• SpacedOut
    13
    I thought you might be going for something like that, just figuring out what the argument was for
  • bahman
    530
    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
    1.1k
    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
    530
    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
    530
    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
    263
    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
    530
    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
    263
    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
    530
    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.
  • Magnus Anderson
    263
    Because the state of system is a function of the properties of its parts.bahman

    There is a correlation between height and gender. The taller the person, the more likely the person is a man. And vice versa. That's an example of a very simple system. You have two variables that are related to each other in a specific way. One of the variables is quantitative (height) the other is qualitative (gender.) So how is it possible for a quality such as male/female to arise from quantity?
  • bahman
    530
    There is a correlation between height and gender. The taller the person, the more likely the person is a man. And vice versa. That's an example of a very simple system. You have two variables that are related to each other in a specific way.Magnus Anderson

    Yes, that is a good example.

    One of the variables is quantitative (height) the other is qualitative (gender.) So how is it possible for a quality such as male/female to arise from a quantity?Magnus Anderson

    Gender to me is similar to state of a system, like gas, liquid, solid in water.
  • Magnus Anderson
    263
    Gender to me is similar to state of a system, like gas, liquid, solid in water.bahman

    The state of a system is simply the set of values its variables are assuming. If the system has two variables such as height and gender then its state would be something like "190cm, male" or "170cm, female". Gender need not be a state. The same applies to consciousness.
  • tim wood
    1.1k
    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

    Maybe this. There are minimums for pretty much everything, under which the thing doesn't exist. Water can stand as the example. Water is a molecule. If you go to the level of atoms, water does not exist: there is no atom of water. The properties of water - the properties of the whole - do not exist at the level of the parts. Concrete is another example (not to be confused with cement). Sand, water, cement combined yield concrete. As parts, no concrete. Music: notes are necessary, but not sufficient. Think about it. Emergent as a term of art is problematic, but clearly subatomic particles in themselves simply do not possess the properties that aggregates of them may have.

    Another way: the variety - the kinds - of particles is limited. If all the varieties of everything in the world devolve down to a relatively few particles, then how do you account for the variety? How do the few particles figure out how to be water in one case, gold in another, a jackrabbit in a third, and so on into the variety of things we call a universe?
  • bahman
    530
    The state of a system is simply the set of values its variable assume. If the system has two variables -- height and gender -- then its state would be something like "190cm, male" or "170cm, female". Gender need not be a state. The same applies to consciousness.Magnus Anderson

    Let me correct myself. Gender is like an index which defines state of a system. Of course there is a correlation between an observable variable and state of system, the index. The state of system however is a function of properties of its parts. We know this by fact that that is our genes which dictate how the atoms should arrange in our body in order to give a gender to a person. As I said the gender is an index which defines state of a system. Gender is pretty similar to an index which defines different state of water. Different state of water however is a function of properties of water's molecules. I mean given the property of water's molecules you can find whether it is in state of gas or liquid. That cannot applies to consciousness. Why? Because there exist not an order parameter which can indicate the state of consciousness. Order parameter is simply a variable which is function of properties of parts of a system and changes when a phase transition occurs. The comprehensibility is the order parameter in case of gas to liquid phase transition. Comprehensibility however is related to change of density respect to volume. The density is a function of number of atoms/molecules. Do you think that you can find an order parameter which is a function of mass, charge, spin and configuration atoms and electron in the brain? Consciousness is not a property like charge, mass, or spin.
  • bahman
    530
    Maybe this. There are minimums for pretty much everything, under which the thing doesn't exist. Water can stand as the example. Water is a molecule. If you go to the level of atoms, water does not exist: there is no atom of water. The properties of water - the properties of the whole - do not exist at the level of the parts. Concrete is another example (not to be confused with cement). Sand, water, cement combined yield concrete. As parts, no concrete. Music: notes are necessary, but not sufficient. Think about it. Emergent as a term of art is problematic, but clearly subatomic particles in themselves simply do not possess the properties that aggregates of them may have.tim wood

    Great. Water for example has a set of properties: density, temperature, volume, shear tension and pressure. All these variable are a function of water's molecules properties: "mass, charge, spin, speed, number of water molecules and their arrangement. Consciousness is not like mass, charge, spin,... and it cannot be a function of these properties either. Temperature is related and similar to speed. Density is related and similar to mass. Spin for example can be observed as ferromagnetic state in iron, so ferromagnetic is like spin etc.
  • bahman
    530
    How could consciousness or subconsciousness be a function of anything!? It create things, in case of human, thoughts, ideas, feelings.
  • tim wood
    1.1k
    How could consciousness or subconsciousness be a function of anything!? It create things, in case of human, thoughts, ideas, feelings.bahman
    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.
    bahman
    Do you see a problem here? And with the water. You say the whole, water, is expressed through its parts. But it isn't. Consciousness isn't "expressed" through it parts - what are the parts of consciousness?

    Or consider a photograph. Is it expressed through its pixels? Only as an aggregate of them from a particular point of view, otherwise not at all.

    There's something awry with your thinking through this thread. If anything you've succeded in disproving by reductio ad absurdum your own hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that, now just acknowledge it..
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    I understand what he is trying to say but what I am arguing is that any macro-property is reducible to a set of micro-properties. What he is saying is that macro-properties are independent.bahman

    No, he semi-correlates the possibility to render a set of properties meaningful at a level of explanation with the specificities of those levels. An emergent property is emergent more because it simply could not be made sense of in the previous paradigm of explanation, as such, invisible in that paradigm, than because it is magically supervening over other properties.
  • bahman
    530
    Do you see a problem here? And with the water. You say the whole, water, is expressed through its parts. But it isn't. Consciousness isn't "expressed" through it parts - what are the parts of consciousness?tim wood

    That is one problem that you noticed. Consciousness cannot be expressed as a function of properties of atoms.
  • tim wood
    1.1k
    That is one problem that you noticed. Consciousness cannot be expressed as a function of properties of atoms.bahman

    And what do you say about how that qualifies the claim of the OP "
    The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence.bahman
  • bahman
    530

    Well, there is no emergent phenomena.
  • bahman
    530
    No, he semi-correlates the possibility to render a set of properties meaningful at a level of explanation with the specificities of those levels. An emergent property is emergent more because it simply could not be made sense of in the previous paradigm of explanation, as such, invisible in that paradigm, than because it is magically supervening over other properties.Akanthinos

    That simply mean that science cannot explain consciousness.
  • tim wood
    1.1k
    Then where does consciousness/intelligence come from. According to you it's not emergent. I accept that. But it means that the claim of the OP is false.
  • T Clark
    3k
    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.
    bahman

    To restate the above argument - There is no emergence because there is no emergence.
  • T Clark
    3k
    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.bahman

    You're right, the behavior of a gas is not emergence, it's statistical mechanics. Emergence is something different. A commonly cited example of emergence is life. It is my understanding that living matter is made up of physical matter - atoms. It is a physical phenomenon, but living matter behaves differently, according to a different set of laws, than non-living matter. If it didn't, there would be no need to make the distinction between living and non-living.

    Please explain evolution using only language and principles from physics.
  • bahman
    530
    Then where does consciousness/intelligence come from.tim wood

    I believe that is a property of mind. Mind needs consciousness in order to be creative.

    According to you it's not emergent. I accept that. But it means that the claim of the OP is false.tim wood

    That doesn't indicate that OP is false. Mater does not have consciousness as a property and consciousness could not be emergent.
  • bahman
    530
    To restate the above argument - There is no emergence because there is no emergence.T Clark

    No. Everything that we learn about material world indicates that the property of a system is a function of properties of its constitute. Matter is unconscious therefor we cannot have a conscious system.
  • bahman
    530
    You're right, the behavior of a gas is not emergence, it's statistical mechanics. Emergence is something different. A commonly cited example of emergence is life. It is my understanding that living matter is made up of physical matter - atoms. It is a physical phenomenon, but living matter behaves differently, according to a different set of laws, than non-living matter. If it didn't, there would be no need to make the distinction between living and non-living.

    Please explain evolution using only language and principles from physics.
    T Clark

    Then you have to accept that consciousness is a property of matter. Sometimes it shows up depending on something and sometimes doesn't show up. Otherwise we are dealing with magic.
  • tim wood
    1.1k
    That doesn't indicate that OP is false. Mater does not have consciousness as a property and consciousness could not be emergent.bahman
    Interesting. Do you propose that there can be mind where there is no matter? That is, that mind is based in something not (in any way) matter out of which it emerges? Presumably you agree there is such a thing/phenomenon called mind. And presumably you agree it emerges. Or do you have it Athena-like coming into being (somehow) entirely complete? (Which would lead to either humans possessing a complete mind, or not any mind at all. In the latter case whatever it is still needs to be accounted for.)
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.