible to me given that our sense of self is the ONLY truly verifiable experience we have. How can anyone credit the absurd idea that we are an illusion of an accumulation of mere "particles" of who knows what otherwise dead chemicals ????
No, you won't. Or, at least, not without some bridge laws relating objective mechanical processes to subjective qualitative feelings (i.e., a paradigm shift in physics) and, even then, we'd have to count on a mysterious brute fact "leap of enlightenment" for the abstract knowledge of pathways to somehow transform into the concrete, direct "ah-ha!" of "Oh! That's what it's like to actually see red!" I see no reason why reading about the abstract 3rd-person-accessible facts of red should trigger an "ah-ha!" subjective qualitative feeling of "That is what it is like to see red" but, such a brute fact "that's the way it is" is logically possible so, for moment, I can't rule it out. In the future we might develop a theory that either implies the natural impossibility (such as the way Relativity ruled out the acceleration of matter to fast than light), or explains the natural possibility (such as the way that dynamical systems theories explain the self-organization of highly complex systems).
I think you are wrong. an unknown complexity at the big bang in a very small volume may have very well been organized. I mean The universe is getting less organized so that would imply it was more organized. more organized than "the earth's biosphere", probably. More organized than the brain? I don't know, but its not an invalid guess. I bigger question is why would people hide, shun, and deny such a basic principle?
to your qualia, we know binary and how the computers will react. The molecules, and other stuff, speak in another code we don't know yet. But basically they pass down electrons to reduce heat and use volume to make up for speed and error. that's the basics.
They, your body mechanisms, better thought of as the brain, really, (lol, thought of) are quantum computing right now in you. we have only touched the surface, true, but we are getting there.
I am saying your qualitative feelings are a direct result of the machine language in the body. I smack you with adrenaline and I can predict how you will change, to a degree that is. I know how you will feel. Now if we knew more information the more I narrow down your range of feelings. That's a brute fact, that's your first "if', not an "if" that states "If my daul aspect is correct.". But you are clear that you don't know, so thats good.
I see no reason to assume I can't predict how you see red when we know the machine langue. You are taking a mighty "big if", that does not need to be taken to answer the questions you want answers too.
mystic field, your qualitative "loop hole" is better addressed, more concretely addressed using this region of space as alive. It so concrete that trans, maddy, and other fundamental denomination of atheist run from it.
You said you don't see the information between life forms. I say, in a less dense medium or an increased level of complexity, the proteins are most of the information. instead of passing the electron down or lowering the energy level of the molecule via a conformational, or similar change, its done using a bunch of molecules contained in a individual within a population. people are just more complex proteins, thats it. But the result is the same ... life. I have no grand why tho. Just that it is.
But, really, the bigger question is why people deny such a straightforward, brute fact, interpretation?
Why trans has to run away from it and try to call that sorta god? Why this need for "sin saving" from other literal thinkers we call "theist"? i think the answer is that they cannot process a reality past their brain state. Like a dog can't process past being a dog. It is just that simple.
Gaylen is masterfully trying to put forth an untenable proposition that will preclude the need for a "Subject" (God) to provide the fundamental subjectivity he knows MUST exist. You seem ill-equipped even to see the reason he is mounting this Herculean philosophical quest. The psychological denial of the experience of self (homunculus) that is inextricably embodied in the materialist view of Reality is incomprehensible to me given that our sense of self is the ONLY truly verifiable experience we have. How can anyone credit the absurd idea that we are an illusion of an accumulation of mere "particles" of who knows what otherwise dead chemicals ????
If you put a label on trans's denomination of atheism as "deny everything because I fear religion" then we can predict every answer from him. Easily. run, avoid, change and/or deny. Like I did with my kids when they feared a monster under the bed. Easy to predict.
Gaylen is masterfully trying to put forth an untenable proposition that will preclude the need for a "Subject" (God) to provide the fundamental subjectivity he knows MUST exist.
If I actually felt as thought I knew that a Subject/God must exist, I would not be putting such a masterful spin on such a gawdawfully untenable position. Just the opposite. I suspect (more specifically, I intuitively feel) that Reality is, in essence, a "Subject" of some sort. But what I don't want to do is promote my personal intuitions as "knowledge" or "belief" when, on an intellectual level, I fully realize that I don't actually "know" much of anything about these ultimate questions of Reality. I can rule out some things based on logic and/or reasonably strong empirical evidence, but what's left over after I rule stuff out is still a vast landscape of conceptual possibilities.
So what do I have left? Intuitions. I have a lot of respect for intuitions, but my years of studying science and philosophy (especially psychology) have shown me very, very, very clearly that people's intuitions can be wrong. And if people's intuitions can be wrong, then sometimes mine might be wrong too - even though they really seem right to me. What does this leave me with? It leaves me with a respect for intuitions that is tempered by the realization that I could be wrong. The term I choose is agnosticism because, really, that seems to be the most accurate label I can apply.
The more I know about stuff, the more deeply I realize how little I actually know in the grand scheme of things. I know that God (or "Cosmic Intelligent Consciousness" of some sort) is a logical possibility, but I also know that such a conception is not logically required in order for my experiences to be what they seems to be. "Subjectivity" in some raw, fundamental form or "Proto-Subjectivity" is logically required, so I think I can safely say that I know that to be true, but I don't know that this Subjectivity has to be fundamentally conscious or intelligent. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I just don't know. Maybe if I had a mystical enlightenment experience, my feelings of confidence in my intuitions might rise to virtual certainty, but from my current perspective, I'd have to wonder if my logical intelligence was just being clouded by strong emotions. So I come back to the Existentialist Absurdity - which is something I believe and I feel certain about this belief. But even here I have to laugh at myself because if my intuitions can be wrong, then maybe I could even be wrong about this! (Tho I know I'm not ;-)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-14-2018 at 08:17 PM..
I'd like to take a moment to re-connect all this talk about qualia and subjectivity with the central theme of this thread. My "dual-aspect" approach brings with it some good news/bad news for folks like Trans who are pushing for a more hard-core ontological materialism:
Good News: Non-physical beings cannot be conscious on the dual-aspect view because the qualia that constitute conscious experience are physical processes. So any conception of god, or souls, that is grounded on the idea that gods, souls, angels, etc. are non-physical is ruled out by the logic of dual-aspect theory.
Bad News: Dual-Aspect theory does not get rid of the logical gaps into which god can still squeeze - especially if God is conceive in a loose pantheistic manner (i.e., not "conscious"). In other words, Dual-Aspect theory does not provide a knock-out punch against dualism/theism. There is nothing logically absurd about denying the premises of the theory. (It is "just a theory" after all.)
Good News, or Bad News, depending on how you look at it: Dual-Aspect theory does not rule out the natural possibility that gods, souls, angels, etc., might exist in physical form - albeit, perhaps, in a physical form that is not testable by current science (e.g., physical beings existing in other universes within the multiverse). Thus dual-aspect leaves some naturalistic gaps into which naturalistic conceptions of god could fit. (E.g., the infinite multiverse might have always already evolved some sort of physically-based Cosmic Conscious awareness.)
Bad News: MPhD can have his cake and keep eating it too. Since, according to my theory, the potential for qualia is fundamental to Reality, there is plenty of room to take the ball and run in fully mystical directions with it. In fact, the fundamentality of qualia basically just is a sort of mysticism, if you think about it. This goes back to my post about the "Goddess" (i.e., the mystery of Existentialist Absurdity). Of course this is not "bad news" for me, but it is bad news for some people who want to deal knock-out punches to the noses of theists.
Well that's all good news, since it leaves at best a gap or two for God, and the 'inkling' I proposed in fact onnect experience and experiencer so there is no (theoretical) need to put some unknown force in there. In fact there reallyis no gap for God in 'consciousness' at all but a belief that a god is behind it.
True, there is no knock -out punch, but there has been been. All that is needed is to come up with an alternative hypothesis that makes as much sense as theistic proposal, such as 'something from nothing', abiogenesis, the god in your head is your own self, and theism is robbed of it's only possible argument 'Materialistic science cannot. ever, account for this, so it must be God'.
Which is a terrible argument and you can Never predict what explanations may come to light in the future, but if a decent hypothesis can be pointed to now, then it becomes a matter of pick which one you like.
Contrary to what Theists often say, atheists are cool with that. It is theism that hates those who choose Not to believe the god -claim. It is only when an opinion, belief, hypothesis or claim is made here or some other public outlet that someone who disagrees may say why they do.
The need for a knock out punch has never really been with the non -theist side; it was theists needed to knock out disbelief, because there is no evidence worth a damn' for it so it's method has always been to allow now other possibility.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-14-2018 at 08:34 PM..
Gaylen is masterfully trying to put forth an untenable proposition that will preclude the need for a "Subject" (God) to provide the fundamental subjectivity he knows MUST exist. You seem ill-equipped even to see the reason he is mounting this Herculean philosophical quest. The psychological denial of the experience of self (homunculus) that is inextricably embodied in the materialist view of Reality is incomprehensible to me given that our sense of self is the ONLY truly verifiable experience we have. How can anyone credit the absurd idea that we are an illusion of an accumulation of mere "particles" of who knows what otherwise dead chemicals ????
One thing at least has come out of my participation here, (now in the coda ); a firming up of an alternative hypothesis.
The untenable position is yours because you are either arguing...well, everything back to front. reversal of the the burden of proof, denial of the materialist default, the validity of science (all implied here in your post) and appeal to a possible brain in a vat which I don't buy for two good reasons (reality surprises me, and a god in my head? Get away . ) But not only have I groped towards a way that experience and experiencer could be (in theory) both biomechanical, but the same thing AND the feeling of self (one aspect only of the subjectivity you put such emphasis on) thus also becomes (hypothetically) explicable in materialist terms.
So even your few measly gaps for God in the 'consciousness' apologetic have become remote possibilities rather than (hopefully) feasible probabilities.
The 'consciousness= God argument has been quite popular with theist apologists, but (apart from the sideshow of NDE's) has been losing out to scientific materialism.
Your position is as usual little more than faith -based denial, and in you final lines, a pitiful display of argument from incredulity (a fallacy, if you didn't know it) not because you haven't seen the explanations (hypothetical, it's true) here and before now, or because you are too dumb to grasp them, because I know you are not, but you do not want to listen or credit them as even a potential alternative to "God" because not even God as a possible hypothesis will do for you - Faith needs you to dismiss anything challenging your claims as obviously true.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-14-2018 at 08:41 PM..
I think Trans is closest to getting it, and without all the frippery. So I am going back to something he said earlier. And because he is keeping us on track with the big picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
So getting back to what you said about everything being made of the "same base stuff" then is the Mystery for you what that "same base stuff is" or is the Mystery for you how that "same base stuff" can change or be changed into steam and diamonds and thoughts and crowbars and music and poetry?
(i'm noticing here that it seems ok to talk about "mystery" but not "mystical" which again is hilarious to me; but i recognize it is important to use neutral language in the interest of a more productive discussion, so mystery it is)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Yes, but particularly how it works. I am thinking of perception -input along the neurons to the brain where it it turned into a mental phenomenon that not only makes sense to us (like an image of an airliner on a radar -screen) but triggers evolved reaction. sweet is nice. sour is...well it has it's points...Red means ripe fruit, trigger the gastric juices..oops it can also mean 'eat at your peril'. The reactions are instinctive, but we have some educated instincts in there too.
So I'm groping towards a particle mix that reacts to the info being input and produces a particle complex reaction (not to cay chemical) which creates an appropriate experience sensation, the like or dislike reaction being a different function......
Trans mentioned (and I agree) everything being made of the "same base stuff."
Trans, what would you call this "same base stuff" do you have a word preference? if not "same base stuff" works fine
Trans also pointed out (and I agree) that this same base stuff can phase from physical to liquid to mist to gas, from visible to invisible, from idea to solid form, from thought or belief to sickness or cure.
He's also made the astute observation that we can "program" ourselves or intentionally "overlay" elements to create a desired outcome. I would love to hear more about this Trans because the bit he gave us was fascinating, about places he'd been or things he was studying (couldn't tell which that's why I want to hear more) and overlaying certain pieces of music with them to elicit an outcome or response.
How did you come across doing this and what was your motivation, intention in doing it? please tell us more Trans. thank you. and what i see it connecting to is how we change, manipulate, shape the same base stuff so that our physical reality is affected. that's what happens in placebo. our thought / belief is "this is medicine" or "this will make me feel better" and that thought causes a change in our physical biology (we feel better or our physical symptoms subside). so thought/belief are a tool to shape the "same base stuff." that is worth exploring.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-15-2018 at 12:28 AM..
Gaylen is masterfully trying to put forth an untenable proposition that will preclude the need for a "Subject" (God) to provide the fundamental subjectivity he knows MUST exist. You seem ill-equipped even to see the reason he is mounting this Herculean philosophical quest. The psychological denial of the experience of self (homunculus) that is inextricably embodied in the materialist view of Reality is incomprehensible to me given that our sense of self is the ONLY truly verifiable experience we have. How can anyone credit the absurd idea that we are an illusion of an accumulation of mere "particles" of who knows what otherwise dead chemicals ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
One thing at least has come out of my participation here, (now in the coda ); a firming up of an alternative hypothesis.
The untenable position is yours because you are either arguing...well, everything back to front. reversal of the the burden of proof, denial of the materialist default, the validity of science (all implied here in your post) and appeal to a possible brain in a vat which I don't buy for two good reasons (reality surprises me, and a god in my head? Get away . ) But not only have I groped towards a way that experience and experiencer could be (in theory) both biomechanical, but the same thing AND the feeling of self (one aspect only of the subjectivity you put such emphasis on) thus also becomes (hypothetically) explicable in materialist terms.
So even your few measly gaps for God in the 'consciousness' apologetic have become remote possibilities rather than (hopefully) feasible probabilities.
The 'consciousness= God argument has been quite popular with theist apologists, but (apart from the sideshow of NDE's) has been losing out to scientific materialism.
Your position is as usual little more than faith -based denial, and in you final lines, a pitiful display of argument from incredulity (a fallacy, if you didn't know it) not because you haven't seen the explanations (hypothetical, it's true) here and before now, or because you are too dumb to grasp them, because I know you are not, but you do not want to listen or credit them as even a potential alternative to "God" because not even God as a possible hypothesis will do for you - Faith needs you to dismiss anything challenging your claims as obviously true.
I stand in utter defeat faced with your tenacious and utter ignorance or lack of ability to grasp the essential core issues. The best expositor I know has met the "concrete" of your mindset and failed to penetrate it. I am pleased that you at least THINK you have some grasp of the problem and are content. I fear there is little if any hope of actually enlightening you further.
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.
Well, We agree then. At least Mystic can hardly say we were ganging up on him or that the conclusions we both come to somehow support his beliefs.
); a firming up of an alternative hypothesis. 