Consciousness and matter

[Gorgias]

That is subject of discussion. What is your definition? Do you have any objection to my definition?

I think that, since you’ve offered a definition, we should stick to that definition in this thread. And yes, I have objections to your definition:

I think I just need to show that consciousness is a physical state

So, your claim is that consciousness is a physical state. OK, then, prove it!

I think my definition is based on three facts: (1) There is a correlation between brain process and consciousness (scientific fact)

This, unfortunately, doesn’t prove your claim.

The “correlation between brain process and consciousness” doesn’t help you here, since all you’re saying is that when consciousness is presumed, certain brain processes can be measured, and when consciousness is not presumed, certain other brain processes can be measured. Can you see that these observations – while interesting – don’t prove your point? Among other problems here, there’s a certain ‘circular reasoning’ here (I’m not quite sure I want to call it “begging the question”, but that’s how it feels): since you presume consciousness, you note brain activity… and then say that this brain activity proves consciousness! That just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Think of it this way: I could say “when I’m happy, certain facial muscles contract” “but when I’m sad, certain other facial muscles contract” “and therefore, I’ve proven that the cause of happiness is the physical event of facial muscle contraction!”

That’s an argument parallel to yours; there’s a correlation between an observed set of physical actions and a mental state… but there’s no way that we would even consider asserting that smiles and frowns cause those states!

So, for your claim to hold up, you’d have to show not only that the brain processes exist, but that they cause consciousness.

(And, of course, at that point, you’d have to explain why the processes give rise to what we call ‘consciousness’… but we’re not even close to being there, yet.)

Now… on to your second and third ‘proofs’!

and (2) We are internally aware of options and (3) We are internally aware that we can decide.

Is ‘awareness’ your definition of consciousness, then?

Is ‘internal awareness’ distinct from some other kind of awareness?

Can you demonstrate that the brain processes cause ‘internal awareness’?

If so, then you’ve got a potential argument here. Otherwise, you just have a set of observations, along with a vague description of what those processes are, and no causal link between them. Without that… no definition; no proof.

Consciousness is just a state of matter like other states, solidity, wetness, etc.

Ahh, but “other states of matter” can be measured. Can you measure consciousness? (Or, rather, are you merely observing something that happens at a particular time, during which you presume consciousness is present?)

After all, I can tell you how solid (i.e., ‘dense’) an object is and give you a value for its density in kg/L. I can measure how wet (i.e. how much water is present in a material) an object is, and give you a value for its wetness as a percentage of water. What kind of measure can you give for consciousness? If you can’t, then you can’t very well make a claim for consciousness as a physical state.

Could you please tell us what are the options?

Look up the Wikipedia article on monism; it’ll help give you the background knowledge you’re lacking.

 

[Gorgias]

I think I just need to show that consciousness is a physical state and there is no mind. There are numerous evidences for that. Have you ever take any medicine for pain, depression, etc? The reason that medicines work is that they directly affect brain process and therefore cause a change in our conscious mode.

No, they don’t do what you’re claiming they do. Pain medication stops a physical process from happening, or limits the brain’s ability to perceive that the process has occurred. In both cases, ‘pain’ is a physical process. On the other hand, the experience of pain is what you’re talking about. Aspirin or opioids do not affect the experience of pain, just the processes by which pain occurs.

If we wanted to diagram it out, we’d have:

physical damage → physical process at site of damage → physical signal received at brain

That physical signal is ‘pain’. However, if (for example) you’re sleeping and a spider bites you, your body experiences all these processes… but you don’t have the experience of pain. Therefore, I’d assert, the experience of pain is distinct. In other words, the medicines don’t “cause a change in our conscious mode”; instead, they affect bodily processes of which our consciousness may be aware. There is an effect on our conscious experience… but don’t affect our consciousness directly.

This means that consciousness is mere experience

No; rather, I’d assert that consciousness has awareness, and part of that awareness is knowledge of physical experience.

and there is no mind, in another word all we have is conscious state, experience, and matter, which causes experience. Therefore monism is correct.

You recognize that the presence of ‘conscious state’, ‘experience’, and ‘matter’ does not prove monism… right?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What is your definition of consciousness? What are your problems with my definition? I think my definition is based on three facts: (1) There is a correlation between brain process and consciousness (scientific fact) and (2) We are internally aware of options and (3) We are internally aware that we can decide. Do you have any problem with these facts?

Your definition! You might know why we define things: We need to adopt productive and right behaviors. It is stupid to behave the same way independently of the situation, as if there was no situation at all. Then, when you say that “conscious state” is the result of matter activity, just like wetness, or solidity, etcetera, you are saying that our behavior does not need to be different before a conscious being than before a wet object. This is one of the most bizarre things I have heard in the last thirteen years (and I can tell you that I have heard quite a number of things!.. Well, of course if the wet thing is a human being, then you are right!).

One way to build a definition is to indicate the genre to which the defined thing belongs, and then you need to indicate the specific difference that is peculiar to it. After saying that “conscious state” is the result of matter activity, you would need to specify which kind of matter activity you are talking about, and which kind of result you are talking about.

I don’t know if this helps you a little bit, truth seeker?

I think I just need to show that consciousness is a physical state and there is no mind. There are numerous evidences for that. Have you ever take any medicine for pain, depression, etc? The reason that medicines work is that they directly affect brain process and therefore cause a change in our conscious mode. This means that consciousness is mere experience and there is no mind, in another word all we have is conscious state, experience, and matter, which causes experience. Therefore monism is correct.

In general, I think it would be good for you if you take the time to study what real philosophers have written. Actually, it would save you a lot of time (and it would enrich you), and after some time you would understand what philosophy really is.

Isn’t it obvious that when you wake up and see your beloved at your side, your “conscious state mode” changes; and if you open the window and hear the sounds of nature, and see the light of sun, your “conscious state mode” changes again? Isn’t it true that your “conscious state mode” is continuously changing? Everybody knows it! It is not necessary to be a philosopher to know that! Even a dualist like Descartes did not have any problem to acknowledge it!

Then, having acknowledged how reality is, thinkers follow a variety of interpretations (some of them are materialist monists, some others are idealist monists; others dualists; others… etcetera). And some of them construct very smart arguments (the study of which might benefit you). Still, their adversaries build very smart counter-arguments as well.

Anyway… I have observed that you commonly make mistakes like this one: You would say: “Metals **experience **volumetric expansion when they are heated; humans **experience **sadness when they lose something they love. Therefore, **experience **is something metals and humans share”.

I mean…

By breaking chain of causality I mean that we are are normally in a mental state following the chain of causality (following current option) unless we decide and choose another option.

Please, respond to this:

"Let’s suppose a fire is started in a forest owing to the conditions of the vegetation and the intensity of the sun rays. Then, a storm develops and the fire is quenched. Would you say that “a chain of causality” has been broken here?”

and you will see how I continue.

 

[STT]

I think that, since you’ve offered a definition, we should stick to that definition in this thread. And yes, I have objections to your definition:

What are your objections?

So, your claim is that consciousness is a physical state. OK, then, prove it!

It changes when you stimulate or affect brain. You can even create hallucination) when you stimulate brain therefore consciousness is not a thing but something which describes state of brain.

This, unfortunately, doesn’t prove your claim.

The “correlation between brain process and consciousness” doesn’t help you here, since all you’re saying is that when consciousness is presumed, certain brain processes can be measured, and when consciousness is not presumed, certain other brain processes can be measured. Can you see that these observations – while interesting – don’t prove your point?

It does. Science is about understanding the correlation between things. Do you believe in science?

Among other problems here, there’s a certain ‘circular reasoning’ here (I’m not quite sure I want to call it “begging the question”, but that’s how it feels): since you presume consciousness, you note brain activity… and then say that this brain activity proves consciousness! That just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

I didn’t say that brain activity proves consciousness. I said that there is a correlation between brain activity and consciousness.

Think of it this way: I could say “when I’m happy, certain facial muscles contract” “but when I’m sad, certain other facial muscles contract” “and therefore, I’ve proven that the cause of happiness is the physical event of facial muscle contraction!”

No. You become happy, because of hearing a joke for example, because of a reason. Your happiness shows itself externally too, facial muscle contraction.

That’s an argument parallel to yours; there’s a correlation between an observed set of physical actions and a mental state… but there’s no way that we would even consider asserting that smiles and frowns cause those states!

No, they are not parallel.

So, for your claim to hold up, you’d have to show not only that the brain processes exist, but that they cause consciousness.

I think the existence of a correlation between them is enough.

(And, of course, at that point, you’d have to explain why the processes give rise to what we call ‘consciousness’… but we’re not even close to being there, yet.)

Any physical process give rises to a state of matter, including consciousness.

Now… on to your second and third ‘proofs’!

Ok.

Is ‘awareness’ your definition of consciousness, then?

Consciousness is an aware physical state.

Is ‘internal awareness’ distinct from some other kind of awareness?

Awareness is personal, if that is what you mean with internal. I don’t know about other kind of awareness. Can you give an example?

Can you demonstrate that the brain processes cause ‘internal awareness’?

No, I cannot. I don’t think if you could demonstrate causality too. It is something we observe.

If so, then you’ve got a potential argument here. Otherwise, you just have a set of observations, along with a vague description of what those processes are, and no causal link between them. Without that… no definition; no proof.

Could you please tell me how we realize that there is a causal relation between movement of cue ball and another ball when they hit?

Ahh, but “other states of matter” can be measured. Can you measure consciousness? (Or, rather, are you merely observing something that happens at a particular time, during which you presume consciousness is present?)

After all, I can tell you how solid (i.e., ‘dense’) an object is and give you a value for its density in kg/L. I can measure how wet (i.e. how much water is present in a material) an object is, and give you a value for its wetness as a percentage of water. What kind of measure can you give for consciousness? If you can’t, then you can’t very well make a claim for consciousness as a physical state.

Your mode of consciousness can be measured too from your brain activity.

Please

Look up the Wikipedia article on monism; it’ll help give you the background knowledge you’re lacking.

I didn’t find anything interesting in wiki page. I wish you could help me. Monism to me means that there exists only matter and matter undergoes different states.

 

[STT]

No, they don’t do what you’re claiming they do. Pain medication stops a physical process from happening, or limits the brain’s ability to perceive that the process has occurred. In both cases, ‘pain’ is a physical process. On the other hand, the experience of pain is what you’re talking about. Aspirin or opioids do not affect the experience of pain, just the processes by which pain occurs.

No, pain is an state. Pain killer generally affect a process in the brain related to pain.

If we wanted to diagram it out, we’d have:

physical damage → physical process at site of damage → physical signal received at brain

No, the diagram is like this:

physical damage → sending signal into brain → processing signal in the brain which give rises to pain.

That physical signal is ‘pain’. However, if (for example) you’re sleeping and a spider bites you, your body experiences all these processes… but you don’t have the experience of pain. Therefore, I’d assert, the experience of pain is distinct. In other words, the medicines don’t “cause a change in our conscious mode”; instead, they affect bodily processes of which our consciousness may be aware. There is an effect on our conscious experience… but don’t affect our consciousness directly.

Becoming awake depends on how strong external stimuli is.

No; rather, I’d assert that consciousness has awareness, and part of that awareness is knowledge of physical experience.

Consciousness is not a thing which could have awareness. What is your definition of consciousness?

You recognize that the presence of ‘conscious state’, ‘experience’, and ‘matter’ does not prove monism… right?

No, I cannot imagine matter without any state. It is something attached to matter. An attribute. Consciousness is not a thing. We have only matter therefore monism is correct.

 

[STT]

Your definition! You might know why we define things: We need to adopt productive and right behaviors. It is stupid to behave the same way independently of the situation, as if there was no situation at all. Then, when you say that “conscious state” is the result of matter activity, just like wetness, or solidity, etcetera, you are saying that our behavior does not need to be different before a conscious being than before a wet object. This is one of the most bizarre things I have heard in the last thirteen years (and I can tell you that I have heard quite a number of things!.. Well, of course if the wet thing is a human being, then you are right!).

One way to build a definition is to indicate the genre to which the defined thing belongs, and then you need to indicate the specific difference that is peculiar to it. After saying that “conscious state” is the result of matter activity, you would need to specify which kind of matter activity you are talking about, and which kind of result you are talking about.

I don’t know if this helps you a little bit, truth seeker?

Consciousness is an aware physical state. What is your problem with that? We are getting no where following your style.

In general, I think it would be good for you if you take the time to study what real philosophers have written. Actually, it would save you a lot of time (and it would enrich you), and after some time you would understand what philosophy really is.

I am studying philosophy of mind right now.

Isn’t it obvious that when you wake up and see your beloved at your side, your “conscious state mode” changes; and if you open the window and hear the sounds of nature, and see the light of sun, your “conscious state mode” changes again? Isn’t it true that your “conscious state mode” is continuously changing? Everybody knows it! It is not necessary to be a philosopher to know that! Even a dualist like Descartes did not have any problem to acknowledge it!

I am saying a little more: Consciousness gives rise as a matter of physical activity. Is that common sense to you too?

Then, having acknowledged how reality is, thinkers follow a variety of interpretations (some of them are materialist monists, some others are idealist monists; others dualists; others… etcetera). And some of them construct very smart arguments (the study of which might benefit you). Still, their adversaries build very smart counter-arguments as well.

That we know.

Anyway… I have observed that you commonly make mistakes like this one: You would say: “Metals **experience **volumetric expansion when they are heated; humans **experience **sadness when they lose something they love. Therefore, **experience **is something metals and humans share”.

I mean…

I don’t understand what do you mean with “metals”?

Please, respond to this:

"Let’s suppose a fire is started in a forest owing to the conditions of the vegetation and the intensity of the sun rays. Then, a storm develops and the fire is quenched. Would you say that “a chain of causality” has been broken here?”

and you will see how I continue.

No, chain of causality can just be broken consciously. I don’t think if your example is suitable.

 

[IWantGod]

Consciousness is an aware physical state. What is your problem with that?

It doesn’t make rational sense to say that rational self awareness is merely a physical state. That’s why.

How can blind physical processes become self aware without adding something to that process which is distinct in nature from blind physical processes?

 

[IWantGod]

No, chain of causality can just be broken consciously. I don’t think if your example is suitable.

How can the chain of causality be broken if the nature of consciousness is reduced to bind physical processes?

By your standards consciousness is caused by natural processes alone and is identical in nature to those processes. So how can consciousness effect it’s underlying processes? Everything we say do and think would be a product of those processes. That’s why Materialism does not work when describing rational self awareness.

 

[STT]

It doesn’t make rational sense to say that rational self awareness is merely a physical state. That’s why.

Why not? We know that we can distort rational self awareness by taking alcohol, medicine and drug.

How can blind physical processes become self aware without adding something to that process which is distinct in nature from blind physical processes?

We know that there is a correlation between physical process in matter and consciousness. That is how matter is, brute fact, it undergoes a conscious state when it has specific motion.

 

[STT]

How can the chain of causality be broken if the nature of consciousness is reduced to bind physical processes?

You have difficulty to imagine this because you equate a physical process and a chain of causality. There could be several chains of causality for a single physical process. We know this because of two facts: (1) There is a single motion in the brain and (2) we can experience several options when they are realizable.

By your standards consciousness is caused by natural processes alone and is identical in nature to those processes.

They are not identical. Physical process is a sort of motion. Consciousness is an aware state of matter.

So how can consciousness effect it’s underlying processes?

We don’t have access to underlying processes therefore we cannot change or affect them. We realize options which is manifestation of underlying process and decide. We don’t change underlying processes when we decide. We just choose one of the options offered by physical processes.

Everything we say do and think would be a product of those processes. That’s why Materialism does not work when describing rational self awareness.

Why?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Consciousness is an aware physical state. What is your problem with that? We are getting no where following your style.

Respond candidly and we can go much faster, STT.

So, you say that consciousness is a physical state of awareness. It is obvious that we, human beings, are physical entities, and it is also true that “awareness” is one of our modes of being. From that point of view, at least for human beings, it would have some meaning (though not a philosophical meaning) that consciousness is a physical state. However, in other thread that you know, you are saying that God is rational like us. If you do not conceive that God is a rational machine, then you would need to affirm that God is a corporeal being or you would need to abandon your opinion that consciousness is a physical state, in the rigorous sense.

I am saying a little more: Consciousness gives rise as a matter of physical activity. Is that common sense to you too?

Absolutely not! Not only it is not common sense, but it is even absurd.

I don’t understand what do you mean with “metals”?

Some examples will help here: Gold, silver, iron, copper, aluminum, cobalt, tungsten, and some other chemical elements are metals. I hope it is clear to you; but if you need something else, let me know.

No, chain of causality can just be broken consciously. I don’t think if your example is suitable.

As you have accepted previously, according to your doctrines every “conscious state” mode is an effect of a causal chain. Therefore, to be aware of a possibility A (always according to your doctrines) would be an effect of a causal chain A’. To be aware of a possibility B would be an effect of a causal chain B’. An so on. A decision making, which is also a “conscious state” mode would also be an effect of a causal chain. The resulting action from the conflict -so to say-, between the variety of causal chains would be the effect of the strongest chain, though perhaps nuanced by the other causal chains.

My example is suitable, as you will see now: The fire in the forest is an effect of certain causal chain; while the storm is the effect of another causal chain. When they coincide in time and space, the result is the effect of the strongest causal chain, though nuanced by the other causal chains present.

Do you see?

 

[Gorgias]

It changes when you stimulate or affect brain. You can even create hallucination) when you stimulate brain

An hallucination isn’t an indication of consciousness; rather, an hallucination is a false visual perception. Therefore, deep brain stimulation shows the interface between sense organ and brain, not brain and consciousness.

It does. Science is about understanding the correlation between things.

Science is about proof, not correlation. Perhaps you’re using ‘correlation’ in a rather casual sense?

Do you believe in science?

Science isn’t about belief; it’s about proof. It’s about ‘cause and effect’, not ‘correlated objects’.

There are those who make a religion out of science, and ‘believe’ in it. I’m not one of them. I think science is useful, and I trust the things it is able to prove.

I didn’t say that brain activity proves consciousness. I said that there is a correlation between brain activity and consciousness.

That’s why your claims are rather weak. If you’re going to make an assertion, you need proof, not mere correlation.

No. You become happy, because of hearing a joke for example, because of a reason.

Hearing – that is, a physical process – does not cause ‘happiness’.

Your happiness shows itself externally too, facial muscle contraction.

Again: ‘happiness’ (that is, an emotion, which does not have physical extension) does not cause facial muscle contraction (or any other physical manifestation).

I think the existence of a correlation between them is enough.

Then you’re not a very good scientist (or philosopher). In these disciplines, a mere correlation does not suffice to prove assertions.

Any physical process give rises to a state of matter, including consciousness.

You keep making this claim, without giving proof. We’ve been through this before. Bald assertion just doesn’t suffice to justify truth propositions.

Consciousness is an aware physical state.

How does one measure this state, then?

Awareness is personal, if that is what you mean with internal.

So, are you saying it’s not measurable? Are you saying it’s subjective?

STT:

Gorgias:

Can you demonstrate that the brain processes cause ‘internal awareness’?

No, I cannot.

Well, if you cannot demonstrate or prove your claim, then it’s just your opinion. I’m cool with you having opinions; the thing is, you can’t assert them as truth unless you can substantiate them, nor can you expect us to concur with them.

Could you please tell me how we realize that there is a causal relation between movement of cue ball and another ball when they hit?

I could measure the motion of the balls prior to the moment of impact, at the moment of impact, and following the moment of impact. I could use these measurements to demonstrate that energy has been conserved. I could demonstrate that the velocities and directions of the balls follow from the way the impact occurs. In short, yes: I could demonstrate that the motion of the cue ball and the subsequent motions of the balls follow from the impact. That is, I could demonstrate the cause and effect.

Your mode of consciousness can be measured too from your brain activity.

No. You just said (above), that you cannot demonstrate that brain processes cause internal awareness; in other words, that means that you cannot measure brain activity and infer consciousness.

I didn’t find anything interesting in wiki page.

Wait – you read this Wiki page and didn’t find anything that helped you understand the various types of monism? Not even these quotes?

Various kinds of monism can be distinguished:

Priority monism states that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them (e.g., in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One). In this view only one thing is ontologically basic or prior to everything else.
Existence monism posits that, strictly speaking, there exists only a single thing (e.g., the universe), which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.
Substance monism (“stuff monism”) asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff (e.g., matter or mind) exists, although many things may be made out of this stuff.

Different types of monism include:

Substance monism, “the view that the apparent plurality of substances is due to different states or appearances of a single substance”
Attributive monism, “the view that whatever the number of substances, they are of a single ultimate kind”
Partial monism, “within a given realm of being (however many there may be) there is only one substance”
Existence monism, “the view that there is only one concrete object token (The One, “Τὸ Ἕν” or the Monad)”
Priority monism, “the whole is prior to its parts” or “the world has parts, but the parts are dependent fragments of an integrated whole”
Property monism, “the view that all properties are of a single type (e.g., only physical properties exist)”
Genus monism, “the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being”

STT:

Monism to me means that there exists only matter and matter undergoes different states.

See the descriptions above. It looks like you’re talking about “substance monism”.

 

[IWantGod]

You have difficulty to imagine this because you equate a physical process and a chain of causality.

Physical processes is any kind of physical activity. Physical causal chains is physical activity or physical processes. Why would you think otherwise?

They are not identical. Physical process is a sort of motion.

A physical process is the activity of physical objects.

Consciousness is an aware state of matter.

According to you it is the processes in the brain that give rise to self consciousness and without that activity consciousness will cease. I don’t deny that we need a brain in order to be conscious of physical reality, but i do think that it is unreasonable to reduce the nature of consciousness to physical processes alone.

You say that self consciousness is just self-aware matter and nothing more. You haven’t proven that to be the case. You are just asserting this idea based on a correlation between consciousness and the physical processes in the brain. But nobody is denying there is a relationship between the brain and consciousness. We are denying that the two are identical in nature.

We don’t have access to underlying processes therefore we cannot change or affect them. We realize options which is manifestation of underlying process and decide.

Let me ask you then, do physical processes choose those options or does a self aware being make those choices? If self conscious choices are reduced to physical activity in the brain how can there be a real choice when there is no distinction between the two? All outputs of the brain would be determined by physical processes in the brain and nothing more.

 

[Gorgias]

nobody is denying there is a relationship between the brain and consciousness. We are denying that the two are identical in nature.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

According to you it is the processes in the brain that give rise to self consciousness and without that activity consciousness will cease. I don’t deny that we need a brain in order to be conscious of physical reality, but i do think that it is unreasonable to reduce the nature of consciousness to physical processes alone.

You say that self consciousness is just self-aware matter and nothing more. You haven’t proven that to be the case. You are just asserting this idea based on a correlation between consciousness and the physical processes in the brain. But nobody is denying there is a relationship between the brain and consciousness. We are denying that the two are identical in nature.

I have not read through all of the posts yet, but your response here is very good!! If materialists want to claim that consciousness is entirely physical, they will need to provide empirical evidence that shows how physical processes lead to subjective experiences.

However, I will say that not only do I see a relationship between the brain and mind, but like STT, I also see that the mind depends on the brain… So in that sense, the brain appears to be primary (that conclusion may be wrong…). Unlike STT, I do not conclude from this that the mind is physical like the brain but rather that the mind is an emergent feature of the brain since emergence allows for something to be a product of parts (the building blocks of the brain) while also having some differences from those parts… for example, the brain is strictly physical while certain features of the mind are not. I also hold this view because of David Chalmers’ concept of ‘strong emergence’. Not only is the mind an emergent feature, it also exhibits causative powers when it is able to direct and/or control the structure/function of the brain. And there is scientific peer-reviewed/replicated evidence for my last claim!! STT already knows about this!

 

[IWantGod]

I have not read through all of the posts yet, but your response here is very good!! If materialists want to claim that consciousness is entirely physical, they will need to provide empirical evidence that shows how physical processes lead to subjective experiences.

However, I will say that not only do I see a relationship between the brain and mind, but like STT, I also see that the mind depends on the brain… So in that sense, the brain is primary. Unlike STT, I do not conclude from this that the mind is physical like the brain but rather that the mind is an emergent feature of the brain since emergence allows for something that stems from parts (the building blocks of the brain) while having some differences from those parts. I also hold this view of David Chalmers’ concept of ‘strong emergence’. Not only is the mind an emergent feature, it also exhibits causative powers when it is able to direct and/or control the structure/function of the brain. And there is scientific peer-reviewed/replicated evidence for my last claim!! STT already knows about this!

Thanks. Is that a kind of “Property Dualism” that David Chalmers is arguing for?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Thanks. Is that a kind of “Property Dualism” that David Chalmers is arguing for?

David Chalmers’s view is a type of property dualism but he calls it naturalistic dualism. Like me, he views the mind as being nonphysical but still dependent on the brain. In a paper entitled, [Weak and Strong Emergence](Strong and Weak Emergence ), he talks about consciousness being an emergent property and gets into downward causation towards the end. So the mind dependence and emergence from the brain I assume is what forms the “natural” basis as opposed to any supernatural involvement.

I adopt many of his views but I also went the extra mile to find scientific evidence to back it up, and this is evidence which I assume CHalmers did not know about when he was writing his book and papers on consciousness.

 

[IWantGod]

The Hard Problem of Consciousness | David Chalmers and Sam Harris Interview

youtube.com/watch?v=1bmHL1sbntw

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The Hard Problem of Consciousness | David Chalmers and Sam Harris Interview

youtube.com/watch?v=1bmHL1sbntw

Lol. I’ve already listened to that great interview! Sam Harris, an atheist, seemed to be sympathetic towards Chalmers’ position. Even if we take away “emergence” and downward causation (e.g. mental causation), then we’re still left with your point about how there’s no evidence showing how or why physical processes would cause awareness/subjective experiences (mental imagery, etc). All we have is correlation between something observable (the brain) and something that’s unobservable or INDIRECTLY observed (the mind/conscious experience) by scientists, at best.

 

[STT]

Respond candidly and we can go much faster, STT.

Ok, I try my best. Unfortunately I am thinking as the discussion evolves. That is why there is a gap in my response.

So, you say that consciousness is a physical state of awareness. It is obvious that we, human beings, are physical entities, and it is also true that “awareness” is one of our modes of being. From that point of view, at least for human beings, it would have some meaning (though not a philosophical meaning) that consciousness is a physical state.

Good.

However, in other thread that you know, you are saying that God is rational like us. If you do not conceive that God is a rational machine, then you would need to affirm that God is a corporeal being or you would need to abandon your opinion that consciousness is a physical state, in the rigorous sense.

Yes, I have problem with the notion of God as you describe.

Absolutely not! Not only it is not common sense, but it is even absurd.

So lets put facts together. (1) There exist matter and (2) Consciousness is a mode of matter and (3) Matter has motion. Where consciousness could come from?

Some examples will help here: Gold, silver, iron, copper, aluminum, cobalt, tungsten, and some other chemical elements are metals. I hope it is clear to you; but if you need something else, let me know.

I see. I am not sure if metal feels expansion when it is heated. I have no memory of past when I was a simple embryo because I was not capable of memorizing thing. But regardless we undergo an unconscious mode of matter when we are asleep deeply or when we are under anesthesia. That means that they might be unconscious.

As you have accepted previously, according to your doctrines every “conscious state” mode is an effect of a causal chain. Therefore, to be aware of a possibility A (always according to your doctrines) would be an effect of a causal chain A’. To be aware of a possibility B would be an effect of a causal chain B’. An so on. A decision making, which is also a “conscious state” mode would also be an effect of a causal chain. The resulting action from the conflict -so to say-, between the variety of causal chains would be the effect of the strongest chain, though perhaps nuanced by the other causal chains.

I make difference between physical activities and causal chain since a single physical process can lead to several causal chains (we experience options and they are all permissible). That is however true that what we observe in nature in most case indicates that they are equal (movement of cue ball, hitting another ball and movement of another ball).

My example is suitable, as you will see now: The fire in the forest is an effect of certain causal chain; while the storm is the effect of another causal chain. When they coincide in time and space, the result is the effect of the strongest causal chain, though nuanced by the other causal chains present.

Do you see?

I see what do you mean but I don’t understand how this is related to breaking a causal chain consciously.