Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:05 pm**

Owl of Minerva wrote:

"Does your view, that parts of matter are conscious, derive from any religion or philosophy, or science, or is it just how you perceive it? "
.......................................................
bahman wrote:

"It is a part of my philosophy. The reason is simple, how the brain could be conscious if its parts are not? It is impossible (I have an argument against strong emergence that I can share it with you if you are interested). Therefore, the parts of the brain are conscious. This implies that parts of matter are generally conscious too whether it is a part of the brain or rock. It is only in the case of the brain that we can accumulate data, reason based on data, and report our reason. We also are capable of reporting our conscious internal state."
........................................................
Owl of Minerva's response:

Strong and weak emergence are opposing views that are still being debated without either emerging as the victor, so far as I know. You use the term 'brain' which we think of as physical as opposed to 'mind' so you probably are not a duelist.

The philosopher David Chalmers has been at the forefront of the consciousness debate and has written on weak and strong emergence, with consciousness being an example of strong emergence. He has written "We can say that a system is conscious when there is something it is like to be that system, that is when there is something it feels like from the system's perspective." That refers to a system not to parts. It is a given that a rock does not have a perspective. Although you may think of the physical brain as having a perspective. There may be semantic confusion with the terms 'consciousness' and 'conscious.' They are not synonymous terms. You can share your argument against strong emergence if you wish.

It is interesting to view the debate from the standpoint of Eastern philosophy, which is little studied in the West. Their word for emergence is unsheathing. Evolution is an unsheathing of elements that are fundamental. and are eight in total. Five in external space, and three: sensory mind (manas), intelligence (buddhi), and individuality or ego (ahamkara) in inner space. If hyperspace turns out to be more than a theory maybe it could be the brain of the universe dispersing its elements into the quantum vacuum.

Whatever the future reveals it is bound to be interesting.

Posted: **Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:18 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:59 pm ...just as life is a thing organisms have when they already exist.

But at one time, as the story goes, life did not exist. And there was, according to the story, no consciousness. There were only gasses. So how did life and consciousness get started?

You surely cannot miss the obviousness of that question, RC.

None of them come from any of the others.

The question, RC is where did life and consciousness come from? How did those totally lifeless, non-conscious gasses manage to produce life and consciousness?

The fact is, life is a property of. "some hydrogen."

Panspiritism? That's what you're opting for?

Naw, you can't mean that...

Life does not, "come out of inert physical elements,"

So you do not believe the Big Bang-Evolution story? Because that story insist they had to.

You do not know, "the universe once had no life in it,"

Yes, we do. The Big Bang-Evolution story tells us that, precisely. And empirical observations show us that the universe is not past eternal. So there had to be a time when no life existed in the universe, because there was a time when there was no universe.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:24 pm These are huge questions you really aren't answering at all. But you kind of need to have an answer .... If I don't point it out, somebody else probably will, because it's pretty obvious.

You're the only one with questions.

You'll find I'm not. Maybe I'm the only one who's going to tell you, though.

Here's how intellectual exchange goes: you float a hypothesis, and others see if they can help you make it better. One of the ways they do this is by helping you see the problems with your hypothesis that you have, perhaps, overlooked. And they do this so that you will improve your theory and not be embarassed when you take it into some important or public forum. That they do this for you is a favour, not an attack.

You've got a massive hole in your theory. You won't be able to avoid it. Only your friends will tell you, sometimes.

You can't just assume the existence of life and consciousness, and expect everybody to give you a pass on that. You need to explain how they came about, if you want anybody to take your view seriously.

Posted: **Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:44 pm**

Hypotheses are speculation. The person making the speculation is subject to ridicule but those people who ridicule don't know the actual theory. They just enjoy raining on someone else's parade

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:45 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:18 pm You can't just assume the existence of life and consciousness, ...

I don't have to assume anything. That's what you do. I can plainly see physical reality, living organisms, and I am conscious. There's nothing to assume. There is no reason to assume that which is and has the nature it has requires some kind of explanation for why it exists or has the nature it has. That is the false premise of all mystics.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:18 pm ... and expect everybody to give you a pass on that. You need to explain how they came about, if you want anybody to take your view seriously.

Why would I care what anyone else wants to believe? I really couldn't care less if anyone takes my view seriously. I have no need for anyone else's agreement or approval of what I know. My views are based entirely on reason from evidence, not the opinions of others, not consensus, not feelings or, "intuition."

The only relationship between my views and others is to know nothing I believe and nothing I do, based on my beliefs, is a threat or danger to anyone else. I will never do anything to interfere, uninvited, in what anyone else believes or how they choose to live their life. I know that most people will choose to believe all sorts of mystic nonsense and embrace almost any ideology that promises them, "simple pre-packaged answers," "instant importance or virtue," or a "nice, safe, pleasant, easy life," if not in this world, then in the next, but their superstitious beliefs are no threat to me.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:05 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:45 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:18 pm You can't just assume the existence of life and consciousness, ...
I don't have to assume anything.

I see. Your solution is simply to deny the existence of the problem?

Well, let's see how that works out for you, I guess.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:18 pm ... and expect everybody to give you a pass on that. You need to explain how they came about, if you want anybody to take your view seriously.
Why would I care what anyone else wants to believe?

You do. You write your little treatises and recommend them to people frequently. Apparently, you want people to read them and believe what they say. Otherwise you wouldn't do that.

Okay, you're on your own. I tried to help.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:25 am**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 2:39 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 2:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:59 am

You are on your own.
Your ignorance is not a defence, not does it make a case
Come on, instead of throwing words try to explain the emergence of consciousness from its constituents that are not conscious.
Try to explain the emergence of heat from wood which is not hot when you burn it.
Ultimately there are no such explanations for any phenomena. All we can do is describe what we see and demonstrate the processes; which neuroscience is doing very well proving that: Almost Everyting is Known about the Brain and conscious phenomena.

Energy does not emerge from nowhere when you burn wood. The total energy is constant before and after burning. Ash has lower energy than wood therefore an amount of energy is emitted. We are talking about a system that its parts do not have consciousness and the whole is conscious. This to the best of our knowledge is not possible. In any system, to the best of our knowledge, the property of the system is a function of properties of parts.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:35 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:52 pm With all due respect, that is your worldview that is sheer mystic nonsense. Materialism attempts to explain that the brain is conscious as a matter of matter process. The challenge is that how the brain could be conscious when its parts are not. Materialists say that this is due to emergence, voila magic is done. Your worldview does not even attempt to explain the consciousness. You simply say that consciousness is the property of the brain, voila magic is done.
The brain is not conscious. Consciousness, like life, and mass, and shape are are perfectly natural attributes (qualities, properties, or characteristics) of entities. Shape and mass are physical properties, life and consciousness are additional properties, but not physical. No property is produced by or emerges from another, shape does not produce mass or life or consciousness, mass does not produce shape of life or consciousness, and life does not produce mass or shape. They are all independent of each other, but none exist at all except as the attributes of actual entities. There is no shape, mass, life, or consciousness independent of actual physical, living, conscious organisms. Consciousness is only possible to living organisms. Entities without the life attribute cannot be conscious.

You are not adding anything to what you said before. I know that it is irrelevant to ask about the properties of parts but we know without any exception that the property of any system is a function of the properties of parts. In another word, you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:44 am**

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:05 pm Owl of Minerva wrote:

"Does your view, that parts of matter are conscious, derive from any religion or philosophy, or science, or is it just how you perceive it? "
.......................................................
bahman wrote:

"It is a part of my philosophy. The reason is simple, how the brain could be conscious if its parts are not? It is impossible (I have an argument against strong emergence that I can share it with you if you are interested). Therefore, the parts of the brain are conscious. This implies that parts of matter are generally conscious too whether it is a part of the brain or rock. It is only in the case of the brain that we can accumulate data, reason based on data, and report our reason. We also are capable of reporting our conscious internal state."
........................................................
Owl of Minerva's response:

Strong and weak emergence are opposing views that are still being debated without either emerging as the victor, so far as I know. You use the term 'brain' which we think of as physical as opposed to 'mind' so you probably are not a duelist.

The philosopher David Chalmers has been at the forefront of the consciousness debate and has written on weak and strong emergence, with consciousness being an example of strong emergence. He has written "We can say that a system is conscious when there is something it is like to be that system, that is when there is something it feels like from the system's perspective." That refers to a system not to parts. It is a given that a rock does not have a perspective. Although you may think of the physical brain as having a perspective. There may be semantic confusion with the terms 'consciousness' and 'conscious.' They are not synonymous terms. You can share your argument against strong emergence if you wish.

It is interesting to view the debate from the standpoint of Eastern philosophy, which is little studied in the West. Their word for emergence is unsheathing. Evolution is an unsheathing of elements that are fundamental. and are eight in total. Five in external space, and three: sensory mind (manas), intelligence (buddhi), and individuality or ego (ahamkara) in inner space. If hyperspace turns out to be more than a theory maybe it could be the brain of the universe dispersing its elements into the quantum vacuum.

Whatever the future reveals it is bound to be interesting.

To show that there is no strong emergence consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is a strong emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property given the properties of parts. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no strong emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:45 am**

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:35 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:15 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:52 pm With all due respect, that is your worldview that is sheer mystic nonsense. Materialism attempts to explain that the brain is conscious as a matter of matter process. The challenge is that how the brain could be conscious when its parts are not. Materialists say that this is due to emergence, voila magic is done. Your worldview does not even attempt to explain the consciousness. You simply say that consciousness is the property of the brain, voila magic is done.
The brain is not conscious. Consciousness, like life, and mass, and shape are are perfectly natural attributes (qualities, properties, or characteristics) of entities. Shape and mass are physical properties, life and consciousness are additional properties, but not physical. No property is produced by or emerges from another, shape does not produce mass or life or consciousness, mass does not produce shape of life or consciousness, and life does not produce mass or shape. They are all independent of each other, but none exist at all except as the attributes of actual entities. There is no shape, mass, life, or consciousness independent of actual physical, living, conscious organisms. Consciousness is only possible to living organisms. Entities without the life attribute cannot be conscious.
You are not adding anything to what you said before. I know that it is irrelevant to ask about the properties of parts but we know without any exception that the property of any system is a function of the properties of parts. In another word, you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts.

Mercury is a liquid. No mercury atoms have, "liquid," as a property.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am**

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:25 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 2:39 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 2:05 pm
Come on, instead of throwing words try to explain the emergence of consciousness from its constituents that are not conscious.
Try to explain the emergence of heat from wood which is not hot when you burn it.
Ultimately there are no such explanations for any phenomena. All we can do is describe what we see and demonstrate the processes; which neuroscience is doing very well proving that: Almost Everyting is Known about the Brain and conscious phenomena.
Energy does not emerge from nowhere when you burn wood. The total energy is constant before and after burning. Ash has lower energy than wood therefore an amount of energy is emitted.

But this is not an explanation. It's not even a very good desription.

We are talking about a system that its parts do not have consciousness and the whole is conscious.

Yes, exactly like a piece of wood is energetically stable, yet energy is a property of the wood we do not fully understand.

This to the best of our knowledge is not possible.

By what rubric? All examples say that it is not only possible but predicatble.

In any system, to the best of our knowledge, the property of the system is a function of properties of parts.

Yes, exactly like the brain's compelxity has the property of consciousness; making journeys is a property of a car that no part can achive alone. And that the computer in your hand, or on your desk, can do things that none of its parts alone can achieve.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:10 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:45 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:35 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:15 pm
The brain is not conscious. Consciousness, like life, and mass, and shape are are perfectly natural attributes (qualities, properties, or characteristics) of entities. Shape and mass are physical properties, life and consciousness are additional properties, but not physical. No property is produced by or emerges from another, shape does not produce mass or life or consciousness, mass does not produce shape of life or consciousness, and life does not produce mass or shape. They are all independent of each other, but none exist at all except as the attributes of actual entities. There is no shape, mass, life, or consciousness independent of actual physical, living, conscious organisms. Consciousness is only possible to living organisms. Entities without the life attribute cannot be conscious.
You are not adding anything to what you said before. I know that it is irrelevant to ask about the properties of parts but we know without any exception that the property of any system is a function of the properties of parts. In another word, you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts.
Mercury is a liquid. No mercury atoms have, "liquid," as a property.

No. Any liquid has surface tension and compressibility that can be formulated in terms of the properties of parts. Any solid also has sheer tension that can be calculated in terms of the properties of parts.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:54 pm**

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:10 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:45 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:35 am
You are not adding anything to what you said before. I know that it is irrelevant to ask about the properties of parts but we know without any exception that the property of any system is a function of the properties of parts. In another word, you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts.
Mercury is a liquid. No mercury atoms have, "liquid," as a property.
No. Any liquid has surface tension and compressibility that can be formulated in terms of the properties of parts. Any solid also has sheer tension that can be calculated in terms of the properties of parts.

That is a total evasion. You said, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," so tell me, since mercury has the property, "liquid," what "part" of mercury has the property, "liquid."

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:24 pm**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:25 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 2:39 pm

Try to explain the emergence of heat from wood which is not hot when you burn it.
Ultimately there are no such explanations for any phenomena. All we can do is describe what we see and demonstrate the processes; which neuroscience is doing very well proving that: Almost Everyting is Known about the Brain and conscious phenomena.
Energy does not emerge from nowhere when you burn wood. The total energy is constant before and after burning. Ash has lower energy than wood therefore an amount of energy is emitted.
But this is not an explanation. It's not even a very good desription.

What we know is the total energy of parts is constant during the process of burning. We of course don't know what energy is. What we also know is that the energy of parts is equal to the energy of the whole. In another word, we have never seen a system that its parts does not have energy and the whole has energy.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am
We are talking about a system that its parts do not have consciousness and the whole is conscious.
Yes, exactly like a piece of wood is energetically stable, yet energy is a property of the wood we do not fully understand.

Again, we don't know what energy is but whatever it is the energy of parts is equal the energy of the whole.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am
This to the best of our knowledge is not possible.
By what rubric? All examples say that it is not only possible but predicatble.

As it was demonstrated in the case of wood. The total mass of parts is also equal to the total mass of the whole. The same for the charge, spin, etc. We never see a system that its parts do not have charge and the whole has.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am
In any system, to the best of our knowledge, the property of the system is a function of properties of parts.
Yes, exactly like the brain's compelxity has the property of consciousness; making journeys is a property of a car that no part can achive alone. And that the computer in your hand, or on your desk, can do things that none of its parts alone can achieve.

No, we are talking about consciousness in which the parts of matter are not conscious. Just think of spin, charge, mass, etc. That is how materialism is.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:26 pm**

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:24 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:25 am
Energy does not emerge from nowhere when you burn wood. The total energy is constant before and after burning. Ash has lower energy than wood therefore an amount of energy is emitted.
But this is not an explanation. It's not even a very good desription.
What we know is the total energy of parts is constant during the process of burning. We of course don't know what energy is.

Only in so much as we have a name for a series of phenomena. But that is not an explanation. The same works for consciousness.
But you cannot explain why there is energy rather than there being no energy.
The same applies to consciousness.

What we also know is that the energy of parts is equal to the energy of the whole. In another word, we have never seen a system that its parts does not have energy and the whole has energy.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am
We are talking about a system that its parts do not have consciousness and the whole is conscious.
Yes, exactly like a piece of wood is energetically stable, yet energy is a property of the wood we do not fully understand.
Again, we don't know what energy is but whatever it is the energy of parts is equal the energy of the whole.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am
This to the best of our knowledge is not possible.
By what rubric? All examples say that it is not only possible but predicatble.
As it was demonstrated in the case of wood. The total mass of parts is also equal to the total mass of the whole. The same for the charge, spin, etc. We never see a system that its parts do not have charge and the whole has.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:58 am
In any system, to the best of our knowledge, the property of the system is a function of properties of parts.
Yes, exactly like the brain's compelxity has the property of consciousness; making journeys is a property of a car that no part can achive alone. And that the computer in your hand, or on your desk, can do things that none of its parts alone can achieve.
No, we are talking about consciousness in which the parts of matter are not conscious. Just think of spin, charge, mass, etc. That is how materialism is.

You just keep saying the same thing as if you are not reading what people are saying to you.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:31 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:54 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:10 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:45 am
Mercury is a liquid. No mercury atoms have, "liquid," as a property.
No. Any liquid has surface tension and compressibility that can be formulated in terms of the properties of parts. Any solid also has sheer tension that can be calculated in terms of the properties of parts.
That is a total evasion. You said, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," so tell me, since mercury has the property, "liquid," what "part" of mercury has the property, "liquid."

It is not an evasion. A liquid is a substance with very high compressibility and a fair amount of surface tension. These are the properties of any liquid. Compressibility is nothing more than the inner force between atoms/molecules of a liquid. The force is mainly electromagnetic force.

Philosophy Now Forum

Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &