Consciousness

[LNC]

How is it faith (belief without evidence) to claim that evolution, which has answered thousands of questions about the nature of biology, will answer even more questions about our biology in the future?

 

Your pathetic attempts to straw man our thoughts is noted but not particularly effective.

 

You have simply put forth a false definition of faith (a straw man argument) and then knocked it down. Faith is belief with evidence, but not direct phenomenal experience. You have no direct phenomenal experience that your claims will come true, just a hope that based upon your understanding of past events (if they are correct) will predict future outcomes. There is no guarantee of that outcome. Yours is a common misunderstanding of the concept of faith.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Is love material? Does it have physical properties? To point to all the material effects is not at all valid to say that those are love itself. They are manifestations of love.

 

Or if you wish, looking at it from a purely material point of view, love is an emergent, non-material reality rising out of the machine - but becoming its own thing, both affecting the material world and the material world interacting with it. In this sense it has become an objective reality, even though it is not something material.

 

But if we wish to say that love is made of matter because it requires our physical biology to create it, then we would need to keep going backward and say that our biology is not anything other than atoms, that "I" am not "I", but an illusion that is called "I" to define this specific collection of matter. But when was the last time we denied the legitimacy of "I", of our "being", our reality, because we can be reduced down to atoms?

 

We don't. That is not the reality of our experience, and why I feel that a philosophical reductionism is in fact not reflective of reality, is not consistent with our seemingly irrational nature in our interactions with these 'immaterial' realities everywhere around us.

 

The same way you measure things like gravity.

 

The problem with discussions like this is that it always comes back to the traditional Christian orthodox way of imagining the nature of spirit as separate from the world, that we are outside it, or it outside us. They imagine it 'in heaven', some supernatural reality and build their myth structures about it off that perspective. So that all arguments of reductionism against any said reality of the spiritual is geared towards disproving that notion, the dualistic, mythological idea.

 

But instead of looking at that aspect of the religious experience, the spiritual, and evolving it to deeper level, more consistent with our current level of knowledge, moving it above a defensive of a literal interpretation of the symbols of language used to express that immaterial reality, instead the cry 'no more myth!' takes the baby with that bathwater and ejects it in favor of replacing myth with only what can be "proven to exist", using the tools of science designed to measure the physical world.

 

There is great value in embracing what reason has shown us, but to me I come back to that "I" in there, that "soul", that immaterial 'being' inside the material machine.

 

Antlerman,

 

Overall, this is a good answer. I would suggest one additional test for the existence of an immaterial reality. If matter, space and time is past finite and is the effect of a cause, then it is reasonable and logical to infer that the cause is immaterial in nature. From what we know about the origin of the universe, it is most likely that it is past finite (according to research by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin), therefore, it is reasonable to infer an immaterial cause of the universe.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Hello again LNC and Happy New Year!

 

I appreciate that you've been busy, but I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to reply to the questions I put to you on Oct 5, in the 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' thread? On Oct 20 I repeated that posting and added a few other points that seemed relevant. Now, I'm aware that it's been your habit to answer questions in their chronological order (meaning that Han, Agnosticator, Phanta, et al, should precede me), but could you overlook that rule on this occasion, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Sorry, I got so far behind on that thread after I had to take a break that I wasn't sure if anyone was actually on it anymore. I have answered your post here. Let me know if that helps.

[LNC]

I'm trying to understand this free will/God thing. I'm really, really trying. I keep getting stuck.

 

If God is omniscient (can see into the future), and God is the Creator of all things, he created us and in that moment also saw what direction this creation would go in and why it, or parts of it, would go in one direction or another. Nothing created is not created by God, and nothing created by God is unpredictable by God. So, how are we possibly free? What is this thing that makes us free?

 

I suppose...I suppose what I'm asking is how do we make a choice? Can you describe, functionally, how our choices are made independent of God as a puppetmaster (not using Bible quotes, please...I know you don't usually do that, but I will only have a chance to understand this if you use regular language).

 

I don't get it. Do you think you understand what I am asking?

 

Thanks, LNC.

Phanta

That is a good question and one that often confuses people. First, to know the future is not necessarily to dictate the future. If I put out cookies in front of my kids and tell them that they are free to either eat or not eat them, I am pretty sure what they will choose even though I am not omniscient. I have not dictated or determined their choice, they have freely chosen. Now, that is an imperfect illustration in that I don't have true omniscience and they could, for many reasons, choose not to eat the cookies. In the case of God, he is omniscient and does know the choices that we will freely make, even though he does not dictate them. Yes, he has made us and our environment, but he has made us to make free choices in our lives.

 

How we make choices is a complicated discussion which would take more discussion than I think would work in this environment; however, I believe that it is tied to the questions that I asked in the OP regarding consciousness, knowledge, intentionality and perception. When all of these interact together we make free choices that are not necessarily determined by past events or physical matter.

 

I think we all experience what we perceive to be free choices and the question is whether these truly are free choices or merely determined choices and what impact that belief has upon the totality of our lives (knowledge, morality, scientific understanding, etc.).

 

LNC

[LNC]

Not to be short with you Antler as I do respect you, but....

 

YOU called me a reductionist, that is your word not mine. If others wish to rope me into the reductionist box because it makes me easier to dismiss then that is their choice and has nothing to do with me.

 

I have no problem with saying things like love or "the mind" are emergent properties, because emergent properties still emerge from matter, though are not exactly equal to matter.

 

LNC is not talking about emergent properties, and both of us know it, in fact people have discussed the concept of emergent properties with him and he has dismissed it.

 

He is arguing for something that exists completely SEPARATE from matter, not emergent FROM matter, and this is what my question referrers to.

I.E. A mind that is an emergent property to the brain no longer exists when the brain stops functioning, it does not go somewhere else as LNC believes.

 

I'd write more but I gotta get ready for work.

 

Can you show me where I dismissed emergentism? I don't know that I remember doing that. I am open to the concept if one can show me how it can be justified without becoming reductionistic itself. I don't know that I have seen anyone do that effectively. The best I think I have seen is that someone just asserts that property dualism isn't ultimately reductionistic, however, I guess I need more than someone just asserting the case rather than logically showing how it can be the case. So Kuroikaze, if you have an idea as to how that can be reconciled I would be open to consider it.

 

LNC

[Kuroikaze]

You have simply put forth a false definition of faith (a straw man argument) and then knocked it down. Faith is belief with evidence, but not direct phenomenal experience. You have no direct phenomenal experience that your claims will come true, just a hope that based upon your understanding of past events (if they are correct) will predict future outcomes. There is no guarantee of that outcome. Yours is a common misunderstanding of the concept of faith.

 

LNC

 

From dictionary.com

 

Faith:

 

belief that is not based on proof

 

From Websters:

 

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

 

 

Sorry but you do not get to redefine words because they are inconvenient to you. This is the most ridiculous attempt to redefine faith I have ever seen. Silly, because i have never seen ANYONE else attempt to define the word this way. I bet I could ask a 100 people at random and not get this definition from ANYONE. Indeed, I checked more than half a dozen dictionary websites and your definition does not appear in ANY of them.

 

What you describe, using past events to predict future outcomes, is not faith but empirical reasoning, and it is used by everyone everyday. Your definition of faith would render the word meaningless by virtue of it being common place. It would be like accusing me of breathing.

 

Me and my pesky "misunderstanding" of a word. That'll teach me to use the dictionary.

 

 

 

Give me a break, I have come to expect a better quality from you. Your apologetic is slipping. Did you think I can not use a dictionary?

[Kuroikaze]

Can you show me where I dismissed emergentism? I don't know that I remember doing that. I am open to the concept if one can show me how it can be justified without becoming reductionistic itself. I don't know that I have seen anyone do that effectively. The best I think I have seen is that someone just asserts that property dualism isn't ultimately reductionistic, however, I guess I need more than someone just asserting the case rather than logically showing how it can be the case. So Kuroikaze, if you have an idea as to how that can be reconciled I would be open to consider it.

 

LNC

 

Really you are open to it? since it does not support your theistic leanings, pardon me if I am skeptical.

 

I think I have already explained my take on deductively justifying ANY position on this topic.

 

How do I justify it? I do not think it is the problem you make it out to be in the first place. We see emergent properties everywhere, and I have seen no argument demonstrating that the mind CANNOT be emergent.

 

The truth is you are an apologist, it does not matter what explanation I offer you will just assert a problem which you cannot even demonstrate is really a problem.

 

 

The best I think I have seen is that someone just asserts that property dualism isn't ultimately reductionistic,

 

This depends on how you define reductionism.

 

And you seem to have a habit of defining words to suit your needs.

[LNC]

I wondered about this for a while when I saw the movie Contact, but after thinking for a short time it occurred to me that in every respect love is physical. It is as physical as appendicitis and seizures.

 

It requires a brain. A functioning brain. One capable of long term and short term memory. One with a functioning limbic system and hypothalamus. What we deem to be the effects of love are physiologic sequellae to mental cogitation - and we're back to consciousness, memory and the like. No brain, no thought, no love.

 

If you see the "concept" as "arising from the machine" but not part of the machine, then you have declared my computer to be sentient, or transcendental. Or something other than a machine. Conscious or not, existing within a subprogram of a subprogram of a subprogram, love is a function of the machine, not an independent entity.

 

Hate, anger, love, disgust, lust and hunger all depend on the brain. All have specific and definite evolutionary functions, and any brain without these abilities is less likely to facilitate the survival of the person.

 

We can "discuss" love as a separate concept, we can even reify it, but it remains first and foremost a function of the physical aparatus.

 

A heartbeat - one pump of blood - is a function of the heart. Calling the heartbeat an immaterial or non-material reality is semantics, not reality.

I'm not sure if you are married or in a significant relationship, but do you think your significant other would be satisfied if you told him/her that you had a chemical reaction to him/her instead of saying that you loved him/her? I seriously doubt that he/she would be emotionally moved by that statement. If all love is is a physiochemical response, then it really is not love as true love involves a free choice (as does hate). It is more than just a physiochemical reaction caused by the body and brain.

 

LNC

[LNC]

The questions:

1. How do you account for the existence of consciousness (if you accept the existence of such)?

2. How do you explain knowledge from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (knowledge being commonly described as justified true belief)?

3. How do you account for intentionality from a naturalist/physicalist perspective (intentionality being commonly described as the ofness or aboutness by which we interact with things in our world)?

4. Finally, do you believe that we direct apprehend or perceive objects in our world or do you believe that perception is mediated to us?

 

1. I don't care so much about philosophical discussions about the existence of conscious. For me it is quite obvious that I am aware of things. :-) I just want to make the robots that I built, aware of the same kind of things (their body, their environment, time, their own mind) as we are aware off;

2. The robots will acquire knowledge that is useful for them. It doesn't need to be necessarily elegant or true;

3. Intentionality involves choice, which at least involves disregarding the options that are not chosen, which involves prediction of the result of actions, which also involves preferences regarding those results. Even if preferences are pre-programmed, a robot is still able to become a better predictor of its actions, or to go for actions with more unpredictable results. In other words: by learning. Different robots can develop different personality styles with respect to making choices. What would you want additionally to that to call a robot intentional?;

4. The embodiment paradigm states that we learn objects by interacting with them, put them in our mouths, etc. To live is a life long learning process.

 

It seems that unless you understand the basis of consciousness you will never know whether you could ever cause a robot to become conscious. I wonder why you aren't more interested in the philosophical discussion of consciousness as it is at the foundation of understanding consciousness.

 

Unless robots can attain consciousness and intentionality, then knowledge will not obtain either. I think you may not understand the concept of knowledge, however, as knowledge is defined as justified true belief (i.e., it is true by definition); therefore, contra to what you said, knowledge must be true, otherwise it is not knowledge.

 

If you will look back at my original post you will realize that you have a mistaken idea of what intentionality is philosophically. Intentionality is the mental state that we have when we think of or about a perceived object. It doesn't involve decisions as you say, that is the more common usage of the term, but not the philosophical understanding. So, maybe you could restate your answer with this definition and let me know how you think it might apply to robots.

 

So, the question I have regarding your last answer is whether you believe that we (or a robot) can perceive an object as it is or whether it is mediated? I don't think I could determine from your answer which was the case and you didn't mention why either would be the case either.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

I'm not sure if you are married or in a significant relationship, but do you think your significant other would be satisfied if you told him/her that you had a chemical reaction to him/her instead of saying that you loved him/her? I seriously doubt that he/she would be emotionally moved by that statement. If all love is is a physiochemical response, then it really is not love as true love involves a free choice (as does hate). It is more than just a physiochemical reaction caused by the body and brain.

 

LNC

You don't know my wife.

 

I think she would be much more disturbed if I had a chemical deficiency (e.g. Alzheimer's disease) that left me unable to love her.

 

You can pretend the brain has nothing to do with love, and you can even think that you "love with all your heart", but love doesn't happen without a brain. And that's the bottom line.

 

You know, when you look at the parts of the brain, it does not inspire love, but it is the coordinated functioning the parts that makes us human. That is what gives us choice, and that is what handles other emotions including hate. One part wants to hate, another to love. How that is resolved is also physiological (based on brain functioning), but varies from individual to individual. Individual variations produce personality which develops with time and a result of connections and growth (literal and figurative).

 

Take away some connections and you wind up with antisocial personalities and serial killers.

[Ouroboros]

You can pretend the brain has nothing to do with love, and you can even think that you "love with all your heart", but love doesn't happen without a brain. And that's the bottom line.

 

You know, when you look at the parts of the brain, it does not inspire love, but it is the coordinated functioning the parts that makes us human. That is what gives us choice, and that is what handles other emotions including hate. One part wants to hate, another to love. How that is resolved is also physiological (based on brain functioning), but varies from individual to individual. Individual variations produce personality which develops with time and a result of connections and growth (literal and figurative).

I just got reminded of how ecstasy makes people very friendly and loving. The emotion of love can be induced, in other words. There are also some people with certain genetic disorders who show extreme love and trust, beyond what is normal. And it's more or less a fact that people fall in love more during spring because of the Sun-induced increase of chemicals in the brain.

 

Love as a chemical reaction, some articles:

 

http://www.howstuffworks.com/love.htm

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature2/index.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/love_02-13.html

[florduh]

Love as a chemical reaction, some articles:

What a romantic you are! It's more fun to imagine that love is a force independent of our brains and comes to work its magic on our hearts. Chemistry - bah!

 

I suppose you also think that God's handiwork of beautiful fall foliage with its gold and crimson displays is just dead leaves.

[Ouroboros]

Love as a chemical reaction, some articles:

What a romantic you are! It's more fun to imagine that love is a force independent of our brains and comes to work its magic on our hearts. Chemistry - bah!

 

I suppose you also think that God's handiwork of beautiful fall foliage with its gold and crimson displays is just dead leaves.

I chemical reaction you too!

 

But seriously, of course "love" is more than just chemicals. "Love" is a word. A word is a symbol. A symbol has been given meanings over the years by humans to a point where the complexity of explaining what the word really means is overwhelming and most likely incomplete. Love is about attraction, desire, decision, action, intent, and so on. So it's not enough to say that love is just a chemical reaction. Most marriages continues long after the first attraction waned off just because love in those situations becomes a decision and commitment rather than a feeling. So yes, love is more than just chemicals, but it's not supernatural.

[oddbird1963]

I just got reminded of how ecstasy makes people very friendly and loving. The emotion of love can be induced, in other words. There are also some people with certain genetic disorders who show extreme love and trust, beyond what is normal. And it's more or less a fact that people fall in love more during spring because of the Sun-induced increase of chemicals in the brain.

 

Love as a chemical reaction, some articles:

 

http://www.howstuffworks.com/love.htm

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature2/index.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/love_02-13.html

 

 

Isn't it a bitch how long cherished romantic, theological and philosophical notions about love are totally shredded by the ugly empirical facts of science?

 

It's even stranger how when one comes to accept the reality of the discoveries of science , all the negative, fearful, DREADFUL consequences of falsifying romantic and theological beliefs don't come true!

[Kuroikaze]

If all love is is a physiochemical response, then it really is not love as true love involves a free choice

 

Really now?

 

I think you may be conflating to issues by relying on the imprecise meaning of "free choice"

 

If, for instance, a person used drugs or manipulation to evoke a feeling of love from another person then we would well say that it was not "real" love. However, the fact that the emotion can be evoked in this manner at all is evidence of loves neurological basis.

 

In any case, I do no think that issue should be confused with the more general notion of free will you are referring too; I do not think the fact that love is rooted in neurology makes it any less real.

[Ouroboros]

I do not think the fact that love is rooted in neurology makes it any less real.

That's a good point. It would make it more real if it's founded on reality instead of imaginary "spirit" concepts.

[Ouroboros]

Isn't it a bitch how long cherished romantic, theological and philosophical notions about love are totally shredded by the ugly empirical facts of science?

Yes. Bad Science, bad, bad Science. Science, go in the corner of shame, right now!

 

It's even stranger how when one comes to accept the reality of the discoveries of science , all the negative, fearful, DREADFUL consequences of falsifying romantic and theological beliefs don't come true!

You mean we're not hit by a lightning from God when we deny him? Very true. And the hunger for deep-fried babies never came either. Maybe I'm not a True Atheist™?

 

 

 

[LNC]

If they can't be answered by "physical explanations", why haven't philosophers answered and proven them after all these centuries? Why haven't theists answered and proven them to everyone's satisfaction?

 

I think there is a biological basis of consciousness and hence a brain-based epistemology to go with it. We go to sleep and lose consciousness, yet regain it when we wake up. Neural behavior is responsible for this experience. "Consciousness requires the activity of specific neural substrates." (from A UNIVERSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS HOW MATTER BECOMES IMAGINATION by EDELMAN AND TONONI)

 

I don't know that your first question is relevant since neither side has been able to "prove" its side conclusively. It begs the question, what would prove this to everyone's satisfaction. I think you also make the mistake that it is only theists who hold a substance dualist position, which is not the case. Like many issues, I believe that it is a matter of what best explains the phenomena that we experience and I don't think that physicalism does that which is the reason that I asked the original questions; I want to find out if any physicalists here can explain these issues.

 

If consciousness is merely biological, then does a person survive over time, or is the person different from time-T to time-T'? If you believe the person is the same, then could you explain how that happens given physicalism? Also, if you believe physicalism explains all, could you apply it to the initial questions? Explain consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, and perception? The question is not whether the physical is involved with these phenomena, but whether they are completely explicable by the physical.

 

How can consciousness be separated from unconsciousness? How can philosophy or religion answer and prove this?

 

Consciousness is clearly a separate phenomenon from unconsciousness. I think you are confusing subconsciousness with unconsciousness. We have activities that operate on a subconscious level for which we are not always aware; however, clearly I know when I am conscious and don't know that I am unconscious, so there is a clear phenomenal difference. When you say prove, for what type of proof are you looking? What would satisfy you?

 

LNC

[Shyone]

If consciousness is merely biological, then does a person survive over time, or is the person different from time-T to time-T'? If you believe the person is the same, then could you explain how that happens given physicalism? Also, if you believe physicalism explains all, could you apply it to the initial questions? Explain consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, and perception? The question is not whether the physical is involved with these phenomena, but whether they are completely explicable by the physical.

 

LNC

This is an important part of consciousness, memory, and being.

 

We change, but we are the same. Atoms change, mollecules change, but the entity and experience persist. It's like a chain of people, and one is lost or replaced. It is still a chain of people.

 

With sufficient redundancy, neural systems maintain the connections even with innumerable changes to the smaller components. Information, however, is maintained and sometimes even restored via persistent connections.

 

Perhaps more difficult to explain is how the loss of such connections results in the loss of memories, then the self, and then consciousness. Well, difficult for the theist.

 

The phenomena are not only "explicable by the physical", but completely inexplicable without the physical. "Explicable" means "explainable" and that has been done. It will never be done to a theists satisfaction anymore than fossil history will ever convince a creationist of the fact of evolution. "But there are Gaps!"

 

The physical basis for behavior, emotion, logic, intention and memory are well documented, and physicians deal with damage to the integrity of the system every day. Every day.

 

What does the theist think about when discussing knowledge, intention, memory and perception? Do they think only of themselves? An ideal human being? Is there no attempt to include those who have lost these human abilities, the insane, or the severely mentally retarded?

 

How can people forget about these "exceptions" to the rule that humans have mental properties of this or that?

[florduh]

It will never be done to a theists satisfaction anymore than fossil history will ever convince a creationist of the fact of evolution. "But there are Gaps!"

Shyone, that reminds me of one of my pet peeves. I really have no respect for those Bible believers who can no longer deny the evidence of evolution, so they conclude that their god created everything but used evolution as his method. Such pussies!

 

There are always those who consider themselves to be "spiritual" in some classic or modern sense. To them, they can understand things like the fossil record, emotions, endorphins, consciousness, neurology, plate tectonics, meteorology, and everything science can prove to be natural occurrences and causes but they will always think there is somehow more to it than we can uncover with science. No matter what happens by explainable mechanisms, there is always an unseen magical force behind it all. Many people have a brain pattern that causes them to feel that they are a spiritual entity temporarily inhabiting a body which, to acknowledge undeniable scientific fact, they magically cause to do all the work of thinking, remembering and feeling. They truly think they exist independently of the body. The feeling that there is another invisible and undetectable half to all that we know to be reality is impossible to extinguish. It is faith. The claim that there are things we can't measure or even detect is impossible to prove wrong. People like us are missing out on the "other part" of reality that can only be hoped for, felt emotionally, or imagined - but never proven. I am doomed to seeing only half of what might be real (or not). I am wired to require evidence in order to believe that a thing is true or factual. I can't accept as evidence someone else' "revelation" or some aberration of my brain chemistry, such as a vision, vivid dream, an unreliable memory or "overwhelming feeling" that suffices for so many others.

 

The last time I suppressed my rational mind and went with feelings and emotion alone, I wound up in a Christian church. That's just one version of the invisible realm, and I have since discovered many other versions to be lacking as well. To me, the undetectable and imaginary amount to the same thing, a thing not worthy of consideration given the richness and diversity of real life.

[Antlerman]

Can you show me where I dismissed emergentism? I don't know that I remember doing that. I am open to the concept if one can show me how it can be justified without becoming reductionistic itself.

I'm curious about your highlighted statement above. Is that an open admission of not being open to something because it violates a priori beliefs?

 

Not to worry, I'm not arguing for reductionism in pointing that out. I'm just making an observation.

 

I don't know that I have seen anyone do that effectively. The best I think I have seen is that someone just asserts that property dualism isn't ultimately reductionistic, however, I guess I need more than someone just asserting the case rather than logically showing how it can be the case. So Kuroikaze, if you have an idea as to how that can be reconciled I would be open to consider it.

If I can demonstrate how it can avoid reductionism (or property dualism) will it make you happy? OK then... I'll be referencing mainly from the model created by the philosopher Ken Wilber citing many scientists within the fields of complexity theory. From Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (SES):

 

1. Let's start with the category of a Holon, that everything in the Universe is neither things nor processes, but holons: whole/parts. There is no individual in the strictest sense, but rather whole/parts. Nothing is fully independent, nor is everything a simple strand of a greater web where there is no "individuality". Rather each "individual" is a whole, not isolated from other wholes, but interlinked with them. Everything in the Universe from the atom to human societies fit within this understanding. Everything is interconnected, and wholes, or put another way, "fields within fields within fields within fields", all the way up and all the way down.

 

2. Each of these holons displays four-dimensional capacities: self-preservation; self-adaptation; self-transcendence; and self-dissolution

 

3. New holons emerge. Due to this capacity of self-transcendence of holons, new holons emerge.

 

"The emergent holons are in some sense novel; they possess properties and qualities that cannot be strictly and totally deduced from their components; and therefore they, and their descriptions, cannot be reduced without remainder to their component parts"

 

Wiber, SES pg 54

 

4. Holons emerge holarchically, that is a series of increasing whole/parts. "Organisms contains cells, but not vice versa; molecules contain atoms, but not vice versa". Wilber (SEC pgs 56-59):

 

"And it is that

not vice versa

stage, that constitutes unavoidable asymmetry and nested hierarchy (holarchy). Each deeper and higher holon embraces its junior predecessors and then

adds

its own new and more encompassing pattern or wholeness - the new code or cannon or morphic field or agency that will define this as a whole and not merely a heap (as Aristotle clearly spotted). This is Whitehead's famous dictum: "The many become one and are increased by one."

 

It is in this hierarchy of levels that both reductionism and 'wholism" is answered. Wilber again:

 

"Virtually all deep ecologists and ecofeminists reject the notion of holarchy, for rather confused reasons, it seems to me. From what I can tell, they seem to think that hierarchy and atomism are "bad," and that their "wholism" is the opposite of both. But no less that the patron saint of deep ecology, Arne Naess, clearly points out that "wholism" and "atomism" are actually two sides of the same problem, and that the cure for both is hierarchy. All reality, he points out, consists of what he calls "subordinate wholes" or "subordinate gestalts" - that is, holons. "We have therefore," he says, "a complex realm of gestalts, in a vast hierarchy. We can therefore speak of lower - and higher - order gestalts.'"

 

He then quotes from Jantsch,

 

"Evolution [appears] as a multilevel reality in which the evolutionary chain of autopoietic levels of existence appear in hierarchic order. Each level includes all lower levels - there are systems within systems within systems... within the total system in question. However, it is essential that this hierarchy is not a control hierarchy in which information streams upward and orders are handed from the top down. Each level maintains a certain [relative] autonomy and lives its proper existence in horizontal relations [heterachy] with its specific environment. [For example:] The organelles within our cells go about their business of energy exchange in an autonomous way and maintain their horizontal relationships within the framework of the world-wide Gaia system."

 

 

5. Each emergent holon transcends but includes its predecessor(s).

 

6. The lower sets the possibility of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower. "It cannot be reduced to the lower level; it cannot be determined by the lower level; but neither can it ignore the lower level." pg. 61

 

7. The number of levels which a hierarchy comprises determines whether it is 'shallow' or 'deep'; and the number of holons on any given level we shall call its 'span' (pg. 64)

 

8. "Each successive level of evolution produces GREATER depth and LESS span." pg 64-68

 

Injecting some thoughts from this point:

 

 

• "The greater the depth of a holon, the greater its degree of consciousness.
   
  
• We must distinguish between depth and span - to fail to do so reintroduces subtle reductionism - all depth is erased"
   
  
• "Holons translate their reality according to the patterns of their agency... In transformation, however, new forms of agency emerge and this means a whole new world of available stimuli."
   
  
• "Translation shuffles parts; transformation produces wholes."
   
  
• "The point, then, is that evolution is first and foremost a series of transformations ("self-realization through self-transcendence")."
  

 

9. Destroy any type of holon, and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it.

 

Examples would be if you destroyed all biological life, atoms would continue to exist. If you destroyed all atoms, all forms above in the hierarchy would cease to exist.

 

10. Holarchies coevolve. (pg 71)

 

"The "unit" of evolution is not an isolated holon but a holon plus its inseparable environment. Evolution, that is, is ecological in the broadest sense."

 

"Jantesh refers to this as the interdependence of microevolution and macroevolution"

 

11. The micro is relational exchange with the macro at all levels of its depth. (pg 73)

 

Examples of this would be humans at 3 levels: matter, life, mind: physical body exists in a system of relational exchange with gravity, light, water, etc we reproduce through food production and consumption, etc; we reproduce through emotional-sexual relations organized in a family and social environment; we reproduce mentally through exchanges with cultural and symbolic environments.

 

12. Evolution has directionality (pg 74)

 

A) Increasing complexity

B ) Increasing differentiation/integration

C) Increasing organization/structuration

D) Increasing relative autonomy

E) Increasing telos: "The regime, canon, code, or deep structure of a holarchy acts as a magnet, an attractor, a miniature omega point , for the actualization of that holon in space and time."

 

 

 

Now there's considerable depth to uncover in each of those high points, let alone exploring the implications of this. Believe me when I say it ties into this topic about consciousness. But the main point of this post is to show that in fact there are those who very much take emergence as something that reductionism cannot and does not adequately address. Here's your example, at some labor to produce for you, I'll add.

[Ouroboros]

Holons = Turtles.

 

 

(It was the holons all the way down, and holons all the way up that got me see the correlation.)

[agnosticator]

I don't know that your first question is relevant since neither side has been able to "prove" its side conclusively.

 

 

You stated "it cannot be answered by physical explanations". This implies that you have the answer which excludes a physical explanation.

 

 

I think you also make the mistake that it is only theists who hold a substance dualist position, which is not the case.

 

 

I didn't say that. I realize non-theists hold that position too. I was asking why theists think they know the answer rather than admitting their ignorance with the rest of us. If consciousness is an "immaterial" or "ghost" mind that is able to become totally separate from the brain, then where are all those floating minds?

 

 

 

 

If consciousness is merely biological, then does a person survive over time, or is the person different from time-T to time-T'? If you believe the person is the same, then could you explain how that happens given physicalism?

 

See Shyone's post #148, since I could not say it better or more accurately.

 

 

Also, if you believe physicalism explains all, could you apply it to the initial questions? Explain consciousness, knowledge, intentionality, and perception? The question is not whether the physical is involved with these phenomena, but whether they are completely explicable by the physical.

 

 

Am I a friggin' philosopher? I have much more to read about these philosophical questions, but I'll say this:

 

What exists apart from the physical brain, with it's neurobiology? Where and what is the distinct and nonphysical part of the brain that dualists believe to be consciousness? We know how consciousness can be altered and damaged. If it is nonphysical, how could it be altered? How could it be changed? If the dualist believes the physical changes it, how can consciousness be an "immaterial ghost-mind"?

 

Consciousness is not a "thing", just as sight, taste, smell, and hearing are not. I think the nonphysical/physical way of looking at the brain is a mistake and will not solve anything. The mind is so intertwined with and dependent upon the brain's physical electrochemical activity...that explaining the subjective experience of consciousness as being responsible for its' own existence apart from the brain is a fantasy.

 

 

 

Consciousness is clearly a separate phenomenon from unconsciousness. I think you are confusing subconsciousness with unconsciousness. We have activities that operate on a subconscious level for which we are not always aware;

 

I should have said "unconscious processes" rather than "unconsciousNESS". Conscious and unconscious processes can't be separated. That is what I pointed out in the other post. This says that consciousness is not a "thing" that can be separated from the brain, just as unconscious processes aren't separate from conscious processes. I'm not meaning they aren't "separate phenomenon", but that they are physically communicating and inseparable. There is no consciousness without unconscious processes.

[Shyone]

It will never be done to a theists satisfaction anymore than fossil history will ever convince a creationist of the fact of evolution. "But there are Gaps!"

Shyone, that reminds me of one of my pet peeves. I really have no respect for those Bible believers who can no longer deny the evidence of evolution, so they conclude that their god created everything but used evolution as his method. Such pussies!

 

There are always those who consider themselves to be "spiritual" in some classic or modern sense. To them, they can understand things like the fossil record, emotions, endorphins, consciousness, neurology, plate tectonics, meteorology, and everything science can prove to be natural occurrences and causes but they will always think there is somehow more to it than we can uncover with science. No matter what happens by explainable mechanisms, there is always an unseen magical force behind it all. Many people have a brain pattern that causes them to feel that they are a spiritual entity temporarily inhabiting a body which, to acknowledge undeniable scientific fact, they magically cause to do all the work of thinking, remembering and feeling. They truly think they exist independently of the body. The feeling that there is another invisible and undetectable half to all that we know to be reality is impossible to extinguish. It is faith. The claim that there are things we can't measure or even detect is impossible to prove wrong. People like us are missing out on the "other part" of reality that can only be hoped for, felt emotionally, or imagined - but never proven. I am doomed to seeing only half of what might be real (or not). I am wired to require evidence in order to believe that a thing is true or factual. I can't accept as evidence someone else' "revelation" or some aberration of my brain chemistry, such as a vision, vivid dream, an unreliable memory or "overwhelming feeling" that suffices for so many others.

 

The last time I suppressed my rational mind and went with feelings and emotion alone, I wound up in a Christian church. That's just one version of the invisible realm, and I have since discovered many other versions to be lacking as well. To me, the undetectable and imaginary amount to the same thing, a thing not worthy of consideration given the richness and diversity of real life.

Holy Shit! I've found my spiritual brother!

 

You have spoken what has been creeping around in my mind unexpressed (and I thought unexpressible). Thank you.

[Shyone]

12. Evolution has directionality (pg 74)

 

A) Increasing complexity

B ) Increasing differentiation/integration

C) Increasing organization/structuration

D) Increasing relative autonomy

E) Increasing telos: "The regime, canon, code, or deep structure of a holarchy acts as a magnet, an attractor, a miniature omega point , for the actualization of that holon in space and time."

 

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but a lot of it is "semantics." Not that "semantics" is a bad thing; but it does not necessarily have any practical application.

 

But I do think that #12 may be incorrect. Not all of the time, but as a principle. There is no requirement for evolution to be directional. Sometimes creatures evolve into "lesser" species - subject to ones definition of lesser.

 

IOW, some creatures have evolved to fit niches that are so narrow that they will be eliminated by the slightest environmental changes. Koala bears that only eat eucalyptus, for example. Whales are the descendants of creatures that crawled from the sea onto the land - and then crawled right back into the sea. Directional?

 

Other critters may be the descendants of bigger, more powerful critters, or smarter critters, or faster critters. Evolution does not necessarily have direction, but we see direction in most evolutionary changes because "features" that promote survival tend to be "better" that what preceded them.

 

Unfortunately for many creatures, their evolution may have lead them down to the road to extinction. Remember that the Dodo bird evolved - from something else.

 

You might argue that extinction is part of evolution, and that the creatures that go extinct "deserved it" (leaving us "More advanced creatures"), but that fails to account for the fact that some creatures "evolve" into more primative or less capable creatures to fit a particular niche.

 

This is one of the features of evolution that I found to be most interesting - that progress is not inevitable, and neither are we.