Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:00 am

1) Let's assume the opposite: Consciousness is the result of matter formation
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
3) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
4) This is impossible within materialism framework
5) Therefore consciousness is not the result of matter formation

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Be parsimonious...

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:48 pm

...try this instead...

1) Consciousness is the result of matter formation
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
3) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
4) This is impossible within materialism framework
5) Therefore our understanding of materialism (matter) is incomplete

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Be parsimonious...

Post by bahman » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:07 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:48 pm
...try this instead...

1) Consciousness is the result of matter formation
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
3) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
4) This is impossible within materialism framework
5) Therefore our understanding of materialism (matter) is incomplete
That is only acceptable if and only if there is no laws of nature. That however means that the study of matter is impossible.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:25 pm

Don't know how the possibility we have an incomplete understanding of matter leads to "That is only acceptable if and only if there is no laws of nature. That however means that the study of matter is impossible."

That is: not knowing sumthin' is not the same as there being nuthin' to know, or that it's impossible to know.

Not knowin' sumthin' just means: right now, I don't sumthin' (but I may very well figure it out tomorrow).

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re:

Post by bahman » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:59 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:25 pm
Don't know how the possibility we have an incomplete understanding of matter leads to "That is only acceptable if and only if there is no laws of nature. That however means that the study of matter is impossible."

That is: not knowing sumthin' is not the same as there being nuthin' to know, or that it's impossible to know.

Not knowin' sumthin' just means: right now, I don't sumthin' (but I may very well figure it out tomorrow).
A causal chain is defined by law of nature within materialism. The later breaks once the former breaks. Moreover, there is no systematic way to study a system which doesn't obey any law.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"there is no systematic way to study a system which doesn't obey any law."

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:58 pm

In the context of this thread, the above is hyperbolic and an error.

Not understanding fully the nature of matter; not fully understanding how particular and peculiar organizations of matter lead to free will; being unable (right now) to reconcile free will with cause and effect, does not automatically lead to the rather melodramtuc and desperate 'system(s) not obeying any law'.

Again: apply parsimony.

The more modest, realistic, position: free will seems to exist, causality seems to exist, matter (and the energetic interplay of matter) seems to be all there is, so there must be some aspect of matter/causality we just don't grasp yet.

The modest position simply acknowledges ignorance on our part and doesn't demand (as your position does) 'multiplying entities'.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: "there is no systematic way to study a system which doesn't obey any law."

Post by bahman » Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:51 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:58 pm
In the context of this thread, the above is hyperbolic and an error.

Not understanding fully the nature of matter; not fully understanding how particular and peculiar organizations of matter lead to free will; being unable (right now) to reconcile free will with cause and effect, does not automatically lead to the rather melodramtuc and desperate 'system(s) not obeying any law'.

Again: apply parsimony.

The more modest, realistic, position: free will seems to exist, causality seems to exist, matter (and the energetic interplay of matter) seems to be all there is, so there must be some aspect of matter/causality we just don't grasp yet.

The modest position simply acknowledges ignorance on our part and doesn't demand (as your position does) 'multiplying entities'.
There are three sort of systems: (1) Deterministic, (2) Stochastic and (3) Free. Generally a system has inputs, A and B for example, and outputs, C and D for example. In deterministic system same inputs always lead to same outputs, A->C B->D, read "->" as leads to. In stochastic system the same inputs sometimes leads to different outputs with a probability for each configuration, A->C B->D being a configuration for example. Outputs are unpredictable in free system.

Are you suggesting that a system can undergo a transition from (1) to (2) when system get specific configuration?

Moreover, at it is discussed, (1) is different from (3).

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:37 pm

I'm not 'suggesting' anything. I'm stating.

Again: 'free will seems to exist, causality seems to exist, matter (and the energetic interplay of matter) seems to be all there is, so there must be some aspect of matter/causality we just don't grasp yet. (This) position simply acknowledges ignorance on our part and doesn't demand (as your position does) 'multiplying entities'.'

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re:

Post by bahman » Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:13 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:37 pm
I'm not 'suggesting' anything. I'm stating.

Again: 'free will seems to exist, causality seems to exist, matter (and the energetic interplay of matter) seems to be all there is, so there must be some aspect of matter/causality we just don't grasp yet. (This) position simply acknowledges ignorance on our part and doesn't demand (as your position does) 'multiplying entities'.'
You are saying that (1) and (3) exist and they are equal, given my definition of different systems.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Noax » Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:00 am
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
You are equating conscious decision to existence of uncaused events. Consciousness is not free will, and free will is not just the creation of causal chains.
4) This is impossible within materialism framework
This is impossible within determinism framework. Materialism has no problem with it.

So wrong twice. Materialists don't define 'conscious decision' as having immaterial will, and neither does materialism assert determinism.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:28 pm

Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:00 am
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
You are equating conscious decision to existence of uncaused events. Consciousness is not free will, and free will is not just the creation of causal chains.
I am equating conscious decision with free will. And yes, I agree that free will is not just creation of causal chain.
Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am
4) This is impossible within materialism framework
This is impossible within determinism framework. Materialism has no problem with it.

So wrong twice. Materialists don't define 'conscious decision' as having immaterial will, and neither does materialism assert determinism.
I think materialism also claims that matter follows laws of nature as well. The existence of laws implements determinism.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:55 pm

"You are saying that (1) and (3) exist and they are equal, given my definition of different systems."

No, what i'm sayin' is we don't know diddly.

Reality seems to be deterministic and wholly material and yet it allows for anomalies like us (free willed agents [examples of libertarian agent causation]), so -- using your defintions -- I'm sayin' Reality is not (1) Deterministic, (2) Stochastic or (3) Free, but is (4) Sumthin' Else, and we don't know enough, right now, to say what (4) Sumthin' Else actually 'is'.

Now, sure, we can go about tyin' up loose ends through 'multiplying entities' (supposin' an in-dwelling spirit, for examplem to explain free will), but in absence of any evidence for those entities all we do with such supposings is make up stories (that may be emotionally or psychologically satisfying, but don't really explain anything).

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by Noax » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:26 pm

bahman wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:28 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:00 am
2) Conscious decision (free will: The ability to create a chain of causality) is real
You are equating conscious decision to existence of uncaused events. Consciousness is not free will, and free will is not just the creation of causal chains.
I am equating conscious decision with free will.
You can't do that, since it violates your first point:
1) Let's assume the opposite: Consciousness is the result of matter formation
If you are assuming a materialistic definition of consciousness, you can't use your immaterial definition in point 2.

If you use your point 2, then you are casting your assumption in 1 aside. Might as well leave it off.
3) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
Arranging matter in a specific form is not a violation of causality. A cup doesn't happen by accident. Somebody wills that specific form, and they get it. Creation of causal chains is not necessary for that.

To demonstrate your point, you would have to demonstrate that you make 'conscious decisions' (as defined in point 2, but not 1). You've made no attempt to do that.
Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am
So wrong twice. Materialists don't define 'conscious decision' as having immaterial will, and neither does materialism assert determinism.
I think materialism also claims that matter follows laws of nature as well. The existence of laws implements determinism.
Incorrect. Quantum mechanical law is one of probability, not determinism.

And as I said, you are wrong a second way. Even if determinism were the case, you would have to demonstrate a violation of it (an effect from an immaterial will) to demonstrate your point, in which case determinism would again not actually be the case, so the point wouldn't really be demonstrated.
Last edited by Noax on Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re:

Post by bahman » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:29 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:55 pm
"You are saying that (1) and (3) exist and they are equal, given my definition of different systems."

No, what i'm sayin' is we don't know diddly.

Reality seems to be deterministic and wholly material and yet it allows for anomalies like us (free willed agents [examples of libertarian agent causation]), so -- using your defintions -- I'm sayin' Reality is not (1) Deterministic, (2) Stochastic or (3) Free, but is (4) Sumthin' Else, and we don't know enough, right now, to say what (4) Sumthin' Else actually 'is'.

Now, sure, we can go about tyin' up loose ends through 'multiplying entities' (supposin' an in-dwelling spirit, for examplem to explain free will), but in absence of any evidence for those entities all we do with such supposings is make up stories (that may be emotionally or psychologically satisfying, but don't really explain anything).
I am afraid that there is no fourth option, my friend.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Consciousness is not the result of matter formation

Post by bahman » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:53 pm

Noax wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:26 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:28 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am

You are equating conscious decision to existence of uncaused events. Consciousness is not free will, and free will is not just the creation of causal chains.
I am equating conscious decision with free will.
You can't do that, since it violates your first point:
It doesn't violate my first point. We have two separate claims, (1) Formation of matter cause consciousness and (2) Conscious decision is free. What I am trying to show is that formation of matter does not allow conscious decision since you cannot break chain of causality under materialism.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:26 pm
1) Let's assume the opposite: Consciousness is the result of matter formation
If you are assuming a materialistic definition of consciousness, you can't use your immaterial definition in point 2.

If you use your point 2, then you are casting your assumption in 1 aside. Might as well leave it off.
(1) and (2) are two different premises. It of course follows that conscious decision is immaterial too once you show that it does not fit in materialistic framework.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:26 pm
3) This means that one can break causality by arranging matter in specific form
Arranging matter in a specific form is not a violation of causality. A cup doesn't happen by accident. Somebody wills that specific form, and they get it. Creation of causal chains is not necessary for that, even if it happens all the time.

To demonstrate your point, you would have to demonstrate that you make 'conscious decisions' (as defined in point 2, but not 1). You've made no attempt to do that.
As I described earlier I need both premises.
Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am
Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am
So wrong twice. Materialists don't define 'conscious decision' as having immaterial will, and neither does materialism assert determinism.
I think materialism also claims that matter follows laws of nature as well. The existence of laws implements determinism.
Incorrect. Quantum mechanical law is one of probability, not determinism.
Schrodinger equation is deterministic equation for wave function. Wave function however is related to probability function.
Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 am
And as I said, you are wrong a second way. Even if determinism were the case, you would have to demonstrate a violation of it (an effect from an immaterial will) to demonstrate your point, in which case determinism would again not actually be the case, so the point wouldn't really be demonstrated.
That is a hidden claim in materialism, all forms of mater follow the same laws. You need to break the laws of nature in order to have conscious decision. This is impossible under materialism. Therefore consciousness with an element of conscious decision is not the result of matter formation.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest