Questions about MAL, Dissociation and Free Will

[dollar coin]

Hi Bernardo,

I'm great fan of you both at personality level and thought level.
I think you need to build a theory of everything (reminds me of Tom Campbell - My Big TOE) based on your philosophy to make things clearer and to stay stronger. Like Julian Barbour did by rewriting the equations in physics without "t" to defend his position.

Every time I read you or listen to you I understand your position better. The first reason is me because English is not my native language and the second reason is you. Sometimes you talk too abstract. Examples simplify the process a lot. :) However the abstractness didn’t stop me from following you.

I have few questions if you have time.

1. Do dissociated alters and Mind at Large (MAL) have free will? If MAL does not have meta-cognition (not self-reflective) then can it have free will? I think not.
   So, if alters have free will and MAL doesn't won't the choices of alters effect the MAL thus causing non deterministic patterns of excitations in MAL thus non deterministic unfolding of laws of nature?
   If neither the alters nor MAL have free will what's the point of dissociation and all of the introspection thing?
   If MAL doesn't have free will doesn't that mean that it obeys some rules which it can't break, can it have causal power and why assume it's fundamental then?
   
   
2. Does a newborn dissociate from MAL or from alters called mother and father?
   If it dissociates from MAL why the baby looks similar to its parents?
   If it dissociates from alters like a binary tree, then at what level is the MAL the non-dissociated found? Doesn't this conflict with the parsimony claim if the idea introduces infinite regress?
   
   
3. Why do you defend your positions on parsimony level? Nature doesn't seem to be parsimonious. Parsimony entails intelligence and design. Evolution shows there is no design and no reason to think that nature is parsimonious. Why seek a parsimonious position then? This doesn't win over materialism I think.
   
   
4. If you haven't seen the talk of Chris Fields on Entanglement I think you may like it. Maybe it can help to explain the process of dissociation better.
   What Is Entanglement Anyway? Chris Fields
   

Thank you.

[Bernardo]

Thanks! I am working on a book (#7) putting forward a complete philosophical system in rigorous form. I am first trying to publish different chapters in paper format, so the whole thing will probably still take two years before it's out.

My work addresses all questions you ask. Brief answers:

1. Alters may have only very limited Free Will, if at all (see essays on Free Will in my book Brief Peeks Beyond). The second question requires a more elaborate answer, as in the book. In brief, I think Free Will, as something distinct from both determinism and randomness, is a red herring.

2. A dissociation from one's parents is a dissociation from MAL. I discuss this in Part III of my book More Than Allegory. In brief, one's parents simply facilitate the process of dissociation from MAL by providing suitable conditions for it. But the dissociation is ultimately from MAL, for MAL is all there is.

3. Parsimony does not require intelligence or design. Parsimony is simply the idea that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be better. If I e.g. see footprints in my garden, it's simpler to say that a stranger may have tried to break in last night, then to say that aliens from another dimension landed in my neighbor's backyard, stole his shoes, and then came for a stroll in my garden.

4. I have debated Chris on his panpsychist views, which I disagree with. There is unreleased video of that debate. I will ask for it to be released. Beyond that, I have recently written a paper on entanglement and idealism, but it is still under peer review.

Cheers, B.

[Sciborg]

Bernardo - are you saying every action must be deterministic or random?

[Bernardo]

Not quite. "Deterministic" has acquired a very restrictive meaning in recent discourse. But strictly speaking there is no coherent semantic space between some form of determinism, broadly speaking, and randomness. Free Will choices cannot be random. So they must be _determined_ by preferences, dispositions, inclinations, etc. I discuss this at length in Chapter 7 of Brief Peeks Beyond. The discussion is rather nuanced, so I can't do justice to it here. Cheers, B.

[Sciborg]

Ah, I'd have to disagree. 

I don't think determinism is a coherent position, no matter how much rope one extends to the determinist.

But as you say to provide an argument likely requires more than a forum post.

[Peter Jones]

..."I think Free Will, as something distinct from both determinism and randomness, is a red herring."

That seems exactly right to me. Look forward to the book.

[Peter Jones]

On Sunday, 4 September 2016 12:13:03 UTC+1, Bernardo wrote:

4. I have debated Chris on his panpsychist views, which I disagree with. There is unreleased video of that debate. I will ask for it to be released. Beyond that, I have recently written a paper on entanglement and idealism, but it is still under peer review.

I watched the Chris Field video linked above and liked it. If you see Chris again I would love to know whether he equates his 'parentheses' with Kant's categories of thought. If so then this video nicely brings together QM, metaphysics and psychology.

Don't know his overall view though.

[Sciborg]

If everything is determined, Idealism just seems like a different kind of "stuff" - a new Materialism ultimately.

Why bother doing anything, let alone trying to fight against materialism if the nihilist reality doesn't change?

[Peter Jones]

On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 00:07:51 UTC+1, Sciborg wrote:

If everything is determined, Idealism just seems like a different kind of "stuff" - a new Materialism ultimately.

Why bother doing anything, let alone trying to fight against materialism if the nihilist reality doesn't change?

I feel that Bernardo was clever to use the term 'red herring'. The idea would be that it is our misunderstandings that would cause the difficulty here, in particular our concepts of freewill and determinism. Ramesh Balsekar is good on this one. He suggests sitting back and enjoying the ride.  

[dollar coin]

Is there a rigorous empirical evidence that consciousness is not the product of the brain, that it can exist by itself?

NDEs and OBEs don't seem to provide reliable evidence. As far as I am aware it hasn't been shown any patients to report reading some words written on paper put at a height where only can be read if viewed from above. I think Sam Parnia tried to test it but seems to be a failure.

Thinking broadly is nice but without that kind of empirical evidences materialism, panpsychism will keep to be considered as valid.

[SKS]

I'm wary of what Chris Fields says because: (1) he seems to merrily cut out many of the concepts we hold dear (e.g. the self, time, memory, communication, observable reality...) to the point where I wonder what's meant to be left; and (2) I've seen similar viewpoints articulated as a form of physicalism (i.e. all physical systems are 'observers'). There is no apparent way to slice up his panpsychist world in a fashion that recovers our everyday experiences as whole, self-reflective human organisms in contact with other members of our kind. I assume it makes more sense to those familiar with Eastern philosophy and/or quantum mechanics, but I personally can't get anything out of it.

If you're looking for irrefutable proof of any metaphysical proposition, you're not going to find it any time soon, at least where the mind is concerned. There's an expansive literature on paranormal topics, none of which can be considered mainstream in the scientific world, though this is partly down to materialist assumptions raising the standard of evidence demanded, so there's a catch-22. I think you just need to accept the limitations of the empirical evidence and look for the side with the best philosophical arguments, which can solve the big problems most convincingly. And then when you get there, you keep asking questions and looking for an even better option.

[Bernardo]

I recommend chapter 7 of Brief Peeks Beyond! :) I think the spirit of Free Will is correct... but will leave it at this for now.

[dollar coin]

If you're looking for irrefutable proof of any metaphysical proposition, you're not going to find it any time soon, at least where the mind is concerned. There's an expansive literature on paranormal topics, none of which can be considered mainstream in the scientific world, though this is partly down to materialist assumptions raising the standard of evidence demanded, so there's a catch-22. I think you just need to accept the limitations of the empirical evidence and look for the side with the best philosophical arguments, which can solve the big problems most convincingly. And then when you get there, you keep asking questions and looking for an even better option.

Limitation of empirical evidence? So God exists?

Same argument can be made in favor for anything. But it's a weak argument. It's not positive proof of anything. It's just a neutral argument.
I think it's not parsimonious to go that deep in level 10 thinking without establishing the empirical basics first, Level 1.

I can't just believe in something that abstract without being able to test it easily.

Current evidence suggest that consciousness is bound to brain activity. Like democracy is living style of people. Can I say democracy exists in its own and people are just modulating that democracy to produce their individual democracy? I can't. I better think democracy emerges from living style of people. The other one is huge jump. If you make that jump it's normal to ask for evidence whether democracy comes first or people.

I like the idealism ideas of Bernardo very much but I can't ground them. I'm always trying hard to understand them better but I don't feel I'm making good progress. I'm always returning back to objective way of thinking.
My brain works with evidence, otherwise it's intellectual entertainment. I like to entertain but I have to earn money to live, objective reality enforces itself upon me.

Are those paranormal experiments repeatable? Does anybody except Dean Radin do such experiments? I don't think there is some bad main stream side and good opposite side. Even Gods stop talking when there is evidence. If paranormal is real, many more people will repeat those experiments and it will be accepted. Mainstream is rigorous science.

[Sciborg]

@ Bernardo - I'll look at the BPB chapter again and get back to you.

[SKS]

On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 20:04:06 UTC+1, dollar coin wrote:

Limitation of empirical evidence? So God exists?

Same argument can be made in favor for anything. But it's a weak argument. It's not positive proof of anything. It's just a neutral argument.
I think it's not parsimonious to go that deep in level 10 thinking without establishing the empirical basics first, Level 1.

I wasn't saying you should ignore the empirical evidence, merely that it allows several interpretations, which should be chosen based on philosophical arguments.

 

I can't just believe in something that abstract without being able to test it easily.

Current evidence suggest that consciousness is bound to brain activity. Like democracy is living style of people. Can I say democracy exists in its own and people are just modulating that democracy to produce their individual democracy? I can't. I better think democracy emerges from living style of people. The other one is huge jump. If you make that jump it's normal to ask for evidence whether democracy comes first or people.

 

You're describing an analogy for dualism, which is a common mistake. In fact, idealism is about an honest commitment to monism. It's about acknowledging that subjective experiences are what we know, and trying to explain them without leaping to the conclusion that there's an abstract world of mathematical equations outside mind. Also, democracy is a property of how people act, whereas consciousness is not clearly (or clearly not) a property of brain activity. There is a close connection between the human mind and the human brain, but nobody knows how it works. While neuroscience and cognitive psychology have a part to play, you will never bridge the gap without philosophy.

I like the idealism ideas of Bernardo very much but I can't ground them. I'm always trying hard to understand them better but I don't feel I'm making good progress. I'm always returning back to objective way of thinking.
My brain works with evidence, otherwise it's intellectual entertainment. I like to entertain but I have to earn money to live, objective reality enforces itself upon me.

I understand. But if you're suspicious of philosophical arguments, why are materialism and panpsychism any better than idealism? When you get down to it, they all make huge metaphysical assumptions. There's always going to be uncertainty, but you are free to remain agnostic and open-minded if you so wish, or you can simply choose the viewpoint that appeals to you most.

Are those paranormal experiments repeatable? Does anybody except Dean Radin do such experiments? I don't think there is some bad main stream side and good opposite side. Even Gods stop talking when there is evidence. If paranormal is real, many more people will repeat those experiments and it will be accepted. Mainstream is rigorous science.

 

Personally, I wouldn't say anyone is obliged to accept immaterialism based on parapsychology. On the contrary, a self-consistent materialist ought to be very sceptical about paranormal phenomena, because it's almost impossible to account for them in that context. This is an example of how science and philosophy are intertwined; you can't separate them. There's more than one moving part in a belief system.

[dollar coin]

It's about acknowledging that subjective experiences are what we know, and trying to explain them without leaping to the conclusion that there's an abstract world of mathematical equations outside mind.

 

Yes it is what we have access to and we can't talk beyond it without falling in division. And also it still doesn't prove that it is the only thing that exists, i may very well be what we think that only exists.
Here we can make lot's of logical talks but it won't go anywhere. We'd be still at the beginning.

From the consistency of what we experience we conclude that there is something that enforces it to us. Forces us to experience (it). We may be adding some qualities to it but it is still external to us.

If there is nothing objective then why we seem to experience the similar things when we're at that same (x, y, z) location (let's say there is rock at that position)? Here again we can make lot's of logical talks but the most parsimonious is to infer that there exist something than enforces itself to us at that (x, y, z) location.

If it is mind like why it behaves different than what I know as mind (my own mind)? My mind is floating, changing but that external thing seems unchanging. When I'm not at that (x, y, z) location my mind forgets it, it's experience fades away. But when I'm again at that (x, y, z) location I experience it again. If both are same thing why that thing can change my experience but I have the impression that I have no effect on it's experience of me?
It's quite logical to conclude that there is something external of my subjective experiential potential that is triggered by. It's the external objective world.

 

I understand. But if you're suspicious of philosophical arguments, why are materialism and panpsychism any better than idealism? When you get down to it, they all make huge metaphysical assumptions.

I think idealism is bolder in making assumptions. If you can't understand it easily then it means it is detached from ordinary experiences aka abstract.
Materialism makes the assumption of external world which is supported by evidence else it couldn't be made.
There is what we call subjectivity and materialism seems to be in trouble with it and then comes panpsychism. Everything contains some degree of subjectivity/consciousness. Seems reasonable transient position, till the real direction is found, materialism or idealism.

And idealism says everything is in consciousness/everything is consciousness. Immediately after making this statement idealism is starting to introduce the objective world to the game. Divides the main consciousness to multiple sub parts and introduces them as matter and  another type of consciousness (personal). Or maybe I understand it wrong.
Although I like the ideas of idealist thinkers I think they lack the explanatory power of materialism.

[Peter Jones]

On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 15:27:22 UTC+1, SKS wrote:

---I'm wary of what Chris Fields says because: (1) he seems to merrily cut out many of the concepts we hold dear (e.g. the self, time, memory, communication, observable reality...) to the point where I wonder what's meant to be left; and (2) I've seen similar viewpoints articulated as a form of physicalism (i.e. all physical systems are 'observers'). There is no apparent way to slice up his panpsychist world in a fashion that recovers our everyday experiences as whole, self-reflective human organisms in contact with other members of our kind. I assume it makes more sense to those familiar with Eastern philosophy and/or quantum mechanics, but I personally can't get anything out of it.

I think perhaps you have to see his approach as being metaphysical. he is not saying these things are not real to us in our everyday life, but that they can be reduced for an ultimate analysis.  

---If you're looking for irrefutable proof of any metaphysical proposition, you're not going to find it any time soon, at least where the mind is concerned.

Irrefutable proof is possible, as Nagarjuna and others show, but not scientifically testable proof. A metaphysical proof has to be a logical one, and a logical proof is never a proof of what is actually true, just a guide to what ought to be true if the world obeys the rules. This is no handicap though, since a logical proof can be stronger than an empirical proof that relies on induction. A logical proof that 2+2=4 may be more convincing and reliable than a couple of experiments counting apples. 

[RHC]

There are a number of well documented NDEs in which people provided information during their OBEs that was confirmed by others present.   There is a new book that I havent read yet that covers 100 of them 

https://www.amazon.com/Self-Does-Not-Die-Experiences/dp/0997560800/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473267517&sr=1-1&keywords=the+self+does+not+die>

>Is there a rigorous empirical evidence that consciousness is not the product of the brain, that it can exist by itself?

The must read book for this is:

https://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/B00B9ADYGW/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473267639&sr=1-9&keywords=kelly+mind

But if you read Bernardo's books (among many others) you will eventually see that your question is more usefully asked as:

Is there any rigorous empirical evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain, as opposed to correlated with it?  And the answer is absolutely none.  Nor can there ever be.  You cant get blood from a stone.  You cant get the experience of experiencing from electro-chemical reactions.  They are stone and blood. 

[dollar coin]

But if you read Bernardo's books (among many others) you will eventually see that your question is more usefully asked as:

Is there any rigorous empirical evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain, as opposed to correlated with it?  And the answer is absolutely none.  Nor can there ever be.  You cant get blood from a stone.  You cant get the experience of experiencing from electro-chemical reactions.  They are stone and blood.

Thank you I'll check what the books say.

But since the people return and report those experiences it means they are not dead. If they couldn't return they would be dead. Their brain has some minimal activity which still is able to produce experiences.

Since my subjective experience is what I can only have access to and know that exists, then if I infer something like MAL I'm automatically doing the same thing as materialism is accused of doing. Postulating an unknowable, unaccessible external mind/reality.
Solipsism doesn't make that mistake.

[RHC]

>But since the people return and report those experiences it means they are not dead. If they couldn't return they would be dead.

This is a diversionary argument on the part of debunkers that says nothing about what an NDE is or isnt.   Also for example, I think to say that someone who has no heart function and whose body temperature has been at 25c/77 degrees for over an hour and a half and is then resuscitated wasn't dead during that hour and a half \

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/child-survived-almost-2-hours-cpr-after-falling-icy-stream-how/

is an example of a common logical fallacy displayed by debunkers known as "moving the goal post".  Redefining concepts to forever exclude contrary evidence.  

Think about it,  Alcor freezes people after they have been declared medically/legally dead with the hope that technological advancement will enable their resuscitation many years in the future, probably employing some kind of yet to be invented nano-technological repair techniques.  Regardless of whether or not this will ever be possible, by the definition you quote above, if someone's frozen body is sitting on a shelf somewhere for 100 years and is then resuscitated, they weren't dead for those 100 years. 

>Their brain has some minimal activity which still is able to produce experiences.

The standard medical position is that no, there is no activity in the brain within a few minutes of heart failure.  Put aside the fact that there is a 100 years of medical experience with anesthesia and people dont experience or remember experiencing anything under it.  See Sam Parnia's book for a great read on this and resuscitation medicine in general.  But even if there some minimal brain activity it raises the question of how can one have an intense, profound, coherent, life altering experience that is typically described as more real than real, with greatly reduced brain activity.

[SKS]

On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 21:40:34 UTC+1, dollar coin wrote:

Since my subjective experience is what I can only have access to and know that exists, then if I infer something like MAL I'm automatically doing the same thing as materialism is accused of doing. Postulating an unknowable, unaccessible external mind/reality.
Solipsism doesn't make that mistake.

I wouldn't say so, at least if you want your solipsism to have any explanatory power. In the context of a dream, a form of solipsism appears to be the truth, but the segment of your mind which creates the dream is inaccessible to introspection. That makes it practically equivalent to the external (source of) reality posited by materialism and idealism. Thus, solipsism is no more sceptical than idealism, yet has less explanatory power.

[dollar coin]

This is a diversionary argument on the part of debunkers that says nothing about what an NDE is or isnt.   Also for example, I think to say that someone who has no heart function and whose body temperature has been at 25c/77 degrees for over an hour and a half and is then resuscitated wasn't dead during that hour and a half

This guy's story is the longest NDE, 3 days in morgue.

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/some-people-were-dead-for-several-days.html

It's clear those people are not death. Death is irreversible disintegration. Some cells continue to live few days after the main parts of the body die. After the point of no return those cells are also dead. Irreversible.

As long as freezing can prevent disintegration for 100 years there is no reason to consider those bodies dead.

Our definition of death is observation based on higher level and averaged. When breathing stops person is about to die. But if temperature is lower then this may become a slower process.

Maybe if the brain activity is measured not from outside the head but directly inside the brain there will probably be some electrical activity which is not possible to be observed from outside.

Not every body works the same at the limits.

Let's first eliminate all of the physical possibilities and then look for other explanations. Why we are so eager to turn to the non physical?
 

Think about it,  Alcor freezes people after they have been declared medically/legally dead with the hope that technological advancement will enable their resuscitation many years in the future, probably employing some kind of yet to be invented nano-technological repair techniques.  Regardless of whether or not this will ever be possible, by the definition you quote above, if someone's frozen body is sitting on a shelf somewhere for 100 years and is then resuscitated, they weren't dead for those 100 years. 

If they wake up they'd probably be zombies.

Here after 57:28 Stuart Hameroff talks about it.
https://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM?t=3448

 

But even if there some minimal brain activity it raises the question of how can one have an intense, profound, coherent, life altering experience that is typically described as more real than real, with greatly reduced brain activity.

Maybe the brain activity increases when there is needed to process the incoming signals from the sense organs and  encode them to the neural network. When there are no incoming signals brain activity is reduced and since everything is already encoded in place it needs less energy to experience. More real than real feel could be because of the reduced activity. Like when there is no traffic you drive smoother. No stop starts...

[RHC]

>Let's first eliminate all of the physical possibilities and then look for other explanations. Why we are so eager to turn to the non physical?

You are either ignoring or missing the point I made earlier.  To choose to start from this position misses the obvious fact that electro-chemical activity and the experience of experiencing are two completely different categories of things.  You cant even begin to describe a process of how material/brain generates consciousness even in principle, so the above starting point is actually the least rational.  

I urge you to read Materialism is Baloney, Irreducible Mind and a good NDE book like the one I mentioned above or maybe Chris Carter's overview book.  You wont look at the world the same way, about many things not just NDEs.

[dollar coin]

You are either ignoring or missing the point I made earlier.  To choose to start from this position misses the obvious fact that electro-chemical activity and the experience of experiencing are two completely different categories of things.  You cant even begin to describe a process of how material/brain generates consciousness even in principle, so the above starting point is actually the least rational.  

I urge you to read Materialism is Baloney, Irreducible Mind and a good NDE book like the one I mentioned above or maybe Chris Carter's overview book.  You wont look at the world the same way, about many things not just NDEs.

I don't ignore the point but maybe you're ignoring it. I just say "Let's first eliminate all of the physical possibilities and then look for other explanations."

I understand the so seeming categorical difference but I resist to jump to the MAL explanation. Because it ignores the progress and makes a big jump.

What if tomorrow a physical explanation for consciousness is found? Will you burn all those books?

I read the articles of Bernardo and watched many of his videos for the last 2-3 years when Materialism is Baloney was his last published book.

I'm familiar with his philosophy but although very interesting and well thought it doesn't convince me. I need evidence and I'm sure all of you need that evidence. :) Consciousness independent of matter...

I think this philosophy puts all of us in that fuzzy mind state like the religious believers.

Looking for evidences to justify what we want to believe and ignoring or manipulating the evidences that could be against it.

Until there is an undeniable clear answer for consciousness outside brain or matter I'd refuse to make big jumps.

[SKS]

On Thursday, 8 September 2016 00:48:13 UTC+1, dollar coin wrote:

Maybe the brain activity increases when there is needed to process the incoming signals from the sense organs and  encode them to the neural network. When there are no incoming signals brain activity is reduced and since everything is already encoded in place it needs less energy to experience. More real than real feel could be because of the reduced activity. Like when there is no traffic you drive smoother. No stop starts...

If so, it should be easy to elicit enhanced cognition by placing people in a sensory deprivation tank, but I have not heard of this. Most accounts state that prolonged sensory deprivation results in confusion and a dulled mind. Apparently it can be a trigger for OBEs, but not for the reasons you stated.

On Thursday, 8 September 2016 21:50:11 UTC+1, dollar coin wrote:

I understand the so seeming categorical difference but I resist to jump to the MAL explanation. Because it ignores the progress and makes a big jump.

What if tomorrow a physical explanation for consciousness is found? Will you burn all those books? 

I'm not sure why that's relevant. As it stands, we have no physicalist explanation. In fact, I think this is the wrong category of explanation to look for. If you feel that idealism faces a similar challenge in explaining something, such as a fact of neuroscience, I could equally propose that we found an idealist explanation. But why does physicalism deserve this privileged status, anyway? You write as though the proposition that consciousness emerges from insensate matter (in some undefined fashion) needs no evidence at all, other than "It's currently a popular opinion." and "My gut says it's right.". You can't get anywhere with that! Of course, if a better theory came along, I hope we would all embrace it.

MAL is not as much of a jump as you might think. It simply follows from (1) acknowledging that consciousness exists; (2) committing to monism over dualism by inferring that objective reality is made from the same 'stuff' as our own minds; and (3) using top-down dissociation to avoid the bottom-up combination problem faced by panpsychism. In my opinion, these are all reasonable assumptions to start out from.

[dollar coin]

MAL is not as much of a jump as you might think. It simply follows from (1) acknowledging that consciousness exists; (2) committing to monism over dualism by inferring that objective reality is made from the same 'stuff' as our own minds; and (3) using top-down dissociation to avoid the bottom-up combination problem faced by panpsychism. In my opinion, these are all reasonable assumptions to start out from.

This construction like that and all the story after it is logical. I object to the first proposition which is not that innocent as it is written. The whole catch is there.

1. Consciousness exists means it exists on its own. Proof? None. I think there is no need to go further but I'll write more.
   
2. You know some experiential side of you which you name consciousness and that's all you know. Beyond that you're inferring MAL which you assume to be from the same "stuff" of yours and exists on its own. No brain, no external objects to enforce experience and yet it produces everything. How this is not a big jump?
3. The consciousness I know is like smoke, quickly dissipating. How do you produce matter from that kind of stuff?
   While my experiences fade out quickly how a statue made 1.000 years ago can still stay without fading away if it is the same experiential thing as mine. We need physics of consciousness.
   

The list can be expanded...

[SKS]

Consciousness exists means it exists on its own. Proof? None. I think there is no need to go further but I'll write more.

 

Here I am just going to ignore eliminativism as self-refuting and absurd, as nobody would pick it if they thought they had an option. Indeed, there are many metaphysical theories (e.g. property dualism, panpsychism) in which consciousness is grounded in another medium. None of them are well-developed. The physical matter of the brain, as we understand it, is a dizzying mass of particles, and it's hard to see what psycho-physical laws could possibly recover the contents of our minds from that disorganised collection of information. It's like un-scrambling an egg, or turning a rainbow back into a beam of sunlight. I strongly suspect it is easier to recover matter from mind than vice versa. Also, consciousness is (uniquely?) able to 'breathe fire into the equations', creating a qualitative world that's meaningfully distinct from non-existent fictional worlds or abstract sets of mathematical equations, which is a very desirable property for a fundamental building block of reality. In contrast, there is no intelligible reason why superstrings or waves of quantum amplitude should be taken as fundamental: we'd just need to accept that they are, somehow.

You know some experiential side of you which you name consciousness and that's all you know. Beyond that you're inferring MAL which you assume to be from the same "stuff" of yours and exists on its own. No brain, no external objects to enforce experience and yet it produces everything. How this is not a big jump?

 

Well, you need to infer some source of objective reality. You can't avoid that.

The consciousness I know is like smoke, quickly dissipating. How do you produce matter from that kind of stuff?
While my experiences fade out quickly how a statue made 1.000 years ago can still stay without fading away if it is the same experiential thing as mine. We need physics of consciousness.

I can't really argue against your subjective impression, here. It's a matter of what you find to be plausible or not. Now if I suggested that MAL is not like your mind, you'd probably ask me what distinguishes it from matter. What do we mean when we say it's made from the same 'stuff' as our minds? This is a tricky subject. For example, I can't prove that MAL has qualia, though someone may have a mystical experience that suggests this. The best way of explaining it, I think, is thinking about the interaction problem in dualism. A substance dualist theory needs a way for mind to interact with matter, while property dualism or neural monism demand a way to translate between two mutually-complementary sets of properties. These are pretty difficult tasks. Under idealism, you interact with MAL in the same way that your thoughts interact with your emotions, or in the same way that you interact with the subconscious source of your dreams. This is why an idealist theory of matter, despite appearances, might actually turn out to be the simplest (save eliminativism) when all things are considered. In any case, the charge that idealism is no different to materialism has been refuted: it does have real implications.

I'm normally hesitant to invoke physics, but the apparent solidity of physical matter is a concept that's been steadily undermined over the years. The wavefunction has little to do with our intuitive ideas about matter, each particle in the solid lattice is constantly jiggling about, and physical objects are mostly empty space held together by electromagnetic interactions. These electromagnetic forces may be mediated by 'virtual particles' popping in and out of the vacuum, whose existence can only be observed in the interpretation of mathematical equations. Over geological timescales, that statue will be worn down into dust and disappear. Our human viewpoint makes it look like a permanent, solid object, but is it? Still, I'd deny that the contents of consciousness need to be ephemeral in the way you imply.

[Sciborg]

I don't see what's fuzzy about philosophical metaphysics.

It certainly doesn't make me feel like a "religious believer", if anything this faith in whatever "matter" is seems fuzzy to me, as does the something-from-nothing "emergence" of consciousness.

All that said, I'm not an Idealist...though I'm not an "ist" of anything save for the conclusion that materialism - at least as defined in contemporary Western philosophy - is false.

[Lincoln]

Hey dollarcoin. This is my first post on this forum. But I wanted to convey what I think RHC is saying.

First of all I think you are ahead of the pack if you are in the Materialism camp to even entertain the ideas Bernardo has put forth. Most will call anything outside of consciousness=matter as pure woo, which is unfair because a lot of the ideas to justify mind as matter can fall into the same woo.  But you have to understand what RHC is saying is just as justified as anything that the Materialism philosophy can put forth. 

You said in one of your earlier posts that NDE and OBE's don't offer reliable evidence. Then RHC gave you suggestion to look at the Self Does Not Die. You replied that the subjects returned and therefore were not dead. Who are we supposed to question then? I just did not understand that at all. Then with the Aware study, that study had so many constrictions and Sam Parnia himself did not think anything valid would come from it. Materialists such as Steven Novella took that as a victory for the Materialist faith. When it comes down to it, as you said there is Materialism and Idealism you seem to think that Materialism is the strongest stance. No one can take that away from you, that is your belief. 

One thing you cannot deny is that in NDE's with cardiac arrest there is impaired brain function. To have an experience that is more "real than real" with limited brain function is something that is a problem for Materialism. And the hypothesis you put forth that brain activity increases during impaired brain function is just throwing something at the wall seeing if it will stick. 

Should we give up looking for physical reasons for such phenomena? No I don't think so. But I think Idealism and Materialism are on equal terms, and one is not better than the other at this point in time. No matter what the Carrolls, Dawkins and Krauss's of the world say.

Seriously again for you to even come on a forum like this shows your mind is way more open than the names I listed above.

[dollar coin]

Still, I'd deny that the contents of consciousness need to be ephemeral in the way you imply.

If all that philosophy is based on the knowledge that you have consciousness then you don't have to pump it up with with unknowable things and make it a balloon.

Do you think your experiences are solid? From my experience I think they are ephemeral, I need memory to make them last longer.

[Peter Jones]

On Thursday, 8 September 2016 21:50:11 UTC+1, dollar coin wrote:

---"What if tomorrow a physical explanation for consciousness is found? Will you burn all those books?"

I think you are missing the point of the 'hard' problem. This is not going to happen. Dream on if you wish but this is never going to be a reason for burning books. Zen is a better reason.  . 

---"I think this philosophy puts all of us in that fuzzy mind state like the religious believers.

Looking for evidences to justify what we want to believe and ignoring or manipulating the evidences that could be against it.

Until there is an undeniable clear answer for consciousness outside brain or matter I'd refuse to make big jumps."

I become very annoyed when people don't bother to look at the evidence and then claim there is none. The evidence is virtually unmissable in metaphysics. Nothing fuzzy about it. Fuzziness is in the eye of the beholder. I think you're right to ask for evidence but wonder why you can't see it.  

Usually complaints of lack of evidence are from people who haven't looked for it and don't want to find it. Otherwise there's no explanation for why they think there isn't any.



 
 

 

[dollar coin]

if anything this faith in whatever "matter" is seems fuzzy to me, as does the something-from-nothing "emergence" of consciousness.

I tend to think matter as what enforces itself to you, that which causes experience.

Like when you drop a drop of water on your glass of water it causes ripples/experience but there is nothing but water.

Since it's internal dynamics have that potential to produce experiences it's evident that something like experience emerges from matter.

The drop of water causes ripples in the glass of water. The ripples in the glass of water via photos are like that drop of water dropped in me, causing ripples in me.

Since there is a chain of experiences like quantum superposition of quantum states, if I have the collapse system in me which I think in our case it's the brain, it has to collapse according to the quantum rules and that's when I'm aware of that chain of experiences and this is my conscious moment. Consciousness is the result of dynamics of matter.

I prefer to think it like that, otherwise If i say there is that which experiences then I need to explain how it is alerted, caused to experience. If I make an assumption and say it's dynamical by nature and there are always ripples in it and those ripples by themselves come together and cause different experiences I need to explain how they are guided to form certain type of experience and then how that form of experience becomes aware that it is experiencing or becomes consciousness.

I can't construct it good because I get lost in thinking. It immediately branches and raises more questions. Maybe because I didn't think over it like most of you.

[dollar coin]

I become very annoyed when people don't bother to look at the evidence and then claim there is none. The evidence is virtually unmissable in metaphysics. Nothing fuzzy about it. Fuzziness is in the eye of the beholder. I think you're right to ask for evidence but wonder why you can't see it.  

Usually complaints of lack of evidence are from people who haven't looked for it and don't want to find it. Otherwise there's no explanation for why they think there isn't any.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I view the NDEs and OBEs from that perspective.
If the OBEs are not the trick of the brain's GPS cells then it should be able to bring information from external objects placed around which can be seen only when the consciousness is really out of body.

Let's say I'm holding a paper which has a letter written on it and if your consciousness can read that letter I'll shut my mouth. This will be the evidence that will make every opposition to shut up.

If consciousness is not bound  by space-time then why I'm always experiencing the external world from the space-time that I'm physically in? Why I feel confined in that physical body all the time?

[benjayk]

If the OBEs are not the trick of the brain's GPS cells then it should be able to bring information from external objects placed around which can be seen only when the consciousness is really out of body.

Let's say I'm holding a paper which has a letter written on it and if your consciousness can read that letter I'll shut my mouth. This will be the evidence that will make every opposition to shut up.

If consciousness is not bound  by space-time then why I'm always experiencing the external world from the space-time that I'm physically in? Why I feel confined in that physical body all the time?

First off, like other people said the phenomenon of veridicial perception does exist and is hard to explain away.
You might argue the evidence is not convincing to you but nonetheless it does exist.

But in any case there is no denying our senses serve an important function.
If you have an OBE how do you distinguish possibility from actuality, projection from factual perception, the world your body is in from another world?
I am not saying it's inherently impossible, but it's not trivial at all.
Our eyes solve that problem by using a causal physical connection from the object to our sensory apparatus.
So it's easy to see why accurate non-sensory perception is a lot more difficult to achieve, and why it's not easily possible to produce convincing evidence in a lab.
For smaller effect sizes it's always easier to explain it away but that's true for many things not just paranormal phenomena. Perhaps it would be possible if you throw billions at it.

With regards to your questions, that's a thing that personal to you.
Given that the body serves a very important function in experiencing and manipulating the world it's not suprising our attention tends to be rooted in it.
However many people do not always experience it that way. When my body is asleep I don't feel like I am experiencing ordinary space-time, nor do I feel confined by my body.
Even while awake it's possible to expand your awareness through meditation for example.
Whether you experience those kind of states depends on many factors, and certainly it's easier if you actively try to.

[RHC]

 I just say "Let's first eliminate all of the physical possibilities and then look for other explanations."

I  understand the so seeming categorical difference but I resist to jump to the MAL explanation. Because it ignores the progress and makes a big jump.
What if tomorrow a physical explanation for consciousness is found? Will you burn all those books?

The point Im trying to make to you is that it is non-sensical to start from a philosophical position that based on all our experience and understanding of the world is almost certainly impossible.  Can you name one explanation or even idea of how so called physical matter generates, step by step, experience?  No you cant because nobody in 10,000 years has or can.  So if nobody has and nobody has any clue how to even begin to do this, how does it make any sense to start from this as the default position? The only reason you take this position (and probably all of us here have at some point) is that you have been culturally programmed since birth to think that the materialist philosophical position is Base Reality.  All other positions are extraordinary claims that need to provide extraordinary evidence to change our starting Base Reality.  But what can be more extraordinary than taking a probable impossibility as your working assumption. What could be a Bigger Jump as you put it. 

>Because it ignores the progress and makes a big jump.

There has been progress on how brain correlates to mind but that isnt remotely the same thing as creating it.  There has been no progress on how stones can produce blood.  How could there be?

>What if tomorrow a physical explanation for consciousness is found? Will you burn all those books?

The short answer is yes, well not burn, but yes.  The better question is:  If after thinking it through the starting premise doesnt make any sense why is it the starting premise?

BTW the blood from stone metaphor also shows you why both dualism and matter-panpychism cant work either.  And why Bernardo's "partial images"  explanation is so elegant.  IE  Flames are a partial image of the process of combustion, they correlate tightly with combustion,  but of course it would be non-sensical to say that flames create combustion. 

Lastly as others have pointed out here, there is a TON of hard evidence of consciousness that doesnt fit brain generated mind. Its just ignored or rationalized away.  I always point people the Chris Carter trilogy as a quick, fun well written read that just tears the no evidence position apart, but of course there are lots of other books.

Lastly I hope you understand that there is no implied criticism of you in anything that I am writing.  As I say most of us here have been in exactly the place you are re all this stuff and you may never change your mind about it.  Its all good. Thats why its called Metaphysical Speculations.  

[dollar coin]

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 4:19:44 PM UTC+3, RHC wrote:

> There has been progress on how brain correlates to mind but that isnt remotely the same thing as creating it.  There has been no progress on how stones can produce blood.  How could there be?

Self organization and emergence.

If everything is mind and brain is a receiver of mind then how we can't detect any external signal/energy?
We can detect all matter with devices but why we can't detect that mind signal? If all is mind what's the problem then? All other so called mind stuff (matter) is detectable.
Isn't there a problem in that receiver analogy and everything is mind analogy?

[RHC]

I've already explained why "Self organization and emergence"  are nonsensical and you dont offer a counter-argument.  Why do you want to go through life blindly believing apparent impossibilities?  Whats in it for you I wonder?

>If everything is mind and brain is a receiver of mind then how we can't detect any external signal/energy?

This is dualism not Idealism. Which you would know if you cared enough to do the smallest amount of homework.  And the receiver idea is primarily a metaphor to help people start to see the holes in the so called obviousness of materialism. Seriously Dollar Coin, ask yourself why are you here in this forum, if there isnt a positive answer there for you, then for your own sake, go do something else that makes the world a little happier. 

[dollar coin]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 3:51:56 PM UTC+3, RHC wrote:

This is dualism not Idealism. Which you would know if you cared enough to do the smallest amount of homework.  And the receiver idea is primarily a metaphor to help people start to see the holes in the so called obviousness of materialism. Seriously Dollar Coin, ask yourself why are you here in this forum, if there isnt a positive answer there for you, then for your own sake, go do something else that makes the world a little happier.

It has nothing to do with dualism.

If all is from one thing which you claim is mind then how we can't detect it?

When we say all is matter then our tools are also matter and our tools can detect other matter, we can empirically verify the initial postulate.

But, when we say all is mind then our tools must also be mind and should be able to detect other mind, but we see that they can't, they event don't share a single commonality, so our initial postulate is false, mind is not the ontological primitive.

Then we conclude that it's emergent from matter or dualism is true.

I think this is a very simple and logical question. If you don't like questions what's your difference from a radical believer, who doesn't like being questioned?

We can't even be sure that another human is conscious or zombie and yet trying to build a philosophy which can't be backed up by experiments.

If I'm going after something I need to believe it. I need to ask questions. If I don't like the answers I reject it.

Don't you ask yourself that kind of questions also? Maybe you only ask the ones that support your philosophy?

I'm in this forum because I spend lots of time trying to understand Bernardo and idealism. I even defended it. But then I realized that I'm only doing logical acrobacy, repeating and spreading Bernardo's claims, nothing empirical, nothing testable than I can put.
Then I decided to come and see how you passed that phase. But you also don't know the answers, you're also doing logical acrobacy. That's why I said this philosophy needs a theory of everything. Else it doesn't stand a chance against materialism. Materialism is really a firm castle.

[Peter Jones]

On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 17:01:05 UTC+1, dollar coin wrote:

Dollar - You should listen to RHC. He's not the only one writing you off as a troll. I would say something a lot stronger.

Your comments on materialism are utterly ridiculous. A materialist has no hope of finding a theory of everything, as history shows. 

This is not rocket science.

Once again I blame the teaching of philosophy. This stuff should all be sorted out in High School.  

 

[dollar coin]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:15:19 PM UTC+3, Peter Jones wrote:

Dollar - You should listen to RHC. He's not the only one writing you off as a troll. I would say something a lot stronger.

Your comments on materialism are utterly ridiculous. A materialist has no hope of finding a theory of everything, as history shows. 

This is not rocket science.

Once again I blame the teaching of philosophy. This stuff should all be sorted out in High School.

Saying whatever you want to me won't make idealism better. You know that.

You need to produce testable ideas otherwise one Dollar Coin goes another comes.

Testable ideas will make idealism better. Maybe I should blame teaching of science in schools?

If you're a great philosopher you should be quite capable of answering questions in simple language. I think you're a great philosopher because I read you posts in another philosophy forum but if you can't answer a simple question in a way that anybody can understand then it is a sign that those ideas don't go all the way down but emerge at some level and won't be understood unless backed up by empirical.

[Sciborg]

Materialism is a firm castle?

Then you should be able to tell us what matter is.

Also why it behaves in such a regular fashion people have fallen into the circular reasoning of normative laws of nature.

You don't have to be an Idealist to reject materialism, you don't have to accept Bernardo's metaphysics says to get to that point.

[benjayk]

Am Dienstag, 20. September 2016 18:34:31 UTC+2 schrieb dollar coin:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:15:19 PM UTC+3, Peter Jones wrote:

Dollar - You should listen to RHC. He's not the only one writing you off as a troll. I would say something a lot stronger.

Your comments on materialism are utterly ridiculous. A materialist has no hope of finding a theory of everything, as history shows. 

This is not rocket science.

Once again I blame the teaching of philosophy. This stuff should all be sorted out in High School.

Saying whatever you want to me won't make idealism better. You know that.

You need to produce testable ideas otherwise one Dollar Coin goes another comes.

Testable ideas will make idealism better. Maybe I should blame teaching of science in schools?

It seems you don't quite get the point that it's not about creating a hypothesis within a scientific/materialistic worldview, but about a different view altogether.
There is no need to produce or test anything if you don't think that everything needs validation from the "God of science".

I agree abandoning materialism leaves many things less clear-cut.
That may be because we abandon truth, or because we leave behind the notion that there are simplistic answers to all questions...
I think it's similar to religion really.
To be fair, I think that idealism can suffer from a similar problem, in that it creates simplistic concepts around what mind is etc...

But nonetheless your criticism concerning testability etc just reveals your bias in favor of materialism.
Why is there anything to test in the first place? Do realize how biased this is?
The vast majority of activities we do have little to do with doing tests and creating highly accurate theories.
The idea that those activities have a status of superiority in some way may be common nowadays (in some circles) but is certainly not obvious.
Nor is it obvious that the only alternative is believing every idea or gut feeling you have, or that you blindly follow some group that appeals to you.

[Sciborg]

Science is not materialistic, it's the study of relations. Bernardo has covered this before though it was in a little known, more "kooky" journal*. 

Physicist Lee Smolin has the same realization in Time Reborn:

'The problem of qualia, or consciousness, seems unanswerable by science because it's an aspect of the world that is not encompassed when we describe all the physical interactions among particles. It's in the domain of questions about what the world really is, not how it can be modeled or represented.

Some philosophers argue that qualia simply are identical to certain neuronal processes. This seems to me wrong. Qualia may very well be correlated with neuronal processes but they are not the same as neuronal processes. Neuronal processes are subject to description by physics and chemistry, but no amount of detailed description in those terms will answer the questions as to what qualia are like or explain why we perceive them.'

'We don't know what a rock really is, or an atom, or an electron. We can only observe how they interact with other things and thereby describe their relational properties. Perhaps everything has external and internal aspects. The external properties are those that science can capture and describe - through interactions, in terms of relationships. The internal aspect is the intrinsic essence, it is the reality that is not expressible in the language of interactions and relations. Consciousness, whatever it is, is an aspect of the intrinsic essence of brains.

On further aspect of consciousness is the fact that it takes place in time. Indeed, when I assert that it is always some time in the world, I am extrapolating from the fact that my experiences of the world always takes place in time. But what do I mean by my experiences? I can speak about them scientifically as instances of recordings of information. To speak so, I need not mention consciousness or qualia. But this may be an evasion, because these experiences have aspects that are consciousness of qualia. So my conviction that what is real is real in the present moment is related to my conviction that qualia are real.'

=-=-=

*Actually the fact we can talk about immaterialism within a mainstream academic context now is great and so some credit must be given to places like New Dawn that were willing to publish such ideas earlier on....though I'm wary of some of the other authors/articles there I do think there's some good stuff.

[dollar coin]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:34:39 PM UTC+3, Sciborg wrote:

Materialism is a firm castle?

Materialism is firm castle because it is backed up by empirical. Think of something about the behavior of matter and you can test if it is true or not.

 

Then you should be able to tell us what matter is.

Matter is that which enforces itself that which causes experience. It doesn't obey what you think, your thoughts obey it. It shapes your thoughts everything.

There is no experience on it's own. It's caused by matter. This causation is abstraction which we call experience. It is not possible to have experience without it's reason.

 

Also why it behaves in such a regular fashion people have fallen into the circular reasoning of normative laws of nature.

What is regular? It's abstraction of the observed behavior of that which causes experience.

It causes you to experience whatever it does, it doesn't care what you want. You observe whatever it does and make postulates. You call them laws. There is only one thing going on and it's interaction.
A has it's unique properties which cause it to interact/cause experience in a certain way, and B which has it's unique properties which cause it to interact//cause experience in a certain way. When they interact they form a combined unique property which cause the combined to interact/cause experience in a certain way. Divide them and they continue to cause experience in their certain ways.

All laws are explanations of observed interactions.

You don't have to be an Idealist to reject materialism, you don't have to accept Bernardo's metaphysics says to get to that point.

 If you're not materialist then you're non-materialist which is idealist. All other forms non-materialism are some kind of idealism.

And I don't say I don't want to accept idealism, actually I like it in itself but I don't know how to make love with it. I don't see it, I can't test it.
To love it I need to ask questions, I need to test if it is for real. Don't all loves include testing? :)

[Sciborg]

"Materialism is firm castle because it is backed up by empirical. Think of something about the behavior of matter and you can test if it is true or not."

All empiricism is within consciousness.

Also see my last post above on why science isn't a confirmation of materialism.

"Matter is that which enforces itself that which causes experience. It doesn't obey what you think, your thoughts obey it. It shapes your thoughts everything.

There is no experience on it's own. It's caused by matter. This causation is abstraction which we call experience. It is not possible to have experience without it's reason."

So matter is something that doesn't obey my thoughts? But Kastrup's proposed M@L also doesn't obey my thoughts. Even characters in my dreams don't obey me within the dream.

How can causation be explained by abstraction? 

"What is regular? It's abstraction of the observed behavior of that which causes experience.

It causes you to experience whatever it does, it doesn't care what you want. You observe whatever it does and make postulates. You call them laws. There is only one thing going on and it's interaction.
A has it's unique properties which cause it to interact/cause experience in a certain way, and B which has it's unique properties which cause it to interact//cause experience in a certain way. When they interact they form a combined unique property which cause the combined to interact/cause experience in a certain way. Divide them and they continue to cause experience in their certain ways.

All laws are explanations of observed interactions."

Regular means predictable behavior. Why don't the laws of physics change moment to moment?

Why doesn't A lose or change it's unique properties, why doesn't something different happen sometimes when it interacts with B?

The phrase "laws are explanations of observed interactions" reveals the very flaw in materialism. Laws aren't explanations because they are extrapolated abstractions of the very changes observed within consciousness that need to be explained.

"If you're not materialist then you're non-materialist which is idealist. All other forms non-materialism are some kind of idealism."

Please prove this. How are panpsychism and neutral monism idealist?

 

Then you should be able to tell us what matter is.

 

Also why it behaves in such a regular fashion people have fallen into the circular reasoning of normative laws of nature.

You don't have to be an Idealist to reject materialism, you don't have to accept Bernardo's metaphysics says to get to that point.

[dollar coin]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:17:33 PM UTC+3, Sciborg wrote:

"Materialism is firm castle because it is backed up by empirical. Think of something about the behavior of matter and you can test if it is true or not."

All empiricism is within consciousness.

Whose consciousness? You mean MAL?
Nobody has given me good explanation why if all is mind I can't measure mind. How can MAL and small minds don't have something in common. If they had we'd be able to measure them. Likewise if I postulate all is matter with my materials tools I can measure material things. Because they share common properties. So I conclude there is no MAL or dualism.
If I grant you that empiricism is within consciousness then we must think lack of empirical is also some kind of empiricism? Not the exact empiricism I wanted. :)

 

So matter is something that doesn't obey my thoughts? But Kastrup's proposed M@L also doesn't obey my thoughts. Even characters in my dreams don't obey me within the dream.

I'm thinking that Bernardo is trying very hard to not inflate his idealism and tries to keep it in alignment with materialist predictions.
I'm sure he pay high attention to it while making his logical constructions.

Saying that if your thoughts can't interact with MAL why do you believe it's the same thing? If you say dissociation mechanism (whatever it is) is preventing this then isn't that dissociation process also mind, how come mind stuffs can't interact with themselves?

This MAL idea seems problematic. But if it's not put it becomes solipsism.

 

How can causation be explained by abstraction? 

 

I think I wanted to say that some wave A interacts with some wave B where wave is which causes experience (experience is one side of the interaction or intractability or potential for interaction is better instead of experience).
That interaction process is called law by the observer.

Regular means predictable behavior. Why don't the laws of physics change moment to moment?

Why doesn't A lose or change it's unique properties, why doesn't something different happen sometimes when it interacts with B?

The phrase "laws are explanations of observed interactions" reveals the very flaw in materialism. Laws aren't explanations because they are extrapolated abstractions of the very changes observed within consciousness that need to be explained.

 

Why do you think they should change?

Let's say you can produce only one sound which is sound A and I can produce only one sound which is sound B. It's your capacity, internal dynamic to produce only sound A. When we come together we can produce a combined sound AB. AB is the capacity, internal dynamic of you and me when together.
You can't produce sound B because only sound A emerges from your capacity. And by observation some scientist knows that this is they way it is and thus we're predictable.

Please prove this. How are panpsychism and neutral monism idealist?

Panpsychism is pretty looking materialism. I think our knowledge of matter is not total for this panpsychism is produced. There is a Turkish saying "let's not burn the shish nor the kebab". The shish is the metal rod where the meat is passed on but this saying is for the wooden ones. :) Panpsychism is the position where more people can agree on.

I don't know natural monism but the major positions are materialism and non-materialism (idealism).

[Sciborg]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:42:22 PM UTC-5, dollar coin wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:17:33 PM UTC+3, Sciborg wrote:

"Materialism is firm castle because it is backed up by empirical. Think of something about the behavior of matter and you can test if it is true or not."

All empiricism is within consciousness.

Whose consciousness? You mean MAL?

No, the consciousness of the person engaging in empiricism.

 

Nobody has given me good explanation why if all is mind I can't measure mind. How can MAL and small minds don't have something in common. If they had we'd be able to measure them. Likewise if I postulate all is matter with my materials tools I can measure material things. Because they share common properties. So I conclude there is no MAL or dualism.

All you are measuring are relations. In a dream people could measure things and yet it would still be a dream. In a video game people could measure things but there is no actual place outside the game.

Being able to measure doesn't do anything to solver the question of what metaphysical position is correct.

 

If I grant you that empiricism is within consciousness then we must think lack of empirical is also some kind of empiricism? Not the exact empiricism I wanted. :)

What is the "lack of empirical"? 

 

 

So matter is something that doesn't obey my thoughts? But Kastrup's proposed M@L also doesn't obey my thoughts. Even characters in my dreams don't obey me within the dream.

I'm thinking that Bernardo is trying very hard to not inflate his idealism and tries to keep it in alignment with materialist predictions.
I'm sure he pay high attention to it while making his logical constructions.

Saying that if your thoughts can't interact with MAL why do you believe it's the same thing? If you say dissociation mechanism (whatever it is) is preventing this then isn't that dissociation process also mind, how come mind stuffs can't interact with themselves?

This MAL idea seems problematic. But if it's not put it becomes solipsism.

 

My point was that simply defining matter is that which doesn't respond to my mental will is a useless definition. Even my own consciousness doesn't respond to my will at all times, in fact subjectivity is a largely involuntary process (at least initially though arguably always).

I don't know what you mean by "your thoughts can't interact with MAL"? Do you mean why can't I influence MAL to control  all reality? Bernardo has covered this extensively, perhaps you could object to his explanations but it seems odd to posit this question as a basic level if you're familiar with his work.

In any case it's irrelevant if there's M@L or not, what I was focused on was a clear definition of what "matter" is.

 

How can causation be explained by abstraction? 

 

I think I wanted to say that some wave A interacts with some wave B where wave is which causes experience (experience is one side of the interaction or intractability or potential for interaction is better instead of experience).
That interaction process is called law by the observer.

What are these waves causing experience? I'm confused by the addition of these waves.

 

Regular means predictable behavior. Why don't the laws of physics change moment to moment?

Why doesn't A lose or change it's unique properties, why doesn't something different happen sometimes when it interacts with B?

The phrase "laws are explanations of observed interactions" reveals the very flaw in materialism. Laws aren't explanations because they are extrapolated abstractions of the very changes observed within consciousness that need to be explained.

 

Why do you think they should change?

You're saying there's matter, and it behaves in predictable ways. I'm asking why that is. Are you saying it's just a brute fact that matter behaves the way it does?

 

Let's say you can produce only one sound which is sound A and I can produce only one sound which is sound B. It's your capacity, internal dynamic to produce only sound A. When we come together we can produce a combined sound AB. AB is the capacity, internal dynamic of you and me when together.
You can't produce sound B because only sound A emerges from your capacity. And by observation some scientist knows that this is they way it is and thus we're predictable.

Why can't my capacity change so I can produce both A & B?

 

Please prove this. How are panpsychism and neutral monism idealist?

Panpsychism is pretty looking materialism. I think our knowledge of matter is not total for this panpsychism is produced. There is a Turkish saying "let's not burn the shish nor the kebab". The shish is the metal rod where the meat is passed on but this saying is for the wooden ones. :) Panpsychism is the position where more people can agree on.

I don't know natural monism but the major positions are materialism and non-materialism (idealism).

Panpsychism is a type of non-materialism, and as you point out it's different from idealism.

[dollar coin]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:32:18 PM UTC+3, Sciborg wrote:

All you are measuring are relations. In a dream people could measure things and yet it would still be a dream. In a video game people could measure things but there is no actual place outside the game.

Being able to measure doesn't do anything to solver the question of what metaphysical position is correct.

Measurement is interaction. If matter can interact with matter and mind can't interact with mind why should I assume mind as ontological primitive?

Dream is brain dependent, game is computer dependent. All emerge from configurations of matter, information processing. Computer doesn't have eyes,ears but produces the game environment without sensory input. Dream seems no different, brain produces the environment from internal information, code.

 

What is the "lack of empirical"? 

 

I don't know what you mean by "your thoughts can't interact with MAL"? Do you mean why can't I influence MAL to control  all reality? Bernardo has covered this extensively, perhaps you could object to his explanations but it seems odd to posit this question as a basic level if you're familiar with his work.

If all is mind and if I can not interact with mind aka measure it with what is mind parts (matter) what is different than positing imaginary creatures and can't interact with them to verify them. No explanatory power. Nothing.

 

What are these waves causing experience? I'm confused by the addition of these waves.

 

Why can't my capacity change so I can produce both A & B? 

Wave is nice example to visualize an intrinsically dynamic configuration. A very simple thing like atom waves in a single frequency. Another waves at another frequency. When they interfere they produce another wave with different frequency. And all of the rest is more waves and more interactions resulting in more waves... A simple thing can wave at a single frequency on it's own. That's why it's predictable.

It's what it is. Do you mean it behaves predictable because of your mind?

[MrBeezweez]

Why can't mind interact with mind if all is m@l? Wouldn't the measuring tools also be m@l, mind interacting with mind, same exact thing as matter interacting with matter or were you comparing apples and oranges.

M@l is analogous to matter at the level of observation and disassociated minds interact with matter or m@l the same or similar. There is nothing to be gained with this argument. It is a neutral observation that doesn't reinforce either side.

[Sciborg]

What's information?

As for computer games producing sensory input - how is it sensory without consciousness?

How do you know a dream is produced by the brain? When you're in a dream it seems completely real, so why isn't waking life just a different type of dream? Also can you point to Benardo's work where he says we can't interact with MAL? I don't get what you mean there.

I don't see how waves explain why A and B can't change their capacity. You seem to claim it just "is what it is" but that's not really an explanation, just an assertion of brute fact. Collections of brute facts aren't real explanations.

[Sciborg]

Yeah you articulated it better than I could. 

The stuff of this world always interacts with the stuff of this world, no matter whether it's ultimately Mind, Matter, or a Neutral Monist substance.

[MrBeezweez]

Haha, Sciborg. I don't know about that but I usually butcher other people's ideas when I try to articulate them. So I guess I'll stop while I'm ahead.

[Jimi]

Unlike materialism and neutral monism, idealism introduces a form of interaction that it struggles to make any sense of. For example, if idealism was true, it would be nonsensical to say that a change in brain states can affect mental states.

[Sciborg]

Why would it be nonsensical?

[Jimi]

I can't think of interaction as anything other than forces repelling or attracting things. It makes sense that matter interacts with matter because it is carried out by some of the four fundamental forces, but it makes no sense to say that the experience of matter could somehow interact with subjective experience of qualia. It only makes sense to say that changes in brain states and changes in qualia are causally related if I presuppose underlying physical interactions that cause the changes in qualia. In that case qualia would also need to be essentially a process carried out by matter.

keskiviikko 21. syyskuuta 2016 19.29.28 UTC+3 Sciborg kirjoitti:

Why would it be nonsensical?

[RHC]

Its only nonsensical to you because you filtering everything through materialist ground rules.  You are not stepping outside your own biases enough to actually understand the alternatives being proposed.  This and your follow up response show you have zero conceptual understanding of Idealism. 

Bernardo has written extensively on this question, go do your own homework.  You wouldnt walk into a room full of chemical engineers, who have studied HARD to understand a difficult field and declare something you dont understand as nonsensical and expect them to politely interact with your ignorant rudeness would you?   Thinking outside the box of materialism is hard.  It takes time and patience because your programming is always trying to pull you back to your initial framing. But just because you dont immediately intuit or understand something doesnt mean it must be Woo.  Therein lies the cluelessness of debunkers.    Consider how much more fruitful to you might be a stance of productive humility.

[Jimi]

"Its only nonsensical to you because you filtering everything through materialist ground rules."

No, it is nonsensical because I can't conceive of causation as anything other than matter on matter interaction.

[MrBeezweez]

That is exactly correct, the only thing you can "conceive", notice you didn't say perceive.

[Jimi]

What I can perceive is that mental events can be related to each other. For example, I perceive that my thoughts are sometimes followed by related feelings. But I don't perceive my thoughts and feelings to be causally related to each other.

[Person]

Forgetting idealism, consciousness, or awareness completely for a moment - isn't physics heading toward a belief that "matter" is nothing more than a useful fiction and therefore has no causal power? We have things like ontic structural realism, QBism, Hoffman's ideas, etc. as well as the experimental results indicating this.

[MrBeezweez]

OK, but you can't perceive matter on matter interaction either. You can only conceive of it (your words), just an idea in mind.

[Sciborg]

Wait. Matter interacts with matter through forces?

What's a force?