Why consciousness is not reducible to nonconscious things

[vectorcube]

Then why did you come back with "protons"? I was talking about light. If you did not misunderstand then you are being deliberately obtuse.

ouch.. I mean photon. You know how similar the two words look? it s rediculous!

And AGAIN, you ascribe claims to me. You must stop doing that.

If you had a case here, you would be able to refer to factual content in this thread, rather than making things up.

Well, you did say "photon is massless " in a philosophy forum about materialism, right? Well, that `s pretty funny.

I've had it. I have absolutely no beef with you, so I have no idea why you keep trying to address this and turn it into some sort of fight. You can't speak for Mattara. Stop trying.

You are taking it too personal. You need to light up a bit.

 

[DaveC426913]

ouch.. I mean photon. You know how similar the two words look? it s rediculous!

You've wasted pages of posts because of this, despite my repeatedly pointing you at it. Rather lightning up, you should be a little more respectful of PFers who are trying to follow this. Ask the OP if any of this has enriched his answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

ouch.. I mean photon. You know how similar the two words look? it s rediculous!


You are taking it too personal. You need to light up a bit.

Wow. A zillion needless posts - and you call it lightning up. Most PFers, including the OP, I'm betting, will call it an abuse of their time.

Well, let's not waste another post on it please.

 

[vectorcube]

You've wasted pages of posts because of this, despite my repeatedly pointing you at it. Rather lightning up, you should be a little more respectful of PFers who are trying to follow this. Ask the OP if any of this has enriched his answer.

Well,man. You need to calm down, because nobody is out to "get you" or fight you with unsubstantive adjective.

 

[vectorcube]

Wow. A zillion needless posts - and you call it lightning up. Most PFers, including the OP, I'm betting, will call it an abuse of their time.

Well, let's not waste another post on it please.

Don` t blame me because you did not understand my original post. You keep going on, and on about how it makes "no sense". It is funny, because you don` t know what i am telling you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well,man. You need to calm down, because nobody is out to "get you" or fight you with unsubstantive adjective.

VectorCube, you need to understand how dialogue on this forum is conducted. It is not necessarily like other fora you might be used to. You can't just say whatever you feel.

Now, please let's drop it so this thread can move on.

 

[pftest]

The mass-energy equivalence universality is no threat to materialism; in fact, it is one of the great successes of materialism. Again, just because all minds are material does not imply that all matter forms minds.

Energy is purely conceptual and concepts require minds.

It is certainly relevant because it shows that anything that interacts with matter have to be by definition matter on pain of contradicting the conservation of momentum.

The terms "matter" and "conscious" are not exclusive. Even if C = material, your argument does not show how C is reducible to nonconscious things. My argument shows that C is not reducible to nonconscious things, so if you say C is reducible to matter, then it follows that matter is conscious.

 

[Mattara]

Energy is purely conceptual and concepts require minds.

If you think energy is purely conceptional, try sticking your hand into a bucket of boiling water. If you think energy is purely conceptual, why has scientific models treating energy as real been so successful?

My argument shows that C is not reducible to nonconscious things, so if you say C is reducible to matter, then it follows that matter is conscious.

No, it follows that some matter in certain configurations are conscious, which is entirely consistent with my position.

 

[Mattara]

Again, you go off on a tangent instead of addressing my point.

If you don't mean "matter", don't use the word. Philosophy may be less rigorous than the sciences but you don't have license to make up definitions for existing words.

It is not a tangent. All matter has mass (Newtonian mass or relativistic). Please address the argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is not a tangent. All matter has mass (Newtonian mass or relativistic). Please address the argument.

I am directly addresing the argument. Again (as in posts 6, 13 and 26):

"4. Anything that can interact with matter is by definition matter (from definition)"

This premise is false. For example, light can interact with matter, yet it is not matter.

Please address directly instead of posing a red herring argument about my opinion on momentum.

 

[pftest]

If you think energy is purely conceptional, try sticking your hand into a bucket of boiling water. If you think energy is purely conceptual, why has scientific models treating energy as real been so successful?

Dont take my word for it, look at the quote from Richard Feynman that i gave. Yes the equation is successful in physics, but that is something else from saying that energy (a mathematical concept) actually physically exists. You don't really think the number 9 can exist physically without mind either, do you?

No, it follows that some matter in certain configurations are conscious, which is entirely consistent with my position.

The conscious part of it is not reducible, so it must be a fundamental property, not a configurational one. Configurational ones are all reducible, since they are directly descendent from its components.

 

[DaveC426913]

If light is not matter, how come it has momentum? How come matter has a wavelength? If light is not matter, how come it pair production can occur? If light is immaterial, pair production would be a violation of the conservation of energy. The notion that light is somehow magically immaterial falls on its own absurdity.

It is a big step to understanding that you're asking questions rather than just reiterating faulty claims.

We can discuss the differences and similarities, but first disabuse yourself of these misunderstandings.

Matter is not the only thing that has momentum. Energy does too.
Energy is not the only thing that has wavelength. Matter does too.
Pair production does not violate the law of conservation of energy because energy and matter can be cross-converted.
You have introduced another ambiguous term: immaterial. Without an agreed definition, this will simply compound the confusion.

There is nothing magical or absurd about it.

Your argument:
Light and matter share many of the same properties, including being cross-convertible and having momentum, therefore light is matter, by definition.

By the same logic:
Bill money and coin money share many of the same properties, including being cross-convertible and the ability to buy a coffee, therefore bill money is coin money, by definition.

See the flaw now?

 

[Mattara]

It is a scientific fact that there is an equivalence between matter and energy.

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

The fact that it is your faith that they are not equivalent does not somehow make them not equivalent.

This exact argument is made by physicist Victor Stenger PhD.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Real.htm

"So, I define something as real when it kicks back after you kick it. In simple terms, this describes the processes of everyday observations, but also the most sophisticated scientific experiments. When we look at an object with our naked eyes, light from some source bounces off the object into our eyes. Or, the object itself may emit light. In either case, the object and the light receptors in our eyes recoil from the momentum that is transferred in the process and generates an electrical signal that is analyzed by our brains.

Scientific observations are basically the same. Not only visible light, but the whole electromagnetic spectrum from radio waves to gamma rays are available to joggle reality, along with sensors far more precise than the human eye to detect the jiggles that are returned. What's more, other particles, such as electrons and neutrinos, are also available as probes and computers are utilized to supplement the analytic capability of our brains. In short, science is not some special method of learning about the world. It is an enhancement of the only method by which we humans, in fact, learn about the world--empirical observation. The stuff of reality that kicks back when you kick it is called matter. And, that's all there is."

There is nothing magical or absurd about it.

A belief in things being immaterial is not magic or absurd? Immaterial = that which is not material, not really difficult.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is a scientific fact that there is an equivalence between matter and energy.

The fact that it is your faith that they are not equivalent does not somehow make them not equivalent.

You didn't read anything I wrote did you?

Equivalency does not mean one is defined by the other.

A belief in things being immaterial is not magic or absurd? Immaterial = that which is not material, not really difficult.

You cannot seriously suggest that a simple way to disambiguate a contested term is to simply state the opposite of its opposite - like "the definition of fnarg is simply the absence of unfnarg".

You must either admit you are being tongue-in-cheek or be stripped of credibility.

 

[Mattara]

Equivalency does not mean one is defined by the other.

Where have I claimed that I define one by the other? If X is equivalent to Y, X is Y (but not defined as Y).

You must either admit you are being tongue-in-cheek or be stripped of credibility.

If you don't accept that matter and energy are equivalent, you must reject the conservation of energy. In pair production, the energy before is equal to the energy after, but after, all you have is matter and kinetic energy. There must be some energy associated with this matter or you must reject the conservation of energy, which would be absurd.

 

[pftest]

Stenger thinks the total energy of the universe is 0, and that the universe came out of a negative energy, unphysical situation.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

 

[Mattara]

Stenger thinks the total energy of the universe is 0, and that the universe came out of a negative energy, unphysical situation.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

No he does not. Just reading the abstract shows that the claim you make is false.

"Abstract: A mathematical model of the natural origin of our universe is
presented. The model is based only on well-established physics. No claim is
made that this model uniquely represents exactly how the universe came
about. But the viability of a single model serves to refute any assertions that
the universe cannot have come about by natural means."

 

[pftest]

No he does not. Just reading the abstract shows that the claim you make is false.

Read a bit further into it:

Note that zero energy is consistent with the universe coming from “nothing,” which presumably has zero energy, without violating energy conservation. In fact, current cosmological observations indicate that the average density of matter and energy in the universe is equal, within measurement errors, to the critical density for which the total energy of the universe was exactly zero at the beginning.

The simplified Hartle-Hawking model gives one possible scenario for the universe to come about naturally. In this picture, another universe existed prior to ours that tunneled through the unphysical region around t=0 to become our universe.

 

[Mattara]

Notice that the he is using the term nothing within quotation marks. Quantum mechanics is a material theory of the very small and does not claim that anything magical or immaterial is going on. He is not using the term "unphysical" as the term is used in laymen language.

 

[DaveC426913]

If X is equivalent to Y, X is Y

This statement is false. As in my coin/bill example: one loonie is equivalent to 1 dollar bill , but that does not mean a loonie is a bill.

X is Y

This is a definition (though that does not mean it is a complete definition).

Bob is human. That is not an equivalance, like "Bob is equivalent to a human". That is defining that Bob is a subset of the human set.

Where have I claimed that I define one by the other?

Everytime you say "light is matter", you are defining light in terms of matter.


Light is not matter.
Light and matter are equivalent in terms of the energy contained, but they are NOT equivalent in all ways.
Light is not a subset of matter. Just like a loonie is a not subset of bills.

 

[pftest]

Notice that the he is using the term nothing within quotation marks. Quantum mechanics is a material theory of the very small and does not claim that anything magical or immaterial is going on. He is not using the term "unphysical" as the term is used in laymen language.

The only clarification he gives about "unphysical" is that it is not amendable to observation. Whatever it may be, a negative energy situation is about as abstract a concept as one can get. There is no dichotomy between concepts and consciousness.

 

[DaveC426913]

If X is equivalent to Y, X is Y

This statement is false.

It occurs to me where your misapprehension may be coming from:

I suspect you are confusing the common logical statement of equivalency with physical equivalency. I suspect that you think the logical form of equivalency "If X is equivalent to Y, X is Y" is the same definition of equivalency as "120V1A is equivalent to 12V10A" or "a bet of $10 paying out a total of $11 is equivalent to a bet of $1000 paying out a total of $1001".

While this a philosophy forum and we are using formal logic, we are talking about physics. Do not confuse them when dicussing matter/energy equivalency.

 

[apeiron]

Light is not matter.
Light and matter are equivalent in terms of the energy contained, but they are NOT equivalent in all ways.
Light is not a subset of matter. Just like a loonie is a not subset of bills.

I would have to side with Mattara here. Energy and matter have been put on an equivalent footing in physics. Deeply equivalent. And future physics like supersymmetry would make it even deeper.

And in the philosophical sense he was talking about materiality, both energy and matter are substance-based concepts. So they are philosophically equivalent too, in the ways material to the argument.

My criticism still stands. Attempts to connect mind and brain have to be based on a dichotomous logic. Both form and substance are fundamental in this view. "Certain configurations" of matter/energy as Mattara concedes. But saying energy is different from matter does not hold in this discussion. Both are aspects of "materiality" - the idea that all that really exist are varieties of substance (and form exists somewhere emergent, or dualistically in its own platonic realm).

 

[pftest]

To the OP argument (*see below) it is irrelevant whether C is material/physical. The argument works either way and is about C being irreducible to non-C things. So C cannot be "a configuration" of non-C ingredients, whether it be non-C matter, non-C energy, or non-C something else.

If we do accept that C is material (like mattara) and is reducible to matter, then the OP argument forces that matter to have a conscious aspect to it. If we want to avoid dualism and preserve monism, the most materialist friendly result of the argument is panpsychism.*This is the OP argument:
________________________________________________

P1: The only things reductionism reduces, are our own misconceptions.
P2: Misconceptions require C.
C: To say that C is reducible, is to say that C is a misconception that requires C.
________________________________________________

 

[DaveC426913]

I would have to side with Mattara here. Energy and matter have been put on an equivalent footing in physics. Deeply equivalent. And future physics like supersymmetry would make it even deeper.

Look, I'm not refuting that there is a deep connection between the two. But that does not mean they are interchangeable in the argument.

And in the philosophical sense he was talking about materiality, both energy and matter are substance-based concepts. So they are philosophically equivalent too, in the ways material to the argument.

Well, that's the beginning of the clarification I've been asking for. It's only taken 56 posts...

 

[magpies]

Ok um my thoughts on your thingy...

P1: The only things reductionism reduces, are our own misconceptions.
P2: Misconceptions require C.
C: To say that C is reducible, is to say that C is a misconception that requires C.

First thing I notice... C is a misconception that requires C. This is circular but I honestly have no problem with it but many could...

Then I see what your saying... Let me word it differently...
Misconceptions are reduced by reductionism.
Misconceptions require C.
Saying C is reducible is saying that C is a misconception.

Well... I don't see where it says misconceptions are C cept for in the last sentance.
So basicaly your conclusion is more of a statement... Also you didnt prove that C is reducible you just said that it was.


Ok so I am gona give this a try and see how I do...

Consciousness requires an object to observe.
Objects to observe require a world.
Inorder to have a world of meaning consciousness must exist.
Therefor Consciousness gives objects to observe meaning.

 

[DaveC426913]

Inorder to have a world of meaning consciousness must exist.
Therefor Consciousness gives objects to observe meaning.

Well, meaning is a human creation so ... yeah.

 

[vectorcube]

Stenger thinks the total energy of the universe is 0, and that the universe came out of a negative energy, unphysical situation.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

If it is unphysical, then why do you care?

 

[pftest]

If it is unphysical, then why do you care?

What do you mean?

 

[pftest]

Well... I don't see where it says misconceptions are C cept for in the last sentance.

Premise 2 is: misconceptions require C. I don't think you or anyone would disagree with this. Or with premise 1 either.

So basicaly your conclusion is more of a statement... Also you didnt prove that C is reducible you just said that it was.

It shows that no matter how far one reduces C, it won't go away. So C is not reducible to non-C things, such as for example a configuration of atoms.

Btw I am not convinced my argument is solid, there is just something that doesn't feel right about it.

 

[vectorcube]

What do you mean?

i am curious why something "unphysical" would be of interest to anyone. Just curious, you know.

 

[arithmetix]

study tao
when you understand

 

[arithmetix]

the usual flow of conversation here is in physics, but these are questions for mystics

 

[pftest]

i am curious why something "unphysical" would be of interest to anyone. Just curious, you know.

Because the person i responded to brought up Stenger and immateriality/magic.

 

[vectorcube]

Because the person i responded to brought up Stenger and immateriality/magic.

Ok. Well, i read stenger, and the last chapter of his book, and i can` t help but feel he was an idiot for making up metaphysical claims in the bases of speculative physical theory.