An alternate look at Naturalism

But can you answer the question?

Already have...

Right, so we are not only constrained by materialism, we must have reductionism too?

I was just thinking about your quote:

"The biggest problem caused by panpsychism is known as the “combination problem”: Precisely how do small particles of consciousness collectively form more complex consciousness? Consciousness may exist in all particles, but that doesn’t answer the question of how these tiny fragments of physical consciousness come together to create the more complex experience of human consciousness."

If something exists, it has to be reducible to particles? And those particles must be physical so that we can measure them with our physical equipment. And, I'm guessing that the hypothesis would have to involve a mechanism too? A physical mechanism, of course. And that mechanism would be the brain of course - what else?

I didn't say anything about whether the particles were physical. I'm just wondering how small units of consciousness might combine to form full-blown human consciousness. Are you suggesting that I should think of full-blown human consciousness as a fundamental? And I should think this because otherwise we get all that nasty reductionism and stuff?

Just a thought, and maybe stephenw has more to say on this: what is the fundamental unit of information and what would it be informing about?

I wouldn't claim that information is a separate ontological thing.

~~ Paul

What I'm saying is immaterialists are certain they are right.  That certainly is a faith based position.

They are?

Alternatively, you are asserting that materialists are less certain?

I don't see any evidence to support this distinction you are putting forth Steve.  The ardent materialists sound eerily similar to the ardent "immaterialists/religionists/etc".

I was just thinking about your quote:

"The biggest problem caused by panpsychism is known as the “combination problem”: Precisely how do small particles of consciousness collectively form more complex consciousness? Consciousness may exist in all particles, but that doesn’t answer the question of how these tiny fragments of physical consciousness come together to create the more complex experience of human consciousness."

I didn't say anything about whether the particles were physical. I'm just wondering how small units of consciousness might combine to form full-blown human consciousness. Are you suggesting that I should think of full-blown human consciousness as a fundamental? And I should think this because otherwise we get all that nasty reductionism and stuff?

I wouldn't claim that information is a separate ontological thing.

~~ Paul

To be clear, the quote I posted about particles was from an article discussing some of what this thread has been discussing. Particles had been mentioned - by you - earlier in the thread.  

I think of human consciousness as a peculiar configuration of consciousness. But then I also think of material things as a manifestation of consciousness. That also means the particles that combine to make the chair or the rock. 

If we look at the vast ocean, we know that we can take a drop of that ocean and put it under a microscope. We can see that it is made up of molecules of water and those molecules are made of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen and those atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. We can't do that with consciousness because there are no constituent parts - every part of consciousness is consciousness. It can't be reduced to something else.

I'm not suggesting that you adopt my idealism, I'm suggesting that you question your own materialism.

They are?

Alternatively, you are asserting that materialists are less certain?

I don't see any evidence to support this distinction you are putting forth Steve.  The ardent materialists sound eerily similar to the ardent "immaterialists/religionists/etc".

Immaterialists certainly argue like they are right.

Karmarling is a good example of the immaterial position. Sometime during the evolutionary debate Paul ask him a question or questions something along the line of: how do you know? Karmarling's basic answer was: I don't, it's what I believe. 
If I have time I'll look it up. That's the approach I feel many have.

Alternatively no. Materialism has an ever growing body of empirical evidence to stand upon.

Already have...

A link. Or copy and paste.

Alternatively no. Materialism has an ever growing body of empirical evidence to stand upon.

That is categorically false from where I sit Steve.

Materialism does not have a growing body of empirical evidence when it comes to consciousness as you well know.  Just as it doesn't have a lot to say about many things folks generally put in the "big questions" category.

You seem to be extrapolating and assuming that because materialism has been so successful in so many things that hit will be successful in all things.  Again, that's a faith position.

I think of human consciousness as a peculiar configuration of consciousness. But then I also think of material things as a manifestation of consciousness. That also means the particles that combine to make the chair or the rock.

If we look at the vast ocean, we know that we can take a drop of that ocean and put it under a microscope. We can see that it is made up of molecules of water and those molecules are made of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen and those atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. We can't do that with consciousness because there are no constituent parts - every part of consciousness is consciousness. It can't be reduced to something else.

What's this configuration thing? If we are going to have different configurations that make human consciousness, a chair, and a rock, then there has to be lower-level consciousness building blocks and configuration laws that describe how they form into each of those things.

Something must be present in human consciousness that is missing from the rock or vice versa.

~~ Paul

Materialism does not have a growing body of empirical evidence when it comes to consciousness as you well know.  Just as it doesn't have a lot to say about many things folks generally put in the "big questions" category.

Of course there is empirical evidence about consciousness.

~~ Paul

What's this configuration thing? If we are going to have different configurations that make human consciousness, a chair, and a rock, then there has to be lower-level consciousness building blocks and configuration laws that describe how they form into each of those things.

Something must be present in human consciousness that is missing from the rock or vice versa.

~~ Paul

I give up. You are determined to put a mechanistic-reductionist spin on consciousness, no matter what.

One last try: what is a dream? If you dream a rock, what is that dream rock made of? Are there piles of dream-rock particles laying around in your head from which you construct your dream rock? No - it's all in the mind: mind stuff. Then extend that to the "real" rock. That, to me, is also a kind of dream rock - it is mind stuff. The word configuration doesn't matter - we don't have many words for these concepts because we are conditioned to think in either monistic-materialist or dualistic terms.  I could have said that the rock is an expression of consciousness but that still wouldn't do it justice. 

The laws and building blocks you talk about don't exist without mind. Mind is fundamental (not reducible) and infinitely creative. That's where I'm coming from, at least.