This thread renamed out of respect.

[Jerry Freeman]

The main problem with this kind of discussion is that people will tend to interpret whatever data are available in terms of how the world appears to them. In doing so, they will tend to say, "Of course, you could interpret these data otherwise, but to do so would be a stretch because that's not how the world appears."

However, it is not true that the world appears the same to everyone. Even if only a small percentage of people live in a world where consciousness seems to be the fundamental, underlying reality, and matter appears to be insubstantial and only a reflection or manifestation of that underlying field, that point of view can't be dismissed. Just because the vast majority of people at one time believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, their preponderance of numbers didn't make other ways of looking at the universe invalid.

Careful, Wombat. Your description of the behavior of consciousness is fine as far as it goes. However, it doesn't touch the question of whether those dynamics are indicative of the nature of consciousness itself or only of the behavior of an instrument (i.e., the brain) that reflects an underlying, universal consciousness which appears differently in different circumstances.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[jim stone]

By the way, I looked inward this morning and talked directly to God and he told me Cranberry is wrong about the ritual thing. Just so you all know.

He told me that too! And also that not all truth is found within oneself.

The more I look within myself the less I find.
Not very interesting in there. Looking within
cures insomnia.

Of course I've never looked within Cranberry.

Woody Allen said he was flunked for cheating on a philosophy
quiz: was caught looking into the soul of the student
next to him.

[Wombat]

Careful, Wombat. Your description of the behavior of consciousness is fine as far as it goes. However, it doesn't touch the question of whether those dynamics are indicative of the nature of consciousness itself or only of the behavior of an instrument (i.e., the brain) that reflects an underlying, universal consciousness which appears differently in different circumstances.

Best wishes,
Jerry

I was only commenting on what I think science can show. Actually I don't believe that mental states are strictly reducible to physical states but I was trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Since I think that science can only theorise about the corner of the universe our evidence gathering capacities can penetrate, and we have no idea how extensive that might be, I make no claims about the universe as a whole. But the same reasoning I use to recommend modesty in interpreting scientific findings would carry over to any finding and any perspective or way of interpreting things. Suppose there is a completely non-physical way of gaining knowledge. How could we know that this non-physical knowledge-receiving capacity penetrates the whole cosmos and not just the corner we inhabit?

Whatever our perspective we have good reason to be modest in our claims and, IMO, absolutely no reason at all to make sweepingly global claims.

[Cynth]

The main problem with this kind of discussion is that people will tend to interpret whatever data are available in terms of how the world appears to them. In doing so, they will tend to say, "Of course, you could interpret these data otherwise, but to do so would be a stretch because that's not how the world appears."

However, it is not true that the world appears the same to everyone. Even if only a small percentage of people live in a world where consciousness seems to be the fundamental, underlying reality, and matter appears to be insubstantial and only a reflection or manifestation of that underlying field, that point of view can't be dismissed. Just because the vast majority of people at one time believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, their preponderance of numbers didn't make other ways of looking at the universe invalid.

Jerry, I believe I take your meaning although the flat world argument is possibly not very good because that majority of people was actually perceiving something incorrectly. The world has been demonstrated to be round.

I can agree that it may be true that different people are having different experiences and are correctly perceiving things that I am not---but how could I not agree because anything is possible. And that is where I just have to say that I don't know. For me, and obviously this is just for me, I would become incapacitated if I had to consider that what I was experiencing was not reality. I know that many people do consider what they physically experience not to be "reality". But that seems to be a place I just cannot go simply because of my upbringing and culture I suppose.

I think Wombat and I have a similar outlook. I don't think there could be scientific evidence for what it seems that we are talking about---and at this point I'm not really sure what that is.

I don't think that means that those things don't exist though---that simply cannot be posited. I just don't think science can be involved. Science is just one of many ways of looking at the world. It just deals with the physical world. It does not address non-physical things, things which cannot be subjected to experiments. Most of the scientists I know do believe in things that could not be examined by science. I don't believe in those things, but I do say that I do not know about them one way or the other.

[Jerry Freeman]

Whatever our perspective we have good reason to be modest in our claims and, IMO, absolutely no reason at all to make sweepingly global claims.

I would caution you to be careful not to generalize from your own perspective.

There are others in the world, just as sane and intelligent as you, who would consider the claims you are making to be sweepingly global and anything but modest.

The point is, if you start from the point of view that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary, it seems sweepingly global for someone to suggest that reality might be just the opposite.

On the other hand, as I said, there are those for whom it appears perfectly obvious, not just as an intellectual idea or belief, but to the senses like a "fruit on the palm of the hand" that consciousness is primary and matter is secondary. That is literally what the world looks like to them. To such a person, your point is sweepingly global.

As is often the case with our arguments, there is a symmetry to the two sides, not one side that is sensible and another side that is immodest and sweepingly global.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Wombat]

Jerry you've completely lost me as far as this debate goes. I'll do my best to reestablish contact.

Whatever our perspective we have good reason to be modest in our claims and, IMO, absolutely no reason at all to make sweepingly global claims.

I would caution you to be careful not to generalize from your own perspective.

I think you are mind reading, as on another thread recently. My perspective is scientific only when it comes to phenomenal metaphysics. By that I mean that science provides us with the best theory of what the world, as perceived by the senses, is like. If you have non-sensory access to the (phenomenal) world, I'm simply not in a position to comment. As for transcendental metaphysics—theories about how things are in themselves—and this seems like the home for the opinions you are expressing, I am, and always have been completely agnostic. In other words, I'm a neo-Kantian.

There are others in the world, just as sane and intelligent as you, who would consider the claims you are making to be sweepingly global and anything but modest.

This is where you lose me and where I begin to suspect mind reading.

The point is, if you start from the point of view that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary, it seems sweepingly global for someone to suggest that reality might be just the opposite.

All claims about what reality is in itself strike me as sweepingly global. I believe that transcendental questions can be asked but not that answers can be given. (The position deserves to be called modest because it holds that humans can't aspire to a God's eye view of the world.) If you are imagining us both operating in phenomenal metaphysics, then I think that consciousness supervenes on the physical but isn't reducible to it. Both mental facts and physical facts are real. Neither has primacy. That's my position in phenominal metaphysics. Science has an interesting and important role in epistemology but, as far as phenomenology goes, I'm just as convinced of the existence of psychic space as I am of physical space. So I simply don't recognise my views in the gloss you put on them.

On the other hand, as I said, there are those for whom it appears perfectly obvious, not just as an intellectual idea or belief, but to the senses like a "fruit on the palm of the hand" that consciousness is primary and matter is secondary. That is literally what the world looks like to them. To such a person, your point is sweepingly global.

What I don't understand about this position is how the senses could present the world to you thus without a very heavy dose of theory. Phenomenology presents me with mental facts and physical facts. Only a theory could tell me which if either is primary and, as I just said, I don't endorse any such theory. I don't even feel any great urge to try to explain one in terms of the other. The supervenience I mentioned is simply an inescapable connection but it isn't reductive.

As is often the case with our arguments, there is a symmetry to the two sides, not one side that is sensible and another side that is immodest and sweepingly global.
Best wishes,
Jerry

I can't see the symmetry. If you were debating with a transcendantal materialist there would be a symmetry but I'm not that person. If there is such a person present, then I would regard both of you as making immodest and sweeping claims. OTOH, if you are simply talking about the phenomenal world, the world as we experience it, then I'm really not sure how our views line up. (Your position tehn wouldn't be immodest or sweeping but your way of expressing it would strike me as inviting these misunderstandings.) What I wouldn't see is how either mental or physical facts could actually be experienced to be primary rather than theorised to be primary.

Must leave it there for the moment. It's way past my bedtime.

[Jack]

I also usually simply refer to God as 'he' because it is easier and there's much precedent.

I don't think God has a penis (or vagina), though, or any kind of reproductive organs for that matter. God doesn't need to reproduce sexually.

By the way, I looked inward this morning and talked directly to God and he told me Cranberry is wrong about the ritual thing. Just so you all know.

Very well, but I suspect you're kidding.

[OnTheMoor]

All you people looking within should stop it and get your arses to a hospital, you need that stuff in there.

[Jack]

All you people looking within should stop it and get your arses to a hospital, you need that stuff in there.

/me hands OnTheMoor a liver and a couple kidneys and says with childish glee, "Hey, look what I found!"

[Cynth]

Well, OnTheMoor, I guess your hands are full now. What next? Oh, maybe best not to ask.

Cranberry, is that a stream of water shooting at your head? I mean your avatar's head.

[Jack]

Well, OnTheMoor, I guess your hands are full now. What next? Oh, maybe best not to ask.

Cranberry, is that a stream of water shooting at your head? I mean your avatar's head.

I guess it is...Natalie Merchant'd know better than I...

[Jerry Freeman]

Wombat, I get lost in the labels you're using. I realize they're shorthand for various points of view and you're just trying to sort things out, but I don't have a map for all those terms. I don't consider myself to be Thisian or Thatist, although there are probably labels that would fit. I'm just telling you what the world looks like to some people whose experiences are different from most, some of whom I relate to more than others.

You are definitely missing what I'm trying to say. I'm not sure if there's any way to get around that, but I'll make a couple of comments.

What I'm trying to tell you is not outside the realm of science at all. The problem, as I've tried to tell you, is that just about everything you're saying in the name of science is predicated on the premise that consciousness emerges from matter due to the functioning of a brain. There's nothing about that assumption that's any more scientific than the opposite assumption. It's just an assumption based on subjective experience, just as subjective as the assumptions that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth.

That you're making that assumption seems clear from statements you've made. There's no attempt at mind reading. If I've misread your comments, please correct me, but it appears that your comments are based on the premise that consciousness emerges from matter through the behavior of the brain.

My point is, that point of view isn't the only rational point of view, it's just the most common one. In fact, there are well regarded, serious quantum physicists who don't share that point of view, and I would be happy to refer you to one if you would like to proceed with the physics involved in more rigorous detail.

It's simply a matter of fact that there are people for whom the world appears through the senses to be made of something abstract and whose everyday sense of reality is, "All this is just an appearance on the surface of the underlying reality, whose nature is consciousness, and that consciousness is the same as my own consciousness." Such people are a small minority, and they tend not to say much about it, but they're there nonetheless, and they've been among us throughout time.

If the majority of scientists came to their work with that kind of subjective experience, the predominant viewpoint would likely be that consciousness underlies all existence, and certain physical constructs (i.e., brains) are able to reflect consciousness in such a way as to create the illusion of individual consciousnesses.

If such people were in a majority, then others, the minority for whom it appears that consciousness arises from the activity of the brain, would be pointing out that there are other ways to see things than the predominant view, and that neither way can be shown to be scientifically superior with the data presently available.

Which point of view will turn out to match the underlying physics cannot be known until science has made further progress in understanding what consciousness is and what the universe is. I believe there's no reason to doubt that this is within the capability of science, but it seems that many assume it is not.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Jerry Freeman]

That was a very helpful explanation.

Is it really an assumption that matter gives rise to consciousness? When people suffer brain damage of different sorts, have not scientists been able to study what functions these people are deprived of? It seems that they have been able to roughly locate different aspects of consciousness (perhaps we mean different things by this word) in the brain.

This is exactly right. Brain damage studies have shown that particular kinds of damage result in particular failures of consciousness. This leads to lack of sensation down the right side of the body; that leads to ... and so on. Some abilities are transferable. If the left side of the cortex is damaged the patient will lose certain abilities for a while but they will later be taken up by the right side. Consciousness in general seems to require a functioning cortex.

Here you go, Wombat. I believe I read this as it was meant, but please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Bloomfield]

It's simply a matter of fact that there are people for whom the world appears through the senses to be made of something abstract and whose everyday sense of reality is, "All this is just an appearance on the surface of the underlying reality, whose nature is consciousness, and that consciousness is the same as my own consciousness." Such people are a small minority, and they tend not to say much about it, but they're there nonetheless, and they've been among us throughout time.

Yes, but do these people, generally speaking, have a functioning cortex?

Just two tiny little points, Jerry: "science" is a smaller circle than "rational." And you should realize that by saying that it is a "matter of fact that there are people for whom the world appears through the senses..." you are jumping right into the middle of a tangled jungle of centuries of befuddlement and confustication.

[Dale]

By the way, I looked inward this morning and talked directly to God and he told me Cranberry is wrong about the ritual thing. Just so you all know.

He told me that too! And also that not all truth is found within oneself.

Walden! I think you and I are now a church!