Materialism is logically imposible

[Immanuel Can]

No, I'm not "question begging"; I'm question posing. I'm asking, not telling.

It's question-begging (which I'm instructing you, by the way--not asking you) because the question is asked with an implication that life and/or consciousness can't simply be a property of matter.

No. I'm not assuming the answer. I'm asking how it can be. I'm saying, "If you story makes sense, show me how." That's all. No assumption.

I'm only asking how the story of consciousness can make sense in the very same terms the evolution story takes for granted.[/quote]That's extremely vague, but it makes sense because consciousness is (at least) a property of brains. There's no difficulty in accounting for how brains developed evolutionarily.[/quote]
But your response assumes the pre-existence of things like synapses, and before that, of DNA. But we must ask how and when do these things come to produce the thing we call "consciousness." So far, there's no account of that being offered.

[Terrapin Station]

But your response assumes the pre-existence of things like synapses, and before that, of DNA. But we must ask how and when do these things come to produce the thing we call "consciousness." So far, there's no account of that being offered.

The word "preexistence" makes zero sense in context. Explain how my response assumes the preexistence of things like synapses (and preexistence relative to what)?

[bahman]

I think you're onto something here. How does consciousness emerge out of inert matter? How can a non-living entity suddenly become conscious? It's very weird.

Let's take the evolutionary story. Once upon a time, there was nothing in this universe that had any life. Somehow, chemicals appeared, such as hydrogen and helium. Maybe quark-gluon plasma, too. Anyway, for some reason, they exploded, producing a thing we call "The Big Bang." But there's no life. None. Zero. Just chemicals and random energy. Nothing is conscious.

So when did the consciousness bit begin? It can't have been prior to the coming together of amino acids, because they're the basic building blocks of life. But even amino acids are not life, and are not conscious. They're just "building blocks," so to speak. Still no consciousness exist.

Somehow the amino acids got together and had an amino acid party, forming a single-celled animal. Was that when consciousness appeared? If so, how did it suddenly appear? What material quantity or chemical process transformed totally inert chemicals and energy into an aware being? And if the jump to consciousness came later, when and why did it happen? What was its real cause?

Nobody knows, at present. And in fact, the desire to know is a later product of this strange thing we call "consciousness," for which we have no account.

At one time the universe was as dead as a rock. Later, it was filled with conscious beings. Now, if I started to claim I had a rock that had suddenly become aware of its existence, people would call me completely batty. And yet that's how the story seems to go.

How?

This is off topic but worth discussing.

There are two facts which are important in this regards: (1) life has ability to replicate and (2) sun is a source of energy which could feeds life. Once life in place then it could evolve in order to fit better giving circumstances. I think consciousness appeared when life could support a nerve system.

On the other hand, sometimes I however think that consciousness is the basic element of reality. An electron experiences another electron and react to it. You see the same pattern in every instances so that could be true that everything is conscious to a degree.

So I haven't made my mind on this issue yet.

[Hobbes' Choice]

...90% of natural law has been shown to be wrong...

That is not true. All physicists are doing vain if your claim was true.

HISTORICALLY it has shown to be wrong. Thus for thousands of years, Nature has been continuing happily whilst "natural law" was wrong.

Think about it.

Physicists and biologists have been DESCRIBING nature, and calling their description natural law. Not in vain at all.

[Immanuel Can]

But your response assumes the pre-existence of things like synapses, and before that, of DNA. But we must ask how and when do these things come to produce the thing we call "consciousness." So far, there's no account of that being offered.

The word "preexistence" makes zero sense in context. Explain how my response assumes the preexistence of things like synapses (and preexistence relative to what)?

Sorry, I'll clarify. What I mean is that your point about brains having an evolutionary explanation was taking for granted the existence of something like synapses (which are necessary to brains) or self-replicating DNA (without which no brain could possibly evolve). Both synapses and DNA would have to exist before any brain could evolve, right?

Consequently, we have to move the problem back one step, and ask where the DNA and synapses came from, and whether they were "conscious" and why. So we didn't really answer anything there, did we? We still don't know when and how consciousness emerged -- whether from the brain, the synapses or the DNA. And if any of the three was, at one evolutionary stage NOT conscious, we would have to ask again how consciousness suddenly appeared in the next one. If none of them was conscious when first formed, then when did it become conscious? If all of them were, then we've simply moved the same problem back to before them all.

So describing a brain won't help us account for consciousness.

[Noax]

S could be state of your body for example where as C could be state of your mind so at each time you have a set of state, S and C, which can give rise to another set of state, S' and C', by a set of operators, L and P, such that S'=L(S) and C'=P(S).

If this is true, a grenade cannot hurt me since S'=L(S) and the grenade is not part of S. Read my prior post instead of just proposing a new example.

[Immanuel Can]

This is off topic but worth discussing.

There are two facts which are important in this regards: (1) life has ability to replicate and (2) sun is a source of energy which could feeds life. Once life in place then it could evolve in order to fit better giving circumstances. I think consciousness appeared when life could support a nerve system.

Ah yes. As is typical with evolutionary explanations, you explanation jumps to a point where self-replicating life already exists. That's no good, though, because it ignores the fact that whatever has (mysteriously) become life was once lifeless. And it ignores that what is now presumably conscious (for we cannot have life without that) was once presumably not conscious and not living at all. So it doesn't tell us anything about how consciousness can emerge from inert matter. Rather, it bypasses the question altogether, dodging the bullet.

everything is conscious to a degree.

Well, a thing having electrons doesn't explain consciousness. For electricity isn't consciousness. If I stick my finger in an electrical socket, what I experience is not "consciousness," is it? In fact, your view would make out that rocks were "conscious to a degree," or mere atoms were "conscious." That you would need to show.

[bahman]

S could be state of your body for example where as C could be state of your mind so at each time you have a set of state, S and C, which can give rise to another set of state, S' and C', by a set of operators, L and P, such that S'=L(S) and C'=P(S).

If this is true, a grenade cannot hurt me since S'=L(S) and the grenade is not part of S. Read my prior post instead of just proposing a new example.

We are talking about person and his/her mind for sake of simplicity. S contains person, his/her mind and grande in your current case.

[bahman]

Ah yes. As is typical with evolutionary explanations, you explanation jumps to a point where self-replicating life already exists. That's no good, though, because it ignores the fact that whatever has (mysteriously) become life was once lifeless. And it ignores that what is now presumably conscious (for we cannot have life without that) was once presumably not conscious and not living at all. So it doesn't tell us anything about how consciousness can emerge from inert matter. Rather, it bypasses the question altogether, dodging the bullet.

I have read it somewhere that evolution is feasible because it maximize the use of sun's light. I unfortunately don't remember the article.

Well, a thing having electrons doesn't explain consciousness. For electricity isn't consciousness. If I stick my finger in an electrical socket, what I experience is not "consciousness," is it? In fact, your view would make out that rocks were "conscious to a degree," or mere atoms were "conscious." That you would need to show.

What you have inside your head is simply neurons and electromagnetic field. Neurons are in fact interacting with each other through firing of electrons. That is all.

[Terrapin Station]

Sorry, I'll clarify. What I mean is that your point about brains having an evolutionary explanation was taking for granted the existence of something like synapses (which are necessary to brains) or self-replicating DNA (without which no brain could possibly evolve). Both synapses and DNA would have to exist before any brain could evolve, right?

Well, logically, no, they wouldn't have to evolve before a brain could evolve.

Contingently, DNA and basic synapses certainly evolved prior to brains, though.

Consequently, we have to move the problem back one step, and ask where the DNA and synapses came from,

Actually, that's not at all necessary for asking about a material basis of consciousness. Asking about the material basis of consciousness is not at all the same thing as explaining abiogenesis and evolution in general. That would only be the case if we were to assume that as soon as there is life, there is consciousness. Otherwise it's like saying that in order to talk about how igneous rock forms, say, we need to start at the beginning of the solar system.

and whether they were "conscious" and why.

Again, there's no reason yet to believe that anything other than brains that are pretty close to human brains have conscious properties. Maybe they do, but there's no good reason to believe that they do. For example, there's no reason to believe that a cockroach brain has conscious properties. Human brains have different properties, including different third-person observable properties, because they're quite different from cockroach brains in terms of materials, structures and processes. Since conscious properties obtain when we have those materials, structures and processes, it's reasonable to assume that brains really close in materials, structures and processes, such as chimp brains, would also have conscious properties. But the further afield we move from those same materials, structures and processes, the less reason we have to believe that conscious properties obtain.

So we didn't really answer anything there, did we?

Sure we do. We answer things like, "Where does consciousness obtain?" "What sorts of things do we know are conscious?" We can answer a lot of at least broad questions about how consciousness correlates to particular brain structures and processes, and so on. We know that it's a property of at least those materials, in those structures and engaging in those processes. Consciousness is just properties that those materials etc. have.

We still don't know when and how consciousness emerged

Well, it's a bit of a "what is a heap" question in terms of just how similar to human brains brains need to be in order for cosnciousness to obtain. And it's a bit of a "what is a heap" question re just what counts as a brain and just what doesn't phylogenetically, too. For example, we know that jellyfish have nerve nets but no brain, whereas simple bilaterians, like worm precursors, do have segmental nerve cord enlargements that are considered primitive "brains" (although often enough with quotation marks around that term, because that's the gray area point). We know roughly when those evolutionary changes took place, around 550-600 million years ago.

And if any of the three was, at one evolutionary stage NOT conscious, we would have to ask again how consciousness suddenly appeared in the next one.

There's probably nothing sudden about it. It's surely a gradually progression. Again, there's absolutely no reason to believe that simple synapses, etc. are sufficient for consciousness. There is reason to believe that human brains are conscious, of course, and it seems likely that brains really close to human brains would be conscious. Brains like cockroach brains--there's no reason to believe they would be conscious. At any rate, it's likely not something that will ever be precisely pinpointable. Because surely it's a gradual transition.

So describing a brain won't help us account for consciousness.

Sure it does, because all that consciousness amounts to is particular brain states. It's just that we don't know exactly which other animals have consciousness, we don't know exactly at what point of brain phylogeny consciousness appears.

[Immanuel Can]

What you have inside your head is simply neurons and electromagnetic field. Neurons are in fact interacting with each other through firing of electrons. That is all.

That's a material explanation. But it's not a sufficient one. It tells what's happening, but not how or why these are producing what we call "consciousness," if they are.

It's reductional. It's like saying "love is endorphins": on one level, it's true -- but it's hardly an adequate description of the whole phenomenon. People who experience "love" are experiencing a whole kind of awareness, a different set of attributions, a different social construct, a new relation to an object, and so forth. All these facts are not embraced in the word "endorphins."

So to say "consciousness is brain" is true only on a very rudimentary, material level -- on which, in fact, we're not even sure is true, but is the best that Materialism can offer. It's not a good explanation of the whole phenomenon.

More importantly, though, "neurons" are already life. We jumped the key question again. We haven't said anything about how non-conscious materials like gasses and atoms mysteriously came to produce conscious entities.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, I'll clarify. What I mean is that your point about brains having an evolutionary explanation was taking for granted the existence of something like synapses (which are necessary to brains) or self-replicating DNA (without which no brain could possibly evolve). Both synapses and DNA would have to exist before any brain could evolve, right?

Well, logically, no, they wouldn't have to evolve before a brain could evolve.

Explain, then, how a brain could evolve with neither synapses or DNA. That seems questionable to me.

Contingently, DNA and basic synapses certainly evolved prior to brains, though.

But you think that was only contingent, not necessary? Just asking.

Actually, that's not at all necessary for asking about a material basis of consciousness. Asking about the material basis of consciousness is not at all the same thing as explaining abiogenesis and evolution in general. That would only be the case if we were to assume that as soon as there is life, there is consciousness. Otherwise it's like saying that in order to talk about how igneous rock forms, say, we need to start at the beginning of the solar system.

No, it doesn't require anything so lavish. We are interested in only one moment in the whole evolutionary story: the moment at which "consciousness" is being supposed to have come out of non-living, non-conscious matter. Everything else about the origins we can leave aside for the moment.

We still don't know when and how consciousness emerged

Well, it's a bit of a "what is a heap" question in terms of just how similar to human brains brains need to be in order for cosnciousness to obtain.

No, it's not. It's not in any sense a "heap question." For a "heap" already has its constituent materials in place: only quantity is in question, then, not the existence of the very thing that makes up any of it at all.

...we don't know exactly at what point of brain phylogeny consciousness appears.

That last question in your previous message is the key one. Evolutionism requires us to take on faith that somehow, mysteriously, without any explanation at all, the first "consciousness" appeared from non-conscious materials. Let that "consciousness" be as rudimentary as you like, and you've still got the main problem: how does it happen at all.

[Terrapin Station]

Explain, then, how a brain could evolve with neither synapses or DNA. That seems questionable to me . . . But you think that was only contingent, not necessary? Just asking.

Again, simply as a logical possibility, it could (have) be(en) the case that structures considered synapses do not develop until structures considered brains develop.

Let's use symbols as simplified abstractions for a minute. Let's say that & counts as a synapse and @&* counts as a brain. Well, a precursor organism could have structures # as well as 0#+ that are not considered a synapse and a brain, but that in progeny, show up mutated as & and @&*, which do count as a synapse and a brain. Thus, synapses in this case do not appear until brains do, too.

Actually, that's not at all necessary for asking about a material basis of consciousness. Asking about the material basis of consciousness is not at all the same thing as explaining abiogenesis and evolution in general. That would only be the case if we were to assume that as soon as there is life, there is consciousness. Otherwise it's like saying that in order to talk about how igneous rock forms, say, we need to start at the beginning of the solar system.

No, it doesn't require anything so lavish. We are interested in only one moment in the whole evolutionary story: the moment at which "consciousness" is being supposed to have come out of non-living, non-conscious matter. Everything else about the origins we can leave aside for the moment.

?? I was addressing you asking about "where the DNA and synapses came from." Asking about where DNA comes from is essentially asking about abiogenesis, since one of the primary markers for abiogenesis is considered to be the point where RNA transforms into DNA.

Phylogenetically, consciousness does not appear in non-living matter. It is a property of living matter. As I mentioned above, there is probably not a clear demarcation point where we can say "that isn't conscious, but precisely at this phylogenetic point, that clearly is conscious." Surely it's a gradation with a gray area where creatures are somewhere between conscious and not conscious. That's why it's a heap problem. What we're talking about quantity-wise there is the complexity of the brain materials, structures and processes. At a certain point of complexity, namely, that of human brains, we know that consciousness arises. With far less complexity--for example, roach brains, we're pretty sure that no consciousness arises.

Evolutionism requires us to take on faith that somehow, mysteriously, without any explanation at all, the first "consciousness" appeared from non-conscious materials.

There's nothing mysterious about it. Consciousness is a property of brain materials, structures and processes at the human level of brain complexity, and surely at close to the human level of brain complexity.

[Noax]

We are talking about person and his/her mind for sake of simplicity. S contains person, his/her mind and grande in your current case.

The title of this thread argues that physicalism is impossible. The argument seems based on this simplicity you state here, that S'=L(S) which is suddenly 'a simplification'. What it is is false. Don't simplify if the simplification is critical to the argument.

My post said <anything>'=L(M), not L(<subset of M>). Under that, physicalism has no contradiction.

[Immanuel Can]

Phylogenetically, consciousness does not appear in non-living matter. It is a property of living matter.

Of course.

As I mentioned above, there is probably not a clear demarcation point where we can say "that isn't conscious, but precisely at this phylogenetic point, that clearly is conscious." Surely it's a gradation with a gray area where creatures are somewhere between conscious and not conscious.

This is the point I doubt.

Some things are capable of being described gradualistically, and some are simply not. For example, "The light is on" is not a gradualistic statement, and cannot be gradualistic. If the circuit is complete, the light is on. If it is not, then the light is not simply dim; it is off. Alive and dead are a similar pairing: if something is alive at all, it's alive. If it's dead, it's dead. Deadness is the absence of ALL life, not merely a reduced state of life.

Now what about the inception of consciousness: can it be gradualistic? No. For if there is ANY consciousness, no matter how rudimentary, the entity in question is rightly said to be conscious. If there is none, there is none.

That's why it's a heap problem.

That's why it's not.

There's nothing mysterious about it.

Either you're not quite understanding the problem, or you've somehow vaulted ahead of brain experts. Everyone else seems to see a major mystery here. In Philosophy, it's called the "emergent properties problem."

Consciousness is a property of brain materials, structures and processes at the human level of brain complexity, and surely at close to the human level of brain complexity.

Again, you've jumped ahead of the story. You've started with "brain materials, structures and processes." You haven't touched the question of why these mere materials have come to have what we call "consciousness" in the first place. You've just said, "Well, once they're in place, they do it -- they have consciousness -- end of mystery."

Not so fast. How did these materials first come to have any iota of "consciousness" at all? For Evolutionism needs a story about that, or it's got a huge gap in its story regarding the appearance of consciousness from non-conscious materials. And by definition, Evolutionism needs a continuum, a gradual development to have been the case. Surely it should be able to make its own story plausible in this regard, no?