(February 3, 2015 at 7:45 pm)ManMachine Wrote:

(February 3, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Surgenator Wrote: A thought/idea is a series of electrochemical processes in the brain. A fundamental particle is a thing. A process is fundamentally different from a thing. Eventhough a process is a composite of things, the things do not get the same properties as the process because the process requires interactions between things.

What arrant nonsense.

You need matter (or energy) to create a process

INPUT -> ACTION -> OUTPUT = PROCESS

When the INPUT is electrochemical, the ACTION is electrochemical/biochemical and the OUTPUT is electrochemical/biochemical how can thought not be made up of fundamental particles?

What results from this process is nothing more than can result from this process, regardless of whether or not we understand it. If you are suggesting a 'thought process' has some magical property not possessed by the interaction of its constituent parts then you're just making things up, and if you're not then you have no point to make.

MM

You're committing the fallacy of division. Just because A is composite of B's doesn't mean the property A has, B also has. A process REQUIRES interactions, things do NOT.

I don't know if this will help stimulate more fruitful discussion between Rhythm and Benny, since they're somewhat at a stale mate, but I think this guy has a good way of articulating what an idealist thinks about consciousness. If you have about 2 minutes, the relevant bit starts at 3:37.

He's pulling a bit of a switcheroo. In the section after the one you are directing us to, he's making arguments about materialism that I've made about idealism, and arguments about idealism that Rhythm has made about materialism. I like the idea of drawing on outside sources. Maybe we should bring in a couple more videos on both sides of the issue, for extra thinking material.

(February 3, 2015 at 11:01 pm)bennyboy Wrote: He's pulling a bit of a switcheroo. In the section after the one you are directing us to, he's making arguments about materialism that I've made about idealism, and arguments about idealism that Rhythm has made about idealism. I like the idea of drawing on outside sources. Maybe we should bring in a couple more videos on both sides of the issue, for extra thinking material.

I haven't seen the rest of the video yet, since the section I directed you to distracted me with some food for thought. But would you say that at least the section about the brain/mind conundrum is accurate to your (our?) view on consciousness?

Let me say this for now about brains and minds. In any true monism, they are by definition of identical stuff. Rhythm has stated that qualia is brain states. But that means that brain states are qualia; the '=' sign is funny that way. He insists that means that all qualia is just a material thing. However, if they are truly equivalent, then you could just as equally insist that all material is an experienced thing, since by definition qualia are what it's like to subjectively experience things. The only way to avoid this, as far as I can see this, is to deny that anyone experiences things, and that the definition of qualia is therefore irrelevant.

It seems to me that the collection of information about a "physical" universe outside the observer is intrinsically dependent on experience. If there were no experience, there could be no observation, and no ideas about what is being observed. If, however, there were no actual "physical" universe, then nothing changes: the experiences are still experiences, and it only means that the ideas we've inferred from those experiences (i.e. that there is a "real" physical universe which is more than information, math, and ideas) are wrong. There is no model possible which does not include human consciousness as a feature of reality, as no model could be created without it; but there is a model possible which does not include actual "things" that are more than the experience of ideas or information. Therefore, I think materialists at best can hope for a stalemate.

If you want videos, I got a video for you.

What really annoyed me about some of the things he had to say (namely, the arguments around the middle of the video) is that he presupposes that matter undeniably exists, when we can't know that for sure. Therefore, all those arguments don't logically follow.

---

"I can't think of anything without presupposing space-time"

Not my fault your ignorance hinders you imagining the possibilities.

I think there are some very good videos on youtube arguing against idealism, but this is not one of them. I have to go to work now, but I think most people watching this should see that there are several fallacies at work in it.

Do you believe numbers are real? How would you know if they are?

(February 4, 2015 at 12:43 am)Surgenator Wrote: Do you believe numbers are real? How would you know if they are?

Because it sometimes happens that I have one more than one thing. I have two things.

Easy.