On January 19 2012 01:31 Baalim wrote:
Agreed, Quantum Physics does refutes materialism, i just thought the rainbow example is ridiculously less effective than just a quick glimpse at strange particles, neutrinos, dark energy etc.
But again what im aking is why loco was refuting it, i may have missed a post.
Did you take your PhD in Physics or the Quantum Physics suddenly became understandable? :D:D:D
I dont understand Quantum Physics, however materialism says that "everything is energy & matter and theres nothing else", and so far we have seen very strange things like particles coming from and out of existance constituting most of the "weight" in the universe, neutrinos, quarks, higgs bossom etc, so that assumption is wrong, the universe is actually more complex than "just energy and matter".
Unlike you i am not making absurd conclusions of experiments i dont understand.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
brambolius Netherlands. Jan 19 2012 06:47. Posts 1708
On January 18 2012 13:18 uiCk wrote:
Personally i don't see the relevance between observing and event and that event happening. I don't see how all those hybrid plato cave theories disproves that light goes through a deflector which the result is viewed as a rainbow to the human body. Which makes the "rainbow" real, we there the observer is blind or does not have to capacity to "see color".
I might be way off track, that's because i don't have much knowledge in personalities you listed Loco.
Interesting nonetheless.
The claim is not that the rainbow "isn't real" but rather that if you believe a rainbow exists by itself without the need of an observer, you are assuming that color and other qualia exist physically, which is a faith-based position. In reality, there is no qualia if there is no mind: what "makes" the rainbow is as much dependent on you and your placement for perceiving it as it is dependent of the other elements needed for its formation. If you say that it is real independent of an observer, it is only real in your imagination, not in the world. There is no evidence to demonstrate that qualia have a physical property and exist by themselves, and indeed, they can't. The above video should help you understand why.
Erwin Schrödinger, the theoretical physicist and one of the leading pioneers of quantum mechanics remarked that subjective experiences do not form a one-to-one correspondence with stimuli. For example, light of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 nm produces the sensation of yellow, whereas exactly the same sensation is produced by mixing red light, with wavelength 760 nm, with green light, at 535 nm. From this he concludes that there is no "numerical connection with these physical, objective characteristics of the waves" and the sensations they produce. Qualia is outside of the material world, therefore materialism is false.
different perceptions and observation and interpretation in the consciousness doesnt really refute materialism, but im lost why are you refuting materialism in the first place?
Are you serious haha, you are acting as if nothing went on previously. I guess you missed my first explanatory post about the rainbow with the Anton video. Previously, I asked all of you who are supposed to be really scientifically-minded a question and got some really "duh are you retarded" confident/pretentious responses which were completely wrong-minded, because they are based on an old materialistic worldview. It was assumed by you all that the rainbow is physical, end of story. But it only has physical elements necessary for its formation, and our own consciousness is part of the elements needed for that formation, and our consciousness is not material. So it went hand-in-hand to explain why the rainbow doesn't exist objectively and why materialism is false. I anticipated the responses and I wanted to make people think a bit.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 19 2012 11:57 SakiSaki wrote:
How is our consciousness not material? Did i miss something?
i think our definitions of "consciousness" and "material" is not properly defined nor understood.
Fully 70% of the matter density in the universe appears to be in the form of dark energy. Twenty-six percent is dark matter. Only 4% is ordinary matter. So less than 1 part in 20 is made out of matter we have observed experimentally or described in the standard model of particle physics. Of the other 96%, apart from the properties just mentioned, we know absolutely nothing.
and
In cosmology, dark energy is the name given to the antigravitating influence that is accelerating the rate of expansion of the universe. It is known not to be composed of known particles like protons, neutrons or electrons, nor of the particles of dark matter, because these all gravitate.[87][88]
different fields use the term in different and sometimes incompatible ways; there is no single agreed scientific meaning of the word "matter"
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
1
NMcNasty United States. Jan 19 2012 14:26. Posts 2041
On January 19 2012 11:57 SakiSaki wrote:
How is our consciousness not material? Did i miss something?
Yeah like the whole thread, lol.
There are generally three different philosophical positions:
1) There's only matter and energy.
2) There's matter, energy, and mind.
3) There's only mind.
There's a wealth of arguments behind all three positions. I think people automatically assume that if you're an atheist and scientifically minded that your position is 1), but that's not the case.
On January 18 2012 13:18 uiCk wrote:
Personally i don't see the relevance between observing and event and that event happening. I don't see how all those hybrid plato cave theories disproves that light goes through a deflector which the result is viewed as a rainbow to the human body. Which makes the "rainbow" real, we there the observer is blind or does not have to capacity to "see color".
I might be way off track, that's because i don't have much knowledge in personalities you listed Loco.
Interesting nonetheless.
The claim is not that the rainbow "isn't real" but rather that if you believe a rainbow exists by itself without the need of an observer, you are assuming that color and other qualia exist physically, which is a faith-based position. In reality, there is no qualia if there is no mind: what "makes" the rainbow is as much dependent on you and your placement for perceiving it as it is dependent of the other elements needed for its formation. If you say that it is real independent of an observer, it is only real in your imagination, not in the world. There is no evidence to demonstrate that qualia have a physical property and exist by themselves, and indeed, they can't. The above video should help you understand why.
Erwin Schrödinger, the theoretical physicist and one of the leading pioneers of quantum mechanics remarked that subjective experiences do not form a one-to-one correspondence with stimuli. For example, light of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 nm produces the sensation of yellow, whereas exactly the same sensation is produced by mixing red light, with wavelength 760 nm, with green light, at 535 nm. From this he concludes that there is no "numerical connection with these physical, objective characteristics of the waves" and the sensations they produce. Qualia is outside of the material world, therefore materialism is false.
different perceptions and observation and interpretation in the consciousness doesnt really refute materialism, but im lost why are you refuting materialism in the first place?
Are you serious haha, you are acting as if nothing went on previously. I guess you missed my first explanatory post about the rainbow with the Anton video. Previously, I asked all of you who are supposed to be really scientifically-minded a question and got some really "duh are you retarded" confident/pretentious responses which were completely wrong-minded, because they are based on an old materialistic worldview. It was assumed by you all that the rainbow is physical, end of story. But it only has physical elements necessary for its formation, and our own consciousness is part of the elements needed for that formation, and our consciousness is not material. So it went hand-in-hand to explain why the rainbow doesn't exist objectively and why materialism is false. I anticipated the responses and I wanted to make people think a bit.
lol you say "i anticipated the responses" as if it wasnt absolutely obvious what you were doing with your silly questions, i still believe its the most ineffective and retarded way to try to counter materialism with what we know about the universe now.
And i skip Anton's videos since the one you showed me when he discussed with Molyneux... sorry bro he is just retarded and wasted Stephan's time
Yea i don't think the opinion of a Communications Studies teacher matter in terms of the subject Loco is trying to explain/prove. He's defiantly good at communicating, but now looking up his background, doesn't surprise me i learned more from 30 min on wiki then listening to him.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On January 19 2012 11:57 SakiSaki wrote:
How is our consciousness not material? Did i miss something?
It is debated of course but there has never been a good counter-argument that I know of and I don't think there ever will be one. I posted some videos that should help understanding why.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 19 2012 14:35 uiCk wrote:
Yea i don't think the opinion of a Communications Studies teacher matter in terms of the subject Loco is trying to explain/prove. He's defiantly good at communicating, but now looking up his background, doesn't surprise me i learned more from 30 min on wiki then listening to him.
This is stupid. First of all, he is not just a PhD in communication theory, but in phenomenology as well. He knows his philosophy much better than Stephan Molyneux or anyone here. And just because he doesn't have a PhD in a particular science doesn't mean he isn't well-educated on the topic. I don't think most of you do either. And it's besides the point though because I gave some clear arguments... it wasn't an appeal to authority.
And I sure hope you learned more by using wiki for 30 mins than 3 minutes of his video touching on the subject. This isn't very surprising.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 19 2012 14:35 uiCk wrote:
Yea i don't think the opinion of a Communications Studies teacher matter in terms of the subject Loco is trying to explain/prove. He's defiantly good at communicating, but now looking up his background, doesn't surprise me i learned more from 30 min on wiki then listening to him.
This is stupid. First of all, he is not just a PhD in communication theory, but in phenomenology as well. He knows his philosophy much better than Stephan Molyneux or anyone here. And just because he doesn't have a PhD in a particular science doesn't mean he isn't well-educated on the topic. I don't think most of you do either. And it's besides the point though because I gave some clear arguments... it wasn't an appeal to authority.
And I sure hope you learned more by using wiki for 30 mins than 3 minutes of his video touching on the subject. This isn't very surprising.
Yes he knows his philosophy better than Molyneux, however it just like having a massive dick with erectile dysfunction, what is the purpose of his philosophy if when he is getting a chance to talk about anarchy he fumbles the topic and makes a fool out of himself and says absolutely nothing of relevance.
For somebody who used to admire a lot the greek philosophers you clearly arent putting enough emphasis of the actual uses of knowledge and focusing on knowledge itself.
I have no damn idea what you're talking about re: Greek philosophy. And he has given several critics of Molyneux's anarcho-capitalism (or ar least raised relevant questions) after you stopped watching him. The dialogue was more about introducing themselves and explaining their own background and touched little upon it. Stef didn't even allow Corey to attach his videos as video responses because it's criticism. That says a lot about someone when you want to control the flow of information and won't allow public criticism of your views. And the fact that his forum is filled with dogmatic idiots says something else. Anyway, here are some that I remember if you're curious about what happened when you stopped watching:
Holy fucking shit... ok is confirmed the guy is an imbecile, and its good Stephan doesnt allow his videos to be posted as responses, they are idiotic.
First of all he is making 101 questions about anarchy (oh who would set the drinking age lol wat... what about money?), then he focuses on his quick analogy about how its too simplifying, well newsflash, the world is retarded if he starts discussing the philosophy of anarchy in his 1st video guess what, nobody would get it.
He talks about how to defend his property from thieves (squatters), obviously the act of theft is the initiation of force, Stef is againt the initiation of force, he has no quarrel with using force to defend what you own, and yes private force is the way to defend yourself and yes its not ideal because the human being is a shitty creature, but the whole argument of anarchy comes from that single fact, if you think private armies suck because people suck... then how on earth is making massive unquestionable armies better, duh.
So please tell your hero to grab a book of anarchy for dummies so he has the slightest clue what he is talking about.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
hoylemj United States. Jan 19 2012 23:41. Posts 840
On January 19 2012 11:57 SakiSaki wrote:
How is our consciousness not material? Did i miss something?
It is debated of course but there has never been a good counter-argument that I know of and I don't think there ever will be one. I posted some videos that should help understanding why. + Show Spoiler +
I haven't had time to look into the topic very much, but this is really interesting - looking forward to learning more. From what little I've heard, one argument against this refutation of 'materialism' via the nature of consciousness is basically that materialism-only vs. immaterialism-only (w/e immaterial explanations), or "property-dualism", is a false dichotomy. We are not necessarily forced to pick one or the other, but reality is shaped by elements of both. I suppose this alone refutes any materialistic view based on a very traditional, strict definition of materialism, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some truths to it. Below is Searle's view on the problem which he label 'Biological Naturalism.' It seems to me he is saying that even though we can't account for what makes-up consciousness - it's nature of existence - we can't deduce from this ignorance that it is something completely distinct or, "over and above", it's "neuro-biological base" (which we know causes it to exist).
We still have a lot to learn about the nature of the brain, the mind, how they correlate, and behavior, etc, and we also cannot draw too many, if any, substantial conclusions based on quantum mechanics.
So far, some Searle, for what it's worth:
From the video lecture posted on pg 15 @~25:50 (back up a minute or two to see that leading into this quote he is giving one of several hypotheses of how consciousness may correlate to neuronal activity:
"...Well, think about it: is there any part of the universe that we have solid evidence to believe is not fully determined? The answer is, of course, we know from quantum mechanics that at the most basic level it's not deterministic. Now I dread saying this, but Searle's third law is that whenever philosophers talk about quantum mechanics, what comes out is hot air at best....And by the way that applies to a lot of things physicists say about QM too....Feynman said, 'look, don't try to think what QM means, just do the equations. For god's sake don't try to think you understand it.' Well, unfortunately, I get paid to try to understand things. There is a part of the world that is not deterministic..."
"The mind-body problem, so construed persists in philosophy because of two intellectual limitations on our part. First, we really do not understand how brain processes cause consciousness. Second, we continue to accept a traditional vocabulary that contrasts the mental and the physical, the mind and the body, the soul and the flesh, in a way that I think is confused and obsolete. "
pg2-4
"Notice that in presenting arguments for property dualism I have to use the traditional terminology that later on I will reject. Here is how the world looks to the property dualist:
There is clearly a difference between consciousness and the material or physical world. We know this from our own experience, but it is also obvious from science. The material world is publicly accessible and is pretty much as described by physics, chemistry, and the other hard sciences; but the conscious, experiential, phenomenological world is not publicly accessible. It has a distinct private existence. We know it with certainty from our inner, private, subjective experiences. We all know that the private world of consciousness exists, we know that it is part of the real world, and our question is to find out how it fits into the public material world, specifically, we need to know how it fits into the brain.
Because neither consciousness nor matter are reducible to the other, they are distinct and different phenomena in the world.. Those who believe that consciousness is reducible to matter are called materialists; those who believe that matter is reducible to consciousness are called idealists. Both are mistaken for the same reason. Both try to eliminate something that really exists in its own right and cannot be reduced to something else. Now, because both materialism and idealism are false, the only reasonable alternative is dualism. But substance dualism seems out of the question for a number of reasons. For example it cannot explain how these spiritual substances came into existence in the first place and it cannot explain how they relate to the physical world. So property dualism seems the only reasonable view of the mind-body problem. Consciousness really exists, but it is not a separate substance on its own, rather it is a property of the brain.
We can summarize property dualism in the following four propositions. The first three are statements endorsed by the property dualist, the fourth is an apparent consequence or difficulty implied by the first three:
(1) There are two mutually exclusive metaphysical categories that constitute all of empirical reality: they are physical phenomena and mental phenomena. Physical phenomena are essentially objective in the sense that they exist apart from any subjective experiences of humans or animals. Mental phenomena are subjective, in the sense that they exist only as experienced by human or animal agents.
(2) Because mental states are not reducible to neurobiological states, they are something distinct from and over and above neurobiological states. The irreducibility of the mental to the physical, of consciousness to neurobiology, is by itself sufficient proof of the distinctness of the mental, and proof that the mental is something over and above the neurobiological.
(3) Mental phenomena do not constitute separate objects or substances, but rather are features or properties of the composite entity, which is a human being or an animal. So any conscious animal, such as a human being, will have two sorts of properties, mental
properties and physical properties.
(4) The chief problem for the property dualists, given these assumptions, is how can consciousness ever function causally? There are two possibilities, neither of which seems attractive. First, let us assume, as seems reasonable, that the physical universe is causally closed. It is closed in the sense that nothing outside it, nothing non-physical, could ever have causal effects inside the physical universe. If that is so, and consciousness is not a part of the physical universe, then it seems that it must be epiphenomenal. All of our conscious life plays no role whatever in any of our behavior.
On the other hand, let us assume that the physical universe is not causally closed, that consciousness can function causally in the production of physical behavior. But this seems to lead us out of the frying pan and into the fire, because we know, for example, that when I raise my arm, there is a story to be told at the level of neuron firings, neurotransmitters and muscle contractions that is entirely sufficient to account for the movement of my arm. So if we are to suppose that consciousness also functions in the movement of my arm, then it looks like we have two distinct causal stories, neither reducible to the other; and to put the matter very briefly, my bodily movements have too many causes. We have causal overdetermination.
The property dualist has a conception of consciousness and its relation to the rest of reality that I believe is profoundly mistaken. I can best make my differences with property dualism explicit by stating how I would deal with these same issues.
(1) There are not two (or five or seven) fundamental ontological categories, rather the act of categorization itself is always interest relative. For that reason the attempt to answer such questions as, “How many fundamental metaphysical categories are there?”, as it stands, is meaningless. We live in exactly one world and there are as many different ways of dividing it as you like. In addition to electromagnetism, consciousness, and gravitational attraction, there are declines in interest rates, points scored in football games, reasons for being suspicious of quantified modal logic, and election results in Florida. Now, quick, were the election results mental or physical? And how about the points scored in a football game? Do they exist only in the mind of the scorekeeper or are they rather ultimately electronic phenomena on the scoreboard? I think these are not interesting, or even meaningful, questions. We live in one world, and it has many different types of features. My view is not “pluralism,” if that term suggests that there is a nonarbitrary, noninterest-relative principle of distinguishing the elements of the plurality. A useful distinction, for certain purposes, is to be made between the biological and the non-biological. At the most fundamental level, consciousness is a biological phenomenon in the sense that it is caused by biological processes, is itself a biological process, and interacts with other biological processes. Consciousness is a biological process like digestion, photosynthesis, or the secretion of bile. Of course, our conscious lives are shaped by our culture, but culture is itself an expression of our underlying biological capacities.
(2) Then what about irreducibility? This is the crucial distinction between my view and property dualism. Consciousness is causally reducible to brain processes, because all the features of consciousness are accounted for causally by neurobiological processes going on in the brain, and consciousness has no causal powers of its own in addition to the causal powers of the underlying neurobiology. But in the case of consciousness, causal reducibility does not lead to ontological reducibility. From the fact that consciousness is entirely accounted for causally by neuron firings, for example, it does not follow that consciousness is nothing but neuron firings. Why not? What is the difference between consciousness and other phenomena that undergo an ontological reduction on the basis of a causal reduction, phenomena such as color and solidity? The difference is that consciousness has a first person ontology; that is, it only exists as experienced by some human or animal, and therefore, it cannot be reduced to something that has a third person ontology, something that exists independently of experiences. It is as simple as that. The property dualist and I are in agreement that consciousness is ontologically irreducible.
The key points of disagreement are that I insist that from everything we know about the brain, consciousness is causally reducible to brain processes; and for that reason I deny that the ontological irreducibility of consciousness implies that consciousness is something “over and above”, something distinct from, its neurobiological base. No, causally speaking, there is nothing there, except the neurobiology, which has a higher level feature of consciousness. In a similar way there is nothing in the car engine except molecules, which have such higher level features as the solidity of the cylinder block, the shape of the piston, the firing of the spark plug, etc. “Consciousness” does not name a distinct, separate phenomenon, something over and above its neurobiological base, rather it names a state that the neurobiological system can be in.
pg5
The property dualist wants to say that consciousness is a mental and therefore not physical feature of the brain. I want to say consciousness is a mental and therefore biological and therefore physical feature of the brain. But because the traditional vocabulary was designed to contrast the mental and the physical, I cannot say what I want to say in the traditional vocabulary without sounding like I am saying something inconsistent.
Some ideas from a Biological-Naturalist p.o.v. anyway.
This is a common misperception. I am not presenting/defending property dualism here; rather it is being refuted at the same time as materialism. Schopenhauer's Idealism is essentially neutral monism. Double-aspect theory, linked with Schopenhauer, Spinoza and Chalmers is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of the same substance - Schopenhauer's will (Kant's thing-in-itself). The mental and the physical are seen as inseparable and irreducible, and both distinct.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 19 2012 21:53 Baalim wrote:
Holy fucking shit... ok is confirmed the guy is an imbecile, and its good Stephan doesnt allow his videos to be posted as responses, they are idiotic.
First of all he is making 101 questions about anarchy (oh who would set the drinking age lol wat... what about money?), then he focuses on his quick analogy about how its too simplifying, well newsflash, the world is retarded if he starts discussing the philosophy of anarchy in his 1st video guess what, nobody would get it.
He talks about how to defend his property from thieves (squatters), obviously the act of theft is the initiation of force, Stef is againt the initiation of force, he has no quarrel with using force to defend what you own, and yes private force is the way to defend yourself and yes its not ideal because the human being is a shitty creature, but the whole argument of anarchy comes from that single fact, if you think private armies suck because people suck... then how on earth is making massive unquestionable armies better, duh.
So please tell your hero to grab a book of anarchy for dummies so he has the slightest clue what he is talking about.
So we shouldn't allow your comments here because they are sometimes idiotic? :D
You are probably right that he doesn't know much about it (especially if he considers it a rather ridiculous idea), but he clearly is more learned than you are on every single other topic, so you might want to calm down with the condescension.
Also, his philosophy and mine are very different. Just because I respect him as a thinker does not mean that he's a hero of mine. I have plenty of issues with him.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I didn't know anything about this guy so I google'd him and he clearly is not a phenomenologist (philosophy), so I don't get the joke. I see he's a "devoted" Christian though, is that supposed to have anything to do with the joke? I really don't get it.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
“Consciousness” does not name a distinct, separate phenomenon, something over and above its neurobiological base, rather it names a state that the neurobiological system can be in."
If i buy this argument, wouldn't it be possible for consciousness to transcend this neurobiological state of mind, to lets say a universal consciousness containing even more than the mere neurobiological system of a single human being, for example the entire universe? If consciousness is a state containing the neurobiological system, why would an altered state of consciousness not be able to contain the entire physical universe? The universe is no different in its basic components, than the physical neurobiological system of a single person.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
Contact Users: 509 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 01:35
Sweden. Jan 19 2012 12:57. Posts 9687
,
,
,
,
,
,
