An alternate look at Naturalism

Silence
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 am. Or should I put my trust to someone gazing into a crystal ball?

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.

Neuro-scientists are working on it. Refer to my Skeptiko thread http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/ne...ence.1296/ titled: New stuff in neuro-science list of work being done.

That is categorically false from where I sit Steve.

Perhaps sitting someplace else may help.

I am. Or should I put my trust to someone gazing into a crystal ball?

I know you are.  Its where you've chosen to put your faith, or "truth" as you seem to prefer mincing words.

The ironic thing is that when it comes to consciousness; science is still at the crystal ball stage.  Sure, its a crystal ball that has worked many times in the past on many other subjects, but to presume it will work on the next, as yet unsolved, mystery is a faith position.

Of course there is empirical evidence about consciousness.

~~ Paul

Thanks Paul.  That's helpful in the broader dialogue I'm having with Steve.

I know you are.  Its where you've chosen to put your faith, or "truth" as you seem to prefer mincing words.

The ironic thing is that when it comes to consciousness; science is still at the crystal ball stage.  Sure, its a crystal ball that has worked many times in the past on many other subjects, but to presume it will work on the next, as yet unsolved, mystery is a faith position.

You should have trust too or all this immaterialism is true talk will remain on the fringe.

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 agree.

Consciousness, as a term, applies to a broad range of experience and process models.  It's never good when your fundamental "substance" has a hidden component (subconscious), from where most of the good stuff emerges.

However, if the natural function of mind is to change probabilities in its environment by gaining and using information, then we can measure what mind does.  (in my humble opinion) The process that mind uses is to create information objects; to use for understanding and for vehicles for behavioral benefits.  Changing real-world probabilities is done by enforcing information objects actively.  These objects evolve immediate environments and long-term genetic pathways as they manifest.

Wanting to eat has logical consequences for behavior.  Targeted behavior (from instinct or from reason) integrates species in their environments.  The logic of those behaviors changes real-world probabilities for species as they get results from wanting.  Lamarck and Darwin had it right.

Consciousness is like snow, as a reified agent there are a million ways for it to express itself.  However, if you want to predict the weather tomorrow, a meteorologist and a bank of detection equipment will be better.  Bio-information processing is the way to understand how the brain is not the mind.  Within its own scope, bioinformatics is a reductive science approach in the making.

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

And you refuse to consider any details of your proposal.

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.

There are fragments of memories about rocks that are pieced together to make the dream. Those memories, in turn, are composed of bits of memories about actual rocks, about the word "rock," about geology, etc. Some of the memories of actual rocks are fragments of images of rocks. It's reductionist to the core.

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.

Then a rock is conscious in exactly the same way as I am.

~~ Paul

There are fragments of memories about rocks that are pieced together to make the dream. Those memories, in turn, are composed of bits of memories about actual rocks, about the word "rock," about geology, etc. Some of the memories of actual rocks are fragments of images of rocks. It's reductionist to the core.


~~ Paul

Not in the same way that materialist-reductionism proposes. It is not reduced to something else - it is all mind.

Take your geological rock and apply your materialist reductionism: this bit is silicon, this is ferrous, this is carbon, etc. 

My idealistic rock is mind stuff. The silicon, iron, carbon, etc., are also mind stuff. Mind does not reduce to other. You are stopping short of the point. 

Of course mind is not an undifferentiated infinity of grey. My mind has mages and memories but my mind is not reduced to them. It might be the medium in which they exist: they exist in my mind and they are of my mind but my mind is not created out of them. Without mind there would be no images. I guess you need to ask yourself whether a mind could exist without those images or memories - I suspect you don't believe it can.

Not in the same way that materialist-reductionism proposes. It is not reduced to something else - it is all mind.

Perhaps, but the point is that the dream is not all-of-a-piece. So there is internal complexity to consider.

Take your geological rock and apply your materialist reductionism: this bit is silicon, this is ferrous, this is carbon, etc.

My idealistic rock is mind stuff. The silicon, iron, carbon, etc., are also mind stuff. Mind does not reduce to other. You are stopping short of the point.

If my dream is brain function, then materialism is all material. Idealism is all mind. They are both "all the same thing."

Of course mind is not an undifferentiated infinity of grey. My mind has mages and memories but my mind is not reduced to them. It might be the medium in which they exist: they exist in my mind and they are of my mind but my mind is not created out of them. Without mind there would be no images. I guess you need to ask yourself whether a mind could exist without those images or memories - I suspect you don't believe it can.

I don't, but I'm not assuming that mind cannot be physical. So it's just all physical.

It all physical or all mental, but there is complex internal structure.

~~ Paul

Perhaps, but the point is that the dream is not all-of-a-piece. So there is internal complexity to consider.

If my dream is brain function, then materialism is all material. Idealism is all mind. They are both "all the same thing."

I don't, but I'm not assuming that mind cannot be physical. So it's just all physical.

It all physical or all mental, but there is complex internal structure.

~~ Paul

So we come full circle. If it is all physical, you have to invoke physical causes for all the things we discuss here. Psi or the paranormal or anomalies or whatever term you prefer. Either you have to come up with a physical mechanism or deny they exist. That's the whole problem with materialism: you are limited by physical laws and the whole bottom-up approach. You also have to explain or deny subjective thoughts and feelings - which we now call qualia. It was a problem for Chalmers. It became a problem for Koch and others who are now finding philosophical refuge in panpsychism.

Here's Galen Strawson discussing these issues. He's not an idealist - he calls himself a "real physicalist" but I'm not at all clear what he means by that. Nevertheless, he acknowledges the problems for physicalism that we talk about here.

These are very short clips and I think they are relevant.

Here's the second clip ...