Christianity

[attofishpi]

Which is more likely?

-Unconscious particles somehow become conscious when arranged just right.

-Consciousness, or mind, is sumthin' other than the product of unconscious particles.

Neither are likely.

- no 'particle' becomes conscious no matter (no pun intended) how arranged.
- consciousness IS the product of unconscious particles.

- GOD
- PHYSICS
- CHEMISTRY
- BIOLOGY
- REALITY (conscious perception)

I know some will not like the God being included, however it exists, and so I shall include it into the above list as it is likely to be fundamental to the 5th point in the list.

Consider that list operating in real-time - shimmering fields of vibrating energy, at the behest of the 1st in the list.

[phyllo]

I'm sayin' electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) when put together in any way and in any quantity still aren't conscious, still can't remember, still can't understand, still can't learn, still can't conclude, still can't be logical, still can't infer, etc).

If one looks at the Period Table of Elements, on sees that by combining the subatomic particles in various quantities, elements are produced which have vastly different properties. The simple addition of one proton produces an entirely different material.

One also sees emergent properties which the subatomic particles do not have ... density, colour, malleability, melting point, hardness, conductivity, crystallization, etc. States ... gas, liquid, solid, plasma.

Combine the elements into molecules and even more behaviors and properties are observed.

Combine molecules into more complex systems and even more emerges.

[Harry Baird]

Combine molecules into more complex systems and even more emerges.

Yar, and combine Lego bricks into complex enough systems, and - presto! - you can feed yourself a Lego brick meal...

That which we already know emerges from combinations of molecules can be rationally and scientifically explained. There is no rational or scientific explanation though for the supposed emergence of consciousness out of matter.

[phyllo]

Insofar as words represent concepts, which might be seen as "artificially" created, then, sure. That doesn't change the facts though. The concept of the physical - "artificial" or otherwise - excludes the mental and thus consciousness, and thus, the philosophy of "physicalism" is a non-starter.

You have basically decided that "the physical" doesn't produce "the mental" and you carry on from there.

I've "decided" that though in virtue of the meaning of the words. If I were to tell you that I would like to give you a bunch of Lego bricks from which I wished for you to build me an edible meal, from which I could derive sustenance, you'd tell me that such a thing was impossible, based on what the meanings of "Lego bricks" and "edible meal" are: you simply can't get the latter from the former. Same deal with getting a mind out of matter.

Perhaps the words do not reflect the reality. The words may contain a limitation which is not really there.

In your example, "Lego bricks" assumes that the brick must be made out of plastic. If a Lego brick is made out of chocolate, then it's edible.

One quickly gets caught up in definitions ... Lego bricks are defined as being made from plastic? Is the material of the Lego brick part of the definition of Lego brick or is only the shape important?

[phyllo]

Combine molecules into more complex systems and even more emerges.

Yar, and combine Lego bricks into complex enough systems, and - presto! - you can feed yourself a Lego brick meal...

That which we already know emerges from combinations of molecules can be rationally and scientifically explained. There is no rational or scientific explanation though for the supposed emergence of consciousness out of matter.

We don't have rational or scientific explanations for lots of stuff.

[Harry Baird]

Perhaps the words do not reflect the reality. The words may contain a limitation which is not really there.

In your example, "Lego bricks" assumes that the brick must be made out of plastic. If a Lego brick is made out of chocolate, then it's edible.

However, in that case, in terms of the analogy, the elementary particles of matter would themselves be conscious - and thus, as I wrote in an earlier post, we'd be dealing not with "physical" reality - "non-edible" at core - but "panpsychic" reality, in which, at core, matter is already conscious, i.e., "edible". So, you can play with these sort of hypotheticals if you like, but they get us no closer to "mind from matter".

[Harry Baird]

Combine molecules into more complex systems and even more emerges.

Yar, and combine Lego bricks into complex enough systems, and - presto! - you can feed yourself a Lego brick meal...

That which we already know emerges from combinations of molecules can be rationally and scientifically explained. There is no rational or scientific explanation though for the supposed emergence of consciousness out of matter.

We don't have rational or scientific explanations for lots of stuff.

However, in this case, we have compelling rational alternatives. Why go with a model that has no rational or scientific explanation when there are rational alternatives?

[Harry Baird]

However, in that case, in terms of the analogy, the elementary particles of matter would themselves be conscious - and thus, as I wrote in an earlier post, we'd be dealing not with "physical" reality - "non-edible" at core - but "panpsychic" reality, in which, at core, matter is already conscious, i.e., "edible".

And it's important to point out that panpsychism has a host of rational problems of its own in any case.

[henry quirk]

I'm sayin' electrons, neutrons, and protons (unconscious particles which cannot remember, cannot understand, cannot learn, cannot conclude, cannot be logical, cannot infer, etc) when put together in any way and in any quantity still aren't conscious, still can't remember, still can't understand, still can't learn, still can't conclude, still can't be logical, still can't infer, etc).

If one looks at the Period Table of Elements, on sees that by combining the subatomic particles in various quantities, elements are produced which have vastly different properties. The simple addition of one proton produces an entirely different material.

One also sees emergent properties which the subatomic particles do not have ... density, colour, malleability, melting point, hardness, conductivity, crystallization, etc. States ... gas, liquid, solid, plasma.

Combine the elements into molecules and even more behaviors and properties are observed.

Combine molecules into more complex systems and even more emerges.

Yes, so show me the chemical formula for mind.

[phyllo]

Perhaps the words do not reflect the reality. The words may contain a limitation which is not really there.

In your example, "Lego bricks" assumes that the brick must be made out of plastic. If a Lego brick is made out of chocolate, then it's edible.

However, in that case, in terms of the analogy, the elementary particles of matter would themselves be conscious - and thus, as I wrote in an earlier post, we'd be dealing not with "physical" reality - "non-edible" at core - but "panpsychic" reality, in which, at core, matter is already conscious, i.e., "edible". So, you can play with these sort of hypotheticals if you like, but they get us no closer to "mind from matter".

In that post, I was addressing the problem of being too reliant on defintions.

Let me ask you this ... are subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) edible or non-edible?

[Harry Baird]

Let me ask you this ... are subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) edible or non-edible?

If reality is purely physical, then they are non-edible. On the other hand, if reality is panpsychic rather than purely physical, then, depending on the exact type of panpsychism, they are edible - but, as I said, this comes with its own host of problems.

So, let me ask you this: do you propose a physical reality, a panpsychic reality, or something else?

[phyllo]

Yar, and combine Lego bricks into complex enough systems, and - presto! - you can feed yourself a Lego brick meal...

That which we already know emerges from combinations of molecules can be rationally and scientifically explained. There is no rational or scientific explanation though for the supposed emergence of consciousness out of matter.

We don't have rational or scientific explanations for lots of stuff.

However, in this case, we have compelling rational alternatives. Why go with a model that has no rational or scientific explanation when there are rational alternatives?

I'm not forcing you to come up with an explanation.

"We don't know" is a reasonable answer when we don't know.

[Immanuel Can]

You believe we lack free will. How, then, can consciousness be anything other than epiphenomenal?

Epiphenomenalism is, of course, a non-explanation rather than an explanation of anything. It claims that consciousness and such phenomena merely “supervene” upon the materials, or brain. But nobody understands what “supervene” precisely entails, or entails at all, or how something totally non-material can “pop out of” materials.

Yep, and it's the view that's entailed by a "mind of out matter" physicalism, so, aside from the impossibility of that type of physicalism just in virtue of the meanings of the words "mind" and "matter" (per my "Lego bricks" and "edible meal" analogy, and Henry's arguments), the argument in the article I shared rigorously disproves that "mind out of matter" brand of physicalism.

Well, here’s the interesting question, Harry: we agree that the epiphenomenal explanation is ridiculous, but what is the alternate explanation? We can see that mind exists…HOW does it exist? Given Materialism or Physicalism, there’s no way it should. So some different explanation becomes urgent.

[phyllo]

Let me ask you this ... are subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) edible or non-edible?

If reality is purely physical, then they are non-edible. On the other hand, if reality is panpsychic rather than purely physical, then, depending on the exact type of panpsychism, they are edible - but, as I said, this comes with its own host of problems.

So, let me ask you this: do you propose a physical reality, a panpsychic reality, or something else?

Are you saying that to eat physical objects, we need something non-physical?

I think that a purely physical reality can potentially explain consciousness, understanding, meaning, etc. I don't see any advantage to adding non-physical elements.

[Immanuel Can]

But nobody understands what “supervene” precisely entails, or entails at all, or how something totally non-material can “pop out of” materials.

There is no such something as a non-material material.

That’s just a contradiction in terms, no more.

The question is, is there something non-material that is real?

And if there’s not, then you are not a mind, and I am not a mind, and there is no other mind, and we aren’t having this conversation anyway.