Raising My Arm

[Fist and Faith]

But solidity is how repulsion of electrons manifests, or perhaps is interpreted, at the macro level. What if consciousness is merely how other micro interactions manifest or are interpreted at the macro level? One way or another, we're talking about something that works "in ways that violate our assumptions of how the universe works." There's no getting around that. I'm questioning which types of assumptions are actually wrong. The ones about what the limits of what micro characteristics can lead to? The ones about how many micro characteristics there are? The ones about what other types of characteristics are at work? Until I think of or hear another idea - and I'm trying to come up with one ALL THE TIME! - I don't have grounds to completely rule out, and stop thinking about, any other.

But, really, yes, solidity exists. The repulsion of electrons is how solidity is achieved. Say it is illusion, and everything we could every talk about is as well. There is no sound; it's really vibrations of air molecules making our eardrum vibrate, which eventually leads to the hairs of the inner ear, whose stereocilia change the vibrations to electrical signals ... blah blah ... which we interpret as sound. That IS sound. We don't exist at the level of electrical repulsion and vibratring molecules of air. We have solid objects and sound. And we understand the underlying principles that give rise to solidity and sound.

[Zarathustra]

There is such a thing as true solidity. In a neutron star matter is packed together where the neutrons are in contact. Normal 'solidity' really is an illusion. But nothing about it violates the laws of physics. Consciousness, on the other hand, can't be like this because it has properties that matter doesn't have (upon a 'standard' understanding of matter).

The vibration of air molecules is not an illusion.

[Fist and Faith]

There is such a thing as true solidity. In a neutron star matter is packed together where the neutrons are in contact. Normal 'solidity' really is an illusion.

It's not. It's one of the states of matter. Solids have a fixed volume and shape. Solidity is the result of the density of, and the bonding between, the particles. Solids can't pass through each other because of the repulsion of the electrons. Some solids area more dense than others, but the density required to be a solid is FAR less than that found in a neutron star.

But nothing about it violates the laws of physics.

Well, no. Nothing that exists in the universe violates its laws of physics. Nothing that violates the universe's laws of physics can exist in the universe.

Consciousness, on the other hand, can't be like this because it has properties that matter doesn't have (upon a 'standard' understanding of matter).

Yes, 'standard'. A fuller understanding of matter might reveal that consciousness does not have properties that matter does not have.

And yes, I often argue for what you're saying. I think my ability to flip-flop on this issue and embrace the side I'm arguing for at the time is a reflection of humanity's stance on it. That is, there is nothing close to a clear answer, and the general direction we need to take is far from certain. (Or there's some sort of mental health issue at work.)

The vibration of air molecules is not an illusion.

Correct. But the sound does not exist outside of our brains. Without the various parts of the body and brain that interpret the vibrations as they do, sound would not exist. It is an illusion. Or perhaps "interpretation" is a better word.

But that's what sound is! That's how sound is achieved and defined. I'm just saying we can argue that any damned thing is an illusion if we want to. But we define things the way we define them. It's how we work with the world, and how we communicate.

[Vraith]

There is such a thing as true solidity. In a neutron star

And

but the density required to be a solid is FAR less than that found in a neutron star.

Or maybe not either...[emphasises mine]

Then the atoms squeeze so close together that they lose their electrons, which fall into a shared sea.

turning into neutrons, which cluster so close together that they start to overlap.

There's other weirder stuff in the article.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/squishy- ... -20171030/

One thing is clear [as mud] though...this might be the best/briefest way I"ve come up with of saying what I've been trying to communicate:

There's a ton of evidence that "everything" at a fundamental level is MEDIATED by force-carrying particles [virtual, mostly---and even though those "particles" are probably just point states of fields] and all the other rules and things we know...but that fact of mediation doesn't DEFINE the higher level properties.
More accurately, creates boundaries/limits---but a lot can happen inside. [[glass walls may make your aquarium---but a whole bunch of stuff can happen INSIDE it]

Just to complicate/complexify things---cuz that's what we really need here---or maybe it will clarify?
Some aspects of what we're talking about are "properties."
But it seems to me some are properties of properties.
[we're mixing our aquarium-the-thing-that-is-a-glass-box with our aquarium-the-thing-including-all-the-stuff-inside.]
Kinda like---just a way to think on it, don't dig too far into literal---you have an electron in space---it has a property=negative charge.
It will repel OTHER electrons nearby==but the repulsion is not a property of the electron, it's the property/effect of it's property of charge.
[[[in fact that situation is only kinda sorta that---see the harder stuff on spin and exclusion if ya care to...mostly why I said don't be too literal/picky]]]

[Fist and Faith]

Excellent point. What do you have in mind?

[Skyweir]

[Vraith]

Excellent point. What do you have in mind?

I have in mind a ton of shit. None of it demonstrable or easy.
But...take those virtual particles.
Are they "real"/"material" or not?
If one pushes them enough...they BECOME "real"/"material"---but you have to DO something, have to ADD something.
But...when they aren't "real" they STILL have "real" effects.
When the ARE "real" they STOP having those "real" effects.
They start having different ones...one of which is, when the encounter another "real" particle...they interact through VIRTUAL particles.
So, a non-particle becomes a quasi-particle becomes a real particle that starts talking with non-particles....
EXCEPT...other folk claim they're just a tool/descriptor to begin with...
They're just a concrete-metaphor.
As I keep saying...we have a problem with the qualia/consciousness existence....
BUT--you can't pretend, in any way, that "thoughts" are immaterial until you know what material and immaterial ARE.
And virtual particles, basic interactions, don't fit EITHER definition, even though they are definitely real in some way.
Z is right when he says we have a problem with the redness of red [or even the idea that there IS a redness of red]
BUT it
IS
NOT
DIFFERENT
FROM
OTHER
PROBLEMS.
Concepts/Qualia/Etc. likely have [seemingly DO have] some emergent properties.
But the "materiality" question, as applied to thought/minds/concepts is a red herring.
Those other problems will show how it works...
Like
Immateriality of some force/function/fields is a property of the material.
the problem is hard right now...
But there is no difference between the kind of problem...and especially the speculative magic/mystery assumptions of difference as solution than there was when people said [and some still say]
"People are SO DIFFERENT in every way that they couldn't possibly exist without "god,"/"creation.""
They were wrong. Demonstrably.
There's a famous quote about sufficiently advanced tech being indistinguishable from magic.
That's bullshit.
The real thing is
Insufficiently knowledgeable beings are UNABLE to distinguish magic from technology.
One CAN'T say that immateriality is a problem UNTIL one knows what material IS.
And THEN the real mystery isn't the properties of the immaterial...it is how contemplating the immaterial can have a causal relation to ACTING.
[[the reverse also...once I can see the difference between one apple and two apples, how do I disconnect the one and two from the apples---how extract the abstraction?]]
The answer is not---cannot be---in the DIFFERENCE. It HAS to be in the connection...which has to be material. [or VIRTUALLY material]

[Fist and Faith]

I'm not saying the mind is immaterial. I believe it is material. But it is doing things that cannot be explained by the properties of the material. And it doesn't matter what we call it/them, or what it/they truly are. They have specific properties and interact in specific ways. The laws of physics.

-When does a virtual particle become a real particle/How are they "pushed" to become real?
-How do we distinguish a virtual particle from a real particle?
-Which "real" effects does a virtual particle stop having after it becomes real?

[Zarathustra]

Well, *I* think mind is immaterial ... but then I think that matter is, too.

Well, I actually think that neutral monism solves this particular conundrum. But that means we have to revise our conception of "matter" and "material."

It is a problem. All of science rests upon the idea that matter blindly follows physical laws without purpose, reason, or goals. It was the elimination of such superstitions that led to centuries of scientific revolutions. You could even label this distinction as the divide between science and religion, or science and pseudo-science. However, for all the success of scientific method and reductive materialism, this conception of nature can't account for the most conspicuous things in nature: life and consciousness. It's not just that we don't know the details now and then one day we will--like learning that magic is actually technology. That's a reductive paradigm, like taking apart the magic mirror and realizing it's a touchscreen computer. This problem won't be solved by taking apart a device and learning how its parts fit together. It will involve redefining the very stuff that parts are made of, and how parts relate to wholes.

We've seen enough paradigm revolutions in our history to think that they're all the same (ironically). Thomas Kuhn even said this is the process of scientific progress. It's a cycle that has a repeating form. But all the previous paradigm shifts still operated within reductive materialism. The level of paradigm shift necessary to solve the mind/body problem will likely take us out of materialism, into a new metaphysics, a new philosophical foundation for science.

[Skyweir]

Very interesting post V

So just because we dont have a name for what occurs in the mind, does not imply it isnt real or material, particulate or quasi particulate And just because processes occur in what may seem immaterially .. they demonstrate existence by their occurrence ..

As I keep saying...we have a problem with the qualia/consciousness existence....

What problem then do we have with consciousness existence

... But it is doing things that cannot be explained by the properties of the material.

Curious and genuinely wondering what things specifically cannot be explained

And it doesn't matter what we call it/them, or what it/they truly are. They have specific properties and interact in specific ways. The laws of physics.

So the way the mind works .. despite not knowing what it is comprised of .. it has specific properties and therefore is not a mystical mystery

[Fist and Faith]

Well, *I* think mind is immaterial ... but then I think that matter is, too.

Well, I actually think that neutral monism solves this particular conundrum. But that means we have to revise our conception of "matter" and "material."

It is a problem. All of science rests upon the idea that matter blindly follows physical laws without purpose, reason, or goals. It was the elimination of such superstitions that led to centuries of scientific revolutions. You could even label this distinction as the divide between science and religion, or science and pseudo-science. However, for all the success of scientific method and reductive materialism, this conception of nature can't account for the most conspicuous things in nature: life and consciousness. It's not just that we don't know the details now and then one day we will--like learning that magic is actually technology. That's a reductive paradigm, like taking apart the magic mirror and realizing it's a touchscreen computer. This problem won't be solved by taking apart a device and learning how its parts fit together. It will involve redefining the very stuff that parts are made of, and how parts relate to wholes.

We've seen enough paradigm revolutions in our history to think that they're all the same (ironically). Thomas Kuhn even said this is the process of scientific progress. It's a cycle that has a repeating form. But all the previous paradigm shifts still operated within reductive materialism. The level of paradigm shift necessary to solve the mind/body problem will likely take us out of materialism, into a new metaphysics, a new philosophical foundation for science.

I'm think string theory is the answer. If they're vibrating in all these different ways. One way of vibrating makes an up quark; another way makes a down quark; another way makes a photon; etc. But, if all those dimensions are really there, then some ways of vibrating will not be seen/detectable in the three spatial dimensions that we experience. Some think dark matter is in our universe, but not in our three dimensions, right? Maybe the brain that lies within our three dimensions causes strings to vibrate in some of the other dimensions, giving rise to the mind.

Or maybe strings vibrating only in those other dimensions have always been part of the picture, from one-celled organisms on, or even prior to life.

Since they're all strings, they can interact even without the "mind" strings being detectable to our sciences.

Maybe the three dimensions we experience are the only spatial dimensions, and the others are ... other than space or time dimensions. So the ones moving in the spatial dimensions don't knock into those that are not in the spatial dimensions.

Yeah, I think I'm closing in on all the answers!

And don't bother me with details like having absolutely no empirical evidence for the existence of strings. The math works, dammit! And that's good enough, right Av???

[Avatar]

Hahaha, if you say so Fist, if you say so.

(Of course, it only worked once they posited one extra dimension on top of the 10 or 11 they already posited for string-theory...if that extra one doesn't actually exist, then the math doesn't work, we're just pretending it does by making up conditions under which it would.)



--A

[Skyweir]

[Fist and Faith]

That's the spirit, Av! Good you're in agreement!

[Skyweir]

Pretty sure that was qualified agreement .. if it was an agreement at all

[Fist and Faith]

LA LA LA What did you say Sky? LA LA LA I can't hear you. LA LA LA

... But it is doing things that cannot be explained by the properties of the material.

Curious and genuinely wondering what things specifically cannot be explained

Math is the example I like best. Here are posts where Z or I discuss it. Z is the one who made all this clear to me, in the first quote.

Sorry, another double post. (I don't think about this except in large chunks.)

Let's consider "sideways causation," or mental states causing mental states.

According to your view, this can't happen. A mental state containing the thought, "I'm going to figure out the sum of 567 and 678," couldn't be the cause of the mental state containing the thought, "Ah, so the answer is 1245." Instead, according to your view, what's actually happening is that some neural activity A is causing other neural activity B, and A just so happens to contain the first thought, while B just so happens to contain the second thought. The actual link between those two neural states couldn't be the conceptual numbers themselves, but would have to be explained entirely in terms of physics and chemistry, since it's impossible to ever be free of these rules, as you say.

But then how do we arrive at the right answer? How do we know the answer is right? According to your view, there's no relation between the mental states, only a causal relationship between neural activity. But the neurons don't know what they represent. So why do they fire in just this way to produce just these states? Is it just a coincidence that they seem to be doing calculus and algebra when all they're really doing is following natural laws (physics, chemistry)?

In fact, according to your view, mental states would be like epiphenomena, having no more connection between them than the shapes one might draw on a wall with a flashlight. The connections would be mere illusions "floating on top of" causal factors that are in truth much deeper.

Ha, I struggle to read Vraith sometimes, too. A few less parenthetical phrases and a little less ranting might make it easier.

Z asked how thoughts about mathematics can be reduced to properties of particles. How does atomic structure lead to x, then y, then z, resulting in me, say, hearing someone say there are twenty cows, and me thinking that, with four legs each, there are eighty legs? What interaction of electron shells, or anything else, makes that happen? And if it IS such a process, how can I ever come up with the wrong answer?

Your last question is the key insight. If our neurons are doing math by firing according to mathematical rules, then how could they ever be wrong? Why is math so hard to learn? If our abiliy to think mathematically comes from nothing else than neurons' inescapable property of following deterministic, physical laws that are themselves mathematical, then it should just come naturally. We couldn't get the wrong answer any more than an asteroid could get the "wrong" orbit (i.e. not follow the path we can calculate with math).

When doing math, our thoughts follow the formal relations themselves, chasing after answers that are dictated by a structure that has nothing do with the neurons that are firing to enable the consciousness that is tracing out these formal patterns. That formal structure is self-consistent even when our feeble brains get the answer wrong. It is independent of our brains. And when our thoughts explore it, follow its paths, they are not following any "programming" that preexists in our neurons. They are tracing out a preexisting "terrain."

This should be obvious to us, because otherwise we'd never invent anything new. If all our thoughts are deterministic, if they simply occur because they are following the laws of physics, then every new invention was already in the brains of those who thought them; they were predetermined to have those novel insights. Determined by what? By the laws of physics? The laws of physics just decided to give Einstein the insights into the laws of physics itself?

Unless the universe itself is already aware of itself (a possibility I'm not opposed to, in some sense), it makes little sense to think that the laws of physics are going to produce creatures that are causally determined to deduce those very laws. Unless the universe is guiding itself to self awareness--a process that would negate determinism--it seems unlikely that any blind, deterministic physical process would inevitably lead to a formal representation/understanding of this very process within that process.

Everyone says we can't define consciousness. Some (like Dennett) want to say this (as well as many other factors) means that we aren't really conscious. But even if you take every single bit of immaterialism out of consciousness--even the neutral concepts like qualia and intentionality--you have to say at the very least that consciousness is an end product of physical laws that have led to a formal/conceptual understanding of those laws. You can't avoid making this bare observation without undermining the very insights that led us to eliminating consciousness in the first place. Without a formal/conceptual understanding of the laws of nature, we never would have reduced our mind to brain functions. So SOME understanding of physics/chemistry/biology/neurology is occurring. The question now is ... occurring to whom or what? If it's not occurring to me, then it's occurring to my brain, to my neurons, to my atoms.

How is that any less incredible than just saying it's occurring to my consciousness?

Either my atoms are conscious, or my atoms make up a consciousness that transcends them. Or these are two ways of saying the same thing.

Dennett et al want to use Descartes's insight to make the opposite conclusion, to use our thoughts ("I think") to disprove that there is a thinker ("therefore I am not"). But consciousness is required here to disprove consciousness!

[Skyweir]

Cheers FF .. I really appreciate your providing these quotes .. I have read the second one .. but certainly bears rereading.

And tbh a couple of more rereads till I grasp it

You are all way ahead of me with all the sciencey stuff .. and it doesnt come all that natural to me .. so have to give it time and effort to get little inklings of understanding.

And thanks for answering my question. Its nice to have answers LOL ..

[Skyweir]

Okay .. so I still dont see the unexplained phenomenon or epiphenomenon ..

We make these calculations as they form part of the knowledge acquisition .. we have learned how to rationalise these problems. Yes neutrons fire and make relative and separate connections .. because thats part of our sentience .. intelligent .. thats how lifeforms form thought .. isnt it

How do the neurons know what they're doing .. well they probably dont .. as they are biological microchips , receptors .. whatever the computer equivalent is .. for processing data. I know you all hate that analogy ..

But we program data with knowledge and processes. How do our neurons know if the calculations are right .. well thats the end game .. and the only way a human knows if its calculations are accurate or flawed .. is through consciously testing our calculations .. again yet another process that is learned.

The whole process is a conscious process .. the fact that we have a brain and it is structurally geared up for conscious thought with unconscious elements ie the interplay between neurons for example .. the how we do this, learning .. we learn .. we math, we test calculations based on what we learn.

I am either really totally not seeing the picture here .. because I am incapable of seeing the picture .. or the picture isnt what you think it is

[Skyweir]

Then theres this

www.bbc.com/news/health-25156510

[Skyweir]

Then theres this

Generational memory transfer through DNA
science.sciencemag.org/content/141/3575/57


A biological approach to learning and memory
science.sciencemag.org/content/262/5140/1747


Parallel brain systems for categorising and memory
learnmem.cshlp.org/content/15/7/460.short

Molecular biology of memory and learning
science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5544/1030