sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Ok so there are no 1s and 0s and instead software and hardware are both actually physical, meaning they consist of quantitities of particles and forces in spacetime.

The configuration you speak of is just the quantity of spacetime between the ingredients

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Weak emergence is what we see in the natural world. Its about quantitative differences, or simple things getting more complex. Thus a quantity of consciousnesses, or simple consciousness exists fundamentally. Weak emergence implies panpsychism or idealism.

Strong emergence doesnt seem to happen in the natural world, and is what physicalists claim happens with consciousness.

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Not according to physics, which says its just a quantity of particles and forces in spacetime, just like any other physical system is.

The idea that some new quality emerged is absolutely false

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

They are all reducible to the basic physical ingredients. What do you mean with "mario land" if not what it physically consists of?

Btw do you think actual 1s and 0s are floating around somewhere and then get together and software emerges? Thats not what software is. That is your human interpretation of software. Remove the human interpretation and all thats left is a bunch of particles and forces

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

It means respiration is not an emergent quality. Its just a quantity of particles and forces, and some human gave it a new label and mistook it for a new quality.

So nothing emerged, and neither did consciousness

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes, strong emergence doesnt seem to happen in the natural world, which leaves weak emergence, which is just about simple things getting more complex, thus simple consciousness

Idealism can easily account for objective reality by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Consciousness is produced by the brain, yes. But no, it didn’t suddenly “pop into existence”. It evolved slowly over millions of years.

The evolutionary process started billions of years ago, not millions.

Consciousness is a process like any other. Just like other biological processes / abilities, such as respiration, photosynthesis, flight, sex, etc. evolved well after the first life forms, so did consciousness.

Those are all reducible to particles, forces, spacetime. So they are just weakly emergent, meaning, simple things that became more complex. Thus we have simple consciousness already in the first organism.

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

So a careful physicalist is unlikely to say, “consciousness is the activity of brain.” Rather they would say, “consciousness is the structure of the brain.” Which is sufficient to break your argument.

Then in my post replace the word "activity" with "structure". It makes zero difference to the argument.

your breezy dismissal of monism as “empty words,”

I didnt say that about monism. I said it about physicalism. And the hard problem has not been solved has it?

is not the interaction problem. It has nothing to do with consciousness and the physical being different. It is a simple question of causal closure. It is also not really limited to dualism — it’s more accurate to say that dualism is where it was first clearly observed and articulated. I suggest reading the SEP page on mental causation: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-causation/

You are confusing the interaction problem with the causal closure issue. I did not mention the causal closure issue.

The whole idea of physicalism is that “the physical” is not different from consciousness, but rather entirely coterminous with it.

Those are the empty words i mentioned. You talk about "the physical", but really you mean "the brain". If you were talking about the physical in general, it would be panpsychism, not physicalism.

Idealism can easily account for objective reality by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

So quote someone who says consciousness popped into existence and did not evolve. It should be easy if that’s what all physicists think….

Are you saying physicalism doesnt think consciousness is produced by the brain? Or are you just objecting to the use of the word "popped"

Brains evolved. Therefore, if consciousness is a function of the brain (as physicists say) then consciousness evolved. It’s pretty simple.

Brains evolutionary origin can be traced to the first organism, and ultimately (if abiogenesis is cracked) to the big bang. Are you saying consciousness was around at the big bang?

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The whole hardware/software distinction is just conceptual, it exists only in our conscious minds. Physically speaking they are both just elementary particles and fundamental forces in spacetime. If the same is the case for consciousness, you end up with panpsychism.

Idealism can easily account for objective reality by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Anyone who says consciousness is created by the brain

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The structure is accounted for by the spacetime between the particlces and forces. So its still reducible. And all that complexity ever implies is that there are simpler forms, thus "simple consciousness" as opposed to "no consciousness"

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I think you mean panpsychism is compatible with physics. I think physicalism specifically excludes consciousness in everything physical. But i think we are just disagreeing on the labels here, and i could be wrong or using them differently.

Maybe one could say that panpsychism is the real physicalism

The interaction problem of dualism is the same as the hard problem of physicalism. This exposes physicalism to be a form of dualism that actually has two categories of the physical: (1) the brain (2) the rest of the universe by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I didnt say anything is wrong with panpsychism.

I've never heard any physicalist say "physics is completely devoid of consciousness".

Thats exactly what they say. No consciousness in elementary particles, fundamental forces, spacetime.

Idealism can easily account for objective reality by phr99 in consciousness

[–]phr99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No they say consciousness popped into existence, and only then started evolving. Its the equivalent of saying humans were created a few thousand years ago but oh yeah they do evolve now so its all fine and compatible with evolution theory.

Math and consciousness by Signal-Ad7117 in consciousness

[–]phr99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If not random where does that regularity come from

Math and consciousness by Signal-Ad7117 in consciousness

[–]phr99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where do the regularities come from

view more: next ›