Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to be making a variation of the same woeful mistake good ole AKD made, btw.  u seem to think that for something to be observed...you have to see it with your eyes, or be able to create a mental analog for what that would be like (3D space, etc..because that's the way -you- see things).  As with the equivocation of the same word in QM - you, personally do not have to be able to "observe" a particle as you appear to be using the word.  There are reasons that we cant which are not in any way short of evidence or explanation, so it;s a good thing you don;t have to be able to observe it - you'd be missing out on alot.  The model does not predict that you would be able to "observe" a particle in the manner which you are requesting (n fact, it states precisely the opposite)...so, failing to produce that which the model doesn't predict isn't much of a criticism of the model.

This has already been discussed, in this thread.

"If I can't see a particle the way I see a billiard ball, then materialism is false/unevidenced/unlikely." Just, no.

[Captain Scarlet]

You seem to be making a variation of the same woeful mistake good ole AKD made, btw.  u seem to think that for something to be observed...you have to see it with your eyes, or be able to create a mental analog for what that would be like (3D space, etc..because that's the way -you- see things).  As with the equivocation of the same word in QM - you, personally do not have to be able to "observe" a particle as you appear to be using the word.  There are reasons that we cant which are not in any way short of evidence or explanation, so it;s a good thing you don;t have to be able to observe it - you'd be missing out on alot.  The model does not predict that you would be able to "observe" a particle in the manner which you are requesting (n fact, it states precisely the opposite)...so, failing to produce that which the model doesn't predict isn't much of a criticism of the model.

This has already been discussed, in this thread.

"If I can't see a particle the way I see a billiard ball, then materialism is false/unevidenced/unlikely." Just, no.

Thats what I have been trying (and failing) to say!

I would add there is no point having a "shitty canadian school system etc" tantrum.  I am not critcising you for not being able to imaging a photon from the models.  I am criticising you for using that as excuse to then leap to "materialism is false" and claim something to the effect of "it is an idea because....well....er.... I say it is".  That is just your incredulity.

[bennyboy]

You seem to be making a variation of the same woeful mistake good ole AKD made, btw.  u seem to think that for something to be observed...you have to see it with your eyes, or be able to create a mental analog for what that would be like (3D space, etc..because that's the way -you- see things).  As with the equivocation of the same word in QM - you, personally do not have to be able to "observe" a particle as you appear to be using the word.  There are reasons that we cant which are not in any way short of evidence or explanation, so it;s a good thing you don;t have to be able to observe it - you'd be missing out on alot.  The model does not predict that you would be able to "observe" a particle in the manner which you are requesting (n fact, it states precisely the opposite)...so, failing to produce that which the model doesn't predict isn't much of a criticism of the model.

This has already been discussed, in this thread.

"If I can't see a particle the way I see a billiard ball, then materialism is false/unevidenced/unlikely." Just, no.

I think you're talking past me.  What of this long tirade is based on anything I actually said?  Not only did I not say that you need to see QM particles, I've explicitly stated that I accept scientific observations for what they are-- but not the philosophical positions that materialists draw from them, which I consider non sequitur.  In fact, I specifically said that it was a refusal of modern materialists to let go of billiard-ball concepts that was preventing them from giving up unnecessary assumptions.

Then you go on to actually quote something I never said, which is a blatant strawman.

"If I keep saying bennyboy thinks stuff, he might start believing he really thinks those things."  Just, no.

[Captain Scarlet]

that is not what i said... you even quoted my specific statement and still didn't address it. i didn't say anything about the Kochen-Specker theorem debunking Bohmian mechanics... i said violations of the Leggett inequality debunked the idea of non-local hidden variables... which are the last refuge of a deterministic/realist model for reality since local hidden variables were already falsified. the unique role of the observer cannot be denied in QM anymore.

of course they have some poetic license... but that doesn't take away from the fact that Leggett's inequality was violated, and thus non-local hidden variables have been falsified.

yes... the inequality was made to back up the theory of non-local hidden variables... but you apparently missed that it was shown the inequality was violated in 2007. it was shown to be violated by Anton Zeilinger and his team. and if you want to throw quote out, why not look at one by Zeilinger [snip]

OK good so we agree the Kochen-Specker point does not debunk Bohmian Mechanics and you point out that only the Leggatt inequality stands between a viable interpretation of QM and realism/determinism as envisgaed in Bohmian Mechanics.  You also quote Anton Zeilinger, good we can work with that as well.  The paper that gave rise to the article in physics world was part of Zeilingers research.  He and his team wrote the paper "An experimental test of non-local realism".  You are quite right that the paper suggests that we should seriously question realism and offers data to support that perspective.  It then goes on to state (and I quote directly from the paper bearing Zeilingers name):

“It is clear that other classes of non-local theories, possibly even fully compliant with all QM  predictions, might exist that do have this property when re-producing entangled states.  Such theories include additional communication or dimensions.  A specific case deserving comment is Bohm’s theory.  There the non-local correlations are a consequence of  the non-local quantum potential, which exerts suitable torque on the particles leading to experimental results compliant with QM”

In other words it specifically states the the violation of Leggatt inequalities does not rule out Bohmian Mechanics.  Thus Bohmian Mechanics is a defeater to your claims, unless you contest that Bohmian Mechanics does not allow for an interpretation of Realism.  Other discussion on this topic amongst the physics community goes further stating that their findings could actually be interpreted as support for Bohmian Mechanics (you can search for a criticism of An experimental test of non-local realism for the full text.  But here is a salient section:

“To summarize, what can one conclude from the violation of Leggett’s inequality? The logical conclusion is that Leggett’s hypothesis is false, i.e., that a theory that contains the hidden variables u and v proposed by Leggett cannot be empirically viable. That doesn’t tell us anything about determinism or any type of philosophical realism. A title like “An experimental test of non-local realism” is severely misleading: it could, for instance, lead some readers into believing that the experiment reported by the article makes a theory like Bohmian Mechanics more implausible while it is exactly the other way around: a prediction of Bohmian Mechanics has been experimentally verified and a class of alternatives to it has been shown not to be viable.”

Now I am not saying I am wedded to Bohmian Mechanics just that it is a defeater of your claims.  Furthermore even if it wasn't we haven't ruled out Quantum Field Theory nor other realist QM interpretations (although I agree they have problems, but I guess if they didn't we would have near uninimity on reality).

[bennyboy]

Thats what I have been trying (and failing) to say!

I would add there is no point having a "shitty canadian school system etc" tantrum.  I am not critcising you for not being able to imaging a photon from the models.  I am criticising you for using that as excuse to then leap to "materialism is false" and claim something to the effect of "it is an idea because....well....er.... I say it is".  That is just your incredulity.

I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well in text.

And what's with you guys and the quoting things I never said?  Where did I say materialism is false?  Where did I say things were ideas because. . . . well. . . er. . . I said they are?

I haven't claimed that materialism is false.  I've claimed that arriving at a materialistic world view via scientific observations is a non sequitur.  This is because those same observations could theoretically be made in any sufficiently complex universe-- the Matrix, the Mind of God, a Brain in a Jar (maybe).

[Captain Scarlet]

RATIONAL AKD
a collection of information in the form of thoughts, which make up a sense of reason and self awareness. those would be bare minimum qualities of mind.


My question was asking you to define the immaterial, seeing as thats what you believe mind is.


i don't see how internal awareness entails external awareness. to know you are conscious, all you need is the ability to think... i don't see how external awareness is required for thought. you don't need to learn to think. and if you are self aware, why wouldn't you be conscious?


I know you don't.  Its a point of departure in our conversation.  You contest that only internal awareness is required, I would say it is implausible given every example of consciousness has access to external awareness through sensory organs.  Removal of those sensory organs, impairs awareness and consciousness.  As a thought experiment what would happen if someone is born, lives and dies without any sensory input at all for their existence.  I am not sure we can imagine that. But you are effectively proposing the true nature of reality is just that with a mind having consciousness but no (real) sensory input.  Conciousness, concious only of itelf.  I find that deeply implausible, and you do not.


RATIONAL AKD
the difference is the structure of the world is not determined by subjectivity of every mind, thus different for everyone. it has a consistent structure determined by this one 'mind A' and thus 'is' whatever mind A determines it to be. so if he determines the universe to appear a certain way, it is not a deception... it's a construction. that's like saying creating a video game world is a deception...


No its like video game creators who control your entire existence forcing you to live your life (whether you like it or not) in a video game of their creation, where they make the rules and where you have no say.  Oh and then the really creepy bit they are doing it for our own good....You may think that is reasonable behaviour, I would say it is capricious - toying with humanity for personal amusement.


RATIONAL AKD
a defense is not something you necessarily know or can prove... it's a plausible explanation that defends a proposition from criticism. can you show my defense is not plausible?


why do you get to determine that? I don't see why this mind has to observe every particle phenomenon... why have you made that determination?

For the same reason you get to make a defence like you have done.  Is it not plausible that a conscious being with omniscience and omnipresence would not only be capable of observing everything and would also be compelled to do so? It seems plausible to me. Why is a creator only interested in what we do? If they are omnipresent, they are literally everywhere, implying in every quantum sytstem.  At the end of the day it isn't my problem.  Theists have defined it in such a way, I am merely pointing out the implications. 

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no way for science to prove any metaphysical claim.  But why is this breaking news - science doesn't prove?  Nevertheless, what sorts of worldviews do -you- think can come from that which is materialist by -necessity-, like QM, or just science in general?

I've claimed that arriving at a materialistic world view via scientific observations is a non sequitur.  This is because those same observations could theoretically be made in any sufficiently complex universe-- the Matrix, the Mind of God, a Brain in a Jar (maybe).

Could they be? Ready with that explanation yet? How have you determined this statement to be true? Help me give it a value greater than 50/50?

[bennyboy]

There is no way for science to prove any metaphysical claim.  But why is this breaking news - science doesn't prove?  Nevertheless, what sorts of worldviews do -you- think can come from that which is materialist by -necessity-, like QM, or just science in general?

I've claimed that arriving at a materialistic world view via scientific observations is a non sequitur.  This is because those same observations could theoretically be made in any sufficiently complex universe-- the Matrix, the Mind of God, a Brain in a Jar (maybe).

Could they be?  Ready with that explanation yet?  How have you determined this statement to be true?  Help me give it a value greater than 50/50?

Well, everything we know is known at an idea level.  So whatever reality is, it is capable of generating ideas.  This is probably the only indisputable fact that I know of. All of the things I mentioned are pretty obviously going to be capable of generating ideas.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you know that at all?  What is "an idea level" to begin with? And why would "reality" be capable of generating ideas -just because you are-? Is this not the same comp fallacy as before, reworded and called an indisputable fact? Just how does reality "generate ideas" btw...if you had to guess? What does that mean?

-If there is some exterior x, something other than yourself...some "reality"....then what is true of the part (you) may not be true of the whole (reality).

[bennyboy]

Do you know that at all?  What is "an idea level" to begin with?

We are talking about multiple hypothetical models, some of which might have ideas and other substances separated. But 100% of all models must be able to support the existence of ideas and experience.

 And why would "reality" be capable of generating ideas -just because you are-? Is this not the same comp fallacy as before, reworded and called an indisputable fact?   Just how does reality "generate ideas" btw...if you had to guess?  What does that mean?p/quote]
This is where you start talking about compositional fallacies. However, it depends on perspective whether you want to say a mind generates an idea, or the universe does, or whatever. So let's say that all possible world views must incorporate the possibility of the existence of ideas, and that everything humans ever experience, including the experience of knowledge, is experienced as an idea (basically by definition).

[quote]
-If there is some exterior x, something other than yourself...some "reality"....then what is true of the part (you) may not be true of the whole (reality).

That's true enough.