Why would you believe that? What led to that belief for you, in other words?

Also, do you believe that that's the standard view in physics, for example, since you were appealing to that earlier? — Terrapin Station

The standard view in physics is that for instance quarks move each other in a way that with rough instruments make us detect them as single particles such as protons and neutrons, that protons, neutrons and electrons move each other in such a way that with even rougher instruments we detect them as atoms, then with even rougher instruments as molecules, and so on. The standard view in physics surely doesn't say that an atom is anything more than the elementary particles it is made of, that a ship is anything more than the elementary particles it is made of, that a brain is anything more than the elementary particles it is made of.

The standard view in physics is that for instance quarks move each other in a way that with rough instruments make us detect them as single particles such as protons and neutrons, that protons, neutrons and electrons move each other in such a way that with even rougher instruments we detect them as atoms, then with even rougher instruments as molecules, and so on. The standard view in physics surely doesn't say that an atom is anything more than the elementary particles it is made of, that a ship is anything more than the elementary particles it is made of, that a brain is anything more than the elementary particles it is made of. — leo

If only, in my opinion, that answered either question I asked you.

If only, in my opinion, that answered either question I asked you. — Terrapin Station

That answers both with some effort. The standard view in physics is based on the two premises I stated earlier. These premises cannot possibly account for conscious experience. Yet somehow physicists believe that in principle they could explain consciousness as arising from these particles, but based on these two premises that is impossible.

So "The emergent properties are to be found within our experience rather than in the particles themselves" is my view, based on the fact that particles as described by the two premises are incompatible with conscious experience.

If you ask a physicist, they will tell you that the behavior of an atom relative to the atoms surrounding it is completely described by the behavior of the particles that compose it and the atoms around it. And then that the behavior of a ship is completely described by the behavior of the particles that compose it and that compose its environment. And that the behavior of the brain is completely described by the behavior of the particles that compose it and its environment.

Yet the behavior of these particles is merely relative motion. And the emergent properties of macroscopic things are not mere motion but something experienced, such as the wetness of water or the heat of the sun. So the experienced emergent properties are not described by the standard view in physics. The equations in the fundamental models cannot explain that water would feel wet or that the sun would feel hot, the equations only say how particles move. And they cannot explain how conscious experience would arise at all.

That answers both with some effort. The standard view in physics is based on the two premises I stated earlier. These premises cannot possibly account for conscious experience. Yet somehow physicists believe that in principle they could explain consciousness as arising from these particles, but based on these two premises that is impossible.

So "The emergent properties are to be found within our experience rather than in the particles themselves" is my view, based on the fact that particles as described by the two premises are incompatible with conscious experience. — leo

I'm not asking you anything about explanations about conscious experience at the moment.

Let me explain what I'm asking you better.

Okay, so let's take a rock. A rock is going to have a particular shape, size/extension, tendency to crumble or not (cohesion, brittleness, etc.), density, patterns where it might have lines/striations or "dots" of different minerals--all sort of properties, those are just a few as an example.

You don't believe that those properties are "of" the rock itself. You believe that those properties are only in our minds.

So, I'm asking you:

(1) how you came to believe that those properties are not of the rock itself, and
(2) whether you believe that the idea that those properties are not of the rock itself is the standard view of physics (and geology, etc.)

Okay, so let's take a rock. A rock is going to have a particular shape, size/extension, tendency to crumble or not (cohesion, brittleness, etc.), density, patterns where it might have lines/striations or "dots" of different minerals--all sort of properties, those are just a few as an example.

You don't believe that those properties are "of" the rock itself. You believe that those properties are only in our minds.

So, I'm asking you:

(1) how you came to believe that those properties are not of the rock itself, and
(2) whether you believe that the idea that those properties are not of the rock itself is the standard view of physics (and geology, etc.) — Terrapin Station

Yes okay. Actually I believe that these properties result from the interaction between the mind and the rock, I don't believe they reside solely in the mind nor in the rock. It would be quite long to explain how I have arrived at that view, I don't have much time now but will think about it later.

Regarding (2), as I described in the 3rd and 4th paragraph in my last message, I believe that fundamental physics holds the view that the behavior of a rock is completely described by the motions of the elementary particles that compose it and its environment, and as such that in principle all the properties of the rock could be derived from taking into account the motions of all these particles.

But even though the shape, tendency to crumble, density, patterns of the rock might be derived from taking into account the motions of all the particles that compose it and its environment, I hold the view that what it feels like to hold the rock in your hand couldn't be derived, and that for instance what it feels like to look at light of frequency 700 nm couldn't be derived from fundamental physics.

Regarding (2), as I described in the 3rd and 4th paragraph in my last message, I believe that fundamental physics holds the view that the behavior of a rock is completely described by the motions of the elementary particles that compose it and its environment, and as such that in principle all the properties of the rock could be derived from taking into account the motions of all these particles. — leo

That's fine.. But what I'm asking you is if you think the standard view there is that those properties obtain via interaction of mind and the object.

Whatever physics thinks those properties amount to, exactly, it posits that there are such properties. Either it thinks that those properties are the result of minds and objects interacting or it does not.

That's fine.. But what I'm asking you is if you think the standard view there is that those properties obtain via interaction of mind and the object.

Whatever physics thinks those properties amount to, exactly, it posits that there are such properties. Either it thinks that those properties are the result of minds and objects interacting or it does not. — Terrapin Station

That follows directly from my last message, the standard view in physics assumes that the rock's properties you described are completely described by how the particles that compose it and its environment move, and as such that these properties exist independently of the mind.

According to the standard view, the particles of the rock are arranged in such a way that they reflect light of a given frequency which appears to us as the color of the rock and which enables us to distinct the rock from its background, which gives its shape. The tendency to crumble is seen as the result of the motion of the particles within the rock which are more or less disturbed by the motion of the particles of its environment. The density of the rock is seen as the result of the motion of its particles which move downwards while the particles in water move them upwards. The patterns of the rock have again to do with the motion of its particles, which reflect photons of different frequencies and appear to us as different colors which enables us to distinct as patterns.

The standard view doesn't talk about the mind, yet the mind is involved in the act of observation. The color and shape and behavior of the rock are seen as properties of the rock, yet it is the act of observing the rock that leads us to these properties, someone who is blind would have no notion of the color of the rock, someone who has no sense of sight or hearing or sound would have no notion of the shape or patterns of the rock.

If we were all blind, we wouldn't come up with a notion of color. If you assume that color is a property of the rock, then why wouldn't we ascribe it this property if we were blind? Because we are not able to see it? But then that depends on us and our mind, not on the rock.

That's one example of observation that leads me to see that we are the ones who ascribe properties to things, based on what we are able to experience, what our mind is able to experience. That the properties we ascribe to things depends on our minds.

In the standard view these properties belong to the things, so in the standard view it is thought that if the properties of shape and density and pattern can emerge from the properties of mass and charge and spin, then potentially the property of consciousness can emerge from all that, but it is a flawed argument in that it omits the very fact that we ascribe these properties through our mind, and that without presupposing the existence of the mind we cannot possibly derive consciousness from a world devoid of consciousness, unless we ascribe to the particles the ability to elicit consciousness on top of that of causing motion. All properties are given through consciousness, and in the standard view all properties boil down to motions, but the conscious experience of red itself cannot be boiled down to motions.

The way I see it is, we have experiences, within these experiences we find regularities, we describe these regularities, but in doing so at no point do we explain how our experiences arose in the first place. If we want to claim to describe everything, then we have to account for these experiences themselves. And if we're saying that everything is particles in motion accelerating each other, then at no point can we explain how particles in motion can give rise to experience itself.

We're so used to using physics to explain what we see, that we forget that we also need to explain why we see in the first place, if we want to claim to explain everything. And to explain that we see, there needs to be something more than what we see. If there wasn't something more then we could see what others see, but we don't. If you look at me I'm not just a body that you see, because I feel and I experience, and that you don't see. And you too are more than the body others see, because you experience and you feel. And looking at your brain as closely as possible won't make us experience what you experience. We are more than just a bunch of particles with no ability other than moving each other.

In fact, these elementary particles that make up everything according to the standard view, they exist in our imagination, in our mind. We invoke them as a neat tool to explain a lot of what we see, but we don't see them, we imagine how they behave and use that to describe what we see.

So to say that particles that we imagine in our mind, and use to explain what we see through our mind, exist independently from our mind is already quite a stretch. The properties we ascribe to these particles reside in our imagination, in our thought, in our mind. The properties we ascribe to what we experience reside in our mind.

If you imagine that all these particles can do is move, accelerate each other, then how could they give rise to conscious experience at all? Sure in your imagination they can give rise to a ship and its shape and so on but how can they give rise to your experience of a ship, to you feeling what it's like to see it and touch it?

Assuming there is a world existing independently of the mind, I see everything we experience as the result of an interaction between the mind and that world, because depending on how we feel and what we believe we see the world totally differently.

At times I am able to see a complex world in my mind, with my eyes closed but while being awake. At times while sleeping I dream of things that seem as real as waking life, and that I only differentiate by the fact that I wake up. There are what we call optical illusions that make us see the same thing in very different ways. There are beliefs that change how we experience the world, feelings that change how we experience the world. There are some substances that can make us see things that no word exists to describe, and thus that we can't communicate with words nor even with paintings. There are sometimes experiences that seem definitely "out there", totally different from everything else. The blind doesn't see color, that doesn't mean others can't see it, if the majority was blind the minority with sight would be considered as hallucinating, in the same way potentially some people can sense what others can't. I have come to see the mind as an incredibly powerful tool that can shape everything. So to me there is definitely more to us than our body that we see through the eyes alone, through whatever instrument that is seen through the eyes alone, I see sight as one of many senses. Then we do the whole of physics through our sight and thought, but there is more than that.

That follows directly from my last message, — leo

That's fine, but I didn't want to read that into it without you explicitly saying so, just in case your view was otherwise.

The standard view doesn't talk about the mind, yet the mind is involved in the act of observation. The color and shape and behavior of the rock are seen as properties of the rock, yet it is the act of observing the rock that leads us to these properties, someone who is blind would have no notion of the color of the rock, someone who has no sense of sight or hearing or sound would have no notion of the shape or patterns of the rock.

If we were all blind, we wouldn't come up with a notion of color. If you assume that color is a property of the rock, then why wouldn't we ascribe it this property if we were blind? Because we are not able to see it? But then that depends on us and our mind, not on the rock.

That's one example of observation that leads me to see that we are the ones who ascribe properties to things, based on what we are able to experience, what our mind is able to experience. That the properties we ascribe to things depends on our minds. — leo

To me, this all seems like a very simple case of you confusing how we know things with what we know. Obviously we're the ones who ascribe properties to things, and we make observations, we see things, etc.--if we're putting things in bins, those things all go in the "things we do" bin; and we're not going to observe things if we don't have the ability to observe them.

But none of that implies that the properties in question are not "of" the objective stuff in question, as the standard view in the sciences has it.

without presupposing the existence of the mind we cannot possibly derive consciousness from a world devoid of consciousness, — leo

That makes no sense to me. It doesn't seem to follow from anything you'd said. It seems arbitrary, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to have to do with an argument about this stuff anyway. For one, "presupposing" is again in the bin of "things we do," but if we're arguing pro or con a physicalist ontology re the mind/body relationship, that doesn't have anything to do with the "things we do" bin.

All properties are given through consciousness — leo

"Given" to what? We know about them, observe them, ascribe them, etc. through consciousness but that's the "things we do" bin. The properties themselves aren't in that bin. You're confusing how we know something with what we know about. Otherwise you'd have to explain how it's not a confusion in your view. To me, it seems like a very elementary sort of mistake.

We're so used to using physics to explain what we see, that we forget that we also need to explain why we see in the first place, if we want to claim to explain everything. — leo

I don't think that physics per se or explanations are even pertinent to the discussion. It's not as if one thing or another is the case or not where that at all hinges on physics or explanations. Physics, per se, is again a thing that we do, and so are explanations. We're supposed to be talking about what is. Not how we know things. (Not that we can ignore how we know things, especially when there's' a dispute, but the subject matter here is supposed to be ontology (what exists, what it's "nature" is, etc.), not epistemology--now how we know what exists. There has to be something to know in order to talk about how we know it!)

In fact, these elementary particles that make up everything according to the standard view, they exist in our imagination, in our mind. — leo

Jesus I'm getting sick of that nonsense here. Why is this place infested with idealists? Is there like some idealist network where they all tell each other to talk about philosophy here?

Maybe there's another philosophy board I can spend some time on that's not infested with idealists, contintentalism fans, religious believers, etc.?

Jesus I'm getting sick of that nonsense here. Why is this place infested with idealists? — Terrapin Station

Why the hate? Do you see elementary particles with your eyes? Or do you imagine them to be here, making up what you do see? Do you see the elementary particles that supposedly make up a rock or do you see a rock?

You imagine the elementary particles, you imagine them to behave in specific ways, and through that process of imagination you can explain conveniently a lot of what you see with your eyes. Sure the mainstream scientific view is to see these particles as existing independently from us. But there is an explanatory gap between imagining these particles and saying that they exist independently from us the way we imagine them. I don't see what you don't understand about that.

Then going back to the original point, even if these particles do exist independently from us, they can't possibly explain the fact that you do see, that you do experience things, unless you ascribe to them that seemingly mystical ability to elicit qualia, which is ignored by the mainstream scientific view.

Why the hate? Do you see elementary particles with your eyes? — leo

It's rather just frustration, and your comment here helps explain why. It's not as if you either directly experience elementary particles or you become an idealist. That would be quite the false dichotomy.

You seem to have a lingering hate for idealism though. I don't even consider myself as an idealist or as anything, I just follow observations and thoughts where they lead me. If you don't experience these particles then you imagine them right? You conceptualize them somehow in your mind right? Then sure, maybe these particles exist independently of you, whatever that may mean, but you can't abstract out the fact that you are involved in the act of conceptualization of these particles. You are the one making an unnecessary assumption by assuming that they exist that way independently of you, while I am making no such assumption, it is a direct observation for you that you imagine these particles rather than seeing them as you see a rock. You are the one trying to push a world view that is supported by belief rather than observation. And I think that what you call frustration stems from a fear of shaking the foundations of that world view.

In other words, it's not based solely on particles per se.

When we feel anxiety we are on a path of fear that can lead to much greater evils. We may feel anxiety at first. Then we may try to control the fear by doing things and acting in ways that cause frustration when events don’t happen the way we thought we wanted. Then we might get angry or depressed. Anger at others or the world can lead to hate. Depression can lead to hating oneself. Hate leads to all kinds of evil acts. — Son of a Bitch

Wonderful thought here. I completely agree. Anxiety is just fear in another name, and if we do not confront or try to work through the fear the best we can, then an effortless and ignorant path one indeed goes down.