I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

No it's not conscious at all and a more complex device could be fabricated which can perform all the behaviours of a human and it would be no more conscious than the bi-metallic strip. For example the character of Data in Star Trek, no consciousness whatsoever.


Okay, good starting point. Now, suppose I invent a new thermostat. Instead of a bi-metallic strip, it contains a bacterium that I've selected because it has flagella that move faster at higher temperatures. The rest of the device consists of an elaborate life-support system to feed nutrients and oxygen to the bacterium, and a microscope-camera and computer that figures out the temperature from how fast the flagella are waving, and activates the heater when the temperature is below the pre-set lower threshold. So it performs the same function and has the same results as the bi-metallic thermostat.

Same questions. Is this one conscious, even a little bit?
 
How do they know? Is it because they are programmed to give the response that they know something.


Ah, the old "computers only repeat what the programmer puts in" canard.

You do know that it's possible to examine program code and tell whether it's outputting pre-programmed strings of data or not. Otherwise why would companies pay millions to have their data examined by IBM's Watson, if for all they knew Watson was just repeating numbers previously fed into it?

Or is your concept of what computing can and cannot do based on the behavior of non-player characters in video games?

Let me give you an example. Supposed you have a quadruped robot with all the sensors and actuators needed for the robot to walk. What is needed is the program to control the individual actuators to make it happen.

If you program a specific unvarying sequence of actuator signals that makes the robot walk, that might get you a decent grade on a weekly assignment for a college introductory undergraduate robotics course.

If you program the robot to figure out an effective gait using trial and error, with no pre-existing gait pattern templates in the program, based only on feedback from the robot's sensors, that might get you a PhD in cybernetics.

And guess what? The professors teaching the courses and sitting on the PhD thesis review boards can tell the difference. Even though the robot's gait, in the end, might look exactly the same.

How do you know whether the AI understands and means what it says rather than repeating fixed programmed responses? You examine how it works.

I do know something, that's a start.


Are you programmed to say that?
 
Okay, good starting point. Now, suppose I invent a new thermostat. Instead of a bi-metallic strip, it contains a bacterium that I've selected because it has flagella that move faster at higher temperatures. The rest of the device consists of an elaborate life-support system to feed nutrients and oxygen to the bacterium, and a microscope-camera and computer that figures out the temperature from how fast the flagella are waving, and activates the heater when the temperature is below the pre-set lower threshold. So it performs the same function and has the same results as the bi-metallic thermostat.

Same questions. Is this one conscious, even a little bit?
Living elements are conscious in a rudimentary way like all cellular lifeforms, but the device isn't.

This brings up something interesting, could one make a biological computer and if you did, would that be conscious/self-conscious?
 
That is not what I asked. I asked you if one can dematerialize objects with the mind.
No, it can't be done since mind and matter are both inseparable particular multiple expressions of one non-particular (and therefore neutral) substance.

Both of them are naturally derived from and return to the neutral substance, which is naturally simpler than its multiple expressions, including matter and mind.
 
Last edited:
Living elements are conscious in a rudimentary way like all cellular lifeforms, but the device isn't.

You keep asserting this, but were is the evidence? This is your personal belief, and nothing else.

This brings up something interesting, could one make a biological computer and if you did, would that be conscious/self-conscious?

Yes one could, but why would it be different from an electronic one?

Hans
 
Living elements are conscious in a rudimentary way like all cellular lifeforms, but the device isn't.


Okay, we'll disregard the rest of the device and focus on the bacterium. Next thought experiment: I breed a bacterium based on the one described, but with all its genes deleted except for those responsible for the formation of the cell membrane, fluid biostasis across that membrane (keeping the cell properly inflated), and the temperature-dependent flagella. The engineered bacterium no longer has any reproductive function, and its metabolic mechanisms for respiration have also been removed. Instead, the necessary energetic compounds (such as ATP) needed to power the remaining enzymes are steadily injected into the cell, and any breakdown products are filtered out, by an external mechanical device through which the cell's cytoplasm is cycled. Note that this would be exceedingly difficult to accomplish technologically, but not impossible in principle, so the thought experiment should be valid.

Is this organism still conscious in a rudimentary way?

This brings up something interesting, could one make a biological computer and if you did, would that be conscious/self-conscious?


One could certainly (and without much difficulty) make a biological computer. Unfortunately, though, it might not be possible to discuss the question in any interesting way, as long as you continue to assert the claim that all living organisms are conscious and no nonliving systems can be, without a clear rationale for so asserting. So for the time being, I'd prefer to continue to attempt to elucidate that rationale.
 
Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene. Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team. Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?
 
Last edited:
My parents tried that a few decades ago, with mixed results.
Yes, humans are produced this way regularly. But if you were to construct a biological brain out of neurons produced in Petri dishes, would it be conscious, just intelligent?
 
You keep asserting this, but were is the evidence? This is your personal belief, and nothing else.
It is my personal suspicion. As far as I can see there is insufficient evidence to determine the answer to this question.


Yes one could, but why would it be different from an electronic one?
Could? Is that a maybe, or a definite? Likewise for the electronic one?
 
Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

If the patient is alive to tell the tale then they did not die, they "almost died".

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene.

As I mentioned above, in your scenario the patient was never dead.
A memory of looking down on the scene is called an autoscopic hallucination, and this could have occurred any time during the resusitation or afterward as the patient regains consciousness.

Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team.
Having heard a conversation during the resusitation is also easily accounted for, as the patient was not dead.

Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?


Reporting the contents of a previously unknown note which was hidden from view of everyone present would indeed constitute evidence which would be difficult to explain using current knowledge of the human nervous system.

Of course this has never happened and I am quite sure it never will. It would be similar to a successful remote viewing which as I'm sure you are aware has never been demonstrated.

A successful remote viewing would not constitute "an alternative" to materialism, but would require investigation as to possible mechanism. The same could be said of successful telepathy, telekinesis, or any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen.
 
Okay, we'll disregard the rest of the device and focus on the bacterium. Next thought experiment: I breed a bacterium based on the one described, but with all its genes deleted except for those responsible for the formation of the cell membrane, fluid biostasis across that membrane (keeping the cell properly inflated), and the temperature-dependent flagella. The engineered bacterium no longer has any reproductive function, and its metabolic mechanisms for respiration have also been removed. Instead, the necessary energetic compounds (such as ATP) needed to power the remaining enzymes are steadily injected into the cell, and any breakdown products are filtered out, by an external mechanical device through which the cell's cytoplasm is cycled. Note that this would be exceedingly difficult to accomplish technologically, but not impossible in principle, so the thought experiment should be valid.
Once you start tampering with the cell, at some unknown point it would cease to be a functioning entity and become a dysfunctional body, or dead. It could perhaps be maintained in a state resembling a functioning entity, but like with the mimic, it may become little more than a puppet for our entertainment. Like frogs legs made to move using electrodes.
Is this organism still conscious in a rudimentary way?
Who knows, as we don't know what consciousness a cell has when fully functional to begin with other than by inference. Rather like our understanding of the mechanism generating human self-consciousness, it is to a certain extent inferred.



One could certainly (and without much difficulty) make a biological computer. Unfortunately, though, it might not be possible to discuss the question in any interesting way, as long as you continue to assert the claim that all living organisms are conscious and no nonliving systems can be, without a clear rationale for so asserting. So for the time being, I'd prefer to continue to attempt to elucidate that rationale.
ok, my point here is essentially we have little understanding of living things and even more so of their internal states other than through observation and inference. Indeed, (correct me if I'm wrong) any experimentation with cellular structure and generating living cells is in its infancy as far as I can see.
 
If the patient is alive to tell the tale then they did not die, they "almost died".



As I mentioned above, in your scenario the patient was never dead.
A memory of looking down on the scene is called an autoscopic hallucination, and this could have occurred any time during the resusitation or afterward as the patient regains consciousness.


Having heard a conversation during the resusitation is also easily accounted for, as the patient was not dead.




Reporting the contents of a previously unknown note which was hidden from view of everyone present would indeed constitute evidence which would be difficult to explain using current knowledge of the human nervous system.

Of course this has never happened and I am quite sure it never will. It would be similar to a successful remote viewing which as I'm sure you are aware has never been demonstrated.
A successful remote viewing would not constitute "an alternative" to materialism, but would require investigation as to possible mechanism. The same could be said of successful telepathy, telekinesis, or any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen.


How is it you are sure such things do not happen?

*****************************************************
On the phone, 3,000 miles away I mentioned to my friend that I was being called to dinner and I'd call her back later. She said "You having eggplant?" I had no idea what my friends were planning for dinner, and I said so.

When I went upstairs to dinner, eggplant parmesan was the main dish. Later, back home, I mentioned this at a gathering. Her friends and family laughed and said: "She has been doing that for decades and she is always right."
******************************************************

Let me guess, you are sure that this is included in "...any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen."

Again, how is it you can be certain of your view about my friend being always right about what's for dinner, for around 45 years?
 
Last edited:
Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene. Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team. Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?

It would, given the current definition of materialism.

Of sourse, it would have to be very well confirmed.

Hans
 
It is my personal suspicion. As far as I can see there is insufficient evidence to determine the answer to this question.

The it is intellectually dishonest of you to constantly refer to it as if it was a fact.

It is something you believe. You have no evidence for it, and quite frankly you don't appear to understand the evidence against it.


Could? Is that a maybe, or a definite?

We know how to build a computer using biological components. Mind you, it is not alive as such, but the components are biological.

Likewise for the electronic one?

Are you asking if we can build an electronic computer? The answer is yes.:rolleyes:

Hans
 
How is it you are sure such things do not happen?

*****************************************************
On the phone, 3,000 miles away I mentioned to my friend that I was being called to dinner and I'd call her back later. She said "You having eggplant?" I had no idea what my friends were planning for dinner, and I said so.

When I went upstairs to dinner, eggplant parmesan was the main dish. Later, back home, I mentioned this at a gathering. Her friends and family laughed and said: "She has been doing that for decades and she is always right."
******************************************************

Let me guess, you are sure that this is included in "...any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen."

Again, how is it you can be certain of your view about my friend being always right about what's for dinner, for around 45 years?

It is an anecdote. However, your friend's alleged ability could be tested relatively easily. Some years back, the claim would be eligible for the MDC, but I am not sure under the current rules.

Obviously, we are not ready to rewrite science because of something your friend told you on the phone.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Let me guess, you are sure that this is included in "...any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen."
People have cognitive biases which cause them to notice hits, not notice misses, vastly underestimate the likelihood of hits occurring, and attach unwarranted significance to them occurring.

Coincidences are expected to happen, and coincidences do happen. There is nothing paranormal about coincidences.

Again, how is it you can be certain of your view about my friend being always right about what's for dinner, for around 45 years?
On every single occasion that a claim such as this has been objectively tested the claim has been shown to be false. No matter how convinced the claimant was that they were right far more often than would be expected by chance, their actual success rate proved to be well within the range expected by chance. Every. Single. Time. JREF alone has tested dozens of such claims, because these cognitive biases are the root cause of belief in most supposed paranormal phenomena.

It is therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that anyone making a similar claim is likewise mistaken, until and unless they can produce objective evidence to the contrary.
 
How is it you are sure such things do not happen?

*****************************************************
On the phone, 3,000 miles away I mentioned to my friend that I was being called to dinner and I'd call her back later. She said "You having eggplant?" I had no idea what my friends were planning for dinner, and I said so.

When I went upstairs to dinner, eggplant parmesan was the main dish. Later, back home, I mentioned this at a gathering. Her friends and family laughed and said: "She has been doing that for decades and she is always right."
******************************************************

Let me guess, you are sure that this is included in "...any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen."

Again, how is it you can be certain of your view about my friend being always right about what's for dinner, for around 45 years?


The incident you report is not at all paranormal. It is a coincidence.

Your anecdote does not demonstrate that your friend was correct "always..for around 45 years" , and frankly I'm quite skeptical.

I suggest your friend start video taping, in the presence of an impartial third party,. her daily guesses and the dinners served that day if you expect anyone to believe you. I predict that a search among friends and family for who served the guessed dinner will start to occur, and the "correct" guess will involve a wider and wider circle of friends' dinners as days go by.

If you believe that this sort of coincidence is paranormal, then I'm sure you will also be convinced of any number of other ridiculous things.

How can you be certain that I am not keeping a dragon in my garage?
 
Last edited:
Who knows, as we don't know what consciousness a cell has when fully functional to begin with other than by inference. Rather like our understanding of the mechanism generating human self-consciousness, it is to a certain extent inferred.


You are the only one inferring that single cells have consciousness. There is no reason to make this assumption, it is not based on any facts whatsoever.

Human's all have an experience we call consciousness, we all know what it is, and we all talk about it. Thus, it is not inferred. The proposed mechanism by which the brain generates consciousness is an hypothesis, yes, but it is based on the fact that all the evidence indicates that the consciousness is produced by the activity of the brain.
 
Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene. Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team. Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?

No, it would be sufficient for me to know that he wasn't dead when those experiences were recorded.

How is it you are sure such things do not happen?

It's _your_ example, with _your_ parameters. We're simply looking for an explanation that fits all the given facts _and_ the known laws of physics. If you want to add something not in evidence, that's your business, but don't pretend like it's the materialists who are being irrational.

On the phone, 3,000 miles away I mentioned to my friend that I was being called to dinner and I'd call her back later. She said "You having eggplant?" I had no idea what my friends were planning for dinner, and I said so.

Do you have any idea how many things happen to you and around you in a single day ? Is it that surprising that, once every blue moon, a coincidence like this would occur ? Why is that evidence of the supernatural to you ?

Her friends and family laughed and said: "She has been doing that for decades and she is always right."

Ignoring all the misses, I'm sure. I've been there.

And as Hans said, it's easy to test.
 
Bubba, did you know that even experienced maternaty ward nurses will often swear that there are more births during full moon?

However, if you retrospectively compare daily birth statistics (available online for most developed countries) with the moon phases you will find no correlation.

How is this? Well first of all, most city people have little idea of the moon phase at any given time. If there is a busy night, they may arbitrarily decide that it is probably full moon. Or if they check, to most people 'full moon' stretches over several days where the moon appears full to the casual observer, so random chance says they will find a hit some 20% of the times. Those times where there is a busy night but NOT full moon, people will say, "oh, it must be some other reason this time", thus even then confirming the notion.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Bubba, did you know that even experienced maternaty ward nurses will often swear that there are more births during full moon?
Yes, it's quite true! I've worked with them. Same goes certain personnel working in the emergency room.

However, if you retrospectively compare daily birth statistics (available online for most developed countries) with the moon phases you will find no correlation.

How is this? Well first of all, most city people have little idea of the moon phase at any given time. If there is a busy night, they may arbitrarily decide that it is probably full moon. Or if they check, to most people 'full moon' stretches over several days where the moon appears full to the casual observer, so random chance says they will find a hit some 20% of the times. Those times where there is a busy night but NOT full moon, people will say, "oh, it must be some other reason this time", thus even then confirming the notion.

Hans


They are sure it's the full moon, and when I say "confirmation bias" they have no idea what I'm on about.
 
Once you start tampering with the cell, at some unknown point it would cease to be a functioning entity and become a dysfunctional body, or dead. It could perhaps be maintained in a state resembling a functioning entity, but like with the mimic, it may become little more than a puppet for our entertainment. Like frogs legs made to move using electrodes.


Who knows, as we don't know what consciousness a cell has when fully functional to begin with other than by inference. Rather like our understanding of the mechanism generating human self-consciousness, it is to a certain extent inferred.


ok, my point here is essentially we have little understanding of living things and even more so of their internal states other than through observation and inference. Indeed, (correct me if I'm wrong) any experimentation with cellular structure and generating living cells is in its infancy as far as I can see.


Okay, thanks for answering. Before I move on, I'll note that a newly severed frog's leg still contains many living frog cells; and furthermore, as it decomposes, it continues to host a vast number of living organisms, the bacteria and fungi and protozoa and so forth that cause the decomposition. These living organisms do not duplicate the genetic legacy of the frog leg cells (though they do in fact share a vast number of genes with the frog and with each other), so if there were a frog leg consciousness, there does not seem to be any clear moment when that consciousness would cease. The same appears to apply to a hypothetical case of removing genes one at a time from a single cell (replacing their functions as needed with life-support machinery) until all one has left is a cell membrane and a lot of life-support machinery.

The case I'd really like to move on to, though, is organisms that can survive complete freezing (and therefore the complete cessation of all chemical reactions, fluid convections, diffusive movements through fluids, and mechanical motions of its parts). They can then revive and resume all metabolic functions when thawed. There are many such organisms, most of them simple gametes or protozoa, but also including some animals such as the tardigrade.

Presumably a tardigrade has tardigrade-consciousness. So, let's suppose we freeze a tardigrade for a few days at near absolute zero, then revive it.

While frozen, does it still have tardigrade-consciousness?

When revived again after being frozen, does it have tardigrade-consciousness?

When revived again after being frozen, does it have the same tardigrade-consciousness that it had before, a different one, or is that question meaningless?
 
We all are, and that's what dualists hate.


Acknowledged. However, my point is that there are very different kinds of program. The program that displays a video on YouTube (consisting of a compressed video data stream and a CODEC) works very differently from the program that generates the video in a 3D video game, and that works differently from a program that monitors a 3D simulated environment in which complex sim life forms genetically evolve and compete with one another. You could record a segment of the third system, and upload it as a YouTube video, but that wouldn't make them equivalent even though they might appear so to a superficial glance.

So vast is the potential difference between one kind of programming and another that there is plenty of room to make "dualistic-style" distinctions between them while still functioning entirely within a materialistic substrate. Imagine a hypothetical computer program (perhaps, operating within the genetic sim life form system just mentioned) that could monitor multiple real-time sensory inputs, analyze past and present inputs to identify patterns and identify causal agents so as to model a world of embodied agents (including itself), causes, and effects, and predict the actions of many of those agents so as to guide the program's self-agent in favor of its own well-being.

That program might or might not be conscious depending on some given definition. But it would definitely have none of the characteristics implied by the word "program" and often attributed to programs in general, such as performing single actions step by step one at a time in a fixed sequence, or being entirely predictable by people or by other comparable programs, or "only echoing back what was programmed into it."
 
The incident you report is not at all paranormal. It is a coincidence.
Your anecdote does not demonstrate that your friend was correct "always..for around 45 years" , and frankly I'm quite skeptical.

I suggest your friend start video taping, in the presence of an impartial third party,. her daily guesses and the dinners served that day if you expect anyone to believe you. I predict that a search among friends and family for who served the guessed dinner will start to occur, and the "correct" guess will involve a wider and wider circle of friends' dinners as days go by.

If you believe that this sort of coincidence is paranormal, then I'm sure you will also be convinced of any number of other ridiculous things.

How can you be certain that I am not keeping a dragon in my garage?

Even if she is correct less than "all the time" ie say 75% or 35% it could only be coincidence in a belief system where such things "...do not happen."

I asked her family and friends if it really was true she is correct "all the time". They agreed it is true.

Is 100% required or is some lower rate of accuracy worthy of consideration?

Enter your garage with caution.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Bubba
How is it you are sure such things do not happen?

How is that you've been here as long as you have and still haven't learned that this is the wrong question? You're demanding that a story be shown to have not happened before you've even bothered to show any evidence that it did beyond merely telling it.

Merely asking, hypothetically, how one can be sure such things do not happen.

Or could not happen.
 
Merely asking, hypothetically, how one can be sure such things do not happen.

Or could not happen.

And I'm merely asking, not hypothetically, for some evidence to back your assertion that they did. Otherwise, you're not only putting the cart before the horse, you're just sitting on a cart telling stories about a horse.
 
Last edited:
And I'm merely asking, not hypothetically, for some evidence to back your assertion that they did. Otherwise, you're not only putting the cart before the horse, you're just sitting on a cart telling stories about a horse.

Thanks!

You surely have a way with words, which I do enjoy.
 
Okay, thanks for answering. Before I move on, I'll note that a newly severed frog's leg still contains many living frog cells; and furthermore, as it decomposes, it continues to host a vast number of living organisms, the bacteria and fungi and protozoa and so forth that cause the decomposition. These living organisms do not duplicate the genetic legacy of the frog leg cells (though they do in fact share a vast number of genes with the frog and with each other), so if there were a frog leg consciousness, there does not seem to be any clear moment when that consciousness would cease. The same appears to apply to a hypothetical case of removing genes one at a time from a single cell (replacing their functions as needed with life-support machinery) until all one has left is a cell membrane and a lot of life-support machinery.
I am no expert on the biology of cells, although I don't think that hypothetically deconstructing a cell is of much use here. Due to my point that it is a fully functioning cell which has consciousness. It might be possible when cellular biology is more advanced, to isolate consciousness in one organelle or another, or a group of them cooperating, or the relevance of the presence of DNA. If I were to speculate on any of this, I would be working entirely on intuition within speculation, which I doubt would be of much use.
My point hinges on the idea of a cell as a fully functioning entity and a multi cellular organism as a colony of cells cooperating to generate a complex organism.
By analogy we could imagine a cell as a fully functioning TV(old fashioned with valves etc), consciousness being the programme on the screen*. If one takes a scalpel(wire cutters) to it, one will rapidly discover that it is not any more conscious, no picture on the screen.
A multi cellular organism would be made up of millions of TVs, resulting in a transformed experience and consciousness, like say an enormous cinema screen in 3D.

*the use of consciousness here might need to be tabulated into constituent requirements.

The case I'd really like to move on to, though, is organisms that can survive complete freezing (and therefore the complete cessation of all chemical reactions, fluid convections, diffusive movements through fluids, and mechanical motions of its parts). They can then revive and resume all metabolic functions when thawed. There are many such organisms, most of them simple gametes or protozoa, but also including some animals such as the tardigrade.

Presumably a tardigrade has tardigrade-consciousness. So, let's suppose we freeze a tardigrade for a few days at near absolute zero, then revive it.

While frozen, does it still have tardigrade-consciousness?
Interesting, my intuition would be that it would not be conscious while frozen, equivalent perhaps to our experience of taking a general anaesthetic, in relation to self-consciousness.

When revived again after being frozen, does it have tardigrade-consciousness?
Yes, because it is fully functional. It is remarkable that these organisms can survive freezing. There must be a complex physiology developed to cope with the destructive effects of crystallisation. Presumably it is avoided by some kind of solidification of a fluid state.
When revived again after being frozen, does it have the same tardigrade-consciousness that it had before, a different one, or is that question meaningless?
if it were alive after thawing, it would be conscious, because it is alive and fully functional.

I would suggest that what we are thinking of is an "internal state", something not fully understood by science. What the internal state of a cell is like, as a personal experience, is probably beyond us.
 

Back
Top Bottom