Naïve Immaterialism

[DunkleSeele]

*NOTE*

I contacted the mods to look at turning this into a one on one, which is what Berati wanted to begin with.

Berati and Casparov, if you want this to be moved to the one-on-one section, just let us know and it will be done.

[Casparov]

You have just contradicted yourself as you already agreed that the sentence below is an assumption:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is

^^ this is not my argument though. I am not saying, "I think therefore I am, therefore, thought is all there is." At best "i think therefore I am" can only lead me to the conclusion that "consciousness definitely exists." I do not use "I think therefore I am" to conclude that "thought is all there is."

If you modify it to
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is…is more likely.

I am not doing that though. "I think therefore I am" only grants me a foundation on which to build a world view. It does not lead to any conclusions. I think therefore I am = I am. That is all it does. Two things can follow from "I think therefore I am":

1) I am.
2) Mind/consciousness/awareness/experience definitely exists.

That's it. If you are insisting that I claim anything more from "I think therefore I am" you are straw-manning my argument.

Then you are guilty of making the same assumption as before. i.e. prior to any evidence you are assuming you know where consciousness has come from.

I don't say that I know where consciousness comes from, I just know that consciousness definitely exists. My saying that consciousness is immaterial has nothing to do with where consciousness comes from, it only has to do with the nature of consciousness. I do not have to assert anything about where consciousness comes from in order to determine if consciousness itself is material or immaterial.

Material/Matter ; denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit ; physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like ; something which occupies space and has measurable mass and location.

Immaterial ; The opposite of matter, material, materialism, or materialistic ; not consisting of matter ;  incorporeal ; taking up no space and having no measurable mass or location.

Because I know the difference between something that is material and something that is immaterial, I can safely conclude that consciousness itself is immaterial without ever having to even speak about where consciousness might come from yet. I am not asserting anything about where consciousness comes from, I am simply noting that I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists, and consciousness itself is immaterial. That is all.

Surely you can see your error here. Correct?
After, I think therefore I am… we do not yet know the origin of consciousness, we only know that we are conscious, not how we are conscious

Yes. After "I think therefore I am" we do not yet know the origin of consciousness, we only know that we are conscious, not how we are conscious. I agree but we can examine consciousness against the definitions of material and immaterial and safely conclude that consciousness itself is immaterial without having to assert any origin of consciousness. Even if it turns out that consciousness is an epiphenomenon produced by material interactions in a material brain, consciousness itself is still immaterial. Consciousness takes up no space, has no mass, and no location. Much like a thought or an idea or mathematics, consciousness is not a material object regardless of it's origin.

If you cannot comprehend why we cannot jump to conclusions about the origin of consciousness just because we are conscious, then I will start over at step one again until you get this concept because it is the source of your first mistake.

I never jumped to any conclusions about the origin of consciousness. Consciousness definitely exists, and it is immaterial. Those are the only two conclusions I have arrived at thus far. Neither is related to any conclusion about the origin of consciousness.

So if I phrase it like this:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is, is more likely.
This is an assumption, (same as it was the first time around)
Do you agree that even if I phrase it as above… it is still an assumption?

Berati, this phrase of yours is a definite assumption, but it is not one I am making. "I think therefore I am" does not logically lead me to the conclusion, "I think therefore thought is all that there is." "I think therefore I am" only leads to the conclusion that "consciousness definitely exists."

And PLEASE keep your responses brief. I’m covering as little ground as possible here to keep you on track and there is no need to go galloping off ahead of the conversation. One step at a time! Deal only with what comes after "I think therefore I am"

My pleasure.

1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.

This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Berati and Casparov, if you want this to be moved to the one-on-one section, just let us know and it will be done.

The Mods' will be done, on Earth as it is in the Ivory Tower.

[Berati]

Just got back from the cottage and headed out for the evening. I'm be back.

[Berati]

This is what you agreed to.

The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.

This is the only correct thing you have said. I will now use this as my signature.
I think therefore I am only means that you cannot doubt your own existence
You CANNOT DRAW A SECOND CONCLUSION FROM THIS! You cannot ASSUME consciousness is immaterial from this. You cannot assume:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial.

The reason is because, as YOU HAVE SAID,  “it can take me no further than that.”
So you’re not going to take it further than that are you?

1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.

This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?

Oh, I guess you will contradict yourself again.

Look, part two is unproven, it’s where we are trying to “go from here” but only if you first accept that your belief is not just to be assumed.
You have to accept that you will have to prove your part just as I will have to prove my part. You do not get to insert your belief as the default position.

First, YOU ALREADY AGREED TO THIS!
Second, why would I bother with any further discussion if you just wanted to assume your belief is self evident and that you don’t have to bother with the whole nasty business of having to prove what you believe? 

So, we cannot proceed passed step one if you do not understand this.

From the beginning:

1)   I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)

We BOTH  agree this is an assumption and we BOTH agree that:
 “"I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.” Your own words!

You now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?

[Casparov]

I think therefore I am only means that you cannot doubt your own existence
You CANNOT DRAW A SECOND CONCLUSION FROM THIS! You cannot ASSUME consciousness is immaterial from this. You cannot assume:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial.

"I think therefore I am" does not lead me to the conclusion that consciousness immaterial... the definitions of immaterial and material lead me to the conclusion that consciousness is immaterial...

The reason is because, as YOU HAVE SAID,  “it can take me no further than that.”
So you’re not going to take it further than that are you?
Oh, I guess you will contradict yourself again.

"I think therefore I am" does not lead me to conclude that consciousness is immaterial, it only leads me to conclude that consciousness exists. So I have something which I know exists, I cannot doubt that it exists, and it is called "consciousness." Now I can ask questions about this "consciousness". Does it fit the definition of a material object? Does it fit the definition of being immaterial? Well, the word "Mind" is in the very definition of "immaterial". This "consciousness," which I know exists, fits the definition of immaterial 100%, and is even used as an example of the exact opposite of something which fits the definition of a material object. Therefore, when searching for a label which best describes the nature of this "consciousness," which I know exists, I have chosen the label, "immaterial." because it fits the definition 100%. ( not because I think therefore I am)

It is not "i think therefore I am" which has lead me to conclude that consciousness is immaterial, "i think therefore I am" has only lead me to conclude that consciousness definitely exists, it is the definition of immaterial and material which has lead me to conclude that consciousness can best be described as immaterial, rather than material.

For you to insist that I am using "i think therefore I am" to conclude that consciousness is immaterial is a false accusation. But it's okay, I'm used to it at this point.

Look, part two is unproven, it’s where we are trying to “go from here” but only if you first accept that your belief is not just to be assumed.
You have to accept that you will have to prove your part just as I will have to prove my part. You do not get to insert your belief as the default position.

Consciousness has no mass, no definite location, is incorporeal, unmeasurable, and occupies no space; therefore consciousness fits the definition of immaterial and does not fit the definition of material. Do you disagree?

First, YOU ALREADY AGREED TO THIS!
Second, why would I bother with any further discussion if you just wanted to assume your belief is self evident and that you don’t have to bother with the whole nasty business of having to prove what you believe? 

So, we cannot proceed passed step one if you do not understand this.

From the beginning:

1)   I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)

We BOTH  agree this is an assumption and we BOTH agree that:
 “"I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.” Your own words!

You now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?

Berati, let's get something straight before we go any further:

I think therefore I am ≠ I think therefore thought is all that there is!!!!!!!

You have built a straw-man. You are misrepresenting my argument. I do not believe that, "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all there is." We will not be able to move forward until you stop strawmanning my argument.

Further, I do not hold to "immaterialism" as you are suggesting. You are assigning me arguments and positions and labels that I do not not actually subscribe to and then arguing against them. If you want to have a discussion with me, at least have the courtesy to let me choose my own position and arguments!

1) I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is better described as "immaterial" than "material" per the definitions of both.

Beyond this: there are a plethora of arguments, assertions, positive claims, bare assumptions, etc. that can be made about the nature of reality I am conscious of. I can evaluate all of these options and come to an informed decision about which is the most likely via evidence and observation in all of it's various forms.

You seem to be suggesting that all of these possibilities are equally as likely, but this does not follow. Some explain the data better than others, some fit the evidence better than others, some are just outright ridiculous assertions, they are not all equally as likely. So I disagree.

[Berati]

Berati, let's get something straight before we go any further:

I think therefore I am ≠ I think therefore thought is all that there is!!!!!!!

You have built a straw-man. You are misrepresenting my argument. I do not believe that, "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all there is." We will not be able to move forward until you stop strawmanning my argument.

LOL How is it a strawman argument… IF WE BOTH AGREE TO IT! 
For it to be a strawman argument, you would have to DISAGREE, but you don’t. It is the only area of agreement so far.
What I am doing is holding you to a position that we both agree to. If you later contradict yourself (which you do immediately) I will point this out.
This is not a strawman argument, You have merely been trapped with your own words.

For example:
We are discussing “I think therefore I am” and this leads you to conclude.

1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.

This is as far as I have gotten.

Will you admit this is an error?

"I think therefore I am" does not lead me to the conclusion that consciousness immaterial...

And yet you draw two conclusions from the very first step!

Now I can ask questions about this "consciousness".

That would be step two if you can get past step one. Why ask any further questions if you have already reached your conclusion?

I will not entertain any questions until you admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism after “I think therefore I am”

Without this admission from you, no meaningful questions can be asked about consciousness because you are already setting immaterialsim as the default position before any questions have been asked.

[Casparov]

LOL How is it a strawman argument… IF WE BOTH AGREE TO IT! 
For it to be a strawman argument, you would have to DISAGREE, but you don’t. It is the only area of agreement so far.
What I am doing is holding you to a position that we both agree to. If you later contradict yourself (which you do immediately) I will point this out.
This is not a strawman argument, You have merely been trapped with your own words.

I think therefore I am = only apples exist.

^^^ Is an assumption. We both agree that this would be an assumption yes? Why not hold me to this argument then? It is not one I hold to, yet I agree that it would be an assumption. You holding me to "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that exists" is just like holding me to "I think therefore I am = only apples exist." I don't agree with either statement, but I agree that both are assumptions.

You are attempting to get me to accept an argument that I do not hold to, and the reasoning you offer behind it is that I agree that the argument you are holding me to is an assumption.

You could easily have said instead:

"I think therefore I am = I think therefore the spaghetti monster is all that exists" Is an assumption, do you agree or disagree?

If I said, "umm... yeah that would be an assumption..." then you could have replied "Ha! Then you agree that materialism is just as likely as the spaghetti monster existing because you agree that both are assumptions! And this is not a strawman argument because you would have to disagree with something before it could be a strawman and you agree the spaghetti monster is all that exists is an assumption!"

To which I would simply reply: "I agree that it is an assumption, but it is not one that I am making."

Do you understand now?

For example:
Will you admit this is an error?
And yet you draw two conclusions from the very first step! That would be step two if you can get past step one. Why ask any further questions if you have already reached your conclusion?

If I know something exists, I can ask questions and apply labels and definitions to it without making any assumptions. How do I know it is called "consciousness"? Because I have learned the definition of "consciousness" and applied this label to that which I know exists. The same is for "immaterial", i know the definition, and the label fits. There are no claims being made, no assumptions or assertions, only the application of applicable labels with appropriate definitions.

I will not entertain any questions until you admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism after “I think therefore I am”

You will need to provide a reason to. Is Materialism equally as likely as "only the spaghetti monster exists" after "I think therefore I am"? Is Materialism equally as likely as "only apples exist" after I think therefore I am?" You seem to be suggesting that all assumptions are equal and all positive claims are equally as likely but this is simply not true. I am not going to agree with this unless you can give reason to do so. Some assumptions are more likely than others, they are not all equal.

Your argument so far is putting your world view on equal ground as every wild assumption possible. You are putting your world view as equally likely an explanation of reality as "only the spaghetti monster unicorn princess exists". Are you saying that Materialism is equally as likely as any wild assumption that can be made after "I think therefore I am"?

[the_antithesis]

My pleasure.

1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.

This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?

How can the allegedly immaterial consciousness interact with the material body?

[Casparov]

How can the allegedly immaterial consciousness interact with the material body?

You are suggesting Substance Dualism and referring to what is known as the Interaction Problem. You suggest that immaterial consciousness is one substance and material body is another substance, and the logical problem is the interaction between the two substances. I have found no resolution to the Interaction Problem of Dualism, and this is why I reject this theory outright and why I am not a Substance Dualist.

The other explanations are Monisms, which say that there is truly only one substance. Monistic Materialism states that there is only material, and Monistic Idealism states that there is only immaterial. Materialism states that the material body is the true reality and the immaterial consciousness is an illusion created by material interactions in the material brain. Idealism states that the immaterial consciousness is the true reality and the perceived material physicality is an illusion created by the immaterial consciousness. (http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf)

I believe that Monistic explanations are therefore more likely than Dualistic theories because of the Interaction Problem you have referred to.

[the_antithesis]

Idealism states that the immaterial consciousness is the true reality and the perceived material physicality is an illusion created by the immaterial consciousness.

Shit. You're even stupider than a substance dualist.

Well, then. If this material existence is just an illusion, stop eating. You're wasting our food and wasting your immaterial time.

[Berati]

I think therefore I am = only apples exist.

^^^ Is an assumption. We both agree that this would be an assumption yes? Why not hold me to this argument then?

Duh... I'm not holding you to that argument!! I'm holding you to the fact that WE BOTH AGREE IT'S INVALID.
The only valid conclusion is:
I think therefore I am = I cannot doubt my own existence.
That's it... nothing more and you agree!!!
Read your OWN QUOTE.

The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.

 

It is not one I hold to, yet I agree that it would be an assumption. You holding me to "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that exists" is just like holding me to "I think therefore I am = only apples exist." I don't agree with either statement, but I agree that both are assumptions.

I honestly thought you were more intelligent than this.
I'm NOT holding you to "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that exists"
I AM holding you to the fact we both agree it's an assumption.
If you agree it’s an assumption then you cannot conclude that "I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID. 

Quote from: Casparov on May 24, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
My pleasure.

1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.

This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?

See number two? Do you see it? That is you going directly from "I think therefore I am" To "I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"

That is an error, and you agreed it is an error, and you contradicted yourself anyway which is another error.

Here is the real problem: I gave you too much credit.
You can’t figure out what a strawman argument is or isn’t. Seriously?
You contradict yourself moments after making a definitive statement??
Like every theist I have ever met… you insist that you’re your belief be given special privilege.

All I ask is that you admit that we begin the discussion on equal terms and you just can’t bring yourself to do it.
You must give your immaterialist belief a special place just by virtue of our existence even though you admit that I think therefore I am “can take me no further than that” 

As I said,
I will not entertain any questions until you admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism after “I think therefore I am”
Without this admission from you, no meaningful questions can be asked about consciousness and whether it is immaterial or an emergent phenomena of material properties because you are already setting immaterialism as the default position before any questions have been asked.

 

[Casparov]

If you agree it’s an assumption then you cannot conclude that "I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID. 
See number two? Do you see it? That is you going directly from "I think therefore I am" To "I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"

No. I think therefore I am = consciousness exists. That's as far as "i think therefore I am" will take me. "i think therefore I am" stops there. That does not mean i cannot ask any questions and apply any labels to "consciousness" to describe what it is. The word "consciousness" itself is a label which I have applied based on the definition being applicable to the phenomenon. We are allowed to ask questions and apply labels to better define what we are talking about. Is "consciousness" an apple? No. I don't have to make any assumptions that consciousness is not an apple because I know the definition of "an apple" and I know that "consciousness" does not fit the description. I am not saying "i think therefore I am = Consciousness is not a apple". All I know from "i think therefore I am" is that consciousness exists, I do not need to make any assumptions or positive assertions or use "i think therefore I am" to conclude that consciousness is not an apple.

In the same way, I can say that consciousness is not a material object. Not because "i think therefore I am" leads me logically to such a conclusion, but because the definition of a material object in no way describes "consciousness."

All I ask is that you admit that we begin the discussion on equal terms and you just can’t bring yourself to do it.
You must give your immaterialist belief a special place just by virtue of our existence even though you admit that I think therefore I am “can take me no further than that” 

You have given me no reason other than materialism is an assumption just like "I think therefore thought is all that exists" would be, but I am not and have never made that argument, and just because two things are both assumptions does not mean that they are equally as likely. I have no reason to accept what you want me to accept. All assumptions are not equally as likely, therefore your logic is flawed, I am not going to agree to what you are saying unless you can give a coherent reason why I should.

I reject the notion that all assumptions are equally as likely. If this is the basis of your argument then it is flawed. All assumptions are not equally as likely.

[Solitary]

Glad to see you are still here Casparov.

In the same way, I can say that consciousness is not a material object.

This is true, however it has a physical cause---a body with a brain that is functioning and not unconscious. There are many things that are mental constructs which are just that, and not objectively real. I agree completely with you that the mind body problem is a black and white fallacy. However, it is more reasonable for the body to exist and the mind a result of a brain, rather than the body is the result of a mind---even a God. Solitary

[Berati]

No. I think therefore I am = consciousness exists. That's as far as "i think therefore I am" will take me. "i think therefore I am" stops there.

I have shown you your contradiction several times. I can't can't show it yo you any more clearly.

Quote from: Casparov on May 24, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
My pleasure.

1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.

This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?

See number two? Do you see it? That is you going directly from "I think therefore I am" To "I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"

I reject the notion that all assumptions are equally as likely. If this is the basis of your argument then it is flawed. All assumptions are not equally as likely.

Now this is a straw man.
I'll I have said (repeatedly) is that proof of existence is not proof of the immaterial.
So far all we have proven is that we exist.... that's it. That's step one. Any other assumptions following this will require OTHER evidence since step one "can take me no further"
You agree to step one... but then immediately contradict yourself and try to take it further.

cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
noun PSYCHOLOGY
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.