How Does Evolution Produce Consciousness/Reason?

[Vraith]

No pile of sand, no matter what size, no matter what KIND, will do anything that is not the indisputable result of the ways the particles interact.

I suspected [was pretty certain actually, if you replied at all] you'd say something like that.
Same old hole we've been in.
One more try:
You've got a couple virus-shells sitting in your lab. All they need is DNA to get busy.
In one you inject all the stuff that makes up DNA.
In the other you inject DNA.
One [the second] will DO STUFF.
The other WON't.
BOTH, everything within them has identical messengers...
One will eternally be a blob of crap [unless something else is done]
The other will [hopefully] infect the brains of people who don't believe in vaccines and cause them to be not dumb or deluded.
Because the MESSAGE is different.
Your particle interactions aren't EXPLANATIONS, they're DESCRIPTIONS.
They have information but not meaning.
The difference between a blob of everything that DNA is made of and DNA is the CONTEXT, not CONTENT. It's the NOVEL, not the ALPHABET.

I think you said yourself something similar [and definitely identical to things I've said many times]...but made the same leap regardless.
You said we dont' know what charges are, they aren't material, the aren't properties.
Only PARTS of that are true. We don't know what charges are from "inside," we can only see them outside. BUT they ARE properties and they ARE material. Because the difference in a charge-property is why when a positron and electron meet they annihilate.
The material difference in charge.
[[which is the same reason electrons repel...material identity in charge.]]]

EVerything is "reducible" in ONE sense. But nothing important is in other senses.
If you say consciousness has to be irreducible and immaterial, you're make several POSSIBLE mistakes--you don't know what is reducible/irreducible and what isn't, you don't know what is material and what isn't. You don't know how any of those things interact. You don't know what any of those things ARE---you don't know even the "outside" totally, or the inside at all. You don't REALLY "know" how purely material things "work" with/to each other---why, not knowing that, is it somehow true that something must be immaterial? And if you don't even really know how the material works, how do you "explain" the immaterial having material effects?
It seems to me you're surmising precisely in the same way, for same reasons that there was phlogiston. NOT because of what you KNOW, but because of what you don't/can't know YET.

Somewhat related comment from some other quote up thread...why is a tomato not just tomate-ed, with no accompanying experience?
It IS treated that way----in STUPID/NON-CONSCIOUS creatures.
And most of those creatures just EAT the thing...they don't pick it, boil it up, can it, cuz they might need some nice FOOD when winter comes.
You don't need consciousness/perception experiences to tomato-ize.
That's what freaking nasty snails do.
You need consciousness for GARDENING.
I said it before, I think...whatever ELSE consciousness is, it is definitely a model-making prediction/choosing machine.

Your subconscious can take care of an enormous array of things to keep you warm/alive when it starts getting cold around you.
But only your CONSCIOUS faculties can bring you to the point of inventing wool and coats to keep from freezing to death.
It's [convolutionally] the thing---everyone thinks humans became smarter cuz they were weaker...that's wrong. People became weaker BECAUSE being smarter is better AND time/energy were limited.
Think of it, closely---consciousness is SO IMPORTANT and so vastly superior to anything else that, until recent tech, human beings were nearly helpless, physically, for a THIRD OF THEIR TOTAL LIFESPAN.

[[[which brings back another thing...it don't think it's overwhelmingly agreed that intelligence can exist without consciousness. We have exactly ZERO examples of that. Plenty of things are conscious without being very smart. Nothing is very smart without being conscious. 100% of Artificial Intelligence machines are "artificial," but exactly 0% are "intelligent."]]]

[Fist and Faith]

I suspected [was pretty certain actually, if you replied at all] you'd say something like that.

I didn't want to disappoint. And right back atcha!

Let's take a few old, familiar scenarios...

1) Granite filibustering centaurs kept me awake all month, causing me to lose control of my magnifying glass and burn a hole through the Hoover Dam.

What laws of particle interactions caused that sentence? What laws could possibly have caused it? What possible laws could have caused it?


2)
3+3
three plus three
Someone could have spoken either of those lines out loud

Any of those three possibilities would have put a certain idea into your head. Seeing ||| ||| or feeling tap tap tap *pause* tap tap tap on your head would probably do the trick, too. People hearing or reading it in other languages certainly get the same idea in their head.

Is the idea we all get a specific series of moving arrangements of particles? The light or sound or pressure on the skull inevitably (due to the laws of physics) set particles into a certain arrangement, which inevitably (since particles X and Y cannot not interact in a certain way under any given specific set of circumstances) moved to another arrangement, that inevitably lead to the next to the next to the next, and a final arrangement, or some part of that series of arrangements, is the unfinished equation? If so, where in that arrangement or series of arrangements is the understanding of math, and the unfinished nature of this equation?

And what do we have to do to the arrangements in a computer to make it understand math, rather than it simply performing calculations without having any understanding that it is doing math - or understanding of anything at all? It's just electricity working through hardware that we designed in the ways we designed it to move, so that we could interpret the final arrangement in a way we wanted.

If, instead of 3+3, the initial was 563*2,345, did you get the idea of multiplying two numbers together? Did you multiply those two numbers together? If those numbers and the idea of math and multiplication is an arrangement of all the particles in your brain - because the concept of math, and all the specifics of math, are a part of the properties of particle interactions - and that arrangement came about through nothing other than those properties, then those properties could not not lead to the next specific arrangement, and next and the next, until the inevitable final arrangement of the solution. You could not have failed to solve it. And you could not have solved it incorrectly.

But that's not how math works.


3) When I see something blue, it is because electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency goes through my pupil, hits my retina, starts a chain of events dealing with the release of this and that ion, which sends a bio/chemical/electric signal traveling along the optic nerve, which hits a certain part of the brain in a certain way, etc etc. And our brain differentiates signals of that frequency from signals of other frequencies, as well as signals that came from vibrations in the air via the ear, hairs in the inner ear, etc etc.

And we can distinguish so much, and find what we need, and avoid what is harmful, etc etc.

But none of that is my subjective experience of blue. And no part of my brain turns blue when I see blue. Yet I see the color blue. And I like the color blue.

And I don't just feel damage to my skin, causing the nerves and muscles to move my skin away from whatever is damaging it. That would suffice. But there's more. I don't like the feeling of the damage. The intensity with which I don't like it might be such that I can never remember the damage again without experiencing thoughts and feelings that make me unable to function in any way. Is my trauma nothing but a series of arrangements of the particles in my brain, interacting with each other in the only way they can, given the memory of the pain, which inevitably resurfaced because of particular molecules in the air that entered my nose and trigged the series of arrangements that the initial damage inevitably caused?

[Skyweir]

I think you guys waaaayyy overcomplicate this stuff. Or arguably I oversimplify this stuff

You see what you perceive is blue because we have agreed the colour is blue. We have assigned the sky the colour. We have determined its vocabulary.

You see only images and we .. humans have given those images words.

You remove yourself from pain because the nerves on your skin or whatevermawhatsies .. have indicated pain. And for the purposes of survival you don't "like" pain, you avoid it, because you know it will damage you. It will hurt.

Your consciousness, is that awareness of your environment that facilitates your survival.

If your consciousness is aware of mathematic language you will understand and use it.


Your consciousness reconciles all the data it collects from every physical, emotional sensation you receive and decides how to interpret it and how to use it.

Consciousness is the driver, the judgement caller, consciousness is not a homogeneous thing in different people. Personality, intelligence are part of it. It's how we
navigate our survival and enjoyment of existence. Through our awareness. Our consciousness is affected by data acquisition _ we don't all acquire the same data. Physicists acquire data that a farmer does not have exposure to. Or even training in.

Scholarly pursuits affect the range of data our consciousness needs to process and reconcile. Skilled pursuits are no different. The physical skills and experiences expose us to a myriad of different data sets and data types.

Consciousness is the key to our survival .. sure if we have a dummy heart, THAT affects our survival physically but our consciousness drives how we navigate physical difficulties.

Which is why consciousness has evolved. Without it we would be sacks of physical particles nothing more. It is consciousness that has developed to drive our sacks of flesh.

If indeed everything has some degree of consciousness.. for arguments sake .. then it is as unique to human survival as it is to any other living thing, by degrees.

I think we get caught up in the human tendency to think ourselves special because of our consciousness.

And to some degree we are. Our species and it's evolved state has enabled far greater access to data. And thus we have a far greater degree of intelligence than other species.

But not just because of intelligence also because of our physicality, our ability to experience more than other species. Because of our stature, we walk upright, we have opposable thumbs etc. We are arguably more adaptive than any other species, even than the most adaptive species.

Consciousness is an evolutionary imperative. Theres no ethereal mystery to its existence.

And if it is a part of an evolutionary necessity .. then it must be a part of all other species, in degrees or by degrees

We are only aware of what we encounter and are exposed to .. and that very real fact distinguishes one consciousness from another.

Your collection of numbers with the asterisk will only mean something to some one that is conscious of mathematic language. To me it was gobbledygook. So no intuitive response re knowing what or how to calculate that grouping of numbers or what it represents.

[Fist and Faith]

We're not overcomplicating, and you're not oversimplifying. We're having different conversations. I'm talking about the hard problem, which Vraith thinks doesn't exist. To me, it's as though I'm trying to understand lift, aerodynamics, etc, while V is saying there's no such thing as flight.

[Vraith]

We're not overcomplicating, and you're not oversimplifying. We're having different conversations. I'm talking about the hard problem, which Vraith thinks doesn't exist. To me, it's as though I'm trying to understand lift, aerodynamics, etc, while V is saying there's no such thing as flight.

I TOTALLY 100% believe the hard problem exists, and is a VERY hard problem.
I just don't think the problem [or the solution to it] has much to do with immateriality or irreducibility....though finding an immaterial-tino and/or consciouquark would be wild and cool.
And irreducibility matters in one way...it would be useful to find the inflection point/complexity necessary for consciousness to emerge.

If one's gonna believe in immaterial something as innate and necessary for consciousness, one might as well prepare to believe in the Fae, Anubis, Great Green Dragons, etc...etc...they might not be HERE, NOW....but they could be waiting right over there---behind that door to the astral plane.

It just makes more sense to me to believe it's related to unknown aspects/possibilities/realities of things we already know....because we KNOW there ARE aspects we don't "know",...than to believe in something that we have no evidence for whatsoever AND no idea at all about how/where to even begin to look for it.

One brief thing...from your math thing...I don't think particles/fields, especially in complex interactive situations, are anywhere close to as strict, rigid, and determined as you describe.
I have no idea how it works to "understand" math...but I know it isn't a NOUN. It's verbal...it is active...it is "in" the process/flow. When the waves aren't flowing, the cells not firing, there is no math, no idea, and no one to have them [or not have them, really].

[Skyweir]

I think wrong or rightly ... how interesting it would be IF the experiment that you linked ... about growing brains .. could develop consciousness.

Now the doctor, scientist, woman explained that consciousness requires physicality to develop.

One day not in the too distant future .. experiments growing brains cells will morph into growing brain matter, which will morph into the growth of a central nervous system, which will morph into a physical structure of sorts, with cells connected to the CNS .. and consciousness will develop naturally as awareness arises from the receipt and reconciliation of data.



Or not who am I to say?

But I completely agree that consciousness cannot arise or result from anything immaterial.

[Fist and Faith]

Perhaps I worded badly. There is something that is materially irreducible going on, and V doesn't believe it. To me, it's as though I'm trying to understand lift, aerodynamics, etc, while V is saying there's no such thing as flight. It seems as obvious to me as flight.

Let's take one thing at a time:

1) Granite filibustering centaurs kept me awake all month, causing me to lose control of my magnifying glass and burn a hole through the Hoover Dam.

What laws of particle interactions caused that sentence? What laws could possibly have caused it? What possible laws could have caused it?

I feel pretty safe in my belief that that sentence never existed until I came up with it just before posting it. What laws of physics explain it? What interactions of particles, and groups of particles, caused it? Particle interactions aren't random. Nor can they choose to not interact in specific ways under whatever circumstances they find themselves. So explain how it might conceivably be possible, given the state that my brain's particles were in, to have interacted in the necessary way to come up with the idea of creating a unique sentence in order to make my point; then find themselves in the proper arrangements to create that particular sentence. All following nothing but the laws of physics.

The problem with postulating materially reducible laws we are as yet unaware of is that they will be laws. Interacting in specific ways. And they will still need to explain that sentence.

[Zarathustra]

If one's gonna believe in immaterial something as innate and necessary for consciousness, one might as well prepare to believe in the Fae, Anubis, Great Green Dragons, etc...etc...they might not be HERE, NOW....but they could be waiting right over there---behind that door to the astral plane.

So you are not even going to try to take the other side seriously?

Consciousness seems to have immaterial qualities. This is the phenomenon before us. We're not hypothesizing fictional entities or qualities. This is how they seem in themselves. The claim that these things which seem immaterial are actually material is the one that is, at this point, fantastic. The hard problem exists because we can't even imagine how a solution is possible, as long as we're committed to the idea that it must reduce to matter.
Reductionism is a fiction.

As the article above states, material reality--substance--itself is also a fiction. We have never witnessed any empirical evidence for matter itself, only the structures we model in our laws/theories (charge, spin, etc.). The substance of matter, that which is structured in these ways, is just as fictional as Anubis, the Great Green Dragon, etc. And yet you are acting like "if it ain't material, it ain't real." Not only must all of reality reduce to this stuff we can never witness in any possible experiment, but the stuff we have direct access to must be a fiction if we take it as it seems (immaterial)?? I don't think your position is strong enough to justify your demeaning dismissal of immateriality.

I feel pretty safe in my belief that that sentence never existed until I came up with it just before posting it. What laws of physics explain it? What interactions of particles, and groups of particles, caused it? Particle interactions aren't random. Nor can they choose to not interact in specific ways under whatever circumstances they find themselves. So explain how it might conceivably be possible, given the state that my brain's particles were in, to have interacted in the necessary way to come up with the idea of creating a unique sentence in order to make my point; then find themselves in the proper arrangements to create that particular sentence. All following nothing but the laws of physics.

The problem with postulating materially reducible laws we are as yet unaware of is that they will be laws. Interacting in specific ways. And they will still need to explain that sentence.

You're doing a great job explaining it, but I'd like to add that mental states have content. This content isn't material. The contents of thoughts aren't reducible to particles, no more than the ideas in books are reducible to letters. And this content has causal power in itself, separate from the brain states which are producing the mental states. That's the important part! That's how you know that something more is going on here than particles interacting according to physical laws. "3+3" is followed by the thought "6" because of the meaning of "3+3" and the mathematical truth involved here, not because there is an underlying physical process at the neural level that is following basic arithmetic. If there were, as Fist points out, children would never need to be taught math. They'd never make a mistake if their brains were hardwired to fire in mathematical patterns.

Teaching math isn't a process of getting kids' brains to fire in the correct ways to get the right answers. It's a process of getting kids to understand math. Granted, once they are doing math correctly, there is something about the way their neurons are firing that is conducive to this process, and likely analogous to the mathematical order being considered. But this "neurons firing in mathematical patterns" didn't arise bottom-up from particles obeying laws of physics. It came from outside the brain, in the form of instruction, until the "mystical" quality of comprehension was achieved.
This is what allows us to error check! We are not just teaching our neurons to fire in the right way to get the right result often enough to get good grades, we're achieving an "aha" moment of understanding what we're doing. If all we had to do was get those neurons firing right, this understanding wouldn't be necessary.

Furthermore, even if you reduce this phenomenon of understanding to matter, you're left with the inexplicable truth that mathematical patterns can somehow affect how neurons fire. How does a formula--something abstract and immaterial--affect neurons? What is the causal mechanism there? This isn't a physical connection. Equations might be written on a screen or a chalkboard (which are physical), and light is surely transmitting those symbols to the brain (a physical process), but the relations of the symbols to each other are not physical relations! They are not color or shape or charge or spin, etc. They are abstract. They are immaterial. And however you explain the phenomenal quality of understanding/comprehension, you CANNOT explain with an entirely physical theory how abstractions can affect the firing of neurons in such a way that comprehension is produced, so that mathematical education is possible.

This is entirely different from the mystery of why the physical world can be described with laws that are mathematical. That's probably something we're going to just have to throw our hands up in the air and say, "Because that's the way the world is." Just a basic fact, with no possible explanation. No, this is something different: mathematical abstractions actually have a CAUSAL role on affecting bits of matter, when that matter is arranged in a way that produces consciousness. Nothing else in the universe (besides brains) behaves this way. For instance, mathematical equations don't CAUSE objects to fall to the ground, these objects just so happen to fall to the ground in a way that can be described mathematically. The *math* isn't pulling them down, gravity is doing that. However, in the case of learning math, mathematical equations are causing the minds of students to follow mathematical patterns, which in turn causes their brains to mirror these mental states (in the course of producing those mental states). The brain is following the mind, not the other way around. The mind, which "dances on top of" brain states, takes a step in a direction that is determined by a mathematical abstraction, and the brain moves in that direction to be the ground upon which the mind steps.

Even if you think "mind dancing on top of brain" it's a bullshit metaphor, you're still left with explaining how it is that brains are the one thing in the universe that can have effects that are caused by abstractions, rather than (like the rest of the universe) having effects that can be described by abstractions. This causal role of an immaterial thing upon a material thing is an indisputable fact. Immaterial causation is real. We don't have to imagine it, each of us experienced it when we were taught math.

I don't think it's a coincidence that consciousness stands in the middle of this process. Equations on a chalkboard --> consciousness of a student --> changes in brain activity. The changes in brain activity necessary to start producing correct answers in math would not have happened without a conscious understanding of the meaning of these abstract symbols. Consciousness facilitates this immaterial causation. I believe that is because consciousness is the bridge between matter and meaning. And it can't be this bridge without being immaterial itself. An immaterial thing produced by matter, which in turns allows the causation to turn the other way, from immaterial to matter. You could say it is a causal turning point, the place in the universe where causation can "flip." This is how all the other "magic" happens, how things like purpose gets introduced into reality, allowing matter to be affected by immaterial and teleological things like goals.

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, what he said.

Let me try to clarify my thinking on the unique sentence. Many years ago, I had heard that we can make an infinite number of unique sentences. Somewhere back in this thread I posted one. That was when I came up with the idea of creating a unique sentence to make this point. If all of consciousness is the result of particles interacting according to rules that they cannot not follow, how is it that these rules arranged the particles in my brain into the necessary patterns that represent this unique way of demonstrating the point; THEN arranged the particles into the necessary patterns that represent a sentence that had never existed before?

I could take it further, and come up with a sentence about a topic that does not exist. A sentence that never existed, about a topic that never existed, to make a point in a way that had never been used before. All through particle interactions following the laws of physics. (I'm gonna wrack my brain to come up with a topic that never existed before. Of course, such topics have been created time and again in fantasy/scifi, science, and mythology/religion. But I'm going to see if my imagination is up to it.)

The irony is that I am using the notion that the materially reducible cannot have come up with these things in order to argue that the reducible brain is doing things that are not reducible. It is, indeed, a Hard Problem!

[Zarathustra]

If everything is matter, and nothing is ever anything more than matter, then we're literally saying that atoms can have feelings, impressions, goals, epiphanies, and consciousness. Why is that less fantastic than saying that consciousness is immaterial? We're already saying that matter itself has these things that aren't material! Even if you reduce all of these (but one) to nothing more than complex actions of neurons, and forget that they have something about them that allows them to have the "to be like" quality, you cannot do this for goals. Science explicitly forbids goals/purpose/intentions from the interactions of matter. So atoms can't have goals. But we do. Therefore we must be more than atoms.

I think these two facts are concrete enough, demonstrable enough, objective enough to be unquestionable examples of something more going on than materialism:

1. We shape the world (matter) according to goals, intentions, purpose.
2. Abstractions shape our brains without any physical causation.

We don't have to rely upon something as difficult to define as "consciousness." These aren't phenomena that are purely subjective. We can see these processes unfold before our eyes as objective facts. We see buildings rise according to blueprints. We can test a student's grasp of math. Therefore, we know that parts of the world are being arranged according to a plan/purpose/goal for the future (which science says never happens), and we know that abstractions can causally affect matter in the brain.

Explain that with materialism, please. There's your irreducibility. I think it's irrefutable proof that materialism must be wrong. It's not some pulled-out-of-my ass conjecture. It's obvious, everyday facts that for some reason all of science takes for granted and does not question. But the evidence is right there!

****************************************************

Now, I'd like to go back to Fist's article.

It's amazing.

First, let's get this out of the way: it's funny how V simultaneously tries to say he came up with the idea first, but then trashes the idea. It's either a good idea, or it's not, V. Maybe you can link for us where you've said in the past that the two hard problems might be the same thing? I've never heard it expressed quite this way before. Specifically, I've never heard of a hard problem for matter (at least not described that way). However, I have been noting for a long time that matter seems to be nothing more than relations. And I've linked this idea to the possibility that matter can be reduced to something immaterial, like reason. And while I've considered panpsychism as a solution to the mind/body problem, I've never considered it as a solution to the question, "What is at the center of material structures?" I've never considered that it might be consciousness that is being structured, that this is the "stuff" of the world, even though I've thought of the universe as "living math." The reasoning that leads to this--that consciousness is the one thing we know of that is "in itself" and not merely pure relation (to other things)--is entirely new to me. Everything we know of in the universe we know only in terms of relations . . . except consciousness itself. That's an amazing insight. We know what it's like to be "qualia x" without having to relate it to other qualia.

However, I'm not convinced of the logical leap that the substance of reality must therefore be consciousness, by this reasoning. In fact, some philosophers (like Maurice Merleau-Ponty ) would disagree that we can know conscious states apart from their relation to other conscious states; indeed, we don't really know consciousness "in itself" but instead as a relationship to the objects of consciousness, the world itself, and embodiment.

In addition, I have argued that it is the meaning/structure inherent in material objects which is their immaterial "layer." But this article would make even the substance of matter immaterial! And if that is the case, I think the position would undermine one of it's own points, namely, that there must be some distinction between reality (embodied structures) and simulation (abstract structures).

That question in particular really gets me: what is the difference between a simulation and the real thing? If a simulation captures every single relation of the modeled thing, why is it not the same as this thing? As the article says, we assume that this difference is that real relations of atoms are structures of "stuff." There is something (i.e. substance) that is being structured. That's why a model of the universe isn't the universe. A model isn't instantiated in matter. It's pure, abstract relations. But the universe (we assume) is structured matter.

I agree that there must be some kind of difference between reality and a simulation. However, instead of proof of something material (of which it may very well be), I think it also proves the existence of something immaterial. If the difference between an exact simulation and the real thing is only a difference of the latter being made of matter, then the former must be immaterial!

Alternatively, perhaps we should stop speaking of material and immaterial. Perhaps it's all one. The only difference that matters is being and nonbeing. A simulation is an illusion. It's not that it lacks matter, it lacks being. However, a simulation is still a real thing. Illusions are real things. They just have less being than the things they simulate. What the hell does that mean, exactly? I'm not sure. But maybe consciousness is the experience of being. It's not a question of "pure qualia" vs "pure structure." Consciousness has both. It's a question of "what is it like to be?" Consciousness is the answer to that question.

So, maybe the article is right. Maybe the difference between a simulation and reality is that reality, at its core, is consciousness. Maybe in order to be, something has to be for itself (i.e. the thing-in-itself), and not merely for others (i.e. pure relational structure). And maybe the only way to "be for itself" is to be conscious--or in other words: anything that is for itself will have some quality "what it is like to be," and this quality is what we are naming "consciousness." It's not that consciousness forms the basis of reality, but rather that "to be" also implies "what it's like to be." And what it's like to be cannot be defined in terms of relations to others, but must be in reference to itself (otherwise, it's nothing more than simulation). This self-referential requirement for something to be, rather than to be merely simulated, could be the basis of consciousness.

And Fist--if you're still reading--this might be the answer to your question of "what's the least irreducible thing?" Your question seeks that which can't be reduced into physical laws, but these laws are always interactions/relations of matter to other matter. Therefore, what can't be reduced to relations between things is the thing in itself. The being of the thing in itself, aside from its relations to other things, is the least irreducible thing!

[Vraith]

If one's gonna believe in immaterial something as innate and necessary for consciousness, one might as well prepare to believe in the Fae, Anubis, Great Green Dragons, etc...etc...they might not be HERE, NOW....but they could be waiting right over there---behind that door to the astral plane.

So you are not even going to try to take the other side seriously?

No need to be snooty about it. I take it all seriously. People just have to be ready for the oddities in implication. But what I said was HUMOR.

I think the definition of material gets confabulated/conflated.
I think that if there is anything that can be,i n some way, called "immaterial", those things are CAUSED BY things---especially minds---that exist because of, through, are entirely instantiated in/by "material" things.
The activity and functioning of energy/neurons creates/contains the "ideas." in, by, and while doing.

I think things are 'irreducible" in the sense that when multiple kinds of things interact in complex and multiple ways, various aggregates have DIFFERENT properties than OTHER aggregates.
Quantity of basic parts AND kind of basic parts AND organization of basic parts AND context of basic parts CREATE the difference in properties.

IF the fundamental "property," or "essence" is immaterial, THEN we won't only fail to understand the hard problem of consciousness...we don't/can't understand anything AT ALL.

It's hard, strange, so far insoluble, how a "material" [whatever that is] brain can experience/contain/perceive in particular and then comprehend/expand/extrapolate/create that which seems to be immaterial/abstract/general.
But those abstractions don't cause the brain to change/understand. THINKING about them does. The action of the brain changes the brain...just like lifting weights changes the muscles...so you can lift more weight. [[fun note there, THINKING about lifting weights changes the brain enough that people can lift more weight. Not a LOT...but a measurable amount if they think hard enough/often enough...hard and often enough that it's usually more efficient, though not necessarily more convenient, to actually just lift the damn weights.

BUT the REVERSE of that is completely ARBITRARY.
Arguing from that direction absolutely highlights/reveals/illustrates problems, unanswered questions, opens fruitful fields for thought/exploration.
But postulating that immaterial/abstraction as a...heh...a "property," a fundamental or essence...it gets fucked up.
There's no way to show that Anubis isn't the source of addition, Green Dragons the essence of odd numbers [[Gold Dragons, of course being Primes]].

And I don't mean to dismiss the unexplained of consciousness...take qualia.
We don't know what/how.
You know what's even MORE bizarrre?
There's a reasonable body of evidence rising up that people with synesthesia are more creative, more intelligent over all. By a significant amount. Not just in "art"...in pretty much EVERYTHING.
Why the HELL would "seeing" green when you hear A minor and feeling an itch in your palm when you smell cabbage be connected to being a better mathematician or better architect/engineer/philosopher?

Really fascinating/possibly extremely valuable association with that: it is apparently possible to "train," or "teach" people synesthesia...and when you do so, they gain raw, general intelligence...they literally get better/smarter/more talented at pretty much anything without actually learning any of those things.

[Zarathustra]

I think the definition of material gets confabulated/conflated.

I don't think there is a definition of "material" to conflate. That's what the hard problem of matter *is.* We don't know what "material" means aside from the relations we describe with physical laws. But surely matter is more than mathematical relations, right? If so, then what? And if we have no answer to that "what?" question, then why the insistence upon the primacy of material over immaterial? If you can't even name what you're talking about, then how do you know it comprises the totality of all real things?

The activity and functioning of energy/neurons creates/contains the "ideas." in, by, and while doing.

That's like saying that a TV creates the images we see. Just because those images wouldn't exist without the TV being on and functioning properly doesn't mean that the content of the images is in any way related to the process which produces them. The fact that I can see a weather man pointing to a weather map--instead of a bunch of static--is not dictated by the functioning of the TV. These are separate levels. What the TV produces is supplied externally, from a source outside the TV.

Likewise, neural activity does not create ideas any more than your TV creates visual content. Idea creation follows a process of conceptual meaning, not physical laws. The laws of physics dictate how neurons fire; the laws of physics don't dictate how ideas form.

IF the fundamental "property," or "essence" is immaterial, THEN we won't only fail to understand the hard problem of consciousness...we don't/can't understand anything AT ALL.

Why? Why is understanding only possible given a material explanation? I can understand lots of things that don't have material explanations, such as logic and math.

But those abstractions don't cause the brain to change/understand. THINKING about them does. The action of the brain changes the brain...

If causation only happens from bottom-up--i.e. from the laws of physics governing how matter behaves--then it's not correct to say that thinking causes anything. The only causes are the four forces in physics. And the four forces don't cause abstractions to be conceptualized, they cause particles to move around. So how do particles start moving around in ways that conceptualize abstractions, if they only move according to the four forces? How does one idea lead "logically" to another idea, if the things which produce these ideas aren't moving according to conceptual logic at all?

If the movement of one thought to another can be traced back ENTIRELY to physical laws--with no conceptual connections between thoughts--then it's a stupendous coincidence that they have this extra layer of organization which--while being entirely discrete and disconnected from each other causally--just so happen to follow a secondary pattern (e.g. grammar, logic, math, story structure, joke set-up/punchline, etc.). Why do the laws of physics sometimes *appear* to tell jokes? It would be like gravity naturally causing orbits of planets to make dick-and-balls shapes in space. It's too ridiculous to be true. At some point, you'd have to think that something else besides the laws of physics was interfering with the process, on a level much higher than those laws. Physics doesn't know what dicks and balls are, much less that they'd be funny as orbital shapes.

But postulating that immaterial/abstraction as a...heh...a "property," a fundamental or essence...it gets fucked up.
There's no way to show that Anubis isn't the source of addition, Green Dragons the essence of odd numbers [[Gold Dragons, of course being Primes]].

Honestly, this reads as pure nonsense. The relations between mathematical entities ARE abstract/immaterial. They are comprised of pure form. Are you saying that there is a material source of addition? Numbers are odd because of some property of matter? What are you talking about?

[Skyweir]

Id like to break down some of these thoughts .. to assist my own appreciation of the discussion as well as ask questions.

If the movement of one thought to another can be traced back ENTIRELY to physical laws

Apologies in advance for breaking up your sentence. However, this struck a chord with me. If consciousness is intrinsically related to human evolutionary development... which it to my mind it must be .. it is materially reducible as it DOES arise from physicality.. as indicated by the scientist growing brain cells.

That scientist explained that the brains she was growing could not possess consciousness without a physical structure. A nervous system and a physicality of some form, through which to receive data.

I think that consciousness then must be materially reducible. If it originated as an evolutionary imperative, then it has to be physically reducible. It is understandable to consider Awareness as non material .. but if without physical structure it cannot exist, it must be more material than non material. Humans just havent yet discovered how to quantify or dissect it into observable or empirical parts.

Consciousness as a concept can be distinguished from say, Time that may be... materially irreducible yet is nevertheless quantitatively reducible.

I think the fact that we cant see the material reducibility of consciousness does not mean consciousness IS materially irreducible.

To my mind, consciousness IS empirically reducible.. when someone suffers a brain injury .. their consciousness IS materially reduced.

Consciousness enables thought processing, yes? ... and is not only causally affected by the breadth, depth and diversity of data it is exposed to .. as such it also explains variances in intelligence quotient, no?

So to explain a bizarre sentence .. it is the construct of the individual mind that produced it. Explaining IT ... requires a dissection of physchology of the individual mind that gave rise to it.

To my mind such examples, to my lay mind, do not progress an understanding of the reducible nature of consciousness itself, moreover its an indication of the distinct and disparate differences in intellectual and mental capability.

[Zarathustra]

If consciousness is intrinsically related to human evolutionary development... which it to my mind it must be .. it is materially reducible as it DOES arise from physicality.. as indicated by the scientist growing brain cells.

I think that consciousness then must be materially reducible. If it originated as an evolutionary imperative, then it has to be physically reducible. It is understandable to consider Awareness as non material .. but if without physical structure it cannot exist, it must be more material than non material. Humans just havent yet discovered how to quantify or dissect it into observable or empirical parts.

I know that it is difficult to imagine. (That's not condescension. It's not called the "Hard Problem" for nothing.) That's why I offer analogies to show why it's possible and the kind of thinking necessary to wrap our heads around it.

I've mentioned the TV analogy several times. The power of this analogy lies in the fact that it shows how it's possible for something to be produced by and entirely dependent upon something, and yet not determined by it. It sounds paradoxical and impossible in principle, but it happens all the time in practice. I think it's obvious that consciousness is dependent upon the brain for its existence, but once consciousness exists, it has causal powers over itself, and is open to causality from routes that aren't material at all, but abstract/formal/conceptual. The brain makes the "carrier wave" of consciousness possible, but the signals transmitted on this carrier wave (the content of consciousness) aren't dependent upon the brain. To say that the contents of consciousness arise from the brain (ultimately, the laws of physics) is like saying the contents of your TV program arise from the internal circuitry of your TV. The hardware that makes a particular phenomenon possible is not necessarily the same hardware or source that makes its sole function useful. TVs are useless without some intelligent source controlling its content. This is not problematic. It's obvious. The only reason what I'm saying is any more controversial is because I think that consciousness can control its own content, and that content itself can inform/influence additional content. And this is because consciousness is consciousness of that content. Therefore, it is affected by and affects that content. TVs have cable companies and DVD player plugged up to them, feeding them input, which the TV produces. Our brains have senses which feed them input. Our brains produce a phenomenon with that input that we call consciousness. The brain produces the consciousness, but not the content. The content doesn't depend upon the physical laws that produce the consciousness. The content depends upon the external world and our own contemplation of that input.

To my mind, consciousness IS empirically reducible.. when someone suffers a brain injury .. their consciousness IS materially reduced.

Just because you can't see a picture when your TV breaks down doesn't mean that the content of these pictures come from inside your TV. The content of TV images aren't reducible to TV hardware.

[Skyweir]

I've mentioned the TV analogy several times.

Yes it is a good analogy but I wonder if it is sufficiently relative.

You see with your TV analogy, is the physical structure ie the TV, analogous to the human brain or the entire human physicsl structure?

And the TV is merely a receiver ... so are you suggesting that there is an intelligence source external to the individual that is the source of ALL consciousness. My guess is that you are not suggesting this. Or it would possibly suggest a universal consciousness or mind at work.

So Im having difficulty applying the TV analogy and overlaying it on the human consciousness model.

To my mind the TV is ... I guess ... akin to the physical structure of the brain .. but not human consciousness. So if the brain receives the data transmitted from our physical bodies and the environment.. it requires our consciousness to reconcile all data received. But I suppose even a television must have a component that forms a similar function. Ok then .. THAT component is analogous with our consciousness but is clearly a lot more limited.

The brain produces the consciousness, but not the content. The content doesn't depend upon the physical laws that produce the consciousness. The content depends upon the external world and our own contemplation of that input.

I completely agree. The brain produces the consciousness but not the content of consciousness.. that is provided as you say by the input we receive from our physical body and its interaction with our environment, the physical environment, the emotional environment, intellectual input etc. These form the basis of the content, yes? .. once our intellect has reconciled ALL input received.

I tend to see consciousness as part of human intellect, or visa versa. But consciousness arguably gives rise to intellect.

Just because you can't see a picture when your TV breaks down doesn't mean that the content of these pictures come from inside your TV. The content of TV images aren't reducible to TV hardware.

No but the content is still reducible. The content source itself IS reducible. No?

Therefore the images projected on to the TV screen are absolutely reducible. They dont arise out of thin air. They can absolutely be deconstructed. And thats my point re consciousness. Our consciousness/intellect produces the content.

We just havent discovered how to reduce consciousness, how to quantify it but we know it is materially reducible because we know that deficiencies can be scientifically and medically studied and mapped.

Such denotes to my mind the indisputed necessity of the relationship between consciousness and the brain.

[Skyweir]

Maybe Im insufficiently articulate. .. I hope my inability in this field and lack of astuteness doesnt impinge on your ability to follow my quasi logic path lol

[Zarathustra]

You see with your TV analogy, is the physical structure ie the TV, analogous to the human brain or the entire human physicsl structure?

I never intended for the analogy to have a perfect one-to-one relation between all the pasts. The important thing to note is that there exists within physical reality phenomena which are dependent upon hardware for their production, but not their content. Once you admit that this does indeed happen in reality, not merely in thought experiments, it breaks down the purely conceptual barrier of thinking that everything about consciousness must be determined bottom-up from the hardware of the brain simply because it (most likely) depends upon the brain for its production. There is no evidence that the contents of consciousness are determined by the laws of physics embodied in the brain. That's a conjecture. To me, it's a completely nonsensical conjecture. The only reason people think it makes sense is because they subscribe to a metaphysics that states: the only things that are real are matter and the laws which govern matter's interactions. That's a philosophy. It's an ontology. A belief system about what is real. But it's certainly not proven.

I understand the negative affirmations involved in believing in materialism. It's a shield against anything whatsoever being real (e.g. ghosts, fairies, angels, etc.). But consciousness is something we experience, not merely something we imagine. So stating that consciousness may not reduce to matter is not the same thing as admitting that anything immaterial whatsoever may exist.

And the TV is merely a receiver . . .

A brain following nothing more than the laws of physics is also just a receiver! It can never produce anything! If the neurons are firing like billiard balls bouncing around a pool table, they can only affect each other passively, not actively, when they "bump" together. So how does this generate new ideas--or indeed, any ideas whatsoever? Ideas aren't material. How can matter produce immaterial effects? And how can these effects mirror things like the formal structure of math and logic? How can these effects take the shape of Thomas Covenant stories? Neurons "bouncing" back and forth create characters that we love, who go on to have story arcs that make sense? Really? Show me the laws of physics that do that, purely by accident (by which, in the absence of goals, all physical phenomenon must happen: accidentally).

... so are you suggesting that there is an intelligence source external to the individual that is the source of ALL consciousness. My guess is that you are not suggesting this. Or it would possibly suggest a universal consciousness or mind at work.

No, but there is an intelligent source that is "external" to the laws of physics governing neural firing. That is the consciousness which is created by that neural firing. Actually, I think that consciousness must be produced by a much more complicated and deeper process than neurons firing, but it's likely that consciousness makes use of this neural network to process information, i.e. intelligence. Consciousness may very well be part of all matter. It is mostly likely part of all life--even life without brains. But when you give consciousness a tool like a brain to use, it can then shape itself into an intelligence.

Let's back up. What is an idea? Well, it contains meaning, context, syntax, semantics, etc. But you're saying all that reduces to matter. So, if it's produced by neurons firing, does that mean that it's identical to those electrical-chemical events? All that syntax/semantics/context/significance can be traced back to electrical-chemical events? [Sounds like a metaphor even crazier than my TV analogy!] We all agree that those electrical-chemical events are governed by physics. So the laws of physics create not only neural networks, but also meaning/syntax/semantics/etc.?? If they do, then why aren't there physical theories for how that happens? I'm not asking for a specific theory of how the brain does it, but how it's possible even in principle. What is the connection between physics and semantics? Why doesn't any scientist even try to write that formula???

And yet, your entire belief system of reductive materialism depends upon it.

When one idea follows another in a reasonable manner (i.e. by grammar, logic, etc.), the movement of these ideas is dependent upon a structure that isn't in the laws of physics. For example: all books have words, Lord Foul's Bane is a book, therefore LFB has words. Nothing in the laws of physics makes this conclusion necessary. So how do the neurons which are firing while we think these thoughts determine that a certain neural pattern that represents "therefore, LFB has words" MUST be the neural pattern that fires at the end of this sequence? That sequence isn't hardwired in our brains. In fact, I've never had that thought before. And yet, that thought is a necessary conclusion to the other two thoughts. So, if neurons firing is ENTIRELY dependent upon the laws of physics--and nothing else--what is it about the laws of physics that guarantees that the correct neural pattern will be produced in precisely the right manner to guarantee a logically necessary thought at the end of the sequence? And if the laws of physics guarantee this sequence (because nothing else can!), then why do people think illogically sometimes? The laws of physics didn't work? No. The people weren't aligning their thoughts with logic.

So what happens when people align their thoughts with logic? They are literally training their neurons to fire in new ways. But if this change in neural firing can ONLY happen due to some law of physics, then how did it come about that a correction happened that also aligned with logic? How do we know when we achieve this correct alignment, if everything that happens in the brain happens bottom-up from physical laws, and physical laws are completely blind to semantical/logical meaning?

At some point, you have to admit that something within consciousness knows something that isn't in the laws of physics which are governing neural firing. Something in consciousness is recognizing a level of organization which isn't achieved by the laws of nature. This level of organization isn't physical. The fact that LFB must be composed of words because all books are composed of words is a string of meaning entirely composed of conceptual, logical significance. Words aren't made of matter. Neither are logical deductions of general to specific. These judgments don't depend upon examining physical books to see if it's true. We could have just as easily said, "All As are Bs, c is an A, therefore, c is a B." The formal structure doesn't depend upon matter, only meaning.

[Skyweir]

Very, very interesting post Z .. kudos. Very enjoyable read.

I see your point in part, not in full, and only because I feel I dont fully possess the wherewithal to appreciate all you have covered off.

Its interesting that your analysis hinges on a precisely articulated bottom up model. But what if it isnt a linear progression re bottom up?

What if the laws which govern physiological function, like neurones firing in the brain, which can be mapped ... dont prescribe or directly affect or control content but simply enable content.

And what if the issue isnt directly with consciousness itself but with what consciousness enables: thought capability and intellect?

So what is the preferred perspective, we think therefore we are ... or ... we are therefore we think?

My leaning is towards the latter. I am of the belief that our physicality is the material cause of consciousness itself.

Again I return to the scientist growing brains. She identified that consciousness cannot exist without a physical structure attached to the brain. To my mind this is understandable. Our bodies are giant data receivers.. and data is accessed from our environment, through sight, smell, touch etc.

And in order to survive and evolve within the environment we need to think in order to navigate our path through it.

Its kind of like a computer and an operator .. the computer is the hardware and the operator the software. But it could be visa versa. The point though is the physical structure exists and enables phenomenally diverse content which is produced through thought and intellect.

Content it seems arises in part from the structure but is facilitated and crafted by the operator. The operator can only craft the content within the parameters of the physical laws, enabled by its fundamental operating system.

Within those intrinsic limitations .. the operator can produce whatever content can be conceived. Again .. thought. I know this is a terrible analogy, I wish I could come up with a better one. Because it ironically and paradoxically relies on a sentient being re the operator. And I had hoped to avoid that.

But Im considering a model where the content is materially connected to the hardware.

A recent article that Fist provided suggested a duel monoist model combined with panosychism, in which all matter or all living matter possesses consciousness .. perhaps in degrees? I dont know .... but Im ok with that as a matter of fact.

The article also suggested flipping the way we traditionally approach consciousness... ie seeing consciousness itself as the hardware and the physical structure ie the brain and body as the software.

So in the above computer and operator analogy .. the operator is the hardware and the computer is the software. Which requires you to flip the role and function of each part.

I think consciousness has naturally evolved from the development of humans physical structure, but once consciousness is fully present .. it determines ALL of the outcomes for both the conscious and subconscious, and autonomous functions of the body.

Thought ... thinking and intellect .. these are the mysteries beyond consciousness, no?

The cream of consciousness.

Because I think consciousness arises from the physicality of the body, I see that IT is materially reducible.

However, thought and intelligence arises from consciousness .. and such are arguably immaterial and therein lies all the issues you identify.

How do we measure thought? It can be mapped, cant it? Lie detectors can pick up physiological markers re thought, are they not?

Experiments have been conducted to see what parts of the brain are used in various kinds of thoughts. So seemingly providing a material basis and connection re thinking.

But as you say, this doesn't assist. There have been attempts to measure intelligence, but not terribly successfully. And we are left with a lot of seemingly immaterial uncertainties.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.psy ... ence%3famp

This is an interesting article

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8200000587

[Skyweir]

But nevertheless, I do cling to a reducibility argument as a shield to deflect any notion of mysticism or ontological explanation .. of this you are indeed correct.

[Cagliostro]

Sorry, but this is a particularly interesting conversation. I should really come in here more often.
Just to add my blather for a bit (and I hope I am not subverting the conversation), it seems a lot of our thought gets cycled through a learned set of rules. Math, brought up earlier, is basically a set of rules to help explain things, and it makes sense to us. When I learned about using base numbers, it blew my mind and made me realize math is primarily a construct, because we chose base 10 mainly because of the number of fingers we tend to have (with a few exceptions who get too careless around band saws, or "freaks" with extras, etc.). That it tends to work is due to a heap of carefully constructed rules from many centuries of painstaking work. Excluding the higher power idea, we have created these set of rules that, for the most part, fit within what we understand the physical world to be. I sometimes wonder how much are constructs, and in another century will prove demonstrably untrue that we hold as given these days.
This is why I think I am getting to the point where I say I don't believe in a higher power. It seemed to be something of a thought "bookmark" to explain the unexplainable. And my reason for years of being an agnostic was always, "I've seen things I can't explain that leads me to believe there may be a higher power." I honestly just caught the irony between these two thoughts I have held for some time while typing out this post. I hate to rule possibilities out, but I think I'm nearly there on the atheist front.
Back to the topic at hand, one of my favorite talking heads Robert Anton Wilson refers to our personal consciousness as a "reality tunnel." This appeals to my set of rules established in my brain because we are all products of our environment - from the rules established of how we were raised, to societal rules, to our sphere of influence - what books we have read, etc. We all have our own tunnels that exclude the stuff we haven't experienced or learned or was rejected because it didn't fit within our logic/set of rules/etc. we have personally concocted. I find the "reality tunnel" model helpful to me because when other people are just "wrong" makes me realize (when I am being thoughtful) that they are also a product of their reality tunnel and while they have differing ideas from me, is it my own biases/limited experiences/etc. or theirs?
Admittedly, this isn't very conducive to the type of discussions that take place in the Tank, where certainty is king. But who's to say who is right or wrong? We can't pop magically into other people's reality tunnels and see why they think the way they do, and why. Facts are something, but with the news being so conflict-based these days, you can't even count on "facts" anymore either.
I really wish we could start communicating with animals. Are they really as dumb as we think they are, or do they only appear as dumb because they've figured things out better than we have?