Does Matter Create Consciousness? Or Vice Versa?

[MindForgedManacle]

Well, I can't really say anything substantive in response. Not really knowledgeable of quantum mechanics and the videos in question did cite numerous sources that seemed to agree with them (not that such is necessarily a guarantor of truth).

[bennyboy]

People have stated as brute fact that matter precedes mind. But how could this be known? The only way to know that matter exists at all is for someone to experience it, i.e. with their mind. Yes, based on your experiences, you can start drawing inferences. But on the other hand, there is NEVER a point at which any person is aware of any information about things without having a sentient mind.

People point to "evidence," but there's a problem. All this evidence is filtered through experience. So what is it really evidence FOR? Only that certain categories or aspects of human experience are consistent enough to be usefully categorized and manipulated. Is a well-designed bridge, when walked on, a manifest idea or a self-existent structure? It seems obvious that it exists on its own, independent of the person experiencing it. However, there's still that philosophical caveat-- the person is, in fact, interfacing with that "object" through experiences which themselves are not the object. That's why (some) dreams apparently contain objects, despite our knowing when we wake up that those apparently real things were not real except as experiences.

How, if those experiences are aspects of a BIJ, or the Matrix, or the Mind of God, could one know it? How, if those experiences are aspects of a universe independent of the minds experiencing it, could one prove that this is the case, and rule out any of those other possibilities?

[Angrboda]

People have stated as brute fact that matter precedes mind. But how could this be known? The only way to know that matter exists at all is for someone to experience it, i.e. with their mind. Yes, based on your experiences, you can start drawing inferences. But on the other hand, there is NEVER a point at which any person is aware of any information about things without having a sentient mind.

I can match up the timeline of events in my family and tell that my sisters, brother, and parents were conscious of things before I existed. I can determine that they and I are the same type of beings as I am, because we have the same types of bodies, similar minds, and based on trust, I know I came out of my mother as a baby. Given this, I can conclude, that just as there were events before I existed, if others are like me, they too likely have existed after the occurrence of other events. Believing otherwise is inconsistent. Thus, on the basis of similarity, and knowing that I am finite and that there was existence before me, I can consistently infer that there was existence before all consciousnesses like me (human). The rest requires additional steps, but no remarkable leaps, just common inferential reasoning from identity, similarity, and dissimilars.


(If we are deceived, we are deceived completely, and that we are deceived, is, itself a deception. This is the same logical catch-22 that all forms of radical skepticism face. They are logically incomplete philosophies.)

[Ksa]

I believe that consciousness is a result of the Universe trying to understand itself. All we know is that there was an explosion and we know that no explosion is good. Since everything we knew of exploded, there is no one left to come examine the debris but the debris itself. You can imagine when a plane crashes, there's the national transportation safety board team that is dispatched. In our case, there was no team dispatched because the plane was existence itself for what we know.

We are here to put an end to the chaos and to find out what really happened. To do that, in my opinion we must first find a way not to die. Our life span allows for primitive goals like having sex, having fun etc. but when it comes to long term goals like finding out what really happened, 80 years falls short. We know our body is as chaotic as the universe itself, it was made on trial and error and that's why it dies. No such disorganized thing is meant to survive. I am sure that in the future, people will find a way to transfer our consciousness to prevent death, but if we cannot find such a way, then, the only way is to create something that never dies so that it can accumulate knowledge indefinitely and without the limits of the human brain.

[MindForgedManacle]

KSA, what the hell are you talking about?

---

(If we are deceived, we are deceived completely, and that we are deceived, is, itself a deception. This is the same logical catch-22 that all forms of radical skepticism face. They are logically incomplete philosophies.)

That sort of reminds me of a maxim of Pyrrohnian skepticism:

"You can't know anything, including this."

Which just makes me go straight-lipped. Anyway, does it really follow that if you are deceived completely? I don't think so. :0


However, I'm not sure your post is quite as applicable to Benny's post as you might think. I mean, all you really have in terms of having certainty in existing is your own subjective experience, right? Whatever metaphysical conclusions you draw about reality will depend on the assumptions you make about whatever may lay "behind" them. But can those assumptions ever be proven? I mean, I call myself an indirect realist, but I'd have to be honest and say that I really just assume that some kind of realism is true.

[Angrboda]

(If we are deceived, we are deceived completely, and that we are deceived, is, itself a deception. This is the same logical catch-22 that all forms of radical skepticism face. They are logically incomplete philosophies.)

That sort of reminds me of a maxim of Pyrrohnian skepticism:

"You can't know anything, including this."

Which just makes me go straight-lipped. Anyway, does it really follow that if you are deceived completely? I don't think so. :0

I was waxing poetical. However you might want to ask yourself what sense you could put to only being partially deceived (about realism). How would you know which part.

Anyway, this might be applicable, but it's been a while since I posted it, and I don't think I fully agreed with Priest to begin with, so maybe not.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14548-po...#pid329604

However, I'm not sure your post is quite as applicable to Benny's post as you might think. I mean, all you really have in terms of having certainty in existing is your own subjective experience, right? Whatever metaphysical conclusions you draw about reality will depend on the assumptions you make about whatever may lay "behind" them. But can those assumptions ever be proven? I mean, I call myself an indirect realist, but I'd have to be honest and say that I really just assume that some kind of realism is true.

You're attempting to cleave the two halves of the argument and refute the one while ignoring the other. The point, made before by others, is that radical skepticism denies the possibility of all knowledge, including knowing that radical skepticism is valid. It tends to be self-refuting in that sense. Even if we allow a provisional pragmatic skepticism of this radical variety, it guarantees we can't cash out anything in terms of truth, including itself. It becomes very nihilistic by necessity. I think nihilism itself is an empty position, but radical skepticism doesn't seem to offer any virtues in terms of understanding the world, whatever "the world" happens to be, and, all too often, radical skepticism is employed just like presuppositionalism, as a sort of nuclear option to deny the opponent victory, rather than to secure it for yourself. What inferences of any value can you draw from the radical skepticism of Benny's variety. I can't be sure I'm real. Okay, so what? I've already noted that cogito ergo sum is a flawed and invalid inference. So we have no way of knowing that "world" exists, including us. So what? Where do you go from there?

[bennyboy]

I can match up the timeline of events in my family and tell that my sisters, brother, and parents were conscious of things before I existed. I can determine that they and I are the same type of beings as I am, because we have the same types of bodies, similar minds, and based on trust, I know I came out of my mother as a baby.

See, there's your problem: you're already buying into the whole "these are real people, not just figments of my imagination" idea. Once you make that giant leap in faith, all the other crazy stuff just falls into place:
-"Not eating won't free my soul from worldly illusions, it will just kill me."
-"If I wish hard enough and with faith, my desires will probalby still not manifest in reality."
-"Masturbating on buses is bad."

Where's the fun in that?

[Angrboda]

I can match up the timeline of events in my family and tell that my sisters, brother, and parents were conscious of things before I existed. I can determine that they and I are the same type of beings as I am, because we have the same types of bodies, similar minds, and based on trust, I know I came out of my mother as a baby.

See, there's your problem: you're already buying into the whole "these are real people, not just figments of my imagination" idea. Once you make that giant leap in faith, all the other crazy stuff just falls into place:
-"Not eating won't free my soul from worldly illusions, it will just kill me."
-"If I wish hard enough and with faith, my desires will probalby still not manifest in reality."
-"Masturbating on buses is bad."

Where's the fun in that?

Slippery slope fallacy.


For what it's worth, I look for experiential invariants, not correspondence to reality. I need not concern myself with why putting my hand on a hot stove results in an unpleasant experience because I know the provocation of pain by repeating that stimulus is robustly predictable and reliable. Whether the hot stove is 'real' or not need never enter into it, unless I want to interact with the stove in novel ways.

[bennyboy]

See, there's your problem: you're already buying into the whole "these are real people, not just figments of my imagination" idea. Once you make that giant leap in faith, all the other crazy stuff just falls into place:
-"Not eating won't free my soul from worldly illusions, it will just kill me."
-"If I wish hard enough and with faith, my desires will probalby still not manifest in reality."
-"Masturbating on buses is bad."

Where's the fun in that?

Slippery slope fallacy.


For what it's worth, I look for experiential invariants, not correspondence to reality. I need not concern myself with why putting my hand on a hot stove results in an unpleasant experience because I know the provocation of pain by repeating that stimulus is robustly predictable and reliable. Whether the hot stove is 'real' or not need never enter into it, unless I want to interact with the stove in novel ways.

How do you establish qualia as an "experiential invariant" ?

[Angrboda]

How do you establish qualia as an "experiential invariant" ?

Go play with the dog.