This is a thread to allow discussions about how those lucky enough to have free will make decisions.
As materialism doesn’t explain squat, this thread is a place for explanations from those that presumably have them.
And if they can’t provide them, well, this will be a short thread.
So do phoodoo, mung, WJM et al care to provide your explanations of how decisions are actually made?
]
Simply repeating your claim is not an argument. Try answering the questions I posed:
When not in use by physical systems, where do these laws of logic exist? When the Sun grows past the orbit of the Earth and all humans are gone, where do the laws of logic run to? What definition of “exist” are you using?
You’ve presented some assertions but you haven’t defined clearly what you mean by “immaterial” or “exists”. Try dealing with that.
You’re the one using the term. What exactly do you mean by it?
This is a good way of formulating it.
In discussions like this, I force the physicalist (i.e. denialist of non-physical/immaterial) to admit the reality/existence of appearances. For example, the denialist may say, “There are no bogeymen in the closet. It’s mere imagination.” I reply, “But children are afraid of bogeymen in the closet. The fear is real, so that which causes the fear (either bogeymen or imagination) must also be real. So you cannot say there are no bogeymen in the closet. The bogeymen may be mere imagination, but imagination is evidently not inconsequential. Looks like imagination is a force to be reckoned with.”
It doesn’t suffice for the crying child to say “Bogeymen don’t exist.” You have to console them with more heart and soul, if they are to truly get over the fear caused by their own imagination. Fear is a certain state of imagination and lack of fear is a different state of the same imagination. A simple point when said, but hard to convey effectively.
If states of imagination are not inconsequential, then for all practical purposes they are real. The imagined bogeyman may not be physically real, but given its real consequences it’s real enough in the pragmatic sense.
And here’s a little definitional clue for you, Patrick and Alan: When something is not physically real, but real nonetheless for some purpose (e.g. logical, theoretical, explanatory purpose) then it serves as an example of immaterial. Got that? And insofar as immaterial has its evident consequences, it’s undeniably real and extant. Also, it’s irrational to deny any concept that is logically inevitable to describe a reality exhaustively.
It’s not merely seductive. It’s rational and realistic. Introspection is there, isn’t it? So what’s the point of downplaying it?
Imagination, dreams, memories of the past and schemes of future may not be real in the same sense as present-moment physicality, but don’t they have their logical inevitability nonetheless? How safe is it to scoff at inevitable things that are beyond your volition? How rational is it to reason as follows, “I cannot eat my sanity or put it on my shelf or sell it away, so it must be that my sanity is immaterial. But immaterial things don’t exist. I don’t even know what immaterial means! Therefore I don’t care about my sanity.”?
Contrary to what Erik would have you believe, I’m well aware of that. The issue is that I am not the one claiming anything about the “immaterial”. It is incumbent upon those who claim that it exists to define what they mean by it.
I’m fully aware of that as well (this isn’t my first rodeo). Thus far I have seen no one on the immaterialist side of the fence make such a logical argument.
Have you ever meditated? Taken psychedelic drugs? The experience of modifying your own consciousness and the degree to which you can do so is remarkable. My personal experience is that, after coming back into myself (so to speak), I have a much greater appreciation for how malleable our consciousness and sense of self is. Simply breathing in certain patterns for an extended period of time can allow you to temporarily drop the distinction between self and everything else. Of course, once you notice you’ve done that, the experience is over.
I don’t agree with this. The experience of simple physical behaviors resulting in profoundly different subjective experiences emphasizes to me that there’s no need to hypothesize additional components. There’s plenty to play with in our skulls without looking elsewhere.
Thanks for the interesting comment. I emphasize again that I’m not trying to argue by definitions. I do ask for definitions to prevent confusion, avoid or at least identify equivocation, and because in a lot of cases the people talking about immaterial this and spiritual that turn out to be unable to define their terms coherently.
I’d be fascinated to see any kind of support for some of these claims, but historically that’s not the way to bet.
I answered it. Now it’s your turn (and has frankly been for a while). What definition of “exist” (and “real”) are you using?
They don’t NOT support the claim that consciousness is a gift of the invisible pink unicorn (PBUH) either.
The claim being made is that consciousness has an immaterial component. It is up to those, such as yourself, making this claim to clearly explain what they mean and to provide support for it. Until you do, there is literally no reason to take it seriously.
I just looked back through your comments since I first asked those questions and I see no response to them. I apologize if I’ve missed it. Please copy it again in response to this comment.
Your turn long overdue. You are miserably failing in your minimal role needed to carry on a semblance of rational discussion.
The original questions were:
When not in use by physical systems, where do these laws of logic exist? When the Sun grows past the orbit of the Earth and all humans are gone, where do the laws of logic run to? What definition of “exist” are you using?
You haven’t addressed those directly. You’re just asserting, again, that “something not physically real” is a coherent concept.
Let’s start from the basics. What is your definition of “exists”? What is your definition of “immaterial”? Since you’re one of the people here claiming that something immaterial exists, surely you can explain how we can distinguish between things that are immaterial and those that are not, between things that exist and those that do not?
You seem to be mixing the map with the territory and confusing the reality of a concept held in a physical brain with what that concept refers to. I can’t tell more than that until you make it clear what you mean by the words you’re using.
Was this intended to be a serious question? Where, within space and time, do immaterial things exist?
Erik’s opinions don’t matter to you, neither do fifths. Why do you bother then?
And you ought to be supporting your claims too. Honesty and integrity demands it.
Why not? merely claiming something dos not make it so. Please provide evidence for your claim.
I think it is evidence that I can conceive of a world that is empirically just like this one but where consciousness does not exist.
Why exactly is that not evidence that consciousness is not empirical?
peace
Yes, you are. You just lack the integrity to admit it.
False. The original question was about evidence for the immaterial and eventually about an argument for it. These questions have been answered with examples and a definitional framework. Answers to your current questions follow from the definitional framework, but first acknowledge what has already been answered.
False. You are failing to distinguish between assertion and argument. For example, when I said “If it’s true that physical systems use laws of logic(which you concede), then it’s presupposed that laws of logic exist,” this is called modus ponens. You cannot hand-wave it away. You need an equal argument to refute it.
ETA: Whereas your “You’re just asserting, again, that “something not physically real” is a coherent concept” IS a mere unsupported assertion. As a minimum, you’d need to DEMONSTRATE that “something not physically real” is an incoherent concept, but given how things stand, this burden could be overwhelming to you, so I am not placing it on you for the time being.
Let’s, but since you are false at every step, it’s again my job to retrace the steps. The basics are as follows.
– You self-admittedly don’t know what is meant by immaterial.
– Therefore you have no idea what you are asking when you ask for evidence for immaterial.
– Therefore the definition of immaterial has been provided you with examples.
– Now it’s your turn to acknowledge what’s been provided, so we can continue from there and answer any additional questions you may have.
– Until you have not acknowledged what’s been provided, you are not allowed to introduce your own additional terms and questions, because what you have done thus far has been already shown to be faulty. A reasonable person would show some willingness to learn at this point, because the burden of rational discussion has been entirely on my side too long.
That is not how I see. I see it as a claim that consciousness is only material.
Not only is that claim silly on it’s face no evidence at all has been offered to support it.
You just seem to accept it on blind faith
peace
Is blind faith an example of something immaterial or is just a brain behavior?
fifth, to Patrick:
That explains a lot.
“How do I know God is revealing stuff to me? Well, I can imagine it, can’t I?”
I wonder who said the following,
– As it stands, I don’t see any difference between “immaterial” and “non-existent”.
– No one here has supported the claim that anything immaterial is involved.
– I’m not even sure what people mean when they use that word [immaterial].
Hint: Maps and territories are both real in the physical world, so be very careful when you use this analogy with me. As to the conceptual world, we probably won’t get that far in this discussion.
The conceivability of zombies tells us that there is no logically necessary relation between intelligent behavior and phenomenal awareness.
However, it does not tell us more than this.
It does not rule out the possibility that the relation between intelligent behavior and phenomenal awareness is a kind of necessity weaker than logical necessity.
And it does not tell us what the relation between intelligent behavior and phenomenal awareness is in the actual world.
It could be — for all Chalmers can tell us — just a contingent fact that, in the actual world, phenomenal awareness is caused by neurophysiological facts alone (which is not a view I would endorse) or perhaps phenomenal awareness is caused by dynamic transactions across the brain-body-environment (which is a view I do endorse).
That said, I do not know whether this counts as “materialism”. I think that most coherent conception of “materialism” requires a very demanding version of what counts as a successful reduction. But I don’t think that the biological sciences — including cognitive science and ecology — are reducible to physics (let alone fundamental physics).
Not remotely the same thing. It’s more like this
“How do I know God is revealing stuff to me? Well, because I can’t begin to conceive of a world in which knowledge is possible without revelation”
peace
Without revelation or without divine revelation?
I never once said it did. You seem to think “this” is a small thing.
It does not prove that there is more to consciousness than the material. It does prove that there can be more to consciousness than the material.
That means that the burden of proof is squarely on those who would claim that there is nothing to consciousness beyond the material.
The only rationally viable option for those who don’t know that there is an immaterial element to consciousness is to remain forever an agnostic as to the possibility.
As for the rest of us, we already have our answer
peace
The argument from lack of imagination.
depends of the knowledge
peace
If you can conceive of such a world I’m all ears. All you need to do is give a coherent answer.
I’ll ask again
How do you know stuff?
peace
Really? I found that reassurance quite consoling and reassuring as a young child.
Then we are on the same side on this one
peace
fifth:
That’s just as bad.
Many children find reassurance when Santa Claus is played for them, too. Just shows your level of credulity. For true reassurance, you will have to do better than this.
Those are claims about his understanding. Care to provide clarity?
I keep saying. If we’re not clear what we mean when we use a word…
why?
If it is inconceivable that knowledge exists if God does not exist It does not mean that God exists but it does mean that I will never ever “know” it (or anything else) if he does not.
peace
Then divine revelation is unnecessary for some knowledge?
Erik,
Do they? I recall at the age of six playing along and waiting for my present from the school caretaker unconvincingly attired.
ETA re-reading that, the caretaker was unconvincingly attired. I was in the usual day-wear of six-year-olds of the time and place.
If it be only about his understanding, it’s too low to engage with, even self-contradictory. For example, if the third one be true, then the second one cannot be true, because given that he doesn’t understand what people mean by immaterial, he cannot also understand if it’s been supported or not.
But the first one is not only about his understanding, but about his understanding of the immaterial. Namely, in his view immaterial equals non-existent.
Different question , fifth.
Since certainty is not required for knowledge, non divine revelation is one way.
Perhaps an example of something existant yet non-material would help. I’m sure there is a simple semantic misunderstanding here.
Divine revelation is not directly necessary for some knowledge. For instance you can reveal your preference in cola to me.
However God’s revelation is necessary indirectly for even that small piece of knowledge . His revelation is the only way I can know that you actually exist outside my mind.
peace
I see. Your anecdotal evidence about yourself is all that matters to you. Nobody else matters. Thanks for making this clear. I will bear this in mind.
It’s not about certainty it’s about any knowledge whatsoever.
Is my knowledge of your cola preference actual or merely hypothetical? That depends on whether you actually exist.
peace
I”m sorry, Erik, I’m a bit stream-of-consciousness. Your remark about Santa Claus triggered a memory.
But I’m still interested in an example of something both existant and immaterial if you have one.
Do you think that a song exists independent of the physical medium it’s represented in?
IOW is copyright law a farce IYO?
peace
Are you? Prove it. If you behave very convincingly, I may copy several examples from the previous discussion. But if you are truly interested, you will certainly find them yourself.
I’ve answered before. Basically, it is by trial and error learning.
It’s just a mistake (in my opinion) to equate knowledge with “justified true belief”. We do not have a adequate account of “true” or of “belief” or of “justified”.
The plumber spouts of all kinds of stuff about pipes. I don’t care how true, how much belief or how justified. If he can actually fix the pipes he has the knowledge. If he cannot actually fix the pipes, I’ll be a doubter.
In case Patrick is busy and as I have a window of opportunity….
Then we need a definition. How does Erik define the immaterial? I define it as anything(?) not impinging on reality. That which might as well not exist for all the effect it has on reality.
Perhaps that can be summarized in a comment or at least linked to.
The above is simply resolved by linking back to the examples. Over to you, Erik or anyone else with an example of something immaterial that impinges on reality.
Plumbers are conservative guys. They don’t want to sell you new technology that breaks and then you’re for ever calling them back.
Erik,
I’m going to behave like myself. You are very welcome to provide examples or not provide examples. I’m not going to beg.
Perhaps, if the the support provided so far for the immaterial relies on a fallacy it is unsupported no matter what the exact definition is or whether the immaterial exists or not.
“In his view” is a claim about his view of the world, not the reality of the world. Most people accept their view is provisional. A definition might be helpful to change that view.
Since you are self-centred, let’s make this educational example involve yourself. You said that it consoled you when you were said, as a child, that bogeymen don’t exist. Until that happened, you were likely unconsoled due to fear of bogeymen (bogeymen that, as the saying goes, don’t exist). Yet your fear was real. So, if the fear was real, then the cause for it was also real. What was the cause?
Moreover, FMM recently reiterated an example that has gone unheeded by you and Patrick – intellectual property rights. Is intellectual property material or not? If the work of an author is, given work-instantiation identity theory, necessarily physically instantiated, then it can be stolen only by stealing a physical copy of the work, and not by reproducing the work as a separate physical instance, right? And digital should not even enter the discussion, right?
A big if there. Prove it or else…
And his view of the world is too narrow to engage with the concept of immaterial – by his own admission. That’s about it.