My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[Mageth]

"Actual emergence" appears to refer to magic. E.g., rocks suddenly appearing in midair.

 

[ryan]

When discussing something nonphysical, it's really about behavior/phenomena that is not explained by physics. For example, imagine I have two rocks, and every time I put these rocks within a certain radius from each other, a third rock appears above one of them. This would be "actual emergence"; from what I have been reading, there's "emergence" and there's "actual emergence".

Is there any real example of a non-physical phenomena?

Some say that the mind is "actual emergence".

 

[bilby]

Is there any real example of a non-physical phenomena?

Some say that the mind is "actual emergence".

Some say the Moon is made of cheese.

Some say God created the world in a week.

All we know is it's called bullshit, unless they can support their claims with evidence.

 

[PyramidHead]

Some say that the mind is "actual emergence".

Some say the Moon is made of cheese.

Some say God created the world in a week.

All we know is it's called bullshit, unless they can support their claims with evidence.

I wouldn't call emergence bullshit, as long as it's a statement about linguistic descriptions or properties, and not actual 'things' that pop into existence at a certain point of complexity. It's a lot easier to say a certain person has a disorganized mind than to accurately portray their neurology in strictly reductionist terms.

 

[ryan]

When discussing something nonphysical, it's really about behavior/phenomena that is not explained by physics. For example, imagine I have two rocks, and every time I put these rocks within a certain radius from each other, a third rock appears above one of them. This would be "actual emergence"; from what I have been reading, there's "emergence" and there's "actual emergence".

As far as I understand, nobody thinks emergence refers to the appearance of new objects. Emergence is the concept that systems have properties not shared by all of their constituent parts. A red shirt, for example, is made of red fabric, but it is not made of red protons and electrons. Descriptions only apply to a certain level of organization, and not the one below it. I'm thinking about a dog; my brain is (I guess) thinking about a dog; my frontal lobe is... mayyyybe thinking about a dog; but none of my neurons are thinking about a dog, and none of their constituent molecules, atoms, or quarks are either. That's emergence.

By "actual emergence" I mean irreducible emergence. Your thoughts of a dog might be reducible to the sum of your neurons. But something like the mind, if there is a mind, seems - to some - to be a totally irreducible entity. In other words, for the mind to be reducible, particles would have to have a quanta of mind; this is panpsychism.

 

[ryan]

Some say that the mind is "actual emergence".

Some say the Moon is made of cheese.

Some say God created the world in a week.

All we know is it's called bullshit, unless they can support their claims with evidence.

I agree. That's why I haven't said anything with certainty.

 

[PyramidHead]

As far as I understand, nobody thinks emergence refers to the appearance of new objects. Emergence is the concept that systems have properties not shared by all of their constituent parts. A red shirt, for example, is made of red fabric, but it is not made of red protons and electrons. Descriptions only apply to a certain level of organization, and not the one below it. I'm thinking about a dog; my brain is (I guess) thinking about a dog; my frontal lobe is... mayyyybe thinking about a dog; but none of my neurons are thinking about a dog, and none of their constituent molecules, atoms, or quarks are either. That's emergence.

By "actual emergence" I mean irreducible emergence. Your thoughts of a dog might be reducible to the sum of your neurons. But something like the mind, if there is a mind, seems - to some - to be a totally irreducible entity. In other words, for the mind to be reducible, particles would have to have a quanta of mind; this is panpsychism.

No, that's a nonsensical strawman.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is there any real example of a non-physical phenomena?

Some say that the mind is "actual emergence".

That's not what i asked.

 

[ryan]

By "actual emergence" I mean irreducible emergence. Your thoughts of a dog might be reducible to the sum of your neurons. But something like the mind, if there is a mind, seems - to some - to be a totally irreducible entity. In other words, for the mind to be reducible, particles would have to have a quanta of mind; this is panpsychism.

No, that's a nonsensical strawman.

Well if you add up the particles: {A + A + A + A + A + ....} and then they equal {A + A + A + A + A + ...} + {mind}, then where did {mind} come from? But this is probably not relevant to you if you believe that the mind is exactly a function in the brain. If you believe that they are interchangeable, then this argument does not apply to you. I have no good argument against that position as I have already conceded to it earlier in this thread.

 

[ryan]

Some say that the mind is "actual emergence".

That's not what i asked.

This is such a grey area, and examples are still being debated.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's not what i asked.

This is such a grey area, and examples are still being debated.

Then it's just circular.

The mind is too dependent on the physical to be nonphysical. Damage or inconvenience the brain, the mind is affected. Poor chemicals into the brain, the mind is affected. Like taking away a trapeze artist's wire. They may have appeared to fly, but without the physical support, they fall.
Maybe you can't see the mind under the microscope, but without the physical support, you don't have one.

 

[Juma]

No, that's a nonsensical strawman.

Well if you add up the particles: {A + A + A + A + A + ....} and then they equal {A + A + A + A + A + ...} + {mind}, then where did {mind} come from?

From the interaction of the particles( or rater: the interaction of things made up of particles)

Gee, you still doesnt seem to have a clue about dynamical systems.

Check into what feedback can acheive in dynamical systems and you will be amazed.

 

[ryan]

Well if you add up the particles: {A + A + A + A + A + ....} and then they equal {A + A + A + A + A + ...} + {mind}, then where did {mind} come from?

From the interaction of the particles( or rater: the interaction of things made up of particles)

Gee, you still doesnt seem to have a clue about dynamical systems.

Check into what feedback can acheive in dynamical systems and you will be amazed.

There are two different sides against me. The side that I think that you are on I conceded to. But there is another side against me that seems to see the mind as something above and beyond matter.

If you are on the side that I think you are on, then you would say that the mind is just another word/symbol for the process in the brain; in other words, the mind is interchangeable with a certain process in the brain and doesn't emerge from this process. This argument I conceded to already.

But, some are saying that you can't see the "mind". Now I am arguing that this kind of mind, if it exists, is going to have to be nonphysical.

 

[Juma]

From the interaction of the particles( or rater: the interaction of things made up of particles)

Gee, you still doesnt seem to have a clue about dynamical systems.

Check into what feedback can acheive in dynamical systems and you will be amazed.

There are two different sides against me. The side that I think that you are on I conceded to. But there is another side against me that seems to see the mind as something above and beyond matter.

If you are on the side that I think you are on, then you would say that the mind is just another word/symbol for the process in the brain; in other words, the mind is interchangeable with a certain process in the brain and doesn't emerge from this process. This argument I conceded to already.

But, some are saying that you can't see the "mind". Now I am arguing that this kind of mind, if it exists, is going to have to be nonphysical.

"Emergence" isnt something magical "non-physical". Interaction of parts is what creates emergence.

 

[ryan]

There are two different sides against me. The side that I think that you are on I conceded to. But there is another side against me that seems to see the mind as something above and beyond matter.

If you are on the side that I think you are on, then you would say that the mind is just another word/symbol for the process in the brain; in other words, the mind is interchangeable with a certain process in the brain and doesn't emerge from this process. This argument I conceded to already.

But, some are saying that you can't see the "mind". Now I am arguing that this kind of mind, if it exists, is going to have to be nonphysical.

"Emergence" isnt something magical "non-physical". Interaction of parts is what creates emergence.

Well, the interaction of parts is the emergent property, and it ends there. There are some who seem to want the mind to emerge from the emergent property.

 

[Juma]

"Emergence" isnt something magical "non-physical". Interaction of parts is what creates emergence.

Well, the interaction of parts is the emergent property, and it ends there. There are some who seem to want the mind to emerge from the emergent property.

No, interaction of parts never "ends".
Let me give you a poetical image:
Particles interact to form atoms, atoms interact to form molecules. Molecules interacts to form (neuro)cells and life processe. These interacts to form low level neural processes. These interacts to form higher level process, etc. somewhere in this hierarchy we get protominds that interact to form intention and even higher we get interacting intentions that form meaning etc.

It never ends but at each new level it changes shape and somewhere it may be too complex to follow.

 

[bigfield]

"Emergence" isnt something magical "non-physical". Interaction of parts is what creates emergence.

Well, the interaction of parts is the emergent property, and it ends there. There are some who seem to want the mind to emerge from the emergent property.

The mind doesn't emerge from the emergent property -- it is the emergent property. The concept of the mind is an abstraction.

 

[ryan]

Well, the interaction of parts is the emergent property, and it ends there. There are some who seem to want the mind to emerge from the emergent property.

No, interaction of parts never "ends".
Let me give you a poetical image:
Particles interact to form atoms, atoms interact to form molecules. Molecules interacts to form (neuro)cells and life processe. These interacts to form low level neural processes. These interacts to form higher level process, etc. somewhere in this hierarchy we get protominds that interact to form intention and even higher we get interacting intentions that form meaning etc.

It never ends but at each new level it changes shape and somewhere it may be too complex to follow.

I meant that the definitions such as the mind are the interactions in your argument. The mind does not emerge from the interactions because the interactions are the emergent properties. Isn't that what your argument really boils down to?

 

[ryan]

Well, the interaction of parts is the emergent property, and it ends there. There are some who seem to want the mind to emerge from the emergent property.

The mind doesn't emerge from the emergent property -- it is the emergent property. The concept of the mind is an abstraction.

I said that some seem to be making that argument.

 

[bilby]

The mind doesn't emerge from the emergent property -- it is the emergent property. The concept of the mind is an abstraction.

I said that some seem to be making that argument.

It might help if you said who - or better yet, quoted the post(s) where you believe that that argument is being made.