Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:12 pm 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.

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).

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:07 pm Combine molecules into more complex systems and even more emerges.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:58 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:28 pm

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.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:15 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:07 pm 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 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:28 pm 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.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:31 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:15 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:07 pm 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 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:36 pm 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".

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:07 pm

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 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:36 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:28 pm 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".

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:42 pm Let me ask you this ... are subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) edible or non-edible?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:37 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:31 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:15 pm

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 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:34 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 1:45 pm

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.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:45 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:42 pm 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?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 7:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:34 pm 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.