Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Consul »

Mosesquine wrote: June 20th, 2018, 7:07 am We can easily understand the existence of physical things, but we don't understand the existence of mental things. Physical things are observable, extended ones in space-time points. How can we understand existing things that are not observable, extended ones in space-time points??? So,

1. Conscious phenomena exist.
2. Whatever exists is physical.
Therefore, 3. Conscious phenomena are physical.
Q.E.D.
Antimaterialists will simply reject 2 as question-begging.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Mosesquine »

Consul wrote: June 20th, 2018, 7:55 am
Mosesquine wrote: June 20th, 2018, 7:07 am We can easily understand the existence of physical things, but we don't understand the existence of mental things. Physical things are observable, extended ones in space-time points. How can we understand existing things that are not observable, extended ones in space-time points??? So,

1. Conscious phenomena exist.
2. Whatever exists is physical.
Therefore, 3. Conscious phenomena are physical.
Q.E.D.
Antimaterialists will simply reject 2 as question-begging.

...and no anti-materialist can reject premise 2 successfully.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Consul »

Mosesquine wrote: June 20th, 2018, 11:23 am...and no anti-materialist can reject premise 2 successfully.
Can you defend it successfully?
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Mosesquine wrote: June 20th, 2018, 7:07 am 2. Whatever exists is physical.
What has been asserted here? what does the word physical mean? When did it start meaning that? Why are we certain it will not continue to expand in meaning to encompass things no previously considered even possibly real?
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Inductively all examples of consciousness derive from physical phenomena, and as yet there have been NO examples of consciousness (or anything else) that derive from the non-physical.

So whatever the thread is about, it has not established anything to support the rather excessive claim of its title.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Mosesquine »

Consul wrote: June 20th, 2018, 11:27 am
Mosesquine wrote: June 20th, 2018, 11:23 am...and no anti-materialist can reject premise 2 successfully.
Can you defend it successfully?

A lot of physicists accept premise 2 above. It's a common sense. You can easily find physical objects around you. However, you can't find non-physical objects like souls, angels, gods, and the like.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Mosesquine »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: June 20th, 2018, 3:55 pm
Mosesquine wrote: June 20th, 2018, 7:07 am 2. Whatever exists is physical.
What has been asserted here? what does the word physical mean? When did it start meaning that? Why are we certain it will not continue to expand in meaning to encompass things no previously considered even possibly real?

Physicalism is roughly defined as the view that everything can be explained by physical terms. Tables are explained by physical terms, for example, like sizes, heights, colors, shapes, and so on. Even imaginary beings like unicorns, and Pegasus are explained by physical terms (e.g. horse-shape, animal-shape, such and such color, and so forth).
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

What if Consciousness is an abstraction, a pattern?

Does the number 42 exist? There are certain physical systems, such as 42 pennies on a table, in which the pattern we call the number 42 is discernible. Does that mean the number 42 exists?

What if Consciousness is a pattern which can be discerned in some physical systems and not others? Does that make it physical (or reducible to physical)?

*
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Mosesquine wrote: June 21st, 2018, 12:50 am
Karpel Tunnel wrote: June 20th, 2018, 3:55 pm What has been asserted here? what does the word physical mean? When did it start meaning that? Why are we certain it will not continue to expand in meaning to encompass things no previously considered even possibly real?

Physicalism is roughly defined as the view that everything can be explained by physical terms. Tables are explained by physical terms, for example, like sizes, heights, colors, shapes, and so on. Even imaginary beings like unicorns, and Pegasus are explained by physical terms (e.g. horse-shape, animal-shape, such and such color, and so forth).
Right, but there are physical things without sizes, colors, shapes, etc. There are massless particles. There are fields, particles in superposition, billions of neutrinos passing through us right now. The set of qualities that makes something physical has expanded. Anything that science decides is real, is considered physical. Which means, for example, that your statement that everything is physical is not falsifiable. Which is why I asked the various questions I asked. They were meant to probe at the problem with the word physical.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by chewybrian »

Mosesquine wrote: June 21st, 2018, 12:46 amA lot of physicists accept premise 2 above. It's a common sense. You can easily find physical objects around you. However, you can't find non-physical objects like souls, angels, gods, and the like.
You don't have to believe in souls or angels to believe you have a consciousness, or even a free will, as most people do. You can't fairly declare your position common sense while comparing theirs to fairy tales. It is, in fact common sense to believe one has a free will if this is the nature of every moment of waking experience as far back as memory allows.

Thoughts lead to murders or pyramids or Super Bowl titles or space ships and all kinds of other events and things beyond the scope of their existence. The thought has no noticeable weight or force to exert, so these results don't fit the rules of cause and effect. This area of thought, will, etc. is arguably outside the realm of laws which apply to material things, so we could fairly assume thoughts or consciousness are subject to different laws than rocks or Corvette Stingrays.

It's beyond our current scope to prove the answer in either direction, so it seems unfair at this point for either 'side' to dismiss the other. When you've worked out an experiment to prove your position to a satisfactory standard, then you could come to us with that level of certainty. In the meantime, it seems right to postpone judgment.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Tamminen »

There are those who say that everything we meet in the world can be described in physical language. But how about the meeting itself? We meet the meeting itself in others, because they meet the world in the same way as we meet the world. And we meet the meeting also in us as we reflect on ourselves. In fact the basic relation we have to the world is our meeting others through and by the physical world. The physical world has an instrumental role in this relation. This meeting cannot be described in physical language although it has correlations with physical events. And this can be said a priori if the basic structure of reality is such as I have described.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Gertie »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: June 21st, 2018, 4:10 am
Mosesquine wrote: June 21st, 2018, 12:50 am


Physicalism is roughly defined as the view that everything can be explained by physical terms. Tables are explained by physical terms, for example, like sizes, heights, colors, shapes, and so on. Even imaginary beings like unicorns, and Pegasus are explained by physical terms (e.g. horse-shape, animal-shape, such and such color, and so forth).
Right, but there are physical things without sizes, colors, shapes, etc. There are massless particles. There are fields, particles in superposition, billions of neutrinos passing through us right now. The set of qualities that makes something physical has expanded. Anything that science decides is real, is considered physical. Which means, for example, that your statement that everything is physical is not falsifiable. Which is why I asked the various questions I asked. They were meant to probe at the problem with the word physical.
Unfortunately I'm woefully ignorant about particle physics, and how it might blur lines. But the way I see it, the naming of categories and deciding what goes in them and what to put into a different box isn't that important, just a handy type of shorthand. If we want to label the Big Box with all the other boxes inside it 'Physical', as you say we need to explain 'Physical' and ask if the term then really carries any useful information.

There's also a risk that the act of categorising certain ways sends our thinking down the wrong track. For example, if we decide to call experiential states 'physical', then it might sway us in the direction of inferring that they must be reducible to material stuff. And this temptation is strengthened, I think, because we have a reliable scientific toolkit for understanding material stuff, but not for experiential states. Which might be akin to trying to fit a shapeless peg into a comfortably familiar round hole.


Anyway, to my mind there is a significant ontological difference between material stuff and the experiencing of said stuff, analogous in language to the difference between a noun (object) and verb (action). And they warrant different categories which reflect this. If we later discover that experiencing is reducible to material stuff in motion, then that will be an explanation relevant to the categories but I don't see how it would change their significant differences. But if we discover that material stuff and experiencing are the very same thing, then we'll need to re-think our categorisations. And probably our ideas about the fundamental nature of the universe.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Gertie »

JamesOfSeattle wrote: June 21st, 2018, 12:50 am What if Consciousness is an abstraction, a pattern?

Does the number 42 exist? There are certain physical systems, such as 42 pennies on a table, in which the pattern we call the number 42 is discernible. Does that mean the number 42 exists?

What if Consciousness is a pattern which can be discerned in some physical systems and not others? Does that make it physical (or reducible to physical)?

*
I don't see how that works, because experience is real, not an 'abstraction'.

It might be that certain patterns of physical interactions result in, or are, experience. But I don't see how calling real experience an abstract pattern makes sense?
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Gertie wrote: June 21st, 2018, 10:19 am If we want to label the Big Box with all the other boxes inside it 'Physical', as you say we need to explain 'Physical' and ask if the term then really carries any useful information.
right,we need a definition and then given the use of the term over time, why we should consider it falsifiable or restricted in any way. I think within science it should be changed to verifiable or has effects.
There's also a risk that the act of categorising certain ways sends our thinking down the wrong track. For example, if we decide to call experiential states 'physical', then it might sway us in the direction of inferring that they must be reducible to material stuff. And this temptation is strengthened, I think, because we have a reliable scientific toolkit for understanding material stuff, but not for experiential states. Which might be akin to trying to fit a shapeless peg into a comfortably familiar round hole.
I see no reason to call something physical when we don't know what it is. Even if, if, it is utterly dependent on matter, but we don't know what it is, we are getting ahead of ourselves to say it is matter.

Anyway, to my mind there is a significant ontological difference between material stuff and the experiencing of said stuff, analogous in language to the difference between a noun (object) and verb (action). And they warrant different categories which reflect this. If we later discover that experiencing is reducible to material stuff in motion, then that will be an explanation relevant to the categories but I don't see how it would change their significant differences. But if we discover that material stuff and experiencing are the very same thing, then we'll need to re-think our categorisations. And probably our ideas about the fundamental nature of the universe.
It seems to me it is not simply matter in motion. We have all sorts of ways to analyze that. Unless stones get conscious when they are thrown.
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

Gertie wrote: June 21st, 2018, 10:35 amI don't see how that works, because experience is real, not an 'abstraction'.

Consciousness is an abstraction in the same sense motion or digestion is an abstraction. It’s a way (a pattern) of describing what we see matter doing.
It might be that certain patterns of physical interactions result in, or are, experience.
This is exactly right. So the question is, what qualifies a particular process so that we call it an experience-type process and not a digestion-type process or a thrown-into-the-air-type process.

*
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021