How is consciousness even possible? : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » How is consciousness even possible? » How is consciousness even possible?

How is consciousness even possible?
materialism implies it cannot exist

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

How is consciousness even possible?

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/17/08 - 12:46 AM: Subject: How is consciousness even possible?	#1
Like everyone, I accept dualism in everyday life. People have minds with free will, consciousness, feelings, etc. But all the evidence points to a materialistic universe, with no mysterious entities like souls or ghosts or gods and goddesses. Why should we think we are the only exception - that we have "souls" - mysterious, spiritual things in an otherwise material universe? Thats a big question in itself - but here I just want to ask that as a motivation for positing a purely material universe. So lets assume our universe contains only material objects - no spirits or anything like that. Just atoms and energy. Then it seems to me that we have ruled out the existence of minds - things that are self-aware or conscious - altogether. Think of the world as a collection of trillions upon trillions (probably more) of tiny points of mass - billiard balls, you could say. Is there any arrangement of these billiard balls such that consciousness could arise? How could anyone possibly think that if they just moved these billiard balls around in the correct way, they would suddenly become self-aware? Doesn't that just seem like nonsense? Now it is true that there is not just matter in the world, but also energy. But I don't think that affects the conclusion. If we suppose these billiard balls come in different shapes and sizes, and energy allows them to bond together and interact in various ways, how could that then make consciousness possible? Is there some special way that they interact, exchanging smaller parts of themselves and so on, that could result in the billiard balls being self aware? I think not. Some people just say consciousness is an "emergent" phenomenon - but they fail to say how such a mysterious thing could possibly emerge from mere bits of matter. Its acceptable to say that we don't know exactly how it emerges - science just hasn't advanced that far yet - but shouldn't we be able to say that its at least possible for such a thing to occur? Now of course many would point to their own experience of their self-awareness as evidence that this emergence occurs. But nonetheless, shouldn't it worry materialists if their worldview seems, according to logic, to rule that out? If we have evidence that something occurs, but logic rules it out based on certain assumptions, we should probably question those assumptions. Perhaps materialists have all wrong. Perhaps the fact that we know we are conscious is evidence that there are souls after all, and if we have souls - perhaps religion is plausible after all! On the other hand, perhaps more intriguingly, maybe we aren't really self-aware. Maybe "we" don't actually exist at all - "we" are just collections of atoms, not minds that somehow emerge from those atoms. Our entire self-identities are just illusions. We are essentially no different from a computer program following instructions, except we are made of biological material, and our programming comes from evolution. I have to admit, that would be an extremely strange conclusion to reach. How can a thing that doesn't exist still think it does? But which is stranger, that there is spiritual stuff in the world, and our minds are made out this mysterious stuff, or that we, as conscious beings, don't exist at all? If my logic is correct, we'd be forced to accept one of these strange conclusions.

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207

Posted 04/17/08 - 05:15 AM:	#2
Mike H wrote: Like everyone, I accept dualism in everyday life. People have minds with free will, consciousness, feelings, etc. Like everyone? Some of us have thrown off the illusion of dualism. And free will for that matter. Mike H wrote: But all the evidence points to a materialistic universe, with no mysterious entities like souls or ghosts or gods and goddesses. Why should we think we are the only exception - that we have "souls" - mysterious, spiritual things in an otherwise material universe? Do we? I certainly do not. Mike H wrote: So lets assume our universe contains only material objects - no spirits or anything like that. Just atoms and energy. Then it seems to me that we have ruled out the existence of minds - things that are self-aware or conscious - altogether. Why? Mike H wrote: Think of the world as a collection of trillions upon trillions (probably more) of tiny points of mass - billiard balls, you could say. Is there any arrangement of these billiard balls such that consciousness could arise? Yes Mike H wrote: How could anyone possibly think that if they just moved these billiard balls around in the correct way, they would suddenly become self-aware? Doesn't that just seem like nonsense? No Mike H wrote: Some people just say consciousness is an "emergent" phenomenon - but they fail to say how such a mysterious thing could possibly emerge from mere bits of matter. Just because we cannot today explain how it works, it does not follow that it is inexplicable. Mike H wrote: Its acceptable to say that we don't know exactly how it emerges - science just hasn't advanced that far yet - but shouldn't we be able to say that its at least possible for such a thing to occur? What makes you think it is impossible? Where is the logical argument which leads to the conclusion that it is impossible? Mike H wrote: Now of course many would point to their own experience of their self-awareness as evidence that this emergence occurs. But nonetheless, shouldn't it worry materialists if their worldview seems, according to logic, to rule that out What logic? I haven’t yet seen the logical argument which rules it out. Mike H wrote: On the other hand, perhaps more intriguingly, maybe we aren't really self-aware. This seems non-sensical to me. How can a self-aware agent be mistaken about the fact that it is self-aware? Descartes concluded the only thing he COULD be sure of was “I think, therefore I am”. I tend to agree with Descartes. Mike H wrote: We are essentially no different from a computer program following instructions, except we are made of biological material, and our programming comes from evolution. I agree – but it does not follow that we are not self-aware. In principle a computer program (of the right kind) could be self-aware.
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/17/08 - 12:18 PM:	#3
reincarnated wrote: Like everyone? Some of us have thrown off the illusion of dualism. And free will for that matter. If what I'm arguing is correct, then either dualism is not an illusion, or its impossible to shake off. That is, either we really do have something like souls - our minds are a different kind of "stuff" than material objects - or we, as conscious beings, do not exist. Yet we must suppose we exist as such beings in order to do anything - in fact the supposition is hardwired into us. Like descartes, we cannot doubt it, at least starting from our subjective perspective. But I'm starting from the objective perspective, and from there, I believe it is possible to doubt that minds exist. reincarnated wrote: But all the evidence points to a materialistic universe, with no mysterious entities like souls or ghosts or gods and goddesses. Why should we think we are the only exception - that we have "souls" - mysterious, spiritual things in an otherwise material universe? Do we? I certainly do not. Neither do I. I'm not saying all of us think that, I'm saying we have reason to think the opposite, in order to motivate a materialistic conception of the universe. reincarnated wrote: Think of the world as a collection of trillions upon trillions (probably more) of tiny points of mass - billiard balls, you could say. Is there any arrangement of these billiard balls such that consciousness could arise? Yes I don't think you're grasping the (at least apparant) absurdity of saying "yes." How can billiard balls be self aware, or create a self aware being? It makes no sense. Take ten billiard balls on a pool table. Move them around any way you like, I guarantee that consciousness will not result. Take ten more, rearrange them any way you like, and I guarantee the same thing. Then take ten more, and ten more, and ten more - take however many you like. Does it make any sense to suppose there is some magic number of billiard balls such that they are suddenly infused with the mystical power to create a self-aware being, if they were only arranged in the right way? The prospect seems flatly absurd to me, on par with stories of burning bushes that talk, or floods that engulf the whole world. reincarnated wrote: Just because we cannot today explain how it works, it does not follow that it is inexplicable. One might also say that because we cannot today explain how a burning bush can talk with the voice of God, it does not follow that it is inexplicable. If we cannot rule things out based on their absurdity, I suppose we also cannot say anything about the likely existence of fairies and leprechauns? Of course, we have not observed fairies and leprechauns, nor burning bushes that talk. So you might say there is nothing to explain there. But you are supposing that there is something to explain regarding consciousness, that we already know it exists. But I'm arguing that possibly, it does not exist (and certainly, if we continue to assume a materialistic universe). We believe consciousness exists, of course, but I'm trying to argue that our belief is incorrect. You can't assume the opposite of my conclusion and use that against me. reincarnated wrote: Its acceptable to say that we don't know exactly how it emerges - science just hasn't advanced that far yet - but shouldn't we be able to say that its at least possible for such a thing to occur? What makes you think it is impossible? Where is the logical argument which leads to the conclusion that it is impossible? I suppose its not exactly a logical argument, more like an argument from absurdity. Just as we think the existence of fairies is absurd, so should we think that a magical ability of material objects to create - ex nihilo - self-aware beings is absurd. reincarnated wrote: This seems non-sensical to me. How can a self-aware agent be mistaken about the fact that it is self-aware? Descartes concluded the only thing he COULD be sure of was “I think, therefore I am”. I tend to agree with Descartes. One could also make a Cartesian argument for free will. I can choose things, right? How can I possibly doubt that? Yet modern science has allowed us to doubt it, because it has allowed us to start from the objective viewpoint that everything is just atoms and energy. If that is so, then despite that indubitable belief that free will exists (in fact, you have to assume it in order to function at all), we can argue it does not exist. I'm trying to make a similar argument against the existence of consciousness itself, with the same starting point that everything is just atoms and energy. Just like atoms and energy can't choose anything - they are subject to natural laws (whether deterministic or indeterministic) - neither can they create something out of nothing. They cannot have God-like powers, no matter how they are arranged. Therefore, conscious beings, which are conceived to be something above and beyond mere material, cannot exist. reincarnated wrote: I agree – but it does not follow that we are not self-aware. In principle a computer program (of the right kind) could be self-aware. Thats where we differ then. Its virtually self-evident to me that a computer cannot be self aware. A computer is purely a machine - just like a type writer. I think some people who have not programmed or don't know what programming really is can be led to think that computers can be self-aware. But all programming is arranging a bunch of ones and zeros - on and off switches. Can on and off switches ever be self aware? Sure, we can arrange them in order to do some pretty complex stuff, but the idea that on and off switches can manifest into consciousness strikes me as even more mystical than the idea that neurons can do the same. Edited by Mike H on 04/17/08 - 12:26 PM

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 811

Posted 04/17/08 - 01:02 PM:	#4
Mike H wrote: We believe consciousness exists, of course, but I'm trying to argue that our belief is incorrect. You can't assume the opposite of my conclusion and use that against me. If you are arguing that on the basis of billiard balls, you need to explain how billiard balls can give rise to a belief, correct or not. And of course, how billiard balls can be arranged to notice that there are only billiard balls in the first place. Obviously they cannot, and therefore they have not and your original premise is invalid. Instead, start by noticing that there is some noticing going on - begin your hard science with the fact of observation, and then perhaps for convenience, you might want to distinguish the observer from the observed, the unseen seer from the seen. But remember that you cannot have one without the other and it is only a matter of convenience to regard them as separate.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

adahy
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 04/17/08 - 02:44 PM:	#5
It's fair to assume that consciousness gives rise to matter, instead of the other way around. Something sure as hell gave rise to matter - and I sure wouldn't call the Big Bang "hard science". Freewill is not an illusion based on my experience, but I acknowledge it as a possibility - be it either from matter or God's will. However, there is evidence that we act/experience fractions of a second 'before' our material brain registers it. Various conclusions can be drawn from this, but to me it implies that our brain (made of matter) is secondary to a larger phenomenon. The origin of our experience is not based in matter. Billiard balls don't give rise to consciousness, consciousness (or something that transcends matter) gives rise to the billiard balls.

aylon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 04/17/08 - 03:05 PM:	#6
indeed, if we argue that there is nothing but "brain activity" we return to the problem of how we know of the existence of this activity, basically the point being if we believe in science and we use an instinctual internal view of knowledge we must it seem abandon any materialistic belief in favor of a dualistic one which will enable us to understand the original source of mental facts.

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/17/08 - 05:06 PM:	#7
unelightened wrote: Mike H wrote: We believe consciousness exists, of course, but I'm trying to argue that our belief is incorrect. You can't assume the opposite of my conclusion and use that against me. If you are arguing that on the basis of billiard balls, you need to explain how billiard balls can give rise to a belief, correct or not. And of course, how billiard balls can be arranged to notice that there are only billiard balls in the first place. Obviously they cannot, and therefore they have not and your original premise is invalid. Instead, start by noticing that there is some noticing going on - begin your hard science with the fact of observation, and then perhaps for convenience, you might want to distinguish the observer from the observed, the unseen seer from the seen. But remember that you cannot have one without the other and it is only a matter of convenience to regard them as separate. Very good point, but I think I can still argue that there is a contradiction - our senses are telling us two opposite things. They tell us that our consciousness exists. But our senses lead to the development of modern science, which tells us that the universe consists entirely of material objects. And, as I argued, that leads to the conclusion that our first observation is absurd - our consciousness does not exist after all. So our senses are telling us simultaneously that our consciousness does and does not exist. But logically, it can't be true that consciousness exists and doesn't exist at the same time. So our senses must have gone wrong somewhere. The only question is where - are our senses wrong in telling us that our consciousness exists, or are our senses wrong in telling us that the world is made up of only material objects? To further clarify the structure of my argument: 1. Minds exist (our senses tell us so) 2. Only material objects exist (our senses, combined with modern science, tell us so) 3. If only material objects exist, then minds do not exist 4. Therefore, either minds do not exist, or it is not true that only material objects exist. (either our senses or our senses + science must be wrong) (i'm favorable to the idea that only material objects exist, so I say I'm arguing that minds do not exist - but all I really want to argue is the above. If you think for whatever reason that we should rule out the conclusion that minds do not exist, you would be forced to conclude that its not true that only material objects exist) Now the billiard ball argument is just an illustration to help defend premise 3. The independent argument is as follows: If only material objects exist, then those objects obey the laws of nature. Thus, they cannot create something out of nothing. Minds do not exist among a random assortment of matter. Therefore, arranging them in a certain way to create minds would constitute creating something out of nothing, violating the laws of nature. That would violate our assumption that only material objects exist (which obey the law of nature). So its true by contrapositive. I don't think this new formulation of my argument is vulnerable to your original criticism that I need to first show how billiard balls can give rise to belief. Do you still maintain that I need to show something like that? Edited by Mike H on 04/17/08 - 05:29 PM

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/17/08 - 05:25 PM:	#8
adahy wrote: It's fair to assume that consciousness gives rise to matter, instead of the other way around. Something sure as hell gave rise to matter - and I sure wouldn't call the Big Bang "hard science". Then what gave rise to that something that gave rise to matter? By occam's razor, I usually just assume that matter just always existed. But at least we can agree that our observations, combined with science, seem to strongly suggest that only material things exist, right? That's all thats required for my argument, and in fact you can use it to argue against a materialistic conception of the universe, if you think that the existence of minds is more strongly supported than the existence of only material things.

adahy
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 04/17/08 - 06:53 PM:	#9
Mike H wrote: But at least we can agree that our observations, combined with science, seem to strongly suggest that only material things exist, right? I like to think of it as a dog whistle - a simple device. We can't hear it, we don't observe it, as far as we're concerned it doesn't exist....but, it does exist. Matter is a trap. Mike H wrote: I usually just assume that matter just always existed. While everyone is "assuming", maybe you should assume consciousness always existed. Edited by adahy on 04/17/08 - 07:19 PM

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 811

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/18/08 - 01:24 AM:	#10
Mike H wrote: [ 1. Minds exist (our senses tell us so) 2. Only material objects exist (our senses, combined with modern science, tell us so) 3. If only material objects exist, then minds do not exist 4. Therefore, either minds do not exist, or it is not true that only material objects exist. (either our senses or our senses + science must be wrong) It's pretty clear that 1, 2, & 3, cannot all be true. 3 presupposes that (3a) Minds are not material objects. So there is a contradiction. If you look at 1, in the light of 3a, what sensory evidence is there, or might there be for an immaterial mind? In the end I'm inclined to say that you got yourself into this hole, and if you don't want to take the way out I offered then there's not much more to be said. I reject all three premises, so I don't have your problem. I do also wonder how our senses can be telling us (with or without 'science') that our senses do not exist?
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/18/08 - 10:49 AM:	#11
unenlightened wrote: it's pretty clear that 1, 2, & 3, cannot all be true. Right, then 4 follows. I'm arguing that either 1 or 2 is false, but 3 is definitely true. unenlightened wrote: 3 presupposes that (3a) Minds are not material objects. No I don't think so, it supposes that material objects cannot create something out of nothing. Whatever mind is, it is something - something that does not exist among a random collection of material objects. To suppose that there is some arrangement of these material objects such that this something is created, when it was not there before, it to suppose that material objects have the power to create something out of nothing. That violates the laws of nature that science has discovered. So I need only suppose that mind is something, not that it is immaterial. Material objects cannot create other material objects out of nothing, any more than they can create immaterial objects out of nothing. unelightened wrote: I do also wonder how our senses can be telling us (with or without 'science') that our senses do not exist? If you go back and look at my reformulated argument again, you'll see that I'm not arguing that anymore. I'm arguing for an either/or. Either minds do not exist, or its not true that only materialistic things exist. That is, if minds exist, either they are immaterial, or something immaterial created them (God?) If you think its implausible that our senses could tell us that our senses do not exist, you would be forced to conclude that the materialistic conception of the universe is false, if my argument is correct. Edited by Mike H on 04/18/08 - 10:58 AM

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/18/08 - 11:02 AM:	#12
adahy wrote: I like to think of it as a dog whistle - a simple device. We can't hear it, we don't observe it, as far as we're concerned it doesn't exist....but, it does exist. Matter is a trap. I don't know what "it" you're referring to... adahy wrote: While everyone is "assuming", maybe you should assume consciousness always existed. Thats an alternative approach, yes, just not the one I'm taking in this thread.

Professor Riffs
Great Big Huge Jerk-Face

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/18/08 - 11:15 AM:	#13
Why does the mind have to be something other than material? If our thoughts are governed by chemical processes, then that would indeed make it material. The only thing that's missing is our understanding of these chemical processes and how they bring about our thoughts, and we further our knowledge of these (and pretty much everything else) more and more every day. I realize this is a very simplified proposition in comparison to everything else in this thread, but perhaps one of the main problems in understanding the mind, consciousness, etc is that we as humans tend to over-think things a great deal.
_____________________ My sorrows number close to a hundred score, but among them a lady is not counted.

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 92

Posted 04/18/08 - 12:28 PM:	#14
Hi Riffs, I think one argument would be that no matter how much we knew about the chemical processes and so on, that still wouldn't bring us any closer to knowing where the thoughts come from. I have recently adopted a different position, which is that there isn't "really" any material, at least not in the way we think there is. In brief, matter is an abstraction, something we (and other living entities) pick out of what is "really" an undifferentiated unity. But this still doesn't bring us any closer to knowing where those abstracting thoughts, or perceptions, come from.
_____________________ Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 811

Posted 04/18/08 - 12:30 PM:	#15
MikeH wrote: unenlightened wrote: 3 presupposes that (3a) Minds are not material objects. No I don't think so, it supposes that material objects cannot create something out of nothing. Whatever mind is, it is something - something that does not exist among a random collection of material objects. If mind is material, contra 3a, then 3. ceases to be necessarily true, and becomes rather arbitary. My point about senses is that somewhere in 'our senses tell us' lies hidden the very thing that in your premises you refer to as 'mind'. In effect you are saying that our senses (+science) tell us that there is no such thing as 'our senses telling us.' Try replacing 'mind' in your argument with 'science'. 1. Science exists (our universities tell us so) 2. Only material objects exist (our universities, combined with modern philosophy, tell us so) 3. If only material objects exist, then science does not exist 4. Therefore, either science does not exist, or it is not true that only material objects exist. Perhaps it is time to consider what we mean by 'exist' and 'material object'.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

aylon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 04/18/08 - 12:39 PM:	#16
Professor Riffs wrote: Why does the mind have to be something other than material? If our thoughts are governed by chemical processes, then that would indeed make it material. The only thing that's missing is our understanding of these chemical processes and how they bring about our thoughts, and we further our knowledge of these (and pretty much everything else) more and more every day. I realize this is a very simplified proposition in comparison to everything else in this thread, but perhaps one of the main problems in understanding the mind, consciousness, etc is that we as humans tend to over-think things a great deal. but saying that our minds are thoughts that are governed by a chemical processes fails to deal with the way in which we know those facts to be true...basically saying, science relies on empiric observation, but then empiric observation will always lie solely on our sensory grasp of this "material" which in turn implies that in order for us to believe in our epistemological findings to be correct we must believe in a "mind" or "soul" that isn't material, otherwise we would never be able to accept anything as scientific.

adahy
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 04/18/08 - 12:58 PM:	#17
Professor Riffs wrote: Why does the mind have to be something other than material? Well, if one assumes everything is a phenomenon from matter - then your freewill is really just an illusion. We would be subject to the laws of matter (chemical processes, atoms, etc.) like other objects - basically, we'd be billiard balls ourselves...just getting bounced around. However, that's not what we experience. We make decisions, create, love, etc. - things which transcend matter. A billiard ball can't roll on it's own, or decide it doesn't like the pocket it's in. How can something arise from matter that is not material? It can't...unless our experiences aren't really what we think they are, which is hard to accept. In quantum physics, an outcome does not exist independent of an observer (consciousness). The universe and our reality does not exist in the absence of an observer (consciousness)...or it exists in a state of superposition as with Schrödinger's cat - until it is observed. Consciousness has a relationship with matter, but I think they are clearly separate things. Your brain can't manifest itself.

Mike H
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 71

Posted 04/18/08 - 05:54 PM:	#18
unelightened wrote: If mind is material, contra 3a, then 3. ceases to be necessarily true, and becomes rather arbitary. ]My point about senses is that somewhere in 'our senses tell us' lies hidden the very thing that in your premises you refer to as 'mind'. In effect you are saying that our senses (+science) tell us that there is no such thing as 'our senses telling us.' Try replacing 'mind' in your argument with 'science'. Good points. I think I can get around your objection to premise 3, but I can't answer your objection that I'm arguing that "our senses tell us" that there's no such thing as "our senses telling us." In response to the first objection, let me reformulate my argument again. Let S be the proposition that our senses plus modern science are reliable sources of empirical knowledge. 1. S => material objects cannot create new things 2. The universe originally consisted of only material objects (assumption) 3. Therefore, S => material objects have not created anything since the beginning of time (either no new things exist, or immaterial things exist) 4. S => Minds are things which are not just arrangements of the original material of the universe (minds are a subset of "new things") 5. Therefore, S => material objects cannot have created minds 6. Therefore, S => either minds do not exist, or the universe contains immaterial things. In support of 4, our senses tell us that we have thoughts, feelings, etc. However we define those things, they are not defined by an arrangement of matter.If you take certain arrangement and say, "thats a thought!" its always an open question whether it is a thought or not. One would have to show that this arrangement of matter leads to what we subjectively experience as a thought. I think your objection is tantamount to claiming: 7. minds do not exist implies that our senses + modern science are not a reliable source of information which would lead to S => the whole argument falls apart, or immaterial things exist. That does seem to be a serious problem with my argument, but if we're sure that our senses + modern science are a reliable source of information, we could still conclude that immaterial things exist, which is an interesting conclusion, if not the one I originally aimed at. I still think its a possible conclusion that minds don't exist, but I'm just unable to explain how we can use our senses if they - and we - don't actually exist. So maybe it is time to talk about what is meant by "exists" (and possibly "material object"). I originally conceived of this nonexistence of our minds as a kind of illusion - just like when our minds think something is there but its not, our minds think that they exist, but they actually don't. But I find its quite impossible to defend this, since we are stuck in our subjective viewpoints, and any proposition I put forward must ultimately be defended by the reliability of our senses, and thus the existence of our minds. But I find the objective viewpoint irresistable, and I think that if we could only somehow transcend our subjectivity, we would see that human beings are just complex arrangements of matter, and the idea that we have minds would be just as absurd as the idea that robots could have minds. In order to get a sense of this, just suppose that we can be absolutely sure of propositions one and four, just as sure as we are that 1 + 1 = 2. Suppose we have some direct access to these facts, without the necessity of the senses being a intermediary. Then it would surely follow that either minds do not exist, or immaterial objects exist. And if we had direct knowledge that immaterial objects do not exist, it would follow that minds do not exist. I find myself convinced of that those propositions are true. I can't defend them, so all I can do is appeal to the real state of the world, to either justify me or refute me. But isn't this what we always have to do, ultimately? We can't derive all knowledge from "I think, therefore I am."

Johhanes de Silentio
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 55

Posted 04/18/08 - 07:19 PM:	#19
Mike H, I am rooting for you and I want you to succeed. Please clarify the following for me. First: What is your definition of a "mind"? It is an object? An event? Some sort of phenomena? How are you using it? Second: It may be the case that minds exist, that is, depending on how you define the term - but it does not follow that they do not have material causes. When I take drug, I have pleasurable mental sensations. When I am injured, I have negative ones. Thoughts themselves may be only neuron firings. It seems that all subjective events are effects of objective causes. Please show me I am wrong. Provide a objective event that has its roots in a subjective one. If you can do this, you are well on your way to proving the existence of a mind or a soul with a will. I know you can do it!

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207

Posted 04/20/08 - 08:36 PM:	#20
Hi Mike H Mike H wrote: If what I'm arguing is correct, then either dualism is not an illusion, or its impossible to shake off. Unfortunately I think your argument is either not valid or not sound – I’m not sure which because the argument is (at least to me) not clear. What we need is a set of clear premises, a clear inference, leading to a conclusion. Mike H wrote: I don't think you're grasping the (at least apparant) absurdity of saying "yes." How can billiard balls be self aware, or create a self aware being? It makes no sense. Take ten billiard balls on a pool table. Move them around any way you like, I guarantee that consciousness will not result. Take ten more, rearrange them any way you like, and I guarantee the same thing. Then take ten more, and ten more, and ten more - take however many you like. Does it make any sense to suppose there is some magic number of billiard balls such that they are suddenly infused with the mystical power to create a self-aware being, if they were only arranged in the right way? The prospect seems flatly absurd to me, on par with stories of burning bushes that talk, or floods that engulf the whole world. Why do you say it makes no sense? Where is your logical argument which leads to the conclusion that a suitable arrangement of billiard balls would not have conscious awareness? Sorry, but I think your conclusion that “it makes no sense” is purely an emotional, not a logical or rational, reaction. Mike H wrote: One might also say that because we cannot today explain how a burning bush can talk with the voice of God, it does not follow that it is inexplicable. If we cannot rule things out based on their absurdity, I suppose we also cannot say anything about the likely existence of fairies and leprechauns? We might conclude that a notion is “absurd” because (a) we can construct a logical, rational, coherent, sound and valid argument which leads to the conclusion it is absurd, or (b) we simply follow our intuitive, emotional reaction to the notion, without supporting logical analysis. Unfortunately, in respect of conscious awareness, it seems (along with notable writers like Searle) you are taking option (b). Mike H wrote: But you are supposing that there is something to explain regarding consciousness, that we already know it exists. But I'm arguing that possibly, it does not exist (and certainly, if we continue to assume a materialistic universe). We believe consciousness exists, of course, but I'm trying to argue that our belief is incorrect. You can't assume the opposite of my conclusion and use that against me. Am I to understand from this that you genuinely believe you are not consciously aware? Mike H wrote: I suppose its not exactly a logical argument, more like an argument from absurdity. Just as we think the existence of fairies is absurd, so should we think that a magical ability of material objects to create - ex nihilo - self-aware beings is absurd. See above. There are two ways to conclude “absurd” – the logical argument path, and the intuitive path. It seems you are taking the intuitive path. Why should I agree that your intuitions are correct? Mike H wrote: One could also make a Cartesian argument for free will. I can choose things, right? How can I possibly doubt that? Yes you can choose things – but do you in fact choose “freely” (first define what you mean by free will)? How do you know that you have free will? Once again, can you show that you have free will (either via empirical experiment or logical argument), or are you simply using your intuitions to conclude that you have free will? Mike H wrote: If that is so, then despite that indubitable belief that free will exists (in fact, you have to assume it in order to function at all), we can argue it does not exist. Not at all. I do not believe that free will (of the metaphysical libertarian kind) exists. No compatibilist does. The notion of metaphysical libertarian free will, based as it is on ultimate responsibility, is incoherent (which I can show by logical argument). Mike H wrote: I'm trying to make a similar argument against the existence of consciousness itself, with the same starting point that everything is just atoms and energy. Just like atoms and energy can't choose anything - they are subject to natural laws (whether deterministic or indeterministic) - neither can they create something out of nothing. They cannot have God-like powers, no matter how they are arranged. Therefore, conscious beings, which are conceived to be something above and beyond mere material, cannot exist. Several issues here. First define what you mean by “choose”. Why is it necessary to “create something out of nothing”, or to have “God-like powers”, in order for an agent to be conscious? Mike H wrote: Thats where we differ then. Its virtually self-evident to me that a computer cannot be self aware. Again, with respect, your conclusion is based on your intuition, not on logical argument. My intuitions are very different to yours. Mike H wrote: A computer is purely a machine - just like a type writer. A human being is also “purely a machine”. It just happens to be a machine in which consciousness arises as an emergent property. Mike H wrote: I think some people who have not programmed or don't know what programming really is can be led to think that computers can be self-aware. But all programming is arranging a bunch of ones and zeros - on and off switches. Can on and off switches ever be self aware? A single on-off switch cannot be self-aware. Neither can a single neuron in the human brain. Self-awareness arises an emergent property of a suitably complex arrangement of components. Your intuition may reject the idea, but my intuition does not.
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207

Posted 04/20/08 - 08:47 PM:	#21
Mike H wrote: 1. 1. S => material objects cannot create new things 2. The universe originally consisted of only material objects (assumption) 3. Therefore, S => material objects have not created anything since the beginning of time (either no new things exist, or immaterial things exist) What do you mean by “new things”? At the moment of the Big Bang, daffodils did not exist. Your argument leads to the conclusion that daffodils are either impossible, or they are immaterial? Mike H wrote: 4. S => Minds are things which are not just arrangements of the original material of the universe (minds are a subset of "new things") 5. Therefore, S => material objects cannot have created minds 6. Therefore, S => either minds do not exist, or the universe contains immaterial things. In support of 4, our senses tell us that we have thoughts, feelings, etc. However we define those things, they are not defined by an arrangement of matter.If you take certain arrangement and say, "thats a thought!" its always an open question whether it is a thought or not. One would have to show that this arrangement of matter leads to what we subjectively experience as a thought. Conversely, to conclude that (4) is correct, one would have to show that NO arrangement of matter can possibly lead to what we subjectively experience as a thought. This you have not done, therefore the truth of (4) is based purely on intuition.
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Johhanes de Silentio
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 55

Posted 04/21/08 - 06:05 AM:	#22
reincarnated wrote: Mike H wrote: If that is so, then despite that indubitable belief that free will exists (in fact, you have to assume it in order to function at all), we can argue it does not exist. Not at all. I do not believe that free will (of the metaphysical libertarian kind) exists. No compatibilist does. The notion of metaphysical libertarian free will, based as it is on ultimate responsibility, is incoherent (which I can show by logical argument). Can you show this please?

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207

Posted 04/21/08 - 06:11 AM:	#23
Johhanes de Silentio wrote: Can you show this please? With pleasure. The tricky thing with Ultimate Responsibility (for actions) (UR) is that to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you must also be ultimately responsible for the way you are (because the way you are, in absence of mere caprice, determines what you do). But to be ultimately responsible for the way you are, you would have to have intentionally brought it about that you are the way you are. Intentionality is a fundamental aspect of UR (if what we do is not what we intend to do, how can we be held ultimately responsible for what we do?). But to intentionally bring about a certain state N, you must have had a prior state N-1 which led to the intentional development of your state N (if N is an arbitrary state in the sense that you had no state prior to N which intentionally brought about state N, then you can hardly be responsible for state N, can you?). But this also means that state N-1 must have been brought about intentionally in a similar fashion, which means there must have been some prior intentional state N-2…… and so on ad infinitum. UR thus entails an infinite regress of intentional states. The only escape from such regress is to postulate either some arbitrary intentional starting state, or that the self is somehow magically and mystically able to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, the original causa sui (cause of itself). As Nietzsche observed in 1886 (in Beyond Good and Evil) : The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has ever been conceived, a type of logical rape and abomination. But humanity’s excessive pride has got itself profoundly and horribly entangled with precisely this piece of nonsense. The longing for "freedom of the will" in that superlative metaphysical sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half-educated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden, all this means nothing less than than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen’s, pulling yourself by the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence.……(Nietzsche) I feel that Nietzsche is too generous to causa sui in claiming that it must pull itself up by its hair. If the causa sui had any hair then it is just conceivable that it could accomplish such a feat. But it’s worse than this, because UR entails that there is no hair to start with – there is absolutely no intentional antecedent state which this causa sui can grasp a hold of in order to pull itself into existence. If the self is to be truly UR, it must literally create itself from nothingness. It cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps, because by definition it has no bootstraps before it pulls itself up.
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Johhanes de Silentio
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 55

Posted 04/21/08 - 07:24 AM:	#24
I may be genetically pre-disposed to become an alcoholic, but does that I mean I have no responsibility to stay sober? I am still the source of my choice to drink.

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:37 AM:	#25
Johhanes de Silentio wrote: I may be genetically pre-disposed to become an alcoholic, but does that I mean I have no responsibility to stay sober? I am still the source of my choice to drink. Yes, "you" are the source of your choice to drink - but "you" is the sum total of your genetic dipositions plus learned behaviour. The point is that any state N that you are in at any moment must have been brought about intentionally by a prior state N-1. If state N was not brought about intentionally by a prior state of yours then you cannot be responsible for state N. But this then leads to infinite regress of intentional states - which can be terminated only by postulating either some supernatural event (eg "a miracle occurs"), or that our intentional states are at some point grounded in a random starting state (in which case there is no ultimate responsibility).
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.