My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[ryan]

It should be obvious. A physical account is a physical description/report of what is there. "Account" is often used in ontological philosophy. For example, the physical account of an electron are its intrinsic or extrinsic properties. Or a physical account of only the electron are its intrinsic properties.

Actually, others don't seem to respond to me properly when I use "account" either.

Ehh, just trying to make sure you weren't talking about something other than what I thought you said. I understand the standard usage of the term account....

There is a (more or less accurate) physical account of subjectivity in your mind, although I'm not dividing your mental state from the rest of physical reality in this case.

This is like if I were the only one to see a ghost in my backyard, and you somehow knew it was true. That would be something physically separated from the rest of the world, because nobody can physically detect it, except for me.

 

[Juma]

Another stone cannot fall the same fall as another stone falls.

That is all there is to "subkectivity"

That's only part of it. The other part is that the rock's subjectivity does not emit information; whereas the rock falling does emit information.

You didnt get it: the rocks falling is a process, just like the mind. And as a rock cannot have any other rocks fall, a person cannot have any other persons mind.

That is all there is to "subjectivity".

 

[Kharakov]

Ehh, just trying to make sure you weren't talking about something other than what I thought you said. I understand the standard usage of the term account....

There is a (more or less accurate) physical account of subjectivity in your mind, although I'm not dividing your mental state from the rest of physical reality in this case.

This is like if I were the only one to see a ghost in my backyard, and you somehow knew it was true. That would be something physically separated from the rest of the world, because nobody can physically detect it, except for me.

Ohh, so you don't think anyone else can detect ghosts beside you? You don't know that your conscious state cannot be monitored by another through purely physical means.

Sheesh- you do know that people just define everything as physical in these conversations, right? That's the thing about talking to someone who insists everything is physical: they are going to say everything is physical- they are as likely to redefine their claims about the fundamental reality as a creationist is...

 

[ryan]

This is like if I were the only one to see a ghost in my backyard, and you somehow knew it was true. That would be something physically separated from the rest of the world, because nobody can physically detect it, except for me.

Ohh, so you don't think anyone else can detect ghosts beside you? You don't know that your conscious state cannot be monitored by another through purely physical means.

Are you serious?

Sheesh- you do know that people just define everything as physical in these conversations, right? That's the thing about talking to someone who insists everything is physical: they are going to say everything is physical- they are as likely to redefine their claims about the fundamental reality as a creationist is...

But there are only a few definitions for physicalism; they can't change that.

Aren't you a physicalist?

 

[ryan]

That's only part of it. The other part is that the rock's subjectivity does not emit information; whereas the rock falling does emit information.

You didnt get it: the rocks falling is a process, just like the mind. And as a rock cannot have any other rocks fall, a person cannot have any other persons mind.

That is all there is to "subjectivity".

There is no subjectivity without the mind. The rock must have a mind for that to be a proper analogy.

 

[Juma]

You didnt get it: the rocks falling is a process, just like the mind. And as a rock cannot have any other rocks fall, a person cannot have any other persons mind.

That is all there is to "subjectivity".

There is no subjectivity without the mind. The rock must have a mind for that to be a proper analogy.

No it doesnt. That is the point. Subjectivity is only a relational description. The subject is the doer. For a mind that means that it does what a mind does: transforming information into oredictions and actions. For a rock it means it does what a rock does. In this case: falling.

 

[Kharakov]

Ohh, so you don't think anyone else can detect ghosts beside you? You don't know that your conscious state cannot be monitored by another through purely physical means.

Are you serious?

Somehow.

Sheesh- you do know that people just define everything as physical in these conversations, right? That's the thing about talking to someone who insists everything is physical: they are going to say everything is physical- they are as likely to redefine their claims about the fundamental reality as a creationist is...

But there are only a few definitions for physicalism; they can't change that. Aren't you a physicalist?

I'm capable of believing things that are untrue, based on valid reasoning and plausible sounding premises.

In other words... words words words, they lead you all around, but the only thing that words don't do, is lead you to their sound.

 

[ryan]

Are you serious?

Somehow.

Sheesh- you do know that people just define everything as physical in these conversations, right? That's the thing about talking to someone who insists everything is physical: they are going to say everything is physical- they are as likely to redefine their claims about the fundamental reality as a creationist is...

But there are only a few definitions for physicalism; they can't change that. Aren't you a physicalist?

I'm capable of believing things that are untrue, based on valid reasoning and plausible sounding premises.

In other words... words words words, they lead you all around, but the only thing that words don't do, is lead you to their sound.

Is there anyway you can answer the questions a little more directly?

Unfortunately for me, I don't share you and fromderinside's poetic wit.

 

[Kharakov]

Somehow.

Mkay. Do you like that emoticon, or do you truly feel consternation?

In other words... words words words, they lead you all around, but the only thing that words don't do, is lead you to their sound.

Is there anyway you can answer the questions a little more directly?

Could I wear boots if I didn't have a pear?

 

[ryan]

Well ... I guess this thread had a good run while it lasted.

 

[bilby]

Well ... I guess this thread had a good run while it lasted.

Well 600+ posts in a thread entitled "My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness", but in which no good argument for a non-physical consciousness was presented, new or otherwise, has to be considered a good run. Still, we have had topics that were even less substantive run for almost twice as long in the past, so it is not going to break any records.

 

[Kharakov]

Ryan, were you creating this argument for a nonphysical consciousness, or were you arguing for the existence of a nonphysical consciousness?

I don't know if you ever cleared that up.


For a way of deviating from physicalist monism, one could divide up physical reality into levels: elemental, biological, sensory, mental, metamental, level 2 metamental, level3... all which have various levels of supervenience upon and between one another, and perhaps ways to connect various levels (metamental 2 can communicate directly with mental through established communications channels through metamental 1). A hierarchy of beings of some sort.

 

[ryan]

Ryan, were you creating this argument for a nonphysical consciousness, or were you arguing for the existence of a nonphysical consciousness?

I don't know if you ever cleared that up.


For a way of deviating from physicalist monism, one could divide up physical reality into levels: elemental, biological, sensory, mental, metamental, level 2 metamental, level3... all which have various levels of supervenience upon and between one another, and perhaps ways to connect various levels (metamental 2 can communicate directly with mental through established communications channels through metamental 1). A hierarchy of beings of some sort.

Actually, I learnt a lot on this thread. I always thought that the philosophical zombie argument was circular, but I now realize its importance. It must assume that a mind exists, but that does not necessarily mean its non-physical. There is a minimal physicalism definition that allows a mind as long as it reacts to the body; we discussed this a few days ago.

There can be a zombie and there can be a twin of the zombie with a mind. There wouldn't be a physical difference. Specifically, if a human becomes a zombie, then it won't make a difference physically.

I don't know about everyone else, but after years of being on here, I am finally convinced up to, say, a 90% certainty of non-physical dualism.

 

[Kharakov]

There can be a zombie and there can be a twin of the zombie with a mind. There wouldn't be a physical difference. Specifically, if a human becomes a zombie, then it won't make a difference physically.

I don't think you understand the concept. A PZ is a hypothetical thing that could exist if human brains could generate human behavior without a consciousness. In other words, the brain would act as if there were a consciousness associated with it, even though there was not.

In this case, it would mean that a brain with or without a consciousness would act exactly the same. If there was a consciousness associated with the brain, it would have no effect upon the brain, because if it did the brain with the consciousness would act differently when compared to the brain without a consciousness.

This doesn't mean the consciousness isn't physical as well- it simply means that the consciousness does not alter the actions of the brain. So there would be a physical difference, unless you redefine physical to mean "everything physical, except for the things that I define as nonphysical".

I don't know about everyone else, but after years of being on here, I am finally convinced up to, say, a 90% certainty of non-physical dualism.

I'm 86.7% sure you're joking.

 

[bilby]

Ryan, were you creating this argument for a nonphysical consciousness, or were you arguing for the existence of a nonphysical consciousness?

I don't know if you ever cleared that up.


For a way of deviating from physicalist monism, one could divide up physical reality into levels: elemental, biological, sensory, mental, metamental, level 2 metamental, level3... all which have various levels of supervenience upon and between one another, and perhaps ways to connect various levels (metamental 2 can communicate directly with mental through established communications channels through metamental 1). A hierarchy of beings of some sort.

Actually, I learnt a lot on this thread. I always thought that the philosophical zombie argument was circular, but I now realize its importance. It must assume that a mind exists, but that does not necessarily mean its non-physical. There is a minimal physicalism definition that allows a mind as long as it reacts to the body; we discussed this a few days ago.

There can be a zombie and there can be a twin of the zombie with a mind. There wouldn't be a physical difference. Specifically, if a human becomes a zombie, then it won't make a difference physically.

I don't know about everyone else, but after years of being on here, I am finally convinced up to, say, a 90% certainty of non-physical dualism.

Well I think non-physical dualism founders on the absence of nay mechanism by which the non-physical could interact with the physical at the required energies and scales.

This is no longer a philosophical question; it is a physical question, and physics answers it clearly and precisely - dualism is not possible unless our understanding of physics is hugely flawed at a fundamental level. If physics were sufficiently flawed to allow for dualism, then we would have noticed. It would be many orders of magnitude more obvious than the flaws in Newtonian Gravitation that led us to Relativity; it would render all of physics clearly and obviously wrong.

No amount of navel gazing can change this fact - Physics has ruled out dualism as completely as chemistry has ruled out Phlogiston.

 

[DBT]

I don't know about everyone else, but after years of being on here, I am finally convinced up to, say, a 90% certainty of non-physical dualism.

Yet this 'non physical' - 'non stuff - has never been explained, nor how this 'non physical, non material' interacts with the physical/material structures of the brain....and this provides 90% certainty?

 

[ryan]

I don't think you understand the concept. A PZ is a hypothetical thing that could exist if human brains could generate human behavior without a consciousness. In other words, the brain would act as if there were a consciousness associated with it, even though there was not.

In this case, it would mean that a brain with or without a consciousness would act exactly the same. If there was a consciousness associated with the brain, it would have no effect upon the brain, because if it did the brain with the consciousness would act differently when compared to the brain without a consciousness.

From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/#2 read,

"A metaphor of Saul Kripke’s helps to show how the zombie idea threatens physicalism (Kripke 1972/80, 153f.). Imagine God creating the world and deciding to bring into existence the whole of the physical universe. Having created this purely physical universe, did he have to do any more work to provide for consciousness? Answering yes to this question implies there is more to consciousness than the purely physical facts alone can supply. If nothing else, it implies that consciousness depends on nonphysical properties, ones that would not exist in a purely physical world; it would be a zombie world. Physicalists, on the other hand, are committed to answering no. They have to say that by fixing the purely physical facts, God did everything that was needed to fix the mental facts about the organisms thereby created, including their thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experiences. And if fixing the physical facts is alone enough to fix the mental facts, then a zombie world seems impossible." .

This doesn't mean the consciousness isn't physical as well- it simply means that the consciousness does not alter the actions of the brain. So there would be a physical difference, unless you redefine physical to mean "everything physical, except for the things that I define as nonphysical".

Remember (from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#CasForPhy),

"(1) Physicalism is true at a possible world w iff any world which is a physical duplicate of w is a duplicate of w simpliciter. ".

Another quote in there is,

"According to (1), what this means is that if physicalism is true, there is no possible world which is identical to the actual world in every physical respect but which is not identical to it in a biological or social or psychological respect.".

 

[ryan]

Actually, I learnt a lot on this thread. I always thought that the philosophical zombie argument was circular, but I now realize its importance. It must assume that a mind exists, but that does not necessarily mean its non-physical. There is a minimal physicalism definition that allows a mind as long as it reacts to the body; we discussed this a few days ago.

There can be a zombie and there can be a twin of the zombie with a mind. There wouldn't be a physical difference. Specifically, if a human becomes a zombie, then it won't make a difference physically.

I don't know about everyone else, but after years of being on here, I am finally convinced up to, say, a 90% certainty of non-physical dualism.

Well I think non-physical dualism founders on the absence of nay mechanism by which the non-physical could interact with the physical at the required energies and scales.

This is no longer a philosophical question; it is a physical question, and physics answers it clearly and precisely - dualism is not possible unless our understanding of physics is hugely flawed at a fundamental level. If physics were sufficiently flawed to allow for dualism, then we would have noticed. It would be many orders of magnitude more obvious than the flaws in Newtonian Gravitation that led us to Relativity; it would render all of physics clearly and obviously wrong.

No amount of navel gazing can change this fact - Physics has ruled out dualism as completely as chemistry has ruled out Phlogiston.

Physics/science cannot rule anything out that isn't falsifiable. How on Earth could you even imagine falsifying dualism? We could never rule out dualism.

Also, imagine the staggeringly low percentage of all brains that have even been studied; then imagine how long they were studied as a ratio to how long they weren't studied. If there were times of free will from the mind, we would never know. It would either seem like a mistake or we say it's unknown. We would have to fully model and study every brain on Earth to actually have a proper experiment that could make a conclusion. Until then, you can't say that the mind doesn't affect the brain.

 

[bilby]

Well I think non-physical dualism founders on the absence of nay mechanism by which the non-physical could interact with the physical at the required energies and scales.

This is no longer a philosophical question; it is a physical question, and physics answers it clearly and precisely - dualism is not possible unless our understanding of physics is hugely flawed at a fundamental level. If physics were sufficiently flawed to allow for dualism, then we would have noticed. It would be many orders of magnitude more obvious than the flaws in Newtonian Gravitation that led us to Relativity; it would render all of physics clearly and obviously wrong.

No amount of navel gazing can change this fact - Physics has ruled out dualism as completely as chemistry has ruled out Phlogiston.

Physics/science cannot rule anything out that isn't falsifiable. How on Earth could you even imagine falsifying dualism? We could never rule out dualism.

OK; you tell me what can interact with the physical world, can exist at energy densities compatible with the continued existence of brain tissue, but is not both a part of currently known physics and readily detectable by common and widely available technology.

Hint: for such a thing to exist and not yet have been detected would require that modern physics is dramatically wrong in ways that would be very obvious indeed.

When something undetected would require a major revision of all of science in order to exist, you would have to be a total moron to not rule it out. If we can't rule out dualism, we don't know anything at all, and all our technology is based on lucky guesses.

Surely you don't believe this?

I am more confident that dualism doesn't exist than I am that I won't win the lotto every week for the next decade.

Sure, it's not proof; proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

But you would be insane to bet against physics on this one.

 

[DBT]

Remember (from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#CasForPhy),

"(1) Physicalism is true at a possible world w iff any world which is a physical duplicate of w is a duplicate of w simpliciter. ".

Another quote in there is,

"According to (1), what this means is that if physicalism is true, there is no possible world which is identical to the actual world in every physical respect but which is not identical to it in a biological or social or psychological respect.".

Ryan, what do you believe your quotes mean in relation to your claim for the virtual certainty (90%) of the existence of non material mind/dualism?