Materialism is logically imposible

[Immanuel Can]

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

I gave it the nod on the way by, but I don't think many people here are plugging for Idealism. To do so, they would have to deny that material reality exists as anything but ideation. That's a little "out there" for most people, but if you want to push for it we can listen to what you've got to say to convince us it's true...

denial is the cleaner solution

Eh? Since when has denial been a "solution" to anything? In fact, denial is what one does to avoid having to solve anything.

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.

Yep, okay.

I just said a rock was conscious. Tear that apart. Ask my why rather that just assert that I'm wrong.

Good idea. In fact, it was essentially one of my questions in the previous response, and I'm happy to hear your answer.

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.

No bias intended. I have made an argument for this earlier.

That is, if you are presently talking to a me, then we are communicating as consciousnesses right now. Consider that you and I have no physical presence to each other at the moment. Consider, moreover, that we are communicating only in little black symbols which materially cause nothing to happen, but when interpreted by a consciousness can be translated into ideas.

Is that not what we are doing? And if we are, how can we say either a) "consciousness" is just materials, or b) "consciousness" is not real? Even to say it requires consciousness, and even for me to understand such a claim requires my consciousness.

So anyone who argues or even communicates in the way we are doing cannot logically consistently be a Monist. That's not a "bias": it's an argument. And I think it's a good one.

[Terrapin Station]

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

What the heck does "proof" mean when we apply "probabilistic" to it?

[Immanuel Can]

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

What the heck does "proof" mean when we apply "probabilistic" to it?

"Proof," as people sometime use it, meaning "absolute certainty," is only a term that rightly applies to maths problems and logic puzzles. Nothing we can "know" in the empirical world is more than probabilistic. In that sense, nothing is "proven." But when we realize that all empirical matters can only be known probabilistically, the fear of uncertainty evaporates. Because we still feel we "know" stuff, and we still feel satisfyingly certain, even though the truth is that we're only estimating by probability.

And we all experience this routinely, actually. When I get into an airplane, hoping to fly to Dallas or Dublin or Dubai, I do not have certainty that it will arrive. Planes do crash...not often, but certainly sometimes. But it matters immensely to me if the odds are 99.999% that I will arrive at my destination alive, and I consider that "proof" (meaning in this case, "good enough odds") that I don't fear to take the plane. But if someone told me that 50% of the aircraft hit the ground in a ball of flames or spiral helplessly into the ocean, then that's not enough "proof" for me: I'm staying home, thank you.

Everything human beings have empirically "proven," from what will happen to airplanes to what substance will appear out of my tube of toothpaste when I squeeze it, is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. But that's okay, because probabilities are still very, very good things. We couldn't live without them.

[Terrapin Station]

What I'm asking you for is the definition of "proof" when you preface it with "probability."

Think of it this way: what's the difference between saying "the probability that x" and "We have a probabilistic proof (of such and such) that x"?

What is the function of the word "proof" in that latter phrase?

Per your one comment, you're not saying that you're defining "proof" as "good enough odds" are you--a la "The probabilistic good enough odds"?

[Immanuel Can]

What I'm asking you for is the definition of "proof" when you preface it with "probability." Think of it this way: what's the difference between saying "the probability that x" and "We have a probabilistic proof (of such and such) that x"?

"Proof" is the wrong word. I know people routinely use it loosely, but it leads them to think something 100% has been achieved, as when they say, "Science has proven that X..."

No, strictly speaking, science does not "prove": it gives us stronger reasons to believe, or more evidence to support X, but cannot give us absolute certainty, because no scientist has every actually performed the complete set of experiments on any question. What he's done instead is run, say 25 tests, and then extrapolate from that to what will probably happen on test 51, 52, 53 and so on. But since he has not run those tests, he cannot say for certain that some unknown factor will not produce an anomaly in test 59 or 60. So he's operating probabilistically, not with certainty.

Most people don't realize that, I think. And that's why they think science "proves" things. But it does not, if we use the word precisely.

Per your one comment, you're not saying that you're defining "proof" as "good enough odds" are you--a la "The probabilistic good enough odds"?

No. To be clear, I'm saying if we use language rightly, we'd use a word like "proof" only for situations of closed symbols, like maths. For every single empirical question that has ever existed, we'd just say "evidence," and its conclusion would be "probability" not "certitude."

That's it.

[Noax]

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.

You just gave a clear example of a thing that has it, and one that does not. Could have been a definition of "has density near 1kg/liter".

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...

Chemicals and rocks interact with other things, a seeming base requirement for consciousness. Being made effectively of chemicals myself, the simple rock or bottled water is just lacking complexity. So rocks are more conscious than neutrinos for instance which seem pretty immune from process. I'm fine with a declaration that rocks have not crossed the threshold, but you've not provided said threshold, so it is a good place to start.

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.

You're open to it. Cool! If a machine ever achieves genuine consciousness, does that mean it has a soul and is eligible for salvation? Or is soul and consciousness different things? You would not commit to a tulip being conscious or not, so are you thus unsure if tulips have an afterlife? Surely machines have reached the consciousness level of a tulip by now.

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

I gave it the nod on the way by, but I don't think many people here are plugging for Idealism. To do so, they would have to deny that material reality exists as anything but ideation. That's a little "out there" for most people, but if you want to push for it we can listen to what you've got to say to convince us it's true...

Any idealism for me would not be the usual kind. I define existence as 'standing apart', and I'm very liberal about what exists, but for anything to exist, there must be something nonexistent that stands apart from it, which makes no sense at all. I'm not going to argue for it because I am lost on this front. Perhaps this universe stands apart because it is observed. Maybe I need a new definition of existence.

I use idealistic as an adjective. There are some things that are mental constructs. Consider 3D space for instance. Which direction is the X axis? There is in fact no X axis to space, so the axis is arbitrarily assigned. No mental assignment, no axis. It is an idealistic thing. Ditto for the Y and Z axes and even the 4th temporal one. It can be oriented in any arbitrary direction (within reason), so there is not a 'real' one that stands apart.

denial is the cleaner solution

Eh? Since when has denial been a "solution" to anything? In fact, denial is what one does to avoid having to solve anything.

Occam's razor. A solution that doesn't invent a new thing and is no more problematic than one that does, the simpler solution is the more likely (cleaner). I don't have to solve the invented thing because I didn't invent a new thing. You assert my view is more problematic, but I've not been able to get a satisfactory problem statement from the dualist crowd. It is admittedly hard to work in an unbiased way. "Consciousness is unexplained" is about as clear as it gets, but methodological naturalism has made far more ground in that explanation than the zero ground made by the dualist assertion that it is hidden in a magic realm beyond explanation. Just stating where I'm coming from and how I see the situation. I am an on/off-again dualist myself, most recently giving it up for lack of it solving the problems I saw. The free will threads are what eventually shed light on where the real illusion seemed to be, which is that of a persistent self. That's a real hard one to give up, but a lot of pieces fell nicely into place once it was worked out.

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.

Yep, okay.

Great. There are plants that communicate and cooperate to defend against threats. Are they conscious? I'm not really looking for a yes/no answer, but rather reasons for each side of that debate. Those reasons will help us craft a better definition since right now we have almost nothing.

I just said a rock was conscious. Tear that apart. Ask my why rather that just assert that I'm wrong.

Good idea. In fact, it was essentially one of my questions in the previous response, and I'm happy to hear your answer.

No bias intended. I have made an argument for this earlier.

Materialism has no chance? Why not? Only no chance of explaining a non-material thing. Hence the biased assumption that consciousness is immaterial. If it is material, then dualism is the thing with no chance. If we are open minded about it, then this no-chance talk goes away.

That is, if you are presently talking to a me, then we are communicating as consciousnesses right now.

So does the plant or a robo-sales call leaving a message on my phone. I agree, communication is good evidence, but precludes designation of consciousness from any entity isolated from any other. God is not conscious, or was not until us (or angel) minions were made for company? The robo call does not seem like conscious communication, but there are definitely machines that convey real information to each other that is never intended directly for humans. That information is encoded symbolically just like the symbols in this post, even if not in the same language.

Is that not what we are doing? And if we are, how can we say either a) "consciousness" is just materials, or b) "consciousness" is not real? Even to say it requires consciousness, and even for me to understand such a claim requires my consciousness.

So anyone who argues or even communicates in the way we are doing cannot logically consistently be a Monist. That's not a "bias": it's an argument. And I think it's a good one.

It is what we're doing, but I'm not sure what we're doing that the machines are not. How does a materialistic view deny the ability to communicate?

Question of my own: What purpose is served by brains? OK, body regulation like heartbeat and digestion and homeostasis, but where is the cutoff for mental properties? Does the soul do that, or is the soul some sort of object that has a mind, and the mind does it? What function is done by the brain? Presumably this function does not carry to any sort of afterlife. I'm just not sure what functions are included in your definition of the materialistically inexplicable.

[Immanuel Can]

Chemicals and rocks interact with other things, a seeming base requirement for consciousness.

To my mind, "interacts with things" is a wholly unsatisfactory definition of consciousness. For one thing, there's no "inter" in the "interaction" that happens with rocks. Rocks just sit there. For another, such a vague definition would allow anything to be considered "consciousness." I don't disagree that "interacting" could be a necessary part of a definition, but it's clearly not a sufficient definition.

Being made effectively of chemicals myself, the simple rock or bottled water is just lacking complexity.

Complexity is also necessary...but again, not sufficient. A train is complex, but it's not closer to "conscious" than the track it runs on.

You're open to it. Cool! If a machine ever achieves genuine consciousness, does that mean it has a soul and is eligible for salvation? Or is soul and consciousness different things? You would not commit to a tulip being conscious or not, so are you thus unsure if tulips have an afterlife? Surely machines have reached the consciousness level of a tulip by now.

Re: tulips, not "wouldn't commit": rather, "don't really know and so can't say." Neither can anyone, so anyone who did commit on that would be bluffing. But we don't think it's likely they're conscious. It seems highly improbable, and there are not obvious signs of plant "consciousness."

Any idealism for me would not be the usual kind. If define existence as 'standing apart', and I'm very liberal about what exists, but for anything to exist, there must be something nonexistent that stands apart from it, which makes no sense at all.

Not necessarily. Sometimes there are no opposites to a thing. Take "light," for example. It's a real thing: it's made of particles or waves, it generates heat, it renders vision possible, and so forth. But its opposite, dark, is not a real thing: it's only the absence of light. This is the reason that when you walk into a room you can turn on the light, but there's no switch to turn on the dark. Darkness is just an absence.

Likewise with existence. Existence is real property of things. Non-existence is merely its absence. So there does not have to be anything that is non-existent. In fact, non-existence is not-being...so that does make sense.

I'm not going to argue for it because I am lost on this front. Perhaps this universe stands apart because it is observed. Maybe I need a new definition of existence.

Fair enough.

Eh? Since when has denial been a "solution" to anything? In fact, denial is what one does to avoid having to solve anything.

Occam's razor. A solution that doesn't invent a new thing and is no more problematic than one that does, the simpler solution is the more likely (cleaner). [/quote]
The "razor" is only a suggestion of what sort of hypothesis is ordinarily to be preferred, not a hard-and-fast law about what is true or right.

"Consciousness is unexplained" is about as clear as it gets,

And that's fine. There are things that really exist, but we don't know everything about them. Take the universe, for example. Nobody knows how big it is. And since it's expanding, nobody CAN really know what size it is. But that doesn't mean the universe doesn't have a particular size at any particular moment.

With consciousness, it's enough for us to say, "Well, we see that this thing exists, and we know a few things about it." That we don't know everything about it is not really a problem to the question of its existence, anymore than our not know its size is a problem for the universe's existence.

but methodological naturalism has made far more ground in that explanation

It's made none, actually. Zip. Zero. Nada. We're learning new things ever day about the brain...but about consciousness, that's much, much harder, and takes us well beyond monism.

Great. There are plants that communicate and cooperate to defend against threats. Are they conscious? I'm not really looking for a yes/no answer, but rather reasons for each side of that debate. Those reasons will help us craft a better definition since right now we have almost nothing.

When you say they "communicate," are you using figurative or literal language?

No bias intended. I have made an argument for this earlier.

Materialism has no chance? Why not? Only no chance of explaining a non-material thing. [/quote]
Materialism simply denies that such things exist. It's like a little kid that sticks his fingers in his ears and hums when people talk about something he doesn't like. It doesn't have an answer, just a stubborn refusal to think about it at all.

Hence the biased assumption that consciousness is immaterial. If it is material, then dualism is the thing with no chance. If we are open minded about it, then this no-chance talk goes away.

It's not "biased." It's simple logic. Either "consciousness" is a material thing or it's not. If it is a material thing, then consciousness qua immaterial awareness does not actually exist. If it does, it does. There is no other possibility, because materialism is clearly an all-or-nothing postulate.

That is, if you are presently talking to a me, then we are communicating as consciousnesses right now.

So does the plant or a robo-sales call leaving a message on my phone.

A conscious entity made the robot and programmed it to do that. Are you happy to use the same line of reasoning, and say human beings are created by a higher intelligence? Because robots don't "just happen."

I agree, communication is good evidence, but precludes designation of consciousness from any entity isolated from any other.

Whaaaat? Sorry... you lost me completely.

G

od is not conscious, or was not until us (or angel) minions were made for company? The robo call does not seem like conscious communication, but there are definitely machines that convey real information to each other that is never intended directly for humans. That information is encoded symbolically just like the symbols in this post, even if not in the same language.

None of this is my point. That you and I are communicating is my illustration. To you, I'm nothing BUT a consciousness, and you are to me nothing but a consciousness right now. No doubt you're an embodied person as well...but I cannot be sure what kind. All I know is we are speaking as two consciousnesses. That's very clear, I think.

So anyone who argues or even communicates in the way we are doing cannot logically consistently be a Monist.

Absolutely correct.

How does a materialistic view deny the ability to communicate?

If materialism is true, then what "materials" are doing the work here? It's not your body...that's sitting wherever you're typing, not travelling through cyberspace. Is it the typing, the symbols? Nope, for symbols are just black squiggles: they do not do anything of themselves. It is only when my consciousness perceives your squiggles and translates them into ideas that any exchange happens here. That's consciousness at work, you see?

Question of my own: What purpose is served by brains?

We think they somehow "house" the consciousness. Apparently, the placement and displacement of synapses and the arranging of lobes, along with the electrochemical impulses snapping around in there have something to do with the shaping of our consciousness. That much we can safely say. We can even map regions and find correspondences between types of ideation and certain physical features.

But at present, nobody -- not the worlds greatest neurobiologists -- can tell us exactly how it works. We are understanding the "machine," the brain, but are mystified by the "ghost in the machine, " consciousness. There's a serious mystery there. And brain research is trying to work it out. But at present, the human consciousness is as unfathomable to us as the universe itself.

[Noax]

To my mind, "interacts with things" is a wholly unsatisfactory definition of consciousness. For one thing, there's no "inter" in the "interaction" that happens with rocks. Rocks just sit there. For another, such a vague definition would allow anything to be considered "consciousness." I don't disagree that "interacting" could be a necessary part of a definition, but it's clearly not a sufficient definition.

Agree with all this. Said I would. Was going to reply with necessary but not sufficient, but you beat me to it.

Complexity is also necessary...but again, not sufficient. A train is complex, but it's not closer to "conscious" than the track it runs on.

Sounds right.

Re: tulips, not "wouldn't commit": rather, "don't really know and so can't say." Neither can anyone, so anyone who did commit on that would be bluffing. But we don't think it's likely they're conscious. It seems highly improbable, and there are not obvious signs of plant "consciousness."

Have to admit I don't hold tulips too high on the scale, but they beat rocks. I am far closer to a tulip than the tulip is to the rock, so I have a deep respect for them. There are better examples: plants that blatantly communicate, and ones with nervous systems (fly trap). Don't think the nerves work the way ours do, but there are sensors connected to decision centers that can count, and make a decision to trigger muscles of a sort. Yes, they count.

Not necessarily. Sometimes there are no opposites to a thing. Take "light," for example. It's a real thing: it's made of particles or waves, it generates heat, it renders vision possible, and so forth. But its opposite, dark, is not a real thing: it's only the absence of light. This is the reason that when you walk into a room you can turn on the light, but there's no switch to turn on the dark. Darkness is just an absence.

Light exists because it makes a difference somewhere. There are physical effects. Plants notice it of course, but all EM radiation has effects. Without that, there would be no distinction between light and not-light. So dark matter/energy only recently exists to us because it recently was required to explain the shape of things on huge scales. The distinction was finally noticed. I think the models of how all that works is definitely not stable at the moment.
So what did I just say? Does not-light un-exist, making light distinct? Eww, no... What you say makes more sense. I need to work on my law of form more.

Likewise with existence. Existence is real property of things. Non-existence is merely its absence. So there does not have to be anything that is non-existent. In fact, non-existence is not-being...so that does make sense.

That seemed circular. It bothers me that I'm bothered by this.

The "razor" is only a suggestion of what sort of hypothesis is ordinarily to be preferred, not a hard-and-fast law about what is true or right.

Hence my inquiry as to why the simpler solution does not suffice. Absent a good clear problem, I have no reason to go with the additional complication. OK, the problem is there, but the complicated answer seems to do no better as a solution than the simple answer.

There are things that really exist, but we don't know everything about them. Take the universe, for example. Nobody knows how big it is. And since it's expanding, nobody CAN really know what size it is. But that doesn't mean the universe doesn't have a particular size at any particular moment.

I would find it a very strange thing if it had an edge, and thus a size: that there could be a view from somewhere with all the stuff only on one side. Perhaps no view like that, but still curved back on itself like the balloon analogy. That would at least permit an expressible size without necessity of that improbable viewpoint.

With consciousness, it's enough for us to say, "Well, we see that this thing exists, and we know a few things about it." That we don't know everything about it is not really a problem to the question of its existence, anymore than our not know its size is a problem for the universe's existence.

I think it quite appropriate to probe at it and learn. It is not exactly something outside empirical realm. It interacts, and thus it is eligible for investigation.

but methodological naturalism has made far more ground in that explanation

It's made none, actually. Zip. Zero. Nada. We're learning new things ever day about the brain...but about consciousness, that's much, much harder, and takes us well beyond monism.

Our opinions differ then. Probably also a difference with what I said just above. I think your view necessitates the nada answer because any other one is a threat.

Great. There are plants that communicate and cooperate to defend against threats. Are they conscious? I'm not really looking for a yes/no answer, but rather reasons for each side of that debate. Those reasons will help us craft a better definition since right now we have almost nothing.

When you say they "communicate," are you using figurative or literal language?

Literal. Plant language, and in this case, chemical, but almost all life uses chemical communication of sorts. Plants have no ears, so verbal is of little use. Humans use chemical commuication heavily internally and more subdued externally, but it's very much there. By internal, I mean a lot of communication between body parts is done chemically, not via nervous system.
Anyway, there are acacia trees that detect foraging animals and they put out chemical signals. A grove of these trees react to the signal and excrete airborne toxins. Whole herds of leaf-eating animals (like 3000 antelope in one event) have been killed by such defenses. It costs the trees resources to do this, so the toxin is not excreted when there is no threat. But to have a group of trees react to the distress of one is amazing.

No bias intended. I have made an argument for this earlier.

Materialism has no chance? Why not? Only no chance of explaining a non-material thing.

Materialism simply denies that such things exist. It's like a little kid that sticks his fingers in his ears and hums when people talk about something he doesn't like. It doesn't have an answer, just a stubborn refusal to think about it at all.[/quote]Nonsense. I don't deny consciousness. I don't deny it is mysterious. I think about it plenty. Materialism just denies non-physical explanations for such things. No finger in ears, since there are plenty of people like you keeping us on our toes. I may not have a complete answer, but neither do you. It happening behind that curtain is not an explanation.

Hence the biased assumption that consciousness is immaterial. If it is material, then dualism is the thing with no chance. If we are open minded about it, then this no-chance talk goes away.

It's not "biased." It's simple logic. Either "consciousness" is a material thing or it's not. If it is a material thing, then consciousness qua immaterial awareness does not actually exist. If it does, it does. There is no other possibility, because materialism is clearly an all-or-nothing postulate.

Excellent. We agree then. I didn't postulate a third possibility, but I try not to close doors either.

A conscious entity made the robot and programmed it to do that. Are you happy to use the same line of reasoning, and say human beings are created by a higher intelligence? Because robots don't "just happen."

The robots do not serve themselves, true. But that doesn't stop what they do from qualifying as communication. I'm just pointing out that communication is *almost* necessary but not sufficient. The exception is something which lacks anything with which to communicate. So symptom of consciousness, but neither a sufficient nor a necessary one??
You having parents seems to qualify you as having been consciously made and programmed, even if not via the same techniques. So does your existence serve the purpose of your parents, or yourself? Was there a transition somewhere? Why else were you made? Deep questions to which I don't necessarily claim answers, but for such reasons, I find the programmed robot argument to be sort of thin.

Whaaaat? Sorry... you lost me completely.

Are you no longer conscious if you're alone on an island with nobody to talk to? It is a counterexample to the necessity of communication, which seems to be a social necessity, not a conscious one.

None of this is my point. That you and I are communicating is my illustration. To you, I'm nothing BUT a consciousness, and you are to me nothing but a consciousness right now. No doubt you're an embodied person as well...but I cannot be sure what kind. All I know is we are speaking as two consciousnesses. That's very clear, I think.

Heh... Maybe I'm just an AI trying to pass my Turing test final.

So anyone who argues or even communicates in the way we are doing cannot logically consistently be a Monist.

Absolutely correct.

That was your quote, not mine. I would never agree to that. I'm trying to identify why you find this a logically inconsistent view. Not agreeing is one thing, but there is logic that I'm totally missing here. Assertions are not logical arguments.

How does a materialistic view deny the ability to communicate?

If materialism is true, then what "materials" are doing the work here? It's not your body...that's sitting wherever you're typing, not travelling through cyberspace. Is it the typing, the symbols? Nope, for symbols are just black squiggles: they do not do anything of themselves. It is only when my consciousness perceives your squiggles and translates them into ideas that any exchange happens here. That's consciousness at work, you see?[/quote]Why do you think a materialist would not equate body to what is doing the work? I am that material thing, with mental processes (I consider consciousness to be a physical process that involves pretty much all of the body) that utilize sound, computers, squiggles, whatnot to communicate with others. I don't think we disagree that the various means of communication (squiggles and sound and such) are not conscious, but nevertheless serve as the bridge between the two of us. We differ on the ultimate source and destination of the communication, but you don't seem to realize that.

Question of my own: What purpose is served by brains?

We think they somehow "house" the consciousness. Apparently, the placement and displacement of synapses and the arranging of lobes, along with the electrochemical impulses snapping around in there have something to do with the shaping of our consciousness. That much we can safely say. We can even map regions and find correspondences between types of ideation and certain physical features.

But at present, nobody -- not the worlds greatest neurobiologists -- can tell us exactly how it works. We are understanding the "machine," the brain, but are mystified by the "ghost in the machine, " consciousness. There's a serious mystery there. And brain research is trying to work it out. But at present, the human consciousness is as unfathomable to us as the universe itself.

Not asking how it works. Asking what its job is. You mention shaping consciousness, but no more than that. I ask if things like cognition, learned talents, and memory are physical functions or part of the immaterial mental functions.

[Immanuel Can]

I would find it a very strange thing if it had an edge, and thus a size: that there could be a view from somewhere with all the stuff only on one side. Perhaps no view like that, but still curved back on itself like the balloon analogy. That would at least permit an expressible size without necessity of that improbable viewpoint.

Well, I don't know, of course...but it's interesting. If the universe is indeed expanding -- presumably linearly -- then what exactly can we say it's "expanding into"?

Our opinions differ then. Probably also a difference with what I said just above. I think your view necessitates the nada answer because any other one is a threat.

No, it's not threat. If you think I''m wrong about the nada, just say what research I have not encountered. Prove me wrong. That's all.

Literal. Plant language, and in this case, chemical, but almost all life uses chemical communication of sorts.

My thought would be that "communication" as you are describing it re: plants and human communication are not just different in quantity but too different in quality as well to be embraced by a single term.

Nonsense. I don't deny consciousness. I don't deny it is mysterious. I think about it plenty. Materialism just denies non-physical explanations for such things. [/quote]
Then explain how physical properties relate to something non-physical, like your ability to process my words at this moment. What material substance are you using?

Now, if you don't know of one, and can't name one, then your Materialism on that point is a faith, not a grounded belief. For if Materialism has no answer at present, how can you assume it ever will, except by faith? And why would you have faith in materials anyway? Do they require that?

I try not to close doors either.

Fair enough. But I'm always mindful of C.S. Lewis's comment that too much open-mindedness leads to blindness. He says that the reason to "see through" things is to "see something through them." Our skepticism's value is to remove illusions, not to prevent all conclusions. At the end of the day, we have to be willing to stop and say, "Well, I think I've arrived at something now." Absent that, openness is blindness.

A good caution to us, I think.

A conscious entity made the robot and programmed it to do that. Are you happy to use the same line of reasoning, and say human beings are created by a higher intelligence? Because robots don't "just happen."

The robots do not serve themselves, true.

Nor did they spontaneously generate, or generate their own programs. Every bit of an artificial-intelligence entity owes its existence to a non-artificial intelligence, its human constructors.

You having parents seems to qualify you as having been consciously made and programmed, even if not via the same techniques. So does your existence serve the purpose of your parents, or yourself? Was there a transition somewhere? Why else were you made? Deep questions to which I don't necessarily claim answers, but for such reasons, I find the programmed robot argument to be sort of thin.

Well, my parents didn't make themselves either. Neither did their parents. For the origin of all things, we need to go back to an initial uncreated Creator. His intelligence and consciousness is the prototype and origin.

Heh... Maybe I'm just an AI trying to pass my Turing test final.

Yes. Hey, have you ever read Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment? It's very relevant to how we think about computer intelligence. Also worth investigating is Joseph Weizenbaum''s "Eliza" project. Both show it's very easy to be fooled by artificial intelligence, and to take a facile analogy between it and human intelligence. It takes quite an effort of thought to keep them straight.

Why do you think a materialist would not equate body to what is doing the work?

Your body is not present with me. It can't be doing the work. j Between your squiggles and my brain is a thing called "consciousness." Absent that immaterial thing, your squiggles will do nothing for me.

In fact, absent anything immaterial, there's no particular "me" to receive anything. I'm not a "self": I'm not a conscious entity, just a contingent arrangement of molecules.

I don't think we disagree that the various means of communication (squiggles and sound and such) are not conscious, but nevertheless serve as the bridge between the two of us.

Say how. How does a squiggle become the thought-content of the message above? It doesn't jump off the screen and perform a physical transformation, so how does it become your ideas to me? (Consciousness, I think you'll find.)

We differ on the ultimate source and destination of the communication, but you don't seem to realize that.

Not really: we don't differ about communication per se. We differ on consciousness. Communication is but one activity that requires consciousness.

Not asking how it works. Asking what its job is.

Well, that would be odd. For in a Materialist universe, nothing has a "job." A "job" implies teleology, and the Materialist world can have none of that. Only consciousnesses -- in our case, humans -- can posit a teleology to something. Materials just do "whatever" for "whatever cause." There is no reason, purpose or trajectory. There's no "job". After all, a "job" means something with purpose, direction and intention. Mere materials cannot posses such a thing: something has to attribute or impose it on the materials -- and Materialism does not regard such things as Mother Nature, God or even human consciousness as actually existing. So there's no one to make a purely contingent arrangement of materials into a "job."

Speaking not of yourself but of others, I'm always amazed to see the outrageous anthropomorphisms to which ardent Materialists (like Sagan, for instance) fall when they discuss the natural world. They say things like "Nature arranges..." or "Evolution directs..." or "Physical Laws provide..." What arrant nonsense! Their own creed denies that there can be any intentionality at all behind any natural process. Everything is simply a happenstance of how things just turned out -- a mere contingency. And in any kind of rational consistency, they cannot possibly assert anything else.

Ironically, nature DOES seem to have a teleology...and this should be just one of the things that alerts them to the fact that it ain't random.

You mention shaping consciousness, but no more than that. I ask if things like cognition, learned talents, and memory are physical functions or part of the immaterial mental functions.

Mental, largely. Things like "muscle memory" seem to have a physical component, but I think you'd agree that's pretty far from the kind of memory that enables us to recall our conversation. It's much more vague and related to specific task, isn't it? Learning, cognition, self, reason, identity, personhood, and so on are all immaterial phenomena.

[bahman]

...to be fair neither dualism and monism are good candidate to explain reality well.

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.

Dualism also is not going to offer any insight to what consciousness/mind is. We simply hide our ignorance about what mind is under dualism.

Possibly. 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.

What sort of dualism?

I'm not certain. I'm only certain that some kind of plural view is going to be more powerful in terms of explaining our observations of "consciousness" than a Monism can hope to be.

No, I am not a dualist. All I am offering is that matter is conscious itself. Awareness however depends on the structure of matter so in case of human, for example, it grow and become richer as a person grows.

So again, that rocks and basic chemicals are "conscious"? That's an interesting implication, but not one I find I have reason to believe is true. However, how do you square the claim you make above with the claim below, which is...

Plants do not have a brain so they could not have cognition.

Now, if that's true, then why would we think that "matter is conscious itself"? Are not plants made up of matter? It seems to me that in regard to whether or not they have "consciousness," plants (however bad a candidate for consciousness they may be) are ahead of the "matter" that makes them up. And if they don't have "consciousness," then we're back to the conscious/ non-consciousness dualism, are we not?

Monism and dualism both have problems and I cannot accept them as a serious framework.

[Immanuel Can]

Monism and dualism both have problems and I cannot accept them as a serious framework.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Either reality has to be composed of one thing (as Materialism and Idealism say), or more than one thing (some form of Dualism or other multi-part scheme).

Logically and mathematically, there is no other option: so what are you going to pick?

[bahman]

Monism and dualism both have problems and I cannot accept them as a serious framework.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Either reality has to be composed of one thing (as Materialism and Idealism say), or more than one thing (some form of Dualism or other multi-part scheme).

Logically and mathematically, there is no other option: so what are you going to pick?

That doesn't make sense to me either. Both monism and dualism have problems so I am basically trapped. We already discussed the problems in both. Do you want to go through them another time?

[Immanuel Can]

That doesn't make sense to me either. Both monism and dualism have problems so I am basically trapped. We already discussed the problems in both. Do you want to go through them another time?

No. And it's fair to say it if you're not sure which way to go. But this much we DO know...one of them's going to be the right answer. Monism essentially rules itself out, because its an "-sim" that evinces disbelief in beliefs, which is incoherent -- so we're left with some pluralistic scheme. It may not be Dualism, but it sure ain't Monism.

[bahman]

...Monism essentially rules itself out, because its an "-sim" that evinces disbelief in beliefs, which is incoherent...

I am not sure what you are trying to say in this part. Could you please elaborate? Needless to say that I think that materialism (subject of this thread), a sort of monism, to me is logically impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

...Monism essentially rules itself out, because its an "-sim" that evinces disbelief in beliefs, which is incoherent...

I am not sure what you are trying to say in this part. Could you please elaborate? Needless to say that I think that materialism (subject of this thread), a sort of monism, to me is logically impossible.

Monism is a belief, right?

Well, monism says "all beliefs are just arrangements of materials." Okay. But why should we "believe" any "arrangement of materials"? After all, an "arrangement of materials" is not guaranteed in advance to be oriented to truth, but rather to causality and contingency. So we have no way of knowing that we ought to believe it: for in fact, "know," "belief," "ought" and "we" are all features of consciousness -- and Materialism says they're just contingent arrangements of materials too.

Thus Materialist Monism is just stupid: even if it were true, there would be no reason to believe it, because belief is not guaranteed to be moving toward any truth. There would also be no "self" or "consciousness" that could do the believing anyway.