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

If consciousness is causally efficacious then epiphenomenalism isn't correct. Materialism doesn't depend on epiphenomenalism. In fact, materialism probably excludes epiphenomenalism. Materialists are most likely to be behaviorists, identity theorists, functionalists, or eliminativists.

If consciousness is causally efficacious then epiphenomenalism isn't correct. Materialism doesn't depend on epiphenomenalism. In fact, materialism probably excludes epiphenomenalism. — Michael

No. Materialism leads to epiphenomalism. Consider physical process as vertical. Consciousness is the result of physical process but vertical, down-up. Consciousness cannot affect the state of affair, up-down, since the state of affair has already been defined by physical process. Therefore we are dealing with epiphenomena.

Materialism doesn't lead to epiphenomalism. Materialists can be behaviourists or functionists or identity theorists, etc.

Can we agree on definition of materialism given in OP?

Materialism doesn't lead to epiphenomalism. — Michael

The only way around this problem for materialists is by declaring consciousness some sort of illusion, without providing any theory of how or why fundamental quanta would create such illusions. Of course, materialists could even go so far as denying there is any such thing as consciousness but that dog won't hunt.

The only way around this problem for materialists is by declaring consciousness some sort of illusion — Rich

Why? Can't they say that consciousness is real, just physical in nature? Besides, the above seems rather self-defeating. Are illusions physical, or are they also an illusion ... which is also an illusion ... etc.?

Why? Can't they say that consciousness is real, just physical in nature? — Michael

Of course they can, simply by redefining the meaning of physical. But at this point, materialism loses all meaning. Instead what we have is a philosophy which I embrace where consciousness is just the fundamental basis for everything and matter is a condensed/deadened form of consciousness. That would be nice if materialists went that route.

How is it redefining the physical?

How is it redefining the physical? — Michael

Most people think of physical as something that can be causal in some manner. I would be delighted if biologists (specifically) admitted that consciousness causes things - such as evolution. That would be wonderful.

Most people think of physical as something that can be causal in some manner. I would be delighted if biologists (specifically) admitted that consciousness causes things - such as evolution. That would be wonderful. — Rich

And the materialist who equates consciousness with brain states (for example) will say that consciousness (brain states) causes things. So there's no redefinition.

And the materialist who equates consciousness with brain states ( — Michael

Well now you are calling "states" physical. It's rather amusing to observe the contortions. Always trying to hide consciousness somewhere without admitting to it.

A "state" in this case can be understood as the way the world is, some particular arrangement that you pick out in a proposition or sentence or something of that sort.. No one said the states are physical, because one need not assume a state is a thing in and of itself.

One could argue that consciousness is material, for it exists in context with a material mind. What significant area of thought is this leading to though?

A "state" in this case can be understood as the way the world is, — MindForged

I realize this. So now a state is physical.

I have no problem with this. Everything is physical including consciousness and consciousness can cause, create, and evolve. Fine. Quantum states are consciousness. Beautiful. This is what I believe.

material mind. — celebritydiscodave

And it keeps going. The big bugaboo with materialism. That darn mind.

Well now you are calling "states" physical. It's rather amusing to observe the contortions. Always trying to hide consciousness somewhere without admitting to it. — Rich

What are you talking about?

A state isn't an object, it cannot be physical. If one equates brain states with consciousness, one is not saying a "state" is a physical thing nor does it entail your favorite quantum woo.

What are you talking about? — Michael

The brain is consciousness. You just said it. Fine. So is the gut which is also transmitting signals to the brain. I like it.

A state isn't an object, it cannot be physical. If one equates brain states with consciousness, one is not saying a "state" is a physical thing nor does it entail your favorite quantum woo. — MindForged

A state isn't physical. Ok. So consciousness isn't physical. Back to the illusion thing.

Materialist contortionism.

A state isn't physical. — Rich

I have no idea what you mean.

There's a bunch of physical matter in a particular state, i.e. arranged in a particular way and behaving a certain way. That's perfectly consistent with materialism.

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

Personally I'm not a 'materialist'. But the article you quote can be easily accommodated within a materialist/physicalist account. Either 'conscious awareness' is itself physiologically based, or it supervenes on the physical here.

There's a bunch of physical matter in a particular state, i.e. arranged in a particular way and behaving a certain way. That's perfectly consistent with materialism. — Michael

Gosh, this is like a slippery eel.

WHAT IS MIND?

Please take a deep breath and instead of taking all sides to all things, figure out what you are trying to say and then say it.

Personally I'm not a 'materialist'. But the article you quote can be easily accommodated within a materialist/physicalist account. Either 'conscious awareness' is itself physiologically based, or it supervenes on the physical here. — mcdoodle

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.

Gosh, this is like a slippery eel.

WHAT IS MIND?

Please take a deep breath and instead of taking all sides to all things, figure out what you are trying to say and then say it. — Rich

I know what I'm trying to say. The materialist may argue that consciousness is identical to a particular arrangement and behaviour of matter (e.g. the brain and its activity). You seem to have some issue with the term "state" and are saying something about states not being physical. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm asking you to clarify it.

I know what I'm trying to say. The materialist may argue that consciousness is identical to a particular arrangement and behaviour of matter (e.g. the brain and its activity). You seem to have some issue with the term "state" and are saying something about states not being physical. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm asking you to clarify it. — Michael

We have a bit of a problem if trying to explain the theory of how consciousness materializes out of a "state" that is continuously changing persistent". Magic? It just happens? The "Thermodynamic Imperative". Or is it just dogma?

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

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.

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 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.

We have a bit of a problem if trying to explain the theory of how consciousness materializes out of a "state" that is continuously changing persistent". Magic? It just happens? The "Thermodynamic Imperative". Or is it just dogma? — Rich

The materialist won't say that consciousness "materialises" out of a state. They will say that consciousness is that state. The distinction between "consciousness" and "organic matter with electrical impulses" is a false one.

consciousness is a physical process. — Michael

If consciousness is physical then it is causal. It can create brain waves.

If consciousness is physical then it is causal. It can create brain waves. — Rich

The materialist might say that consciousness is those brain waves.

The materialist will say that consciousness is those brain waves. — Michael

Really? Fine. Consciousness is physical and causal. 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.