Under materialism, consciousness cannot have any causal effect on the state of affair since the state of affair is defined in term of physical process. This leads to epiphenomena. What I am arguing is that consciousness has a causal effect on state of affair therefore materialism, given the definition in OP, is not correct. — bahman

I'm just saying that the present-day 'materialist' or physicalist argument is more sophisticated than this. Their argument is that there is a set of explanations that use 'mental' language, as yours does, and that this is a rational set of explanations, but that nevertheless there is ultimately an underlying physical explanation, but without a one-to-one correspondence between the 'mental' event and the 'physical' event. Instead the one supervenes on the other. That's their argument. As I say, I don't agree with it, but in my view you need a better argument than the one you've come up with so far to deny supervenience.

Really? Fine. That is what the Daoist say. Consciousness causes the brain waves. You have unified mind and consciousness under materialism. They are one and the same. I'm with you.

However, I think you may find materialists quite in flurry over this. — Rich

I don't know anything about Daoism, so I can't really comment. But at least with the monisms I'm familiar with there's an alleged difference between saying "all is material" and saying "all is immaterial". Whereas the materialist will say "consciousness is brain waves and brain waves are material, and so therefore consciousness is material", the immaterialist will say "brain waves are consciousness and consciousness is immaterial, and so therefore brain waves are immaterial".

Simply saying that consciousness and brain waves are identical is only half the picture, and the other half may be where the materialist and the Daoist disagree.

consciousness and brain waves are identical is only half the picture. — Michael

No. This is the full picture and the word gymnastics are irrelevant.

If they are identical (they are) then they are identical. The rest is materialist contortionism.

Then what's the difference between materialism and immaterialism; between physicalism and idealism?

Then what's the difference between materialism and immaterialism; between physicalism and idealism? — Michael

Materialism is not as you understand it or would like to understand it.

My advice is don't try to understand it because it is nonsense and cannot be understood.

Materialism is not as you understand it or would like to understand it.

My advice is don't try to understand it because it is nonsense and cannot be understood. — Rich

As opposed to Daoism, which is clear and reasonable?

As opposed to Daoism, which is clear and reasonable? — Michael

Absolutely. Daoism is based upon observation by people who are attempting to understand nature and life as it is being experienced, unlike materialism which is goal-oriented. Unbelievable there are still apostles of materialism despite the 100 year history of quantum mechanics. Most people in college are still taught the antiquated 17th century view of physics just to keep materialism alive. Pretty pathetic.

Ok, no one is advocating the same sort of materialism as in the 17th century. There's a reason a few people have mentioned "physicalism". You are simply choosing to overreact rather than try to understand what was said. Also, how is materialism (physicalism) goal-oriented??? I honestly can't tell if you are just messing around.

Ok, no one is advocating the same sort of materialism as in the 17th century. — MindForged

Yes, it is exactly the same only minor contortionist tweaks like "selfish genes" and "Thermodynamic Imperative". There is no such thing as "material" for 100 years. Materialism doesn't exist (as the Daoists observed).

But academia keeps it alive.

Materialism is a system of belief which emphasizes that physical process can explain all phenomena in the world. Consciousness therefore is an epiphenomenon within materialism since it is not a physical process but outcome of a physical process. We however know that consciousness is necessary for learning (please read the following article). This means that consciousness is causally efficacious. Therefore materialism is not correct.

If consciousness is the result certain potential processes of matter which occurs only when matter is constructed in a certain manner this suggests a form of panpsychism. This is the only coherent answer I have found and to believe otherwise I think is to believe in some sort of magic.

So while screw, chairs, and rocks are not aware, virus, amoebas, plants and man display spontaneous movements demonstrating an awareness which these other items do not share.


The experiment you referred to is interesting, but what I think it is pointing out is that perception is a durational process whereby what is sensed must be processed prior to our being conscious of what is perceived. This process is estimated to take between 200 & 500 milliseconds, and the experiment only put the arrow up for 33 milliseconds, but if our sensory process starts processing, then it makes sense that this would have an effect when the image was reintroduced for a longer duration.

Yes, it is exactly the same only minor contortionist tweaks like "selfish genes" and "Thermodynamic Imperative". There is no such thing as "material" for 100 years. Materialism doesn't exist (as the Daoists observed).

But academia keeps it alive.

Oh bullshit man. The current view of the nature of the universe, even just from the standpoint of physics, has radically changed since the 17th century. Few are suggesting we live in a Newtonian universe anymore. Also, "materialism doesn't exist" seems like a really silly sentence. Possibly, materialism is false, but that aside, no one is advocating for the same view of the universe. You are just being thick headed for reasons I cannot grasp.

The study referenced in the article doesn't actually show that. It shows that we're better at learning when we're conscious, not that we're better at learning because of consciousness.

It might be that consciousness emerges from brain state A but doesn't emerge from brain state B and that brain state A helps with learning. This explains the findings of the study without inferring that consciousness plays a causal role. — Michael

Could you learn the content of a book while unconsciously reading it and your consciousness is busy with somewhere else, listening to music for example?

This doesn't follow. Under materialism it can be that consciousness has a causal effect because consciousness is a physical process. Your starting assumption – that consciousness isn't a physical process – is anti-materialist. — Michael

So we have a physical process which cause a brain state which is a physical process, lets call it mental process, yet the mental process affects the physical process? So you won't see that my particles obey laws of nature if you look at them?

I'm just saying that the present-day 'materialist' or physicalist argument is more sophisticated than this. Their argument is that there is a set of explanations that use 'mental' language, as yours does, and that this is a rational set of explanations, but that nevertheless there is ultimately an underlying physical explanation, but without a one-to-one correspondence between the 'mental' event and the 'physical' event. Instead the one supervenes on the other. That's their argument. As I say, I don't agree with it, but in my view you need a better argument than the one you've come up with so far to deny supervenience. — mcdoodle

That is the best materialist argument that I know. Do you have or know a better argument than that? Any reference?

So we have a physical process which cause a brain state which is a physical process, lets call it mental process, yet the mental process affects the physical process? So you won't see that my particles obey laws of nature if you look at them? — bahman

The brain state is the physical process. That brain state causally influences the world, most notably the central nervous system. All of this can be seen.

If consciousness is the result certain potential processes of matter which occurs only when matter is constructed in a certain manner this suggests a form of panpsychism. This is the only coherent answer I have found and to believe otherwise I think is to believe in some sort of magic. — Cavacava

I can buy that but the question is whether consciousness has any causal effect at all. We know it by fact that we learn things when we pay attention to them. This means that consciousness has a causal effect on physical process which created it!

Quoting John Searle :D

I gave you a scientific demonstration by raising my hand, but how is that possible? How can it be that this thought in my brain can move material objects? Well, I will tell you the answer. I mean we don’t know the detailed answer, but we know the basic part of the answer — and that is, there are sequences of neuron firings and they terminate where the acetylcholine is secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons, sorry to use philosophical terminology here. But when it is secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons, a whole lot of wonderful things happen in the ion channels and the damned arm goes up.

What I think is important here is that my thought sets off a chain of physical processes that end up with my arm going up.

Oh bullshit man. The current view of the nature of the universe, even just from the standpoint of physics, has radically changed since the 17th century. — MindForged

What a mess it educational system is in. Like I said, they are still teaching 17thb century physics. You are evidence of it.

This means that consciousness has a causal effect on physical process which created it! — bahman

There is zero evidence or any kind of theory of how so-called material processes (which as of 100 years ago no longer exist), creates consciousness. One can easily say, with equal validity that consciousness causes processes that materialize as the brain - most especially if they are considered equivalent (they are).

I really don't know how to get through to you. We know that in a certain sense, Newtonian physics is wrong (even if close enough to true below light speed), but the materialist worldview of that time has been dead for a long time. Seriously, just peruse the SEP article on physicalism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#Ter

, but the materialist worldview of that time has been dead for a long time — MindForged

Yep, materialism is flat out dead. So be it. But still it is taught as if it isn't. Lots of money to be made trading people to believe they are just computer bots without intelligence.

That is the best materialist argument that I know. Do you have or know a better argument than that? Any reference? — bahman

Jaegwon Kim is the man. 'Philosophy of Mind'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaegwon_Kim

Materialism is a system of belief which emphasizes that physical process can explain all phenomena in the world. Consciousness therefore is an epiphenomenon within materialism since it is not a physical process but outcome of a physical process. We however know that consciousness is necessary for learning (please read the following article). This means that consciousness is causally efficacious. Therefore materialism is not correct. — bahman

Do causes even exist?

If causes do not exist, does any question about materialism even matter?

Materialism is a system of belief which emphasizes that physical process can explain all phenomena in the world. Consciousness therefore is an epiphenomenon within materialism since it is not a physical process but outcome of a physical process. We however know that consciousness is necessary for learning (please read the following article). This means that consciousness is causally efficacious. Therefore materialism is not correct. — bahman

What does it mean to be a physical process as opposed to a non-physical process?

Computers are excellent analogies of the mind-body relationship. What the software on the computer does is dependent on input (bottom-up). The computer then produces output based on the interaction of the software and the input (top-down).

The computer can be designed to learn - to change it's programming on the fly based on new input, which can be it's own output.

The physical vs. non-physical distinction is the illusion. When consciousness is caused and causes, in a relationship with the world, talking about different substances is ridiculous. It is neither physical nor non-physical. It is all information.

The brain state is the physical process. That brain state causally influences the world, most notably the central nervous system. All of this can be seen. — Michael

That is the process which does the job. The brain state is an simple index which we use to differentiate different state from each other. Are you suggesting that brain state is consciousness?

It is all information — Harry Hindu

Information is passive, inactive.

Consciousness is active. It creates. It makes choices by effect of will. It moves in a direction. Another aspect of consciousness is memory (information) that it influences this willful, creative drive.

Any model of consciousness has in one form or another both memory (information) and impulse (will applied in a specific direction), whether or not it is explicit it hidden in some other concept.

Are you suggesting that brain state is consciousness? — bahman

I'm saying that that is what some materialists will claim. See The Mind/Brain Identity Theory. Contrary to your repeated claims, materialism doesn't entail epiphenomenalism.

What I think is important here is that my thought sets off a chain of physical processes that end up with my arm going up. — Cavacava

What is missing in his argument is that how a thought is created and can have a causal effect.

Do causes even exist?

If causes do not exist, does any question about materialism even matter? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, cause exists. It explains how a piece of matter affects another piece.

Thanks for the article.

What does it mean to be a physical process as opposed to a non-physical process?

Computers are excellent analogies of the mind-body relationship. What the software on the computer does is dependent on input (bottom-up). The computer then produces output based on the interaction of the software and the input (top-down).

The computer can be designed to learn - to change it's programming on the fly based on new input, which can be it's own output.

The physical vs. non-physical distinction is the illusion. When consciousness is caused and causes, in a relationship with the world, talking about different substances is ridiculous. It is neither physical nor non-physical. It is all information. — Harry Hindu

I don't know anything like non-physical process.