Huh? That is you who is not reading what I wrote.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:26 pmOnly in so much as we have a name for a series of phenomena. But that is not an explanation. The same works for consciousness.
But you cannot explain why there is energy rather than there being no energy.
The same applies to consciousness.You just keep saying the same thing as if you are not reading what people are saying to you.What we also know is that the energy of parts is equal to the energy of the whole. In another word, we have never seen a system that its parts does not have energy and the whole has energy.
Again, we don't know what energy is but whatever it is the energy of parts is equal the energy of the whole.
As it was demonstrated in the case of wood. The total mass of parts is also equal to the total mass of the whole. The same for the charge, spin, etc. We never see a system that its parts do not have charge and the whole has.
No, we are talking about consciousness in which the parts of matter are not conscious. Just think of spin, charge, mass, etc. That is how materialism is.
Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
First of all, gases are compressible, liquids are mostly incompressible, which is why they can be successfully used in hydraulics. So you have that all wrong.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:31 pmIt is not an evasion. A liquid is a substance with very high compressibility and a fair amount of surface tension. These are the properties of any liquid. Compressibility is nothing more than the inner force between atoms/molecules of a liquid. The force is mainly electromagnetic force.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:54 pmThat is a total evasion. You said, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," so tell me, since mercury has the property, "liquid," what "part" of mercury has the property, "liquid."
Secondly, you did not answer the question. Please, I know what liquid is so don't explain what you think it is again. Just answer the question honestly. You said, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," so tell me, since mercury has the property, "liquid," what "part" of mercury has the property, "liquid?" Just name the part of mercury that is "liquid."
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Can you tell me what do you mean by liquid? I already define a liquid for you.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:52 pmFirst of all, gases are compressible, liquids are mostly incompressible, which is why they can be successfully used in hydraulics. So you have that all wrong.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:31 pmIt is not an evasion. A liquid is a substance with very high compressibility and a fair amount of surface tension. These are the properties of any liquid. Compressibility is nothing more than the inner force between atoms/molecules of a liquid. The force is mainly electromagnetic force.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:54 pm
That is a total evasion. You said, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," so tell me, since mercury has the property, "liquid," what "part" of mercury has the property, "liquid."
Secondly, you did not answer the question. Please, I know what liquid is so don't explain what you think it is again. Just answer the question honestly. You said, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," so tell me, since mercury has the property, "liquid," what "part" of mercury has the property, "liquid?" Just name the part of mercury that is "liquid."
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
by bahman » Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:44 am
"To show that there is no strong emergence consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is a strong emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property given the properties of parts. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no strong emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts."
..........................................................
Owl of Minerva:
It is the case that a system is not a system if it does not have parts and its parts are involved in the function but it would be a stretch to see the parts as conscious or as the source, or anthing other than enabling function. If a person in the Dark Ages came by some miracle across a lamp lit by electricity he would have worshiped the lamp as the source of a light that is not endemic either to the lamp or to its parts.
John Von Neumann discovered that it took something other than a physical process to collapse the wave function. He reluctantly concluded that what caused it to collapse was consciousness. It would be hard to second guess the mind of a practical mathematician who deduced the logical consequences of a highly successful and purely materialistic model of the world---the theoretical basis for the billion-dollar computer industry.
There has been some resistance to the veneration of parts or of models. "Scientific models certainly have their rightful place. But when does a model become an idol, that is, when is it taken for something other than a model, becoming "reality"? The model of an atom as a miniature planetary system is helpful only as long as it is not taken literally. The dangers associated with the adulation of the brain are innumerable. It is important, therefore, patiently and carefully to distinguish between idol and fact."----Arthur Zajonc, in 'Catching the Light, The Entwined History of Light and Mind."
If we reduce the property of a system, of the whole, to the properties of parts, or to the functioning of a model, we may be in danger of losing the needle in the haystack.
"To show that there is no strong emergence consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is a strong emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property given the properties of parts. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no strong emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts."
..........................................................
Owl of Minerva:
It is the case that a system is not a system if it does not have parts and its parts are involved in the function but it would be a stretch to see the parts as conscious or as the source, or anthing other than enabling function. If a person in the Dark Ages came by some miracle across a lamp lit by electricity he would have worshiped the lamp as the source of a light that is not endemic either to the lamp or to its parts.
John Von Neumann discovered that it took something other than a physical process to collapse the wave function. He reluctantly concluded that what caused it to collapse was consciousness. It would be hard to second guess the mind of a practical mathematician who deduced the logical consequences of a highly successful and purely materialistic model of the world---the theoretical basis for the billion-dollar computer industry.
There has been some resistance to the veneration of parts or of models. "Scientific models certainly have their rightful place. But when does a model become an idol, that is, when is it taken for something other than a model, becoming "reality"? The model of an atom as a miniature planetary system is helpful only as long as it is not taken literally. The dangers associated with the adulation of the brain are innumerable. It is important, therefore, patiently and carefully to distinguish between idol and fact."----Arthur Zajonc, in 'Catching the Light, The Entwined History of Light and Mind."
If we reduce the property of a system, of the whole, to the properties of parts, or to the functioning of a model, we may be in danger of losing the needle in the haystack.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
I'm afraid there is no point discussing this if you do not know what liquid means. God ask some eight-year old. It means the fourth state of matter that is not solid, gas, or plasma.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:58 pmCan you tell me what do you mean by liquid? I already define a liquid for you.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:52 pmFirst of all, gases are compressible, liquids are mostly incompressible, which is why they can be successfully used in hydraulics. So you have that all wrong.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:31 pm
It is not an evasion. A liquid is a substance with very high compressibility and a fair amount of surface tension. These are the properties of any liquid. Compressibility is nothing more than the inner force between atoms/molecules of a liquid. The force is mainly electromagnetic force.
Secondly, you did not answer the question. Please, I know what liquid is so don't explain what you think it is again. Just answer the question honestly. You said, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," so tell me, since mercury has the property, "liquid," what "part" of mercury has the property, "liquid?" Just name the part of mercury that is "liquid."
I'll make it easy for you. Iodine is a purple gas. What, "part," of iodine is purple?
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Well, it is better to say that the property of the whole is a function of properties of parts. In the case of purple gas, you can show that the color of the gasRCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:24 pmI'm afraid there is no point discussing this if you do not know what liquid means. God ask some eight-year old. It means the fourth state of matter that is not solid, gas, or plasma.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:58 pmCan you tell me what do you mean by liquid? I already define a liquid for you.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:52 pm
First of all, gases are compressible, liquids are mostly incompressible, which is why they can be successfully used in hydraulics. So you have that all wrong.
Secondly, you did not answer the question. Please, I know what liquid is so don't explain what you think it is again. Just answer the question honestly. You said, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," so tell me, since mercury has the property, "liquid," what "part" of mercury has the property, "liquid?" Just name the part of mercury that is "liquid."
I'll make it easy for you. Iodine is a purple gas. What, "part," of iodine is purple?
is a function of properties of parts.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
You wrote: "In another word, you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," and, "To me, parts of matter are conscious too so the problem is resolved," to prove your view that the brain is conscious because it is made up of parts (matter) which already has the attribute, "conscious."bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:11 amWell, it is better to say that the property of the whole is a function of properties of parts. In the case of purple gas, you can show that the color of the gasRCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:24 pmI'm afraid there is no point discussing this if you do not know what liquid means. God ask some eight-year old. It means the fourth state of matter that is not solid, gas, or plasma.
I'll make it easy for you. Iodine is a purple gas. What, "part," of iodine is purple?
is a function of properties of parts.
You now change your story from, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," (because you obviously cannot find the property, "purple," in any part of iodine), to a property (like consciousness) is a "function" of the properties of the parts, which obviously cannot be the same property as that which results from that function, meaning there is no consciousness required in any physical parts.
But there is no problem to begin with, because the brain does not produce consciousness anymore then motion produces acceleration.
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
As I mentioned it is more precise to say that the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts. I think in the case of gas the light is absorbed by the atoms of the gas and then depending on the structure of atoms the gas emits the light with specific frequency that makes the gas have a specific color.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:36 pmYou wrote: "In another word, you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," and, "To me, parts of matter are conscious too so the problem is resolved," to prove your view that the brain is conscious because it is made up of parts (matter) which already has the attribute, "conscious."bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:11 amWell, it is better to say that the property of the whole is a function of properties of parts. In the case of purple gas, you can show that the color of the gasRCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:24 pm
I'm afraid there is no point discussing this if you do not know what liquid means. God ask some eight-year old. It means the fourth state of matter that is not solid, gas, or plasma.
I'll make it easy for you. Iodine is a purple gas. What, "part," of iodine is purple?
is a function of properties of parts.
You now change your story from, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," (because you obviously cannot find the property, "purple," in any part of iodine), to a property (like consciousness) is a "function" of the properties of the parts, which obviously cannot be the same property as that which results from that function, meaning there is no consciousness required in any physical parts.
But there is no problem to begin with, because the brain does not produce consciousness anymore then motion produces acceleration.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
I know the physics that explains why iodine is purple. My point is, there is no purple in the parts of iodine, only in the iodine as iodine, and there is no consciousness in any physical part of an organism, only in the physical organsim as an organism. Sans organisms there is no consciousness.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:52 pmAs I mentioned it is more precise to say that the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts. I think in the case of gas the light is absorbed by the atoms of the gas and then depending on the structure of atoms the gas emits the light with specific frequency that makes the gas have a specific color.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:36 pmYou wrote: "In another word, you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," and, "To me, parts of matter are conscious too so the problem is resolved," to prove your view that the brain is conscious because it is made up of parts (matter) which already has the attribute, "conscious."
You now change your story from, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," (because you obviously cannot find the property, "purple," in any part of iodine), to a property (like consciousness) is a "function" of the properties of the parts, which obviously cannot be the same property as that which results from that function, meaning there is no consciousness required in any physical parts.
But there is no problem to begin with, because the brain does not produce consciousness anymore then motion produces acceleration.
I'm making no point at all about why or how a thing has the attributes it has. My point is that your statement: "parts of matter are conscious," is nonsense, just as saying "parts of iodine are purple," would be nonsense.
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Ahan, you are talking Qualia. Generally, Qualia is experienced and caused by the mind. In humans, Qualia is experienced by the conscious mind and caused by other minds in the brain.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:45 pmI know the physics that explains why iodine is purple. My point is, there is no purple in the parts of iodine, only in the iodine as iodine, and there is no consciousness in any physical part of an organism, only in the physical organsim as an organism. Sans organisms there is no consciousness.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:52 pmAs I mentioned it is more precise to say that the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts. I think in the case of gas the light is absorbed by the atoms of the gas and then depending on the structure of atoms the gas emits the light with specific frequency that makes the gas have a specific color.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:36 pm
You wrote: "In another word, you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," and, "To me, parts of matter are conscious too so the problem is resolved," to prove your view that the brain is conscious because it is made up of parts (matter) which already has the attribute, "conscious."
You now change your story from, "you cannot find a property in the system that you cannot find in parts," (because you obviously cannot find the property, "purple," in any part of iodine), to a property (like consciousness) is a "function" of the properties of the parts, which obviously cannot be the same property as that which results from that function, meaning there is no consciousness required in any physical parts.
But there is no problem to begin with, because the brain does not produce consciousness anymore then motion produces acceleration.
I'm making no point at all about why or how a thing has the attributes it has. My point is that your statement: "parts of matter are conscious," is nonsense, just as saying "parts of iodine are purple," would be nonsense.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
The term, "qualia," is a made-up concept to identify Locke's wrong understanding of perception. There are no, "qualia," there is only the direct conscious perception of those attributes of entities presented to consciousness by the neurological system to be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. Purple is not something that exists only in consciousness, it is the actual attribute of anything the reflects, transmits, or produce purple light. What you are calling, "qualia," is just how that actual attribute of a purple thing is perceived.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:07 pmAhan, you are talking Qualia.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:45 pmI know the physics that explains why iodine is purple. My point is, there is no purple in the parts of iodine, only in the iodine as iodine, and there is no consciousness in any physical part of an organism, only in the physical organsim as an organism. Sans organisms there is no consciousness.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:52 pm
As I mentioned it is more precise to say that the property of the whole is a function of the properties of parts. I think in the case of gas the light is absorbed by the atoms of the gas and then depending on the structure of atoms the gas emits the light with specific frequency that makes the gas have a specific color.
I'm making no point at all about why or how a thing has the attributes it has. My point is that your statement: "parts of matter are conscious," is nonsense, just as saying "parts of iodine are purple," would be nonsense.
I really do not care if you want to think what you see is not actually what you see. In your case, maybe it isn't. Since I cannot know what your conscious experience is, I certainly cannot argue with it, just as you have no idea what my conscious experience is.
There is no consciousness in anything that is not a living organism. There is no consciousness in mere physical entities.
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Ok, here there are a couple of challenges to your worldview: 1) How top-down causation is possible if the living organism only perceives, 2) How does top-down causation correlate with perception? , and 3) How can you prove that non-living things do not have a perception?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:45 pmThe term, "qualia," is a made-up concept to identify Locke's wrong understanding of perception. There are no, "qualia," there is only the direct conscious perception of those attributes of entities presented to consciousness by the neurological system to be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. Purple is not something that exists only in consciousness, it is the actual attribute of anything the reflects, transmits, or produce purple light. What you are calling, "qualia," is just how that actual attribute of a purple thing is perceived.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:07 pmAhan, you are talking Qualia.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:45 pm
I know the physics that explains why iodine is purple. My point is, there is no purple in the parts of iodine, only in the iodine as iodine, and there is no consciousness in any physical part of an organism, only in the physical organsim as an organism. Sans organisms there is no consciousness.
I'm making no point at all about why or how a thing has the attributes it has. My point is that your statement: "parts of matter are conscious," is nonsense, just as saying "parts of iodine are purple," would be nonsense.
I really do not care if you want to think what you see is not actually what you see. In your case, maybe it isn't. Since I cannot know what your conscious experience is, I certainly cannot argue with it, just as you have no idea what my conscious experience is.
There is no consciousness in anything that is not a living organism. There is no consciousness in mere physical entities.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
There is no such thing as, "top-down," causation and it's up to you to prove anything but living animals have consciousness, if you want to believe that. I don't care what you believe, what do you care what I believe? Believe whatever you like, I'm just pointing out how absurd your ideas are. I know I'm not going to change your mind.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:15 pmOk, here there are a couple of challenges to your worldview: 1) How top-down causation is possible if the living organism only perceives, 2) How does top-down causation correlate with perception? , and 3) How can you prove that non-living things do not have a perception?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:45 pmThe term, "qualia," is a made-up concept to identify Locke's wrong understanding of perception. There are no, "qualia," there is only the direct conscious perception of those attributes of entities presented to consciousness by the neurological system to be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. Purple is not something that exists only in consciousness, it is the actual attribute of anything the reflects, transmits, or produce purple light. What you are calling, "qualia," is just how that actual attribute of a purple thing is perceived.
I really do not care if you want to think what you see is not actually what you see. In your case, maybe it isn't. Since I cannot know what your conscious experience is, I certainly cannot argue with it, just as you have no idea what my conscious experience is.
There is no consciousness in anything that is not a living organism. There is no consciousness in mere physical entities.
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Do you think everything is made up of energy? Even that which appears solid, static, or dead?
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Oh, come on. You cannot deny that what you perceive now, my reply, does not produce any outcome, your reply (what I call top-down causation).RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:52 pmThere is no such thing as, "top-down," causation and it's up to you to prove anything but living animals have consciousness, if you want to believe that. I don't care what you believe, what do you care what I believe? Believe whatever you like, I'm just pointing out how absurd your ideas are. I know I'm not going to change your mind.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:15 pmOk, here there are a couple of challenges to your worldview: 1) How top-down causation is possible if the living organism only perceives, 2) How does top-down causation correlate with perception? , and 3) How can you prove that non-living things do not have a perception?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:45 pm
The term, "qualia," is a made-up concept to identify Locke's wrong understanding of perception. There are no, "qualia," there is only the direct conscious perception of those attributes of entities presented to consciousness by the neurological system to be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. Purple is not something that exists only in consciousness, it is the actual attribute of anything the reflects, transmits, or produce purple light. What you are calling, "qualia," is just how that actual attribute of a purple thing is perceived.
I really do not care if you want to think what you see is not actually what you see. In your case, maybe it isn't. Since I cannot know what your conscious experience is, I certainly cannot argue with it, just as you have no idea what my conscious experience is.
There is no consciousness in anything that is not a living organism. There is no consciousness in mere physical entities.