Consciousness - Fundamental or Emergent Model
! To make things clearer, I will edit my initial post and I'll replace ''consciousness" with ''anything you could think of". It could be qualia, ''how it is like to be", a process, magic, illusion, quantum black magic, etc.
When I ask whether ''absolutely anything you could think of" is fundamental or not, I start from a very simplistic logical model.
This model looks like this:
I. ''absolutely anything you could think of":
A. is fundamental
B. is not fundamental
II. If B, (''absolutely anything you could think of" isn't fundamental) then:
C. Its properties are 100% reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality - weak emergence.
D. Its properties are not 100% reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality - strong emergence.
In my opinion:
I. A + B = 100% of all possibilities
II. C + D = 100% of all possibilities
Therefore, I + II = 100% of all possibilities
* I have often noticed on this site that some do not accept the idea of weak/strong emergence, and many call emergent only what I have called "strong emergence". There is no problem, you can ignore that part and focus on we the reduction part.
In this sense, I have three questions strictly related to the validity of the model.
The questions are:
1. Is the logic of the model correct?
2. There is an alternative to this model, i.e. a model in which ''absolutely anything you could think of" is not fundamental, but it is neither 100% reducible nor strongly emergent?
3. Does this model apply to any type of reality? I mean, if instead of matter we assume that the most fundamental thing is an immaterial computer or information, does this change have any impact on the model?
Thank you!
When I ask whether ''absolutely anything you could think of" is fundamental or not, I start from a very simplistic logical model.
This model looks like this:
I. ''absolutely anything you could think of":
A. is fundamental
B. is not fundamental
II. If B, (''absolutely anything you could think of" isn't fundamental) then:
C. Its properties are 100% reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality - weak emergence.
D. Its properties are not 100% reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality - strong emergence.
In my opinion:
I. A + B = 100% of all possibilities
II. C + D = 100% of all possibilities
Therefore, I + II = 100% of all possibilities
* I have often noticed on this site that some do not accept the idea of weak/strong emergence, and many call emergent only what I have called "strong emergence". There is no problem, you can ignore that part and focus on we the reduction part.
In this sense, I have three questions strictly related to the validity of the model.
The questions are:
1. Is the logic of the model correct?
2. There is an alternative to this model, i.e. a model in which ''absolutely anything you could think of" is not fundamental, but it is neither 100% reducible nor strongly emergent?
3. Does this model apply to any type of reality? I mean, if instead of matter we assume that the most fundamental thing is an immaterial computer or information, does this change have any impact on the model?
Thank you!
Comments (178)
2. Yes.
3. No. Yes.
A philosophical "starting point" would be to define "Consciousness". I generally agree with your reasoning, except I understand that Human Consciousness probably evolved from something even more Fundamental, such as Generic Information : the power to enform ; to create. :smile:
It might be useful to parse out computational aspects from sensory aspects. There is a difference between:
1. *sensing* blue
and
2. a single cell is attracted to a molecule because of the properties of the outside molecules interacting with the organism's molecules to cause the organism to move towards the outside molecule.
2 can be fully reducible and 1 seems ever elusive.
You start adding in "illusions" then you have the classic "mind" / "body" problem (the sensation of blue being the illusion which is mind apparently). Then THIS has to be explained, infinitum (homuncular fallacy).
You've left terms undefined or at least not clearly defined, e.g. consciousness, emergence, fundamental.
Quoting Eugen
If consciousness is somehow fundamental, it still clearly requires physical, biological, neurological processes to manifest. As far as I know, we don't have any evidence of a conscious entity without a nervous system.
Quoting Eugen
This is a misrepresentation of the meaning of "emergence." Emergence applies to processes at one scale or level of organization that are manifestations of processes at a smaller scale or lower level. All emergent processes are "reducible to fundamental processes of reality" if by that you mean consistent with the laws of physics. The difference between what you call weak vs. strong emergence is that while both are reducible to physical processes, strongly emergent processes can not be derived, predicted, from those lower level processes. Here's a link to a famous paper - "More is Different" by P.W. Anderson that explains the difference.
https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdfQuoting Eugen
This model could be applied to any phenomenon. It really doesn't have any explanatory power.
I. ''absolutely anything you could think of":
A. is fundamental
or
B. isn't fundamental
II. If B is true (''absolutely anything you could think of" isn't fundamental):
C. its properties are fully reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality
D. its properties aren't fully reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality
For me personally, this is almost tautology. But for it isn't.
He believes ''absolutely anything you could think of" can be non-fundamental, but at the same time, neither falls into C and D categories. I personally cannot see how this could work, so I'm waiting for his explanation.
I was totally clear on that: if you don't agree with my notion of ''emergence", ignore it and focus on ''reduction".
Quoting T Clark
It's not about its explanatory power. It's the place where we begin a debate. It's what we're trying to find out, i.e. is ''absolutely anything you could think of" fundamental or not? If not, is ''absolutely anything you could think of" 100% reducible to its parts or not?
For example, a model where something is
a. not fundamental
b. its properties are 100% reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality
c. not irreducible to the properties of the fundamental reality
Maybe a reality where nothing is fundamental, or maybe a reality where something is both fundamental and emergent.
For example, thinks that's the case. I'm not sure how because he doesn't give more details.
Don't some forms of idealism work like this? Consciousness or will is fundamental (universal mind) and instantiations of conscious creatures, are dissociated, evolving alters, emerging from this instinctive, striving will? Hence we have the voyage towards metacognition, aeons in the making, as consciousness begins to know itself. At least that's the story I have heard (Bernardo Kastrup argues a version of this).
Quoting Eugen
There's a Nobel Prize awaiting for anyone who can crack the puzzle - if it is one. I am not confident we'll get there. I certainly won't.
Is there any particular reason why the question matters to you personally?
Quoting Tom Storm - Hmmm, the way I phrased it... yes. But to me, in idealism, consciousness is fundamental, period. Indeed, I guess I wasn't very coherent.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, there is. I want to be as rigorous as I can. I don't want to miss something from the picture. I want to know if there's a model where consciousness is not fundamental, but it doesn't fall in C or D either.
You were fine. I'm just positing models. I think some forms of idealism hold to an account that suggests individual consciousness like yours and mine - with qualia and what-it's-like-to-be-youness - are emergent and more recent developments in the journey of consciousness. But I'm not a customer for this particular narrative.
Quoting Eugen
So what difference does it make, however? I have often argued that idealism, such as I have described above, would make no difference to how I live. I still am in a reality where ice cream and employment, war and relationships and eating and finding a parking space cannot be overcome. :wink:
What I think, however, is that the OP doesn't make any sense.
To begin with, at it's heart, there is a false dichotomy of "either X is reducible or X is strongly emergent" (where X initially was "consciousness" and now it's any nondescript whatever). Also, I can't tell whether you're asking about ideas or how things are (or???) philosophy or science (or???), respectively. The OP's vague notions confusions are opaque.
Quoting 180 Proof - I'm not surprised, you always find my OP's non-sensical even though you always find answers.
Quoting 180 Proof - Let me ask you this in a different way. Forget about ''emergence", you're too obsessed with attacking this notion. Is there a way in which something (a process for example, but you can think of anything you want) is:
a. not fundamental
b. not reducible to the fundamental properties of the reality
c. not irreducible to the fundamental properties of reality
I'm non-native, so give me an alternative word or notion.
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Eugen - Water is not fundamental.
Quoting Eugen - Water can be 100% reduced to the fundamental properties of reality.
Where is the ''nonsense"?
Yeah I get it, but my point was to show an example of fully reducible (weak emergence) and something that is not known either way.
There are processes amenable to reducibility, and these are ones whereby interactions can form combinations like feedback loops, leading to larger processes (where everything can be mapped to prior processes that made it). Examples of this might include DNA sequences, cellular metabolism, atomic interactions, energy dissipation etc.
There are processes not amenable to reducibility, like qualia (sensing a color, hearing a sound, etc.), and "properties" in general (are properties "there" without a mind?.. separate question but related... the quality of soft/hard/wet/cold doesn't seem to be without a subject). These seem to just "emerge" into the picture (strong emergence) without prior mapping reducibility.
I think that strong emergence itself is a kind of place holder (similar to the homuncular fallacy) to just say "and it thus appears", which is to say, not an explanation at all. But a lot of words have been spilt in its defense. A lot of words in defense of something doesn't thus mean the concept is thus valid.
And as far as ideas related to strong emergence like "downward causation"- I don't know if this really answers the question because the very thing that is interacting with the lower levels still has to be explained. I get that there could be downward causation, but I don't get how this answers the question of how that initial downward causation occurred.
Perhaps it might be beneficial to identify the 'fundamentals,' being referred to.
How about from wiki:
In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle that is not composed of other particles. Particles currently thought to be elementary include electrons, the fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, antiquarks, and antileptons, which generally are matter particles and antimatter particles), as well as the fundamental bosons (gauge bosons and the Higgs boson), which generally are force particles that mediate interactions among fermions. A particle containing two or more elementary particles is a composite particle.
We can of course describe each of these 'fundamentals' as field excitations, in accordance with QFT, or perhaps even string vibrations. We don't know the fundamentals of dark matter/energy, if such exists. Perhaps Roger Penrose's erebon will be one.
The human flesh of the human brain is material and made of quarks and electrons etc. SO, which of the fundamentals listed above do you think are candidate carriers of human consciousness and why would they qualify? If none of the above can be proved to be the required quanta, we are looking for then all we can say is, that we have no idea at all, regarding the quanta of human consciousness. But the possibility remains, that human consciousness may be quantisable.
So the search for new candidates/evidence continues.
Yeah, another of my 'no shit Sherlock,' statements.
Can something (anything you could think of):
1. be neither fundamental, nor emergent?
2. not fundamental, not 100% reducible and not 100% irreducible either?
Can we find something outside the fundamental-reducible/irreducible?
Eugen, if you edit your post, let me suggest that you reduce the redundancy in all that.
- "[s]abosulutely[/s] anything"
- "I mean it in [s]the most[/s] literal sense"
- [s]Think of everything you want[/s]
Actually, I think that you can replace all that with just "anything you could think of"!
Please do not consider my comment a didactic or critical one. It's only that I was quite overwhelmed by so much redundancy and found it quite annoying.
Fair enough. I can only offer you my own musings on what you are asking.
My attempt at answering your first question, would be, only that which can be confirmed as eternal could seem to fit imo. No such existent has been confirmed so the notion of 'eternal' remains 'imaginary' only, for now until overwhelming empirical evidence is found.
I think my answer to question 2 is the same as my answer to question 1 but I would suggest that that which was proved to be eternal in of itself, could not have 'parts' so would be 'irreducible.'
Quoting Eugen
Not 'inside' this universe or even in a multiverse imo.
Theists would use this gap to employ an ontological argument for the necessity of a god plug.
I do not know of any law of thought, that demands such a necessity.
But it seems to me you cannot accept a thing that could be eternal and fundamental at the same time. Why?
Quoting universeness
I kind of agree. Actually, I think if we want to be monists, we should reduce everything to one part/property. I cannot think of something that has two fundamentally different properties.
Actually, I agree with you. Just bear in mind I'm not a native speaker. Your advice is perfect. Thank you!
Perhaps. I was suggesting that strong emergence is really just a synonym for the question at hand. Something like qualia is something that exists. It "appears" on the scene. There are physical substrates that correlate with it.
IF you are a naturalist of any variety, the physical correlates and the "appears on the scene" phenomenon needs to be thus tied together in some way.
Weak emergence would somehow have to account for the color blue by the substrates. But it doesn't thus far. It only accounts for the mechanisms of the color blue, not the actual sensation qua sensation. Wavelengths hitting retinas with rods and cones and optic nerve and pre-frontal cortex, and the layers of the cortex, etc. This kind of theory, of course, would also account for all the indirect/periphery embeddedness of space/time/environment/other bodily functions that need to be in place. In theory, this can be done. Yet "sensing blue" itself is not actually accounted for as to why it is this emergent phenomenon.
Mind you, this can still get you far! You can possibly account for hardware/software computation in the brain with weak emergence. However, once you get to things like qualia and subjective interiority of a person, it loses its power.
So I would say that it is possible to account for all the "physical" phenomena that is combined (computational/informational) without ever getting at the actual "sensing blue". This is akin to Chalmers' idea of p-zombies. We can account for p-zombies but not for actual people with sensations and interiority of a point of view.
That is the Gordian knot. To say "strong emergence" is thus to say, "yeah, and somehow sensing blue is thus appearing in correlation of this computational/informational aspect of physical correlates". That isn't helpful in answering the question.
So what other approaches are there at this impasse? It would take a change in metaphysical approach. Instead of discrete physical combinations, it would be questioning what it is to be an event. What does it mean for an event to be occurring anyways? Perspective seems to be an important point here.
The point is I'm also overwhelmed.
To me, the concept of 'fundamental' allows for more than one to exist. Multiple eternals create too many 'omni' problems, such as omnipotent or omniscience. To be eternal you have to be indestructible. I cannot imagineer a purpose to more than one eternal, as I cannot imagineer what their relationship would be to each other. Of course, this might just be due to my lack of imagineering skill.
Quoting Eugen
Binary on/off is certainly two states but I agree they are 'states' of a single object.
The UNIverse either is or is not, but it's existence is the only notional 'eternal' I give any credence to.
That's why I like cyclical universe theories such as Roger Penrose's CCC.
Allowing in principle is not the same with that being the case. It can be fundamental and eternal, thus not allowing for other eternals. Don't you agree?
I certainly agree that an eternal would be fundamental, but a fundamental need not be eternal, as no fundamental particle currently known or described in science, is considered eternal.
How much credence do you assign to the projected, eventual heat death of our universe?
What credence level do you personally assign to the proposal that an eternal CAN exist?
and if you assign a high credence level to such a proposal, how willing are you to assign it 'consciousness'/self-awareness or an agent with intent and purpose?
:up:
Your reception of the message was perfect! :smile:
Let @180 Proof say or believe "anything" ... :smile: Your point was very clear.
As for your question about the correctness of your logic, my answer is basically afirmative. :smile:
(Of course there are some things to be cleared, e.g. "fundamental to what?". But that would require a lot to be said and a long debate ....)
For me, fundamental has to:
1. be irreducible
2. not created by a different substance - independent of the existence of other substance
For example, let's assume for the sake of the argument that consciousness's existence is dependent on matter (created by matter), but its properties are not reducible to matter. Even if condition 1 is met, consciousness is not fundamental in this case because it is dependent on the existence of matter.
As I indicated in my previous response, I think phenomena you have identified as non-fundamental would all generally be considered reducible. Isn't that the definition of "non-fundamental?" From what I have seen in posts subsequent to my previous one, that seems to be the question you have put on the table. I don't think I have any insights to add.
Quoting Eugen
Well then, use 'irreducible' instead.
To my mind 'fundamental' connotes ontological reductionism (i.e. metaphysics re: entities) and 'foundational' connotes methodological reductionism (i.e. science re: explanations). With respect to "consciousness", is it I prefer mind 'foundational', or methodologically irreducible (i.e. cannot be reduced to explained by a substrate of processes or properties)? Neuroscientists like the philosopher Thomas Metzinger demonstrate that mind can be explained reductively (e.g. self model theory of subjectivity) as a system of brain functions, and therefore, is not 'foundational' for knowledge of mind (i.e. metacognition) or even, upon critical reflection, not 'foundational' for subjective experience (re: nonordinary / altered mental states).
It is conceptually incoherent to even ask whether or not embodied mind (synonymous with "consciousness" in the absence of any shred of dis-embodied minds) is "fundamental" if only because embodiment is composite and perdurant. This nonsense the OP is what you get, Eugen, from trying to reduce a scientific problem (re: seeking a hypothetical explanation for 'how things are or work') to a philosophical question (re: positing a categorical idea or supposition). Of course, you're not alone in this confusion and exemplify the typical bias of reifying folk concepts and projecting them as stuff, "fundamental" or otherwise. I've already pointed this out in our previous discussion about Spinoza, especially this post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/520996
Quoting 180 Proof - Romanian
Quoting 180 Proof - Haven't heard philosophers using the term ''foundational" in regard to consciousness. Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational?
Quoting Eugen
You declared yourself an agnostic to me (in a PM), so is there any reason why you have not answered my recent questions to you? You complained, by insisting that @180 Proof had not answered your questions to him, to your satisfaction. I even gave you some support on this, so why have you not answered my questions at:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/803366
or
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/803368
Maybe not so much nonsense, as violation of principles.
Reality doesnt have fundamental properties; the objects which constitute reality, do.
A property of water is amphoteric fluidity. The constituency of water, H and O, do not have fluidity as a property.
The properties of the constituent matter to which water is reducible, are weight, number, charge, spin, and so one, but these are not properties of water.
Water, if reduced to its fundamental constituency, is no longer water. It follows that water cannot be reduced beyond the very properties by which its identity is determinable.
Quoting Eugen
Just like that ..
HE ALREADY DID SO!!!!
Quoting 180 Proof
Additional: :100: :up:
I see. Then consciousness is fundamental. It is not created by anything. This is what I have come to realize up to now, based on the vast amount of material I vae read and listened on the subject, but mainly based on my reasoning and experience (experiencing, empirical knowledge). I give much importance on the latter.
2 reasons actually:
1. I don't usually encourage topics unrelated to my OP
2. For you, I would have made an exception, but I simply have no answer to that
Theists (and there are still vast numbers of them) consider god a valid 'fundamental' source for consciousness. God is also posited as irreducible and eternal, so I don't see why you would suggest your reason 1.
Reason 2 is fair enough but even that would have been a valid response to the three questions I posed, rather than me having to re-request a response.
I remain in hope that at some time soon, you will reject your agnostic label, and join us atheists, who have freed our will and thoughts from the notion of the machinations of a completely hidden (actually non-existent imo,) divine scrutineer.
It seems to me I need some clarifications.
I. Quoting Mww
So there are no fundamental properties, only properties. There is no fundamental reality in your opinion, right?
II. Quoting Mww
Yeah, but here's my problem with this. ''Fluidity" is not a property over and above the properties of H and O. The term ''fluidity" is just a shorthand for something that could be fully described by other properties. We could discard the notion of ''fluidity" without missing anything. So no, I don't agree with this one.
III. Quoting Mww
Again, water is nothing more than the sum of its constituents, therefore water is just H2O, therefore water is just mass, spin, etc. "Water" and "fluidity" are just language unless you believe water is strongly emergent.
IV. Quoting Mww
Yes, there is no ''water" in the first place to begin with. It's just our convenient way to communicate. Instead of describing the interaction between fundamental molecules and spend all our lives doing that, we just call it water.
Quoting Eugen
That is strong emergence. Are you embracing it?
Finally, I get your view. In your opinion, we shouldn't ask things about consciousness's ontology, we should just let science to deal with it and accept only what rigorous science tells us. Correct?
Saw What?
Oh, I get what you mean now. I think you are saying that you posted your question again, before you read that 180proof had already answered it. I did the same thing once, so, c'est la vie.
There are properties; there are fundamental properties. These all belong to objects alone.
There is the conception of reality, a metaphysical placeholder for all that is possible to experience, all that is real. There is no qualifier for reality; fundamental reality just is reality.
-
Quoting Eugen
Depends on what you want a property to represent. If a property is the determinant factor in the identity of a thing, fluidity is a better service, insofar as H and O, in and of themselves, cannot identify anything except themselves. I mean ..H and O are gases, but water, as such, is not, so I think it difficult to maintain gases are properties of fluids.
Quoting Eugen
True, but the description is of water, not fluidity. Minor categorical error, so to speak. Besides, the descriptions of fluidity do not necessarily apply to water alone, but could also apply to oil. And I did say amphoteric fluidity, which is more specific in regard to which fluid substance the property relates.
Quoting Eugen
True, but language is nothing but representation of conceptions. The conception that water represents is very far from the conceptions by which the constituent matter of water are represented.
Quoting Eugen
Again, strong/weak emergence is just language tripping all over itself. Im not of a mind to embrace that which is impossible to know, which leaves me with nothing but the LNC. Even if I dont know how, I can still hold that the brain is responsible for my intelligence, from which follows my thinking consciousness as a valid representation, all without contradicting science or reason contradicting itself. Thats as far as Im inclined to go.
Actually, I do have some sympathy toward a part of what you're saying there.
I believe we shouldn't ascribe too many properties to the fundamental reality. But I find it impossible to avoid properties at all.
Let's assume everything is reducible to X. X is fundamental.
Property 1 of X: existence
Property 2 of X: irreducibility
Property 3 of X: diversity (having different objects)
I think I could find more if I knew what's fundamental.
Quoting Mww - gas and fluids are just descriptions, they can be fully reduced to non-gas and non-fluidity. So let me put it this way:
1. fluids are in fact non-fluids
or
2. H and O are bits of fluids
Quoting Mww
I can also describe the fluidity, it's no problem. Properties can be described too. In fact, fluidity is just a concept, a word, there is no such thing.
Quoting Mww
I agree, it's a convention. But we shouldn't forget that the ''far'' is what is real, not the conventions.
I think, Eugen, one should seek adequate grounds for ontologizing "consciousness" (or any idea) before, as you do in the OP, interpreting "consciousness" as this or that kind of entity. In other words, what do we know (or do not know) about "consciousness" that presupposes it is an ontic entity? Nothing as far as I (& neuroscientists as well as e.g. Hume, Spinoza, Buddhists) can tell but I'm open to be shown otherwise.
@universeness
If consciousness is reducible to brain processes as you say, then it isn't an ontic entity. Yes or no?
Would you agree if I said ''consciousness is a brain process"?
Couldnt wish for anything more.
First of all, thank you for your beautiful answers! But again, I need your help on the following matter.
I am not trying to criticize anyone, but I need you to help me understand something. Every time I open an OP containing the words ''consciousness, emergent, fundamental", there's this weird pattern. Basically, comes and says ''This OP is nonsense." It's like this all the time. None of you or other people on my other OPs seem to have this issue except him.
He rarely gives arguments, and when he does he's very vague and uses a complicated language.
From what I understand, his argument against my question is that I somehow presuppose consciousness is ''ontic entity", like brains and chairs. As far as I'm concerned, I don't presuppose anything.
I even changed ''consciousness" with ''anything you could think of". So, my questions for you are:
1. Does ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity"?
2. If ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity", does this make my question nonsense?
3. Be super-honest guys: is my question nonsense or opinion is simply wrong?
I really need to know that, so I can fix things.
Thank you!
Since all you are capable of is misrepresenting replies you do like or cannot comprehend, I'll move on to other less incorrigible, better informed interlocators.
Sorry but I'm not a spoon-feeder. Do your own thinking (or homework).
This is a bad rhetorical strategy. Trying to get us to back you up with @180 Proof won't work. He's a pain in the ass, but he's our pain in the ass. We've all had to figure out to work around his... idiosyncrasies. You will too.
Here's the right approach - write a good, well supported OP. Layout what you want to discuss. Have good arguments at hand. Listen to what other people have to say and be responsive. Then, if people try to take the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent, ask them to stop. That will usually do the trick.
Id say on appearance it seems emergent and a way for the organism to navigate its environment move eat etc.
But if its emergent wouldnt it also be fundamental? In the sense that its existence was inevitable.
I ask these questions on mulptiple forums and you are always the ONLY ONE who has this opinion. It might be the case my questions are wrong and you're smarter than everyone else, or it might be the case you're an imbecile. Both options are possible, I don't know which one is right.
It seems to me you live under the impression that you have some kind of mission here to intrigue people. I don't need that.
Trying to make it look like I'm asking you to back me up against him is a serious one. So where do I exactly try to do that?
Quoting T Clark
Well, if you like pain in the ass, go for it. I personally don't have this kind of fetish.
Quoting T Clark
Who decides what's a "good, well supported" OP?
If he says your questions dont make sense thats most likely because his understanding is limited on the subject so focus on forum users who offer more substantial input and better understand the nature of such inquiry.
But youre right some people can seem like theyre smarter than you with their abrupt replies, but really theyre not theyre just condescending fools.
Also watch out for his bum chum universeness I have no doubt theyve been fantasising about future robots in their PMs so theyve really started to get close.
Everything emergent is bound by fundamentality. All existants sit atop a universal "floor" - a singularity, or law or constant that dictates the potential to emerge into various things, behaviours and phenomenon. And this dicatation is reflected by the hierarchy of physical laws, principles and formulas, chemical bonding rules, types of bonds thus types of molecules, DNA etc - the instructions or dicatation is the relationships between the fundamental and its products - the emergents.
The laws and numerical values of physics are very specific and precise in a universe with complexity/ life. One doesnt require to "know" or "set up" physics beforehand, but merely needs run from potential through natural selection alone. As that in itself is an intelligent and logical process. Trial and error is a means of "perfecting" relationships in a cooperative/non contradicting or rational way, without self-violation, whilst always remaining dynamic, always changing/propagating further.
When an error occurs in the system, it is contradictory to what had previously become stable/set up, and thus is a "self violation" and leads to pause, cessation or decay of that particular pathway. But because change must continue, the system has no other option but to steer away from that error and towards another possibility, or begin another "trial" and hope this one is less erroneous/self violating.
That way logic can permeate through all processes. The system can be consistent and stable as it evolves.
You can imagine it like a tree that must grow outward without any if its branches blocking another or being blocked itself by a different branch. If a block occurs, the branch struggles, weakens or dies off or must alter course navigating elsewhere where it wont compete with ither factions.
In that way physics begins vague and with liberty in possible behaviours and relationships (the trunk of the tree) and emerges ever more specifically, complexly, restricted and defined as it branches upwards into chemistry, then biology and the kingdoms of life.
As for consciousnesses. There is human consciousness. There are other forms of consciousness also. What it is like to be complex and intelligent - aware of the external surrounding system, and a specific thing (agent) .
We usually associate consciousnesses with an "agent" - something small and objective with clear intent and behaviour, going about its business. So we associate consciousness as related to lifeforms. But how large and how complex must an agent be before we assign it consciousness? I think it is emergent from the get go. "God" or the universe, or whatever you want to call it, is a simple being, a singularity, whos intellect permits the logic, coherence, certainty, the stability necessary to establish memory, thus time perception, thus observation, thus knowledge of the system, thus control and behaviour, thus agency (self).
Quoting invicta - I see two options:
1. it can be emergent but not fundamental - a chair
2. it can be both - if consciousness is fundamental and human consciousness is emergent from the fundamental consciousness
Quoting invicta
It seems to me he has a rich philosophical vocabulary, this is why I'm tempted to give him a chance, maybe I can learn something from him. The problem is that I simply don't understand him and he doesn't help me with that.
I wouldn't care about @180 Proof.
Quoting Eugen
For me, it doesn't presuppose anything. It's quite generic and can include anything: any thing whatever, something, no matter what. You can even break "anything" it into its components: "any thing". The meaning will be the same.
(The word "thing" does not necessarily refer to a physical object, or anything in particular for that matter. It can be used in a generic sense. Dictionary.com offers a nice definition for it (among other 5): "anything that is or may become an object of thought". And for anyone who might think this is a circular definition because the word "thing" itself is included in "anything", let him think that these are two different words with different meanings; spelling and etymology are of secondary importance when it comes to semantics.)
Quoting Eugen
(See above)
Quoting Eugen
(See my comment at start.)
Thank you two for your answers! I'm not trying to form an alliance here or to be against anyone. I only need sincerity. I don't want to lie to myself, this is why I am truly interested in different opinions, especially in those that contradict what I believe. But when one claims I'm wrong but isn't willing to show me exactly where I'm wrong and clarify, I'm starting to think that person's trolling me. This is why I'm asking your help.
I. Quoting 180 Proof
In your opinions, did my OP presuppose an ''embodied mind"? I definitely didn't intend to do that.
II. Quoting 180 Proof
Could you guys help me on that one? I simply don't get it. What's his point here?
Thank you for your effort, I truly appreciate!
For example water is never going to spontaneously turn into chocolate because it does not have that disposition or possibility.
So I think things can only emerge if a prior disposition is exists. Which does suggest reality is complex from the begining.
Otherwise emergent properties would seem like magic emerging from something formless and causally inept.
That's great :) Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad I executed/articulated what in wanted to communicate well.
Quoting Eugen
Very astute/wise assessment Eugen. People who cannot support their beliefs/views through rational argument and/or are unwilling to/dismissive is a red flag for me also.
It suggest to me that either A). They are unable to organise and articulate a cohesive logical answer, in which case why believe their view as defacto, or B). because they dont want to explain (in which case its probably based on personal hangups/bias, touchy/sensitive or traumatic topics for them, feeling attacked, prejudice or intolerance to free thinking/pursuit of knowledge.)
Neither case is much reason to say "you're wrong, im right. Because i said so!" This of course is arrogance.
Quoting Alkis Piskas - I do trust my own logic, but I'm also trying to remain open because I don't want to lie to myself. So I have a particular interest in those opinions that contradict my views. 180 Proof doesn't contradict my view, he contradicts my questions! Firstly, he calls them nonsense. Secondly, after a long insistence, he says my question presupposes this or that and he uses language against me. I don't think I presuppose anything and I also think words like ''anything or everything" imply concrete things, like tables and chairs. Thirdly, and this is important, he has a totally different view. I've never heard philosophers (materialists, panpsichists, idealists, etc.) saying that a question like ''Is consciousness fundamental or emergent?" is nonsense. Never!
Anyway, there's more than that.
I just want to make sure that I'm not labeling him as ''troll" because I wouldn't want to miss a good argument. This is why I'm asking people here to explain to me his arguments, because I don't understand him.
All in all, I truly appreciate your effort and you deserve my gratitude. ?????????!
Yes i agree.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
And what prior disposition is more potent and capable of producing emergents than "potential". Potential energy is the fuel on the fire of creation. It hasnt become anything specific yet, omnipotent, but "must" become something, an imperative to change, in order to be determined/proven to actually be potent/have potential.
In that way its a self fulfilling dynamic. Energy certainly is incredibly complex in what it can do (emerge into) but also extremely simple in its perogative (to be indestructible yet change/transform).
The problem for me is that I don't understand him. And when I don't understand something, I don't want to label it.
So I don't want to label 180 Proof as ''troll" (at least I'm trying my best not to), because he might have some good arguments, but it might be the case I don't understand him. I wouldn't want that.
This is why I'm asking you guys to help me understand him. Maybe you decipher him better than me and explain to me what he's trying to say.
Anyway... thank you, I truly appreciate!
I broadly agree with this. In the field of Computing science, ontology is used all the time, to name and categorise data types and data structures, that will be employed in a particular system, at the analysis and design stages.
From Wiki:
In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the subject.
I would assume that neuroscience can 'categorise,' using an 'ontic' approach as most academic fields can make use of 'ontology' to 'categorise.' BUT, I do agree that so little is known about what causes consciousness, that naming and defining categories, properties and relations between such as neurons, synapses, dendrites, microtubules etc merely offers a beginning to solving the hard problem.
Quoting Eugen
For 1. Yes, because whatever 'anything' you choose, you will need to go on to "encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse." to provide any kind of logical argument, that your 'anything' is fundamental, emergent or indeed, an emergence that is a 'by-product'/emergence, due to fundamentals interacting as combinatorials.
For 2. No, not nonsense, but due to impatience, or due to becoming a little jaded, based on what a very knowledgeable person, in a particular field, might be faced with time and time again, I can understand why such a knowledgeable person might blurt out 'NONSENSE!' I have done so myself on occasion, especially against such as the old, ad nauseum, repeated BS claims of theism or antinatalism.
For 3. I have found @180 Proof's posts to be very rarely, wrong, in any of the academic points he makes, or definitions he cite's. I may not agree with some of his personal interpretations he employ's, but he has consistently demonstrated prowess, in the knowledge he has, regarding the topics he choses to post on.
You have not yet gained such accolades imo on TPF. I would take @T Clark's advice if I were you.
Quoting T Clark
You are taking @180 Proof's critique of your efforts too personally. In the world of on-line public debate, You need a thick skin, and plenty of personal humility.
Don't break, bend and contort, to better protect yourself from stormy weather.
Quoting universeness
So is he suggesting that assuming ''anything you could think of" has properties is wrong? Does he want me to formulate a question about something with no properties? I don't really understand. Of course we're talking about properties.
Quoting universeness What does my question have to do with theism?!?! My question is about a simple model that people use to debate consciousness. My question is if there are alternatives to this model. I can't see how this simple question can make no sense.
Quoting T Clark
I believe my question was good. If one disagrees, he must offer clear arguments and answer questions in order to clarify things. Otherwise, is a lack of respect. I have personal humility, this is why I'm offering anyone a chance to express themselves and bring arguments to the table. One of the best examples is you. The two of us disagree in many places, but we don't play ''cat and mouse". You've always offered your perspective in a clear manner. For that, thanks again!
I think the mods should keep an eye on your postings, you are such a bitter wee sweetie.
I was giving eugen a heads up of your AI fetishising tendencies dont take it to heart.
Water off a duck's back, but you imo, represent yourself on TPF as little more than a troll.
Whatever, run along now.
No, he just does not think your questions are very good but maybe he is choosing to be disrespectful to you as you have typed disrespect towards him.
Who started what, rarely matters. If you cannot find common ground or tolerance with each other then, you can mostly ignore each other. There are some members of TPF who I will now not exchange with directly, unless absolutely compelled to. Probably most members here feel the same way about certain other members. C'est la vie.
On occasion, I have even 'made up,' with some members when I have discovered they were not the complete f***wit, I thought they were. Again, c'est la vie.
Quoting Eugen
Stop assuming that every sentence I type in response to you is about you, I mentioned theism to illustrate a point I was making about becoming jaded.
You have plenty of members on TPF you can exchange with in the ways that suit YOU. Work with that and respond to @180 Proof as you choose to (within the guidelines of the site of course). He is quite thick skinned himself , he can take it.
Did you not notice that I ran way past you, ages ago! Do yourself a favour and stop responding to or referencing me. You will cry less!
But any thread about fundamentals offers a path to theism as theism posits that THEE fundamental is god! It's not unreasonable for interlocuters to probe you and ask if you are a theist based on what is invoked by your OP, surely you don't find that an unreasonable line of questioning on a thread such as this one.
Whatever you say universe ness monster, whatever you say, now focus on the topic at hand, maybe do a bit of wiki research and come up with something half intelligent to say.
Thats your task for the day. To win the argument or whatever youre here for
Did your god tell you to try again to communicate with me?
As for him having knowledge, you'd be surprised - I spent an entire OP only to realise the guy didn't have the notion of weak emergence. Yes, he's got language, I admit. But that doesn't imply wisdom.
Them future robots that youve been fantasising with 180 may be some way off.
However blow up dolls are within reach, so express your love and hate to that not the users of this forum darlin
You seem a little sexually obsessed. Can your god not help you with that?
Might be better to simply focus on the TPF members you prefer to exchange with Eugen.
theyre two for the price of one, hurry up mr get one for your buddy or if you want to be selfish keep them both! Why wait for AGI eh?
So far, I think I understand your explanations on his opinions
What are you talking about now? Is there a sale on in your favourite crucifix shop?
Its a good exemplar for you Eugen and good fun for me.
Youre 50% correct Im afraid Eugen, dont be fooled by this guy. He only cares about future robots the appearance of intelligence from him is a trick, underneath all that hes a dummy just like everybody else.
The saddest thing about this guy is he will ridicule someones faith but when someone ridicules his obsession with future robots he gets angry.
I am sure you will 'categorise' those on TPF you clash with in your on way and in your own time.
I am meeting folks in town for a wee Saturday pub crawl. Have a good day Eugen!
Dont forget the blow up doll, lipstick can be optional.
Jesus will have you for a sunbeam sonny! Having a purpose to look forward to must be wonderful for you.
Better than getting pissed with a blowup doll. If your level of discourse is the same as on this forum even the blow up doll will get bored and deflate
Put lipstick on your Jesus blow up doll if you wish but you don't need to tell the world about it.
Not too many pints now, your future AGI lover would really disapprove now wouldnt she? Eh, little bit of responsibility there for you today
You are welcome. (????????) :smile:
Send it to universness too, even a pisshead occasionally needs inspiration on what topics to discuss with his blow up doll.
People always seem to be trying to preserve their own worldview which for some people is rampant materialism. It is best to interact with people who accept that mental phenomena exist and want to describe them accurately and not subsume them under a prior worldview.
I long got tired of atheists trying to impose their worldview under the misnomer of skepticism.
The problem with this OP is that the 'model' is not well expressed. The phrase "absolutely anything you could think of" is a place-holder for "whatever you think consciousness to be" - but you might just use the word "consciousness". So you're really just asking, is consciousness (whatever you consider that to be) fundamental, or is it not?
You then bring in weak and strong emergence. These can be summarised as:
Weak emergence refers to the idea that mental properties or states can be explained by the underlying physical processes, but grants that the explanation is complex and cannot be reduced to the physical processes alone. In other words, the mental properties or states are emergent in the sense that they are not predictable solely from knowledge of the physical processes, but they can be ultimately reduced to physical processes, by means as yet unknown.
Strong emergence refers to the idea that mental properties or states cannot be explained by the underlying physical processes because they are ontologically distinct from them. In this view, mental properties or states are not simply the result of physical processes, but arise from some other, presumably non-physical source.
The debate between weak and strong emergence is an aspect of the broader mind-body debate, which concerns the relationship between mental states and physical or neuro-physical processes. While weak emergence is more widely accepted among philosophers of mind, others say that strong emergence is necessary to account for the subjective nature of conscious experience. The counter to that is that strong emergence is incompatible with scientific explanations of the mind, and that weak emergence is a more plausible account of mental properties and states.
Yet others reject the idea of emergence altogether, saying that a physicalist account of subjective experience can never describe or capture "what it is like" to be the subject of experience (e.g. David Chalmers). In Mortal Questions, Thomas Nagel criticizes the idea of 'emergence' because of the impossibility of specifying the relationship of conscious states with the supposed physical constituents that are supposed to cause them. Do they supervene on those processes, or are they independent of them? How can we explain the causal relationship between mental and physical states if they are ontologically distinct (i.e. of basically different kinds)? It is easy to assume that neurochemical interactions cause thought, but demonstrating the nature of that causal relationship remains elusive.
That out of the way, hereunder is my basic stance on the question. Consciousness is fundamental not as a constituent of objects, but as the ground of cognition. And as all objects appear within cognition, objects (and their relations) appear for us. The million-dollar question is whether those objects are real independently of our cognition of them, or whether their reality is imputed to them, by us, on the basis of our experience of them. That is the vital point to understand, because in my view, the idealist argument is not that objects are composed from some mysterious mind-stuff as a constituent, but that whatever reality we impute to objects is dependent on our cognition of them. See the difference?
The view that the reality of objects is 'constructed' or 'constituted' by our cognitive acts is now quite commonplace amongst cognitive scientists and philosophers. One example that has been discussed here recently is the cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman (see here and here), but there are many others with different attitudes and interpretations. But all of them, at least, acknowledge the constructive role of consciousness.
There is no doubt, to the existence of such objects irrespective of cognition/consciousness itself.
In fact you can carry out an easy and cheap experiment to confirm this.
Set up a camera and let it focus on any object in the room and hit record. Now leave the room and come back after some time. Look at the footage
Does it not demonstrate what youre arguing against this soft version of idealism?
It seems that reality is either infinite or came to exist with dispositions at some arbitrary point.
Maybe some explanations we seek in whatever domain are to reduce anxiety.
I don't find anything problematic with reincarnation and the idea that the mind interacts with bodies/matter but can inhabit different bodies or domains at different times.
By fundamental youd grant it the eternalism aspect that youd grant the stuff that matter is made of such as energy reduced in vibration and represented in elementary particles such as quarks (yet to be observed).
Matter is transformational in nature, you cannot create it nor destroy it.
Thus always being an existent it still poses the question if it gave rise to consciousness, as consciousness is not something physical in nature (cannot be touched) then it must have existed eternally with matter/energy or as matter/energy and not built up on it.
Let me put it this way. I am not trying to find out if consciousness is fundamental or emergent. What I'm asking is if consciousness can be other than: a. Fundamental b. Emergent (weak or strong)
I think my answer just above your post should suffice as explanation. It takes care of the emergence/fundamental dichotomy that youve posed.
Thats a lot simpler question than the original, isnt it? Before, you asked for one or the other. Here youre asking if something other than one or the other.
Metaphysically, consciousness cant be other than fundamental or not fundamental.
Scientifically, consciousness cant be other than strongly or weakly emergent.
Logically, consciousness could be nothing at all, which is other than fundamental or emergent.
No, I didn't.
Quoting Eugen
Cats for example are not, energy would be
Tractors are not fundamental, fish are not fundamental either.
Most things arent, the parts that make them though are, that part of course being matter.
@Eugen
From your previous post:
Quoting Eugen
Quoting Eugen
I am not a patient person. One of the best things that's happened to me since I've been on the forum is learning how to navigate through a contentious bunch of people with strong opinions and still get my points across. It's not about liking other people's responses, it's about learning to argue effectively and constructively.
Quoting Eugen
I wasn't implying your OP in this thread wasn't a good one, I was just laying out the process I see as necessary.
Anything you can think of, or simply put, imagination - is a demonstration of the malleability/plasticity of the brain, or the potency of the energy-matter (electro-chemical) dynamic of the brain, the information it possesses and processes, to be reformulated/permutated in any number of infinite configurations over time so long as it can exist as a brain.
However its impossible for the brain to imagine all possibilities simultaneously/in a singular moment (ultimate multi-tasking). Its also hard for a brain to truly think randomly. As "reformulation/creativity" is contingent on previous knowledge or information ie. What it is already aware of.
The only thing with such ability to encompass all possibilities is a singularity of potential. Time divides one state of configuration from the next. Hence potential (which doesnt require time) can be the only container of all possibilities simultaneously. A singularity. Omnipotency - the greatest degree of imagination of what could be.
quote="Eugen;d14278"]I. ''absolutely anything you could think of":
A. is fundamental
B. is not fundamental[/quote]
Sorry. That was a supposition, not a query. Nevertheless, anyone perceiving that supposition is going to ask himself which he thinks is the case. Anyone holding with 1A will consider 1B moot, and anyone holding with 1B will deny 1A and then consider the merits of the logical argument which follows.
I was a 1A kinda guy, regarding consciousness anyway, even if not anything I can think, so .there ya go.
Assuming that just as metabolizing is to an organism or as breathing is to lungs, minding (aka "consciousness") is to a brain-CNS; would you then agree with me that these involuntary activities are (1) not "entities" and therefore (2) neither "fundamental" nor "emergent" (objects / properties)? If you don't agree, I'd appreciate you (someone) pointing out where you (they) think my analogy goes wrong.
@T Clark @universeness @Wayfarer
Now I get why don't you like that - you realize this is kind of silly. So instead of saying ''breathing" is reducible, you start playing word games here and try to convince yourself that if we simply introduce a new mysterious "non-thing" like ''breathing" will solve the problem. Obscurantism.
Another perspective: the process of breathing is weakly emergent from matter - it's created by matter, exactly like a chair. There is no fundamental difference between breathing and chairs - they are both interactions of atoms, both are nothing more than descriptions, conventional language!
Finally, I deciphered you! After two f*&*(&g years! You ate my ''livers" (drove me nuts).
No, I definitely don't agree with you, but I have nothing personal with you in regard to your philosophical point of view. I think diversity is good and crucial in order to stimulate others.
With your way of dealing with things around here, I do have something against it. But that's another story.
Half and half: I dont hold with minding (aka consciousness), such minding activity I would stipulate as reason, but agree that none of those is an entity.
Conscious-NESS ..a quality, a condition of the state of being conscious.
Quoting 180 Proof
Again, half and half: none of them are objects/properties, but consciousness and reason are both fundamental, as mandated by what is represented by them.
Quoting 180 Proof
When push comes to shove, it must be admitted all your {as x is to y}s are correct, the problem arises in the fact I can know the empirical cause/effect relation between the first two, but I cannot know the empirical cause/effect relation between minding/thinking/reason-CNS/brain. If I accept it on equal footing with the other two, theres nothing left to discuss regarding it, because I just dont know what to say because I dont know how it works.
And you understand as well as I, that absent empirical knowledge, all thats left to work with in the pursuit of that for which there is no possible empirical knowledge, is pure logic, which invites us to begin with something we do know, or, something the negation of which is contradictory, and theorize towards something that at least makes sense.
As well, you understand as well as I the rampant fallacy of reification of metaphysical conceptions, and the dreaded cum hoc ergo propter hoc rabbit hole pervading modern vulgar, re: common, philosophical thought.
And by the way, who says something cannot be fundamental or emergent just because it is not an object like a chair? That's ridiculous.
I deny consciousness as an entity because it is not identifiable by a set of properties.
Still, consciousness, even if only a conception, could be said to emerge from that by which any conception emerges, if one wants to insist conceptions come from somewhere. But that kind of thinking invites infinite regress (where does the thing conceptions emerge from, emerge from) and by that the cancelation of any productive metaphysics. Its much the more parsimonious to just let consciousness be fundamental, so to eliminate the need for determining stuff about it, which we couldnt know apodeitically anyway.
Quoting Mww - how can it exist if it doesn't have properties? The property of being must be there at least. Being what it is is a property.
Quoting Mww - conceptions definitely emerge, I agree.
Quoting Mww - that is the case if you consider noting being fundamental, I'd agree with that. I posted this question on another forum, and someone suggested that we could eliminate the fundamental. Still, we wouldn't get rid of emergence.
In what sense can it .consciousness .be said to exist? If we dont require that consciousness exists as do other things, then we dont need to consider properties.
Which gets us to ..what do you think properties do?
Quoting Eugen
Fine. Where does that from which conceptions emerge, emerge from?
I am the subject of experiences from a unique perspective this is the self the experiencing subject.
Awareness is like access to experiences and awareness of existing in some form.
In a way consciousness is elusive when you try and pin it down to some material substrate or common sense notion or just focus closely on it.
But I think only conscious things can have a perspective or a self.
I think science is the attempt to explain our experiences. I don't see how we can access anything other than experiences. So in one sense consciousness may be fundamental is the substrate of our knowledge of some kind of reality.
But it has a complex relationship with the process of modelling and enquiry.
It seems like it emerges from the brain without us having any kind of clear causal picture.
But it seems to me like we need a new paradigm not based on any of our current methodologies or paradigms.
Theres the reason for stipulating consciousness as fundamental, to eliminate infinite regress. If its fundamental, its emergence is moot, no need to ask where it comes from. Only what it does because of the conception it is, what it stands as the representative of.
-
Quoting Eugen
If reality is a fundamental conception itself, it wont have a foundation because it already is one.
Chairs have properties, they dont have processes or concepts. They can and do emerge from a material foundation, just as any real object must.
Chairs exist, processes do not exist in the same way as chairs, re: processes do not have extension in space, hardness, or weight.
If concepts have a material foundation, it can only be the human brain. Where in the human brain can the conception representing a 57 De Soto be found, such that upon perception of some object, it is determinable whether or not that object is one? Positing that conceptions emerge from the brain, while almost certainly the case, gets you nowhere.
Consciousness is a purely metaphysical derivative, so the only certainty allowed to it, is logical validity, never any empirical existence.
Snippet on the view of enactive or embodied cognition: Enactive cognition is a theory that suggests that the mind is not something that is contained within the brain, but is instead a process that emerges from the interactions between the organism and its environment. In other words, the mind is not just in the head, but is distributed throughout the body and the environment.
Evan Thompson argues that this enactive perspective on cognition is closely tied to the concept of life, because living systems are characterized by their ability to actively engage with and shape their environment. According to Thompson, the mind is not just a passive observer of the world, but is an active participant in the process of life.
Chairs is concept, it is language. It can also be a process. Everything is dynamic.
Quoting Mww
A porocess IS totally reducible (i.e. weakly emergent) to interaction among particles, that interraction can be reduced further and so on. There is nothing about a process that cannot be fully deducile, reducible, and explained by what is more fundamental.
Concepts might or might not be reducible to matter. If they are, materialism is true. If they aren't, materialism is false. You can't have it both ways.
Trying doing that without employing concepts :wink:
I don't personally think they are, but either way... I don't think concepts can avoid fundamentalism or emergence.
Ohfercrissakes. Must I preface every comment using a word, with the admonition Im representing an object with it? The use of a word is supposed to indicate the speaker and the listener congruently understand the object common to them.
Quoting Eugen
Ever reduced a process to its particles? Known anyone that has? Ever heard anyone talking about a method by which reducing the process of human cognition to its particles, is accomplished? Not to say it cant be done, but if it hasnt in the totality of human existence, perhaps theres a reason for it. And what do we do in the meantime?
Quoting Eugen
If conceptions cant be reduced to matter, then objects known as basketballs, arent?
If the objects known as basketballs is the case, which implies concepts are reducible to matter, were right back to where we started: the impossibility of finding where and what are they.
Finally, a possible reality which is excluded from this model as I understand is a reality of a single object. Absolutely only one object. No distinctions at all. This means there can be no relationships of fundamentality or emergence.
It is about establishing a reduction base. The reduction base is the set of concepts, entities, or principles that are considered fundamental or basic to a philosophical position. It serves as the starting point for explaining and analyzing other phenomena or concepts that are deemed less fundamental or derivative.
In philosophy of mind, physicalists will argue that mental states can be reduced to physical states of the brain. In this case, the reduction base would consist of the physical entities and processes that underlie mental states, such as neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. Other phenomena, such as conscious experience or thoughts, would then be explained in terms of these more basic physical components.
Those opposing will argue that mental acts, such as speaking and reasoning, and perhaps even the very quality of subjective experience itself, cannot be explained in terms of physical processes.
Whether consciousness can be explained in terms of physical processes is a different question than whether it or the physical (or neither) is ontologically fundamental. Then there is the further question as to whether the notion of ontological fundamentality really makes any sense.
To me it seems obvious that the qualitative aspect of experience cannot be explained in physicalist terms, just as the meaning of a poem cannot be given in mathematical terms. There are many possibilities for category error and reification.
:up:
How is it a different question? For the physicalist, the physical substrate is fundamental, consciousness is epiphenomenal. So explaining consciousness in terms of physical processes is at the same time making the claim that the physical is ontologically fundamental. After all, it's what physicalism means.
Is there a real fundamental difference between the interaction between atoms in a chair versus the interaction between atoms in our lungs? I don't think so. It's a silly idea that playing with words (I am not referring to you here) will somehow change the reality.
I don't think that's right. Epiphenominalism is arguably a kind of dualism (property or substance, both fit). A non-causal invisible 'froth' somehow produced by some organisms. It's motivated by taking our subjective experience as real and not reducible to physical processes, at the same time as not violating the causal closure of the physical. Both of these are very plausible intuitions separately, but when smashed together look very odd. If I were a physicalist I would reject epiphenominalism as violating physicalism. I would want to say that consciousness just is a physical process.
Yes, pretty much, I think.
Applying this to consciousness, you've left out eliminativism as an option, which you probably should have included. In terms of the broadest possible scheme of options, I tend to think of it like this:
Either:
1) Panpsychism (everything is conscious)
or
2) Emergentism (of some kind) (some things are conscious)
or
3) Eliminativism (nothing is conscious)
Quoting Eugen
Intuitively that doesn't seem possible, but I'd need to do some work on various ways something could be emergent.
Quoting Eugen
Intuitively, yes, it would apply to any kind I would have thought. Seems conceptually necessary, but I might not have thought of something.
I did, because I think weak emergence is eliminativism. I might be wrong though...
Oh, I see what you mean.
Nothing wrong with that; I wouldnt think so either. But what are you trying to say with it? Whats the point?
Quoting Eugen
Agreed. Nothing has changed regarding the circumstances of sitting in a chair, since the discovery of elementary particles. Even though I now know socks are comprised of molecules of this or that, I put them on exactly the same way my great granpappy did back a coupla centuries ago. More to the point, perhaps, even though I now know of neurons and activation potentials and whatnot, anyone looking in my brain is never going to find my consciousness, nor will he find the words I use to express my distaste of Lima beans.
Quoting Mww Moreover, if you imagine a green bird, nobody will find that image in your brain. But that's a refutation of materialism, not a refutation of fundamental-emergent.
Quoting Mww
I'm trying to say that what we call a ''process" is not fundamentally different than what we call ''objects". If objects can be emergent, then processes can be emergent. Is that advantageous for a philosophical debate to talk about processes in terms of fundamental or emergent? I admit I have no idea.
4) Property Dualism (there are complementary ways of describing an entity as 'conscious' or 'extended' or both) ...
Not sure what to do with that. Things I imagine are not real things, but my imaginings dont cause real things to not exist. In humans at least, imaginings are incorporated in brains, brains are material, therefore materialism is affirmed by imaginings, not denied or refuted.
I hope youre not extending the notion that because all imaginings are immaterial in themselves, that there are no material things. If so, I must refer you to the immortal missive of dear Dr. Samuel Johnson via James Boswell, circa 1791. As second-hand as it may be, not to mention dangerously painful.
On the refutation of the fundamental/emergent dichotomy: cant be done. In the human cognitive system legislated by the Principle of Complementarity, which says that for every conception the negation is given immediately (up/down; left/right; wrong/right, yes/no, true/false, ad infinitum), and for every application translates to, if it isnt this, then it is necessarily that. It follows that any human cognitive activity in general, as well as every component thereof, is either one or the other of the fundamental/emergent complementary pair.
Nature of the beast, donchaknow
Do you think there is any progress offered by labelling 'consciousness' a system?
From Wiki:
[b]A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole. A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and is expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory and other systems sciences.
Systems have several common properties and characteristics, including structure, function(s), behavior and interconnectivity.[/b]
A system is dynamic, and can be purely energy based (such as the system of photons,) or consist of all, some or no physical components.
Was the big bang singularity, fundamentally, a system? So there was never a 'time' when only one fundamental ever existed, as a singularity is/was a dynamic system with properties such as density, temperature, extent etc.
A system has functionality and the fact that it is dynamic, means it can 'process' and produce output.
So the question now becomes, Is/was there ever a system that was irreducible, in the sense that it cannot have ANY functionality of any significance to conscious beings, if it did not have the properties required to inflate/expand into becoming this universe. Would the properties of hot, dense, concentrate of dynamic energy with extent, be the ONLY notional system that makes any logical sense from the 'naturalist' viewpoint, as an irreducible fundamental.
I think the biggest problem about trying to understand the source of human consciousness is that we are trying to understand the source of consciousness, using consciousness. But there seems to be no other tool available.
No.
Why not?
Fair enough.