Does Materialism Destroy Rationality?

[Sparko]

No, I'm saying that what we know as the Big Bang could have been the start of the simulation.

Whoever is running the simulation may not care (or even know) about us. So nothing devious about them.

So you think a simulation is of an entire universe and we are just some flotsam in an irrelevant data register somewhere? To model an entire universe it would take a computer several times as large as the actual universe just to store the data to model every atom in every galaxy in this universe. If this is a simulation then most likely it is a local simulation of only the relevant parts of the universe, with the rest just being an illusion. Considering we are self-aware beings, it would follow that we are a central point of the simulation. And the past, the universe outside is all just faked. Which would explain why in quantum mechanics we have such things as having to observe and measure a particle in order to collapse its possibility wave. Nothing exists until it needs to. The computer only needs to model things we are actually interacting and looking at. Kind of like the holodeck on star trek. Only the local stuff was actually physically modeled so the crew could interact with it, the rest was just projections. spooky.

[Stoic]

So you think a simulation is of an entire universe and we are just some flotsam in an irrelevant data register somewhere? To model an entire universe it would take a computer several times as large as the actual universe just to store the data to model every atom in every galaxy in this universe.

Given that we know nothing about the reality outside of our "universe", that can't be ruled out.

If this is a simulation then most likely it is a local simulation of only the relevant parts of the universe, with the rest just being an illusion.

That is another possibility. One nice thing about it is that it's conceivable that we could find evidence for it (if the simulation isn't perfect, for example).

Considering we are self-aware beings, it would follow that we are a central point of the simulation.

That could be, though I would be hesitant to take it for granted.

And the past, the universe outside is all just faked. Which would explain why in quantum mechanics we have such things as having to observe and measure a particle in order to collapse its possibility wave. Nothing exists until it needs to. The computer only needs to model things we are actually interacting and looking at. Kind of like the holodeck on star trek. Only the local stuff was actually physically modeled so the crew could interact with it, the rest was just projections. spooky.

I would consider that "devious" if we are non-simulated entities who are being fooled about the nature of the world around us, like brains in a vat, or like the Matrix.

But if we are simulated entities, it says nothing bad about our "creators" if they don't let us know that we and our world are simulations.

[Tassman]

So the theory of evolution is likely untrue...

Evolution is the is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Hence, the original biological substrate of a virtual world would have evolved via Natural Selection. However, "there is no known physical law or material constraint that would prevent a sufficiently technologically advanced civilization from implementing human minds in computers and/or developing simulated worlds.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

[seer]

Hence, the original biological substrate of a virtual world would have evolved via Natural Selection.

But there is no biological substrate in our world, it is all simulation... We are not biological beings, biological evolution did not happen - it would all be a lie...

[Sparko]

Given that we know nothing about the reality outside of our "universe", that can't be ruled out.


That is another possibility. One nice thing about it is that it's conceivable that we could find evidence for it (if the simulation isn't perfect, for example).


That could be, though I would be hesitant to take it for granted.


I would consider that "devious" if we are non-simulated entities who are being fooled about the nature of the world around us, like brains in a vat, or like the Matrix.

But if we are simulated entities, it says nothing bad about our "creators" if they don't let us know that we and our world are simulations.

Actually the programmers might be interacting with the simulation all the time, perhaps by pretending to be part of the simulation and talking to people in the simulation by pretending to be a silly Pirate on a theological internet bulletin board.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Here is an interesting article to get everyone thinking.

https://theconversation.com/consciou...nt-real-139600


What’s going on in your head right now? Presumably you’re having a visual experience of these words in front of you. Maybe you can hear the sound of traffic in the distance or a baby crying in the flat next door. Perhaps you’re feeling a bit tired and distracted, struggling to focus on the words on the page. Or maybe you’re feeling elated at the prospect of an enlightening read. Take a moment to attend to what it’s like to be you right now. This is what’s going on inside your head.

Or is it? There’s another, quite different story. According to neuroscience, the contents of your head are comprised of 86 billion neurons, each one linked to 10,000 others, yielding trillions of connections.

A neuron communicates with its neighbour by converting an electrical signal into a chemical signal (a neurotransmitter), which then passes across the gap in between the neurons (a synapse) to bind to a receptor in the neighbouring neuron, before being converted back into an electrical signal. From these basic building blocks, huge networks of electro-chemical communication are built up.

These two stories of what’s going on inside your head seem very different. How can they both be true at the same time? How do we reconcile what we know about ourselves from the inside with what science tells us about our body and brain from the outside? This is what philosophers have traditionally called the mind-body problem. And there are solutions to it that don’t require you to accept that there are separate worlds.

Ghost in the machine?

Probably the most popular solution to the mind-body problem historically is dualism: the belief that the human mind is non-physical, outside of the physical workings of the body and the brain. According to this view, your feelings and experiences aren’t strictly speaking in your head at all – rather they exist inside an immaterial soul, distinct from, although closely connected to, your brain.

The relationship between you and your body, according to dualism, is a little bit like the relationship between a drone pilot and his drone. You control your body, and receive information from its sensors, but you and your body are not the same thing. [...]

Is consciousness fundamental?

Materialists try to reduce consciousness to matter. We have explored some problems with that approach. What about doing it the other way around – can matter be reduced to consciousness? This brings us to the third option: idealism. Idealists believe that consciousness is all that exists at the fundamental level of reality. Historically, many forms of idealism held that the physical world is some kind of illusion, or a construction generated from our own minds.

Idealism is not without its problems either. Materialists put matter at the basis of everything, and then have a challenge understanding where consciousness comes from. Idealists put consciousness at the basis of everything, but then have a challenge explaining where matter comes from.

But a new – or rather rediscovered – way of building matter from consciousness has recently been garnering a great deal of attention among scientists and philosophers. The approach starts from the observation that physical science is confined to telling us about the behaviour of matter and what it does. Physics, for example, is basically just a mathematical tool for telling us how particles and fields interact. It tells us what matter does, not what it is. If physics doesn’t tell us what fields and particles are, then this opens up the possibility that they might be forms of consciousness. This approach, known as panpsychism, allows us to hold that both physical matter and consciousness are fundamental. This is because, according to panpsychism, particles and fields simply are forms of consciousness.

At the level of basic physics, we find very simple forms of consciousness. Perhaps quarks, fundamental particles that help make up the atomic nucleus, have some degree of consciousness. These very simple forms of consciousness could then combine to form very complex forms of consciousness, including the consciousness enjoyed by humans and other animals.

So, according to panpsychism, your experience of red and the corresponding brain process don’t take place in separate worlds. Whereas Galileo separated out the qualitative reality of a red experience from the quantitative brain process, panpsychism offers us a way of bringing them together in a single, unified worldview. There is only one world, and it’s made of consciousness. Matter is what consciousness does.

Panpsychism is quite a radical rethink of our picture of the universe. But it does seem to achieve what other solutions cannot. It offers us a way to combine what we know about ourselves from the inside and what science tells us about our bodies and the brains from the outside, a way of understanding matter and consciousness as two sides of the same coin.

Can panpsychism be tested? In a sense it can, because all of the other options fail to account for important data. Dualism fails to account for the data of neuroscience. And materialism fails to account for the reality of consciousness itself. As Sherlock Holmes famously said: “Once we have ruled out the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Given the deep problems that plague both dualism and materialism, panpsychism looks to me to be the best solution to the mind-body problem.

Even if we can solve the mind-body problem, this can never dispel the wonder of human consciousness.

The video is worth watching.

[seer]

Is consciousness fundamental?

Materialists try to reduce consciousness to matter. We have explored some problems with that approach. What about doing it the other way around – can matter be reduced to consciousness? This brings us to the third option: idealism. Idealists believe that consciousness is all that exists at the fundamental level of reality. Historically, many forms of idealism held that the physical world is some kind of illusion, or a construction generated from our own minds.

Idealism is not without its problems either. Materialists put matter at the basis of everything, and then have a challenge understanding where consciousness comes from. Idealists put consciousness at the basis of everything, but then have a challenge explaining where matter comes from.

But a new – or rather rediscovered – way of building matter from consciousness has recently been garnering a great deal of attention among scientists and philosophers. The approach starts from the observation that physical science is confined to telling us about the behaviour of matter and what it does. Physics, for example, is basically just a mathematical tool for telling us how particles and fields interact. It tells us what matter does, not what it is. If physics doesn’t tell us what fields and particles are, then this opens up the possibility that they might be forms of consciousness. This approach, known as panpsychism, allows us to hold that both physical matter and consciousness are fundamental. This is because, according to panpsychism, particles and fields simply are forms of consciousness.

At the level of basic physics, we find very simple forms of consciousness. Perhaps quarks, fundamental particles that help make up the atomic nucleus, have some degree of consciousness. These very simple forms of consciousness could then combine to form very complex forms of consciousness, including the consciousness enjoyed by humans and other animals.

So, according to panpsychism, your experience of red and the corresponding brain process don’t take place in separate worlds. Whereas Galileo separated out the qualitative reality of a red experience from the quantitative brain process, panpsychism offers us a way of bringing them together in a single, unified worldview. There is only one world, and it’s made of consciousness. Matter is what consciousness does.

Panpsychism is quite a radical rethink of our picture of the universe. But it does seem to achieve what other solutions cannot. It offers us a way to combine what we know about ourselves from the inside and what science tells us about our bodies and the brains from the outside, a way of understanding matter and consciousness as two sides of the same coin.

Can panpsychism be tested? In a sense it can, because all of the other options fail to account for important data. Dualism fails to account for the data of neuroscience. And materialism fails to account for the reality of consciousness itself. As Sherlock Holmes famously said: “Once we have ruled out the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Given the deep problems that plague both dualism and materialism, panpsychism looks to me to be the best solution to the mind-body problem.

Even if we can solve the mind-body problem, this can never dispel the wonder of human consciousness. [/I]

The video is worth watching.

We have already discussed idealism, which comes in two forms - theistic and non-theistic. The question with panpsychism is what cause this universal conscious state - non conscious creating forces or a conscious force. So we are back to the question of god or no god.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We have already discussed idealism, which comes in two forms - theistic and non-theistic. The question with panpsychism is what cause this universal conscious state - non conscious creating forces or a conscious force. So we are back to the question of god or no god.

That is where the difference lies between science and religion. Science requires proof, religion requires and accepts faith. Scientists are not interested in trying to disprove or prove the existence of a Supreme Creator Being because no experiment could be conducted that could detect such an entity.

[seer]

That is where the difference lies between science and religion. Science requires proof, religion requires and accepts faith. Scientists are not interested in trying to disprove or prove the existence of a Supreme Creator Being because no experiment could be conducted that could detect such an entity.

And how do you actually prove panpsychism? You can't empirically, yet you put it forth as a viable option. Second, you live by faith everyday...

[Stoic]

Actually the programmers might be interacting with the simulation all the time, perhaps by pretending to be part of the simulation and talking to people in the simulation by pretending to be a silly Pirate on a theological internet bulletin board.

Yup.

Or they could be causing some of the intelligences to see "visions" or witness "miracles", for some inscrutable purpose.

[Sparko]

Yup.

Or they could be causing some of the intelligences to see "visions" or witness "miracles", for some inscrutable purpose.

Obviously your parameters need to be reset.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And how do you actually prove panpsychism? You can't empirically, yet you put it forth as a viable option. Second, you live by faith everyday...

I cited an article and noted that the video was worth watching. You need to learn to read what was written, not what you think was written.

[seer]

I cited an article and noted that the video was worth watching. You need to learn to read what was written, not what you think was written.

So do you believe that Panpsychism is a viable alternative?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So do you believe that Panpsychism is a viable alternative?

Once again you need to read what I wrote.

[seer]

Once again you need to read what I wrote.

I know what you wrote - now I'm asking you a question - do you believe that Panpsychism is a viable alternative? Why do you have such a hard time answering a simple question