Materialism is logically imposible

[Terrapin Station]

Again, based on what?

On the conclusion...which I think is the only reasonable, intelligible and consistent one...that a thing called "consciousness" actually exists.

Do you for some reason hold a belief that all materialists are eliminative materialists?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you for some reason hold a belief that all materialists are eliminative materialists?

No; but any absolute Materialism is irrational, so in principle they are all forced in that direction in order to attempt to remain rational. They have to say, "Well, it's true that right now we can't prove that materials are all there is in the universe, and we admit that it looks like consciousness is a real, non-material thing, but in the future we will be able to show that "consciousness" is as materialist a thing as everything else" And that's a faith claim, not a statement of empirical fact. They are admitting it hasn't happened yet, but they are claiming to have a way to know how the evidence will fall in the future.

In sum, absolute Materialists are simply bluffing by claiming to know definitively more than they do; and Eliminativists are declaring a creed, instead of stating a fact. They're running on Materialist faith.

Either way, Materialism is not explaining "consciousness."

[uwot]

...historically 80% of all physics has been proven wrong and superseded by better metaphysical propositions or theories.

Do you have a source for this? I get the feeling that this is one of the 77% of statistics that are made up on the spot.

This is why I also tend to insist that there are no 'laws' as such: things to which matter has to comply with.

Well, the nomenclature is certainly muddled, but as a rough rule something is a law if it is a passably accurate description of what demonstrably happens. Hence Newton's mathematical description of the force of gravity is a law. This in spite of the fact that Einstein's field equations are even more accurate. His general relativity is a theory, because it is predicated on a metaphysical substance i.e. spacetime. I think you need to show your reasoning for why laws credit god with a particular behaviour, but I agree that any supernatural assumption is unhelpful.

To grow, science has to have the flexibility of understanding.

I think it is demonstrably the case that science grows, because scientists are always arguing.

[uwot]

Metaphysics is philosophy of existence or being. It answers questions like "What sorts of things comprise the world?" If physical things are at least part of what comprises the world, then metaphysics addresses physical things (even if it also addresses other things on some views).

Metaphysics, as it impinges on physical things, is the study of how things can be grouped, but as you say, on some views Aristotle's Categories is not the whole of ontology.

[uwot]

...Materialism is not explaining "consciousness."

As I said earlier, there is no consensus on what matter actually is, but that is no reason to invoke your god to plug that particular gap.

[Terrapin Station]

They have to say, "Well, it's true that right now we can't prove that materials are all there is in the universe . . . "

Haven't we previously gone over the idea of proving empirical claims, where you agreed that they're not provable?

[Terrapin Station]

Metaphysics, as it impinges on physical things, is the study of how things can be grouped

Speaking of where people are getting ideas from (re the comment on Hobbes' statistical statement), where are you getting the idea from that that's what metaphysics conventionally refers to--that insofar as it would have to do with physical things, it is the study "of how they can be grouped"?

[uwot]

...where are you getting the idea from that that's what metaphysics conventionally refers to--that insofar as it would have to do with physical things, it is the study "of how they can be grouped"?

Primarily as a philosophy undergraduate, I suppose. One of the core texts was called 'Metaphysics', I forget the author, but it was a spectacularly turgid read.

[Terrapin Station]

...where are you getting the idea from that that's what metaphysics conventionally refers to--that insofar as it would have to do with physical things, it is the study "of how they can be grouped"?

Primarily as a philosophy undergraduate, I suppose. One of the core texts was called 'Metaphysics', I forget the author, but it was a spectacularly turgid read.

Haha, okay. Maybe you are thinking of stuff you learned about mereology? Mereology is an aspect of ontology, dealing with part/whole relations. Ontology (which is the bulk of metaphysics) isn't at all limited to "grouping" though. My metaphysics, my ontology, is exclusively about physical things, by the way, since physical things are all that exist on my view.

[uwot]

My metaphysics, my ontology, is exclusively about physical things, by the way, since physical things are all that exist on my view.

Well I suppose I take the Kantian view that what we can know is phenomenal, whereas the source of those phenomena is noumenal. We can hypothesise about what is responsible for the things we can see and measure, but we cannot directly observe it. I may be idiosyncratic, but for me it is the observing and measuring that is the job of physics, while speculation about that source is the stuff of metaphysics.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well, the nomenclature is certainly muddled, but as a rough rule something is a law if it is a passably accurate description of what demonstrably happens. Hence Newton's mathematical description of the force of gravity is a law. .

Here is exactly a case in point.
Newton's expressed purpose was the describe the works of god in the book of nature, by describing God's Laws for the movement of the heavenly spheres. His "law of gravity" turns out to be somewhat wrong after Einstein.
And as Einstein's "laws" get older, it is likely that more has to be done to address the failings of his conception too.

[Noax]

You totally avoided the harder examples.

No I didn't. Instead, I told you what I really think...that if they have what we call "consciousness," it's nothing we can say. You don't want me to lie to you, do you?

But here's something more certain. With regard to consciousness, we may not know about such middle cases, but we most certainly CAN say WE do have a thing called "consciousness." And we CAN say rocks and basic chemicals don't. Given that these extremes are very easy to establish, so is the basic nature of the problem.

Sounds to me like you cannot identify a problem, and then you fault the materialist for the denial of it. Consciousness seems to be an on/off thing with you, but you don't even commit to that enough to say where the line might be drawn. I see no line, and rocks and chemicals are simply significantly less conscious to me, and humans are nowhere at the extreme opposite end of that open ended spectrum.

The robot case is not a middle case, it is potentially an imminently superior case, so declaring such a non-biological entity non-conscious means it is something associated (for no apparent reason) to biology, possibly carbon biology, or maybe only wet squishy biology. I know you didn't make any such declaration, but I've yet to meet a dualist that allows for machine consciousness.

[Noax]

I think there can only be two solutions, though: either some form of Monism ("all is one thing") or some from of plurality ("all is more than one thing"), which may be a Dualism or something more. The key opposition is between Monism and explanations that accept the possibility of plurality. And I think the latter have a huge advantage over Monism. The answer will be found among the plurality views, since Monisms inevitably avoid the whole problem by denying it can exist.

You rule out idealism with this. I found I could not myself.

Anyway, if a problem can be shown to not exist, denial is the cleaner solution. So far all we seem to have is 'not shown to exist' which is hardly the same as being shown to not exist.

Perhaps we can put aside all the assertions about my view being better than yours, and put our heads together to attempt identification of the problem. Constructive criticism of each other's view, without biased assertions. I know this site is more encouraging of destructive dialog than any other site I've seen, but it is not mandatory. I find you, Immanual, to be one of the more civil of the bunch. I just said a rock was conscious. Tear that apart. Ask my why rather that just assert that I'm wrong.

But at least with some sort of Dualism there is a chance that one day you will have an explanation. There's no such chance with any Monist view.

See? That seems a biased comment to me. The only thing monism has no chance of explaining is a non-physical definition of mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Haven't we previously gone over the idea of proving empirical claims, where you agreed that they're not provable?

No, we've said they're only probabilistically, but not absolutely provable.

That doesn't mean that probabilistic proof isn't worth doing. If I have a 99.999 % certainty my boss will pay me, that's good enough. I don't need absolute certainty there. On the other hand, if I have only 75% certainly my airplane won't crash, that's probably not good enough. Much depends on the question in hand. But in any empirical situations, and in all other cases but maths and other types of closed-system symbology, 100% certainty is simply not an option. None of us have that.

[Immanuel Can]

Sounds to me like you cannot identify a problem, and then you fault the materialist for the denial of it.

Not so. I gave you very clear cases on both sides.

I see no line, and rocks and chemicals are simply significantly less conscious to me, and humans are nowhere at the extreme opposite end of that open ended spectrum.

You're right...you and I don't agree. I don't see any reason at all to think rocks and basic chemicals have "consciousness" at all. But I'm ready to hear your evidence to suggest they do, if you have any...

I've yet to meet a dualist that allows for machine consciousness.

At present, we have no genuinely "conscious" machines. Whether we ever will is doubtful but certainly only speculative at this point. But if we ever did, it would not represent any kind of problem for Dualism itself: in fact, it would tend to confirm Dualism: machinery + consciousness = a duality.