Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:You don't seem to even be able to really cognize anything that takes you too far off script. I've tried it a few times with you now, and it's like (ultimately unsuccessfully) pulling teeth.

Well, let's not put you to any more trouble. Be well.

Immanuel Can wrote: You don't want me to lie to you, do you?

I'd prefer lying to being honestly arrogant and patronizing. So yeah.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: This problem is just hidden in definition of dualism. So dualism is not offering anything new about what mind is.

But "Dualism" is just a broad category of beliefs, not a specific answer to what "consciousness is." Its advantage is that it allows for something to exist other than mere materials (or merely ideas) -- which is Monism.

We already discuss the problems which exist in dualism. Monism suffers from other problems so to be fair neither dualism and monism are good candidate to explain reality well.

Immanuel Can wrote: That means that Monism is NEVER going to have an answer to what consciousness is.

Dualism also is not going to offer any insight to what consciousness/mind is. We simply hide our ignorance about what mind is under dualism.

Immanuel Can wrote: Either it's going to have to say, "It's materials," or else "It's just an idea, and so is material reality." Both of those answers are clearly reductional, and just dodge the question.

Dualism also dodge the question of what mind is.

Immanuel Can wrote: Some sort of Dualism -- we can specify type later -- has a chance of doing better. Monism has no chance.

What sort of dualism?

quote="Immanuel Can"]

Immanuel Can wrote: Moreover, we might ask, "What grows?" For "It grows gradually" amounts to admitting a Dualism.

I can say that awareness grows while a being is conscious.

Then you have just admitted to being a Dualist yourself. For in your answer, you referred to a "being," meaning presumably the materials, and "awareness," meaning consciousness. If those two things exist, you're a Dualist. So either you'll need to change your answer or stop thinking Monism is the answer.
[/quote]

No, I am not a dualist. All I am offering is that matter is conscious itself. Awareness however depends on the structure of matter so in case of human, for example, it grow and become richer as a person grows.

Immanuel Can wrote: That fails to see the distinction between a merely mechanical "process" and a neurobiological action, i.e. a thought. Normal "processes" are not "about" anything. But neural activity is about stuff...very important, distinct kinds of stuff.

Take a process like transpiration, or even a biological process, like breathing. Breathing is not "about" anything. It does generate abstractions or produce consciousness. It's just a biological process, pure and simple -- necessary, but without reference to other things. But thought processes are different: they refer to intentions, calculations, imaginings, abstractions, intentions, and so on -- things which only a conscious agent can produce.

Plants have biological processes. But so far as we know, they have no cognitions. Plants do not dream, invent, imagine, hypothesize, reason, and so forth. Human beings do. Our cognition is thus not a mere "process," for plants have lots of those; it's an expression of personhood, identity and meaning that is far beyond a mere "process." That difference needs to be explained much better than to say "it's a neurobiological process."

Plants do not have a brain so they could not have cognition.

Noax wrote:

bahman wrote:

Noax wrote: No, this is completely false. You are defining S as a subset of matter, and subsequent states of any matter are not a function of a subset of local matter.

That is not false. I just claim that S, a subset of matter evolve based on laws of nature, S'=L(S), whereas C' arises from S, C'=P(S).

You say materialism is impossible because of this. This means you got something wrong.

No, nothing is wrong.

Noax wrote: Your claim is what then, that only S obeys laws of nature? Then C is not matter and you are not describing materialism.

Yes, only S evolves based on laws of nature. C arises from matter.

Noax wrote: I don't know what matter you've decided is C (you refuse to elaborate), but whatever you've put in that group, it is the exact same sort of matter as what you put in the S group.

C is simply a property of matter which arises when matter has specific configuration. C ceases to exist when a person dies so it is not matter but a property of matter.

Noax wrote:

C arises from neuro-biological process so it is different than a brick or any sort of object but C is matterial.

You're saying it is causally ineffective matter for some reason. Why? It is the exact same matter as the brick. I can't think of one particle that is used by biology that is different from those in the brick.

I think I am clear by now that what C is.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

bahman wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote: What you're referring to is inanimate matter only. Life is a domain in which matter is organized with such intricate complexity that you cannot explain a particular behavior of a given entity from its basic physical properties at atomic levels. That's why a physicist will not solve the problems that face a biologist, neuroscientist or a simple doctor.

There will be an explanation for Life under materialism if we accept that Life is an emergent phenomena.

You say "there will be" as if we didn't have already a materialistic explanation of life. We do have and its emergent properties are part of it.

I think we still have a long way to go to understand what life is. We still don't understand what consciousness is.

bahman wrote:I think we still have a long way to go to understand what life is.

As it happens, we still have a way to go to understand 'material'. The assumption is that a universe that has the appearance of being made of some stuff, is actually made of some stuff. Physics is essentially the study of the properties of that stuff, but the nature of that stuff, being metaphysical, is a philosophical question.

uwot wrote:

bahman wrote:I think we still have a long way to go to understand what life is.

As it happens, we still have a way to go to understand 'material'. The assumption is that a universe that has the appearance of being made of some stuff, is actually made of some stuff. Physics is essentially the study of the properties of that stuff, but the nature of that stuff, being metaphysical, is a philosophical question.

The nature of a thing is not metaphysical. The way we are forced to use analogy and narrative in the labour of physics, and other natural sciences IS the metaphysical component.

As all discourse can only model and describe the natural world is stands 'beside" or 'by" the science; hence "meta"- physical.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The nature of a thing is not metaphysical.

In my view, the nature of the stuff that fundamental particles is made of is metaphysical. Assuming they are actually made of something, we cannot perceive it directly. The existence of quantum fields is inferred from the particles we can observe and the forces they generate which we can measure. That is the business of physics, but there is as yet no means by which we can detect any putative 'substance' directly.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The way we are forced to use analogy and narrative in the labour of physics, and other natural sciences IS the metaphysical component.

Which, for the time being at least, is the case with whatever fundamental particles are made of.

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The nature of a thing is not metaphysical.

In my view, the nature of the stuff that fundamental particles is made of is metaphysical. Assuming they are actually made of something, we cannot perceive it directly. The existence of quantum fields is inferred from the particles we can observe and the forces they generate which we can measure. That is the business of physics, but there is as yet no means by which we can detect any putative 'substance' directly.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The way we are forced to use analogy and narrative in the labour of physics, and other natural sciences IS the metaphysical component.

Which, for the time being at least, is the case with whatever fundamental particles are made of.

You are mistaken.
metaphysics is a discipline, not a state of existence. You are confusing the practice with the object of study.
Things are not metaphysical, they can only be described, and metaphysics is that description.

The "what" of whatever particles are made of is forever hidden behind the mask of perception. All we have is description of observation.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are mistaken.
metaphysics is a discipline, not a state of existence. You are confusing the practice with the object of study.
Things are not metaphysical, they can only be described, and metaphysics is that description.

Well, if we can describe objects that can be studied by physics as physical, I don't see the issue with describing things which cannot, as metaphysical.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The "what" of whatever particles are made of is forever hidden behind the mask of perception. All we have is description of observation.

I think that is probably true, but they're clever buggers, these physicists.

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are mistaken.
metaphysics is a discipline, not a state of existence. You are confusing the practice with the object of study.
Things are not metaphysical, they can only be described, and metaphysics is that description.

Well, if we can describe objects that can be studied by physics as physical, I don't see the issue with describing things which cannot, as metaphysical.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The "what" of whatever particles are made of is forever hidden behind the mask of perception. All we have is description of observation.

I think that is probably true, but they're clever buggers, these physicists.

True.
But historically 80% of all physics has been proven wrong and superseded by better metaphysical propositions or theories.
This is why I also tend to insist that there are no 'laws' as such: things to which matter has to comply with. But "laws" are the human constructed narrative by which we better understand and predict what matter does and is going to do.

The metaphysical proposition of a law stems from the fact that we all believed that there was a law giver: god. This has been unhelpful, and it si more productive to embrace the truth that laws change according to the discourse of the practice of science, as we know they , in fact, do.

To grow, science has to have the flexibility of understanding.

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are mistaken.
metaphysics is a discipline, not a state of existence. You are confusing the practice with the object of study.
Things are not metaphysical, they can only be described, and metaphysics is that description.

Well, if we can describe objects that can be studied by physics as physical, I don't see the issue with describing things which cannot, as metaphysical.

One big problem with that is that it hinges on a common misunderstanding of what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is philosophy of existence or being. It answers questions like "What sorts of things comprise the world?" If physical things are at least part of what comprises the world, then metaphysics addresses physical things (even if it also addresses other things on some views).

bahman wrote:...to be fair neither dualism and monism are good candidate to explain reality well.

I think there can only be two solutions, though: either some form of Monism ("all is one thing") or some from of plurality ("all is more than one thing"), which may be a Dualism or something more. The key opposition is between Monism and explanations that accept the possibility of plurality. And I think the latter have a huge advantage over Monism. The answer will be found among the plurality views, since Monisms inevitably avoid the whole problem by denying it can exist.

Dualism also is not going to offer any insight to what consciousness/mind is. We simply hide our ignorance about what mind is under dualism.

Possibly. But at least with some sort of Dualism there is a chance that one day you will have an explanation. There's no such chance with any Monist view.

What sort of dualism?

I'm not certain. I'm only certain that some kind of plural view is going to be more powerful in terms of explaining our observations of "consciousness" than a Monism can hope to be.

No, I am not a dualist. All I am offering is that matter is conscious itself. Awareness however depends on the structure of matter so in case of human, for example, it grow and become richer as a person grows.

So again, that rocks and basic chemicals are "conscious"? That's an interesting implication, but not one I find I have reason to believe is true. However, how do you square the claim you make above with the claim below, which is...

Plants do not have a brain so they could not have cognition.

Now, if that's true, then why would we think that "matter is conscious itself"? Are not plants made up of matter? It seems to me that in regard to whether or not they have "consciousness," plants (however bad a candidate for consciousness they may be) are ahead of the "matter" that makes them up. And if they don't have "consciousness," then we're back to the conscious/ non-consciousness dualism, are we not?

Immanuel Can wrote:The answer will be found among the plurality views

Based on what?

since Monisms inevitably avoid the whole problem by denying it can exist.

That's not necessarily the case, but if the idea that there's some big problem is what's mistaken, why wouldn't that be an answer?

But at least with some sort of Dualism there is a chance that one day you will have an explanation. There's no such chance with any Monist view.

Any semblance of a support for a claim like that?

I'm only certain that some kind of plural view is going to be more powerful in terms of explaining our observations of "consciousness" than a Monism can hope to be.

Again, based on what?

Terrapin Station wrote:Again, based on what?

On the conclusion...which I think is the only reasonable, intelligible and consistent one...that a thing called "consciousness" actually exists.

I presume we're not going to question whether or not the physical world exists -- rocks, basic chemicals, whales, tulips and human bodies -- although Idealists would, of course. But that seems a bit specious at the moment, so I'm happy to leave it uncontested.

So that leaves us inevitably with two really-existing things: physical reality and consciousness...and that's at the minimum. Whether there's more is, of course, an open question.

At the moment, that's where I'm at.