Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 2:54 pm

I see no error. Explain my error.

Anybody else want to try, cause I'm about worn out.

Due to his unshakeable adherence to a worldview with origins in the iron age, he is incapable of understanding arguments based on contemporary rational thought. I would just drop it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 1:21 pm

There is no property of sweetness in an electron, a proton or neutron. Yet arrange those items into honey and sweetness emerges.

I can give you the chemical formula for honey and describe chemical process by which your taste buds perceive sweet; can you give me the chemical formula or atomic structure for the mind that concludes damn, that's too sweet or damn, that honey isn't sweet at all or no thanks, I don't like honey ?

So the property of sweet doesn'thave to be contained by the individual electron for sweetness to later emerge from the complex arrangement of them.

So the property of sweet doesn'thave to be contained by the individual electron for sweetnessS to later emerge from the complex arrangement of them.

The property we call sweet is in that particular arrangement of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Where is the mind, in electrons, protons, and neutrons, who declares that apple is sweet!?

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:06 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 2:54 pm

I see no error. Explain my error.

Anybody else want to try, cause I'm about worn out.

Due to his unshakeable adherence to a worldview with origins in the iron age, he is incapable of understanding arguments based on contemporary rational thought. I would just drop it.

I don't think that there is anything "contemporary" about it.

His argument is : subatomic particles do not have the property of consciousness, therefore consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

He seems to think that I'm saying something like : There are emergent properties, therefore consciousness is an emergent property of subatomic particles.

But I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that consciousness cannot be excluded as an emergent property of subatomic particles.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:16 pm

So the property of sweet doesn'thave to be contained by the individual electron for sweetnessS to later emerge from the complex arrangement of them.

The property we call sweet is in that particular arrangement of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Where is the mind, in electrons, protons, and neutrons, who declares that apple is sweet!?

Try to stay on track here.

You had an argument you were very proud of because other people cannot persuade you it is wrong. This relates to that argument, not some sideshow.

The property of sweetness is not in the electron is it?
The property of sweetness is not in the proton is it?
The property of sweetness is not in the neutron is it?

Try to stay on track here.

Yes, let's stay on track.

I can show you the chemical formula for sweet. Show me the chemical formula for mind.

That is: I can show you the make up of one, as phyllo likes to put it, emergent property. Please, do likewise and show me the make up of what phyllo sez ought not be excluded as an emergent property (mind).

Take your time.

And review the past 15 pages, flash: you're not introducing anything novel to the conversation.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:23 pm So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings). I'd offer more but what's the point? The materialists/physicalists can't even dispute the tidbit (but, lordy, they dance hard and fast to ignore or dismiss it).

Try to stay on track here.

You had an argument you were very proud of because other people cannot persuade you it is wrong. This relates to that argument, not some sideshow.

The property of sweetness is not in the electron is it?
The property of sweetness is not in the proton is it?
The property of sweetness is not in the neutron is it?

But .... with an arrangement or quantity ... there is sweetness.

So.... and please try to fucking follow this simple train of idiot proof reasoning .... THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE INGREDIENTS DON'T CONTAIN IT IS BULLSHIT.


Why


is


this


shit


so



difficult



with


you?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 2:54 pm

I see no error. Explain my error.

Anybody else want to try, cause I'm about worn out.

The trick is to get him to stay on his origianl argument. It's not a talent he has by nature.

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE INGREDIENTS DON'T CONTAIN IT IS BULLSHIT.

I never said PROPERTIES ARE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE INGREDIENTS DON'T CONTAIN IT.

Not once.

All I wanna know -- and this is me, stayin' on track -- is how unconscious particles produce consciousness.

That's been my (unanswered) question for 15 pages, thereabouts.

Again: go read the past 15, 16, 17 pages and quit wastin' my time.

And: I tell you plainly, you yell at me again, curse at me again, make your lil hackneyed assessment if what I'm proud of again, I won't respond.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:55 pm

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE INGREDIENTS DON'T CONTAIN IT IS BULLSHIT.

I never said PROPERTIES ARE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE INGREDIENTS DON'T CONTAIN IT.

Not once.

All I wanna know -- and this is me, stayin' on track -- is how unconscious particles produce consciousness.

That's been my question for 15 pages.

Again: go read the past 15 pages and quit wastin' my time.

What do you think you are saying with this sentence :

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:23 pm So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not SWEET and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make SWEETness

Your tidbit does not work. Sweetness clearly is produced by some arrangement of atoms, even though the atoms themselves do not contain any flavourful properties.

The same would apply if you tried to use other properties such as saltiness (a property that emerges when a certain quantity of sodium and chloride are combined), or consciousness, or wetness.

It makes no difference that you don't know what arrangement is required for some complex property to emerge.

What do you think you are saying with this sentence :

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings).

Exactly what I mean to say: unconscious particles don't produce consciousness. I never said, for example, unconscious particles don't produce wetness or sweet. I'm not generalizing. I'm bein' very specific.

As I say: I can give you to formula for sweet; give me one for mind. If mind is just a property, you ought not have a problem meetin' my request, yeah?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 4:09 pm

What do you think you are saying with this sentence :

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings).

Exactly what I mean to say: unconscious particles don't produce consciousness. I never said, for example, unconscious particles don't produce wetness or sweet. I'm not generalizing. I'm bein' very specific.

As I say: I can give you to formula for sweet; give me one for mind. If mind is just a property, you ought not have a problem meetin' my request, yeah?

What was your argument that consciousness is a magic property that has to be made out of conscious particles? Unlike any other property....

It makes no difference that you don't know what arrangement is required for some complex property to emerge.

It does if you wanna claim sumthin' is a property.

Unlike any other property....

We haven't established mind is a property.

Please, do so now.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 4:16 pm

It makes no difference that you don't know what arrangement is required for some complex property to emerge.

It does if you wanna claim sumthin' is a property.

Unlike any other property....

We haven't established mind is a property.

Please, do so now.

Your previous use of the words "therefore cannot" preclude this avenue of argument for you.
Yours is the burden of proving that consciousness is (unlike sweetness) not something that can emerge from the complex arrangement of matter.