Because I know. That knowing itself refutes the premise Dennet holds.boda wrote:
How do you know it's wrong?
Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory. From what I understand, you would also claim that subjective consciousness is illusory (empty). What am I missing?Malcolm wrote:Because I know. That knowing itself refutes the premise Dennet holds.boda wrote:
How do you know it's wrong?
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
The difference is self-awareness, as stated above. The self-awareness of consciousness is an irreducible fact that cannot be explained by materialism, not thus far.boda wrote:From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory. From what I understand, you would also claim that subjective consciousness is illusory (empty). What am I missing?Malcolm wrote:Because I know. That knowing itself refutes the premise Dennet holds.boda wrote:
How do you know it's wrong?
- monktastic
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Thanks for the correction, it seems you're right:boda wrote: Dawkins for one, being a scientist, explicitly refers to his ideas on the subject as theory, and even goes so far as stating that he's not 100% sure that God doesn't exists. So by your own criteria, such as it is, he doesn't fall into the drinking the Kool-Aid camp.
Question: How can science have a unique insight into cognizance?
Richard Dawkins: Well, that's a very difficult question since we can't actually measure whether creatures are conscious. So I guess science has as much insight as any other subject, but I don't think I can answer that question directly. Maybe computer science has as much insight into it as any other science.
Science doesn't, but many scientists do.Science doesn't make "full stop" claims. If it does it's not science. Religion makes full stop claims. It has to make full stop claims.
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
A synopsis of how Dennett explains consciousness in Consciousness Explained, from the wiki article:Malcolm wrote:The difference is self-awareness, as stated above. The self-awareness of consciousness is an irreducible fact that cannot be explained by materialism, not thus far.boda wrote:From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory. From what I understand, you would also claim that subjective consciousness is illusory (empty). What am I missing?Malcolm wrote:
Because I know. That knowing itself refutes the premise Dennet holds.
The book puts forward a "multiple drafts" model of consciousness, suggesting that there is no single central place (a "Cartesian Theater") where conscious experience occurs; instead there are "various events of content-fixation occurring in various places at various times in the brain". The brain consists of a "bundle of semi-independent agencies"; when "content-fixation" takes place in one of these, its effects may propagate so that it leads to the utterance of one of the sentences that make up the story in which the central character is one's "self". Dennett's view of consciousness is that it is the apparently serial account for the brain's underlying parallelism.
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
New discoveries apparently support Dennett's explication, such as the so called consciousness on-off switch.
See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -in-brain/
See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -in-brain/
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Now there have been so many "illusions" claimed in buddhism, one can hardly lead that argument. There was the illusion of animism, the illusion of substance, the illusion of existence, the illusion of ego, the illusion of soul, and the illusion of reality of emotions.boda wrote: From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory.
To debate conscious experience itself though is quite counterproductive. Even *if* one takes a materialistic stance, where a brain blurts up something that creates an illusion of consciousness ... it is only a perspective. You can sum up all the stuff that creates $brain, and call it consciousness on a non-aware level or lower-level consciousness. Or, as physics do, call it energy. Atiyoga would hardly argue the connection between energy and consciousness. Even if brain dumps awareness as being conscious of consciousness that won't change. So consciousness reflects back on itself. Now what? Same game, one loop closure more required for pseudoscientific explanations. Self-consciousness, as is consciousnesss, is created on a moment-to-moment basis. How should it be different. It appears *now*.
The subjective standpoint is (assuming the above) of course an illusion. As long as there is notion of a subject, there is subject-object-duality. Beyond that, no need for "subject". If the identification with "subject" is given up, "subject" also vanishes even if $consciousness does not. There is consciousness, but it is no longer experienced as an object by a subject. In every minute there is the chance to reintroduce that notion of subject, finding your bottom back in duality. So in one moment there is only consciousness, and in the other there is consciousness of consciousness. But wait, consciousness of consciousness already needs dual experience. It really doesn't matter how many levels of conceptuality you introduce before the non-conceptual. That's intellectual child's play.
Best
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
It all means the same thing: emptiness.Kaccāni wrote:Now there have been so many "illusions" claimed in buddhism, one can hardly lead that argument. There was the illusion of animism, the illusion of substance, the illusion of existence, the illusion of ego, the illusion of soul, and the illusion of reality of emotions.boda wrote: From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory.
You are suggesting that perspective is counterproductive? And this just after Malcolm chiding Dennett for wrong view.To debate conscious experience itself though is quite counterproductive. Even *if* one takes a materialistic stance, where a brain blurts up something that creates an illusion of consciousness ... it is only a perspective.
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
They're different aspects of emptiness. Or different "emptinesses". Some developed along with the advancement of thinking, or the predominant philosophical discussion of the time, some are more general. If you mix them up, you're leading an equivoque argument. Or, as I prefer to say it, you find yourself in emptiness-hell waiting for an emptiness-Godwin to take you out of there.boda wrote:It all means the same thing: emptiness.Kaccāni wrote:Now there have been so many "illusions" claimed in buddhism, one can hardly lead that argument. There was the illusion of animism, the illusion of substance, the illusion of existence, the illusion of ego, the illusion of soul, and the illusion of reality of emotions.boda wrote: From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory.
Perspectives can be taken. In the end, perspective is all there is. Everything that is said (or stated as fact) is said by somebody. How should it be anything but perspective? Only beyond words lies the absolute, and as long as it can be argued with words, it is not absolute.You are suggesting that perspective is counterproductive? And this just after Malcolm chiding Dennett for wrong view.To debate conscious experience itself though is quite counterproductive. Even *if* one takes a materialistic stance, where a brain blurts up something that creates an illusion of consciousness ... it is only a perspective.
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
This just turns one's sense consciousnesses off. Tibetans for example understood that the brain governed sense consciousness well over a thousand years ago.boda wrote:New discoveries apparently support Dennett's explication, such as the so called consciousness on-off switch.
See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -in-brain/
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Why?madhusudan wrote:I'm looking for recommendations of texts that explain the error in scientific materialism and/or positivism. I have Thinley Norbu's Cascading Waterfall of Nectar, which has some good refutations of both eternalism and nihilism. What medicine do you recommend?
Phenomena exist only dependent on conceptual imputation. If you are troubled by "scientific materialism" then it is your conceptual imputation only that troubles you.
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Seriously? Neuroscientists are not even sure exactly what stimulating the claustrum does.Malcolm wrote:This just turns one's sense consciousnesses off. Tibetans for example understood that the brain governed sense consciousness well over a thousand years ago.
Awfully machine like though, you must admit.
Last edited by boda on Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Now I know you're just being silly.Kaccāni wrote:They're different aspects of emptiness. Or different "emptinesses". Some developed along with the advancement of thinking, or the predominant philosophical discussion of the time, some are more general. If you mix them up, you're leading an equivoque argument. Or, as I prefer to say it, you find yourself in emptiness-hell waiting for an emptiness-Godwin to take you out of there.boda wrote:It all means the same thing: emptiness.Kaccāni wrote:
Now there have been so many "illusions" claimed in buddhism, one can hardly lead that argument. There was the illusion of animism, the illusion of substance, the illusion of existence, the illusion of ego, the illusion of soul, and the illusion of reality of emotions.
Words are somehow separate. Good to know.... beyond words lies the absolute, and as long as it can be argued with words, it is not absolute.
- treehuggingoctopus
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
- Location: EU
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
I think you are confusing two narratives and two terminologies here.boda wrote:From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory. From what I understand, you would also claim that subjective consciousness is illusory (empty). What am I missing?Malcolm wrote:Because I know. That knowing itself refutes the premise Dennet holds.boda wrote:
How do you know it's wrong?
Whatever Dennett means by saying that subjective consciousness is illusory, his illusions are not the illusions spoken of in the Mahayana. Dennett's "illusory" is not Nagarjuna's "empty", and the Buddhist deconstruction of the svabhava of (subjective) consciousness is nowhere near what Dennett is doing.
Actually, I do not quite know what exactly he is suggesting. Within his own framework, what he is saying seems to me either incoherent and absurd (if you read him as saying that we are unconscious zombies whom their biological make-up provides with an illusion of being conscious) or trivial (if you read him as stating that consciousness has no material reality to it).
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Seriously. Tibetan Medical discussions of brain injuries and injuries to nerves are instructive in how advanced their "scientific" knowledge was a millennium and more ago.boda wrote:Seriously? :Malcolm wrote:This just turns one's sense consciousnesses off. Tibetans for example understood that the brain governed sense consciousness well over a thousand years ago.
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Your lack of contextual embedding does not constitute my silliness. Continuing to mix up concepts from different times will not get the argument anywhere reasonable.boda wrote:Now I know you're just being silly.Kaccāni wrote:They're different aspects of emptiness. Or different "emptinesses". Some developed along with the advancement of thinking, or the predominant philosophical discussion of the time, some are more general. If you mix them up, you're leading an equivoque argument. Or, as I prefer to say it, you find yourself in emptiness-hell waiting for an emptiness-Godwin to take you out of there.boda wrote: It all means the same thing: emptiness.
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Seriously you make a "full stop" claim, with what I would guess is only a cursory glance at the material, were neuroscientist studying the case do not. And this after we've discussed the phenomena of religious full stop claims, and their necessity, on this very page.Malcolm wrote:Seriously. Tibetan Medical discussions of brain injuries and injuries to nerves are instructive in how advanced their "scientific" knowledge was a millennium and more ago.boda wrote:Seriously? :Malcolm wrote:This just turns one's sense consciousnesses off. Tibetans for example understood that the brain governed sense consciousness well over a thousand years ago.
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
From my cursory glance at the wiki article, I think what Dennett means by the illusory nature of subjective consciousness is that it's basically a contrivance that doesn't represent reality with much fidelity. Sense data is heavily processed by human minds. Kinda like saying a Twinkie is not real food I guess. But that's just a guess. He could be referring to emptiness for all I know.treehuggingoctopus wrote:I think you are confusing two narratives and two terminologies here.boda wrote:From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory. From what I understand, you would also claim that subjective consciousness is illusory (empty). What am I missing?Malcolm wrote:
Because I know. That knowing itself refutes the premise Dennet holds.
Whatever Dennett means by saying that subjective consciousness is illusory, his illusions are not the illusions spoken of in the Mahayana. Dennett's "illusory" is not Nagarjuna's "empty", and the Buddhist deconstruction of the svabhava of (subjective) consciousness is nowhere near what Dennett is doing.
Actually, I do not quite know what exactly he is suggesting. Within his own framework, what he is saying seems to me either incoherent and absurd (if you read him as saying that we are unconscious zombies whom their biological make-up provides with an illusion of being conscious) or trivial (if you read him as stating that consciousness has no material reality to it).
- treehuggingoctopus
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
- Location: EU
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
I really would not rely on Wikipedia. You can read Dennett himself here: http://www.fflch.usp.br/df/opessoa/Denn ... Qualia.pdfboda wrote:From my cursory glance at the wiki article, I think what Dennett means by the illusory nature of subjective consciousness is that it's basically a contrivance that doesn't represent reality with much fidelity. Sense data is heavily processed by human minds. Kinda like saying a Twinkie is not real food I guess. But that's just a guess. He could be referring to emptiness for all I know.
Dennett generally defines qualia as:
(1) intrinsic (i.e., irreducible and unalysable);
(2) private (i.e., you cannot objectively examine them);
(3) incorrigible (i.e., if you believe you have them, you do have them), and
(4) non-physical
(in the article linked the qualities above are slightly different. But the gist is still there.) And yes, he is persuaded that the four qualities are irreconcilable, which is why qualia cannot exist. Where does this leave us? I am not sure, hence my suggestion that he is either incoherent or trivial.
Still, nothing close to Nagarjuna here. Quite the contrary, I would say -- no surprises here, Dennett being a self-avowed materialist.
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism
Keep in mind that materialism is a philosophical position, and the collection of scientific data regarding the brain (and its reported effects on the mind) is neuroscience. Two completely different things.
Dennett defines qualia not as illusory but as an outright illusion. In other words it's not an existing thing that can function. For instance if theres no light and you spin a stick with fire on the end of a fire circle appears, but there is no fire circle and it cannot function. Likewise there is no qualia which exists to then function, its only an illusion like the fire circle.
Naturally the question arises, 'in what way does a moving particle allow for the creation of such an illusion'. The illusion of qualia is as miraculous and contradictory to moving particles as actual qualia, so why accept one but not the other.
Err, Dennett is kind of the father of hard materialism. Hard materialists deny outright that the hard problem of consciousness exists.Dennett generally defines qualia as:
Dennett defines qualia not as illusory but as an outright illusion. In other words it's not an existing thing that can function. For instance if theres no light and you spin a stick with fire on the end of a fire circle appears, but there is no fire circle and it cannot function. Likewise there is no qualia which exists to then function, its only an illusion like the fire circle.
Naturally the question arises, 'in what way does a moving particle allow for the creation of such an illusion'. The illusion of qualia is as miraculous and contradictory to moving particles as actual qualia, so why accept one but not the other.