Raymond Tallis - Metaphysics vs. Materialism

Wear your support for the show with a Closer To Truth hoodie, T-shirt, or tank: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Metaphysics asks the most profound questions, then uses sophisticated philosophical analysis to seek the deepest truths. What happens when metaphysics trains its analytical guns on ‘materialism’, the claim that only the physical is real? What are the metaphysical arguments for and against materialism?
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen: shorturl.at/mtJP4
Raymond C. Tallis is a a retired physician and neuroscientist from Great Britain. His resume boasts titles like philosopher, poet and novelist. He is also a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal College of Physicians and Royal Society of Arts.
Donate to Closer To Truth and help us keep our content free and without paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@adrianriebelbrummer5792]

I like how he emphazises the problem of understanding consciousness by using consciousness. It's like trying to see something from the outside while, in principle, not being able to get out of it.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Circular to say the least, but that is precisely what existence is. Every circle begins with its end. No exceptions. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@ALavin-en1kr]

The title presumes that consciousness can be decoded by physics. If consciousness is fundamental; as it likely is, then it would predate physics and owe nothing to it. There would be no physics of consciousness.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

It is difficult for atheists or materialists to admit that consciousness is fundamental. If it is then does it have a Self and is that Self what has been called God (or whatever name is used in different cultures) down through the ages. We share in it; we have consciousness, we are not consciousness. Materialists are not used to the non tangible so they have to go to the tangible to try to explain it. Mind is likely elemental; emerging with quantum events as do all else that is elemental.

[@simonhibbs887]

⁠@@ALavin-en1krzits hard for us to accept that because it’s directly contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence for anything non tangible. Consciousness has tangible consequences, so you’d have to explain how that is possible for something non tangible. Aldo consciousness is highly variable and sometimes we don’t have it at all, such as in deep dreamless sleep, or when I was anaesthetised for surgery a few weeks ago. As such it has all the characteristics of an activity, or something that we sometimes do, and can do in different ways, or not at all.

[@todd4956]

​@@simonhibbs887 we cannot see below the Planck scale or Planck's Constants if you prefer. What Planck discovered was that all matter reduces to a nonphysical form that can only be described in the language of mathematics. But the equations themselves disappear into complete nothingness below the Planck scale. This means that the physical universe itself has a metaphysical substrate. Planck declared that CONSCIOUSNESS was fundamental to Reality itself. Neil's Bohr declared that the paradox of quantum mechanics is that Reality IS and ISN'T at the same time. Heisenberg declared that Quantum Mechanics has settled the argument between Plato and Aristotle concerning the metaphysical nature of reality with Plato being the clear winner. Physical matter does not exist in reality just as Plato declared, at least not at the micro level of the subatomic realm. Ultimately, the idealism of Plato triumphs over the realism of Aristotle. Plato was highly influenced by Heraclitus who built his metaphysics upon the idea of Logos. Logos is ultimately a Divine Cosmic Consciousness whom most people call God.

[@Knowformo]

consciousness is the taste of the moment by moment

[@OldWolf9226]

So, in effect, Mr. Tallis is saying 'I don't know.'

[@simonhibbs887]

He’s also saying nobody else knows and their chain of reasoning is flawed for the reasons he gave. Reasons I disagree with, see my comment.

[@droidydave]

Which is about the most coherent and valid argument that exists. I have my own beliefs and theories but the only argument you can't fault with our current knowledge and understanding is exactly this. We just don't know.

[@Jerbrown]

lol

[@bradmodd7856]

He is right....describing reality with words is a funny process...we end up going in circles and loops...best metaphor wins though

[@simonhibbs887]

@@bradmodd7856 We go in circles and loops because that’s how nature works. Each phenomenon eventually affects every other phenomenon. It’s all feedback loops. Also in the case of consciousness specifically, its defining characteristic is self referentiality.

[@luketargett2233]

One of the best interviews/discussions

[@schleichface]

It's both entertaining and a real conversation. I got the impression that RLK really had a good time with this one.

[@johnrichardson7629]

Materialism has run its course. RIP

[@markb3786]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@cemerson12]

I have never understood why consciousness is any more or less difficult to mentally grasp than any field (electro-magnetic field, eg) is difficult to mentally grasp. Why is consciousness a harder problem than is a quantum field? What we have in both cases is something that “is not a thing but not nothing”. One of the differences, I suppose, at this point in time anyway, is that we can do data producing experiments in relation to electro-magnetic fields and other quantum fields that we cannot do with consciousness … so we may, semantically, need to be careful how we refer to what consciousness “is” … but that is true, also, of gravity. Gravity isn’t a field in the same way that electro-magnetism or the strong nuclear force are “fields”. But we recognize all of those as not being material things but nonetheless they are processes arising in concert with or in relation to things we characterize as being material. We can make descriptive statements about all of them, but we honestly don’t know what any of them are. We also, in that sense, don’t know what material things are … and if we state material things are energy transformed or functioning in certain forms, we still have not said what energy itself is.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

You are talking here of philosophical concepts and scientific concepts in same breathe. it's obvious why scientific concepts are easier to understand.

[@cemerson12]

@@lokeshparihar7672Yes, the two processes are at different states of data experimentation. Quantum field and quantum mechanical experiments gives us a much higher degree of understanding as to how they function … the science is not there yet as to consciousness … but I am presuming here that science will continue searching for ways to identify how conscious processes “work”. Perhaps science won’t be able to adequately develop data as to the processes involved, leaving us with philosophic speculations (speculations that are at least subject to some logical constraints) … but that doesn’t make it a “hard” problem … we still do not know, eg, what energy is … or what produces quantum fields. And perhaps we never will … due to potential limits in OUR ability to perceive.

[@deanodebo]

@@lokeshparihar7672science is a subset of philosophy essentially.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

@@deanodebo granted that it is , So whatt??

[@esorse]

Is epistemology - theory of knowledge - logically possible when our faculties including perception, reason, intuition, emotion, faith, revelation, or some combination of these, are ruled out?

[@simonhibbs887]

Why would they be ruled out?

[@joeclark1621]

The thing I like about this guy is while he's an atheist, he's not a materialist. He recognizes the irreducible aspect of consciousness and the fact that you can't explain everything about consciousness through simply the brain.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

A circle can no more define its own beginning and end than you can regarding the Universe's. But every loop begins with its end. No exceptions. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@joeclark1621]

@@Novastar.SaberCombat Your comment is highlighted yet someone needs to tell you that a loop has no end lol.

[@chrisgreen1514]

It is funny that even scientists spend almost all of their lives involved in enterprises that are largely non-physical: Experiencing emotions and feelings, consciously thinking and communicating ideas and concepts through language. Or perhaps working on logic or math problems or even studying physics or sociology or psychology or law or music or art…Constantly embedded in physical reality but constantly dealing with non-physical information and data!

[@bdnnijs192]

Look at a foot and notice how it is different from walking. The hard problem of running.

[@stanleyklein524]

Profoundly shallow in your basic understanding of the issues.

[@bdnnijs192]

@@stanleyklein524 Thanks for the personal attack.

[@dhoyt902]

Easy gents. We’re both here for the same curiosity.

[@Promatheos]

He is 100% correct to saw awareness is not a thing. A thing is an object. Awareness is the subject. If you try to turn the subject into an object you will always fail.

[@simonhibbs887]

Is the playing of a game of chess a thing? Is it non-physical?

[@Promatheos]

A game of chess being played is no different than any other physical process. I don’t see what distinction you are making. The theory and rules of chess, the pieces, the board…they are all objects that awareness observes interacting.

[@chrisgreen1514]

⁠@@simonhibbs887Great question Simon. While a grand master could probably play against himself in his or her mind, most games illustrate quite well how our thinking minds interact with the external reality through our bodies. The question is how is it that we are aware of our thinking? I believe most chess robots play games against themselves when teaching themselves to improve but I doubt they are aware of it. The chess robots are physical things, the code is information which probably would not normally be called a thing. Similarly our language, with which our conscious thinking seems to rely on, is just information. Yet we are usually aware of it! However, if all of physical reality is actually just structured information … 🤔

[@simonhibbs887]

@@Promatheos So physical processes are things, which means if conscious awareness is a physical process in the brain then we can say that it is a thing.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@chrisgreen1514 Information is physical though, that’s why we can have information technology. In computer systems it’s patterns of electrical charges in arrays of transistors, on a CD it’s patterns of holes burned into a reflective surface, in an abacus its patterns of beads on rods, in our brains its patterns of chemicals in the neurons. Everything about consciousness is informational. It is perceptive, interpretive, analytical, self-referential, recursive, reflective, it can self-modify. These are all attributes of information processing systems, and we can implement simple versions of all of these in information systems right now.

[@surendrakverma555]

Thanks 👍

[@Roscoe0494]

I like this one. Kind of like a Monty Python skit. Pretty much saying no to every definition of consciousness so it's nothing.

[@schleichface]

No, remember, "it's something which isn't a thing and it's not nothing."

[@simonhibbs887]

When you look at the microchip in a computer what you see doesn’t look like a spreadsheet, or making a move in chess, or driving a car. Clearly physical phenomena do have different interpretive aspects, that’s an objectively demonstrable fact. I can give endless examples, so there is no obstacle in principle for consciousness to be a different interpretive aspect in a similar way.

[@arielwertlen6709]

You haven’t addressed his argument.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@arielwertlen6709 His argument is that systems can’t have different interpretive aspects. I pointed out examples of systems that do have different interpretive aspects. It’s quite possible I’m missing his point, but I’ll need help seeing how.

[@arielwertlen6709]

The crux of his argument is not that there aren’t different interpretive aspects to a given phenomena. It is rather that the act of putting forward a different aspect is grounded in a conscious interpretation. I.e a consciousness is posited to recognise the spreadsheet aspect as opposed to the electrons in the computer, or water as a wet body as opposed to a collection of molecules. You and he agree on different aspects existing. He however finds it erroneous to make such an argument as it presupposes a consciousness as part of the argumentation in order to even be able to lay down the premise of different aspects of a subject existing. To him, one can’t put forward a valid argument explaining consciousness, if your argument can only be formulated by presupposing consciousness. This is what I understand the crux to be, and frankly, I’m not sure that I agree with him. I would need to understand more, as I don’t see this as inherent fatal error- only in saying that consciousness doesn’t exist. I of course could be wrong!

[@simonhibbs887]

@@arielwertlen6709I see what you mean, but he’s wrong about the claim physicalists are making. What we are saying is that it is a fact about the world that the electronic activity of the microchip and the self driving program controlling the car are facts about the world independently of anyone being conscious of them or making such a distinction. I would say that it’s just a distinction that can be made, but doesn’t have to be, and we either do or do not make that distinction and become conscious of it. If the distinction isn’t made, nothing about the phenomenon itself changes. We are not saying that consciousness is necessary for these facts to be so. If nobody was ever conscious of either of the chip, the program, or the car and its manoeuvres, they would still both be consequential facts about the world. He is the one making a claim, that consciousness is necessary to make this distinction, but the thing is the distinction isn’t necessary to the phenomena themselves. It’s only useful to us. Likewise with consciousness itself, our brains have neurological activity. Thats a fact about the world. Some forms of such activity give rise to consciousness, and others don’t, just as some electrical activities in a microchip drive a car and others play chess. That’s another fact about the world.

[@bdnnijs192]

​@@arielwertlen6709 The real mindfuck is you might me a 'philosophical zombie' without realising it yourself.

[@edwardlawrence5666]

Metaphysics is the philosophy of the nature of things. Materialism is a concept developed to name a view that the nature of reality is matter only. Therefore, materialism is a metaphysical (and scientific) theory. So there is no metaphysics vs materialism per se. A category error.

[@havenbastion]

Metaphysics is "what is the nature of..." the most universally important things; time, space, energy, matter, self, consciousness, infinity, paradox. math. science, being, reality, etc.

[@deanodebo]

Materialism makes huge metaphysical assumptions. It’s not a scientific theory. First and foremost, it assumes matter is physical - whatever that is!

[@edwardlawrence5666]

@@deanodebo Dean, physical is a word which names what we experience via our 5 senses, seeing, feeling etc. It is a concept which connects our experience of energy and matter.

[@deanodebo]

@@edwardlawrence5666 your experience is mental, is it not? This is by definition. Do you have some way of knowing that your brain models reality as it actually is?

[@edwardlawrence5666]

@@deanodebo Nope, experience is the result of our bodies interacting on other stuff which is not my body, like , tree, dog and cats etc. You, all of us, do this every day all the time. When we reflect upon our experiences that is “mental” and we do this all the time as well. 2. Repeated experience and testing, experience over and over, is the way our brain builds models of what we experience. When you use the term “actually is” , I assume you mean we don’t see the insides of things presupposing that the inner is the actually real and not the outer that we see. Science has made great progress trying to safely (unsafely at times) see and experience the insides. So modeling and understanding certainly has a temporal aspect. In general, admitting that we do make mistakes, the modeling process is quite accurate for everyday needs. And we have the scientific method for more difficult experiences.So I don’t try or suggest to exaggerate the mistake or illusion aspect. But to each their own. Have a great day!

[@jimmierustler5607]

The more you dig the more you realise conciousness doesn't exist in any meaningful way

[@frankwalders]

But is it not that: the quintessence of consciousness is its ability to solve its own existence. To understand our existence could be a necessary component for any form of true consciousness.

[@lenspencer1765]

This guy is closer 2 truth

[@caricue]

A single living cell has awareness and can even learn. It's not hard to imagine nature layering on better perception, cognition, memory, abstract thinking and self-awareness until you have something like a person. In this way of looking at things, the living cell is a self and everything else flows from this, which means that what we call consciousness is really just a bucket of brain functions that would be of no value without a self to experience it. Consciousness is a feature of life, and life is a physical process, so thinking, feeling and all other brain functions are physical, just like the self is physical.

[@007koko007]

That's one way of reasoning, but there's also another reasoning and that's that there is no reason for dead matter to become alive. There has to be an urge and some code that was created probably even before The Big Bang that filled the universe with a possibility to create something alive from something dead. Otherwise, dead matter should have to go out of its way to become alive and it's really hard to create something alive from something that is dead. It would be almost like expecting for a chair existing in your room to become one day alive and when it starts to dance out of nowhere, we say 'well, that's nature'. Why would atoms start to make some structures that could think, feel, reproduce etc? Atoms are stupid. Or are they? There has to be something behind all that because there is not much logic in a premise that something that is completely 'physical' in a way our minds perceive could ever start any kind of life basically out of nothing.

[@caricue]

@@007koko007 I don't really disagree with any of your ideas, but where do you go from there if you are evidence based? We have a universe, and the universe doing what it does, even if we can't figure out how the heck any of it works, and we don't like the category of "physical", we are still left with the reality that we are here and it all got started somehow. We don't even know what separates live things from dead things, so it's not surprising that we don't know how one changes into the other, if that is even a meaningful distinction. Since I require evidence before I accept some idea, I mostly stick with what I can observe to come to my tentative conclusions, and the only consciousness we can see is in a living being, so I don't hold out much hope for AGI in dead computers.

[@007koko007]

​@@caricue How can we know what evidence is if we don't even know what this reality actually is? Where can we find evidence if we don't even know what we're looking for or if our paradigm is wrong? You can get evidence for some obvious things. Science isn't there to prove or disprove most of the things. It's mostly there to measure the things that surround us and that we experience on the most superficial level. Science is still way too primitive to understand almost anything. Based on weird stuff from quantum mechanics, we really don't have a clue what this reality is, but it certainly is not what most people think it is. To say 'universe is doing what it does' is really what I mention as a problem. If people will always think that it's 'normal' that dead matter can create something that is alive and contains consciousness, we will always look for wrong things then. I don't know, nobody knows, but those millions of NDEs that people experience could actually say something important about reality if people wouldn't be so obsessed with their dogma of materialistic reductionism that they confuse with 'science'. To say that life can arrive from something that is dead on its most basic level, you have to take a bigger leap of faith than to simply believe in some fairy tales from some book. So, I actually congratulate you for being way more religious and indoctrinated than I am.

[@caricue]

@@007koko007 You don't have to be offensive, especially since I accepted your position as stated. If I believe anything without any evidence then I can believe absolutely anything, so it isn't that I am against other ways of knowing, but there is no way to separate the wheat from the chaff. As an aside, I have a real problem with reductionism since it ignores all the stuff that seems to matter at our everyday level. I also think that the common conception of causation is deeply flawed by our human intuition, so I am probably not your enemy, even if I am not fully onboard everything, even though you haven't actually said anything for me to disagree with;)

[@007koko007]

​@@caricue I apologize, I wasn't trying to be offensive, but I'm just aware that the majority of people think that their beliefs are objective and they will try to adjust every 'evidence' to their beliefs because that's how human psychology mostly works. So, even if evidence points to something that doesn't confirm their beliefs, they will ignore it like it doesn't exist. We are all biased to an extent and somehow indoctrinated with the collective mentality and approach to everything. I'm personally not too happy with scientism and reductionism because I find it deeply flawed, unlogical and I believe that it more often stops science from progression than helps it to be 'objective' or 'sceptical'. I also believe that human intuition, logic and experience shouldn't be always disregarded as mostly today they are disregarded simply because something like that is not 'evidence based' by parameters created by scientism that mostly works on purpose against the idea of everything that isn't based on reductionism. Scientism isn't science and it always tries to push its beliefs that don't actually have a base or evidence in science. I find that deeply problematic in today's world. So, scientism based on reductionism is kinda like a pretty much religious mindset. There are more sources from where we could get closer to truth and it's not always scientism from todays civilisation. Science should really finally become science and not something that contributes to certain dogma.

[@FortYeah]

One day, we'll truly get over the materialism. And we will acknowledge that consciousness is what it can only be ; a given.

[@simonhibbs887]

Except when it’s not a given, such as in deep dreamless sleep or under anaesthesia.

[@thomabow8949]

@@simonhibbs887 Or when presuppositional theists stop vomiting their conjectures on things that are *most likely* going to have a naturalistic explanation.

[@FortYeah]

Man, you are so easy to trigger @@thomabow8949 ... Even Bertrand Russell acknowlegded that panpsychism was a more solid philosophical position than materialism.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@thomabow8949 Well, I try to keep a more positive and respectful tone. I’ve been wrong about things too. I don’t always succeed though, us humans are flawed beings.

[@deanodebo]

@@thomabow8949is an explanation enough for you to have faith in that explanation?

[@heresa_notion_6831]

So if we build a robot that we can accept as conscious as much as we do other people's consciousness (and it accepts its own consciousness), can we be said to have understood what consciousness is (or at least say we have a good theory of it)?

[@simonhibbs887]

To an extent your comment is circular. We can only coherently claim to accept a being as conscious if we also claim to understand consciousness. I’d like to caveat that by saying we accept each other as being conscious because we are all similar beings with similar behaviours that report similar experiences, so we accept these reports at face value. That is an assumption though, not a proof. For very different being than ourselves we can’t make the same assumption.

[@heresa_notion_6831]

@@simonhibbs887 Well, the question isn't that circular. I merely ponder what reasonable success-criteria one should have for the project of understanding consciousness. One could imagine a technology that could read peoples minds if they are thinking in sentences (which is how I typically think). We could maybe imagine other technology that understood how to produce qualia in people's consciousness by causing the appropriate stimulation in their brains.* This would be like VR "on steroids" (you couldn't take off the goggles). Would developing either kind of tech mean we "understood" consciousness. I suspect the Vatican disallows body-cams at their exorcisms, because I suspect they suspect "demons" have that capability. *The 60-minutes story about using brain-scanning to teach a man fine-motor control and FEELING in his hand prothesis, seems to be a pretty-good hacking of "consciousness" even if people don't understand it.

[@heresa_notion_6831]

@@simonhibbs887 Well I tried responding but was "annihilation banned" (a term I coined that is analogous to ghost-banned, but more severe, as even I cannot even see my response). I'll restate stuff from that response that I hypothesize is not so problematic. My question isn't circular; it merely ponders what reasonable success-criteria one can have for "understanding" consciousness. I gave a rather minimal technological achievment that might be considered. I did not give more maximal examples of possible technology (at least if you read sci-fi), e.g. technology that could read minds or insert qualia-experiences in humans via appropriate brain stimulation. I would think if any of the technologies I mentioned were realized, they would suffice for "understanding" consciousness to some degree, with degree proportionate to the amount of manipulation achieved.

[@FortYeah]

One reason I believe this can't work is because the machine in question wouldn't be able to be truly autonomous ; it has to be programmed to address the questions and challenges it would meet, and therefore wouldn't be able to make free choices, which is a believe a #1 criteria to gain the level of consciousness humans have.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@FortYeah Modern neural network AIs are not programmed manually with planned responses by humans anyway. Instead they learn through training. For example AlphaZero learned chess and Go purely by playing the games against itself. No human programmed any of its moves. Artificial neural networks, with billions of connections, are far too complex to have the connection weights hand tuned. In fact they are so complex it’s very hard for us to know exactly how they make decisions at the system level, for example what role individual connections have in any given response.

[@evaadam3635]

Tallis and Kuhn seem to agree that Consciousness or, to be precise, AWARENESS is not a thing nor is nothing.... this fits the definition of a free aware immortal soul which is your true being....

[@simonhibbs887]

Tallis would disagree because souls are a kind of stuff, and he doesn’t think consciousness is an object made of any kind of stuff.

[@evaadam3635]

@@simonhibbs887 ..it is not Tallis but you who disagrees because to you, the word "Not a Thing" means material stuff, so, be honest... this is like your kind saying, "a man can get pregnant !"... so confused .. Simon, working for satan can not save your soul... stay in the bright side with God before its too late for your soul...

[@italogiardina8183]

The video-graphic content has a non non-sense sense, by token of separating the subject from the backdrop, albeit inclusively, so as to include the stage cloistered backdrop which suggested the topic of metaphysics that dates to Aristotle's philosophical enquiries on materialism and that of Platonic forms that set the tone for metaphysical idealists who to this day advocate for universal harmony amongst nations as in perfect societies and nation states which in theory would know the perfect theory of consciousness that correlates to secular humanistic ideals of science which ironically is ever out of reach. The take home message is never trust a secular humanist in principle which seems to suggest a way forward is blockchain technology that is based on no intrinsic trust.

[@williamburts3114]

Take away awareness and what would we know about anything about reality? So, we could say consciousness is knowledge itself because it is that which allows you to be able to understand anything about reality. We could say our conscious- awareness is like an "eternal now" existence that experiences no change nor deterioration, nor does our conscious-awareness experience any increase or decrease. It's just an eternal "in the now existence" that only knows "eternal sameness." Thus, we could say consciousness is "eternity knowing itself"

[@simonhibbs887]

So you are permanently conscious, you are never unconscious, including when in deep dreamless sleep or under deep sedation?

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Memories are everything. Without them, "who" and "what" would you be? Nothing; a literal empty slate. And even if you awakened tomorrow solely with your motor skills and the ability to speak and understand English (or whatever language)... who and what would you be? Must give us pause. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@chrisgreen1514]

@@simonhibbs887I think the modern definition of consciousness includes the subconscious (of Jung etc). The self aware part is referred to as meta-consciousness. Confusing but unfortunately the meaning of words are very fluid and never set in stone.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@chrisgreen1514 I don’t think so. That’s not consistent with the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy section on the various meanings of the term. Unfortunately a lot of non philosopher commentators conflate mental activity in general with consciousness, but that’s usually just muddled thinking.

[@chrisgreen1514]

@@simonhibbs887I agree, there is plenty of muddled thinking in the world! Most philosophers try to define their meaning clearly but even they invariably differ in the detail of their meaning. Really annoying but that’s life.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

Yes, materialism (still) fails in explaining brain activity. But that is in no way proof for metaphysical explanations. It simply means that we haven't found a materialistic solution yet. But I'm convinced: one time, we will.

[@deanodebo]

Why materialism? What is 3 made of?

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

@@deanodebo I'm pretty sure metaphysics won't help you answering your question?

[@deanodebo]

@@obiwanduglobi6359 do you think there’s a materialistic explanation for 3?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@deanodebo Yes, as a counting number 3 is a relationship a set of objects can have to each other. So we can say there are 3 objects in a given volume of space because that is a statement about the world. We can describe the fact that there are 3 objects in that volume of space by encoding that number in some physical representation, such as a number of counting beads, or the position of beads on an abacus, etc. The fact that the description corresponds to the objects in the volume of space is established by a physical process that relates them. Consider a counter of this kind. What does it count? If it is incremented when a widget is put in a warehouse, and decremented when one it taken out, then it's a count of the widgets in the warehouse. It's the physical process by which the counter is updated that makes it a counter, otherwise it's just some arbitrary object. So a number in this sense is a kind of relationship two physical systems can have, the warehouse contents and the counter, that is the result of a physical process. Note that the form the counter takes doesn't matter. It could be a bag of beads, an abacus, a digital computer, written numbers on a ledger, whatever. What matters is the physical process that creates it's relationship to the warehouse contents. That's why 3 appears to not be physical, because it's not a particular object or set of objects, it's a relationship between them. To understand this you need to include spacial and temporal relationships and transformations as being part of the physicalist account. There is no substance of 3-ness that 3 can be made of, any more than there is a substance of triangularity, without which you can't make triangles.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

@@deanodebo Yes, of course. Numbers are abstractions we use to describe and make sense of patterns in the physical world. The concept of '3' arises from counting objects in reality-whether it's three apples, three people, or three stones. The number itself is a human invention to categorize quantities, based on observable phenomena. While the number 3 doesn’t exist as a physical object, it is a mental construct that helps us describe relationships in the material world, emerging from our interaction with that world and the cognitive capacities of our brains, which themselves are material entities. Now you. How does metaphysics explain the number 3?

[@Vitusvonatzinger]

The more you see of the elephant, the bigger the elephant gets.

[@glawrencea6009]

It comes from water

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

consciousness between person and God

[@kricketflyd111]

It is in the pebble, you just can't see it.

[@Traderhood]

If you can’t see it, how do you know it’s there?

[@keepcalm7453]

❤🙏❤🙏❤🙏❤

[@adamsawyer1763]

I think the mistake here is discount all panpsychism just because naive panpsychism has obvious issues. What i call naïve pansychism either assigns a little bit of consciousness to fundamental particles or to some composite thereof or assigns consciousness to the way information is shared between systems of particles. These approaches all fall foul of the combination problem. While I completely agree that this is irrevocably fatal for these naive panspychist ideas I believe there is an alternative which doesnt succumb to this problem.

[@angel4everable]

Descartes walks into a bar, and the bartender asks, "May I serve you a drink, Monsieur Descartes?" The philosopher replies, "I don't think so." Then he vanishes. Raymond Tallis confuses materialism with reductionism. No materialist thinks consciousness is "just neural activity." The open question is whether neural activity can produce a higher state, much as matter produces electromagnetism and gravity, forces that themselves are not material.

[@theophilus749]

Two points if I may: 1. Your analogy with the elecromagnetic and gravitational forces not being 'material' seems beside the point. This is because they are still counted as physical even though not material. So your open question would then be: Can neural activity (which is physical) produce a non-physical state? How's that supposed to work? 2. If mental states really are physical then I do not see how they can be anything other than reducible. The alternative is a form of groundless emergentism: you take physical interaction, make it more complicated, then suddenly, at some stage, something quite different (non-physical) comes about. This seems to be an appeal to magic. Emergence requires reduction if it is to avoid this fate. (For example we can talk about solidity as emerging from certain kinds of molecular relations but only because we know how solidity reduces to such relations.)

[@simonhibbs887]

What do you mean by material? All physical phenomena we know of seem to be either excitations of quantum fields or of spacetime. Which of these is material, and which not? Can you draw a dividing line down the Standard Model?

[@theophilus749]

By the way, I meant to add that I like your philosophical joke. It instantly doubles my collection of them. The other one goes as follows: 'Sum ergo cogito'. 'Is this putting Descartes before dehorse'?

[@angel4everable]

@@theophilus749 thank you for this thought-provoking response. I am using materialism and physicalism interchangeably, as most modern philosophers do. However, I abide by your point that there are, in a strict sense, physical states that are not material, such as electromagnetism. Raymond Tallis sets up a strawman argument, "if thinking comes down to neurons then the materialist take on consciousness must be wrong". That is the same as saying, 'nothing as complex as a cell, much less a human being, could be programmed by DNA". My case is not ghost-in-the-machine, magic, or other skyhooks but more like Darwin on biology. Life organizes itself through a non-thinking process of natural selection through the agency of a non-thinking environment; the end product is a design without a designer. Ceteris paribus, the same holds true for the mind. Agents of thought, neurons, engage in the activity of forming societies with other agents, and these higher levels of consciousness are not programmed from below by matter. The societies are real yet non-material.

[@theophilus749]

​@@angel4everable Many thanks. You pose a decent challenge yourself. Let's see if I can meet it. *Firstly,* Your new analogy - "That [what Tallis is saying] is the same as saying, 'nothing as complex as a cell, much less a human being, could be programmed by DNA'" - sounds better than your first analogy but that is only because we know less about how biological phenomena can be subject to reduction to (and thus emerge from) lower level physical phenomena. It sounds more mysterious. Still, to avoid magical emergence, such reduction must be held to be at least possible. I don't think there is a parity though between the case of reducing biological phenomena and the problems that Tallis raises about treating consciousness in a similar way. Of course, one has to believe that biological phenomena are (entirely) a class of physical phenomena to begin with, and I would not accept that without further ado. Nonetheless, let's accept it for the time being. Where does that leave Tallis - and myself? Putting it bluntly, reducing biology to physics simply requires more knowledge of both physics and biology. On the other hand, Tallis is arguing that reducing consciousness to physics is (probably) impossible anyhow. I think he is right. No matter how much physics we get to know, and no matter how refined our knowledge of the correlations between brain processes and consciousness becomes, we could still ask just how can consciousness _be_ that process. Thus, no parity, and thus no straw man. *Three further (hopefully relevant) points if I may (though they do go beyond what you are actually arguing):* 1. The question 'What is consciousness?' may itself be misguided if it is meant (as it nearly always is) as an enquiry about the nature of consciousness. This is because it presupposes that consciousness must be explicable in terms of something else, a 'something else' that could tell us what its nature is. Perhaps it isn't so explicable. Perhaps it just isn't definable in terms of anything else, either physical stuff (activity) or non-physical stuff (activity). 2. Perhaps we know all there is to know about what consciousness is just by being it (or having it). Perhaps it hs no hidden depth (at least in that sense). It certainly _seems_ like the ultimate, fundamental, undeniable subjective reality. Perhaps that is because it just _is.*_ 3. Many philosophers, but especially physicalists, seem to think that consciousness is a matter of sufficient complexity and thus that to understand it we must come to understand the relevant (physical) complexities involved. Yet the main philosophical problems that rise from consciousness seem to be based on some very simple features that it possesses - its basic 'raw feels' or 'qualia', and its simple, direct subjectivity, for instance. Thus, maybe the reason we cannot reduce consciousness to physicality is not because it is too _complex_ a thing for us (as things stand) to understand in terms of complex of physical processes but because it is too _simple_ a thing. This is one of the motivations for panpsychism, of course. (Though I am no panpsychist because I think it merely pushes the fundamental problem of the relationship between consciousness and physicality further down the physical scale - all in the forlorn hope that no one will notice as they slowly drown in the sub-atomic ocean - or rather get buried in its fields.) I am no dualist either, at least not of the Cartesian variety. I would be tempted to some sort of Idealism (or at any rate Immaterialism, a la Berkeley) but for the fact that I am just as unsure how physicality could be reduced to consciousness as I am how consciousness can be reduced to physicality. Frankly, I wish I knew where I stand, but I don't. I can guarantee that I grieve over it during the long winter nights, though. Cheers!

[@emilgabl9069]

Thais is why AI will change everything.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Reflection is key. When you consider what is most important to existence, it's the BEFOREs and AFTERs which are probably best for mankind to consider: what happened before birth and what occurs after d34th. After all, since all humans will d13, what is the point of anyone doing ANYTHING? Sure, everyone *does* do stuff with their limited years, but... what's the bloody point? 🙂 In 60-120 years, you'll be forgotten; a nothing-burger; a nobody. Nothing you've achieved will ever be remembered nor used. And if not after 120 years, certainly after double have passed. That is, unless you're a Copernicus or Einstein or Tolkien, etc. ... AND YOU PROBABLY AREN'T. 😂 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@simonhibbs887]

>what’s the point of anyone doing ANYTHING? Why not?

[@browngreen933]

Didn't Parmenides address this 2500 years ago with the Way of Truth (Existence) and the Way of Seeming (what we imagine)?

[@stanleyklein524]

no

[@dr_shrinker]

Materialism is all there is. There is nothing intangible that exists. If it’s immaterial, it does not exist - by definition. He said “neutral activity is nothing like the experiences people have.” How does he know? That’s a huge assumption to assume a person’s neural activity is “less physical” than the observed object. For all we know, the neural activity IS another state of the material objects - much like electricity and magnetism are two states of the same thing. A physical object is an electrical hologram, and observation is a siphoning of that object’s “essence.” The physical energy of a lightning strike (or any other event), is converted to a neural signal that the brain understands. Neural activity might very well be the distilled version of physical reality.

[@flolou8496]

This one gave me a headache, I guess my conscious wasn't ready for the spotlight tonite.

[@chrisgreen1514]

Physics is full of brute facts in the objective outer world. Why not just accept Consciousness as a brute fact in the subjective inner world too?

[@deanodebo]

What’s a brute fact? Give examples of so-called facts that aren’t contingent

[@chrisgreen1514]

@@deanodeboSorry for the misunderstanding, I’m not saying brute facts are things that exist by logical necessity. I’m just saying that they are ideas or concepts that are largely accepted or believed in, axiomatically if you like, such as three dimensional space, time, mass, charge, energy ...Indeed, these would all seem to be contingent on the existence of the universe itself!

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Why philosophy to solve this problems? Because unpredictable consciousness take place figure out absolutetly random is Impossible reality. It emerges this Guys solutions is senseless. Guys It inst philosophy proceendings. Rambling.

[@simonhibbs887]

>this Guys solution is senseless. I think you need to pay more attention. He didn’t offer a solution.

[@georgegrubbs2966]

The "using consciousness to understand consciousness" is not an issue. We use the brain to discover all types of things about the brain. We devise machines to learn about themselves. I think Tallis is wrong, and I believe that much too much has been made of consciousness. The usual philosophy definition of consciousness is being awake, alert, aware, and having subjective experiences or qualia. So? Pain is a subjective experience; it's not that mysterious. Turn the clock back, say, to the time when Homo sapiens became a species, about 300,000 years ago. Is a great ape conscious, a monkey, a turtle, a bee, kudzu, dirt? What does an organism have to have to be conscious? What role does language have to do with consciousness? Take a newborn, or even a fetus, or even an embryo. Is an embryo conscious - probably not. A fetus? Maybe - at what point in gestation did consciousness creep in? How about a newborn? A newborn is awake and alert, and probably aware in some fashion, and probably has subjective experiences of a fundamental kind. A newborn communicates through facial expressions and crying, basically. I don't think that it is unreasonable to associate brain complexity with consciousness. I hope Tallis agrees with that. The big deal is qualia, "what it is like to see (experience) "red" or "blue" or a "butterfly" or a maggot, or whatever - and, what it feels like to be a person. The physical brain and its supporting systems produce qualia. Simple as that. Qualia are produced from memories, values, perceptions, worldview (neural models), and the like, all boiling down to feelings and representations, dyanamically produced by complex neural networks, and possibly supporting body systems. Why is that so difficult to accept? Consciousness is not a substance "out there" in the universe. His reference to ORCH-OR (microtubules, and QM) is not viable, but at least it is a start of research into the physical, material brain activities that produce what is defined as "consciousness."

[@S3RAVA3LM]

It's turiya they're trying to touch on. Rendered in English as consciousness - bad translation perhaps.

[@deanodebo]

How do you know there are brains? What constitutes a “brain”, as in some subset of it? Eyes? Nerves? Other sensory organs? You act like there’s some obvious thing no one can see, but you probably can’t justify that brains even exist

[@havenbastion]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain and whatever consciousness is, is definitely a sub-set of mind ( a metaphor for the patterns in the brain ), the momentary aspect of the consciously accessible parts.

[@deanodebo]

If you think mind and 100% brain, that’s an assumption. Consciousness created the concept of brain. Not the other way around

[@chrisgreen1514]

“Something that is not a thing” 🤣

[@hvglaser]

Consciousness could be an illusion. Illusions a real, but they are not what they appear to be, unless you see them as illusions.

[@checkavilatility]

Yet, somehow when you mess with the brain, you mess with consciousness.... Ignoring the obvious to try and fit into some primitive philosophical concepts.

[@deanodebo]

Somehow when I mess with my TV, Seinfeld goes away. Therefore Seinfeld originates in my TV

[@bdnnijs192]

​@@deanodebo Except in this analogy you're seinfeld. Messing with the TV alters the episode. If you're going to assume a tv station is broadcasting mind into the aether you can just save steps and assume the brain is the tv station.

[@deanodebo]

@@bdnnijs192 the tv is hardware. Right? Pull a transistor or a wire, things change and go wrong. Same with brain. That’s the analogy. As far as the information processed, that’s what’s in question. So I’m demonstrating an analogy where correlation is very strong. Absent assumptions, we still don’t have causation.

[@bdnnijs192]

@@deanodebo Mess with the TV, Seinfeld is still whole (on a different TV set). This does not appear the case for the brain.

[@ThibaudPirotte]

Materialism is so dead

[@stanleyklein524]

The host is clueless as to the subject matter. Either he needs to read/comprehend more or he just is not capable.

[@anteodedi8937]

The title of this video is completely off the mark! Materialism is itself a metaphysics. It is a metaphysical view that makes claims about what nature essentially *is*. Once you begin talking about what exists or what the fundamental essence of nature is, you are doing philosophy. There is no such thing as materialism vs. metaphysics, there is materialistic metaphysics vs. other metaphysics.

[@simonhibbs887]

In my view materialism is monistic in that I think there is a single causal continuity common to all phenomena. It is also the view that all phenomena can be explained in terms of transformational processes acting through this causal continuity. These transformational processes are what we describe and study in physics in mathematical terms. On metaphysics, I’m not sure where that comes into the above. In the philosophy of science it’s generally held that physics does not itself have an ontology, because it uses the ontology of mathematics.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@simonhibbs887 What's the fuss about? You are after all relying on philosophy. You are putting forward a metaphysical doctrine. Of course, it's a separate issue whether it's correct or not.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@anteodedi8937 I’m pointing out why I think it is no more nor less metaphysical than physics itself. It’s just saying those phenomena physics studies, that’s all there is. So if physics is metaphysics (which seems like a contradictory statement) then physicalism is metaphysics, otherwise it isn’t.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@simonhibbs887 Physics itself doesn't contain the proposition that the phenomena that physics studies is all there is. That's a metaphysical move; hence physicalism is a metaphysical thesis. You can deny physicalism without contradicting any proposition in physics.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@anteodedi8937 To be honest I find metaphysics to much of a grab bag of random topics to really get my head around it all. If you say so.