Non-material "Consciousness" - the flaw

[Sarkus]

Following on from another thread that I began with Lightgigantic (which, due in part to my absence for over a week has moved on from the originally intended purpose), I am raising this thread to try and get answers to what I see as the most significant flaw in those that claim that the "non-material" exist and give "consciousness" as an example.


It is a truth that matter interacts with matter.
If we can't observe certain matter, we can at least infer its existence through its interaction with the matter that we can observe.

For example, there is matter X.
We see X moving around, and from that can theorise laws that govern its movement.
We then see X making movements that defy these laws.
The implication of this observation is either:
1. The theorised laws need to be amended to include the new observations;
2. There is an unobserved Y that is interacting with X.

If we follow 1 then there is no "non-material" - just matter.
If we follow 2 then we can learn 2 things - firstly that there is Y, and secondly that Y is material - as it is interacting with X.

Using this understanding it is clear that everything we can observe, and everything that interacts, is MATERIAL.
Energy is material.
Waves are material.
Patterns observed in waves are material.
etc.



Now on to "consciousness".

Some say that "consciousness" is non-material - and yet are adamant that its effects can be observed (i.e. we know when one is conscious or not, dead or not)...

... and thus "consciousness" must, from the above understanding, be MATERIAL in nature.



All I ask from those that disagree with this is to explain one simple thing...

How does a non-material phenomena interact with the material?


Now LG has given the analogy of a driver in a car.
The car is the body, the driver the consciousness - the car without the driver is just dull matter, but with the driver is... well... a car

Yet he can not see the flaw in the analogy: in the analogy we can see the interaction between the driver and the car. The driver and car are both matter - and the interaction between the two is clear.
His analogy thus fails utterly to explain how the "non-material consciousness" interacts with the body.


Please note that I am NOT saying that the non-material definitely does not exist... only that if it does it is irrelevant - just as something that is non-existent is irrelevant.


So I repeat my question to all those who think that the non-material exists...

How does a non-material phenomena interact with the material?


Thank you

 

[VitalOne]

It depends how you define material, it is often used to mean anything made of matter...so problem solved..by your definition consicousness although not being made of matter is also material...so I don't really see any problems at all

 

[grover]

Energy is material.

Is this true? (I don't know).

Now on to "consciousness".

Some say that "consciousness" is non-material - and yet are adamant that its effects can be observed (i.e. we know when one is conscious or not, dead or not)...

No, this is not true. There is nothing observable about consciousness. It can only be known through direct expereince.

... and thus "consciousness" must, from the above understanding, be MATERIAL in nature.

Right, but its effects can't be observed. IF they could be observed it would be a simple object of scientific scrutiny like other material phenomenon.

All I ask from those that disagree with this is to explain one simple thing...

How does a non-material phenomena interact with the material?

No, idea. But having no idea doesn't mean it isn't true. If it is just an epiphenomenon of material processes why is there any difficultly providing evidence for this. That's the point - it appears to be an immaterial phenomenon (i.e., has no physical qualities, can't be quantified), so there is a massive leap to say that "sure it appears to be an immaterial phenomenon, but that's just an illusion, it really is just material. No we can't prove this yet, or even do any tests yet. Just trust us, its really just matter."

Now LG has given the analogy of a driver in a car.
The car is the body, the driver the consciousness - the car without the driver is just dull matter, but with the driver is... well... a car

Yet he can not see the flaw in the analogy: in the analogy we can see the interaction between the driver and the car. The driver and car are both matter - and the interaction between the two is clear.
His analogy thus fails utterly to explain how the "non-material consciousness" interacts with the body.

This argument appears to me to be materialism of the gaps. Everything else science has been able to explain so far it has done so purely based on material therefore there must also be a materialist explanation of this phenomenon. But, your right his analogy does fail to show how non-material consciousness would interact with the body.

Please note that I am NOT saying that the non-material definitely does not exist... only that if it does it is irrelevant - just as something that is non-existent is irrelevant.

You seem to be equating non-materiality with non-existence. Of course it is relevant in discussions about religion because the immaterial is what the whole issue actually hinges around.

How does a non-material phenomena interact with the material?

Well I guess if materialists can say that the material brain just magically creates consciousness its fair for me to say that immaterial consciousness just magically interacts with the material.

 

[Grantywanty]

How does a non-material phenomena interact with the material?


Thank you

All phenomena are non-material.
Check out your experiences. Find something ´solid´. We are so used to this metaphor we think it is real. And it does not fit with current science either. QM posits a shifting reality. Each point drifting in and out of existence, neither simply matter nor energy, particles moving forwards and backwards in time, particles that are really waves that are probably in certain positions. The idea of solid matter is abstracted from a shifted non-material experience of the world.

 

[Sarkus]

Is this true? (I don't know).

Yes - they are synonymous.

No, this is not true. There is nothing observable about consciousness. It can only be known through direct expereince.
...
Right, but its effects can't be observed. IF they could be observed it would be a simple object of scientific scrutiny like other material phenomenon.

Can you tell if someone/thing has consciousness or not?
i.e. can you tell the difference, using LG's own example, between a dead body and a living one?
If yes - the effects are observable.

No, idea. But having no idea doesn't mean it isn't true. If it is just an epiphenomenon of material processes why is there any difficultly providing evidence for this. That's the point - it appears to be an immaterial phenomenon (i.e., has no physical qualities, can't be quantified), so there is a massive leap to say that "sure it appears to be an immaterial phenomenon, but that's just an illusion, it really is just material. No we can't prove this yet, or even do any tests yet. Just trust us, its really just matter."

There is no massive leap at all - as the only evidence for interaction is between material. NO evidence exists for interaction between material and non-material. It is, however, a massive leap to say that it is something that defies the laws of the universe as we know them - i.e. something non-material that interacts with the material.

This argument appears to me to be materialism of the gaps. Everything else science has been able to explain so far it has done so purely based on material therefore there must also be a materialist explanation of this phenomenon. But, your right his analogy does fail to show how non-material consciousness would interact with the body.

It is not materialism of the gaps. Materialism is the default position. If materialism can not explain something then to jump on anything else (e.g. non-materialism) would be a case of "non-materialism of the gaps".

You seem to be equating non-materiality with non-existence.

Not quite - not equating on all levels.
Non-material things may exist - just as another Universe may exist. But unless they interact with the material then they are irrelevant as anything other than intellectual discourse, or as an idea to assist in explanation while the full understanding of the exact mechanics eludes us.

Logically and rationally they might as well not exist - but this is not to say that they definitely do not exist.

Of course it is relevant in discussions about religion because the immaterial is what the whole issue actually hinges around.

"Relevant" as in relevant to our actual existence - rather than as an idea.

Well I guess if materialists can say that the material brain just magically creates consciousness its fair for me to say that immaterial consciousness just magically interacts with the material.

Noone says that the material brain "magically creates consciousness".
That is just ridiculous and a logical fallacy on your part.

I'm sure the first time you saw a decent magician, when you were young, you really thought it was magic.
Then you understood what was really happening, although even now you can still be amazed at how convincing the "magic" appears.

So it is with science - we know enough to have a reasonable stab at what is happening in most cases - but more importantly enough to know what is NOT happening. Although there are still things (such as consciousness) that still make us sit up and go "wow" without needing to say "it's magic".

 

[Sarkus]

All phenomena are non-material.

Material, in the sense I am using it, is anything that is composed of matter or has a material cause.
E.g. "Running" is not matter - but has a material cause.

Check out your experiences. Find something ´solid´. We are so used to this metaphor we think it is real. And it does not fit with current science either. QM posits a shifting reality. Each point drifting in and out of existence, neither simply matter nor energy, particles moving forwards and backwards in time, particles that are really waves that are probably in certain positions. The idea of solid matter is abstracted from a shifted non-material experience of the world.

All my experiences are material.
They are generated by, and stored as, material within my brain.

And I'm not merely referring to "solid matter" but the building blocks of that - and the building blocks of even those. i.e. I am sure that our understanding of what "matter" is will constantly change and improve - and with it our understanding of such things as "consciousness".
To be "non-material" is not to be something that is merely "not solid matter" (I'm not dealing with such trivialities) but to be something that is not of the same root.

 

[Grantywanty]

Material, in the sense I am using it, is anything that is composed of matter or has a material cause.
E.g. "Running" is not matter - but has a material cause.

My point is that matter is not something solid - not solid as opposed to liquid or gas or plasma - but as opposed to energy, for example.

All my experiences are material.
They are generated by, and stored as, material within my brain.

Your idea of the brain is abstracted from experience that is not material. Your sense of what 'material' means is abstracted from experiences that are not material. You are confusing the map with the thing.

And I'm not merely referring to "solid matter" but the building blocks of that - and the building blocks of even those.

Well, you should know that building blocks, according to recent science, is a terrible metaphor. It implies hard things that get stacked and is very misleading about what is going on at subatomic levels. The boundaries between the material and the energetic are not clear at all. And the boundaries between objects and processes are not clear either. 'Running' is actually a lot closer to 'chair' than you might like to think.

 

[Sarkus]

My point is that matter is not something solid - not solid as opposed to liquid or gas or plasma - but as opposed to energy, for example.

Semantics, I'm sure, as it is irrelevant what "matter" is - as long as it holds that for anything to be observed, or to interact, it has to be material.

Can you name anything that interacts with matter that is not, itself, matter?

Your idea of the brain is abstracted from experience that is not material. Your sense of what 'material' means is abstracted from experiences that are not material. You are confusing the map with the thing.

No - I'm not.
Experiences ARE material - whether you talk about the objective experience, the memorised experience or the subjective experience.
The objective experience: material interacting with material;
The subjective experience: interpretation of the objective, caused by the imperfection of the material flow of information (light, touch, heat etc) into the material brain where material processes interpret it;
The memorised experience: imperfect material storage of the subjective interpretation.

All of these are material.

If you hold otherwise, feel free to detail an experience that is not material - i.e. that is not caused by matter interacting with matter and that is not stored as/within matter.

Well, you should know that building blocks, according to recent science, is a terrible metaphor.

Yes - I realised that as I was typing, but without going into the details of the scientific understanding of what "matter" is, it suffices - again as long as it holds that for anything to be observed, or to interact, it is matter.

It implies hard things that get stacked and is very misleading about what is going on at subatomic levels. The boundaries between the material and the energetic are not clear at all. And the boundaries between objects and processes are not clear either. 'Running' is actually a lot closer to 'chair' than you might like to think.

Granted - but I understand that energy IS synonymous with matter. So whether you speak of energy or matter - they are both "material". Can you have energy without matter? Can you have matter without energy? Are they not merely properties/aspects of the same - i.e. material?

The "non-material" as theists / spiritualists etc deem it is neither. It is unmeasurable, unobservable. Yet they claim it interacts.

If the theist merely considers "soul" to be "energy" then it should be measurable. And if they consider that "consciousness" is just "energy" - then why do they say it is not measurable as such?

 

[grover]

Yes - they are synonymous.

Then how come scientists like Feynman say we don't know what energy is?

Can you tell if someone/thing has consciousness or not?
i.e. can you tell the difference, using LG's own example, between a dead body and a living one?

We are using the term consciousness to mean subjective experience. No, you can't tell by looking at it.

There is no massive leap at all

Yes, the massive leap is acting as if it has already been proven how the brain produces consciousness. There is nothing proven about this whatsoever. The ismple fact of the matter is that there is nothing from looking at the physical traits of a brain that would lead one to believe that it produces subjective experience (we only know it does by direct-first person experience). If consciousness is just simply a materially phenomenon then where is the difficulty in proving this in scientific terms.

- as the only evidence for interaction is between material.
NO evidence exists for interaction between material and non-material. It is, however, a massive leap to say that it is something that defies the laws of the universe as we know them - i.e. something non-material that interacts with the material.

This is precisely what is under question though - if consciousness is just material why can't this be proven by science? On the contrary, there is actually no physical evidence for it whatsoever(looking at the physcial characteristics would not lead one to believe that it produces conscious experience. The only evidence we have is self-evidence.

It is not materialism of the gaps. Materialism is the default position. If materialism can not explain something then to jump on anything else (e.g. non-materialism) would be a case of "non-materialism of the gaps".

It is materialism of the gaps. What you are saying is that materialism can explain all other phnomenon and therefore must be able to explain this one to (even though it currently can't explain it).
------------------------
If abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence then we are left with a strange situation with consciousness because we actually have no evidence and yet know (through first-person experience) that there is no abscence.
-------------------------
Thus far science can not account for consciousness whatsover and you are trying to use that as proof, not that there is something about the phenomenon under question that is not subject to the scientific method, but that phenomenon under question simply doesn't exist.

Noone says that the material brain "magically creates consciousness".
That is just ridiculous and a logical fallacy on your part.

Yes they do. When people say that consciousness just occurs because of "complexity" that is really no explanation at all. Or when they say that it just emerges because different parts of the brain are working together without being able to provide any test that has supported this hypothesis -that s the equivalent of saying "it just magically happens."

I'm sure the first time you saw a decent magician, when you were young, you really thought it was magic.
Then you understood what was really happening, although even now you can still be amazed at how convincing the "magic" appears.

Okay, then tell me "what is really happening" in the brain to produce consciousness.

So it is with science - we know enough to have a reasonable stab at what is happening in most cases - but more importantly enough to know what is NOT happening. Although there are still things (such as consciousness) that still make us sit up and go "wow" without needing to say "it's magic".

So it is with scientific materialism, which is a philospohical position that the only thing that exists in the universe is material. Science is a method. The method requires testing. There is currently no tests that support the hypothesis that consciousness is produced by the brain. People that try and make it sound like there is are no different than people that try and make it sound like intelligent design is science. You are explaining the scientific materialist position, not science itself.

 

[Sarkus]

Then how come scientists like Feynman say we don't know what energy is?

Because we don't - just like we don't KNOW what matter is - not to the nth degree of absolute.

We are using the term consciousness to mean subjective experience.

Which is entirely material, and "subjective" due to the imperfections of senses and storage.

No, you can't tell by looking at it.

I didn't say merely by looking. Can YOU tell the difference between a living and dead body? Please feel free to assume you can do any tests you want. But can you tell the difference?

Yes, the massive leap is acting as if it has already been proven how the brain produces consciousness. There is nothing proven about this whatsoever.

Noone is making the assumption that they know HOW, or that it has been PROVEN. This is a strawman fallacy you are putting up.

There is nothing proven about this whatsoever. The ismple fact of the matter is that there is nothing from looking at the physical traits of a brain that would lead one to believe that it produces subjective experience (we only know it does by direct-first person experience).

Irrelevant.
That is not what is in question. The argument is not that we should be able to look at something and deduce what it does... but rather that we try and understand how it does what we now know it does.

And the fact remains that if it is not a case of material interacting with material - it must be a case of the non-material interacting with the material - for which you are (or anyone else is) unable to provide any explanation for other than... "magic".

If consciousness is just simply a materially phenomenon then where is the difficulty in proving this in scientific terms.

Why is there difficulty in any realm of science in investigating things that are currently not well understood? Your logic is flawed - lack of knowledge/understanding is not evidence for an alternative. THAT is the leap of faith that you, and others, are taking - leaping from a lack of understanding of one (material / material interaction) to the claim of one for which no evidence and no rational explanation can be given (material / non-material interaction).

Please provide an explanation of how the non-material interacts with the material... other than "it's magic".

This is precisely what is under question though - if consciousness is just material why can't this be proven by science?

So removing a brain from a living subject and watching the conscious disappear is not scientific enough to demonstrate that consciousness is most likely a product of the brain?

On the contrary, there is actually no physical evidence for it whatsoever(looking at the physcial characteristics would not lead one to believe that it produces conscious experience.

Strawman. You are expecting one to be able to deduce the effects while accepting that we do not yet know enough about the internal mechanisms.

That's like asking a caveman to deduce what a computer can do by showing it the motherboard.

It is materialism of the gaps. What you are saying is that materialism can explain all other phnomenon and therefore must be able to explain this one to (even though it currently can't explain it).

Almost - I am saying that (rationally) materialism WILL BE ABLE TO explain all phenomena - if given total and perfect knowledge of matter - the substance of the universe.
Our current inability to do so is due to the imperfection of that knowledge - and we may never be able to explain it due to that imperfection.

But that is NOT "materialism of the gaps".

The default road is one of matter / materiality.
If you feel we come across a gap in that road - it is YOU who are filling it with "non-materiality of the gaps".
I personally see no gaps in the road - only in our understanding of the road.

If abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence then we are left with a strange situation with consciousness because we actually have no evidence and yet know (through first-person experience) that there is no abscence.

I grow tired of your, and others', (on other threads as well) claim that this is what is being touted - which is claimed by you through a lack of understanding.
I have never said that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is dishonest of you to claim that I have - or even to imply it. It is a red-herring, a strawman, a lie.
Please refrain from such distortions.

Thus far science can not account for consciousness whatsover and you are trying to use that as proof, not that there is something about the phenomenon under question that is not subject to the scientific method, but that phenomenon under question simply doesn't exist.

Again - where have I said that the phenomenon of "consciousness" doesn't exist????

You are being dishonest again.

I am fully aware that it DOES exist - but that it is a MATERIAL phenomenon.
And that our lack of understanding of it does NOT mean that it must therefore be NON-MATERIAL.

Yes they do. When people say that consciousness just occurs because of "complexity" that is really no explanation at all. Or when they say that it just emerges because different parts of the brain are working together without being able to provide any test that has supported this hypothesis -that s the equivalent of saying "it just magically happens."

There is a difference, which you obviously can not see, between "X magically happens" and "we don't know yet".

Science says "we don't know yet".

Those who claim non-materiality are the ones claiming magic.

Okay, then tell me "what is really happening" in the brain to produce consciousness.

We don't know yet.

So it is with scientific materialism, which is a philospohical position that the only thing that exists in the universe is material. Science is a method. The method requires testing. There is currently no tests that support the hypothesis that consciousness is produced by the brain. People that try and make it sound like there is are no different than people that try and make it sound like intelligent design is science. You are explaining the scientific materialist position, not science itself.

Let me detail a test - which you can feel free to dispute at any point....
1. Take live subject...
2. Replace heart with artificial machine to pump blood... is consciousness damaged / gone? No.
3. Replace heart and then replace kidney with dialysis machine... is consciousness damaged / gone? No.
4. Replace kidney and then replace liver with machine that can keep body alive temporarily... is consciousness damaged / gone? No.
5. Remove an arm. Consciousness damaged or gone? No.
6. Remove both legs, other arm etc? Consciousness damaged / gone? No.
7. Remove ears, nose, eyes, etc...

Finally - remove brain and destroy it.

At what point does consciousness disappear?

(Apologies in advance for the facetiousness of the upcoming comment...)
Ah yes - you'll probably now claim that consciousness is inextricably linked to the brain somehow, yet be unable to explain how, or how it interacts with the matter within our brain.



If you truly believe that "consciousness" is not material - are you claiming that it does not interact with any part of the material brain, that it is just hitching a ride? Then how do you explain that we react to our subjective experience - surely that is interaction?

If not, please answer the question of how the "non-material" interacts with the material?

 

[Grantywanty]

Can you name anything that interacts with matter that is not, itself, matter?

Forces. Gravity. Magnetism. Tendencies toward patterns. Entropy.

No - I'm not.
Experiences ARE material - whether you talk about the objective experience, the memorised experience or the subjective experience.
The objective experience: material interacting with material;
The subjective experience: interpretation of the objective, caused by the imperfection of the material flow of information (light, touch, heat etc) into the material brain where material processes interpret it;
The memorised experience: imperfect material storage of the subjective interpretation.

No. You are so used to grammar that separates phenomena out into subjects and objects it seems like they are matter. But actually go into your experience and find matter. It is much more ephemeral than that. Phenomenology finds no matter.

If you hold otherwise, feel free to detail an experience that is not material - i.e. that is not caused by matter interacting with matter and that is not stored as/within matter.

Again. The material things are thing abstracted and reified out of phenomena that are not material. We do tend to talk about things as material things. We have a habit. science (and religions for that matter) have shown that these habits are misleading.

Yes - I realised that as I was typing, but without going into the details of the scientific understanding of what "matter" is, it suffices - again as long as it holds that for anything to be observed, or to interact, it is matter.

Where is the observer and where does that observing begin?

Granted - but I understand that energy IS synonymous with matter. So whether you speak of energy or matter - they are both "material". Can you have energy without matter? Can you have matter without energy? Are they not merely properties/aspects of the same - i.e. material?

Can't then consciousness be a strongly held pattern then that is more like energy than matter, but under your definition still matter?

The "non-material" as theists / spiritualists etc deem it is neither. It is unmeasurable, unobservable. Yet they claim it interacts.

Oh, I think it is observable. I can tell what others are feeling. I sense the sentience in many 'things'. I can see why the other position would bother you.

If the theist merely considers "soul" to be "energy" then it should be measurable. And if they consider that "consciousness" is just "energy" - then why do they say it is not measurable as such?

Not neccessarily by technology we have today. Many phenomena have been confirmed AFTER technology advanced but were considered real by many people - often poo pooed by scientists about this belief.

 

[draqon]

consciousness is like a complex equation that defines the outcome of the variables it is given. Does an equation exist in material world? Does an equation influence material world?

In same essence does consciousness behave.

 

[granpa]

is information material?

 

[Sarkus]

Forces. Gravity. Magnetism. Tendencies toward patterns. Entropy.

These are all material:
Forces / Gravity / Magnetism - all are material in that they are merely different aspects of the same universal... "thing" (whether that be strings or some other interpretation etc).
Tendencies toward patterns are merely by-products of the others, as is entropy. They are observations (material) and subsequent assessments (material) of matter.

No. You are so used to grammar that separates phenomena out into subjects and objects it seems like they are matter. But actually go into your experience and find matter. It is much more ephemeral than that. Phenomenology finds no matter.

Firstly, which understanding of "phenomenology" are you referring to?

Experience is nothing more than observation - the interaction of the material to the senses - interpreted through material processes within the brain and stored as memory.
Afterall - remove ALL your senses and you will have NO input for the brain to interpret.
Remove the brain and you can not process the inputs from the senses.

While simple machines can have inputs/senses and an element of interpretation, it is a degree of complexity, and precise complexity most likely, that separates conscious from non-conscious.

Again. The material things are thing abstracted and reified out of phenomena that are not material. We do tend to talk about things as material things. We have a habit. science (and religions for that matter) have shown that these habits are misleading.

Define what you consider to be "material" then - so that I may see what point you are trying to make. Bear in mind that I am not talking lumps of matter (wood, atoms etc) but much smaller - down to the smallest as yet undiscovered realms - i.e. the objective nature of matter / energy / forces etc.

Where is the observer and where does that observing begin?

Of what consequence is either question, or answer?

Can't then consciousness be a strongly held pattern then that is more like energy than matter, but under your definition still matter?

Absolutely - a self-sustaining "pattern" of energy / interactions / chemicals etc. We can observe elements of it (ECG etc) but interpretation externally still eludes us, created by and comprising of nothing but matter.

Consciousness is undoubtedly the most complex thing we have come across and it might possibly be that we never fully understand the mechanics of what constitutes consciousness (or even scratch the surface of it) such that we have the equation for life, so to speak, and can just implant it into anything. But I am more concerned with the illogic of the claim of absolute non-material than the actual make-up of a material consciousness.

Oh, I think it is observable. I can tell what others are feeling. I sense the sentience in many 'things'. I can see why the other position would bother you.

Exactly - consciousness is observable - and thus at some level must interact with the material, agreed?
Now - if you hold it is non-material - how does it interact with the material?
What is happening at the border between non-materiality and materiality?

Not neccessarily by technology we have today. Many phenomena have been confirmed AFTER technology advanced but were considered real by many people - often poo pooed by scientists about this belief.

Granted. But all the phenomena that have been confirmed have been material.
And the theist claim of the immaterial soul is one of absolute immateriality - not just merely some "not-understood material phenomena".
And if it is material - as they claim - where is the observation / evidence?


Maybe I'm digressing from my own thread.
And apologies if it comes across as ranting / raving.
Pressures of work 'n' all that.

 

[grover]

Because we don't - just like we don't KNOW what matter is - not to the nth degree of absolute.

Yes, but we know what matter is.

Which is entirely material,

This is not a given. Quit treating it as such.

and "subjective" due to the imperfections of senses and storage.

So now subjectivity is the result of imperfections of senses and storage?

I didn't say merely by looking. Can YOU tell the difference between a living and dead body? Please feel free to assume you can do any tests you want. But can you tell the difference?

Yes, but you can't deduce consciousness merely based on behavior. For instance they can make computer programs capable of answering questions so that people can't tell they are interacting with a computer. A far as death goes some people claim to have had conscious experience after death. So death doesn't prove anything. Due to the fact that consciousness is only knowable through first person means we each will have to die before we can know whether consciousness can exist after death or not.

Noone is making the assumption that they know HOW, or that it has been PROVEN. This is a strawman fallacy you are putting up.

Yes you are making tha assumption every time you say consciousness is material. See above whne you say "which is entirely material."

Irrelevant.
That is not what is in question. The argument is not that we should be able to look at something and deduce what it does... but rather that we try and understand how it does what we now know it does.

Irrelevant? Are you kidding? The point I am demonstrating is that there is nothing obvious at all that brain produces consciousness (you can't look at a brain and make the determination that it produces consciousness). SO, I'd say in a discussion about whether or not it is produced by the brain is completely relevant, n fact its the exact issue under discussion.
-----------------------
Sarkus, the reason "the mind-body problem" is referred to as a problem is because there somethings to be something very problematic about it (lol). That problem is that consciousness appears to be a different order of phenomenon than matter. That being the case one can't simply state that "it really is just matter" and expect this to be accepted. Science needs a way of showing this.

And the fact remains that if it is not a case of material interacting with material - it must be a case of the non-material interacting with the material -
for which you are (or anyone else is) unable to provide any explanation for other than... "magic".

Yes, but materialists can not give an explanation about how the material brain gives rise to consciousness. "Mind-body problem."

Why is there difficulty in any realm of science in investigating things that are currently not well understood? Your logic is flawed - lack of knowledge/understanding is not evidence for an alternative.

Well, when we're talking about a phenomenon for which there is NO physical evidence but we all know exists I have to disagree. "Mind-body problem."

THAT is the leap of faith that you, and others, are taking - leaping from a lack of understanding of one (material / material interaction)

Stop trying to gloss over the fact that science can give no account whatsoever of how the brain produces consciousness (a phenomenon for which there is no physical evidence yet we all know exists).

to the claim of one for which no evidence and no rational explanation can be given (material / non-material interaction).

No evidence can be given for how the brain produces consciousness either. Given that we are talking about a phenomenon for which there is no physical evidence I don't see how its out of line to come to the conclusion that it may in fact be immaterial.

Please provide an explanation of how the non-material interacts with the material... other than "it's magic".

Please explain how brain gives rise to consciousness other than "magic" (i.e., "it just happens cause like when shit gets real like complex in brains consciousness happens")

So removing a brain from a living subject and watching the conscious disappear is not scientific enough to demonstrate that consciousness is most likely a product of the brain?

You can't observe consciousness at all. If you remove a brain the body stops moving. The only way to know about consciousness is to be there since it is only availbe to first-person observation.

Strawman. You are expecting one to be able to deduce the effects while accepting that we do not yet know enough about the internal mechanisms.

No, I am expecting that if someone is going to act like its a foregone conclusion that the brain produces consciousness (despite the fact that we currently of know physicla means of detecting it) that they have some evidence. All you are doing is spouting materialist dogma. I see no difference between the claims youre making and the claims of intelligent design.

That's like asking a caveman to deduce what a computer can do by showing it the motherboard.

Wrong. You are claimingthat the brain produces consciousness. You think this claim is supported by science which means there should be some scientist somewhere that can explain how this happens just like a computer scientist can explain why a computer can do what it does.

Almost - I am saying that (rationally) materialism WILL BE ABLE TO explain all phenomena - if given total and perfect knowledge of matter - the substance of the universe.
Our current inability to do so is due to the imperfection of that knowledge - and we may never be able to explain it due to that imperfection.

But that is NOT "materialism of the gaps".

In my opinion it is.

The default road is one of matter / materiality.

Science does not have a default position. Science is a method.

If you feel we come across a gap in that road - it is YOU who are filling it with "non-materiality of the gaps".
I personally see no gaps in the road - only in our understanding of the road.

You don't see a gap? You are claiming that brain produces consciosness even though there is no actual scientific evidence for this. Science requires actual evidence. Not jsut assumptions.

I grow tired of your, and others', (on other threads as well) claim that this is what is being touted - which is claimed by you through a lack of understanding.
I have never said that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is dishonest of you to claim that I have - or even to imply it. It is a red-herring, a strawman, a lie.
Please refrain from such distortions.

I repeat: "If abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence then we are left with a strange situation with consciousness because we actually have no evidence and yet know (through first-person experience) that there is no abscence." Please explain where the actual evidence is?

Again - where have I said that the phenomenon of "consciousness" doesn't exist????

Let me clarify. Consciousness does not have any physical attributes. Therefore it appears to be a phenomenon without physical attributes. You are saying this is just an illusion and it actually is purely physical, which is to say the phenomenon that we experience as existing is just an illusion which is to say it actually doesn't exist.

You are being dishonest again.

Calm down.

I am fully aware that it DOES exist - but that it is a MATERIAL phenomenon.

Evidence?

And that our lack of understanding of it does NOT mean that it must therefore be NON-MATERIAL.

I'm not saying it does. I'm explaining why I think a person can draw a rational conclusion that it isn't material.

There is a difference, which you obviously can not see, between "X magically happens" and "we don't know yet".

Right, but your not saying we don't know. You are saying that it is material.

Science says "we don't know yet".

Then why don't you say that?

Those who claim non-materiality are the ones claiming magic.

Nope.

We don't know yet.

There you go.

Let me detail a test - which you can feel free to dispute at any point....
1. Take live subject...
2. Replace heart with artificial machine to pump blood... is consciousness damaged / gone? No.
3. Replace heart and then replace kidney with dialysis machine... is consciousness damaged / gone? No.
4. Replace kidney and then replace liver with machine that can keep body alive temporarily... is consciousness damaged / gone? No.
5. Remove an arm. Consciousness damaged or gone? No.
6. Remove both legs, other arm etc? Consciousness damaged / gone? No.
7. Remove ears, nose, eyes, etc...

Finally - remove brain and destroy it.

At what point does consciousness disappear?


(Apologies in advance for the facetiousness of the upcoming comment...)
Ah yes - you'll probably now claim that consciousness is inextricably linked to the brain somehow, yet be unable to explain how, or how it interacts with the matter within our brain.

Which is EXACTLY what youre doing. You claim that consciosness is "inextricably linked to the brain somehow, yet (are) unable to explain how."

Welcome to the mind-body problem.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, but we know what matter is.

We do? Please do tell me what the quark is made of. And then what that is made of?
We have theories down to a certain level - but we most certainly do not "know".

So now subjectivity is the result of imperfections of senses and storage?

To a degree - as well as unique hardware (which includes those imperfections). Otherwise everyone would feel and react to exactly the same input with exactly the same output.

Yes, but you can't deduce consciousness merely based on behavior.

You can't?
So how do you know a dead body in the morgue is devoid of consciousness.

A far as death goes some people claim to have had conscious experience after death.

Unfortunately these are inconclusive at best, laughable at worst.

Yes you are making tha assumption every time you say consciousness is material. See above whne you say "which is entirely material."

Then it is clearly a case of you not understand the logic that leads to this position. I am not interested, for the purposes of this debate, as to the HOW - merely that if you accept that consciousness interacts with the rest of the body then consciousness MUST BE material.
Otherwise the onus is on you to explain how the NON MATERIAL interacts with the MATERIAL.

Irrelevant? Are you kidding? The point I am demonstrating is that there is nothing obvious at all that brain produces consciousness (you can't look at a brain and make the determination that it produces consciousness). SO, I'd say in a discussion about whether or not it is produced by the brain is completely relevant, n fact its the exact issue under discussion.

It is irrelevant because it is an arse-about-face strawman argument.
Noone is saying that one must be able to deduce from observation that the brain produces consciousness - only that if consciousness interacts with the body then it must be material - or you need to explain how non-material interacts with the material.

Sarkus, the reason "the mind-body problem" is referred to as a problem is because there somethings to be something very problematic about it (lol). That problem is that consciousness appears to be a different order of phenomenon than matter. That being the case one can't simply state that "it really is just matter" and expect this to be accepted. Science needs a way of showing this.

The ONLY problem is that science has not yet demonstrated what consciousness is, or more accurately it has not yet been able to recreate it artificially.
Other than that there is no problem - merely different ways of looking at it. Do you think emotions are non-material?
Do you think patterns are non-material?
Waves?

Yes, but materialists can not give an explanation about how the material brain gives rise to consciousness. "Mind-body problem."

Classic theist defence - yet I know you are not necessarily a theist. Odd.
Lack of knowledge is nothing other than a lack of knowledge. The fact that consciousness defies explanation so far is irrelevant to the top level issue I am putting forward. You have brought this down to a case of "you can't prove it - you're wrong!"

Well, when we're talking about a phenomenon for which there is NO physical evidence but we all know exists I have to disagree. "Mind-body problem."

You can quote "Mind-body problem" all you like - it makes no odds to me. I find it disappointing that you can't think for yourself and move beyond the confines of what other people might think. You seem too willing to embrace that which is illogic. Throughout this debate you have done nothing to refute the premis of the argument - but reduced it to "you can't prove therfore you're wrong". A pity.

Stop trying to gloss over the fact that science can give no account whatsoever of how the brain produces consciousness (a phenomenon for which there is no physical evidence yet we all know exists).

Define consciousness.

No evidence can be given for how the brain produces consciousness either.

Not how, no. But that is irrelevant. If it interacts with the material body it must be material - or you have to show how non-material interacts with material - i.e. what happens at the non-material / material border. This is an area you constantly fail to address - and I'm guessing it's because you can't. Oh - no - that's right... "it's magic"!

Given that we are talking about a phenomenon for which there is no physical evidence I don't see how its out of line to come to the conclusion that it may in fact be immaterial.

Because it is not logical.
For the reasons you have singularly failed to address throughout this thread.
You jump on the current inability to explain something to jump on the bandwagon / explanation of "non-material".

Please explain how brain gives rise to consciousness other than "magic"

I don't need to. If you hold with the premis then the conclusion is logical.
Either refute the premis or refute the logic.
The rest (the hows, whys, wherefores) is irrelevant.
How many times do I need to say it: Science CAN NOT YET EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT NON-MATERIAL.
If you want "non-material" to be an explanation then explain how it interacts with the material.

You can't observe consciousness at all. If you remove a brain the body stops moving. The only way to know about consciousness is to be there since it is only availbe to first-person observation.

Please define your understanding of "consciousness" then.

Regardless, you need to refute the premis or the logic of the original argument - otherwise anything you say further is irrelevant.

No, I am expecting that if someone is going to act like its a foregone conclusion that the brain produces consciousness (despite the fact that we currently of know physicla means of detecting it) that they have some evidence.

So you have never observed consciousness in someone else? Then I pity you - you must be a solipsist.

Wrong. You are claimingthat the brain produces consciousness. You think this claim is supported by science which means there should be some scientist somewhere that can explain how this happens just like a computer scientist can explain why a computer can do what it does.

Drivel. Science does not need to explain HOW to know that it does.
Science knows that there was a vast explosion at the start of this (cycle) of the Universe - but does not know how.
Science knows that life formed on this planet - but does not know how.
Or are you a creationist?

In my opinion it is.

Then your understanding is poor, and thus your opinion is deflated.

Science does not have a default position. Science is a method.

Who said "science has a default position"?
The default position is one of logic and rationality, tools also adopted by science.

You don't see a gap? You are claiming that brain produces consciosness even though there is no actual scientific evidence for this.

How many ****ing times do I have to state this... kill brain - kill consciousness. We observe the detruction of the brain - we observe the destruction of consciousness.
Science thus reaches the rational conclusion: healthy living brain gives rise to consciousness.
If you wish to go against this rational conclusion (such as "consciousness could go on after brain death") then please state an equivalent strength of evidence, given that my evidence has been shown to be true in 100% of cases.

I repeat: "If abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence then we are left with a strange situation with consciousness because we actually have no evidence and yet know (through first-person experience) that there is no abscence." Please explain where the actual evidence is?

And I'll repeat:
"I grow tired of your, and others', (on other threads as well) claim that this is what is being touted - which is claimed by you through a lack of understanding.
I have never said that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is dishonest of you to claim that I have - or even to imply it. It is a red-herring, a strawman, a lie.
Please refrain from such distortions."

Please provide where I have said "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and we shall proceed from there. Or is this to deteriorate into a slanging match?

Let me clarify. Consciousness does not have any physical attributes.

Yet you can observe someone displaying consciousness. Gosh. How do you explain that?

Therefore it appears to be a phenomenon without physical attributes.

Answer the above - then we'll move on.

You are saying this is just an illusion and it actually is purely physical, which is to say the phenomenon that we experience as existing is just an illusion which is to say it actually doesn't exist.

What utter illogic you spout.
The claim of materiality is NOT saying that it is just an illusion. It is clearly NOT an illusion.
Consciousness exists, for what it is, but it is material. That's what I am saying. Comprendez? Understand? Got it? Now quit with the strawmen fallacies and outright lies.

Evidence?

See above - brain / consciousness thing.

I'm not saying it does. I'm explaining why I think a person can draw a rational conclusion that it isn't material.

And you have yet to do so.

Right, but your not saying we don't know. You are saying that it is material.

I am saying we don't know the mechanics - but we know it is mechanical.
I have minimal idea how a computer works - but know it is material. Understand?

Then why don't you say that?

Let me clarify yet again, just so it is absolutely clear for you...
Science does not yet know the mechanics.
But the rational, logical position is that it IS mechanical.

Which is EXACTLY what youre doing. You claim that consciosness is "inextricably linked to the brain somehow, yet (are) unable to explain how."

But there is EVIDENCE, LOGIC and RATIONALITY to support the case, all of which you conveniently ignore.

I am not claiming science knows the mechanics.
Noone has.
But that if you follow the premis, and the logic, it IS mechanical.

Now - please start again with the premis.
If you refute the premis - indicate where and why.
If you don't but refute the logic - again indicate where and why.
If you don't but refute the conclusion - indicate why.

If you don't refute anything, but still want an argument - go elsewhere.

 

[grover]

We do? Please do tell me what the quark is made of. And then what that is made of?
We have theories down to a certain level - but we most certainly do not "know".

Q: What grounds are there for believing that the mind is physical?

AW: In 1847, Hermann von Helmholtz presented a mathematical formulation of the principle of the conservation of energy, and subsequent generations of physicists have regarded this as the key to understanding nature as a whole. This principle lays the ground for the so-called "closure principle," which states that only physical phenomena can be influenced by or exert influence in the physical universe. The brain obviously influences the mind, and there is growing evidence that the mind influences the brain, and these provide sufficient reasons for most cognitive scientists to believe that the mind must be physical. Any alternative, they believe, leads to an antiquated Cartesian dualism or other kinds of unscientific, "magical" thinking.

Many people who adopt this view think that the category of “physical” is simple and straightforward, and indeed it was through most of the nineteenth century. But advances in physics since then have made it more and more difficult to determine exactly what the term "physical" denotes. One way of operationally defining it is: anything that can be measured with the instruments used by physicists or that can be defined in the language and concepts used by physicists. But this poses a problem: no subjectively experienced mental state or process can be measured with the instruments used by physicists, and none can be defined in the language and concepts used by physicists. Moreover, when we experience mental states and processes directly, they exhibit no physical qualities, such as spatial extension, mass, or velocity.

The principle of Occam's razor is: "It is vain to do with more assumptions what can be done with fewer assumptions." I believe it is high time to apply this principle of parsimony to the scientific view of the mind and simply acknowledge that we do not know whether the mind and consciousness are physical or not. Why, after all, should we believe that the universe fits neatly into a human conceptual category—the physical—which has undergone many changing definitions throughout the history of modern science?

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/wallace_interview_hidden.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday afternoon U.C. Berkeley quantum physicist Henry Stapp brought his perspective to bear on the nature of the human mind and the survival hypothesis.
Quantum Physics and the Fallacy of Causal Closure

Stapp started his presentation by giving an update on his forthcoming book The Mindful Universe. He discussed a few of the sections in which he responds to recent books by Daniel Dennett and John Searle. Both Dennett’s book Freedom Evolves and Searle’s book Mind are based on the premises of classical—not quantum—physics. Stapp pointed out that both of these thinkers assume the causal closure of the physical, by which is meant that the physical world at all times is completely determined for all times by the physical laws. At any given moment, the physical world (e.g., the locations and velocities of all particles) is thus closed off from "external" causal influence. The result of this classical view is that any so-called mental or volitional input is viewed as essentially redundant, or unnecessary. Stapp emphasized that the physics of the 20th century, quantum mechanics, has departed in dramatic and significant ways from the ideas of classical physics. Stapp mentioned briefly some of the faulty reasoning that is apparent in Searle’s book. For example, he noted that by the end of Searle’s argument, he does not even reconcile the basic points and premises that he started the book with—and this is coming from one of America’s leading philosophers! Stapp said that the main point Searle ends with is that the familiar Cartesian concepts most philosophers employ must be revised because they are causing so much conceptual confusion. Overall, Stapp highlighted the strange fact that two of the most prominent philosophers today, Dennett and Searle, are still acting as if they were largely ignorant of the fundamental facts of quantum theory. Stapp’s view, by contrast, maintains that orthodox quantum theory leads naturally to the view that consciousness is efficacious in the physical world. Mind does indeed influence matter. Thus, the physical world cannot be causally closed-off from mind.

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=21&pageid=161&pgtype=1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the startling parallelism between today's physics and the world-vision of eastern mysticism remarks, the increasing contribution of eastern scientists from India, China and Japan, among others, reinforces this conjunction. Physical science has now become planetary and draws into its fold an increasing number of non-westerners who find in its new vision of the universe many elements that are quick to note, one cannot always distinguish between statements made by eastern metaphysics based on mystical insight, and the pronouncements of modern physics based on observations, experiments and mathematical calculations." -Werner Heisenberg
---------------------

In other words, the "closure principle" is kind of an antiquated idea from 19th century physics?

 

[Nasor]

Please explain how brain gives rise to consciousness other than "magic" (i.e., "it just happens cause like when shit gets real like complex in brains consciousness happens")

Funny, I thought "it's magic" was the religious explanation...

 

[grover]

Funny, I thought "it's magic" was the religious explanation...

You're right...it is funny.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Following on from another thread that I began with Lightgigantic (which, due in part to my absence for over a week has moved on from the originally intended purpose), I am raising this thread to try and get answers to what I see as the most significant flaw in those that claim that the "non-material" exist and give "consciousness" as an example.


It is a truth that matter interacts with matter.

ok

If we can't observe certain matter, we can at least infer its existence through its interaction with the matter that we can observe.

ok

For example, there is matter X.
We see X moving around, and from that can theorise laws that govern its movement.
We then see X making movements that defy these laws.
The implication of this observation is either:
1. The theorised laws need to be amended to include the new observations;
2. There is an unobserved Y that is interacting with X.

If we follow 1 then there is no "non-material" - just matter.
If we follow 2 then we can learn 2 things - firstly that there is Y, and secondly that Y is material - as it is interacting with X.

You said it is a truth that matter interacts with matter
I'm not sure how you would take that a step further, eg "It is the only truth that matter interacts with matter"
If you had totally exhausted everything knowable in this world (and cleared up certain problems, such as the wave/particle duality which tend to indicate otherwise) perhaps you would have a case

Using this understanding it is clear that everything we can observe, and everything that interacts, is MATERIAL.
Energy is material.
Waves are material.
Patterns observed in waves are material.
etc.

the problem is why we are frequently puzzled by our inability to reduce everything to energy, waves and patterns

Now on to "consciousness".

Some say that "consciousness" is non-material - and yet are adamant that its effects can be observed (i.e. we know when one is conscious or not, dead or not)...

... and thus "consciousness" must, from the above understanding, be MATERIAL in nature.

if you could reduce consciousness to waves, energies and patterns - yes

All I ask from those that disagree with this is to explain one simple thing...

How does a non-material phenomena interact with the material?


Now LG has given the analogy of a driver in a car.
The car is the body, the driver the consciousness - the car without the driver is just dull matter, but with the driver is... well... a car

Yet he can not see the flaw in the analogy: in the analogy we can see the interaction between the driver and the car. The driver and car are both matter - and the interaction between the two is clear.
His analogy thus fails utterly to explain how the "non-material consciousness" interacts with the body.

Please note that I am NOT saying that the non-material definitely does not exist... only that if it does it is irrelevant - just as something that is non-existent is irrelevant.

the car/driver analogy illustrates how the driver is the absolute essential aspect of a moving vehicle - even if a car is completely mechanically sound, it will not move an inch in a million years without a driver. (ok perhaps shifting land formations over a million years could cause it to roll down into a ravine)

The analogy illustrates spirit as the essential driving quality of matter - you can say life is not there because of a heart beat or breathing, but these things can be easily replicated for no gain - in other words it doesn't matter what material arrangement you make to facilitate life, without the presence of a soul, life will not manifest - just like it doesn't matter what mechanical adjustments you make to a car, without a driver it will go nowehere.

It is the purpose of analogy to illustrate something unknown with something known - in other words analogy works by suggesting how one thing is "similar" to another - to work with an analogy as an "exact" representation is foolishness. If I indicated a star in the night's sky by pointing out a branch on a tree, it doesn't mean that by measuring the distance to the branch you would have measured the distance to the star