Do physical fields imply panpsychism?

[Rr6]

r6--Humans appear to make a decision because of this or that event. I believe there exists no true decision making. Rather there exists only cause, effect and resultants

Consciousness exist in many degrees. All are resultant of cause and effect. Free will is an illusion. At best we can say, that, we have limited free will ex, as R. B Fuller states, approximately, no amount of will can pull some planes out of downward spiral to Earth.

r6

Agency or agent for existence of time stems from positive shaped gravity and negative shaped dark energy. imho
Time is temporal i.e. stems from temporal lobes ergo sensations or experience ergo experience of time ergo physical/reality is time{ time }.
Time is frequency ergo the sine-wave pattern is the best symbol for time{ ^v }. imho.
Resultant of experience is our access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.
R. B Fuller stated it approximately like this, God created mind accessing creatures to see if they could exist without destroying the integrity of Universe.
Putting aside what a field may, or may not be, we are left with the individual quanta{ particle }.
The minimal particle would be the graviton{ gravity }, or the darkiton{ dark energy }.
Since mass-attractive gravity has not distance limits and interact with any particle of Universe, then we can say Universe is truly one, because all particles are connected by gravity( gravitons }.
I believe any two particles along with their line of relationship, and background are a degree of consciousness. I do not think they make decisions. So one of the questions becomes, why would they have a change of direction of their trajectory.
Is it something to do with their spin. Is it something to do with another particles spin. Can the graviton or some other particles be composed of other parts, that, cannot be considered as individual parts. Ex we only observe three quarks, however, we do have two quark mesons, that exist briefly.
I believe these are questions regarding space-time--- that gravity is property of ---that Ive had in mind for some 20 years now.
So, getting back to the concept of field. Here also, I would want explore what are the fields of the minimal properties of space-time ergo gravity and I speculate that dark energy is also a property of space-time. I go further in making this clearly by treating space-time as space-time-space.
I.e. if we want to understand the fundamentals of consciousness or panpsychism, then we need to understand the mechanisms of space-time-space. I have some ideas expressed geometrically ergo visual understanding of space-time-space mechanisms.
r6

[Mgrinder]

Question: Is consciousness necessary for choices to be made? More specifically, can a physical system have the appearance of choice without actually being conscious and perceiving information or states?

In this theory (that nature has to calculate): no, a system can have the appearance of a choice, but is not actually making a choice. Computers (as they are built today) would not be conscious in this theory.

Basically, the central hypothesis of this theory (which was the origin of this OP) is that every time a particle changes state, nature must calculate what to do next, and this calculation involves a qualia (a moment of conscioisness). HOwever, self aware processes, ones that access memories, ones that access information from outside of an organism, these would only happen in living cells, computers would have to be built differently in order to do the same thing.

Another question: Can a bit (or rather, a single transistor) make "decisions"? Is a transistor not - as the the fundamental piece of information processing in an electronic computer - nothing but a switch which flips on or off so as to allow less or more electric current?

AS i say in my essay:

Can Computers be Conscious in this Theory?

Can a computer be conscious? In this theory, it would depend on how the computer works.

Though every particle interaction involves some sort of moment of consciousness, would there be the sort of consciousness we experience occurring in a computer?

If the “key interaction” scenario is true, it would seem that the answer is no. A computer works by shuffling electrons (and “electron holes”) around circuits. Currents go through various pathways, and, as a result, run programs. There is no one moment when an electron encounters a complex field that represents the memory of the computer and the situation it is in, and a sense of self and thus makes a calculation that involves qualia like we experience. It is just shuffling and more shuffling. Though the computer stores information, qualia would not occur against the backdrop of memories as it does in an organism. Thus the moments of consciousness within a computer are nothing to speak of, they are not like the ones that occur in cells, they are like the ones that occur in rocks. They are a “step by step” procedure, not an “all at once” evaluation that is made when a molecule changes state. They are probably like experiencing black, then grey, then black, over and over. This seems true even if a computer is used to calculate the actions and speech of a robot made to interact and fool humans into thinking the robot is alive. A computer that passes the Turing test is not conscious in this theory. The ability to fool people into thinking you are a moose by wearing a moose costume does not make you a moose. The ability of a computer to fool people into thinking the computer is a living, thinking, thing, does not make the computer a living, thinking, thing.

If computers were built differently, more like a cell, with molecules doing the calculations in an “all at once” fashion, then they would be conscious like us.

[Bohm2]

I think this guy's arguments are somewhat in line with yours:

The idea that there are ‘laws of nature’ is a widespread scientific opinion. On the one hand, I argue that this idea has the crucial function to explain the obvious similarities of physical processes. On the other hand, I show that this idea can be replaced by the hypothesis supporting that a minimal consciousness immanent to matter governs its processes. This latter hypothesis may seem surprising, but compared to that of laws, it is more empirical in the sense that it is inspired by our conscious experience, in particular our experience of automatic actions. And it is deflationist, because it allows us to reject the existence of laws, which must be considered as Platonic forms. This hypothesis has been supported by Peirce and Bergson. In this paper, I try to clarify and complete their views, and to draw the consequences for the study of consciousness.

Laws of nature or panpsychism?
https://www.academia.edu/31261016/Laws_ ... _n_24_2017_

[Mgrinder]

I think this guy's arguments are somewhat in line with yours:

The idea that there are ‘laws of nature’ is a widespread scientific opinion. On the one hand, I argue that this idea has the crucial function to explain the obvious similarities of physical processes. On the other hand, I show that this idea can be replaced by the hypothesis supporting that a minimal consciousness immanent to matter governs its processes. This latter hypothesis may seem surprising, but compared to that of laws, it is more empirical in the sense that it is inspired by our conscious experience, in particular our experience of automatic actions. And it is deflationist, because it allows us to reject the existence of laws, which must be considered as Platonic forms. This hypothesis has been supported by Peirce and Bergson. In this paper, I try to clarify and complete their views, and to draw the consequences for the study of consciousness.

Laws of nature or panpsychism?
https://www.academia.edu/31261016/Laws_ ... _n_24_2017_

I think his views do agree with mine, somewhat. Thank you. Nice of you to think of me. To bad I can't read it all without spending ridiculous sums of money.

Physical laws are just rules. Rules exist, surely, but what sort of existence can you give them? Not the sort of existence that mass has, I don't think. Further, rules, like the rules of chess, have a reason for their existence, they depend on other things. Chess rules depend on the board and the goals of the people playing chess to win in a fair manner. Do the rules of chess determine chess, or does chess determine the rules?

Similarly, do physical laws exist without something behind them, making mathematical regularities observable to us? I doubt it. What is this something like? Is it a calculation mechanism?

A recent thought I had, is all this physicist talk these days about quantum information, debates about whether a black hole can destroy information or not. IF information is the fundamental bedrock of reality, as many theorists seem to say, does anything use this information? Does anything calculate with it? If so, then I'm in good company...

[-1-]

If this is true,and it is true, since modern physics is based on fields, then it seems a central idea of physics is that the information available to a particle determines what a particle will do.

It seems to me that particles or other bodies behave in fields because of the forces that act on them, not because the fields represent information upon which the particle or other body makes an intelligent, informed decision.

I believe my version, notwithstanding the fact that your version, Mgrinder, is also physically and metaphysically admissible.

I believe my version more, because it is easier to reconcile with my weltanschauung, than your version. There is no other reason for me to believe this way.

Both ways are possible and validly thought about.

[Fcacciola]

Hi Mgrinder.

At first I really wanted to read the entire thread, but is going to take me weeks, so in the end I just glossed over, and here I am.

In terms of the general ideas, your are not alone, nor are you the first to think along these lines (that might be good or bad for you, I don't know

(A)

In the field of contemporary physics, a few years ago the following was published:

(1)

"Reality Begins with Consciousness", by Neppe and Close.

[I can't post links until I'm out of this trial member thing, which at the given rate is going to take seven centuries]

Here, the authors claim that there exist a class of entities, a "consciousness particle", called "gimmel", such that every physical fundamental particle, say an electron, is explicitly linked to a number (an rather large, BTW, for an electron for instance, something like 100 or so IIRC), of "gimmel", which confers the fundamental particle (say an electron) a primitive consciousness. Most certainly, in this recently published theory, particles do effectively decide what to do (albeit "driven" by their associated gimmel)

(2)

In another recent publication titled

"The Possibilist Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", by Ruth Kastner.

The author states that fundamental particles *effectively* talk to each other (by means of "offer and confirmation waves") and that the result of such a communication is a "transaction" which "realizes" into the observed QM phenomena. Here, these particles absolutely make decisions. Not even that, they communicate in order to do so.


(B)

Outside science, there are "contemporary" belief systems (meaning from 19 or 20th century) that also propose that all of nature is ultimately made of "fundamental conscious entities".

In particular

(1)

Theosophy includes a description of the structure of matter, from 1908, which also describes the "conscious counterpart of sub atomic particles", in which again, gives these particles (and atoms and so for) decision making abilities.
Google for "Occult Chemistry"

(2)

A certain spiritualist belief system founded and developed in Argentina from 1917, branched off (but not currently the same) from Kardecian spiritism, also proposes that matter is actually made of "spirit fragments, or particles" which *can and in fact do* interact with all other form of spirit entities. This, on the one hand, gives physical particles free-will (the basis of your idea) and also on the other hand, explains how something "immaterial" like a soul gets to interact (drive, for instance) a biological body.
(the propositions in this belief system are actually *a lot* similar to the scientific theory presented in "Reality Begins with Consciousness")


Having said all that, in the fine details I would consider a slightly different model. But I'll get there if I ever finish the post I'm writing on the topic (which will go to *another* forum, not here, as this Trial Member thing ruins the "debate momentum", if you know what I mean, and it totally drove me off)

[Mgrinder]

If this is true,and it is true, since modern physics is based on fields, then it seems a central idea of physics is that the information available to a particle determines what a particle will do.

It seems to me that particles or other bodies behave in fields because of the forces that act on them, not because the fields represent information upon which the particle or other body makes an intelligent, informed decision.

I believe my version, notwithstanding the fact that your version, Mgrinder, is also physically and metaphysically admissible.

I believe my version more, because it is easier to reconcile with my weltanschauung, than your version. There is no other reason for me to believe this way.

Both ways are possible and validly thought about.

I'm sorry, I think I am missing something. What is your version? You are not the person who wrote the quoted article, are you?

-- Updated Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:40 pm to add the following --

Hi Mgrinder.

At first I really wanted to read the entire thread, but is going to take me weeks, so in the end I just glossed over, and here I am.

In terms of the general ideas, your are not alone, nor are you the first to think along these lines (that might be good or bad for you, I don't know

(A)

In the field of contemporary physics, a few years ago the following was published:

(1)

"Reality Begins with Consciousness", by Neppe and Close.

[I can't post links until I'm out of this trial member thing, which at the given rate is going to take seven centuries]

Here, the authors claim that there exist a class of entities, a "consciousness particle", called "gimmel", such that every physical fundamental particle, say an electron, is explicitly linked to a number (an rather large, BTW, for an electron for instance, something like 100 or so IIRC), of "gimmel", which confers the fundamental particle (say an electron) a primitive consciousness. Most certainly, in this recently published theory, particles do effectively decide what to do (albeit "driven" by their associated gimmel)

(2)

In another recent publication titled

"The Possibilist Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", by Ruth Kastner.

The author states that fundamental particles *effectively* talk to each other (by means of "offer and confirmation waves") and that the result of such a communication is a "transaction" which "realizes" into the observed QM phenomena. Here, these particles absolutely make decisions. Not even that, they communicate in order to do so.


(B)

Outside science, there are "contemporary" belief systems (meaning from 19 or 20th century) that also propose that all of nature is ultimately made of "fundamental conscious entities".

In particular

(1)

Theosophy includes a description of the structure of matter, from 1908, which also describes the "conscious counterpart of sub atomic particles", in which again, gives these particles (and atoms and so for) decision making abilities.
Google for "Occult Chemistry"

(2)

A certain spiritualist belief system founded and developed in Argentina from 1917, branched off (but not currently the same) from Kardecian spiritism, also proposes that matter is actually made of "spirit fragments, or particles" which *can and in fact do* interact with all other form of spirit entities. This, on the one hand, gives physical particles free-will (the basis of your idea) and also on the other hand, explains how something "immaterial" like a soul gets to interact (drive, for instance) a biological body.
(the propositions in this belief system are actually *a lot* similar to the scientific theory presented in "Reality Begins with Consciousness")


Having said all that, in the fine details I would consider a slightly different model. But I'll get there if I ever finish the post I'm writing on the topic (which will go to *another* forum, not here, as this Trial Member thing ruins the "debate momentum", if you know what I mean, and it totally drove me off)

Well, that's interesting, thanks. Do you think these other theories you mention are compatible with physics? that's important. Plus, what is the role of consciousness in these theories? what does it do? If it does soemthing over and beyond what physics predicts, then we cannot accept it, I think.

-- Updated Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:43 pm to add the following --

Having said all that, in the fine details I would consider a slightly different model. But I'll get there if I ever finish the post I'm writing on the topic (which will go to *another* forum, not here, as this Trial Member thing ruins the "debate momentum", if you know what I mean, and it totally drove me off)

Yes, I have complained about it to Scott, but he refused to change it. I think your trial membership is over after 20 posts. If you like, you could post a few times here on purpose (or in any of my created posts, and I will "aprove" them, and then yo'll quickly get over 20.

[Steve3007]

I've has a quick read of the OP and the first few replies in this topic. After initial scepticism I like the general idea of attempting to include the idea of consciousness in theories of physics. The usual discussion is about whether our mental processes - the things that we refer to as consciousness - could in principle be described by laws of physics (even if they never could be in practice). This is the kind of topic that approaches that problem from the other direction.

But, for me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The purpose of the laws of physics (the "eating"), such as the laws of quantum mechanics that describe the behaviours and interactions of elementary particles, is to describe and predict observations. If we are going to postulate that the concept of consciousness should be applied to an electron then it should yield a prediction of the behaviour of that electron that is not yielded by any other means and which is subsequently confirmed by observation. For me, the question of whether such a postulate tells us something deep about the nature of reality does not really mean much. Laws of physics describe and predict.

[-1-]

Having said all that, in the fine details I would consider a slightly different model. But I'll get there if I ever finish the post I'm writing on the topic (which will go to *another* forum, not here, as this Trial Member thing ruins the "debate momentum", if you know what I mean, and it totally drove me off)

Yes, the trial membership thing is hugely inadequate for retaining new members. I had to bribe a moderator to approve my posts. Not by paying the moderator, but by placing relevant, important posts, which were easy to read, to digest, and yet they made deep sense and provoked further inquiry.

Sometimes a body just has to humble himself to get through hurdles in life, such as "trial membership" and "getting his posts approved".

-- Updated 2017 February 21st, 8:52 am to add the following --

I'm sorry, I think I am missing something. What is your version? You are not the person who wrote the quoted article, are you?

I wrote no article. Not the quoted one you refer to, anyhow. My version is simply this:

"It seems to me that particles or other bodies behave in fields because of the forces that act on them, not because the fields represent information upon which the particle or other body makes an intelligent, informed decision."

That's all.

[Fcacciola]

Well, that's interesting, thanks. Do you think these other theories you mention are compatible with physics? that's important. Plus, what is the role of consciousness in these theories? what does it do? If it does soemthing over and beyond what physics predicts, then we cannot accept it, I think.

(A.1) and (A.2) are strictly physical theories, so they are entirely compatible with mainstream physics.
(A.2) in particular is what is called an "interpretation of QM", just like the so-called "Copenhagen interpretation" (wave collapse and so on), and along many many others (Many Worlds, Pilot Wave, etc...)
[as a side note, it is fundamental to know that the often cited wave function collapse and the superposition of quantum states is *not* really part of QM itself but just part of one particular interpretation, which is a set of ideas that state how the QM formalism (i.e. math) matches actual reality.]

I can tell you that in these two physical theories, consciousness is explicitly a fundamental property of the very building blocks on the fabric of the universe. I get that from direct conversations with the respective authors.
I know in there, the building blocks would be some form of "free-will agents" with some form of cognition to process information and choose actions accordingly, and a permanent qualia (I said permanent because in your own theory, qualia is, or seemed to me to be, something that comes in and out)
Then in each theory, consciousness is given some additional characteristics, but that is well out of the scope of this thread (and, honestly, I still need to finish reading and processing them myself, so I couldn't tell you either)

Regarding (B.1), Theosophy was (and still is AFAICT) intended to be compatible with Western Science (as of 1900), but it draws most of its core ideas from Eastern philosophies (such as Vedanta and Buddhism), so, is a bit blurred I think to which extent the compatibility extends. I found their notion of consciousness to be similar in nature to that of Buddhism: that is a panphycist view in which a certain form of universal consciousness permeates everything and everywhere, with individuality (or ego) being more of an epiphenomena than a concrete property of actual monadic entities.


As for (B.2), well, this is my own personal belief system (personal in that I adopted and adapted it, not in that I invented it). So here I can elaborate as much as I need. But, as I mentioned in another thread, I always try to keep references to a belief system as little and short as possible, so I'll try to do that. Below is a summary as short and to the point as I can write it, and is only so I can answer your question:

(a) the physical universe is considered to be subset of a larger universe (which I call a Parauniverse).

(b) the Parauniverse is a set of of finite entities called Spirits (and I don't like that word due to its overloaded meaning, but I have to stick to it). Spirits are the fundamental units of consciousness. They are individual, autonomous, free-will agents possessing cognition, volition, affection and motivation.

(c) the Parauniverse also contains a sort of Primordial Source, named God. God did create something, but it was only the finite set of spirits. The physical universe is not his creation (even though it can and should be said that in anything that happens, from the creation and evolution of the universe to our everyday actions, God's guide is always reaching out as far and deep as "the free-will agents" (I don't like to say spirits) would listen)

(d) and, the Parauniverse contains a fundamental fluid [I would actually call it a Field, but I'm still sticking to the original term until I can figure out what this is supposed to be]. This fluid or field is a vibrating medium by which spirits can communicate (they emit and receive vibrations) (I have absolutely no idea what this vibrations are supposed to be, except that they are NOT EM but something more fundamental). Also, spirits "occupy" a certain volume of fluid (not sure what this is really supposed to mean, and might refer to the extent to which a "point" spirit can exert his will into the fluid, or some such)

(e) The Physical Universe came about after a (really large) period of time in which there was only the Parauniverse, populated with the finite number of spirits.

(f) For reasons that go well beyond the scope of this thread, a large subset of the spirits begin to recursively tear apart and become spirit fractions. In ways that I do not yet understand, or can even picture, a spirit fraction is proportionally conscious. That is, its cognition, volition, affection and motivation (hence his degree of free-will) is proportional to the relative "volume" of the fraction. The vibrational state or rate also diminished in proportion (but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean and as I have no idea what spirits are supposed to vibrate)

(f.1) This continued until the fragmentation reached a certain lower-limit (related not so much to the relative volume but the diminished vibrational state), and at the edge of this limit, the Physical Universe emerged.

(g) The elements of the physical universe (today we would say the set of Fermions) directly are (or is directly generate by) the spirit fractions that dropped below the vibrational limit mentioned in (f.1)

(h) After the Big Bang, the whole of reality would be the Parauniverse, populated by both whole and fractional spirits (of many different proportions), and the enclosed (physical) Universe being the subset of fractional spirits at the edge of the vibrational fragmentation threshold.

(i) At least since the Big Bang (but probably even way before), Evolution started, and one the the main vehicles of evolution is the formation of complex systems. That is, the zillions of spirit particles (spirits fragmented down to the very limit) started to aggregate and try to form "proportionally larger pseudo-units", that is, trying to extend their diminished degree of consciousness (not in the same way a single unit whole spirit has a larger consciousness, but in the way the collective consciousness of the complex allows them to reach out farther and deeper, sort of like we humans do in a team)

(j) Since the Big Bang, spiritual particles (now being physical particles) aggregated, to form complex systems as the vehicle for evolution, not only with each other but also with non-physical spiritual fragments (non-physical for having a slightly higher vibrational state and volume by virtue of being a larger proportion), forming a hierarchical complex and not just a flat aggregate.

(k) Each complex system has a non-physical apex in the hierarchy which in turns allows a complex made of simpler complexes to have an even higher and larger spiritual fragment at its apex.

(l) All the way up to the single biological case of a complex system having a whole unit spirit (not a fragment anymore) at the apex: a human being.

----

Have in mind that this a heavily adapted belief system, not a formal theory, and holes can be punched all over. I've been doing that for the past 20 years in order to refine it and have it make as much sense as possible. But you can see that is explicitly constructed to be compatible with physics (and chemistry, biology, neuroscience, cosmology, etc...).
Furthermore, just like your theory, it aims not just to be compatible with science but to be a source of ideas as well that can help science in its path to understanding us.

Yes, I have complained about it to Scott, but he refused to change it. I think your trial membership is over after 20 posts. If you like, you could post a few times here on purpose (or in any of my created posts, and I will "aprove" them, and then yo'll quickly get over 20.

Good idea

[Fooloso4]

Panpsychism is an inference not an implication. Take something we do not have an adequate understanding of and attribute to it something we do have some understanding of - conscious agency.

The history of science can be seen as a cautionary tale against such an assumption. Occult powers and esoteric properties appear to be the only explanation until we are actually able to explain things. Panpsychism may be nothing more than a failure to explain. Some may see it as a lifting of the curtain but others as a veil mistaken for what it hides.

[Mgrinder]

I've has a quick read of the OP and the first few replies in this topic. After initial scepticism I like the general idea of attempting to include the idea of consciousness in theories of physics. The usual discussion is about whether our mental processes - the things that we refer to as consciousness - could in principle be described by laws of physics (even if they never could be in practice). This is the kind of topic that approaches that problem from the other direction.

Well thanks. That's part of the idea.

But, for me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The purpose of the laws of physics (the "eating"), such as the laws of quantum mechanics that describe the behaviours and interactions of elementary particles, is to describe and predict observations. If we are going to postulate that the concept of consciousness should be applied to an electron then it should yield a prediction of the behaviour of that electron that is not yielded by any other means and which is subsequently confirmed by observation. For me, the question of whether such a postulate tells us something deep about the nature of reality does not really mean much. Laws of physics describe and predict.

Here the idea is that the laws of physics turn out the way they do because of constant acts of "primal consciousness" occuring as particles "calculate" what to do next. There would be no new behavior. The reason for the behavior we see is because particles always calculate the same thing given a certain situation. The test would be (1) If one could develop a mathematical version of the theory that predicts qualia successfully. (2) IF one could explain how our minds work consistently with a mathematical version of the theory. i.e. the inner workings of our minds are known to us somewhat, this theory should generate a mechanics of the mind.

-- Updated Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:27 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


I wrote no article. Not the quoted one you refer to, anyhow. My version is simply this:

"It seems to me that particles or other bodies behave in fields because of the forces that act on them, not because the fields represent information upon which the particle or other body makes an intelligent, informed decision."

That's all.

You colored that white, so it disappeared. That is what I call the automatic hypothesis.

One of my points here is that if you take physics seriously, then all there is are rules (physical laws) and things which follow the rules (mass, forces, charge, etc). You get no explanation for the rules. Particles just automatically follow the rules.

Now, why does the rule exist? It seems to me that given that particles follow rules, there must be something in nature making them follow the rules. This "something" is logically necessary, even, for a rule cannot exist in a vacuum, there has to be a reason for a rule, but science provides no reason. That is to say, a rule cannot exist for no reason, but this is what science proposes.

IF this "something" definitely must exist, then what is it? It could be anything, but a likely candidate is something to do with the phenomenon of consciousness. Why? because science provides no explanation for consciousness. So problem neatly solved. Further, physicists talk non stop these days about quantum information, even saying it is the bedrock of reality. But they never say anything calculates with this information. Why not? Again, fits neatly into our picture of reality given by science. Further, the automatic hypothesis is only best if it follows Occam's razor, but Occam's razor should not exclude any phenomena, and it seems that science excludes consciousness. Thus get rid of the the automatic hypothesis.

[Bohm2]

One of my points here is that if you take physics seriously, then all there is are rules (physical laws) and things which follow the rules (mass, forces, charge, etc). You get no explanation for the rules. Particles just automatically follow the rules.

Now, why does the rule exist? It seems to me that given that particles follow rules, there must be something in nature making them follow the rules. This "something" is logically necessary, even, for a rule cannot exist in a vacuum, there has to be a reason for a rule, but science provides no reason. That is to say, a rule cannot exist for no reason, but this is what science proposes.

Does matter:

1. follow or obey physical laws or are
2. physical laws the consequence of the properties of matter?

If one takes position 1, this would imply some type of Platonism and dualism. The idea is that physical laws govern matter from outside, "making" things happen. If this is the case, however, then we must provide some way for matter to recognize and then obey these external laws. Moreover, if laws exist "out there", where do they exist and how does matter interact with these laws? This leads to dualism where physical laws reside, ghost-like, in some detached, abstract or Platonic realm from which they impinge upon matter. But I suppose it all depends on what matter fundamentally is. If matter is something different then presently understood (i.e. information) then perhaps this dualism can be overcome.

If one takes position 2, then matter has some character of its own according to its own way of being, as it must, if it exists. And in that case, physical laws do not truly control how matter behaves but are just our best estimate of the properties of matter. Position 2 doesn't answer why matter behaves as it does, but it avoids dualism.

With respect to consciousness, I don't see either view as providing an answer. The fact that something follows rules does not imply that it follows rules consciously. For instance, we can program a simulation of the universe in a computer where we ourselves provide the physical laws/rules. Matter simulated in the program does know why they are obeying physical laws, but from our perspective those simulated physical laws are there because we implemented them as zero and ones in a hard disk. Even in a highly complex cognitive ability, like human language, the rules that exist appear to occur at unconscious level as people like Chomsky has argued.

Why consciousness exists is still a mystery and in my opinion will remain a mystery perhaps because of the way are brains/minds are structured. And this despite the fact that consciousness seems like an evolutionary older and/or more primitive property of life than say, language. For instance many other animals show signs of consciousness. And neither panpsychism or emergentism seem like convincing explanations, in my opinion. The former seems too encompassing (I find it hard to swallow the idea that quarks are conscious even at a primitive level) and the latter isn't sufficiently explanatory.

I think it really boils down to our inadequate understanding of what matter is. We can't understand how matter spits out consciousness because our concept of matter is too impoverished. Whether future revisions of matter can allow for unification of mind (particularly consciousness) with matter, I don't know but I'm skeptical.

[Fooloso4]

Bohm2:

Does matter:

1. follow or obey physical laws or are
2. physical laws the consequence of the properties of matter?

If one takes position 1, this would imply some type of Platonism and dualism. The idea is that physical laws govern matter from outside, "making" things happen. If this is the case, however, then we must provide some way for matter to recognize and then obey these external laws. Moreover, if laws exist "out there", where do they exist and how does matter interact with these laws? This leads to dualism where physical laws reside, ghost-like, in some detached, abstract or Platonic realm from which they impinge upon matter. But I suppose it all depends on what matter fundamentally is. If matter is something different then presently understood (i.e. information) then perhaps this dualism can be overcome.

If one takes position 2, then matter has some character of its own according to its own way of being, as it must, if it exists. And in that case, physical laws do not truly control how matter behaves but are just our best estimate of the properties of matter. Position 2 doesn't answer why matter behaves as it does, but it avoids dualism.

With respect to consciousness, I don't see either view as providing an answer. The fact that something follows rules does not imply that it follows rules consciously. For instance, we can program a simulation of the universe in a computer where we ourselves provide the physical laws/rules. Matter simulated in the program does know why they are obeying physical laws, but from our perspective those simulated physical laws are there because we implemented them as zero and ones in a hard disk. Even in a highly complex cognitive ability, like human language, the rules that exist appear to occur at unconscious level as people like Chomsky has argued.

Why consciousness exists is still a mystery and in my opinion will remain a mystery perhaps because of the way are brains/minds are structured. And this despite the fact that consciousness seems like an evolutionary older and/or more primitive property of life than say, language. For instance many other animals show signs of consciousness. And neither panpsychism or emergentism seem like convincing explanations, in my opinion. The former seems too encompassing (I find it hard to swallow the idea that quarks are conscious even at a primitive level) and the latter isn't sufficiently explanatory.

I think it really boils down to our inadequate understanding of what matter is. We can't understand how matter spits out consciousness because our concept of matter is too impoverished. Whether future revisions of matter can allow for unification of mind (particularly consciousness) with matter, I don't know but I'm skeptical.

Nice clear and accurate summary, Bohm2.

Our understanding of matter is changing. Whether a more adequate understanding will solve the problem I do not know, but it may change the questions and the way we frame the problem. Of course, as with every other advance, it may raise a whole host of new questions and problems.

[Mgrinder]

One of my points here is that if you take physics seriously, then all there is are rules (physical laws) and things which follow the rules (mass, forces, charge, etc). You get no explanation for the rules. Particles just automatically follow the rules.

Now, why does the rule exist? It seems to me that given that particles follow rules, there must be something in nature making them follow the rules. This "something" is logically necessary, even, for a rule cannot exist in a vacuum, there has to be a reason for a rule, but science provides no reason. That is to say, a rule cannot exist for no reason, but this is what science proposes.

Does matter:

1. follow or obey physical laws or are
2. physical laws the consequence of the properties of matter?

If one takes position 1, this would imply some type of Platonism and dualism. The idea is that physical laws govern matter from outside, "making" things happen. If this is the case, however, then we must provide some way for matter to recognize and then obey these external laws. Moreover, if laws exist "out there", where do they exist and how does matter interact with these laws? This leads to dualism where physical laws reside, ghost-like, in some detached, abstract or Platonic realm from which they impinge upon matter. But I suppose it all depends on what matter fundamentally is. If matter is something different then presently understood (i.e. information) then perhaps this dualism can be overcome.

If one takes position 2, then matter has some character of its own according to its own way of being, as it must, if it exists. And in that case, physical laws do not truly control how matter behaves but are just our best estimate of the properties of matter. Position 2 doesn't answer why matter behaves as it does, but it avoids dualism.

With respect to consciousness, I don't see either view as providing an answer. The fact that something follows rules does not imply that it follows rules consciously. For instance, we can program a simulation of the universe in a computer where we ourselves provide the physical laws/rules. Matter simulated in the program does know why they are obeying physical laws, but from our perspective those simulated physical laws are there because we implemented them as zero and ones in a hard disk. Even in a highly complex cognitive ability, like human language, the rules that exist appear to occur at unconscious level as people like Chomsky has argued.

Why consciousness exists is still a mystery and in my opinion will remain a mystery perhaps because of the way are brains/minds are structured. And this despite the fact that consciousness seems like an evolutionary older and/or more primitive property of life than say, language. For instance many other animals show signs of consciousness. And neither panpsychism or emergentism seem like convincing explanations, in my opinion. The former seems too encompassing (I find it hard to swallow the idea that quarks are conscious even at a primitive level) and the latter isn't sufficiently explanatory.

I think it really boils down to our inadequate understanding of what matter is. We can't understand how matter spits out consciousness because our concept of matter is too impoverished. Whether future revisions of matter can allow for unification of mind (particularly consciousness) with matter, I don't know but I'm skeptical.

Just musing with the following: Supposing this "something" idea is correct. Suppose that there must be "something" in nature besides matter that explains the rules (laws) we see.

Basically by definition, this "something" is immaterial, just as rules are immaterial. If it was "material" (a charge or a force or mass, or length, etc.) , that is, something measurable, then it would be one of the things that follow the rules. But this "something" is the source of the rules, not something which follows the rules. Hence it is no like charge or mass, etc., it doesn't follow the rules, it is the rules (in a way). So it has to be "immaterial" since "material" things follow rules, and it doesn't, it's the source of the rules.

What else do we know of that seems "immaterial", oh right, consciousness...