Christianity

[promethean75]

Spinz's take on it is pretty satisfying for me and makes the most sense, even if in saying 'by substance I don't mean material', Spinoza left a mystery as to what he actually meant there.

he has a reductive argument to prove a single substance from which extensions with attributes come unto existence. bodies in space and 'mind' are the two known modes of this single substance. but his concept of 'mind' is not cartesian. rather S calls all knowledge and ideas, knowledge and ideas about the body, about the extention of material things in space. so there isn't a speck of platonism or Cartesian ghosts in Spinz. no transcendental features about the nature of experience. in a sense Spinz is kinda like Hume in his description of the 'self'. Hume's bundle theory of impressions is similar to Spinz's monism property dualism position. the mind experienced as the 'self', the 'you', is sustained and held together by the memory and RAM produced by the electrical activity of the brain. even with the worst case of amnesia a person has a short term memory long enough to sustain a sense of self as Spinz and Hume see it.

fundamentally then the 'mind' is a purely reductive process emerging from some material extension in space. that is, if there is an active awareness, it is produced and dependent on some body, some material sense data, that is ascertained through sensory perception.

there is no realm where a pure contemplation of platonic objects could ever occur. Hegel wuz wrong. absolute spirit is impossible. this is why fish's godAI2.0 requires physical space for a program to run. he even admitted it. 

[Immanuel Can]

It's fine as far as it goes, but given Belinda's additional premise that we lack free will, it implies an epiphenomenal view of consciousness ("experiencing"), which is provably false - see the 2011 Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge article by Titus Rivas and Hein van Dongen.

Opposite of epiphenomenon, experience is the necessary and sufficient condition for all phenomena. To know that is true, apply the method of doubt.

You believe we lack free will. How, then, can consciousness be anything other than epiphenomenal?

Epiphenomenalism is, of course, a non-explanation rather than an explanation of anything. It claims that consciousness and such phenomena merely “supervene” upon the materials, or brain. But nobody understands what “supervene” precisely entails, or entails at all, or how something totally non-material can “pop out of” materials.

[henry quirk]

Phyllo,

If you have some evidence for a non-physical explanation, then present it.

Well, I offered a tidbit already...

The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.

...which hasn't been refuted (only dismissed or ignored [I called it, Harry]).

Not seein' why I need to exhaust myself (in a rope-a-dope) to offer more you'll just dismiss or ignore.

Besides: where's the reciprocity? You've offered nuthin' at all 'cept for a promissory materialism married to an admission of ignorance.

[Harry Baird]

Insofar as words represent concepts, which might be seen as "artificially" created, then, sure. That doesn't change the facts though. The concept of the physical - "artificial" or otherwise - excludes the mental and thus consciousness, and thus, the philosophy of "physicalism" is a non-starter.

You have basically decided that "the physical" doesn't produce "the mental" and you carry on from there.

I've "decided" that though in virtue of the meaning of the words. If I were to tell you that I would like to give you a bunch of Lego bricks from which I wished for you to build me an edible meal, from which I could derive sustenance, you'd tell me that such a thing was impossible, based on what the meanings of "Lego bricks" and "edible meal" are: you simply can't get the latter from the former. Same deal with getting a mind out of matter.

[Harry Baird]

Opposite of epiphenomenon, experience is the necessary and sufficient condition for all phenomena. To know that is true, apply the method of doubt.

You believe we lack free will. How, then, can consciousness be anything other than epiphenomenal?

Epiphenomenalism is, of course, a non-explanation rather than an explanation of anything. It claims that consciousness and such phenomena merely “supervene” upon the materials, or brain. But nobody understands what “supervene” precisely entails, or entails at all, or how something totally non-material can “pop out of” materials.

Yep, and it's the view that's entailed by a "mind of out matter" physicalism, so, aside from the impossibility of that type of physicalism just in virtue of the meanings of the words "mind" and "matter" (per my "Lego bricks" and "edible meal" analogy, and Henry's arguments), the argument in the article I shared rigorously disproves that "mind out of matter" brand of physicalism.

[BigMike]

These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything.

Certainly, atoms do not comprehend anything. But how do you move from that assertion to the next?:

Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything.

We now know that learning and long term memory are basically the same thing. Both are the result of the growth of new axon terminals strengthening synaptic connections between neurons. Understanding, of which there are many kinds, results from 'learnings' and 'remembered information' that logically lead to a conclusion, and that logic is physically hardwired in the brain. Understanding is nothing but inferred conclusions.

But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.

Are you arguing that "qualities we possess which are not made out of energy" can freely launch brain processes, potentially resulting in actions, that would not otherwise occur?

[Dontaskme]

But nobody understands what “supervene” precisely entails, or entails at all, or how something totally non-material can “pop out of” materials.

There is no such something as a non-material material.

The material world is all that can be known. No knower/knowing has ever stepped outside of it's own knowing brain, or to put another way, as had an out of body experience of some non-material realm of spirit. Rather, the brain and the contents of the brain are the same inseparable physical phenomena. There is no such reality as a mind/body related substance dualism. All human experience is what brains do, just a simple brain function that requires no personage to make it work. The brain is operating blindly and doing it's job. Brains pop out 'people' - 'people' do not pop out brains.

[Harry Baird]

If I were to tell you that I would like to give you a bunch of Lego bricks from which I wished for you to build me an edible meal, from which I could derive sustenance, you'd tell me that such a thing was impossible, based on what the meanings of "Lego bricks" and "edible meal" are: you simply can't get the latter from the former. Same deal with getting a mind out of matter.

The most interesting response I've gotten to this analogy is: consciousness might be produced by matter in the same way as electricity is produced by matter, such as via the generator effect.

One problem with this response is that it is only possible to produce electricity via the generator effect because matter already has electromagnetic properties, which this effect relies upon. The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.

[Walker]

The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.

Expanding knowledge of matter and energy as it relates to personal awareness is not really a just cause to make that new knowledge, something other than the physical.

[Harry Baird]

The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.

Expanding knowledge of matter and energy as it relates to personal awareness is not really a just cause to make that new knowledge, something other than the physical.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but on my best guess: awareness already is other than the physical (even if it might to some extent correlate with aspects of the physical, such as a brain).

[BigMike]

One problem with this response is that it is only possible to produce electricity via the generator effect because matter already has electromagnetic properties, which this effect relies upon. The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.

Thus, do you imply that the physical universe is only an illusion?

[attofishpi]

Insofar as words represent concepts, which might be seen as "artificially" created, then, sure. That doesn't change the facts though. The concept of the physical - "artificial" or otherwise - excludes the mental and thus consciousness, and thus, the philosophy of "physicalism" is a non-starter.

You have basically decided that "the physical" doesn't produce "the mental" and you carry on from there.

I've "decided" that though in virtue of the meaning of the words. If I were to tell you that I would like to give you a bunch of Lego bricks from which I wished for you to build me an edible meal, from which I could derive sustenance, you'd tell me that such a thing was impossible, based on what the meanings of "Lego bricks" and "edible meal" are: you simply can't get the latter from the former. Same deal with getting a mind out of matter.

So what is required for a mind to exist? Would you agree that matter is ALSO required?

[Walker]

The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.

Expanding knowledge of matter and energy as it relates to personal awareness is not really a just cause to make that new knowledge, something other than the physical.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but on my best guess: awareness already is other than the physical (even if it might to some extent correlate with aspects of the physical, such as a brain).

What I mean is, only the physical exists. Like awareness, like knowledge, like perception, the body itself refines naturally if allowed. The refinement is towards energy, towards becoming energy. Consciousness persists and because it needs form, it takes on a different kosha, one more suited to the energy, a different sheath of human, perceivable to senses that have grown more sensitive, more energetic. It is how Christ became light, and perceivable to those he touched.

[Walker]

The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.

Expanding knowledge of matter and energy as it relates to personal awareness is not really a just cause to make that new knowledge, something other than the physical.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but on my best guess: awareness already is other than the physical (even if it might to some extent correlate with aspects of the physical, such as a brain).

What I mean is, only the physical exists. Like awareness, like knowledge, like perception, the body itself refines naturally if allowed. The refinement is towards energy, towards becoming energy. Consciousness persists and because it needs form, it takes on a different kosha, one more suited to the energy, a different sheath of human, perceivable to senses that have grown more sensitive, more energetic. It is how Christ became light, and perceivable to those he touched.

[Harry Baird]

One problem with this response is that it is only possible to produce electricity via the generator effect because matter already has electromagnetic properties, which this effect relies upon. The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.

Thus, do you imply that the physical universe is only an illusion?

No, I don't think it's an illusion. I think it's comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "physical". I think that minds are also comprised of a type of energy, which might be described as "mental". My current view is that mental and physical energy interact, and that they are in a sense different poles of a base energy on the spectrum from "least amenable to conscious expression" ("matter") to "most amenable to conscious expression" ("mind").