Materialism (physicalism) is dead?

Conscious observation isn't a correct understanding. When a measurement aka, [a disturbance] of a quantum system [super-position] is done that disturbance causes the quantum system to take on one definite position whose outcome can't be predetermined. Remember long before there was life in this universe quantum collapses happened and still happen.
This is why I partially favored panpsychism in the past: it kind of allowed for an observer, if you will, to be present, even before what we now think of as living entities being present.
 
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?

The short answer is probably not, but the fact is that explaining consciousness in terms of physical interactions is notoriously difficult and may be best approached at first at an abstract level. The philosopher David Chalmers coined the phrase, "hard problem" referring to the puzzle as to why any physical process (however complicated) should actually experience anything. One way to attack this problem, is to set up a gedanken experiment in which a snapshot of a brain is taken at a sufficient level of detail, and transferred to a computer. The first question is whether you think such a computer would be conscious if it ran a program that simulated brain operations on that chunk of data :D

David
 
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?
I think when one gets into these big subjects, it's almost impossible to not speculate.
 
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

I like the guy in the video. There is a bit of " appeal to QM" but I suspect he gets that, and has a little uneasy laugh when he gets to that. IMO(!) his position is consistent with steve001's in that he is using known, if exotic, physical phenomena to put a mechanism to psi.
 
This is why I partially favored panpsychism in the past: it kind of allowed for an observer, if you will, to be present, even before what we now think of as living entities being present.
In the past? Why did you let it go?
 
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?
It relates to that topic simply because that is the context where you raised the subject.
 
I like the guy in the video. There is a bit of " appeal to QM" but I suspect he gets that, and has a little uneasy laugh when he gets to that. IMO(!) his position is consistent with steve001's in that he is using known, if exotic, physical phenomena to put a mechanism to psi.
I'd forgotten that part - but it is a long time since I viewed that video.
I tend to think that he found it pretty shocking - coming to the conclusions he did, and maybe postulating some physical explanation helped. To me QM is very suggestive, but as is fairly well known, you can't transmit information over entangled particles, so entanglement can't explain ESP unless QM is actually an approximation to some deeper theory.

My feeling is that physical theories boil down to equations (which are deterministic) and a random component. That doesn't seem to be anything can describe consciousness.

The theoretical physicist, Roger Penrose, argues in the same sort of way in his books on consciousness, though he leaves the subject rather inconclusively. It is worth reading what he has to say.

The important thing to take from that video, is that there really is a lot of evidence for paranormal phenomena, that is hard enough to persuade a person steeped in neuroscience.

David
 
IMO this is a BvS thread.

I'm hoping that those who think/believe materialism isn't "dead" will keep their thoughts there. For me, materialism not only is "dead" - it was never alive. There's much to be discussed in "consciousness/energy" and it's physical manifestations. Many forums start with an intention of providing a space for that and yet still get bogged down by the naysayers and pseudo-skeptics - who seem to get offended that people would discuss things they don't perceive. The other danger to such discourse are those who don't seem to realize that are being naysayers.
 
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 "contention" and your "points" are common defenses used by those who still think/believe materialism is valid. Unless I'm misreading the rules, those are appropriate for the BvS forum.
 
In the past? Why did you let it go?

Well, I haven't completely. It certainly seems to solve some of the big problems that dualism presents . . .

I searched in the old forum for the response I got a couple weeks ago when I brought it up, which was the first good critique of panpsychism I've heard . . . I think it was from David Bailey . . . ? I might be wrong. I couldn't find it, and I'm afraid I'll kinda butcher it if I tried to paraphrase it . . . at any rate, it caused me to question it . . . (on the old forum my name was clresu, by the way).

I'll try one example though: there seems to be this question of why consciousness seems to be more intense around, say, well, a living being than the physical cells s/he leaves behind at death.

I realize, of course, you being - I completely assume - more a mainstream materialist than myself that you could answer, "that's because consciousness is produced by the brain and the brain died." In other words, the above example seems absurd . . . but I can't accept materialism at all, either . . .

Really, in the end, I just don't know. There are appealing things to several competing philosophies . . .
 
Well, I haven't completely. It certainly seems to solve some of the big problems that dualism presents . . .

I searched in the old forum for the response I got a couple weeks ago when I brought it up, which was the first good critique of panpsychism I've heard . . . I think it was from David Bailey . . . ? I might be wrong. I couldn't find it, and I'm afraid I'll kinda butcher it if I tried to paraphrase it . . . at any rate, it caused me to question it . . . (on the old forum my name was clresu, by the way).

I'll try one example though: there seems to be this question of why consciousness seems to be more intense around, say, well, a living being than the physical cells s/he leaves behind at death.

I realize, of course, you being - I completely assume - more a mainstream materialist than myself that you could answer, "that's because consciousness is produced by the brain and the brain died." In other words, the above example seems absurd . . . but I can't accept materialism at all, either . . .

Really, in the end, I just don't know. There are appealing things to several competing philosophies . . .

Yep, I remember you mentioning it previously and liked it... it's certainly tidy. Not sure what you mean by mainstream materialist, but certainly there is something weird about our existence, and materialism is, at best, incomplete in that regard. I'm not convinced that the weirdness cannot emerge from our brain and become something that is greater than its parts, but as you say, who really knows? :confused: However, I'm happy for our bridge engineers and car mechanics to be rooted in materialism for a little while yet :eek:
 
The short answer is probably not, but the fact is that explaining consciousness in terms of physical interactions is notoriously difficult and may be best approached at first at an abstract level.
It is difficult but not as difficult as you believe it to be. these two articles don't look at consciuosness, but they do look at emotions and visualizing in real time memory storage.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-06-emotions-based-brain.html
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-06-scientists-memories-brain.html





The philosopher David Chalmers coined the phrase, "hard problem" referring to the puzzle as to why any physical process (however complicated) should actually experience anything. One way to attack this problem, is to set up a gedanken experiment in which a snapshot of a brain is taken at a sufficient level of detail, and transferred to a computer. The first question is whether you think such a computer would be conscious if it ran a program that simulated brain operations on that chunk of data :D
I have no desire to speculate over an unanswerable question at this time. It's not germane to my original question.



The important thing to take from that video, is that there really is a lot of evidence for paranormal phenomena, that is hard enough to persuade a person steeped in neuroscience.

David

You still haven't addressed the question of why the brain can't create consciousness? Any why consciousness can't survive brain death?

P.S. I came across this article tonight. It's food for thought regarding a conscious computer.
Brain-inspired synaptic transistor learns while it computes
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-brain-inspired-synaptic-transistor.html
 
Last edited:
Your "contention" and your "points" are common defenses used by those who still think/believe materialism is valid. Unless I'm misreading the rules, those are appropriate for the BvS forum.
Your "contention" and your "points" are common defenses used by those who still think/believe materialism is valid. Unless I'm misreading the rules, those are appropriate for the BvS forum.

Then tell us why materialism/physicalism it isn't. Saying it isn't is opinion.
 
(in relation to [/B]The Hard Problem relating to consciousness you said)
I have no desire to speculate over an unanswerable question at this time. It's not germane to my original question.

I am sure you don't, far greater minds have wrestled with it and failed. It is not solvable, you see as the real question behind the hard problem is not "how does dead unconscious matter, become conscious?" But actually the question is "
DOES dead matter become conscious?"
However, that said, once again, quantum discoveries may have alot to say about this. You see,
IF dead matter does become conscious, then consciousness is nothing but an epiphenomenon of the brain, and cannot extend much beyond the physical vehicle it depends upon for its existence. It is entirely secondary, and passive.
Findings of quantum science like the observer effect, really pose an insurmountable problem for proponents of epiphenominalism. How can the act of observing, change the behaviour of quantum objects from waves to disrete particles and vice versa, if consciousness is passive and does not extend beyond the brain?
This of course is much Less of a problem for proponents of the idea that consciousness is some how fundamental or primary.


You still haven't addressed the question of why the brain can't create consciousness? Any why consciousness can't survive brain death?

This is redundant. I would ask you to show us why consciousness CAN be created by the brain, but Infantile throwing back and forth of the "show me why it can be, no you show me why it can be" kind is a waste of time, and will lead no where.

Lets stick to topics that may be more productive shall we?


P.S. sorry about the bold fonts, still trying to work out how to use forum correctly. :p
 
I am sure you don't, far greater minds have wrestled with it and failed. It is not solvable, you see as the real question behind the hard problem is not "how does dead unconscious matter, become conscious?" But actually the question is "DOES dead matter become conscious?"
However, that said, once again, quantum discoveries may have alot to say about this. You see, IF dead matter does become conscious, then consciousness is nothing but an epiphenomenon of the brain, and cannot extend much beyond the physical vehicle it depends upon for its existence. It is entirely secondary, and passive.
Findings of quantum science like the observer effect, really pose an insurmountable problem for proponents of epiphenominalism. How can the act of observing, change the behaviour of quantum objects from waves to disrete particles and vice versa, if consciousness is passive and does not extend beyond the brain?
This of course is much Less of a problem for proponents of the idea that consciousness is some how fundamental or primary.
Too the underlined.
It's a common misunderstanding what this actually means. It means taking a measurement, nothing more.
More precisely, if a person is observing the experiment, light is reflecting off that person and disturbing the quantum system being observed thereby causing the quantum system to take a definite state. It's not your mind,but the light that's doing it. That's how it occurs

This is redundant. I would ask you to show us why consciousness CAN be created by the brain, but Infantile throwing back and forth of the "show me why it can be, no you show me why it can be" kind is a waste of time, and will lead no where.

Lets stick to topics that may be more productive shall we?

I've provided a link for you to read. I think it was this. As time goes by I will provide more articles showing the progress made in understanding how the brain does what it does.
Scientists create way to see structures that store memories in living brain
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-06-scientists-memories-brain.html

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the human brain creates trillions of neuronal connections, yet people think those connections can't create consciousness?

Because it's important to understand the fundamental reasons why someone believes something is true. In this case; why materialism/physicalism is claimed in the most ardent of fashion to be dead. Reread my original question put forth in post #1


P.S. sorry about the bold fonts, still trying to work out how to use forum correctly. :p
Highlight the text then click the B at the top of the page. That should unbold.
 
Too the underlined.
It's a common misunderstanding what this actually means. It means taking a measurement, nothing more.
More precisely, if a person is observing the experiment, light is reflecting off that person and disturbing the quantum system being observed thereby causing the quantum system to take a definite state. It's not your mind,but the light that's doing it. That's how it occurs

Sorry buddy, the act of measurement, is a CONSCIOUS act. Reason for this is they have tested this bizzare phenomena to the Nth degree. The test that falsifies what you just said, goes something like this. They conduct the double slit experiment. When they look to see which slit the particle travelled through (using a detector), they get a discrete particle pattern. When they don't turn the detector off, they get an interference pattern (wave pattern). However, if they leave the detector on, recording which slit the particle went through, BUT they don't look at the data (e.g. They burn the print out with the data before looking at it) they get an interference pattern.
The only variable in these experiments is whether you check to see (become conscious of) which slit the particle went through. lots of info on this robust finding. Check it out.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the human brain creates trillions of neuronal connections, yet people think those connections can't create consciousness?[/SIZE]
Because it's important to understand the fundamental reasons why someone believes something is true. In this case; why materialism/physicalism is claimed in the most ardent of fashion to be dead. Reread my original question put forth in post #1

No, it does not strike me as odd. I think the fact that the brain utilises trillions of neuronal connections provides just as much fertile groundmfor the hypothesis that the brain acts as a recieving, tranducing device for consciousness, as it does for the hypothesis that it creates consciousness. As I have alluded to, there is much research suggestive of the idea that consciousness is somehow seperate from the brain, and none that shows definitively why it can ONLY be a product of the brain.

Highlight the text then click the B at the top of the page. That should unbold.

I don't have the B button on my iPad for some reason. Thanks though.
 
Then tell us why materialism/physicalism it isn't. Saying it isn't is opinion.
If you don't know that it isn't, head on over to the BvS forum and debate about it to your hearts content. Also realize that you or others not knowing something doesn't make it opinion.
 
I am sure you don't, far greater minds have wrestled with it and failed. It is not solvable, you see as the real question behind the hard problem is not "how does dead unconscious matter, become conscious?" But actually the question is "DOES dead matter become conscious?"

lol. That may be *your* question. It sure isn't mine. In fact, I look at those with such an experience of life as being akin to deaf mutes. It's not about "wrestling with anything", it isn't a mental exercise or something to do mental wanks attempting to employ the misplaced tools of thinking/analysis to contrive or hypothesize about. It is. And to many, it is known experientially. Those who don't experience it want those who do to convince them. For me, it's not important who gets there or doesn't. My guess is tha,t as Planck's take on discovery hints at, people who for whatever reason don't experience it - will eventually be replaced by more of those who do. Enjoy your wrestling. :cool:
 
This thread has been moved to the BvS forum because the position of the OP belongs in the BvS forum.
It does? This suggests that both "mind /= brain" and "physicalism is dead" are requirements for Skeptko threads. But the OP states that both materialism and immaterialism may be true.

Might I suggest that the following suffix be added to the thread title when threads are moved:

[moved from Skeptiko]

This will help us understand what belongs where.

~~ Paul
 
Back
Top