A Conscious Universe

[Surgenator]

Given that you and those that have shown support for your posts are among the people who I consider to have a better grasp of QM in this forum, can you or anyone else give me an example of any 'thing' that is not, on a Quantum Level, in a state of perpetual quantum (procedural) flux?

If you can, I'll accept your definition, acknowledge the distinction and concede the point.

MM

I don't know what you mean in perpetual quantum flux. Are you saying show me that an electron is still an electron at some later time? Or are you expecting the electron to disappear from existence at any moment?

---

---

I'm treating qualia as a functional description of a thing, yes, a description of many things and the material interactions between them (those interactions are themselves things- the pulsing wire is material, the weighted pad on the paddle is material, the air between you and the tv is material...this is all stuff doing stuff, not ideas doing ideas). Not as a description of an idea divorced from a thing or separate from it somehow....I use explanations from digital and analog circuitry to show that the -things- we call ideas can properly -be things- (like Mario) in a physical monism....even if we do it some other way (lets say dualism or just "I don;t know"). That true, as per my last example, is a description of the state of a machine, not a free floating idea of an idea. I don't mind acknowledging that we have an incomplete description of qualia, what I mind is the insistence that there is some problem with qualia in a physical monism -in principle-...because there demonstrably is not, judging by the description I've accepted of what qualia is.

If qualia is experience alone (and not depth of experience, robustness of experience, breadth of experience, power of experience, accuracy of experience, awareness of experience, process of experience, all of these things and more), then there is no shortage of conditions which can be met by material things and material interactions to provide that -with no requirement for any "other"- and which only provide that with specific reference to material, and material interaction (any other state of a gate, any other physical arrangmenet of that particular machine is not "true"). Personally, I think that experience is a word so easily equivocated upon that it's likely Benny and I aren't even thinking of the same thing when we use it. Bricks experience drag when you throw them...in my world.

(of course the evidence in your head is "consciousness stuff" but even though it may not be the thing that it refers to, and even though you may not be able, individually, to refer to anything else, I'm proposing that it's still a thing, in the same way that mario may not be a little red man in suspenders but is still, demonstrably, a thing (or a collection of things, more accurately - and you -are- retreating into solipsism with this, btw) - and that there -is- a way to determine this which you likely accept in every other instance except, perhaps, this mind and consciousness business. You accept that there are things (and I use the word in this instance in a neutral way, things either material or conceptual) which exist independently of your individual consciousness, yes? Do you think that it's actually impossible to determine this, do you think, in short...that the world cannot be known?

I don't personally expect you to be able to offer me a truth which is beyond not only your specific abilities - but also beyond the capability of the equipment you use to reach that truth. If you expect me to be able to offer you something which you feel is beyond not only my ability, but also the capabilities of my machinery (regardless of whether it's material or "other") then I think that I might be operating with undue burden. If your mind stuff (whatever that is) can reach some truth about this world ala idealism - and what you offer is good enough reason for you in that regard....it shouldn't be incumbant upon me to offer anything more elaborate than that in reaching my truth about this world ala materialism. The incomplete nature of your proposition allows for my own to be incomplete - so I don't have to nail qualia to the wall for you at all....unless you can, for me. You shouldn't expect that from my end, if you accept less from your own. Best I can get out of you is "it's all ideas doing ideas to ideas"...and maybe you and I differ here, but that seems a whole hell of alot less involved and exacting that what I;v offered...even if what I've offered doesn't provide you with a complete explanation.

Now, I don't expect, nor would I demand that you will say "Fuck me rhythm, your right, qualia is the machine" I'm aiming lower...."well, I guess it could be the machine". My gripe is not with either of our incomplete descriptions, it is with this notion that qualia presents a problem for physical monism. I haven't heard any description of it which presents a problem -even with my limited ability to design physical systems-, though, obviously, I can't explain it to you to the level you seem to require for my position - but not your own. Hell, if I can;t hit that, I'd go for a "well..maybe qualia is more than just experience" as well. So now you know where I'm headed, all that I hope to establish or have ever attempted to establish.

---

I'm sorry for misrepresented your position, and thanks for the clarification. I agree with you on the bigger picture. My disagreement lies on what exactly qualia is. You stated it as a thing; I state it is a process. The difference is a moot point in the general discussion if qualia is a problem for physicalism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[quote='ChadWooters' pid='864152' dateline='1422983909']I never said that meaning was preassigned. People can still find their own meaning and still be a part of something larger than they can even imagine.[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='864916' dateline='1423067488']…your exception for 'ontological naturalists' is puzzling. Would you elaborate, please?

A while back I got hammered for equivocating atheism with ontological naturalist even though 99.9% of atheists tacitly accept it. For the study of nature, methodological naturalism right limits its inquiries to matter [material cause] and efficient cause. Formal and final causes are not considered. Ontological naturalists make the metaphysical claim that only material and efficient causes exist. Physical objects and events are not ‘about’ anything. They just are. For the ontological naturalist the apparent intentional behavior of some things, from thermostats to human beings, is an illusion. That means that any concept that hinges on intentionality, like meaning and purpose, is also just a phantasy. Thus, the ontological naturalist that says their life can have meaning is contradicting himself or herself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fantasy, phantom. I can say that magicians pull rabbits out of hats and not contradict my position that there is no bottomless dimension of rabbits in hats. That my life has meaning, even if these terms are not, strictly speaking, factual. Perhaps there is no meaning, but as a shared experience -or- fantasy, the statement still serves it's purpose. It's not a truth claim, it's an expressive claim....and we're perfectly capable of expressing things which do not hinge on their truth value. If -x- is meaning to you, then I have it (even though I don't accept "meaning" as you've used it).

I tend towards the idea that I'm stuff in motion, that my experiences aren't factual descriptions of reality from a variety of different angles - doesn't change the experience. So even though I don't think that there is a "meaning" to life - if you ask me for one, I'll respond in terms and from within the context the question was asked...because I experience that as well......even though I know my experiences aren't reliable enough to arrive at the sort of truth you're extending to them in your appraisal (course..I don't think that yours are either...so if my response seems silly, you might have to allow for the possibility that it's a silly response to a silly question - what else did you expect?).

[Pizza]

Thermostats engage in " intentional behavior?" What a joke. Does pizza intent to be eaten?

---

I'm confused now. Why is ChadWooters quoting from another thread? http://atheistforums.org/thread-31376-po...#pid864916

[ManMachine]

I don't know what you mean in perpetual quantum flux. Are you saying show me that an electron is still an electron at some later time? Or are you expecting the electron to disappear from existence at any moment?

I'm only expecting it because that's exactly what they do.

MM

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why is ChadWooters quoting from another thread? http://atheistforums.org/thread-31376-po...#pid864916

Sorry, the conversations of this thread and another have grown so similar that I forgot to which one I was replying. Ironically the post seems appropriate here as well.

[Cato]

Sorry, the conversations of this thread and another have grown so similar that I forgot to which one I was replying. Ironically the post seems appropriate here as well.

There's a reason:

[ManMachine]

I don't know what you mean in perpetual quantum flux. Are you saying show me that an electron is still an electron at some later time? Or are you expecting the electron to disappear from existence at any moment?

Sorry for the repeat reply my 'full edit' took a bit longer than I expected.

You defined 'things' as distinct from processes, like this;

"A process REQUIRES interactions, things do NOT."

I'm saying 'things' DO require interactions at a QM level constantly. I am asserting your definition of a 'thought process' as distinct from a 'thing' is entirely spurious at a QM level.

A 'thought process' is no different from any other process and every 'thing' is made up of Quantum processes that are continuous (a state of quantum flux). I then challenged you to identify anything that is not made up of quantum processes in order to validate your definition and prove your point.

As for that electron...

"... are you expecting the electron to disappear from existence at any moment?"

As I said above, I am, because that's exactly what they do.

MM

[bennyboy]

Sorry, the conversations of this thread and another have grown so similar that I forgot to which one I was replying. Ironically the post seems appropriate here as well.

There's a reason:

I thought you were better than that. Do you have any ideas to mention, or are you afraid that presenting ideas will support idealism?

[Pizza]

I think the universe is made of beans all the way down.

http://www.daisyowl.com/comic/2009-05-19

I'm so sorry. I could not help myself.