(September 17, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: There may not be consensus on when the change occurs, but the evidence is clear that an infant goes from not knowing that an object has independent existence to a time when all objects are seen as persisting even when out of sight.  This is strong evidence that the belief in independently existing external matter is not learned, so much as it is a part of normal development of the brain.  My view is that just as consciousness is structured along lines of physical dimension and time, ala Kantian Idealism, it is also structured in that we perceive objects as having permanence.  The simplest explanation of the experience is that things are composed of material.  It's not something we learn.  It's something that's programmed into us by evolution.

I see something more fundamental in your comment: It's not the objective material nature per-say but the recognition of pattern the material is in that the mind expects. Say I stole the weather vein off the roof of your house, something you look at but never really touch and I replaced it with a convincing hologram. You would assume by sight it is still there, even though it's not materially there.

Pattern recognition is primarily a space/light sight phenomenon and not an operation of physical touch although blind people can turn touch into that required mental spatial pattern recognition to navigate the material world.

We expect our chair to be in the shape of a chair when we return to it and not a pile of unconnected atoms.

(September 17, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: So consciousness, which may be an illusion, is the sole testifying witness to the question of whether or not it's an illusion?  That's circular as all hell.  You might as well say, "because I believe."  Your own consciousness, which may be lying to you, is not lying to you, "because your consciousness tells you it's not lying."  Well you've persuaded me that your consciousness isn't lying to itself; how could I doubt you?  That's stupid, Benny.  Saying that it's self-evident is simply wrong.  There is no such thing as self-evidence at that level.  Something* must be making it evident, and that something is this consciousness thing that you say is not an illusion, why?  Because it's obvious?  That's a stupid, thoughtless response.

You are making an error between proofs and definitions. If I'm aware of my consciousness lying. . . I'm conscious.!

(September 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 17, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: So consciousness, which may be an illusion, is the sole testifying witness to the question of whether or not it's an illusion?  That's circular as all hell.  You might as well say, "because I believe."  Your own consciousness, which may be lying to you, is not lying to you, "because your consciousness tells you it's not lying."  Well you've persuaded me that your consciousness isn't lying to itself; how could I doubt you?  That's stupid, Benny.  Saying that it's self-evident is simply wrong.  There is no such thing as self-evidence at that level.  Something* must be making it evident, and that something is this consciousness thing that you say is not an illusion, why?  Because it's obvious?  That's a stupid, thoughtless response.

You are making an error between proofs and definitions.

No, I'm pointing out that your claim of self-evidence is a silly circular argument. Consciousness is conscious because consciousness says so. Hurr durr.

(September 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If I'm aware of my consciousness lying. . . I'm conscious.!

This is nothing but an assertion based on loose language. You're just arguing in circles again. "I'm conscious because I'm conscious because I'm conscious because...." I don't think we are any more "aware" than a computer, and your response is that "it's obvious that we are!" That's not a demonstration of anything but that you don't know.

(September 17, 2016 at 10:38 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You are making an error between proofs and definitions.

No, I'm pointing out that your claim of self-evidence is a silly circular argument.  Consciousness is conscious because consciousness says so.  Hurr durr.

An apple is an apple because we call it that. Being aware is consciousness because we call it that. Not really sure what your contention is-- that awareness is an illusion? Fine-- who's experiencing the illusion? Whoever/whatever that is, it's conscious, by definition.

Quote:

(September 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If I'm aware of my consciousness lying. . . I'm conscious.!

This is nothing but an assertion based on loose language.  You're just arguing in circles again.   "I'm conscious because I'm conscious because I'm conscious because...."  I don't think we are any more "aware" than a computer, and your response is that "it's obvious that we are!"  That's not a demonstration of anything but that you don't know.

Did I say it's obvious that we're more aware than a computer? What, exactly is the point we're debating right now?

And not knowing is fine. It is, in fact, my position-- I don't know what consciousness is or where it comes from.

(September 17, 2016 at 8:45 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 17, 2016 at 8:22 am)LastPoet Wrote: Does that mean you have shaven your balls off?

Lol. What?

He just doesn't like getting curly hairs between his teeth.  

Omg lol

(September 17, 2016 at 10:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 17, 2016 at 10:38 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, I'm pointing out that your claim of self-evidence is a silly circular argument.  Consciousness is conscious because consciousness says so.  Hurr durr.

An apple is an apple because we call it that.  Being aware is consciousness because we call it that.  Not really sure what your contention is-- that awareness is an illusion?  Fine-- who's experiencing the illusion?  Whoever/whatever that is, it's conscious, by definition.

You're so droll. Nothing is experiencing. There is no who. Try to exert yourself a little and move beyond mere word games.

(September 17, 2016 at 10:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

Quote:This is nothing but an assertion based on loose language.  You're just arguing in circles again.   "I'm conscious because I'm conscious because I'm conscious because...."  I don't think we are any more "aware" than a computer, and your response is that "it's obvious that we are!"  That's not a demonstration of anything but that you don't know.

Did I say it's obvious that we're more aware than a computer?  What, exactly is the point we're debating right now?

And not knowing is fine.  It is, in fact, my position-- I don't know what consciousness is or where it comes from.

You're full of shit. Consciousness, isn't. You claim that consciousness is. That's a claim that requires more support than a stupid semantic argument or saying that it's self-evident. You've never been shy that you believe in Idealism. What is that Idealism world composed of if consciousness isn't a real thing? And here you are trying to deny the ontology your well-known Idealism requires. If consciousness isn't what it appears to be, then your "world of ideas" is an empty non-space. You're simply being dishonest in pretending agnosticism here.

(September 18, 2016 at 12:12 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 17, 2016 at 10:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: An apple is an apple because we call it that.  Being aware is consciousness because we call it that.  Not really sure what your contention is-- that awareness is an illusion?  Fine-- who's experiencing the illusion?  Whoever/whatever that is, it's conscious, by definition.

You're so droll.  Nothing is experiencing.  There is no who.  Try to exert yourself a little and move beyond mere word games.

I'm experiencing slight irritation right now. I get irritated, therefore I am.

Quote:You're full of shit.  Consciousness, isn't.   You claim that consciousness is.  That's a claim that requires more support than a stupid semantic argument or saying that it's self-evident.  You've never been shy that you believe in Idealism.  What is that Idealism world composed of if consciousness isn't a real thing?  And here you are trying to deny the ontology your well-known Idealism requires.  If consciousness isn't what it appears to be, then your "world of ideas" is an empty non-space.  You're simply being dishonest in pretending agnosticism here.

First of all, I don't "believe in" idealism. I'm agnostic about the nature of reality, but I consider a kind of experiential idealism a better default position than a material monism. This is because there's a 100% chance that all knowledge is known only by a subjective agent, and an unknown chance that all subjective agency is dependent on a material substrate. 100% > not sure, any day of the week.

(September 18, 2016 at 4:30 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 12:12 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You're full of shit.  Consciousness, isn't.   You claim that consciousness is.  That's a claim that requires more support than a stupid semantic argument or saying that it's self-evident.  You've never been shy that you believe in Idealism.  What is that Idealism world composed of if consciousness isn't a real thing?  And here you are trying to deny the ontology your well-known Idealism requires.  If consciousness isn't what it appears to be, then your "world of ideas" is an empty non-space.  You're simply being dishonest in pretending agnosticism here.

First of all, I don't "believe in" idealism.  I'm agnostic about the nature of reality, but I consider a kind of experiential idealism a better default position than a material monism.  This is because there's a 100% chance that all knowledge is known only by a subjective agent, and an unknown chance that all subjective agency is dependent on a material substrate.  100% > not sure, any day of the week.

More word games. Your odds don't make any sense. Both "all knowledge is known only by a subjective agent" and "subjective agency is dependent on a material substrate" may both be true at the same time. And "all knowledge is known only by a subjective agent" doesn't lead to Idealism. You're just spinning BS to CYA. The chance that "all knowledge is known only by a subjective agent" implies an Idealism is also unknown.

(September 17, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Bunburryist Wrote:

(September 17, 2016 at 5:44 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: The number of atheist I know of who present materialism as an alternative to religious belief: 0. This includes public atheists, atheists I've ineracted with online and atheists I know personally. The whole materialism as a substitute for religion thing is a fundie slander, as they associate materialism with want for things.

People are asked to accept that they are material things because the evidence is increasingly saying that that is the case. For example neurology has pretty much shown that the brain does everything ascribed to souls. We should no more accept the validity of belief in souls than we do the validity of belief in phlogiston.

Perhaps that's not how they present it, or even intend to present it, but o the believer the "arguing atheist" is presenting, not some logically derived worldview, but rather an alternative reality and an alternative conception of what one is.  You and I may think of materialism as having a kind of rational basis, but to many believers it is just another worldview - one that flies in the face of one they believe in . 

I don't know that science can account for any one, single thing I experience.  Since no aspect of anything I experience - thoughts, color, sensation, etc. - can even be described in physical terms - mass, distance, time, charge, spin - there can be no physical theory of anything I experience.  Materialists like to believe that (what they believe to be) material brains can "do everything ascribed to souls," but that's just a belief.  (I won't even bring up the fact that, if materialism is right, I can't even FIND the material brain my experiences supposedly happen in, or the world such a brain would exist in - if it even existed.)

First of all let me point out that what you believe is over here, whereas what reality is is way off over in the distance. And it doesn't matter what you or anybody else believes when talking about "materialism as a replacement for religion" because materialism has about as much to do with religion as gravity has to do with the colour dusky yellow, they do not match up at all. Materialism is simply an underlying axiom in science which is necessary in order for us to be able to know anything. Religion on the other hand is a belief in things where there is no evidence.

Oh, and science accounts for your brain, which accounts for your consciousness, which accounts for every single thing you experience. Science has shown the existence of the computer you use, the air you breathe, the rock you stand on and countless other externalities which make up your experience. Just because you, in your scientific illiteracy and wilful ignorance, believe that science does not explain things that it is very good at explaining it doesn't follow that you are even remotely close to being right.