Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ill_Spread_6434 t1_j35oe1v wrote

Great read- what do you think came first the chicken of matter or the egg of consciousness ?

15

zaceno t1_j36dqsw wrote

Regardless of my own personal beliefs I think it’s important to recognize that this question of the primacy of mind or matter is in fact a question of belief as there is no way (as of yet) to conclusively dismiss either theory.

This “problem” stands in reproach to the staunch materialist atheists who take such pride in being so purely logical and scientific (and by implication smarter & better). The simple fact is that their outlook is based on belief too.

20

kfpswf t1_j3745zo wrote

>Regardless of my own personal beliefs I think it’s important to recognize that this question of the primacy of mind or matter is in fact a question of belief as there is no way (as of yet) to conclusively dismiss either theory.

You can have an unintended experience that can jolt you out of your current beliefs. Isn't it what this article is about? A highly decorated astronaut, who had no such predilection to spirituality, yet an indescribable experience turned him towards it.

Or take Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) who was a Harvard professor of psychology, yet went on to become a baba because of the experiences he had on psilocybin, and the resolution he found for his own inner turmoil in Hinduism?

How do you explain that with the assertion you've made.

>This “problem” stands in reproach to the staunch materialist atheists who take such pride in being so purely logical and scientific (and by implication smarter & better). The simple fact is that their outlook is based on belief too.

The word you're looking for is "dogma". And yes, the materialist atheist are as dogmatic as the religious nuts when it comes to their vehemence. I should know, I was one of them.

1

EyeYouRis t1_j37y9fy wrote

Lol I know you didn't mean this, but I feel like I need to say that I don't think being "purely logical and scientific" supports materialism at all.

At this point, there is no concrete empirical evidence of consciousness and I think something like panpsychism is the least logically flawed explanation of consciousness, at least in theory.

1

Cardellini_Updates t1_j3ts746 wrote

You can ascribe panprotopsychism to Lenin - who saw the capacity of reflection as fundamental in manner - and that philosopher was the materialist to end all materialists. I believe Engels comes out with much the same stripes (Anti-Duhring)

Dennet - as a mechanical materialist - called materialism the quest to always find cranes building taller cranes. When you find something tall, a high level of organization, you look for how it was built up from below. This contrasts against religious / idealist thought - where a skyhook swoops in a gives you structure from the heavens, build by the ordained hand of God (Intelligent Design for example - very bad theory!)

I think we have sufficient evidence against miracles, FWIW.

Marx extends similar thinking to politics and economy - rather than derive society from ideas, one derives our ideas from our society - and the objective factors dominate over the subjective factors ("Social being determines Social Consciousness").

Albeit Marx is also a dialectics guy, as is Lenin and Engels obv -and this contrasts against my earlier accussation of Dennett as a mechanical materialist. (This FYI has very important results for how Dennett describes consciousness as illusory, versus how Marx&Co see biological evolution having developed the unique causal powers of consciousness, a result whivh cannot be reduced as a quantitative sum of its elements)


My take on being a materialist, is there is that which is unaware of its being, unconsciousness, comes before, and outnumbers, any conscious results - this blind essence swirls into causal nodes without planning, where reality then interacts with itself without planning - within this swirl, things fold into themselves, reality is condensed. And in this point of compression, ordered without⁶ a plan to have been orderly, reality may then engage in reflection - holistic management that rides nonconconscious chaos.

This is simply the next level of propagating being. It happens just the same in many places - much how hydrogen condensed to trillions of stars -, and so these protoconsciousness nodes, in a sense, are reduced to being considered nonconconscious once we raise our analysis up a level - and consider how yhe plurality of those nodes are now brought into unplanned and chaotic organization that each node fails to understand its place in.

But the same coalescing of order out of chaos repeats. From chaos, order again, and a qualitatively new level of analysis to consider. Atoms, to cells, cells, to animals, animals, to social packs, social packs, to modern civilization.

To restate: Out of chaos, order emerges, where the order is the manner in which the unconscious activity organizes to regular, holistic determination by the whole on the whole - conscious reflection. And that this is the building block of consciousness - enabling higher levels of activity to emerge - from the bottom working all the way to the top (and our thoughts).


>At this point, there is no concrete empirical evidence of consciousness

We have an interaction with reality. You are reading this now. We call this consciousness. This is sufficient evidence that something is occurring, with sufficient standardization - the evolution of brain states accords to discrete realizations of data, concentrated to a single experience, that enable our brain to engage global executive functions, problem solving, long term planning.

You can think! You exist! This is data!

1