How can Alex be so firm in his stance? Objectivity has gone out the window

I don't have any difficulty with meta-definitions, or with conceptualizing these ideas, or with holistic thinking. If all we are doing is talking about these ideas from a simple, folk perspective, I don't see cause for any struggle, even for a skeptic. The difficulty comes when you start to explore what is behind the meta-idea.

I thought perhaps you were taking a approach which takes into account the issues which Paul and Dominic have raised, and was trying to make sense of your words in that light.

Linda

What is behind the meta-idea IS the meta idea.
 
Interesting. Where do you divide the line between "macro" object and "micro" object? For me, I have much difficulty in seeing a logical consistency of being able to divide a line between one of the other i.e., they are both made of the same matter no? How do you logically create a demarcation between micro and macro objects? It is also true that our physical senses are very poor measuring devices incapable of seeing a great deal of phenomena that exists. This would include quantum effects. So, in my current view, the only demarcation that currently exists is our technological ability to detect quantum effects, and more recent experiments have demonstrated quantum effects on increasingly larger "objects". I am assuming of course, you are aware of some of the scientific research here.
Yes, I am, which is why I said it is an empirical question. There is work being done on finding the line between the quantum and classical worlds:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071109090639.htm
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-classical-physics-emerge-quantum.html
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...tum-random-walk-puts-a-limit-on-superposition


I am using the current definition of non-local. To be more specific, observed phenomena possessing the following attributes:

1. Unmediated. The phenomena is not linked to any known energetic signal.
2. Unmitigated. The phenomena does not decrease or degrade with increasing spatial distance.
3. Immediate. The phenomena occurs instantaneously i.e. faster than the speed of light.
You confused me with the word "attributes." Indeed, entangled particles are correlated so that once we know the state of one particle, we know the state of the other.


When you say consciousness is a brain function, are you saying consciousness is a product of the brain? That without the brain there would be no consciousness?
Without something like a brain, yes.

And if so, what science are you basing this upon? And I am not trying to be a dick here. Just would like to know what science to you indicates consciousness is a product of the brain? I think this is a rather important question, and that is why I am asking you the question.
I think that all the experiments showing changes to brain produce changes to consciousness is evidence that mind = brain. That is bolstered by the fact that we've not yet found any disembodied consciousness. We agree, of course, that this is not proof.

If you don't believe consciousness is necessary to have meaning - I am also curious how do you get meaning without consciousness? What is your general ideas here? I will refrain from mocking or attacking you, whatever you say. I'm just curious what exactly provides meaning without consciousness?
A computer with a sufficiently deep and cross-referenced dictionary knows the meaning of words. The Chinese Room only demonstrates that the man does not understand Chinese, not that the room does not understand it.

But how can I imagine something that has never existed? How do my thoughts make that kind of leap? Unicorns in alternate universes as far as I know do not exist. So my thoughts appear to create things that don't actually exist. Correct? So what are you saying here? How can imagination build stuff that is new, if it's not part of the world or my memories?
You can imagine a unicorn by sticking a horn on a horse. You can create an alternate universe by taking a copy of ours and replacing some physical fundamentals and laws with other ones. You might come up with another law by consideringt a law in our world and then taking the opposite, or making a modification. These imaginary things that you dream up are synthetic, not pulled out of thin air.

~~ Paul
 
Any and all meaning.
I see no reason to believe that meaning is built into consciousness, especially considering that meaning is so cultural. Also, if the meaning of concepts is built into fundamental consciousness, you have to come up with all sorts of complex explanations for the myriad ways in which people can be wrong about meaning. And you have to explain how meaning changes with time.

~~ Paul
 
I see no reason to believe that meaning is built into consciousness, especially considering that meaning is so cultural. Also, if the meaning of concepts is built into fundamental consciousness, you have to come up with all sorts of complex explanations for the myriad ways in which people can be wrong about meaning. And you have to explain how meaning changes with time.

~~ Paul

Ok. I give up.
 
Atheists and materialists should take their fair share of the blame here though. They themselves often come out with very vague and ambiguous statements like "The universe is meaningless." It's only natural then that the enemies of atheism and materialism will jump all over this and say, "Hey, look, those people are saying we don't have any meaning in our lives, don't feel love for our family and friends, and might as well just go and kill ourselves". A fair-minded and charitable person would know that this is not what they really meant, but anti-materialists aren't really interested in being fair or charitable. They're interested in getting one over on them in the culture war.

This is why I say Skeptiko, for all its successes, is still stuck on stupid in many ways.
 
I see no reason to believe that meaning is built into consciousness, especially considering that meaning is so cultural. Also, if the meaning of concepts is built into fundamental consciousness, you have to come up with all sorts of complex explanations for the myriad ways in which people can be wrong about meaning. And you have to explain how meaning changes with time.l

Meaning is certainly cultural on a level. But meaning is also clearly baked into the cosmos from the get go, or at least present in the pieces that brought us to where we are as conscious beings. And I don't see any reason this "meaning" wouldn't allow for variables over time. I'm starting to think about letting the word "meaning" go, at least as it relates to the discussions here on the forum.

I think what Alex is often getting at is the idea that if materialists believe that consciousness is simply a chemical reaction then they are essentially denying a reality of being. This is a strawman, for we are all with meaning (both within our lives and whatever is granted by the cosmos from which we sprang). But maybe that's his entire point?
 
Another example of people mischaracterizing materialism is when they suggest that there's a contradiction between saying "The universe is meaningless" and "We do have meaning in our lives". Alex himself often uses this argument.

A charitable reading shows that there is no contradiction. When materialists say "The universe is meaningless" they really mean "The universe outside our minds/brains is meaningless".

Now of course you still have the problem of how consciousness (and with it meaning) could magically emerge in a mindless universe in the first place, which as I've already said is impossible in my view. But materialists are not making a simple mistake or a simple contradiction in the way the anti-materialists suggest.

And in any case, the materialists could just become panpsychists, as some on this forum have, and the problem of spooky emergence disappears.
 
Last edited:
Meaning is certainly cultural on a level. But meaning is also clearly baked into the cosmos from the get go, or at least present in the pieces that brought us to where we are as conscious beings. And I don't see any reason this "meaning" wouldn't allow for variables over time. I'm starting to think about letting the word "meaning" go, at least as it relates to the discussions here on the forum.
I don't see how any meaning is baked in, but I agree that the word is dicey and squirrelly and probably best let go.

~~ Paul
 
But meaning is also clearly baked into the cosmos from the get go, or at least present in the pieces that brought us to where we are as conscious beings.

What do you mean by this?

This is a strawman, for we are all with meaning (both within our lives and whatever is granted by the cosmos from which we sprang).

Can you give an example of meaning granted by the cosmos from which we sprang?

Linda
 
Why did you post this under "Mod 4"? Are we meant to see this as an implied threat (i.e. "get ready to be censored")?

Linda

No. I have to switch between accounts. I periodically use that account to manage some things and I accidentally posted with it.

Please don't worry about it. I don't do implied threats. If I don't directly tell you there is a problem you can safely assume there isn't one.
 
Last edited:
I did not make these arguments.

By the way, yes you did. You do seem to think that if we accept the reality of consciousness then we are also committed to the reality of meaning and free will (and value too, I assume). You wrote the following:

Consciousness necessarily includes free will, (the ability to think for oneself).

Consciousness is, or is not, a fundamental property of the universe. If it exists, then meaning exists, if no, then meaning does not exist.


As I see it, atheists and materialists generally disbelieve in free will in the sense that we cannot be ultimately morally responsible for our actions, and they disbelieve in meaning in the sense that there is no one single objective meaning of life. So it's really ULTIMATE moral responsibility and ULTIMATE meaning that they're objecting to, and note that these certainly do not follow in any straightforward way from the reality of consciousness.

Now granted you do have people like Rosenberg who want to try to deny the existence of meaning in all its varieties. But this kind of crazy eliminativism is not representative of most atheists or materialists.
 
Last edited:
This is just my take on what atheists and materialists generally mean when they say we live in a meaningless universe. I think you're misunderstanding their position.
Clearly everyone recognises that meaning does exist in the universe - for uber-materialists just as for those of the opposite persuasion - because we are part of that universe, and we do feel meaning.

What many of us are trying to point out, is that meaning isn't something that can just appear in an isolated patch of the universe - because how could such a thing ever get going. Say you start with a meaningless universe where particles interact without any meaning - where nothing that goes on matters a damn - then how does that start to change into one that contains meaning?

In a way, this is the same question as the usual one about how consciousness can come out of the interactions of large numbers of physical particles.

David
 
I think what Alex is often getting at is the idea that if materialists believe that consciousness is simply a chemical reaction then they are essentially denying a reality of being. This is a strawman, for we are all with meaning (both within our lives and whatever is granted by the cosmos from which we sprang). But maybe that's his entire point?

I think the point is this. Suppose I showed you a pot of chemicals undergoing lots of reactions, or I showed you an electronic circuit, and I told you that I had just created the simplest system that could be conscious of experience! Maybe I also had a blackboard full of the various chemical steps, or with the relevant circuit diagram. I explained that because this was the simplest such system, it didn't pretend to behave like an animate being, or actually do anything - it's sole purpose was to be conscious of existence.

Go on - what would you say next!

David
 
Clearly everyone recognises that meaning does exist in the universe - for uber-materialists just as for those of the opposite persuasion - because we are part of that universe, and we do feel meaning.
At the risk of creating a diversion, I don't agree that everyone recognises that meaning does exist in the universe. Those who do are I suppose to be regarded as fortunate. Those for whom meaning does not exist - and these are real people, not a hypothetical concept, life can become very bleak, a place of despair. I think perhaps we might pause and count our blessings if we don't find ourselves there, regardless of our beliefs or worldview.

I might add that It wasn't my intention to use the suffering of ourselves or of others as a rhetorical device, only a wish that we might have some compassion in discussing these topics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Clearly everyone recognises that meaning does exist in the universe - for uber-materialists just as for those of the opposite persuasion - because we are part of that universe, and we do feel meaning.

What many of us are trying to point out, is that meaning isn't something that can just appear in an isolated patch of the universe - because how could such a thing ever get going. Say you start with a meaningless universe where particles interact without any meaning - where nothing that goes on matters a damn - then how does that start to change into one that contains meaning?

In a way, this is the same question as the usual one about how consciousness can come out of the interactions of large numbers of physical particles.

David
That's the sort of question which can be asked about anything which emerges, though. How can "life" just appear, or "weather" or even "solidity", given that the emergent properties are not found in the components from which they are formed? Why wait until you get to "consciousness" or "meaning" until you finally notice that "stuff" is appearing out of a "stuffless" universe all around you?

It's like Alex going on and on about how remarkable self-directed neuroplasticity is, when the fact that you can reach out an grab a cup of coffee is just as gobsmacking remarkable as the former.

Linda
 
I think the point is this. Suppose I showed you a pot of chemicals undergoing lots of reactions, or I showed you an electronic circuit, and I told you that I had just created the simplest system that could be conscious of experience! Maybe I also had a blackboard full of the various chemical steps, or with the relevant circuit diagram. I explained that because this was the simplest such system, it didn't pretend to behave like an animate being, or actually do anything - it's sole purpose was to be conscious of existence.

Go on - what would you say next!

David

I suppose I'd ask you how you knew it was conscious.
 
Back
Top