LinuxPup

Whenever someone uses the subject 'I' in a sentence it's often followed by some action, like "I know", or "I am tired". Now everyone will agree that we experience things in life.... we think, see, hear, feel, desire, etc. Now my question is this, if materialism is true, that is, if you and I are strictly the product of physical laws/matter/energy/space/time and there is no immaterial 'soulishness' to us, do you and I really exist? My reason for thinking this is this:

Let's assume materialism is true, what causes me to think? I don't, rather the laws described by physics and chemistry do. What causes me to desire things in life? Is it me? No, particles moving at certain velocities, at certain times, to and from certain spatial positions, among other physical activities cause me to desire. So if I cause nothing concerning my activies and experiences, am I merely a 'self' that is handed sensations and thoughts from the physical universe? Am I given my thoughts and desires from universal descriptive laws? If so, then what am I if I lack the ability to think, feel, and desire? How am I anymore a person than a rock?

Just a thought...

Hayden

By that reasoning, how can we be sure anything exists? If we see it, but we don't exist, then we cannot see it, let alone say so, if anyone else existed to hear it.

The word "exists" therefore becomes meaningless, and must be redefined to suit the context, i.e. our consciousness; and therefore means "can reasonably be assumed to exist according to all available evidence".

If you want to know whether you exist, go and look in a mirror. See above as to whether or not the mirror exists.

HR

Steven Carr

If computers are purely material objects, how
do they manage to obey the laws of chess when
the play chess?

Is the rule of castling reducible to the laws of physics?

Perhaps materialism allows the existence of many more things than you think would be allowed by naive descriptions of materialism.

AtlanticCitySlave

Maybe I'm the village idiot, but could you reword what you're trying to get across? I'm just not sure what it is. It seems like you're trying to suggest a reductionist account of consciousness (I, self, etc.), and that (assuming we can reduce consciousness/self/I down to particles or what not), that that makes us not us. I don't really see any reason to believe this, so I'm wondering if you could maybe offer some more as to what you mean?

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

WJ

I don't know, but I thought it was an interesting twist on materialism. Perhaps what follows is that something from nothing suggests an apparitional universe, as consciousness (knowing we exist)provides for the very fact that we simply think we know we exist. Matter then, either provides for no absolute certainty that we exist as 'unique individuals' apart from those material things that are 'shared' or exist within the physical universe, or the ghost in the machine (consciousness) does (or does not)exist.

Who is capable of proving anything? I think the one point returns us to the will. What causes the will to live, and makes it [the need] exist from matter [higher levels of consciousness-humans]? There is no proof that higher levels of intellect is a requirement for survival [value] in the jungle. Animals can't kill themselves by way of volitional existence(?).

just some more thoughts.....

Walrus

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

DRFseven

You're describing thought-generation as "from the universe", as if they are beamed to you, intact, from somewhere, and as if you have no ability to think. But the generation of the thought is within you, and is modeled according to your unique interaction with your environment. That's what thinking is. If it did not occur this way, your thinking processes would not render you so adapted to your very culturally-complex environment.

Explaining thinking does not explain it away; it just explains it.

fwh

DRFseven

you said:
You're describing thought-generation as "from the universe", as if they are beamed to you, intact, from somewhere, and as if you have no ability to think. But the generation of the thought is within you, and is modeled according to your unique interaction with your environment. That's what thinking is. If it did not occur this way, your thinking processes would not render you so adapted to your very culturally-complex environment.

me:
Thinking about thinking is an interesting thing isn't it. Tell me what you think about this proposition.

I should never say that I, as an individual subject, think. I should say that I, as subject, exist myself by the grace of thinking.

madmax2976

This all falls under the fallacy of composition.

Its like noticing that a wall is built of 3 inch by 6 inch bricks and then suggesting that the wall doesn't really exist because its not 3 inches high and 6 inches wide.

Or its like noticing that metal sheets and plastic can't fly, and then suggesting that airplanes don't really fly either. Or since bones, blood and feathers can't fly it must be that birds can't fly as well.

Emergent properties obviously occur given particular arrangements of matter. There's no reason not to consider consciousness an emergent property as well. We even see that certain arrangments can provide for different levels of consciousness such as in chimps who demonstrate a degree of self-awareness, and even in my dogs, which display many emotions and even dream occasionally.

excreationist

Hayden:
He was talking about whether an independent "self" truly exists... he is assuming the physical world exists.

LinuxPup:
Let's assume materialism is true, what causes me to think?
Your motivational system. Every thought you have has a purpose or motivation. Perhaps you were initially a bit bored (we crave some newness) and then thought about some apparent implications of materialism. To you there seemed to be a sense of alienation in materialism... like the "you" doesn't seem play a role in it... We naturally seek a certain about of connectedness/resonance and so try to avoid feelings of alienation.

I don't, rather the laws described by physics and chemistry do.
Your motivational system does. It is "yours". It doesn't control anyone else directly - just "you". By "you" I mean your brain and the body it is attached to. This all would work according to the rules of physics though.

What causes me to desire things in life? Is it me?
Yeah, it is your motivational system... it works out goals and then you are forced to take action depending on what course of action ended up with the highest priority. This is all part of you - part of your brain.

No, particles moving at certain velocities, at certain times, to and from certain spatial positions, among other physical activities cause me to desire.
These are particles within *your* brain though... not some particles in some distant part of the universe... so these ones are "special".

So if I cause nothing concerning my activies and experiences, am I merely a 'self' that is handed sensations and thoughts from the physical universe?
Your brain does a lot of work to figure out what it has to do though... it isn't like your brain just sits around and has its work done for it...

Am I given my thoughts and desires from universal descriptive laws?
Yeah... I think so.

If so, then what am I if I lack the ability to think, feel, and desire?
Your brain does those things. You are your brain.

How am I anymore a person than a rock?
Living brains that are attached to bodies can learn lots of things for themselves and interact with their environment in complex ways. Rocks react in simple ways.

DRFseven

With the stipulation that I wouldn't say we should never refer to ourselves as individuals, my opinion, it seems, is similar to yours. *I*, in totality, exist on a moment-by-moment basis. The *I* of a moment ago ceased to exist, although the *I* of now is quite similar to the *I* of a moment ago.