Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)

On May 6, 5:12 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1178480348.709214.289...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes





On May 6, 12:14 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1178462044.556586.295...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

On May 6, 2:57 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1178408143.695643.12...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

On May 5, 3:20 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <1178390642.398232.158...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

1. Brain activity without consciousness would observably
follow the law
of conservation.
2. Brain activity with consciousness observably follows the law of
conservation.

How do you reconcile these two claims with the idea of a material
consciousness? I would argue that you can't.

If I may proffer an analogy.

1. Atmospheric convection without precipitation would observably follow
the law of conservation (of energy).

2. Atmospheric convection with precipitation observably follows the law
of conservation (of energy).

I trust that you agree that precipitation is physical and that the two
claims are reconcilable with the idea of physical precipitation, and
further recognise that the atmospheric convection is not identical in
the two cases.
This doesn't work. Let's say we were looking at a situation where we
had atmospheric convection with precipitation. If we could just click
a button and delete that precipitation from the universe while it was
raining, the law of conservation would be violated. You can't say the
same thing of what would happen if we "deleted" consciousness as a
result (emergent) of brain acitivty, which is the whole point of my
challenge-- to ask for a given situation where removing something
physical does not result in a violation of the law of conservation.

That doesn't work. You are assuming your conclusion - that consciousness
is a non-material add-on that can be deleted without a change to brain
activity.
Actually I think my assumption is merely that brain activity and
consciousness are not the same thing.

Then we're back to the analogy. Atmospheric convection and precipitation
are not the same thing. In other words, your conclusion does not follow
from your assumption.
I don't think you showed that it would be that way with atmospheric
convection and precipitation. If you remove precipitation from the
equation when its raining it would be violation of physical laws. If
consciousness and brain activity are not the same thing, and you
removed consciousness, please explain to me why there would be any
violations of physics?

You again seem to be assuming your conclusion.

You were the one making the positive claim that a physical consciousness
violates the law of conservation of energy. I believe that I have
already demonstrated that the syllogism on which you based this claim is
not valid. The burden of proof lies on you, to demonstrate that the
relationship of brain activity to consciousness differs in some relevant
fashion from the relationship of atmospheric convection to
precipitation, not on me, to demonstrate that the relationships are
equivalent in so far as they are relevant to the argument.

Very well. We could do the following experiment to demonstrate the
difference:

We would take it as given that you are conscious. We would then look
at your brain, and study every single chemical reaction. The result
would be that, even though the *only* thing we found was brain
activity, the law of conservation would not be violated. A "martian"
scientist who did not know we had subjective experience, would come to
the conclusion that there was no such things as a "subjective
experience" that emerged from this brain activity.

Now, let's say we did the same thing with convective rain. We would
study the atmosphere, and would find that the reactions only follow
the law of conservation if both the rain *and* the convection are
considered. A "martian" scientist who did not know about convection,
would presume that the law of conservation was violated if he only
looked at the rain.

How's that?

<snip>

.