Are words immaterial?

[ryan]

So, if you can agree that the brain is material and immaterial, then it is not a far stretch to agree with my apple analogy.

I have no idea what ''immaterial'' means in terms of what is clearly a material process, an activity that is effected by chemical and structural changes. I have no idea what a non material aspect of a physical structure, the brain, may entail, or how such a non material element could interact with a physical structure, or why this even needed as an explanation for consciousness because we do not know how a brain forms its own conscious experience. It seems to me to be better to put the how of it in the category of 'we do not know yet'' and not accept 'solutions' that are not testable or falsifiable.

Let me put it this way. There may have been a reality where the exact functions of the brain exist as they do now except there is no conscious experience associated with them. So, if you believe that conscious experience exists, then isn't it obvious that it is not actually anything explainable by the matter that the functions are made of?

I think it was AdamWho who used to reject that conscious experience exists. He would always ask me for evidence. I have never been able to think of a good counter argument to that other than I have only personal evidence.

 

[fast]

Another thought comes to mind, and it reminds me of free will and determinism discussions. The distinction between micro events and macro events (arbitrary at the human level as they may be) may be of importance in regards to how certain events pertain to the issue of whether or not mental events are physical events. It seems so extreme to me to regard a mental event as a physical event. I'd rather say there is a physical basis for mental events and not regard mental events as being a subgroup of physical events.

Eta: i need to work on that, since I spoke of events and not objects.

 

[DBT]

I have no idea what ''immaterial'' means in terms of what is clearly a material process, an activity that is effected by chemical and structural changes. I have no idea what a non material aspect of a physical structure, the brain, may entail, or how such a non material element could interact with a physical structure, or why this even needed as an explanation for consciousness because we do not know how a brain forms its own conscious experience. It seems to me to be better to put the how of it in the category of 'we do not know yet'' and not accept 'solutions' that are not testable or falsifiable.

Let me put it this way. There may have been a reality where the exact functions of the brain exist as they do now except there is no conscious experience associated with them. So, if you believe that conscious experience exists, then isn't it obvious that it is not actually anything explainable by the matter that the functions are made of?

The main factor that appears to be brushed aside on this subject is that conscious experience corresponds to brain states, chemical imbalance, structural changes, memory loss, etc, etc forming and shaping the new reality of one's conscious experience, this is confirmed by EEG, subjects reporting their thoughts with blood flow being imaged with fRMI, brain mapping, electrical stimulating neural structures producing thoughts and feelings according to the location being stimulated, and so on. Now if consciousness is in some way a non material, why would ingesting a mind altering substance, LSD for example, completely alter one's perception and experience of the world? Why would a chemical radically alter 'mind' if mind is said to be non material? It is this that needs explaining if non material mind is even entertained as being 'non material'.

I think it was AdamWho who used to reject that conscious experience exists. He would always ask me for evidence. I have never been able to think of a good counter argument to that other than I have only personal evidence.

Do you have a quote? Maybe he was emphasizing the point that consciousness is specific to the subject, that consciousness is a subjective experience?

 

[ryan]

Let me put it this way. There may have been a reality where the exact functions of the brain exist as they do now except there is no conscious experience associated with them. So, if you believe that conscious experience exists, then isn't it obvious that it is not actually anything explainable by the matter that the functions are made of?

The main factor that appears to be brushed aside on this subject is that conscious experience corresponds to brain states, chemical imbalance, structural changes, memory loss, etc, etc forming and shaping the new reality of one's conscious experience, this is confirmed by EEG, subjects reporting their thoughts with blood flow being imaged with fRMI, brain mapping, electrical stimulating neural structures producing thoughts and feelings according to the location being stimulated, and so on. Now if consciousness is in some way a non material, why would ingesting a mind altering substance, LSD for example, completely alter one's perception and experience of the world? Why would a chemical radically alter 'mind' if mind is said to be non material? It is this that needs explaining if non material mind is even entertained as being 'non material'.

But there still seems to be a dual nature between experience and the material substance associated with experience. The brain scans show us exactly what we would expect; however, they don't show us the conscious experience.

I think it was AdamWho who used to reject that conscious experience exists. He would always ask me for evidence. I have never been able to think of a good counter argument to that other than I have only personal evidence.

Do you have a quote? Maybe he was emphasizing the point that consciousness is specific to the subject, that consciousness is a subjective experience?

No, he would usually ask for evidence of a conscious experience. I am quite sure this was his stance. And I am pretty sure this is Perspicuo's stance too.

Nevertheless it is a tough argument that I never did find a good answer for.

 

[DBT]

But there still seems to be a dual nature between experience and the material substance associated with experience. The brain scans show us exactly what we would expect; however, they don't show us the conscious experience.

What you are saying appears [to me] to assume that neural activity is not entirely capable of producing consciousness, that something more is needed in order explanation what appears to be a non material experience. The stumbling block for the proposition of non material consciousness is the question of 'what is this non material stuff'' that forms consciousness, but only in the presence of a functioning brain. How are mental images formed from this proposed 'non material' substance? No that you can call it substance, because it being defined as 'immaterial.' How then could this 'immaterial' interact with the material world by forming conscious sensation, but only in the presence of specific forms of brain activity?

It's an interesting idea, but I can't understand how works, or how it explains the shaping and forming conscious experience in response to its physical inputs, pressure waves, electromagnetic radiation, airborne molecules, nerve stimulation, etc .

 

[ryan]

But there still seems to be a dual nature between experience and the material substance associated with experience. The brain scans show us exactly what we would expect; however, they don't show us the conscious experience.

What you are saying appears [to me] to assume that neural activity is not entirely capable of producing consciousness, that something more is needed in order explanation what appears to be a non material experience. The stumbling block for the proposition of non material consciousness is the question of 'what is this non material stuff'' that forms consciousness, but only in the presence of a functioning brain. How are mental images formed from this proposed 'non material' substance? No that you can call it substance, because it being defined as 'immaterial.' How then could this 'immaterial' interact with the material world by forming conscious sensation, but only in the presence of specific forms of brain activity?

Immaterial really just means something that isn't particles, if we are using the usual definition. The consciousness is just something else, something that is not particles.

It's an interesting idea, but I can't understand how works, or how it explains the shaping and forming conscious experience in response to its physical inputs, pressure waves, electromagnetic radiation, airborne molecules, nerve stimulation, etc .

Well, we at least no that there is a one-way effect on the consciousness. Whether or not this consciousness can affect the body is yet to be determined. It would seem so because we are discussing it.

 

[ryan]

I should have put "elementary particles" instead of just "particles" in my post immediately above this one.

And I also should have put "know" instead of "no" in the second part of the post.

 

[DBT]

Immaterial really just means something that isn't particles, if we are using the usual definition. The consciousness is just something else, something that is not particles.

Yes, indeed. ''Something that isn't particles'' is the sticking point. Neural activity involves particle interaction, an electrochemical process. But using an explanation that involves 'something that isn't particles' makes any attempt at explaining the nature and function of this 'something' in terms of interaction with the material processes of the brain quite impossible and therefore, to say the least, not very useful.

.

Well, we at least no that there is a one-way effect on the consciousness. Whether or not this consciousness can affect the body is yet to be determined. It would seem so because we are discussing it.

Consciousness is clearly altered by physical events, it is itself shaped formed through physical events. Drugs alter consciousness, structural damage to neural structures alter consciousness. Electrical stimulation of neural structures is able to generate thoughts, feeling and emotions in relation to the structure being stimulated, even to the point of altering perception and behaviour...all achieved through physical means. Consciousness is clearly a brain/mind response to the world and its events.

 

[Juma]

Immaterial really just means something that isn't [elementary] particles, if we are using the usual definition.

You say so. But that is definitely not how the word "immaterial" is used.

The word has nothing to do with a proper scientific description of the world.

It is deduced from how the world is perceived, not from a scientific scrutiny of it,

 

[ryan]

Yes, indeed. ''Something that isn't particles'' is the sticking point. Neural activity involves particle interaction, an electrochemical process. But using an explanation that involves 'something that isn't particles' makes any attempt at explaining the nature and function of this 'something' in terms of interaction with the material processes of the brain quite impossible and therefore, to say the least, not very useful.

.

Well, we at least no that there is a one-way effect on the consciousness. Whether or not this consciousness can affect the body is yet to be determined. It would seem so because we are discussing it.

Okay, but I was not trying to explain the "something".

Consciousness is clearly altered by physical events, it is itself shaped formed through physical events. Drugs alter consciousness, structural damage to neural structures alter consciousness. Electrical stimulation of neural structures is able to generate thoughts, feeling and emotions in relation to the structure being stimulated, even to the point of altering perception and behaviour...all achieved through physical means. Consciousness is clearly a brain/mind response to the world and its events.

Yes, that is the "one-way" effect that I mentioned in my last post to you. The interesting question is if the "something" can have an effect on the body/brain.

 

[ryan]

Immaterial really just means something that isn't [elementary] particles, if we are using the usual definition.

You say so. But that is definitely not how the word "immaterial" is used.

The word has nothing to do with a proper scientific description of the world.

Well if it were something that science could find evidence of, then it would have a name for it. But for now, what is wrong with saying that conscious experience falls under the category that is not material?

It is deduced from how the world is perceived, not from a scientific scrutiny of it,

What is "it" a pronoun for? In other words, what is "it" referring to?

 

[Perspicuo]

What is "it" a pronoun for? In other words, what is "it" referring to?

Mands, textuals, echoics, tacts, intraverbals, three-term audience contingencies.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior

Words are signals. Signals are physical items that produce effects in physical systems. Take for example, moonlight for winged beetles. City lights provide signal noise (again, physical) that was not present in the beetles' relative environment during evolutionary periods, and thus create havoc in beetle behavior. Signals, signals, signals.

Verbal behavior is just more complex signaling, the hardware for which evolved during millions of years. There is signal noise for verbal behavior too. If your name is short with vowel sounds that are very comon in your language, such as 'Carl' or 'Ryan', when you're at a party, you will "hear" your name pronounced and turn your head towards the perceived source, even if your name was not really said. Ever had that happen to you? Happens all the time to me, dang monosyllabic given names!

 

[Juma]

what is wrong with saying that conscious experience falls under the category that is not material?

What is right with it?

What is "it" a pronoun for? In other words, what is "it" referring to?

The first refers to the word "immaterial" the second refers to the real world.

 

[Kharakov]

Consciousness.

Is it only made of consciousness, or is it also made of material?

Well, what you call material is a form of consciousness, so I suppose it may depend on what you would like to accomplish with your question?

also, there still must be the structure and not the structure.

Not the structure?

Can there be no consciousness/structure? For example, is it true that a person is conscious but no longer conscious when dead?

A person also is not conscious while asleep, or unconscious. Doesn't mean there aren't various consciousnesses within them going about their business independently of the human consciousness.

Okay, but now you will be faced with categorizing the "real thing" into intrinsic differences. You will get something that looks a lot like the Standard Model, and then you will discover sciences similar to chemistry, biology, etc. And you will be back to square one.

Not at all. Consciousness interacting with consciousness, but with more information and knowledge of how consciousness interacts with other consciousnesses is not at square one. Especially if it learns to interact beneficially with other consciousnesses.

Can a consciousness interact with something that has no consciousness?

Well, since nothing has no consciousness, I doubt it.

If so, what would you call something that is not conscious?

Nonexistent. Doesn't mean that it won't exist at another point in time. In other words, you are not always existent, at points in time, only your body and the consciousnesses within it exist. At any point in the future, your body can recreate your consciousness, unless the consciousnesses within it feel they would like to pursue another path.

Why can't we just call it "material"?

Why can't we just objectify women?

In other words, the question is whether or not it is moral to do so, not whether or not we can.

Show

We can pretend certain groups of humans are subhuman, and treat them like shit, but this doesn't mean that the ones we treat like shit are subhuman, it means that we are behaving in an immoral manner, which is not supportive of other conscious beings.

First law: Care for conscious beings, the better you get at this, the better you yourself will feel, as your care-taking of others will teach them to care for you, etc. etc. and increase the overall amount of care in the universe.

 

[ryan]

What is right with it?

It's my hypothesis; it's up to you to falsify it.

What is "it" a pronoun for? In other words, what is "it" referring to?

The first refers to the word "immaterial" the second refers to the real world.

Okay, you call it "perception"; I call it "immaterial". "Immaterial" would just be a category that "perception" falls into. Think of it like the imaginary numbers category and the real numbers category.

Or, sometimes I think of reality as observing or observable. The brain is both, but most other objects are just observable.

 

[ryan]

Is it only made of consciousness, or is it also made of material?

Well, what you call material is a form of consciousness, so I suppose it may depend on what you would like to accomplish with your question?

also, there still must be the structure and not the structure.

Not the structure?

Can there be no consciousness/structure? For example, is it true that a person is conscious but no longer conscious when dead?

A person also is not conscious while asleep, or unconscious. Doesn't mean there aren't various consciousnesses within them going about their business independently of the human consciousness.

This is functionalism. I intuitively agree with functionalism, but I do not know enough about the details to fully understand how the math and computational neuroscience explain it.

Okay, but now you will be faced with categorizing the "real thing" into intrinsic differences. You will get something that looks a lot like the Standard Model, and then you will discover sciences similar to chemistry, biology, etc. And you will be back to square one.

Not at all. Consciousness interacting with consciousness, but with more information and knowledge of how consciousness interacts with other consciousnesses is not at square one. Especially if it learns to interact beneficially with other consciousnesses.

Can a consciousness interact with something that has no consciousness?

Well, since nothing has no consciousness, I doubt it.

What about an elementary particle; do think it has consciousness? If so, then you are also a panpsychist. This is my favorite doctrine of them all; it seems to be the most obvious way to reduce the consciousness, if there is a consciousness.

If so, what would you call something that is not conscious?

Nonexistent. Doesn't mean that it won't exist at another point in time. In other words, you are not always existent, at points in time, only your body and the consciousnesses within it exist. At any point in the future, your body can recreate your consciousness, unless the consciousnesses within it feel they would like to pursue another path.

... and freewill!

I feel that this could be one big joke on me; this feels too good to be true. Normally I would be on your side of the argument, and my side would be telling me to "stop with the new age crap".

Why can't we just call it "material"?

Why can't we just objectify women?

In other words, the question is whether or not it is moral to do so, not whether or not we can.

Show

We can pretend certain groups of humans are subhuman, and treat them like shit, but this doesn't mean that the ones we treat like shit are subhuman, it means that we are behaving in an immoral manner, which is not supportive of other conscious beings.

First law: Care for conscious beings, the better you get at this, the better you yourself will feel, as your care-taking of others will teach them to care for you, etc. etc. and increase the overall amount of care in the universe.

Show

Yes, it's like a conservation of good. And luckily the world is round so that the "good waves" will eventually always come back.

 

[Kharakov]

This is functionalism. I intuitively agree with functionalism, but I do not know enough about the details to fully understand how the math and computational neuroscience explain it.

I don't know enough about  functionalism to agree or disagree with you completely, although at first glance it seems to fill the bill. Math and computational neuroscience would arise from forms of consciousness binding and influencing one another in differing ways.

What about an elementary particle; do think it has consciousness? If so, then you are also a panpsychist. This is my favorite doctrine of them all; it seems to be the most obvious way to reduce the consciousness, if there is a consciousness.

Yeah. I think my father is going to write a book on panpsychism after he gets done writing his serious, doctoral level physics textbook. He's a smart guy, so it will be interesting and entertaining to read something of his that I am fully prepared to understand. And, of course, I know a lot about various philosophical things... so can comment on the stuff.

... and freewill!

I feel that this could be one big joke on me; this feels too good to be true. Normally I would be on your side of the argument, and my side would be telling me to "stop with the new age crap".

Yeah, I'm not sure how it equates to free will- it equates to will that interacts with other wills, and if the other wills aren't going in a certain direction (described by natural laws, and supernatural laws) your ability to go in a direction is going to be curtailed. Not that all of us won't figure out the right direction to go eventually.

Show

Yes, it's like a conservation of good. And luckily the world is round so that the "good waves" will eventually always come back.

Show

Wow. I am hungry, but should work out a bit. Been a bit lazy today. Do lazy waves go out into the world and come back so you relax even more? That seems a bit more pragmatic than a wave of not acting spreading out and then returning to you.

 

[ryan]

I don't know enough about  functionalism to agree or disagree with you completely, although at first glance it seems to fill the bill. Math and computational neuroscience would arise from forms of consciousness binding and influencing one another in differing ways.

What about an elementary particle; do think it has consciousness? If so, then you are also a panpsychist. This is my favorite doctrine of them all; it seems to be the most obvious way to reduce the consciousness, if there is a consciousness.

You probably know this, but the more obscure the concept, the worse Wikipedia becomes.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/ is great. It says in the following sentence a good summary of functionalism, "Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part.".

I think that an implication is that if the consciousness exists, then the function is all that matters and not the componentry. So, for example, imagine that we replaced a person's molecules with, say, basketballs, soccer balls, tennis balls etc. and for each kind of molecule. Then if this gigantic machine can function just like a human, then maybe it will also have a consciousness.

... and freewill!

I feel that this could be one big joke on me; this feels too good to be true. Normally I would be on your side of the argument, and my side would be telling me to "stop with the new age crap".

Yeah, I'm not sure how it equates to free will- it equates to will that interacts with other wills, and if the other wills aren't going in a certain direction (described by natural laws, and supernatural laws) your ability to go in a direction is going to be curtailed. Not that all of us won't figure out the right direction to go eventually.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "freewill". There must always be at least some constraints. Certainly there will have to be obstruction for each person when there are 7 billion of us with freewill and god only knows what else that has freewill.

 

[Juma]

It's my hypothesis; it's up to you to falsify it.

We have already done that: "immaterial" is not a concept that you can build a hypotesis on.

What is "it" a pronoun for? In other words, what is "it" referring to?

The first refers to the word "immaterial" the second refers to the real world.

Okay, you call it "perception"; I call it "immaterial". "Immaterial" would just be a category that "perception" falls into. Think of it like the imaginary numbers category and the real numbers category.
[/QUOTE]
"Immaterial" is still a bogus word. It is not a category at all.

 

[ryan]

"Immaterial" is still a bogus word. It is not a category at all.

But a property itself is not material. If it is, then we should say that the consciousness is an "emergent material" instead of "emergent property". But we know that we can't detect the consciousness of someone else the way we can detect material. The consciousness alone is simply not material.