The Materialism/Physicalism Con

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#21
These responses are examples of the only reason I don't put that guy on ignore. He derails threads. Though both your responses are thoughtful and valid, they are geared at something he brought up. Something that, as usual, has only a tenuous connection the the topic of this thread. So he gets to do what he always does, derail the topic-at-hand and spin silly about his basic concept du jour.
It would be helpful if you would expand on the topic. After all, you posted exactly two sentences, the second of which is incomplete and contains the word state that I don't understand. Since then you've just been ragging on me.

It's often the case that a thread not steered by its creator tends to veer off course. Steer us back.

~~ Paul
 
#25
I'm always surprised that those promoting no reality beyond experience are the same ones who maintain that there is no illusion to consciousness...
 
#26
I'm always surprised that those promoting no reality beyond experience are the same ones who maintain that there is no illusion to consciousness...
I'm always surprised in the belief in a materialistic explanation for consciousness by a Skeptic like malf here, but he doesn't provide a single scientific explanation for it. It's ... weird.

My Best,
Bertha
 
#27
I'm always surprised in the belief in a materialistic explanation for consciousness by a Skeptic like malf here, but he doesn't provide a single scientific explanation for it. It's ... weird.

My Best,
Bertha
I have an explanation for consciousness? Gosh, I had no idea.
 
#29
I'm always surprised that those promoting no reality beyond experience are the same ones who maintain that there is no illusion to consciousness...
I am never surprised by vague seemingly confused blanket statements, but that is a weird one.

Realism, objective reality you assume to exist outside of mind is in serious trouble, having been experimentally violated repeatedly.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...sical-reality-exists-only-when-observed.2281/

Thanks Saiko.

Materialism cannot survive the fall of realism, how it survives non locality though I am still not sure. It seems the actual illusion may be the seemingly separateness to our inner world and what we perceive as outside do to temporal localization. You could be a brain in a vat on an alien planet and you would not know. All we know is mind and information. Realism means an objective world outside of mind, other than this only the opposite can be true. That mind is the firmament to reality, reality is in mind and not the other way around. Realism is the maya, the illusion as many NDErs and ancient mystery schools have been telling us. And physics is catching up actually with culture way behind that still in newtonian mode.

BTW who exactly maintains there is no illusion to consciousness? What does that even mean? I think you have your skeptic talking points confused. You mean the skeptical rubbish notion (illusion) that consciousness itself is an illusion? Seriously, some materialistic rubbish is too stupid to even bother with.
 
#30
I am never surprised by vague seemingly confused blanket statements, but that is a weird one.

Realism, objective reality you assume to exist outside of mind is in serious trouble, having been experimentally violated repeatedly.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...sical-reality-exists-only-when-observed.2281/

Thanks Saiko.

Materialism cannot survive the fall of realism, how it survives non locality though I am still not sure. It seems the actual illusion may be the seemingly separateness to our inner world and what we perceive as outside do to temporal localization. You could be a brain in a vat on an alien planet and you would not know. All we know is mind and information. Realism means an objective world outside of mind, other than this only the opposite can be true. That mind is the firmament to reality, reality is in mind and not the other way around. Realism is the maya, the illusion as many NDErs and ancient mystery schools have been telling us. And physics is catching up actually with culture way behind that still in newtonian mode.

BTW who exactly maintains there is no illusion to consciousness? What does that even mean? I think you have your skeptic talking points confused. You mean the skeptical rubbish notion (illusion) that consciousness itself is an illusion? Seriously, some materialistic rubbish is too stupid to even bother with.
Ok. I seem to remember upsetting some by suggesting every (competing) model of consciousness involves some sort of illusion. We're all good then.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#32
It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters what can be proven. And nothing can be proven without consciousness. The only way that this can be disproved is to experience something without being alive.
But there is a huge quantity of evidence that the universe existed before life. To ignore it, you have to believe that some cosmic entity is playing an elaborate trick on us. Or some sort of quasi-religious idea that our psychic development depends on building a complex structure just so we think that the universe is old. Or a solipsistic view that I've built this all for my own amusement without knowing it.

I agree that a nonconscious entity cannot reach conclusions about the universe. But I wouldn't take that as proving that the only thing that exists are conscious entities. It might be true, but there is no proof.

~~ Paul
 
#33
Ok. I seem to remember upsetting some by suggesting every (competing) model of consciousness involves some sort of illusion. We're all good then.
Right, but physicalist push this over the edge of absurdity by implying that consciousness is itself an illusion. An illusion playing in what? :)
No consciousness, no illusion.
 
#34
Right, but physicalist push this over the edge of absurdity by implying that consciousness is itself an illusion. An illusion playing in what? :)
No consciousness, no illusion.
I've never been able to track down someone claiming precisely that consciousness itself is an illusion. People attribute that claim to Daniel Dennett but the closest I've been able to track down is his line in Conciousness Explained where he writes (p.23):

Today we talk about our conscious decisions and unconscious habits, about the conscious experiences we enjoy (in contrast to, say, automatic cash machines, which have no such experiences) - but we are no longer quite sure we know what we mean when we say these things. While there are still thinkers who gamely hold out for consciousness being some one genuine precious thing (like love, like gold), a thing that is just "obvious" and very, very special, the suspicion is growing that this is an illusion. Perhaps the various phenomena that conspire to create the sense of a single mysterious phenomenon have no more ultimate or essential unity than the various phenomena that contribute to the sense that love is a simple thing."
While one can certainly debate whether Dennett is accurate, I don't see this as absurd. Do you? Or were you thinking of a different quotation? If you were I'd appreciate you posting it. I have tried several times to find one and haven't found one that isn't some variation of this.
 
#35
I've never been able to track down someone claiming precisely that consciousness itself is an illusion. People attribute that claim to Daniel Dennett but the closest I've been able to track down is his line in Conciousness Explained where he writes (p.23):
Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained
The "synopsis" section should suffice.

Perhaps the various phenomena that conspire to create the sense of a single mysterious phenomenon have no more ultimate or essential unity than the various phenomena that contribute to the sense that love is a simple thing.
Unfortunately the parallel between consciousness and love is very poor, as there is really nothing else we can compare the former to.
Love (or fear) can be defined in many ways by many people, depending on their life experiences with love or fear etc... but this presupposes consciousness.

Consciousness just is. To quote a known philosopher in this forum "Consciousness is the primary datum of existence". I kind of like this definition, although every definition is limited.

While one can certainly debate whether Dennett is accurate, I don't see this as absurd. Do you?
Yes I do, but I understand that pushing to the extreme the pysicalist premise one can postulate a paradoxical conclusion.
It's an intellectual dead end, and many in that camp are slowly looking into more viable solutions such as panpsychism.
 
#36
Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained
The "synopsis" section should suffice.


Unfortunately the parallel between consciousness and love is very poor, as there is really nothing else we can compare the former to.
Love (or fear) can be defined in many ways by many people, depending on their life experiences with love or fear etc... but this presupposes consciousness.

Consciousness just is. To quote a known philosopher in this forum "Consciousness is the primary datum of existence". I kind of like this definition, although every definition is limited.


Yes I do, but I understand that pushing to the extreme the pysicalist premise one can postulate a paradoxical conclusion.
It's an intellectual dead end, and many in that camp are slowly looking into more viable solutions such as panpsychism.
I thought by absurd you meant in a logical sense. If you simply meant that you disagree then I misunderstood you.

But to clear, was the passage that I quoted (which is from the book being summarised in the wiki you linked to) what you were thinking of in terms of physicalists implying "that consciousness is itself an illusion"?

(hold on, I see the part of the wiki now that you were referring to, at the bottom, I will take a closer look)
 
#37
The wiki quotes Searle: ""To put it as clearly as I can: in his book, Consciousness Explained, Dennett denies the existence of consciousness. He continues to use the word, but he means something different by it. For him, it refers only to third-person phenomena, not to the first-person conscious feelings and experiences we all have."

From my recollection of Consciousness Explained, I'm not sure this is accurate. I will take a look and get back to you on this.
 
#38
But there is a huge quantity of evidence that the universe existed before life.
~~ Paul
As long as that evidence was acquired without the use of consciousness, then you have a point. If consciousness was required to obtain that evidence, then your statement is logically flawed. We don't know what the universe looks like from outside of our perception. Just because a bunch of us agree that the universe appeared to exist before life doesn't mean that it's true. We can only view the universe from inside of our collective perception. You would have to be outside of consciousness to know this for sure. That, of course, is impossible.
 
#39
As long as that evidence was acquired without the use of consciousness, then you have a point. If consciousness was required to obtain that evidence, then your statement is logically flawed. We don't know what the universe looks like from outside of our perception. Just because a bunch of us agree that the universe appeared to exist before life doesn't mean that it's true. We can only view the universe from inside of our collective perception. You would have to be outside of consciousness to know this for sure. That, of course, is impossible.
Paul didn't suggest we could know it for sure.

There is very little that we can be 100% certain about. There is almost always the possibility of error. I've never heard anyone argue that we should ignore evidence unless it leads to 100% certainty. Heck, I've seen you object to demands for "extroadinary" levels of proof for certain claims. Given that that is less than 100% proof I'm surprised to see you suddenly argue for it now. What makes this claim merit such a high standard in your opinion?
 
Top