--------------16C3DBE80D7B6C740561896B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robin Faichney wrote:
> In message <000101be5b86$0e95dbc0$d92929d8@ene09>, Sodom
> <sodom@ma.ultranet.com> writes
> >I'd say, you cannot simultaneously be a
> >materialist, and a realist about consciousness, because
> >consciousness is not a material thing.
> >--
> >Robin
> >
> >
> >
> >My .02 says: The problem is not that consciousness as a material thing is
> >beyond understanding in principle. As a realist, understanding that the
> >complexity of consciousness in the material sense is beyond our skills is
> >better. They can co-exist if you take this cheap way out. Consciousness is a
> >material thing that our perception cannot distinguish as such, like music.
>
> Only if your materialism is just a reaction to dualism, such
> that all "material" means to you is "non-supernatural".
>
> If your materialism is not mere reaction, then you should be
> able to tackle the proposition that abstractions are best
> considered non-material, because of the fundamental difference
> between them and concrete objects that I already explained in
> this thread: their numerical identity.
Aspects of material things or the results of the action of time and material things ARE the abstracts we are discussing. It is a product of physical action and time. They are not seperable except in abstract. I can agree that it is still easier to deal with abstractions as a seperate entity - but I think I also stated it earlier - I think this is a fault of our limited biolical thinking skills. I think it is too deep for my little brain to get a good hold of.
>
Contradictins to my views only intrigue - But what about buildings, pollution,
all sorts of "objective" evidence that a conscious entity could objectivly say
"Something conscious made this". I would also say that there is enough evidence
by infrence that unless a good case is made for your viewpoint - Ill argue that
>
> Having said that, there's another element to consciousness
> that materialism fails to explain, besides its abstract
> nature: its ineliminable subjectivity. There is no objective
> evidence for consciousness whatsoever. As I'm not a materialist,
> that doesn't bother me, but shouldn't it bother you?
>
>
> >Abstract in the extreme of which all parts are basic physics as is our
> >response. I see why we wrestle with this problem. There needs to be a term
> >that describes the Materialist who realizes that not all is within grasp.
>
> Maybe the term you're searching for is "non-materialist"? :-)
Maybe its "Wandering Materialist"
> Bill Roh
--------------16C3DBE80D7B6C740561896B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitRobin Faichney wrote:
In message <000101be5b86$0e95dbc0$d92929d8@ene09>, SodomAspects of material things or the results of the action of time and material things ARE the abstracts we are discussing. It is a product of physical action and time. They are not seperable except in abstract. I can agree that it is still easier to deal with abstractions as a seperate entity - but I think I also stated it earlier - I think this is a fault of our limited biolical thinking skills. I think it is too deep for my little brain to get a good hold of.
<sodom@ma.ultranet.com> writes
>I'd say, you cannot simultaneously be a
>materialist, and a realist about consciousness, because
>consciousness is not a material thing.
>--
>Robin
>
>
>
>My .02 says: The problem is not that consciousness as a material thing is
>beyond understanding in principle. As a realist, understanding that the
>complexity of consciousness in the material sense is beyond our skills is
>better. They can co-exist if you take this cheap way out. Consciousness is a
>material thing that our perception cannot distinguish as such, like music.Only if your materialism is just a reaction to dualism, such
that all "material" means to you is "non-supernatural".If your materialism is not mere reaction, then you should be
able to tackle the proposition that abstractions are best
considered non-material, because of the fundamental difference
between them and concrete objects that I already explained in
this thread: their numerical identity.
Contradictins to my views only intrigue - But what about buildings, pollution, all sorts of "objective" evidence that a conscious entity could objectivly say "Something conscious made this". I would also say that there is enough evidence by infrence that unless a good case is made for your viewpoint - Ill argue that there is enough evidence to use it as a working hypotheses?Having said that, there's another element to consciousness
that materialism fails to explain, besides its abstract
nature: its ineliminable subjectivity. There is no objective
evidence for consciousness whatsoever. As I'm not a materialist,
that doesn't bother me, but shouldn't it bother you?
>Abstract in the extreme of which all parts are basic physics as is our
>response. I see why we wrestle with this problem. There needs to be a term
>that describes the Materialist who realizes that not all is within grasp.Maybe the term you're searching for is "non-materialist"? :-)
Maybe its "Wandering Materialist"
Bill Roh--------------16C3DBE80D7B6C740561896B--