Nobel prize 2024 - magic just got less wriggle room

Nothing you've said requires the Materialist faith to be true.

Nor am I advocating for materialism (I don’t know what “materialist faith” is, there’s zero hits on google)

Nor am I advocating for materialism (I don’t know what “materialist faith” is, there’s zero hits on google)

I said what it was in my previous post - the belief that something is outside of all experience yet somehow generates the Experiencer.

Also this "physical" stuff that lacks all mental character will only be known and described by experience, even if we limit that to the mathematical descriptions whose validity rests on proofs...which rest on logic...which requires the "quale" of logical correctness to even get started...

I said what it was in my previous post - the belief that something is outside of all experience yet somehow generates the Experiencer.

Also this "physical" stuff that lacks all mental character will only be known and described by experience, even if we limit that to the mathematical descriptions whose validity rests on proofs...which rest on logic...which requires the "quale" of logical correctness to even get started...

Thank you for the more strict definition of the “materialist faith”. It helps to understand that we are strictly speaking about experience and not other mental aspects like problem solving, subconsciousness etc

Continuing along the lines of your reasoning, the only thing you can be sure of is that your own mind exists (solipsism). It is merely an assumption, held by some, that others also possess minds, just as some thinks they have a clear concept of what "physical" matter is and it therefore in no way can be the source of experience.

Thank you for the more strict definition of the “materialist faith”. It helps to understand that we are strictly speaking about experience and not other mental aspects like problem solving, subconsciousness etc

Continuing along the lines of your reasoning, the only thing you can be sure of is that your own mind exists (solipsism). It is merely an assumption, held by some, that others also possess minds, just as some thinks they have a clear concept of what "physical" matter is and it therefore in no way can be the source of experience.

Oh there is no problem solving without minds either, at least up to the point one needs minds to provide task automation & interpretation. (Only the programmer can tell you if erroneous output was a deliberate prank/sabotage or a genuine mistake.)

As Alex Rosenberg notes in Atheist's Guide to Reality, the Physicalist view has to be that thoughts are illusions and Cogito Ergo Sum is false.

And I don't think the line of reasoning has to go to Solipsism. You can accept there are conscious entities beyond your own experience - I'd even say Universals are a sign that at least an Ur-Mind exists in addition to one's self - without suggesting there is stuff that has no mental character yet generates all experience and all experiencers.

It even gets stranger when most Physicalists say only a very tiny number of arrangements of this mysterious "physical" stuff can produce consciousness...

Thank you for the more strict definition of the “materialist faith”. It helps to understand that we are strictly speaking about experience and not other mental aspects like problem solving, subconsciousness etc

Continuing along the lines of your reasoning, the only thing you can be sure of is that your own mind exists (solipsism). It is merely an assumption, held by some, that others also possess minds, just as some thinks they have a clear concept of what "physical" matter is and it therefore in no way can be the source of experience.

In Physicalism / Materialism, there is a certainty that minds do not actually exist ~ they're just epiphenomena of brain activity, if not eliminated entirely.

In reality, minds are the ones perceiving all else outside of themselves ~ and minds have no trouble intuitively extrapolating that others like themselves in external quality, such as form and behaviour, must possess internal qualities like themselves, such as emotions, thoughts, beliefs, etc. You see this with all animals, actually.

And I don't think the line of reasoning has to go to Solipsism. You can accept there are conscious entities beyond your own experience - I'd even say Universals are a sign that at least an Ur-Mind exists in addition to one's self - without suggesting there is stuff that has no mental character yet generates all experience and all experiencers.

It even gets stranger when most Physicalists say only a very tiny number of arrangements of this mysterious "physical" stuff can produce consciousness...

You reject the idea that what we can learn about through objective properties can also have mental properties. But at the same time, you believe other people have minds, even though you only know this through objective observations. That seems like a contradiction to me.

Furthermore, spacetime is not as we perceive it. Reality, as revealed by quantum advancements, is far stranger and more complex than our intuitive grasp. Google's recent release of the Willow quantum chip illustrates this vividly. It can solve a computational problem in five minutes that would take a traditional Turing Machine 10 septillion years to complete. The most astonishing part is our lack of comprehension regarding the ontological reality behind these computations. As Newton famously remarked, he saw himself as merely finding smooth pebbles on the beach while the vast ocean of undiscovered truth lay before him.

Now that Daniel Dennett has passed, there doesn't seem to be anyone left who's fully on board with what you call "the materialistic faith." But let's be clear—rejecting the nonsense from the Discovery Institute doesn't mean you have to buy into that kind of materialism either. There are more nuanced ways to think about the world than just bouncing between strict materialism and religious dogma.

It helps to understand that we are strictly speaking about experience and not other mental aspects like problem solving, subconsciousness etc

can't see how "problem solving, subconsciousness" are not in Experience?

can't see how "problem solving, subconsciousness" are not in Experience?

By very definition subconscious thoughts and processes are not directly experienced (since they occur outside of conscious awareness), they influence what we consciously experience. Regarding problem-solving, solutions often come to mind suddenly after subconscious processing. Subconscious reactions (like fear or attraction) shape also our conscious experiences. It's not qualia.

By very definition subconscious thoughts and processes are not directly experienced (since they occur outside of conscious awareness), they influence what we consciously experience. Regarding problem-solving, solutions often come to mind suddenly after subconscious processing. Subconscious reactions (like fear or attraction) shape also our conscious experiences. It's not qualia.

I saw what you did there... you added a qualification of 'directly' to experienced... and 'consciously' to experience, although I didn't understand the latter part of your first sentence... possibly missing a 'don't' ?

You then suggested problem solving solutions 'come to mind suddenly' as if that meant they were not in experience, and that for some reason fear and attraction [of?] only shape experience... eh?

IMO anything that affects I/me is experience. The other labels you mentioned are all subsets of experience.

You reject the idea that what we can learn about through objective properties can also have mental properties. But at the same time, you believe other people have minds, even though you only know this through objective observations. That seems like a contradiction to me.

“Objective” just means a 3rd person view, which itself is an extrapolation based on consensus agreements about what 1st Person views are saying about the shared world.

But I am fine with the possibility that there is an external world with both structure and qualitative aspects. I guess that would be Panpsychism or Dual Aspect Monism, or maybe Neutral Monism?