Materialism (physicalism) is dead?

Long before there was life in this universe?

Where has it been shown that consciousness is limited to a human brain, or any brain for that matter?
Where is it unequivocally shown the belief that it exists apart from the brain is empirically true.

Isn't that the underlying implication of what we are discussing now, that consciousness may play a far more primary role than matter, rather than be a mere epiphenomenon?
That is the belief. In what way does it play a role?
 
Where is it unequivocally shown the belief that it exists apart from the brain is empirically true.
That is the belief. In what way does it play a role?

And thus we embark on a merry dance of "round and round we go, where she'll stop, nobody knows". Your responses are totally circular and do nothing to move this discussion forward.
I am saying there is evidence to suggest certain things about the nature of consciousness in relation to the brain and the universe which may well move the paradigm forward. You are essentially responding with requests for proofs which cannot be given - either by the materialist position, or any other.
When you ask for unequivocal proof that consciousness can exist apart from the brain, I can show you much research that is highly evidential and supportive of such a hypothesis, but not the unequivocal proof you ask for, and importantly, the same situation occurs if I rather tiringly ask you for proof that it is unequivocally a product of the brain.
But I wouldn't ask you for such a proof, as it is meaningless to do so, and doesn't take this dicussion any where. But I am sure you realise this, being so astutely in tune with reality, while I am off with the fairies. :D
Can we start to move things forward now do you think?
 
Steve001 you seem to believe there are such things as empirical truths. Not even science claims unequivocal empirical truth, just unfalsified theory. In the interest of progressing things a smidge, can you explain what you would accept as proof of consciousness being separate to the brain? Without specifying this you can always shift the goal posts. Mind you, you can shift them even if you do specify this!!

<begin ramble>
Unfortunately, per my previous post, this is much more about where you place your ontological faith... even the last of the flat earth believers could not be persuaded otherwise, and I'm sure many Popes have gone to their death smiling in anticipation of heavenly glory - whatever science might have had to say on the matter. Humans have a tendency to stay stuck in their beliefs, eventually. The older they get, the less energy they typically have to change - and the more they have invested in keeping them. Life is much messier and complicated than scientism, or indeed any other religion, pretends. But humans seem to derive a warm inner glow from thinking they've got it worked out, hence the trenches.

One of the things I like about the new forum structure is a tacit acknowledgment of the trenches, and which one people are in. At the end of the day we need whatever comfort we can get from our beliefs, and it's only when they start to become threadbare and hollow in our own ears that we consider other options. Sadly we also keep ourselves sufficiently busy to not engage in much navel gazing, and we inflate our egos so much that we have to be right, regardless of any nagging doubts or quiet inner voices that suggest we're wrong. Isn't it fun being human? ;-)
</end ramble>
 
Your question is hypothetical an extremely speculative, so it's a fruitless argument. I did not mention a previous universe either. But why bring it up at all, when the only life we know of is us?
It's true that neither of us mentioned a previous universe.

In this context, "life" is really a proxy for "consciousness", since it relates to quantum collapses. I was merely questioning the sequence of events. In your hypothesis, the universe came first, and consciousness later. I was simply asking whether that sequence was correct, and that maybe consciousness was there either before the universe, or no later than simultaneously with it.
 
But that's the argument that's made here; immaterialism (the spiritual) only is true but not materialism ( physicalism).
Can it be rightfully stated that immaterialism is also an approximation?

This brings up another point of contention. Why does the mind have to be apart of it? Why can't the mind arise from brain function? Why can't the mind arise from brain function yet continue after death? Why must it be that way or not at all ?
This conversation is split with one in the BvS, which is a bit irrational:(

The real problem here is that we are so very, very far from a decent explanation of consciousness. We are like primitive science, and sometimes it is best to accept two concepts for a while (centuries?) even though the eventual aim might be to unify them again (an example might be electricity and magnetism). I see more hope of progress on consciousness if we treat it as something apart - studying the way it behaves without insisting it is ultimately physical. Thus, since Ganzfeld experiments provide significant evidence that one mind can affect another without a physical connection, it would make more sense to accept that as a property of non-physical mind-stuff (subject to correction if ultimately the Ganzfeld and related experiments were shown to be false). If you want to get a feel for the real challenge that consciousness poses to physical explanations, you really should read Irreducible Mind.

At the moment, physicalists have no option other than to promise explanations for mental phenomena somewhere in the far future, and to scoff at any experiment that seems to show the mind escaping from the brain.

Given such a pragmatic split, your question, " Why can't the mind arise from brain function?", would sound more like what it really is - musing about a science that is a fair way off, and something that could be refuted by experimental observations (people who claim access to previous lives, reincarnation, etc.). My big beef is that we are discarding a lot of good scientific evidence just because we can't see how it could fit in to our world picture. Here is a neuroscientist who seems to think roughly the same:


David
 
This conversation is split with one in the BvS, which is a bit irrational:(

The real problem here is that we are so very, very far from a decent explanation of consciousness. We are like primitive science, and sometimes it is best to accept two concepts for a while (centuries?) even though the eventual aim might be to unify them again (an example might be electricity and magnetism). I see more hope of progress on consciousness if we treat it as something apart - studying the way it behaves without insisting it is ultimately physical. Thus, since Ganzfeld experiments provide significant evidence that one mind can affect another without a physical connection, it would make more sense to accept that as a property of non-physical mind-stuff (subject to correction if ultimately the Ganzfeld and related experiments were shown to be false). If you want to get a feel for the real challenge that consciousness poses to physical explanations, you really should read Irreducible Mind.

At the moment, physicalists have no option other than to promise explanations for mental phenomena somewhere in the far future, and to scoff at any experiment that seems to show the mind escaping from the brain.

Given such a pragmatic split, your question, " Why can't the mind arise from brain function?", would sound more like what it really is - musing about a science that is a fair way off, and something that could be refuted by experimental observations (people who claim access to previous lives, reincarnation, etc.). My big beef is that we are discarding a lot of good scientific evidence just because we can't see how it could fit in to our world picture. Here is a neuroscientist who seems to think roughly the same:


David
Thanks so much David. Video is well worth watching. WELL WORTH WATCHING!
 
And thus we embark on a merry dance of "round and round we go, where she'll stop, nobody knows". Your responses are totally circular and do nothing to move this discussion forward.
I am saying there is evidence to suggest certain things about the nature of consciousness in relation to the brain and the universe which may well move the paradigm forward. You are essentially responding with requests for proofs which cannot be given - either by the materialist position, or any other.

soulatman: Isn't that the underlying implication of what we are discussing now, that consciousness may play a far more primary role than matter, rather than be a mere epiphenomenon?

You are the one stating something is true, namely the above quote. Am I asking too much if I ask you to flesh out what's underlined?

When you ask for unequivocal proof that consciousness can exist apart from the brain, I can show you much research that is highly evidential and supportive of such a hypothesis, but not the unequivocal proof you ask for, and importantly, the same situation occurs if I rather tiringly ask you for proof that it is unequivocally a product of the brain.
I suspect believing such evidence is because want people want it to be true.
But I wouldn't ask you for such a proof, as it is meaningless to do so, and doesn't take this dicussion any where. But I am sure you realise this, being so astutely in tune with reality,
I can provide strong evidence as I did a few posts back.
while I am off with the fairies. :D
Don't express words or thoughts I wasn't thinking
Can we start to move things forward now do you think?
We sure can, but you have to answer why people think materialism/physicalism is dead. And what role the mind plays because I'm not clear on what you mean by it.
 
Last edited:
It's true that neither of us mentioned a previous universe.

In this context, "life" is really a proxy for "consciousness", since it relates to quantum collapses. I was merely questioning the sequence of events. In your hypothesis, the universe came first, and consciousness later. I was simply asking whether that sequence was correct, and that maybe consciousness was there either before the universe, or no later than simultaneously with it.
That's highly speculative and unanswerable. Such a topic is fitting for philosophers. I'm a bit less over reaching. So let's stick with what is known.
 
That's highly speculative and unanswerable. Such a topic is fitting for philosophers. I'm a bit less over reaching. So let's stick with what is known.
You've used that same word "speculative" twice now as a way of avoiding the question, It wears a bit thin. My point was, you have proposed a hypothesis, I simply offered an alternative hypothesis.

I don't consider you are justified to use the phrase "So let's stick with what is known". If that is your position, there is no point in any scientist ever doing any research of any kind. Let's halt all scientific research now, and "let's stick with what is known".
 
Steve001 you seem to believe there are such things as empirical truths. Not even science claims unequivocal empirical truth, just unfalsified theory. In the interest of progressing things a smidge, can you explain what you would accept as proof of consciousness being separate to the brain? Without specifying this you can always shift the goal posts. Mind you, you can shift them even if you do specify this!!
But consider this too. More often than not, I see people here emphatically empirically state the brain does not create the mind and that consciousness is non-local.
What proof would it take. It would require a conversation with a dead person. A conversation as colloquial as any other conversation you or I have ever had. I do believe there are empirical truths, but not absolute truths. This has been my position for a long long time. There are a few more things that would further help seal the deal, but I won't be shifting any goal posts.

<begin ramble>
Unfortunately, per my previous post, this is much more about where you place your ontological faith... even the last of the flat earth believers could not be persuaded otherwise, and I'm sure many Popes have gone to their death smiling in anticipation of heavenly glory - whatever science might have had to say on the matter. Humans have a tendency to stay stuck in their beliefs, eventually. The older they get, the less energy they typically have to change - and the more they have invested in keeping them. Life is much messier and complicated than scientism, or indeed any other religion, pretends. But humans seem to derive a warm inner glow from thinking they've got it worked out, hence the trenches.


I don't care much for philosophy and philosophical argument. Just give me facts. I acknowledge all the rest you said here.

One of the things I like about the new forum structure is a tacit acknowledgment of the trenches, and which one people are in. At the end of the day we need whatever comfort we can get from our beliefs, and it's only when they start to become threadbare and hollow in our own ears that we consider other options. Sadly we also keep ourselves sufficiently busy to not engage in much navel gazing, and we inflate our egos so much that we have to be right, regardless of any nagging doubts or quiet inner voices that suggest we're wrong. Isn't it fun being human? ;-)
</end ramble>
True. One thing I've noticed over the years on forums like this is when you ask people to examine their assumptions they may take it as a personal attack and attack back or you hear nothing at all. An attack back happened already in this thread.
 
You are the one stating something is true, namely the above quote. Am I asking too much if I ask you to flesh out what's underlined?

Sorry Steve, the format of that reply (reply #27), I can't make heads or tails of. Could you reformat it, and I will be happy to get back to you?
 
Last edited:
You've used that same word "speculative" twice now as a way of avoiding the question, It wears a bit thin. My point was, you have proposed a hypothesis, I simply offered an alternative hypothesis.

I don't consider you are justified to use the phrase "So let's stick with what is known". If that is your position, there is no point in any scientist ever doing any research of any kind. Let's halt all scientific research now, and "let's stick with what is known".
You've used that same word "speculative" twice now as a way of avoiding the question, It wears a bit thin. My point was, you have proposed a hypothesis, I simply offered an alternative hypothesis.

I don't consider you are justified to use the phrase "So let's stick with what is known". If that is your position, there is no point in any scientist ever doing any research of any kind. Let's halt all scientific research now, and "let's stick with what is known".
Typoz: In this context, "life" is really a proxy for "consciousness", since it relates to quantum collapses. I was merely questioning the sequence of events. In your hypothesis, the universe came first, and consciousness later. I was simply asking whether that sequence was correct, and that maybe consciousness was there either before the universe, or no later than simultaneously with it.

Go ahead and argue that perspective. I'd like to see your train of thought.
To the underlined. How does it relate to quantum collapse?
 
Sorry Steve, the format that reply (reply #27), I can't make heads or tails of. Could you reformat it, and I will be happy to get back to you?

I left this extraneous [/quote] at the end, now edited out. Did a few more edits. See if it's readable now.
 
by the way Steve, have you by any chance watched the youtube video put up by David?
I highly recommend you do. Would love to know your thoughts on it, and I think it is quite relevant to the current discussion.
 
This conversation is split with one in the BvS, which is a bit irrational:(

The real problem here is that we are so very, very far from a decent explanation of consciousness. We are like primitive science, and sometimes it is best to accept two concepts for a while (centuries?) even though the eventual aim might be to unify them again (an example might be electricity and magnetism). I see more hope of progress on consciousness if we treat it as something apart - studying the way it behaves without insisting it is ultimately physical. Thus, since Ganzfeld experiments provide significant evidence that one mind can affect another without a physical connection, it would make more sense to accept that as a property of non-physical mind-stuff (subject to correction if ultimately the Ganzfeld and related experiments were shown to be false). If you want to get a feel for the real challenge that consciousness poses to physical explanations, you really should read Irreducible Mind.
Let me ask this. Do you put as much energy into reading what research is being accomplished in understanding how the brain does what it does as you do into what parapsychologists or those sympathetic to the idea have to say?

At the moment, physicalists have no option other than to promise explanations for mental phenomena somewhere in the far future, and to scoff at any experiment that seems to show the mind escaping from the brain.
It's parsimonious that's why.

Given such a pragmatic split, your question, " Why can't the mind arise from brain function?", would sound more like what it really is - musing about a science that is a fair way off, and something that could be refuted by experimental observations (people who claim access to previous lives, reincarnation, etc.). My big beef is that we are discarding a lot of good scientific evidence just because we can't see how it could fit in to our world picture. Here is a neuroscientist who seems to think roughly the same:
You've skirted the question. Actually you've done just what you don't like in others, you've scoffed at the idea.



David[/quote]
 
I suspect believing such evidence is because want people want it to be true.
Ultimately that approach is unfalsifiable and circular. You decide to discard evidence (and there is a lot of it) on the grounds that those producing it are engaged in some sort of wish fulfillment exercise!

Did you watch the video - do you think that guy is indulging in wish fulfillment?

David
 
It perplexes me why anyone would state this as a fact. Stating such is equivalent to stating classical mechanics is false because the strange world of quantum mechanics is true. Classical mechanics is equivalent to materialism (physicalism) as quantum is to immaterialism (spiritual). I don't see why both can't be true.

I think you're being a bit too literal. Many quantum physicists have over the years uttered that "classical mechanics is dead" It simply means that the Belief System has been shown to be not the be - all and end all. CM is a subset of QM as materialism is a subset of "energetics"/consciousness ( no set term for it) So yes . .materialism ( as being the definitive approach tom exploring -and once in a while explaining- our realities) is dead.
 
But that's the argument that's made here; immaterialism (the spiritual) only is true but not materialism ( physicalism).
Can it be rightfully stated that immaterialism is also an approximation?

This brings up another point of contention. Why does the mind have to be apart of it? Why can't the mind arise from brain function? Why can't the mind arise from brain function yet continue after death? Why must it be that way or not at all ?

Your question about mind arising from brain function and yet still continuing is an interesting one . . . I've kinda pondered it, too, in the past . . . though I ultimately don't favor it.

In my case, I lean towards the "brain as antenna/reducing valve" type thing, or else idealism where consciousness is primary, or else towards some version of panpsychism . . . Depending on the day or problem at hand.

Ultimately, I see consciousness as somehow infinite/eternal - whether one believes it recognizes itself after death or not - yet we can only think in finite terms . . . Put another way, I generally tend to think we're trying to reduce a multidimensional problem down to a four dimensional explanation, which is all we can really think about. (We can imagine a billion times a billion but not infinity with no beginning and no end . . . Perhaps intuit, but not think about).
 
Back
Top