• Rich
    3.1k
    Quantum information is constant, it cannot be created or annihilated. Therefore new idea cannot be generated.bahman

    The new idea would fundamentally consist of a different form/vibration of the entangled quantum wave. There are limitless variations.
  • bahman
    460
    The new idea would fundamentally consist of a different form/vibration of the entangled quantum wave. There are limitless variations.Rich

    How you could prove that what you call new idea was not there? It only could appear on surface.
  • Rich
    3.1k
    How you could prove that what you call new idea was not there? It only could appear on surface.bahman

    It's a new idea for me. Another similar "idea" could have formed elsewhere or it could be completely new for the universe. It's like snowflakes, similarities with differences.
  • tim wood
    423
    Here's an example to work on: "Duck." Work with that.
    — tim wood

    Which duck?
    bahman

    You don't get to ask that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand your own claim.

    The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence.bahman

    "Duck" is the constituent. If you're asking which duck, then the whole is not expressed. And that's without even looking at the problem of "expression." How, for example, does "Duck" express anything at all?
  • SpacedOut
    13
    a living human brain having the property of being conscious despite its atoms and molecules not having it, but this might not count for you under your ideas of mind you mentioned.
  • bahman
    460

    You asked: For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds?
    I answered: Yes. Of course an intellectual agent who read a text or listen to a music create something extra when he read a text or listen to a music. That extra thing is meaning of the text which writer wanted to convey it.

    I hope things is clear now.
  • bahman
    460
    a living human brain having the property of being conscious despite its atoms and molecules not having it,SpacedOut

    That is the problem that I am arguing against. Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious. That is the main argument presented in OP:

    The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence.

    To elaborate consider a system made of "n" particles in which particle "i" has a set of properties Pi={Pi1,..., Pim}, where "m" is number of properties of a particle and Pjk is the property "k" of particle "j". Any measurable property of the system is only a function of {P1,...,PM}. Therefore there is no emergence.

    but this might not count for you under your ideas of mind you mentioned.SpacedOut

    Well, yes, consciousness is a property of mind.
  • tim wood
    423
    ↪tim wood
    You asked: For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds?
    I answered: Yes. Of course an intellectual agent who read a text or listen to a music create something extra when he read a text or listen to a music. That extra thing is meaning of the text which writer wanted to convey it.

    I hope things is clear now.
    bahman

    Let's try it out! "Duck," on your argument, completely expresses itself (whatever that means). On the other hand, the "intellectual agents" "create" the "meaning of the text." If as you say the meaning of "Duck" is the creation of the reader, then, apparently, "Duck" by itself doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it's just lines on paper. But wait! Think it through: it can't even be lines on paper, because "lines on paper" is created meaning, just as paintings are blobs of colour - or not even that!

    I am not arguing against meaning. Obviously things have meaning. (How they have meaning is a whole other question.) What I am arguing is that your position seems grossly and thoughtlessly incoherent - and useless. Now figure out a way to make a better statement of your argument.
  • bahman
    460

    What I am arguing is simple. Think of gas for example. It exerts a pressure on the wall of container. The pressure is a property of gas however it can be expressed in term of average forces that atoms of gas exert to the wall of container. There is no emergence here. Pressure simply is related to average force. In general any system made of bunch of particles in which each has a set of properties has a set of properties which can be explained in term of properties of the particles. That is all.

    For what regards duck, duck is more than a set of particles. It has a mind.
  • tim wood
    423
    The pressure is a property of gasbahman
    See? Here's an example of the kind of problem we're having. I understand perfectly well that usually gas in a container can exert pressure on the walls of the container, the pressure depending in part on temperature. But what you said is that "the pressure is a property of gas." It isn't. I doubt if it's even correct to say that pressure is a property of gas in a container. I don't think it's a property at all. Rather it is something that happens, depending on circumstances.
    In general any system made of bunch of particles in which each has a set of properties has a set of properties which can be explained in term of properties of the particles. That is all.

    For what regards duck, duck is more than a set of particles. It has a mind.
    bahman
    Pardon, but "Duck" has no mind whatsoever. And it's clear that when you say, "in general," in general cannot be what you mean, because it simply isn't true, or a fact, in general. If nothing else, "Duck" makes that clear.

    And do the particles that make up concrete have the properties of concrete?

    A lack of clarity characterizes most human communication. Most human communication has built-in clarification features. Either way, absent clarification, most human communication is an exercise in nonsense and ignorance. Sometimes it's tolerated, for a variety of reasons: entertainment, sport, a kind of exercise. Sometimes it's the cause and occasion for awful events. Implicit in most human communication is a duty, responsibility, obligation, to make sense, to the extent that failure is often characterized both negatively and pejoratively, these standing as warning that the speaker cannot be trusted. The question becomes, can bahman be trusted to make sense? What do you say? If yes, please make better sense of your argument.
  • SpacedOut
    13
    I thought you might be going for something like that, just figuring out what the argument was for
  • bahman
    460
    See? Here's an example of the kind of problem we're having. I understand perfectly well that usually gas in a container can exert pressure on the walls of the container, the pressure depending in part on temperature. But what you said is that "the pressure is a property of gas." It isn't. I doubt if it's even correct to say that pressure is a property of gas in a container. I don't think it's a property at all. Rather it is something that happens, depending on circumstances.tim wood

    It seems that you have problem with the word property. Can I use parameter? I used property for a purpose. Moreover, pressure is defined in term of average force exerted to the wall by particles.

    Pardon, but "Duck" has no mind whatsoever. And it's clear that when you say, "in general," in general cannot be what you mean, because it simply isn't true, or a fact, in general. If nothing else, "Duck" makes that clear.tim wood

    So duck in your opinion is a set of particles. Something mindless?

    And do the particles that make up concrete have the properties of concrete?tim wood

    Concreteness is defined in term of properties of particles.
  • tim wood
    423
    It seems that you have problem with the word property.bahman
    No, I don't. You do. You say that x has property p, then you say that property p is provided by y.
    You "use property for a purpose." Fine. If you're going to use a word idiosyncratically, it's best if you let your readers know. But what in the world do you mean by it?
    So duck in your opinion is a set of particles. Something mindless?bahman
    I don't know what you're referring to. I have only referred to "Duck." It is you who have insisted on deciding what it meant. Meaning, of course, that "Duck" does not fully represent itself, contra your argument. Arguably, "Duck" in itself by itself represents nothing at all. It is not even communicative as muteness, by itself. To borrow a dash of Heidegger, "Duck," by itself, does not even nothing.

    And concrete is a phenomenon of an amalgam, not of particles.

    Back and forth. You don''t seem to grasp what I'm saying to you. Let me be explicit. By your language you represent yourself as incoherent. I've been pointing at and pointing to that incoherence. You don't address it.

    I do note this:
    That is the problem that I am arguing against. Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious. That is the main argument presented in OP:bahman
    This is ridiculous, but at least (at best) it has the virtue of being clear. What's ridiculous about it? I'll answer that if you first defend/support the proposition. As it sits it's mere assertion without evidence, which under a well-known rule can be, and in this case should be, dismissed without evidence
  • Semiotic
    2
    Perhaps you're going about this subject in the wrong way.

    Since we evolved in a field of relations with other objects, you can never actually say "the whole is in the part", insomuch as the emergent wholes - such as organisms in interaction - played an ontological role in 'revealing' dimensions which exist only implicitly in the part, but depend on actual relations of complementarity in a horizontally extended environment (in cognitive science this is the three E's of enactive, embodied and embedded' aspects of the functional whole) to be actually and explicitly made manifest.

    All in all, the truth is, we're moral beings to our core. Were motivational creatures which have an arc that begins on an observer pole, which extends in a circle to the object pole. Our minds are an emergent function of a scaffolding of processes - shaped like a pyramid - that makes your observing consciousness an emergent effect, which in neuroscience lingo, happens between 200 to 300 milliseconds, whereas feeling, or affect, is an essential background process that cannot be denied its primacy.

    As relational psychoanalysts know best of all, the mind is a representation of the dyadic interaction between self and other. Nothing more.
  • bahman
    460
    It seems that you have problem with the word property.
    — bahman
    No, I don't. You do. You say that x has property p, then you say that property p is provided by y.
    You "use property for a purpose." Fine. If you're going to use a word idiosyncratically, it's best if you let your readers know. But what in the world do you mean by it?
    tim wood

    Well, think of a particle, electron for example. It has a set of properties: mass, charge and spin. I put the position, speed and acceleration into the same package, properties.

    I do note this:
    That is the problem that I am arguing against. Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious. That is the main argument presented in OP:
    — bahman
    This is ridiculous, but at least (at best) it has the virtue of being clear. What's ridiculous about it? I'll answer that if you first defend/support the proposition. As it sits it's mere assertion without evidence, which under a well-known rule can be, and in this case should be, dismissed without evidence
    tim wood

    What I am arguing is that you cannot expect consciousness as a result of motion of electrons in the brain. How? Any state of a system with a set of particles with properties P is only a function of properties of particles. Consciousness is not a property of electron therefore you cannot have a state in which system is conscious. Unless you accept that a magic can happen.
  • bahman
    460
    Perhaps you're going about this subject in the wrong way.Semiotic

    I don't think so. We have electrons and nucleons each have specific charge, mass, spin, position and speed, lets call them properties, in the brain. What I am arguing is that any state of system is a function of these five variables. You cannot have a conscious state since non of the properties which mentioned has any relationship with consciousness.
  • Magnus Anderson
    232
    Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious.bahman

    So there can be no correlation between variables unless variables are of the same type?
  • bahman
    460
    So there can be no correlation between variables unless variables are of the same type?Magnus Anderson

    I believe that there could be a correlation between different variables depending on state of system. I however don't recall any physical example. Correlation is the result of interaction. It however cannot leads to consciousness.
  • Magnus Anderson
    232
    I believe that there could be a correlation between different variables depending on state of system. I however don't recall any physical example. Correlation is the result of interaction. It however cannot leads to consciousness.bahman

    The question is: why is it impossible for the brain to be conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious?
  • bahman
    460
    The question is: why is it impossible for the brain to be conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious?Magnus Anderson

    Because the state of system is a function of the properties of its parts.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.