As you are the one to bring up metaphysics:

Every metaphysics requires a workable epistemology for validation. Materialism, as a metaphysics, is sufficiently substantiated by the  epistemology of science.

Tell me: what is your epistemology? And, what is the metaphysics that your epistemology supports?

Without this information, we are operating in a vacuum. You are requiring burden of proof for a validated epistemology and metaphysics, without defining the counter proposal. Until you present an alternative epistemology and metaphysics, the burden of proof actually rests with you. Our epistemology and metaphysics have already been validated.

I got your fucking focus.

This is why you get the responses you do.

Where in your OP did you state that was what you were looking for?

Did you even read my response or just cursorily dismiss it?

You wanted evidence of the physical causing mental and vice versa.

 

HisWillness,

Did you win this bet?

 

Okay, let's go with your analogy of the brain to the computer. And this is good analogy because materialists really do view the brain as a computer processing data. The  basic  sentiment is that "if we can just identify the neural correlates of consciousness, we will have explained consciousness." If this is so, then am I to assume that my computer is conscious? If not, why not?

Bingo. This is exactly correct. Computers only do what they are programmed for and we only program them to do non-conscious tasks. I think the important question is: can we program computers to be conscious? I think we could and currently there is research towards trying to make them think like we do.

Recently researchers at the University of Reading took mouse neurons and built circuits out of them that control a small robot. Rather than use semiconductors they used neurons. The fact of the matter is that the neurons in our head are curcuitry that control us. If they could somehow be replaced with equivalent silicon circuits that could adjust and change as our neurons do, I don't think there would be any difference in consciousness. The data that is transmitted and manipulated by them is all the same. We just need to find out how to express consciousness as a program. And perhaps our computers would need better or different hardware to be conscious. Forming new connections between neurons is important, I'm afraid that technical limitations currently prevent your computer from forming new electrical pathways in the same manner.

But that you base your decisions on your previous experiences, which include experiences in which you have no control over, which is completely different that predetermined, which means no matter what, it was already determined before you where even born, which means you cannot act differentl under the exact same circumstances because it was already predetermined your action, which is false. We all have different experiences, as well our mental make up is different as well, that's why twins won't act exactly the same under the same circumstance, even if they have lived the exact same life. Because their outlook towards life varies just enough that they are different people. This is where your entire argument breaks down.

So my next 2 quesitons are, what is consciousness, and what is the evidence that you have of a supernatural or immaterial world or existance.

No, I won't tell you. Why? Because I'm not qualified to answer your question. I'm not a physicist. I don't know the details of quantum mechanics or of relativity.

 

Are you a physicist?

If you are, you should have had no problem answering the question I posed to you in the other thread (define the term 'quanta', and explain how this undermines the scientific method. Define 'relativistic velocities', and explain how they undermine the scientific method).

If you are not a physicist, and ergo have no formal understanding of physics, how can you possibly deduce what the theory of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity might say in terms of how we view the world?

 

Ignorance is not a form of evidence.

Dude, you knew this was coming. This might be the only time I pine for that "Not this shit again" cat picture.

Whatever the nature of the crude, reductive, medieval version of non-supernaturalism you seem to consider to represent  "materialism", it is irrelevant to the understanding that a typical well-educated scientifically-literate person understands about the nature of reality.

Please explain how particle decay requires the existence of the supernatural.

As a matter of fact, the key particles that make up atoms, ie electrons, protons and neutrons are not specifically predicted to be permanent. The lower bound on the half-life of a proton is something like 10^35 years, although electrons are not expected to decay at all. Both propositions follow from science, with no requirement for anything supernatural. If you have some concept of 'materialism' which doesn't allow for quantum decay, well that is no more part of the modern scientific world-view than is the supernatural.

And don't dodge by using any reference to the 'immaterial'. Many referents, from simple attributes such as 'size', 'speed', 'height', 'weight', 'temperature', to 'complexity', 'information', 'connectivity', to 'story', 'image', 'procedure', etc,  are not 'material' in the strict sense of literally being composed of atoms, ie they are immaterial because they are not objects, they are attributes of objects or collections of discretely identifiable objects. None of these ideas require dualism or supernaturalism to be meaningful.

 

'Free will' is how we experience our decision-making process as we weigh up all the factors which we base our decisions on. The nett balance of all these factors, which include the results of explicit conscious reasoning about the issues, inevitably swayed by our emotional reactions to them, all determine our decision.

Our conscious awareness seems to be strongly related to the workings of a set of what are called 'mirror neurons' which allow us to model the behaviour and thought patterns of other members of our social group, in order to assist us to anticipate their likely responses to current happenings, including our own actions. This assists us and ultimately the group to interact in more subtle and (mostly) constructive ways, which is why they have evolved.

Our conscious experience of reasoning out situations and reflecting on past experiences, and so on, closely matches patterns of neural activity, which are becoming observable in ever-increasing resolution by our brain scanning technology. These patterns of activity in turn will drive motor neurons to cause us to physically respond in accord with our decisions. I think of our feeling of conscious awareness as what this complex process 'feels like' from the inside, as it were.

Obviously there is a lot more to be discovered in this area, but the broad outlines are taking shape. But there is nothing here which requires anything supernatural.

The relationship between our thought processes and the underlying patterns of neuronal interaction, is broadly (and somewhat crudely) analogous to that between the flow of logic through the statements of the 'source code' of a computer program as it executes, and the patterns of semiconductor gate switching implementing the code at the lower ('physical' level). The analogy needs to be extended a step or two further into the abstract to correspond in a meaningful way to conscious thought processes.

Exactly why certain patterns seem to manifest what we experience as consciousness/self-awareness is a hot area of study, of course. Of course consciousness, as defined, is 'immaterial', ie it is not a physical object, it is a reflection of, an aspect of, a complex, structured sequence of states of a very complex physical object, the brain.

Dualism, to me, represents two different ways of thinking about what is essentially the same reality, namely the detailed functioning of our minds/brains, which is too complex for us to model wholisticly in that same mind/brain, which is hardly surprising...

This is my understanding of this topic, anyway. It obviously doesn't fit into Paisley's concept of "Scientific Materialism", it seems better described as a version of Scientific Naturalism, if you must put some philosophical label on it.

I see no point in trying to directly answer Paisley's simplistic queries about specific issues he has with 'Scientific Materialism'. Anyone who can seriously challenge us to 'provide the chemical formula for coonsciousness' is so totally out of his depth here that that would be futile - we do not have the time to get him up to speed with a huge field of study, even if he were willing to concede he is not remotely qualified to comment at a formal level on this topic.

C.mon Paisley, you were being sarcastic with that 'chemical formula' crack, I hope...

Your going to be waiting for a loooooooooong fucking time, paisley admited that there are immaterial pursuits, the various examples I gave him and then said well those can't exist for atheists as they are materialist. paisley isn't going to define or explains anything, I really don't think paisley defines anything that he/she speaks about, not even his/hers other threat about consciousness, paisley hasn't even defined consciousness beyond the vague definition of awareness. Seriously paisley tries to sound intellegent but comes off very ignorant about the topics he/she brings up/

 Geez, dude.  How many times can you make the same claims?

Do you just not understand the concept of equivocation?

 

Quantum indeterminacy. If nature is fundamentally indeterminate (as quantum theory holds), then materialism is not supported by science.

I suggest that you read the title of this thread. My metaphysics is not on trial here; yours is.

I cursorily dismissed after I read the "take a bag" part.

Then I guess your belief in scientific materialism is based on faith (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence).

You do realize that "BMcD" actually denies that he is conscious to begin with? Right?
 

By the way, do you think the next version of "java" will have some kind of "generate conscious-awareness" object? Do you think if it does, that it will process information more efficiently? If so, why?

If nothing is permanent, then what we are left with is what Buddhists call impermenance. This depicts a world that is ephemeral,  a world that is in a nutshell...immaterial. It's that simple.

The scientific description of reality is based on probability waves and geometrical points. These are mathematical abstractions (not material objects) and cannot exist independently from a mind that abstracts. 

Yeah, which form of materialism allows for quantum indeterminacy? If nature is fundamentally indeterminate (as the prevailing scientific theory holds), then we have "uncaused" events occurring in the universe. And apparently they are occurring everywhere and all the time. I suppose I should disregard this little glitch in your metaphysical worldview and just let you go on your merry ole way and pretend materialism is intact....right?

If we ever do create conscious computers it will be groudbreaking. I think that such a thing would be comparable to the invention of semiconducting transistors. So no, it won't be some minor feature added to the next version of java.

As for consciousness and efficiency: I don't know if anyone can answer that question. I would not know how to determine that. Perhaps contacting researchers that deal with consciousness or computer science would yield answers for that question. This is a great question, I'm just at a loss for answering it.

Does BMcD think that he is not conscious? I think that you made that up. Come on Paisley, don't put words into BMcD's mouth.

You will note, ironically mimicing your response to me in the other thread, that I said 'by up to as much as seven seconds in some cases'. In fact, you underlined the whole thing. So obviously, you're aware that that would mean that it's not always seven seconds ahead, and that that's merely the most extreme measurement that I've knowledge of. So no, Barry wouldn't have had to have been psychic in order to hit a ball. If anything, it would be more of an indicator that his body's trained responses carry him through the process of hitting the ball, and his personal awareness of the framework of events would lag slightly behind his physical decision-making process.

Are you somehow saying they're not? Our minds aren't just self-programming software, they're self-programming software in charge of constructing the hardware they run on: It's our interactions with our surroundings that stimulate brain development and neural pathway growth. Our brains shape our decisions, and our awareness shapes our brains. It's a single, ongoing process of stimulus-response wherein each response is another stimulus.

I hope you guys didn't scare Paisley away yet, I've got a question for him.

  It's obvious you can't provide any proof, because we're all scattered around the world. We usually don't have the proof of the nonphysical phenomena, just sometimes, the proof has us. Even if we happen to see something nonphysical, we have not enough of control over it, we can't replicate it nor show it to any person in the world, maybe to a few, but usually not to anyone important.
So there's a problem, what do you want us to do? Let's say, we all exclaim WE BELIEVE YOU!!! What next? Will it make the proof any closer? No, we will not have it, just as before. Unfortunate, eh?
Let's try to be a bit active, then. Let's say, that a group of people comes to your door. There will be unbiased, open-minded scientists (some maybe slightly biased in favor of the nonphysical, to make it easier) and then also a group of people who also has their experiences with the nonphysical part of the world. They knock on your door, you open, and they want to hire someone, who can help them to prove the existence of nonphysical phenomena. Ask yourself, how can you help them? Can you do something awesome with your mind? Can you travel astrally, see an aura, heat up your chakras really hard, heal with energy, or something like that? Just tell me, and more importantly, tell yourself. I remind you, they don't need a believer, they need someone who they could try to measure, and preferably who could interact somehow with other workers of the nonphysical. For example, people who would be both telepaths, would be magnificent.
My capabilities aren't very impressive, compared to some people I've met, but I certainly could do some mental exercises and let myself be measured through EEG for example, to see what's going on with the brain during that. I can do something for it, what about you? Are you just a believer?


Btw, according to a certain hypothesis I like, there's one problem of getting the right person into a laboratory, searching for anomalies. I mean, like examining a samples of tissue on sub-atomary level. There should be several hundreds of thousands people in the world, who has a several percent of their body mass anomalous in some way, that it contains more of a light-like sub-atomary particles. Some texts speaks of light, that all life emits light, but these people's bodies emits more light than others'. This is one of methods I'd advise to try, but I guess that after a consultation with the hypothetic group of scientists at Paisley's doorstep we'd dismiss some methods and come up with some new. This is what the science is about, overcoming a problems like that, searching for a way.

I'd be glad about whatever we can find. Even if the consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then in mine there is some anomalous benign activity going on, which would be a fascinating thing to study.  It could be also a good job, well paid, opportunity to travel, get my name on some scientific papers, meet a new intelligent people, and so on.

 

I accept your correction as read.

 

 

Your definition of free will is completely consistent with mine - it is the sense that we are making a 'free' decision', IOW not necessarily reflecting the almost certain reality (allowing for quantum uncertainty) that given the exact same mental states we would make the same choice. The kicker is that this is a totally hypothetical scenario since we could never, even in principle, re-run any non-trivial chain of events precisely.

[EDIT] Having regrets that I made what turned out to be a bad decision is not dependent on an actual belief in free will at all, at least to me, I just wish I had given more weight to certain factors. To me, its a matter of "20-20 hind-sight". I cannot conceive how I could have made a different decision, given the same factors and state of mind, apart from some truly random input from something arising from something like quantum uncertainty.

So your comment here is again totally off base.