So you posted all this because...? — Isaac

I find it problematic when stupidity becomes part of the scientific world. — Eugen

No. You wondered if it existed. You have no experience of wondering, you are not aware of these processes in real time. — Isaac

You can wonder only if you have consciousness.

Do you? Isn't that just begging the question? — Isaac

no, it's self-evident

to believe in reasoning, arguments and scientific proofs, I need to be consciouss — Eugen

To believe scientific information you need to be conscious. Being in a non-conscious state wouldn't help you.

Says who? — Isaac

- self-evident

You haven't quoted a single person saying this. — Isaac

I didn't

Why? — Isaac

''Only God exists.'' The scientists will say ''prove!''. the scientist says ''Only science can reveal truth''. Me: prove!
So prove! :)

When you do, you may find the discussion more productive if you take a single issue you disagree with and explain why, most of the arguments on either side are quite complex — Isaac

... there is nothing complex and I find it a waste of time to prove the existence of the probably only evident thing existing. So my belief is that denying consciousness literally is purely silly and no, I don't want to waste my time reading long complicated phrases that advocate stupid things. Some things are stupid and they don't deserve my time. I find it problematic when stupidity becomes part of the scientific world.

This is probably a good explanation of the problem. A guy spends half an hour talking about a naturalistic explanation for consciousness and some douchebag in marketing titles it "The Illusion of Consciousness". — Kenosha Kid

Yes, the media and the desire of some guys to become popular is also toxic to science.

It would be less surprising to me if 24% philosophers were anti-materialists. — Kenosha Kid

I've heard the materialists form the majority, but I've also heard that majority is fragile and decreasing. Hopefully we'll have a new alternative soon.

You might be accused of anti-intelecualism, I would be careful. — Wheatley

I am not proposing a dictatorship by banning discussions. I am just worried about people who truly believe in those things and I really think they need help.

If psychiatry were invented 2000 years ago there would be no such thing as philosophy. — Wheatley

When it comes to materialism and all the other non-sensical philosophical ideologies, I still hope psychiatry will do its job.

Why you don't want to thumbs up that one:
1. Mr. Bee claims that in fact those 24% are many-Chalmers.
2. Chalmers not only believes in consciousness, but he thinks it's a fundamental part of the reality.
3. 1+2 = those who believe in zombies, also believe in consciousness - 1st contradiction.
4. These guys are anti-materialists. The problem is those who deny consciousness are materialists.
5. 76% are cool materialists who deny zombies and consciousness. there you have a majority.

Disbelieving in the possibility of philosophical zombies isn’t the same thing as disbelieving in consciousness. — Pfhorrest

I didn't claim that. It was, in fact, an argument against my ''majority'' statement.

I mean serious mental issues )))

Will I find ideas like ''reality is a computer simulation; we don't exist; a thing exists only if I perceive it''?

David Chalmers, a staunch dualist, — Mr Bee

I don't know much about these ''authorities'', but I thought he was a panpsychist, not a dualist. Panpsychists deny dualism. But I don't care that much. As for Dennet, he is, as I've said, a funny ''bag of tricks''.
Ohhh, by the way, I do not care about ideologies so much, I see that some of you guys have real sensitivities regarding them. If materialism = consciousness does not exist and all that exist is an objective reality that we can observe with the help of science, then I believe materialism is really dumb. And the problem is that most of the guys who say that happen to be materialists. Sorry!

This is a very poor view of science. I suggest you go read some biology. — Wheatley

Indeed that was my ''the most reductionist'' personality ))). I do believe biological things are fundamentally different.

fun or love doesn't exist but is a biologic function — Outlander

They don't exist, but they are...

But it isn't 24%. 24% believe p-zombies are possible. — Kenosha Kid

In fact, that poll has little to do with my problem here. Even if 2,4% believe this, it's a problem. Even if 1000 scientists believe this, it's problematic.

Unless you believe that consciousness as a system function isn't consciousness. — Kenosha Kid

I don't have a definitive opinion, but I give a lot of credit to the idea that consciousness appear when some atoms are put in certain positions. Some just think exactly like this, minus the consciousness part ))), and they call the result of the collision of the atoms an illusion, something that does not exist, and that really makes no sense to me.

If all you want to do is throw names around, it's pretty childish to dismiss a well researched body of work when you've not put in even a little effort into understanding their claims. — fdrake

If one says ''If we arrange atoms in this way, we obtain something with consciousness'', I wouldn't disagree. Consciousness may be in fact a result of previous material causes. So that means you can tell everything about it? Does that mean this is all about it? If yes, than 1st person experiences don't exist, because science shows nothing more than a bunch of atoms interacting. Science simply does not tell us more than that and scientists know and accept it in a proportion of minimum 76% according to the poll mentioned above. But there are some scientists who simply do not accept this, so what they do is simply deny the ''extra'' part science cannot reveal.

If someone claims that first person events are equivalent to neural events then... — fdrake

If equivalent = correlation, or how does the subjective reality manifests itself in the objective reality, or vice-versa, that wouldn't be ridiculous. But a correlation is just a correlation, an interface, not the actual thing. First person is fundamentally different from third person, objective is fundamentally different from subjective. So denying the intrinsic aspect of reality just because science does not explain the intrinsic part, it's purely childish.

We don't understand it, so a commitment to your current scientific practices — Snakes Alive

That sounds to me more like religion than what science should be. That's scary!

If one says consciousness is a result of neurons interaction and that there's no magic, I wouldn't call it a ridiculous statement. But denying the existence of the 1st person experiences is ridiculous, illogic, and self-contradictory, and I would be really worried about the mental sanity of the person who claimed that.

Believing in the possibility of p-zombies doesn't necessarily mean disbelieving in consciousness. — Kenosha Kid

- even so, 24% is problematic.

Irreducible consciousness might be what you've heard of. This is basically saying the soul doesn't exist, and that consciousness (as in the self, as opposed to consciousness that the ball is red) is a non-elementary function of certain systems in certain states. Anyone who ever said consciousness didn't exist was presumably labouring under the impression that their words could be seen or heard, i.e. that consciousness was in fact real. — Kenosha Kid

I am not talking about those who say consciousness is different than most of us believe, I am talking about those who simply deny it. And there are many of them, trust me! Even if 2,4% instead of 24% believe that, it is really problematic.

Ok, here's the thing: consciousness exists because:
- I am wondering if it exists
- I have the illusion it exists, and to experience illusions, I need to be conscious
- to believe in reasoning, arguments and scientific proofs, I need to be consciouss
I can continue, but I don't think I need to, I think providing arguments for something so obvious is simply silly.

On the other hand, we have a bunch of people saying: consciousness or 1st person experiences do not exist because we don't see them when we perform experiments. Well, my issues with that are:
- firstly, seeing or hearing or any other observational qualities are consciousness extensions, so if you deny consciousness, you may as well deny the results of your observations;
- only what science can prove it's valid - well, in this case, the burden of proving this claim is on you. Good luck with that!

Only 24% consider it a metaphysical possibility which is a much weaker claim than saying consciousness doesn’t exist. — Kmaca

So I wasn't right about the majority. But I truly believe 1/4 of scientists (minimum) have a real problem: they cannot accept things that somehow get in conflict with their rooted beliefs. People of CHurch have said and done many stupid things, but I have never heard a thing said by religion that matches the stupidity, ridiculousness and absurdity of ''consciousness don't exist''. If 1/4 of the scientific world has this problem, then the scientific world has a real issue.

Ok, I wasn't right, but still 24% is absolutely massive and I simply cannot understand how rational people can sustain such a crazy idea. I wouldn't be shocked if a guy on heroine said that, but stating that we are bot conscious is not only crazy, but also anti-scientific. To do science, you need to be consciouss! How could one trust science so nuch if they doubt their own existence? For me, this is just absurd!

Dennet is a funny guy, but at the end of the day he's just a "bag of tricks" too. Let me explain how his philosophy works: Consciousness does not reflect the reality 100% accurately - therefore is tricky - therefore is a trick - therefore is not extraordinary - therefore, nothing is extraordinary in this reality - therefore God doesn't exist.
But Dennet, although not a sofisticated guy, he actually does not deny the 1st person experiences, nor consciousness.

Are you thinking of tennis? In what sense did your father win physics? — Kenosha Kid

))) If that were the case, I would be the rich son of a tennis player. Unfortunately, I was talking about the National Physics Olympiad, and Balkan almost sure. Anyway, my bad!

Well, now we 100% agree! But I don't think Dawkins or Sam Harris would agree with us, although the latter one is beginning to become less and less sure about his initial ideas, or at least that's my impression.
I was talking about these materialists.

you were totally right about the type of materialism I am fighting against, and it's the one very popular in the academic world, that is why I am so surprised.

no ghosts or gods or other weird woo. — Pfhorrest

- you see, I 99% agree with you in principle, only I cannot agree when you say Chomsky does not believe in the ghost when he actually said "everything is ghosted and everything is immaterial." To me it sounds exactly like the opposite of what you're saying.
I think Chomsky is saying forget about the material, it is actually the opposite, meaning fields, forces, maybe even intelligence and free will. I tend to believe he actually believes in free will, but not as a consciouss process. I am also sure he definitely does not disprove it.
I do believe he actually stated that this universal ghost can be intelligent as a whole, but I am not sure about that. I am pretty sure about the rest though.

I am both, I hope. And a modern physicist to boot (doctorate in quantum mechanics). — Kenosha Kid

Super-nice. I really hope you will be objective. My father won the 1st place in physics in my country several times and I believe he was also no1 in Balkans at a time. He was a member of the international nuclear physicists (I forgot the name of the organisation, but I believe it has the headquarters in Viena). I can also say I was lucky to be friends with a guy who won no1 place in the world in physics. Well, I don't know much about physics, but I know how the things work there at the human level, and trust me when I am saying there's pure personal interest. Quantum mechanics gets in contradiction with relativity? No problem, we'll invent the quantum gravity. When that is proven to be wrong, no problem! We'll find something else, maybe a constant or some shit. Not to mention the aberrations in both relativity and quantum that you don't have to be a genious in order to spot them. As a citizen of this planet, please be an objective scientist and forget you're atheist, religious, or that you might have invested your entire time in something that is probably false.

So seeing my message was not a cause of you responding to it? — Kenosha Kid

it was definitely one of the causes. The material part is there, of course, but the abstract message was also a determinant factor.

But again that's begging the question. — Kenosha Kid

I don't get it: the feeling, perception, you name it of hunger is one of the causes and it isn't material.

I'm not sure I'll ever quite get it, less sure I could ever quite communicate mine to you, but something to chew over is always good. — Kenosha Kid

I'd love to communicate with you and with people like you. All my friends are busy with their corporate materialistic world and basically don't give a damn about these topics. On the other hand, I am a teacher with plenty of free time and curiosities alike. So I might text you sometimes.

I really think Pfhorrest was pretty right saying you have a similar vision to Chomsky's. The problem is that he isn't materialist.

I guess you were fooled by my harsh statements regarding materialism, therefore you thought I was automatically a mad christian mad at this view. You probably hate mad christians, therefore you started to defend materialism. But I am not a mad christian and another aspect of today's people is that they use science to prove or disprove God, and you arguments, even if they are intended to defend materialism, many of them do not.

Inevitably. It is, I suspect unlike your belief system, a self-correcting system. — Kenosha Kid

Than just try to laugh yourself at today's science. Seriously, future scientists will laugh their abstract asses at how we "curve" space and time by running faster.

As you just demonstrated yourself, it quite clearly is material, so problem there. — Kenosha Kid

The video itself is material. I think the image itself is made up of photons and other material stuff. But the information itself, the message of it is something abstract and immaterial and it does influence. The meaning of what you say made me write this, not the photons. That transcends matter.

It certainly doesn't have "nothing to do with going to kitchen". Can I characterise your position as this: there is either nothing causally relating two things, or the relation must be direct and unmediated? — Kenosha Kid

Nop, I didn't say that, but it's not relevant either. If hunger (immaterial) contribute to the chain of causes, than materialism is kind of f***ed.

By the way, I am starting to think that you're more a rational person than a materialist.

PS: I thought I heard Chomsky saying "our mind is cannot comprehend the reality". Materialists say they will explain everything through matter, while Chomsky says "nothing is material and the reality is too complex for our brains".

More like a conspiracy theory? — Kenosha Kid

More like a Schrodinger's cat is either dead or alive makes more sense than to say it's a combination of the two just because you, as an observer, no not have this information. But again, these are abstract things and you hate them.

If you can send me a video link that is not encoded materially, please do. — Kenosha Kid

You are totally right: loys of information (maybe all of it) is inside matter. Wait, what? Did I say information? Damn it, that's not material, therefore it does not exist.

As for the hunger argument, I have nothing more to say. You've totally convinced me that hunger has nothing to do with going to kitchen. I already feel I got smarter and soon I'll become a true materialist.

Ok, I think I have to admit I was wrong all the time, after all you are two, so the majority wins.
But I'll be less sad if you explain me how "...everything is immaterial" is consistent to materialism. And by the way, Chomsky is considered to be a materialistic agnostic and he actually said he identifies himself neither with materialism nor with idealism.
Regarding Kenosha Kid, I think we actually starting to agree on many things, particularly because I do not see his arguments in favor of what I understand to be materialism, but rather with what Chomsky says, as you interestingly noticed.
So the only thing remained to be seen is that actually Noam is indeed materialist. If he is, than I have simply no arguments left.
So please bombard me with arguments.

Empirically and independently verified dementia... probably isn't dementia. Or do you think science is some kind of mass hallucination? :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

They just validate their own theories and it's really not that hard to do that. Again, science has to be objective and there are many scientists who do not agree with today's way of doing science. Again, irrelevant to our debate even if I am wrong.

Now, irrespective of your personal dementia (I mean your mad beliefs :joke: ), you have surely noticed that modern physics is widely accepted by other people. — Kenosha Kid

Torture, rape or magic were accepted and popular among societies. I am sure future scientists will laugh at today's science.

Apologies — Kenosha Kid

no need, you fonally agree with me. So you admit that a combination of atoms can change the paradigm: from fluid to rigid, or from consciousless to conscious. Why don't extrapolate and say from pure matter to information or from deterministic to non-deterministic?

And let me remind you of your stated scope for this discussion: — Kenosha Kid

No need to, I just couldn't resist. Determinism...

It's 4 mins and it clearly says what I said — Eugen

So "evqerything is immaterial" is a materialistic view. Interesting...

He simply says nature isn't material (he literally said that) and in numerous other videos he states that experiments only show that there's aparently no such thing as consciouss decision, but at the same time, that doesn't disprove free will. He stresses the fact that in fact that the biggest secret doesn't lie in consciousness and that the world is incompressible for our brain. It really doesn't seem to be a materialistic view at all.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VoRmqbPFasE&t=203s

It's 4 mins and it clearly says what I said

It’s half an hour long, that’s not “short” just to confirm — Pfhorrest

The video is 5 mins. I will send you the link

Timestamp — Pfhorrest

the video is very short, please watch it, because he mentions in different parts. If you don't want to, please trust my word hehe.

That's (2) by definition. — Kenosha Kid

No, it isn't. Regarding the forces that govern the matter, I actually almost agree with you, except 2 things:
1. You've mentioned space matter curvature, which I believe to be utterly dementia, but hey... welcome to modern science! I do not believe in modern physics, simply because everything is considered to fall under our observation, and that's subjective. Science must be objective. Still, irrelevant to our discussion.
2. I am pretty sure the laws of physics are connected with matter, but I am not sure if matter determines the laws, viceversa, or it's something inbetween. You seem to be pretty sure matter determines the laws and there's absolutely no proof in this sense. But again, irrelevant to our debate.
The thing is that this is indeed connected with (2), but all similarities between (2) and (4) end here.

So, biology (deterministic or not), has a clear purpose, evolution has a purpose and life beings have all sorts of purposes. The rest of the Universe doesn't seem to have, it's just lifeless pointless and purposeleess matter (that if you ignore the fine tuning argument, which scares the hell out of materialists). So there are two dimensions - purposless and purpose-driven and they actually do not exclude each other, as materialists suggest.

Intelligence and consciousness - atoms aren't conscious and they have no purpose nor intelligence. 0 all the way. If you combine 0 with 0 you get 0. Not on this one, because a certain combination of atoms brings self-awareness, purpose and intelligence, not to mention perception, thoughts or the sensation of happiness. In the worst case, it brings the illusion of all mentioned, but anyway, as I've said, immaterial.

So if the universe has (and it has) both lifeless, pointless matter and purpose-driven matter, I don't see why the universe cannot have a huge deterministic part, a quantum part (don't believe in this one either) and a free will part. I am just so surprised when materialists ask us to choose between those. It's just silly.

Hunger does not directly cause me to walk to the kitchen. There are a great number of steps in between — Kenosha Kid

Just enlighten my mind with that one please. Give me more details. And please be free to spot all my other errors.

Ok, found it. It clearly states: "...the world is entirely immaterial ", "...there is no material, there is no physicality".
YOUTUBE: Noam Chomsky Mind-body Problem II

For me it's a clear proof of his view.