A Critique of Biological Materialism

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Radar
Posts: 1009
Joined: January 1st, 2014, 5:56 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Radar »

Browne's Theism so thoroughly demolishes atheistic arguments in the introduction that the rest of the book is almost superfluous. But put Return to the One: Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization by Brian Hines on your reading list, anyway.
“In finem nostrae cognitionis Deum tamquam ignotum cognoscimus.”
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Quotidian »

I know what you mean, but one's opponent will say exactly the same of whatever tract they are reading at the time. One can make effective arguments in either direction; that is what is interesting and useful about philosophy.

I have noticed the Brian Hines book, but haven't bought it. I have the Hadot book on Plotinus, and a bad translation of the Enneads. I also have the original Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, edited by W Y Evans Wentz, which has extensive notes comparing TIbetan Buddhism and Neoplatonism. That book was another counter-cultural classic. There are some class notes on Plotinus here, which I have often referred to on forums.
Plotinus wishes to speak of a thinking that is not discursive but intuitive, i.e. that it is knowing and what it is knowing are immediately evident to it. There is no gap then between thinking and what is thought--they come together in the same moment, which is no longer a moment among other consecutive moments, one following upon the other. Rather, the moment in which such a thinking takes place is immediately present and without difference from any other moment, i.e. its thought is no longer chronological but eternal.
[gong sound]......
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
User avatar
Radar
Posts: 1009
Joined: January 1st, 2014, 5:56 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Radar »

Thanks for the link.

Whether it's Plotinus, Browne or Sri Aurobindo, there seems to be certain elements that concrete thinkers simply cannot grasp. For example, I'm pretty sure that you've noticed that atheists in particularly seem to have a difficult time grasping the difference between contingent and non-contingent being or the difference between principles that describe and concrete facts. They forget, it seems, that all concepts are interpretative abstractions rather than representations of reality itself.
Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts.

The primordial stasis of infinity requires segmentation prior to human attempts at comprehension. (UB)
Either unconscious matter-energy has a latent power for consciousness — in which case the absence of consciousness is phenomenal only and not fundamental — or else it is the veil of a consciousness which emerges out of a state of involution that only appears to us as unconscious. Either way, biological materialism is seriously undermined.
“In finem nostrae cognitionis Deum tamquam ignotum cognoscimus.”
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Fooloso4 »

Quotidian:

Plotinus wishes to speak of a thinking that is not discursive but intuitive, i.e. that it is knowing and what it is knowing are immediately evident to it. There is no gap then between thinking and what is thought--they come together in the same moment, which is no longer a moment among other consecutive moments, one following upon the other. Rather, the moment in which such a thinking takes place is immediately present and without difference from any other moment, i.e. its thought is no longer chronological but eternal.
Here’s the thing: We hear these descriptions of unmediated experience, but unless or until we have such experience ourselves we are necessarily thinking in terms of mediated experience and concepts. I cannot dismiss such experience, but hearing such descriptions is not the same as having them. This was a point made in the passage from the Republic. All too often those who have not had this experience fool themselves by thinking they understand and now feel qualified to make metaphysical statement about which they have no understanding. They somehow overlook the very thing that is being pointed to. The Buddhists refer to this as “painting of a rice cake”. The Zen master advises the disciple to kill the Buddha. Zen master Hakuin says:
“To have expedients without wisdom is like having legs but no eyes: to have wisdom without expedients is like having eyes but no legs. If the legs and eyes both work together, then finally one may reach the treasure place.”
All that we are told about unmediated experience is an expedient, they are not the truth itself. Any book, any description is merely an expedient. The worship of a book or The Book is running around in the dark. logos, that is, words, no matter who speaks them, are not Logos. (This comment is not intended for all but may pass under the radar of those for whom it is intended).
User avatar
Radar
Posts: 1009
Joined: January 1st, 2014, 5:56 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Radar »

Good post, Fooloso, very good. It's exactly to what I was referring to when I said, "Whether it's Plotinus, Browne or Sri Aurobindo, there seems to be certain elements that concrete thinkers simply cannot grasp." You are absolutely right: "All too often those who have not had this experience fool themselves by thinking they understand and now feel qualified to make metaphysical statement about which they have no understanding." Plotinus wasn't one of them; he spoke from experience.

But who can judge whether someone is just fooling themselves? What field of modern knowledge did not have its beginnings in vague familiarity deemed to be truly understood? Who were the first astronomers? the first chemists? the first doctors?
“In finem nostrae cognitionis Deum tamquam ignotum cognoscimus.”
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Fooloso4 »

Radar:

But who can judge whether someone is just fooling themselves?
As far as I know, there are only two answers: one who knows and one who knows he does not know. The problem with the first answer is that it raises another question. It takes one to know one, but if I am not one who knows I cannot know if another knows and is thus a suitable judge of what I am fooling myself about. The Zen schools try to overcome this problem by certification – one who knows affirming that another knows. The problem is that the various schools do not agree with each other and question the authenticity of certification given by the other schools.

I am distrustful of the insemination of knowledge and thus the dissemination of knowledge. The most valuable teachings, I find, are those that do not give us anything but rather take away whatever chains and binds us to the cave wall. Ch’an master Lin Chi says he sees what those who come to him need to have taken away. This is what is known as the gateless gate. The gate that stands between us and enlightenment does not exist. It is of our own making. Our concepts and beliefs, the way we see things through our own thought and images stands in our way.

The solution, however, is not to stop thinking or doing. The solution is not to embrace irrationality. Some Ch’an schools do treat the Koan as irrational, while others say the Koan brings us to the limits of conceptual understanding and when solved reveals a higher logic.

I try not to fool myself into thinking I know what I do not know. I treat the whole of these teachings, including the claim of enlightenment and contemplation of eternal truths, as expedients. But not expedients that will lead me to enlightenment but as measures that remind me that however clever I am, however logically coherent my reasoning is, I still do not know. I am left, as I think Plato intended to leave those students who were not charmed into believing in the world of intelligible beings or immortal souls, with aporia. We are left with the challenge of doing as best we can without knowing what is truly best.
User avatar
Radar
Posts: 1009
Joined: January 1st, 2014, 5:56 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Radar »

Fooloso4 wrote:
Radar:

But who can judge whether someone is just fooling themselves?
As far as I know, there are only two answers: one who knows and one who knows he does not know.
No gradations? I'll ask again: What field of modern knowledge did not have its beginnings in vague familiarity deemed to be truly understood? Who were the first astronomers? the first chemists? the first doctors? Even the line between life and non-life is blurry.

More to the subject matter of this thread is this: Either unconscious matter-energy has a latent power for consciousness — in which case the absence of consciousness is phenomenal only and not fundamental — or else it is the veil of a consciousness which emerges out of a state of involution that only appears to us as unconscious. Either way, it cannot be held that the material state is empty of consciousness. True or not?
“In finem nostrae cognitionis Deum tamquam ignotum cognoscimus.”
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Fooloso4 »

Radar:

What field of modern knowledge did not have its beginnings in vague familiarity deemed to be truly understood?
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about a field of knowledge. Fields of knowledge are conceptual constructs. What Plotinus and the others are talking about is the opposite of science and discursive knowledge. It is what is known in unmediated experience. The practices developed to help attain this state have been around for thousands of years.
Either unconscious matter-energy has a latent power for consciousness
It is not a latent power but an emergent property of some things that are sufficiently well organized. It does not exist in any of the parts taken separately or together as a collection of parts.
or else it is the veil of a consciousness which emerges out of a state of involution
Do you mean consciousness becoming aware of itself? I cannot rule that out, but I think it kind of makes things less interesting. The answer is there without having to try and figure out how it happens. It does not even have to have a spiritual payoff as Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit/Mind shows.
Either way, it cannot be held that the material state is empty of consciousness. True or not?
I’m not sure what you mean by the material state. Obviously there is consciousness since we are conscious beings. I do not think this means that our consciousness must be the result of consciousness.
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Quotidian »

Fooloso4 wrote:I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about a field of knowledge. Fields of knowledge are conceptual constructs. What Plotinus and the others are talking about is the opposite of science and discursive knowledge. It is what is known in unmediated experience. The practices developed to help attain this state have been around for thousands of years.
It's not 'the opposite'. You're talking from the perspective of the Religion V Faith dichotomy, which is not thousands of years, but about 150 years old, disseminated by various writers with axes to grind on both sides of the debate.

If you go back to the ancients and even the medievals, 'science and religion' did not exist as separate spheres of enquiry. They were all subsumed under the heading of 'philosophy' or 'learning'. Pythagoras, who was arguably one of the original sources of Western science, was a scientist and mystic. Aquinas refused to consider that science and religion could be in any essential conflict. Many of the early figures in modern science were invested in religious ideas and were certainly not anti-religious in the sense understood by current anti-religious polemicists.

As regards the validity or otherwise of 'unmediated experience', there has been a long-running debate in religious studies as to whether it is a meaningful expression. The idea of 'the universality of mystical experience' came from such influences as popular Eastern mysticism, which really entered the US lexicon with people such as Vivekenanda and Soyen Shaku who gave lectures at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in the 1880's and subsequently went on lecture tours throughout America; Soyen Shaku effectively founded American Zen. One of his students was D T Suzuki whose lectures in the US in the 40's and 50's had enormous influence which was picked up an amplified by the counter culture in the forms as such figures as Alan Watts and of course the 'consciousness movement' of the 60's.

It was that milieu which produced the idea of 'spiritual enlightenment' as a kind of universalistic idea which found expression in the various schools of mystical philosophy throughout the ages. The typical sources were said to be Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, Christian Mysticism (sharply differentiated from Christian orthodoxy), and Sufism (likewise strongly differentiated from mainstream Islam).

There has been a reaction against that, notably in the assertion that there are 'no unmediated experiences'. This came from a religious studies academic by the name of Stephen Katz who published a book on it in the late 70's. Another scholar/practitioner by the name of Robert K C Forman came out in opposition, which lead to the Katz-Forman debates, and ultimately the founding of the Journal of Consciousness Studies.

(My sympathies are firmly with the perennialists in general, and with Mahayana Buddhism in particular, as interpreted by modern Zen scholar/practitioners including Soyen Shaku and Gudo Nishijima.)

What has all this to do with the thread? Well, interestingly, there is no essential debate of the 'creationist' type in such circles. I don't think Buddhists have ever found Darwinian evolution particularly challenging to their intellectual paradigm, and indeed Buddhism has never laid a great deal of stress on creation mythology of any kind. The Buddhist view is that we are who we are largely (but not entirely) because of karma, and we have the opportunity in this lifetime to pursue spiritual liberation. But in the general Indian understanding of the Universe, the idea that 'everything evolves' would be not at all hard to accommodate; indeed years ago I thought that evolution and re-incarnation might be related ideas, although now I'm not so sure. (There is a counter-cultural movement called 'evolutionary spirituality' but it is associated with certain new-age types that I would not like to be associated with.)

The real philosophical adversary is not evolutionary biology, but evolutionary materialism, which subordinates everything about human nature to the requirements of biological survival and thus can only ever offer a species of utilitarianism in a world with no real value or meaning. Dennett and Dawkins are the poster-boys for those ideas.

-- Updated October 2nd, 2014, 12:50 pm to add the following --
Fooloso4 wrote: not expedients that will lead me to enlightenment but as measures that remind me that however clever I am, however logically coherent my reasoning is, I still do not know.
That's it, 100%. That is the entrance to the gateless gate.

__//\\__
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
User avatar
Radar
Posts: 1009
Joined: January 1st, 2014, 5:56 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Radar »

Fooloso4 wrote:
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about a field of knowledge. Fields of knowledge are conceptual constructs. What Plotinus and the others are talking about is the opposite of science and discursive knowledge. It is what is known in unmediated experience. The practices developed to help attain this state have been around for thousands of years.
Well, actually, all I was going to say is that as someone who's recommended books like Buddhism is Not What You Think, The Book of Not Knowing and Love of Knowledge, I'm confident I know what you are talking about. But to say it is the opposite of science is ludicrous. Quotidian is right: to say that, you have to be "talking from the perspective of the Religion V Faith dichotomy, which is not thousands of years, but about 150 years old." What you call the opposite of science is science directed inward.

It is not a latent power but an emergent property of some things that are sufficiently well organized. It does not exist in any of the parts taken separately or together as a collection of parts.

That statement is not only the the opposite of science, it's irrational. On one hand, you say consciousness in not latent in matter ("latent" is defined as potentially existing but not presently evident or realized); on the other, you're saying matter is conscious given the right conditions. To say consciousness can emerge from something in which it is entirely absent is to descend into nescience and superstition.
“In finem nostrae cognitionis Deum tamquam ignotum cognoscimus.”
User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Neopolitan »

Radar wrote:More to the subject matter of this thread is this: Either unconscious matter-energy has a latent power for consciousness — in which case the absence of consciousness is phenomenal only and not fundamental — or else it is the veil of a consciousness which emerges out of a state of involution that only appears to us as unconscious. Either way, it cannot be held that the material state is empty of consciousness. True or not?
The only real uncertainty here is where this is a false dichotomy or a begged question (or possibly both).

Firstly, I think you really should be using the term "non-conscious" rather than "unconscious" and "mass-energy" rather than "matter-energy". There is such a thing as "mass-energy" while "matter-energy" seems to be something that you just made up. Matter is a particular state of mass-energy:
Google define wrote:matter - physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy
Your terminology seems to have major issues with it, especially as it seems to be implying that mass-energy might be asleep.

Then there is "phenomenal" and "fundamental". Phenomenal, when it's not being "excellent", usually means something like:
the chaps over at Merriam-Webster wrote:phenomenal - relating to or being a phenomenon: as
  • a : known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition

    b : concerned with phenomena rather than with hypotheses
Compare this with "fundamental":
the chaps over at Merriam-Webster wrote:fundamental
  • 1 a : serving as an original or generating source
    b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function
    2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts ; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application
    b : adhering to fundamentalism
    3 : of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration
    4 : of central importance
    5 : belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics
If you strictly mean that by being a phenomenon, then the "absence of consciousness" is not the source of that phenomenon and therefore cannot be "fundamental" to the phenomenon of being absent, then ... I guess that's ok. Is that all you mean? I suspect not.

I'm also more than a little bemused by the idea that you want an absence of something to be considered as a phenomenon. This might be the case if we redefine phenomenon, as in "the absence of water is a phenomenon often observed in the Sahara, along with the absence of penguins, hula-hoops, pixies and Imperial Death Stars". It's not a tangible phenomenon, it's merely an unobserved phenomenon, unlike, for example - a rainbow. And while a rainbow isn't tangible in the strictest sense, at least we can interact with a rainbow in a sense that we cannot interact with the absence of a rainbow. I think, when you say "fundamental" here you mean the opposite of contingent, in other words "necessary", but since that word can be confusing let's use the more precise "non-contingent", which is handy because "not non-contingent" can be written less awkwardly as "contingent" (although you do have to lose your "only").

Then there is the word "involution". You could mean a few things here: "self-reference", "boot-strapping" "the process by which the Divine manifests the cosmos" or some other situation in which a process or object is ontologically "turned in" upon itself. Fortunately you give us a clue since you say "a state of involution", this indicates that you are implying that consciousness is begetting consciousness - like the self-creating god in some versions of theology. So it's a sort of boot-strapping.

Referring to consciousness as being boot-strapped doesn't seem to help your argument at all though, at least not in terms of clarity. All it does is add extra words that obscure what you are saying. We can fix that.

What is less easily fixed is your loose pronoun "it", in "or it is the veil (blah blah blah)". What precisely is "it"? I think you mean "non-conscious mass-energy", although you didn't write it as well as that. Did you really mean the whole thing, or did you mean to just refer to the mass-energy part - this seems to be the case since you appear to be arguing that mass-energy isn't non-conscious.

I note also that you use the term "latent power for ..." Do you really mean "latent capacity for ..." or "latent power that can manifest ..." I'm going to go with the former.

Finally you talk about a "material state". A material state refers to ... "matter", doesn't it? Unless you are talking about an organisation and its infrastructure (the material state of a mine can be good, meaning that there is plenty of unobtainium left in the ground to grub out, the machines work, the vehicles are suitably dirty and personnel have all the necessary protective equipment, while the mine could be a basket case with respect to its ethical, organisational and financial states). I don't think you mean this. In context, I think you are talking about your recently made up "matter-energy" by which you mean "mass-energy".

Let's have another go, with your terminology tweaked.
neopolitan, while channeling a more scientifically adept version of Radar, wrote:Either mass-energy is:
  • non-conscious and has a latent capacity for consciousness — in which case the absence of consciousness is phenomenal and contingent, or
  • the veil of a consciousness that only appears to us as unconscious
Either way, it cannot be held that mass-energy in the form of matter is empty of consciousness. True or not?
When you put it like that, Radar, it's clearly a false dichotomy based on an assumption (a begged question) with respect to consciousness.

Unless we have good reason to believe otherwise, some sort of evidence or a convincing argument that goes beyond baseless claims, it is rational to assume that mass-energy is non-conscious and that non-consciousness (the absence of consciousness) is the fundamental state. Furthermore, the only phenomenon worth talking about in this context is consciousness - not the absence thereof - and we have no good reason to believe that consciousness is anything but contingent. In other words, as Fooloso4 alluded to, consciousness is quite likely an emergent feature of complex biological systems, not something that saturates this universe of ours. Consciousness is experienced and expressed by these complex biological systems, but it doesn't reside in those complex biological system in any meaningful sense.

The only reason that one might truthfully deny the truthfulness of the statement that "mass-energy is empty of consciousness" is because the statement misuses concepts, in that sense (inter alia) it is also untrue to say that "mass-energy contains consciousness".

-- Updated October 1st, 2014, 10:08 pm to add the following --

If someone can explain precisely what an "unmediated experience" or what "unmediated experience" is, and how it relates to "biological materialism", I would be much obliged. If the person who is defining it is also advocating it, a quick explanation of how it would work and what subjects of "unmediated experience" are being considered, this would also be appreciated.
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Bohm2 »

Radar wrote:Either way, biological materialism is seriously undermined.
There is no biological "materialism" to begin with, to be undermined. Primarily, because the "materialism" part is open, evolving and provisional. One can't undermine something that isn't well-defined.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Fooloso4 »

Quotidian:

You're talking from the perspective of the Religion V Faith dichotomy
I’m afraid I keep derailing the thread. What I am talking about is the practice of transcendence – Buddhism, Plotinus, etc. and the difference between mediated and unmediated experience. The terminology may be somewhat different but the difference between conceptual and experiential knowledge is not a new idea. I am not aware of the religion versus faith dichotomy. Belief that there is transcendence would be a matter of faith, but transcendence itself is experiential (I will reserve the term unmediated for now).
The idea of 'the universality of mystical experience'
That may be but I am skeptical of this idea. Since I make a distinction between such experience and descriptions of such experience I am hesitant to make or accept any claims about the commonality or differences in mystical experience.
Unmediated experience:
Most of what I have read has been primary source materials. I have read a bit of Watts and Suzuki. but most of what I have read is much older, the most recent probably being Hakuin 1686-1769. Not knowing the languages of the originals I am at the mercy of translators. The translations no doubt reflect the understanding and biases of the translators, but the idea that the conceptual mind stands in the way of enlightenment can, I think, be found in the ancient literature.

I do not know Stephen Katz or Robert K C Forman or what they use as their sources for their claims.

I will have to look into this a bit more. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

-- Updated October 1st, 2014, 10:44 pm to add the following --
Radar:

you're saying matter is conscious given the right conditions
I am not saying that matter is conscious I am saying that we are conscious and that I do not assume it is the result of supernatural intention or intervention.
That statement is not only the the opposite of science, it's irrational. On one hand, you say consciousness in not latent in matter ("latent" is defined as potentially existing but not presently evident or realized)
Please identify where water is latent in hydrogen or oxygen.
To say consciousness can emerge from something in which it is entirely absent is to descend into nescience and superstition.
First, I have admitted my ignorance. You seemed to approve but now you scold me for it. As to superstition, believing that the natural world can give rise to what we find in the natural world may be wrong but it is not superstition.

You quote the following:
"All too often those who have not had this experience fool themselves by thinking they understand and now feel qualified to make metaphysical statement about which they have no understanding."
Are we to assume that you, like Plotinus, have had the transcendent experience of the One? And yet it seems that you do feel qualified to make metaphysical statements.
User avatar
Radar
Posts: 1009
Joined: January 1st, 2014, 5:56 pm

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Radar »

Fooloso4 wrote:
I am not saying that matter is conscious I am saying that we are conscious and that I do not assume it is the result of supernatural intention or intervention.
This is where the logic of materialism descends into contradictions and magical thinking: Either unconscious matter-energy has a latent power for consciousness — in which case the absence of consciousness is phenomenal only and not fundamental — or else it is the veil of a consciousness which emerges out of a state of involution that only appears to us as unconscious. Having rejected those options, the only thing left is to posit something from outside entering into the material body.
Please identify where water is latent in hydrogen or oxygen.
Physics. Water is a compound, reducible to its components. Consciousness, on the other hand, is not reducible to neurons or neuron activity.
First, I have admitted my ignorance. You seemed to approve but now you scold me for it. As to superstition, believing that the natural world can give rise to what we find in the natural world may be wrong but it is not superstition.
There's more than one kind of not knowing: feigned ignorance and openness. The former still operates within structured thinking; the latter is openness without the structure. (For more on this read The Book of Not Knowing.)
You quote the following:
"All too often those who have not had this experience fool themselves by thinking they understand and now feel qualified to make metaphysical statement about which they have no understanding."
Are we to assume that you, like Plotinus, have had the transcendent experience of the One? And yet it seems that you do feel qualified to make metaphysical statements.
You can assume anything you like.

-- Updated October 1st, 2014, 9:56 pm to add the following --
Bohm2 wrote:
Radar wrote:Either way, biological materialism is seriously undermined.
There is no biological "materialism" to begin with, to be undermined. Primarily, because the "materialism" part is open, evolving and provisional. One can't undermine something that isn't well-defined.
I agree. You might say I'm trying to approach the subject from 19th century science as much as I can to accommodate concrete thinking.
“In finem nostrae cognitionis Deum tamquam ignotum cognoscimus.”
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: A Critique of Biological Materialism

Post by Vijaydevani »

Radar wrote: This is where the logic of materialism descends into contradictions and magical thinking: Either unconscious matter-energy has a latent power for consciousness — in which case the absence of consciousness is phenomenal only and not fundamental — or else it is the veil of a consciousness which emerges out of a state of involution that only appears to us as unconscious. Having rejected those options, the only thing left is to posit something from outside entering into the material body.
It does seem that some matter-energy (at least, if not all) has the latent power for consciousness, given the right conditions. But your argument breaks down when you assume this to mean that the absence of consciousness is phenomenal.Absence of consciousness has no significance at all. What it really means is that consciousness seems to be phenomenal. It also means that consciousness seems to not be fundamental. Only if all matter-energy demonstrated a latent power of consciousness even if it were only under the right conditions could we conclude that consciousness is fundamental.

So until and unless all matter-energy demonstrates a latent power of consciousness, we must assume that consciousness itself is phenomenal and not fundamental. There is no valid reason to believe that consciousness is all pervading.
Last edited by Vijaydevani on October 2nd, 2014, 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021