Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:No materialist thinks "Consciousness' is a material entity that has no material properties at all." In fact, under materialism, consciousness IS a material property.

They may say that: is there any reason to think they have a clue what they're talking about?

If so, then tell me the name of the "material" of which consciousness is composed. Tell me how they discovered it, and how we can measure it. Tell me how we can verify that they actually found it. Where is the study, the paper and the data that tells us we have discovered "consciousness" is a material property?

If there's none, then what justifies us taking such a claim with any seriousness at all?

Noax wrote:Qualitative identity just means is-similar-to, right?

Yes, I agree. Thanks for the correction. The point I was trying to make about dualism was the mind and the body consist of substances that exhibit different different qualities, viz., physical qualities and mental qualities.

Noax wrote:
But I am talking about numeric identity here, about "being the same thing as", which seems required for little more than objective responsibility of a soul, and hence a dualist notion. Almost all religions depend on this, but nothing else does. I don't think (as a naturalist) that I am necessarily the same thing as Noax of August.

I still think that numerical identity, or "being the same thing as" is a characteristic of materialism. Identical things must have the same properties, so consciousness is equal to brain processes.

Noax wrote: I was asking what he defines that technical term to be, since he asserts its nonexistence. It seems to be a central control point, the Cartesian Theater, a place or construct that is actually in control, utiliziing the rest as tools and input. This seems to be that of which the existence is denied.

There is an excellent example of the Cartesian Theatre in the movie Pacific Rim. It is about giant robots with men in the control centre located in the head of the robots. One of the reason Dennett coined the term was to demonstrate that the little man in the head leads to an infinite regress.

Noax wrote: I don't think Mr. Can refers to this any more than I refer to his definition of consciousness. The thing denied by Dennett already presumes a naturalist definition of mind, so while it seems very explanatory for the naturalist position, it seems begging in the monist/dualist debate. Such a debate must agree on a common definition of what exists or doesn't exist. So I continue to assert that since I am conscious, I have consciousness, even if I agree with Dennett that it is not a thing in a particular place, or one unified process in control of the others.

Dennett would probably say we all suffer from the illusion of consciousness. So it is convenient for him to say there is consciousness but it is just a well founded illusion.

Noax wrote:I have, in my posts, likened consciousness to the process of combustion. A candle can combust (be conscious), and one can say An observation that process is not matter itself, since it cannot be isolated from the matter implementing the process, is epiphenomenalism?

\

A analogy for epiphenomenalism can be found in a burning candle. The flame causes smoke to rise. The smoke is the by-product of combustion. The combustion process is like the physical process of the brain. The smoke is like our thoughts. These thoughts (smoke) are created by the combustion. The important point is that this is a one way process. The smoke (thoughts) has no influence on the candle burning it is just a by-product.

Ginkgo wrote:I still think that numerical identity, or "being the same thing as" is a characteristic of materialism. Identical things must have the same properties, so consciousness is equal to brain processes.

Oh ok. I was speaking of personal identity, not the shared identity between consciousness and brain process. I don't think materialists necessarily equates the two, but I do.

There is an excellent example of the Cartesian Theatre in the movie Pacific Rim. It is about giant robots with men in the control centre located in the head of the robots. One of the reason Dennett coined the term was to demonstrate that the little man in the head leads to an infinite regress.

Saw that, and also "Being John Malcovich", and strangely "Ratatouille". All little men in the head.

A analogy for epiphenomenalism can be found in a burning candle. The flame causes smoke to rise. The smoke is the by-product of combustion. The combustion process is like the physical process of the brain. The smoke is like our thoughts. These thoughts (smoke) are created by the combustion.

Not a great analogy. The smoke can be put in a box, and has mass. Not so the combustion process or the thoughts. Thoughts are more like the rising of the smoke, not the smoke itself. This adjustment seems unimportant to the point you make below, which still stands.

The important point is that this is a one way process. The smoke (thoughts) has no influence on the candle burning it is just a by-product.

So you say thoughts don't have influence on consciousness? That doesn't seem right. I have thoughts. I express them in this forum post and am conscious of doing so. Sounds pretty mutually influential to me.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:No materialist thinks "Consciousness' is a material entity that has no material properties at all." In fact, under materialism, consciousness IS a material property.

They may say that: is there any reason to think they have a clue what they're talking about?

The ability of water is to freeze at 0 degrees. The property of muscle tissue it to contract with electrical stimulus; the property of a light bulb is to change electricity to light; the property of complex neural matter in a healthy body supplied with nutrients such as sugars, water and oxygen is the production of consciousness.

These things are the inevitable, demonstrable and replicable facts of the world.

What is not to like about that?

Terrapin Station wrote:No materialist thinks "Consciousness' is a material entity that has no material properties at all." In fact, under materialism, consciousness IS a material property.

I think consciousness is a result of material chemical reactions and light.

attofishpi wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:No materialist thinks "Consciousness' is a material entity that has no material properties at all." In fact, under materialism, consciousness IS a material property.

I think consciousness is a result of material chemical reactions and light.

HAHA. Yeah you have a light bulb inside your head which makes it all work.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:No materialist thinks "Consciousness' is a material entity that has no material properties at all." In fact, under materialism, consciousness IS a material property.

I think consciousness is a result of material chemical reactions and light.

HAHA. Yeah you have a light bulb inside your head which makes it all work.

Interesting, you chose the obvious and discarded what i was alluding to - that the ethereal aspect of light, is being made use of.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:No materialist thinks "Consciousness' is a material entity that has no material properties at all." In fact, under materialism, consciousness IS a material property.

They may say that: is there any reason to think they have a clue what they're talking about?

What we were discussing here is the idea of you issuing an straw man. I don't want to move on to something else prior to that being sorted out. So whether they have any clue what they're talking about or not, they do not claim what you said they claim. Hence, you're forwarding a straw man. Do you agree with that?

Terrapin Station wrote:

They may say that: is there any reason to think they have a clue what they're talking about?

What we were discussing here is the idea of you issuing an straw man. I don't want to move on to something else prior to that being sorted out. So whether they have any clue what they're talking about or not, they do not claim what you said they claim. Hence, you're forwarding a straw man. Do you agree with that?

No, actually.

If it turns out that you can find some putative Materialist who is unable to understand the implications of Materialism, that does not indebt me to honour his confusion. Rather, as a philosopher, I have a duty to point out his illogic to him. There is no "straw man" fallacy in ignoring those who cannot think straight, and that is exactly what such a person would be. His involvement in the discussion is merely contingent -- he doesn't really know what he believes, if anything, and we cannot take his claim to represent "Materialists" seriously, since he's doing so brainlessly or incoherently. Only those who can actually think through the view matter.

So it's the implications of the view itself that has to be our focus, just as the OP implies: for it does not ask us what people who call themselves "Materialists" think, but what the ideology of Materialism itself implies -- in particular, whether or not it's logically possible. So let's stay on topic.

Now, the perfect defense against any such accusation is if what I said is true. And so far as I can see, you have not done anything to show it's not.

In sum, you have not shown that I'm wrong, or that I did any such thing as employing a "straw man" fallacy. But go ahead, if you can. Which of the alternate implications of Materialism I listed in my last message do you claim is the "straw man"?

So in your view, "straw man" doesn't refer to misrepresenting someone's statement or argument, but (misrepresenting) what, in your opinion, their statement or argument should have been, had they your perfect grasp of logic, rationality, etc.?

Terrapin Station wrote:So in your view, "straw man" doesn't refer to misrepresenting someone's statement or argument, but (misrepresenting) what, in your opinion, their statement or argument should have been, had they your perfect grasp of logic, rationality, etc.?

In my view (and yours too, I assume, if you're behaving rationally) a belief system should be addressed in its most solid, rational and consistent form. That's the Principle of Charity -- take on the purest "best" form of what your opponents believe.

And I welcome that. If Materialism can be rendered rationally, let's hear it. However, someone who says he or she believes something but does not understand what it is really doesn't believe it at all. Rather, he or she believes some half-backed notion the or she mistakes for the ideology in question. They're just confused...not good representatives of their "faith." In fact, it would probably be "straw manning" to hold any such person up as a real Materialist. After all, what they really believe isn't Materialism, is it?

And I've no doubt that describes many people who call themselves "Materialists." I've met quite a few such. So they say "I'm a Materialist," but don't notice that materials are not an "I," a unique consciousness: so who is left to do the believing? Or they persist in behaving as moral people, all the while professing that morality is just a contingent confluence of materials, and thus totally optional, and not "moral" at all. Or they face some profound life experience like the birth of a child or a death, and they dissolve into sentiment, talking about "the miracle of a new life" or their lost loved ones having "reached a better place, and now looking down on us,"-- forgetting that they have loudly professed that they don't believe in such things. That's ordinary human inconsistency: but we can't take it for logic.

Honestly, I find that Materialism is so utterly shallow and reductional that the only way somebody could maintain belief in it is by not thinking through its implications. Make them think, and their alleged Materialism dissolves. It's just implausible, inconsistent with the existential experiences of human beings, clueless about existential matters, and ultimately unlivable.

But the larger point for you and me is this: what particular confused people do or do not think they believe doesn't matter one jot -- because the topic here is not "Materialists," but "Materialism." Look at the OP. So what we are discussing here is not what any particular person believes he believes, but what the ideology he espouses ACTUALLY entails.

No criticism, then, of any person needs to be implied or inferred. But an indictment of the folly and illogic of actually professing or trying to believe Materialism, yes, I'll go with that.

Immanuel Can wrote:In my view (and yours too, I assume, if you're behaving rationally) a belief system should be addressed in its most solid, rational and consistent form. That's the Principle of Charity -- take on the purest "best" form of what your opponents believe.

So you're saying that materialists actually believe that consciousness has no material properties, but they just don't say so?

Terrapin Station wrote:So you're saying that materialists actually believe that consciousness has no material properties, but they just don't say so?

No. I'm saying that is precisely what their belief rationally entails, whether they know it or not. They know it if they're being logical, and not if they are not.

(Of course, as I've said before, the other alternative for a Materialist is always to deny consciousness exists at all, which some of them also try. But that's pretty silly, since they would have to be conscious to say it, and we would have to have consciousness to process it.)

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:So you're saying that materialists actually believe that consciousness has no material properties, but they just don't say so?

No. I'm saying that is precisely what their belief rationally entails, whether they know it or not. They know it if they're being logical, and not if they are not.

That goes back to this: "So in your view, 'straw man' doesn't refer to misrepresenting someone's statement or argument, but (misrepresenting) what, in your opinion, their statement or argument should have been, had they your perfect grasp of logic, rationality, etc."

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:No materialist thinks "Consciousness' is a material entity that has no material properties at all." In fact, under materialism, consciousness IS a material property.

They may say that: is there any reason to think they have a clue what they're talking about?

If so, then tell me the name of the "material" of which consciousness is composed. Tell me how they discovered it, and how we can measure it. Tell me how we can verify that they actually found it. Where is the study, the paper and the data that tells us we have discovered "consciousness" is a material property?

If there's none, then what justifies us taking such a claim with any seriousness at all?

This is not what the materialist is claiming in relation to to consciousness. The materialist would argue that consciousness is composed of material stuff. That is to say, electrical potential across a neuron's membrane. Apparently it is measured in millivolts. I looked up Neuronal Signaling on google.

So the materialist would say that electricity is the basic stuff of consciousness. This is what the materialist means when he says that consciousness is material stuff. What is also important is their monist claim that everything in the universe can be explained in physical terms.