Christianity

[Harry Baird]

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.

Of course not, because there is none on physicalism - and that's why I reject physicalism. That's why it's incumbent on you to supply the hypothesised explanation of "mind from matter" on physicalism, not me.

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

But there are alternative possibilities (dualism and idealism in particular) that don't require us to admit to not knowing, i.e., to an absence of rational explanation.

[phyllo]

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.

I'm pretty sure that you are able to post because you still have a physical body.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Interesting. I can see no explanation of these things at all, possible from Physicalism. And most Mind-Brain philosophers today would agree with me on that, I think.

And since right now, you are not, to me, a physical “body” at all, and neither am I one to you, since we are corresponding by way of thought-through-symbols, pure Physicalism can’t even explain what we are up to at the present moment.

Or have you really got an explanation nobody’s heard before?

[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?

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

Huh? You seem to be confused as to that which is the analogy and that which is being analogised.

I'm using "edible" as an analogy for "conscious", and "Lego bricks" as an analogy for "physical matter".

Clear now?

I think that a purely physical reality can potentially explain consciousness, understanding, meaning, etc.

Henry and I have both asked you to provide this explanation, but it remains unforthcoming, which is not surprising, because it doesn't exist.

[Harry Baird]

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.

I outlined my view a few posts back, but since it's more tedious to dredge them up and link to them than to reiterate them, briefly:

I hold to a sort of substance dualism in which the two substances ("physical" energy and "mental" energy) are opposite poles of a basic substance which varies from "least amenable to conscious expression" ("physical") to "most amenable to conscious expression" ("mental"). My provisional view is that this graduated energy - in both physical and mental forms - was created or emanated by a source being for which the label "God" is in a meaningful sense appropriate. That's all roughly speaking. There's a little more to it than that.

[Harbal]

And since right now, you are not, to me, a physical “body” at all, and neither am I one to you, since we are corresponding by way of thought-through-symbols, pure Physicalism can’t even explain what we are up to at the present moment.

Although communication through written text sent via the internet might seem very different in quality to face to face communication with another human being, when you really think about it, there is no difference in the quality of those two instances of interaction. Both are purely physical phenomena, and can be explained as such.

That, of course, tells us nothing about the nature of the mind.

[phyllo]

Huh? You seem to be confused as to that which is the analogy and that which is being analogised.

I'm using "edible" as an analogy for "conscious", and "Lego bricks" as an analogy for "physical matter".

"Edible" is not a property of subatomic particles. "Edible" is an emergent property. And I suggest that so is "consciousness".

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:58 am
I think that a purely physical reality can potentially explain consciousness, understanding, meaning, etc.

Henry and I have both asked you to provide this explanation, but it remains unforthcoming, which is not surprising, because it doesn't exist.

Don't forget IC as well.

There's a real theme here :

If you don't have an explanation, then it can't be happening.

[Harry Baird]

Huh? You seem to be confused as to that which is the analogy and that which is being analogised.

I'm using "edible" as an analogy for "conscious", and "Lego bricks" as an analogy for "physical matter".

"Edible" is not a property of subatomic particles. "Edible" is an emergent property.

You still seem to be missing that I was using "edibility" merely as an analogy. Whether or not subatomic particles are literally edible is irrelevant.

And I suggest that so is "consciousness".

And if I were to "suggest" that a triangle has four sides, you'd want me to explain how that could possibly be the case. Likewise, hq, IC, and I are still waiting for you to explain how mind could possibly emerge from matter, but we all know we'll never get that explanation, because, like the explanation as to how a triangle could have four sides, it doesn't exist.

[henry quirk]

I think it's startling 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom give us wetness.

I'll be absolutely floored to find out any combination of atoms give us mindness.


*

There's a real theme here

Indeed, it's called promissory materialism

[Harry Baird]

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:58 am
I think that a purely physical reality can potentially explain consciousness, understanding, meaning, etc.

Henry and I have both asked you to provide this explanation, but it remains unforthcoming, which is not surprising, because it doesn't exist.

Don't forget IC as well.

But of course. He got a guernsey in my latest response.

There's a real theme here :

If you don't have an explanation, then it can't be happening.

Oh dear. None of us is denying that conscious experience is happening. We're denying your (non-)explanation as to why/how that is, whilst offering genuine alternative explanations.

[phyllo]

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.

Interesting. I can see no explanation of these things at all, possible from Physicalism. And most Mind-Brain philosophers today would agree with me on that, I think.

And since right now, you are not, to me, a physical “body” at all, and neither am I one to you, since we are corresponding by way of thought-through-symbols, pure Physicalism can’t even explain what we are up to at the present moment.

Or have you really got an explanation nobody’s heard before?

You're focused on the message and you forgot that there is a physical body on the other end which is producing the message?

Consider these concepts from simple physics ... 'distance' and 'speed' are not physical in themselves but they depend entirely on a separation and relative motion of physical objects.

[Dontaskme]

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.

It's just a fact IC... there is no such idea as a non-material material.

It's like saying is there such a something that is non-tree tree. There's no such something as a non-tree.

There is no mind that you can point to and tell yourself that is a mind.

[Harbal]

And if I were to "suggest" that a triangle has four sides, you'd want me to explain how that could possibly be the case. Likewise, hq, IC, and I are still waiting for you to explain how mind could possibly emerge from matter, but we all know we'll never get that explanation, because, like the explanation as to how a triangle could have four sides, it doesn't exist.

If you run an electric current through a wire, a magnetic field comes into existence around the wire. The magnetic field could not be entirely described as matter, even though it was brought into existence by a physical apparatus. That analogy might not be a very close one when applied to the relationship between brain and mind, but it gives an insight into the possibilities, I think.

[Harry Baird]

And if I were to "suggest" that a triangle has four sides, you'd want me to explain how that could possibly be the case. Likewise, hq, IC, and I are still waiting for you to explain how mind could possibly emerge from matter, but we all know we'll never get that explanation, because, like the explanation as to how a triangle could have four sides, it doesn't exist.

If you run an electric current through a wire, a magnetic field comes into existence around the wire. The magnetic field could not be entirely described as matter, even though it was brought into existence by a physical apparatus. That analogy might not be a very close one when applied to the relationship between brain and mind, but it gives an insight into the possibilities, I think.

I already dealt with that here:

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.

The most interesting response I've gotten to this analogy is: consciousness might be produced by matter in the same way as electricity is produced by matter, such as via the generator effect.

One problem with this response is that it is only possible to produce electricity via the generator effect because matter already has electromagnetic properties, which this effect relies upon. The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.