Philosophy and Physics agree about God?

[_Maksutov]

This isn't a bunch of black boxes.

We know what each of the sensory organs does. We know how to enhance, repair, even replace parts of them. We know where they tie into the brain. We know where they tie into the brain. We have watched activity in those areas in real time. The combination of sensory inputs, organizing faculties and other neurological features we are only beginning to understand--but will--constitute consciousness.

Note that I did not need to use the terms "physicalism" or "materialism" or "idealism" or "philosophy" or any other abstraction beyond the facts above. I did not even use the words "irrelevant", "red herring", or "anachronism", either, in reference to the insistence on dualism and defense of arguments in support of it.

I'm not saying it is a bunch of black boxes. I used to work in a neuroscience lab Mak. I focused on physiological psych in college. I think you'll have to trust that I know a fair amount about the science of the brain.

I think what I asked you to consider didn't actually land. Imagine that your experience of color (the greeness of green if you will) was purely mental. There is no "green" in the world out there - only in your thoughts. This does not mean there isn't a photons of different wavelengths. It means that "greeness" is a mental property. Imagine the feeling of a solid object. I'm sure you know that solid objects are almost entirely made up of empty space. Their firmness is you detecting electromagnetic interactions. Let's say the experience of "solid" is a mental construct. Now, if you are holding onto that notion, apply it to every other category of property you normally think of as physical. Time, space, etc. Even the very language you use to describe quantum mechanics and how the brain operates in the world is entirely made up of metal constructs. The only thing you ever get know are mental properties and therefore the world as you know it is purely mental.

I'm not saying this position is correct. I'm asking you to hold it in your brain for a second to contemplate it. Do you see how simply pointing out that only things with brains have consciousness doesn't refute it?

I understand that qualia exist. But they're rooted in material things. You see a contradiction where I don't, apparently.

[_EAllusion]

I understand that qualia exist. But they're rooted in material things. You see a contradiction where I don't, apparently.

Dennett would be disappointed in you. I'm not saying qualia, therefore idealism. I'm pointing out a transcendental idealist position and trying to explain why the basic observation that you think is QED: Physicalism doesn't refute it on its own. I'm not an idealist myself.

[_Chap]

Maksutov:

I see you are having a lot of fun here. ...

Do you feel a bit like a vampire in an old Boris Karloff film?

Only people aren't saying "Quick! Make a cross out of some twigs!" , it's more like "Quick, do some philosophy!

Like you, I don't see anything around in this world other than the brain that seems to have an interestingly complex relation with consciousness. And the brain is something we are finding more and more about.

When someone shows me something else that seems to have as close a relationship with consciousness as the brain, and moreover seems to be capable of being made an object of knowledge in the same way that the brain is, I shall take an interest. I really shall!

Till then, people can shout "You're a physicalist!" as much as they like. And I shall just smile and answer "You don't say! Well that's too bad."

[Guest]

Maksutov:

I see you are having a lot of fun here. ...

Do you feel a bit like a vampire in an old Boris Karloff film?

Only people aren't saying "Quick! Make a cross out of some twigs!" , it's more like "Quick, do some philosophy!

Like you, I don't see anything around in this world other than the brain that seems to have an interestingly complex relation with consciousness. And the brain is something we are finding more and more about.

When someone shows me something else that seems to have as close a relationship with consciousness as the brain, and moreover seems to be capable of being made an object of knowledge in the same way that the brain is, I shall take an interest. I really shall!

Till then, people can shout "You're a physicalist!" as much as they like. And I shall just smile and answer "You don't say! Well that's too bad."

Philosophy is fine, in a historical context. I see it more as a protoscience, as a transitional stage in the development of modern science. I will be happy to consider philosophical breakthroughs but I will be more impressed by results than by someone decrying my ignorance and lack of education.

I've recently been reading about the planetary theories of Immanuel Kant, for example. I give him a lot of credit for operating in the mid 18th century. But he confidently stated that all of the planets were inhabited, by races of beings who became more advanced the farther they were from the Sun.

In his time these "fruits of philosophy" were worth considering. But as instrumentation improved and data increased, the philosopher took back seat to the astronomer. For all of the disdain of science as mere technology, it has also multiplied our powers of perception and analysis to vastly broaden what is--and can be--known.

[_DrW]

]Do you still insist on referring to me as a physicalist after all this?

Without reservation. But hey just read the comments, your the one sitting in the cumfy respected leather chair with a pipe with all the other physicalists; while I am just the lowly woo-ey guy, you should be happy about that. Please don't take that as passive agressive, it's just a joke.

Mikwut,

Alright then - philosophical physicalist it is, I guess. So, as a newly out of the closet physicalist, let me re-ask you a couple of questions. These will not be essay questions, just yes / no - true / false.

For simplicity, let's assume that the concepts of consciousness, universal consciousness, mental universe, and (since you are a proud theist) The Holy Spirit, and (why not) The Light of Christ, are all represented by an omnipresent mind force as you described it up thread.

1. In your view, could the "mind force" could be represented by a field?

2. If so, would you accept that this mind force field would be quantized?

3. Does it make sense to you that this mind force would exert its effects in the real world through interactions with other known forces?

4 Specifically, would you think that electric and / or magnetic fields might interact with the mind force field?

Please don't hesitate to answer these questions. As I think you can see, we have come down to a stand-off as to right or wrong, and the best we can try for now is better understanding.

[_mikwut]

Hi DrW,

For simplicity, let's assume that the concepts of consciousness, universal consciousness, mental universe, and (since you are a proud theist) The Holy Spirit, and (why not) The Light of Christ, are all represented by an omnipresent mind force as you described it up thread.

1. In your view, could the "mind force" could be represented by a field?

I don't think so. I didn't call it a mind force. I gave an example (possibly a poor one) of will or mental force or intent making physical changes on the brain, a top down argument rather than bottom up one. But that shouldn't be confused with me describing the fundamental character of reality as "mind force". Think of the original example of color I gave you in the first part of this thread. EAllusion has repeated it to Maksutov above. The idealist fundamental is simply mental rather than physical, it is what is left after you have reduced everything to the mental. You could say unbounded mind at large. Bernardo Kastrup uses the term, "That Which Experiences".

2. If so, would you accept that this mind force field would be quantized?

No. It is more fundamental. It can be implied from some of the findings of quantum mechanics because many of those findings are so queer even bizarre from a materialist lens.

3. Does it make sense to you that this mind force would exert its effects in the real world through interactions with other known forces?

It is the effects. You could think of your body as an avatar in a collective dream, like in the movie Inception. The brain, in my view, is just an image of a mental process, Kastrup gives the apt analogy to how flames are just an image of the process of combustion. For the same reason that flames aren't the cause of fire -- but the image of fire -- the brain isn't the cause of mind, but an image of a mental process.

4 Specifically, would you think that electric and / or magnetic fields might interact with the mind force field?

Again everything physical is the image of a mental process. Everything, your still trying to have physicalism be the backdrop - it isn't in this view.

mikwut

[_Maksutov]

Hi DrW,

For simplicity, let's assume that the concepts of consciousness, universal consciousness, mental universe, and (since you are a proud theist) The Holy Spirit, and (why not) The Light of Christ, are all represented by an omnipresent mind force as you described it up thread.

1. In your view, could the "mind force" could be represented by a field?

I don't think so. I didn't call it a mind force. I gave an example (possibly a poor one) of will or mental force or intent making physical changes on the brain, a top down argument rather than bottom up one. But that shouldn't be confused with me describing the fundamental character of reality as "mind force". Think of the original example of color I gave you in the first part of this thread. EAllusion has repeated it to Maksutov above. The idealist fundamental is simply mental rather than physical, it is what is left after you have reduced everything to the mental. You could say unbounded mind at large. Bernardo Kastrup uses the term, "That Which Experiences".

2. If so, would you accept that this mind force field would be quantized?

No. It is more fundamental. It can be implied from some of the findings of quantum mechanics because many of those findings are so queer even bizarre from a materialist lens.

3. Does it make sense to you that this mind force would exert its effects in the real world through interactions with other known forces?

It is the effects. You could think of your body as an avatar in a collective dream, like in the movie Inception. The brain, in my view, is just an image of a mental process, Kastrup gives the apt analogy to how flames are just an image of the process of combustion. For the same reason that flames aren't the cause of fire -- but the image of fire -- the brain isn't the cause of mind, but an image of a mental process.

4 Specifically, would you think that electric and / or magnetic fields might interact with the mind force field?

Again everything physical is the image of a mental process. Everything, your still trying to have physicalism be the backdrop - it isn't in this view.

mikwut

This sounds like the Vedic concept of Maya, updated for the cyber age.

[_mikwut]

Hello Mak,

Yes idealism resonates a great deal with Eastern thought that is no secret, but it is found in Christian idealism and Jewish idealism as well. I'm still wondering if you can meet the Randi Challenge and save realism because pointing out resonating views with it doesn't provide any evidence against it.

mikwut

[_DrW]

Hi DrW,

For simplicity, let's assume that the concepts of consciousness, universal consciousness, mental universe, and (since you are a proud theist) The Holy Spirit, and (why not) The Light of Christ, are all represented by an omnipresent mind force as you described it up thread.

1. In your view, could the "mind force" could be represented by a field?

I don't think so. I didn't call it a mind force. I gave an example (possibly a poor one) of will or mental force or intent making physical changes on the brain, a top down argument rather than bottom up one. But that shouldn't be confused with me describing the fundamental character of reality as "mind force". Think of the original example of color I gave you in the first part of this thread. EAllusion has repeated it to Maksutov above. The idealist fundamental is simply mental rather than physical, it is what is left after you have reduced everything to the mental. You could say unbounded mind at large. Bernardo Kastrup uses the term, "That Which Experiences".

2. If so, would you accept that this mind force field would be quantized?

No. It is more fundamental. It can be implied from some of the findings of quantum mechanics because many of those findings are so queer even bizarre from a materialist lens.

3. Does it make sense to you that this mind force would exert its effects in the real world through interactions with other known forces?

It is the effects. You could think of your body as an avatar in a collective dream, like in the movie Inception. The brain, in my view, is just an image of a mental process, Kastrup gives the apt analogy to how flames are just an image of the process of combustion. For the same reason that flames aren't the cause of fire -- but the image of fire -- the brain isn't the cause of mind, but an image of a mental process.

4 Specifically, would you think that electric and / or magnetic fields might interact with the mind force field?

Again everything physical is the image of a mental process. Everything, your still trying to have physicalism be the backdrop - it isn't in this view.

mikwut

Mikwut,

Thanks you for your response. You are correct, the term you used was "mental force" - not mind force.

However, I assume that your response would be the same had I used the term you did.

How can you rationalize your belief in a personal God within the context of the reality you describe?

If it is all in the mind, and of the mind, and there are no space filling fields or forces, how does an omnipotent and omniscient being who exists outside of space and time ever make it in there?

[_EAllusion]

Idealism has a history starting from the ancient Greeks to the present with every imaginable religious perspective held by famous idealist thinkers. If the fear here is that idealism = religion, then nope.