Why consciousness is not reducible to nonconscious things

[magpies]

Ok um my thoughts on your thingy...

P1: The only things reductionism reduces, are our own misconceptions.
P2: Misconceptions require C.
C: To say that C is reducible, is to say that C is a misconception that requires C.

First thing I notice... C is a misconception that requires C. This is circular but I honestly have no problem with it but many could...

Then I see what your saying... Let me word it differently...
Misconceptions are reduced by reductionism.
Misconceptions require C.
Saying C is reducible is saying that C is a misconception.

Well... I don't see where it says misconceptions are C cept for in the last sentance.
So basicaly your conclusion is more of a statement... Also you didnt prove that C is reducible you just said that it was.


Ok so I am gona give this a try and see how I do...

Consciousness requires an object to observe.
Objects to observe require a world.
Inorder to have a world of meaning consciousness must exist.
Therefor Consciousness gives objects to observe meaning.

 

[DaveC426913]

Inorder to have a world of meaning consciousness must exist.
Therefor Consciousness gives objects to observe meaning.

Well, meaning is a human creation so ... yeah.

 

[vectorcube]

Stenger thinks the total energy of the universe is 0, and that the universe came out of a negative energy, unphysical situation.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

If it is unphysical, then why do you care?

 

[pftest]

If it is unphysical, then why do you care?

What do you mean?

 

[pftest]

Well... I don't see where it says misconceptions are C cept for in the last sentance.

Premise 2 is: misconceptions require C. I don't think you or anyone would disagree with this. Or with premise 1 either.

So basicaly your conclusion is more of a statement... Also you didnt prove that C is reducible you just said that it was.

It shows that no matter how far one reduces C, it won't go away. So C is not reducible to non-C things, such as for example a configuration of atoms.

Btw I am not convinced my argument is solid, there is just something that doesn't feel right about it.

 

[vectorcube]

What do you mean?

i am curious why something "unphysical" would be of interest to anyone. Just curious, you know.

 

[arithmetix]

study tao
when you understand

 

[arithmetix]

the usual flow of conversation here is in physics, but these are questions for mystics

 

[pftest]

i am curious why something "unphysical" would be of interest to anyone. Just curious, you know.

Because the person i responded to brought up Stenger and immateriality/magic.

 

[vectorcube]

Because the person i responded to brought up Stenger and immateriality/magic.

Ok. Well, i read stenger, and the last chapter of his book, and i can` t help but feel he was an idiot for making up metaphysical claims in the bases of speculative physical theory.

 

[magpies]

Can you give me an example of what reducing C would look like?

 

[pftest]

Can you give me an example of what reducing C would look like?

The not possible version is something like "consciousness is just a complex configuration of physical ingredients".

 

[magpies]

Oh ok I guess I agree with you basicaly but I would take it a step beyond what you have. So I still don't think you can even reduce it at all.

I mean you could try to reduce it to something but that would just be a lie. If your ok with lies I guess that's kool.

 

[pftest]

Oh ok I guess I agree with you basicaly but I would take it a step beyond what you have. So I still don't think you can even reduce it at all.

Why not?

 

[magpies]

Forgive me if this is committing a taboo but because consciousness is consciousness and any "reduction" of it is a lie for better or worse.

 

[pftest]

Ok. Well, i read stenger, and the last chapter of his book, and i can` t help but feel he was an idiot for making up metaphysical claims in the bases of speculative physical theory.

Yes and even if his physical theory is correct, it doesn't support the metaphysical claim very well. The idea that the universe can come from a very simple mathematical principle, also allows the metaphysical possibility that a simple mind capable of simple mathematics can bring the universe into existence. The simpler the math gets the simpler any mind needs to be to think it.

 

[qraal]

Forgive me if this is committing a taboo but because consciousness is consciousness and any "reduction" of it is a lie for better or worse.

A rock is also composed of molecules, themselves composed atoms, which in turn are composed of electrons and nucleons, the latter being composed of quarks and gluons... yet a rock is still a rock. Likewise "consciousness" could be composed of lower level entities and still be distinct from them. It's not obvious that consciousness is irreducible and thus this present discussion.

Don't assert the conclusion - that consciousness is irreducible - without something to back up the claim. Else you're just stating your belief and not a fact obvious to us all. Because, at least to me, it's not obviously so.

 

[pftest]

Forgive me if this is committing a taboo but because consciousness is consciousness and any "reduction" of it is a lie for better or worse.

One can have misconceptions (delusions) about oneself. Those can be "reduced" and gotten rid of.

 

[pftest]

A rock is also composed of molecules, themselves composed atoms, which in turn are composed of electrons and nucleons, the latter being composed of quarks and gluons... yet a rock is still a rock.

What do you mean "its still a rock"? If its composed of atoms, quarks, etc. then isn't a rock just a configuration of atoms, quarks, etc.?

 

[vectorcube]

Yes and even if his physical theory is correct, it doesn't support the metaphysical claim very well. The idea that the universe can come from a very simple mathematical principle, also allows the metaphysical possibility that a simple mind capable of simple mathematics can bring the universe into existence. The simpler the math gets the simpler any mind needs to be to think it.

Well, he is a ****ing idiot. Even if there is some some equation that bring about the universe. It merely shifted the question to why those equations, and not others. It does not answer anything about ultimate origin.

 

[magpies]

Ok well if conciousness is reducible what would be an example of it being reduced?

The example of a rock is interesting. It may have quarks and atoms inside it but none the less the rock is the rock. The quarks and atoms are a subset part of the rock without the rock the quarks and atoms would be just that and not a rock.

 

[pftest]

Example: you are hypnotised into thinking you are a chicken. Or you dream you are one. You now have a misconception about yourself, and that can be gotten rid of (reduced). This is not the reduction as in "consisting of smaller components", but the reduction as in "having a misconception, improving your understanding and thereby getting rid of it".

There is no telling how deluded a state of mind we are in. We could be cows inside a milkfarm connected to a virtual reality computer to think we have a human life

As long as there is the ability to be deluded at all, one can in principle have any kind of delusion. But if there is no ability to be deluded (for example, non-conscious atoms do not have the ability to have delusions), then there will never be any delusion.

 

[qraal]

What do you mean "its still a rock"? If its composed of atoms, quarks, etc. then isn't a rock just a configuration of atoms, quarks, etc.?

A rock is a certain configuration of atoms, quarks etc. Just as any element is a certain, distinct configuration of electrons, protons and (optionally) neutrons. But lead isn't gold, nor are oxygen and fluorine interchangeable for purposes of breathing.

 

[magpies]

Is there a more true form to the rock? Is electrons protons neutrons better then say quarks or molecules or any other configuration of parts? I would go out on a limb and say the rock is the truest form of the rock would you agree? Of course this is just silly I am being silly arnt I :)

 

[qraal]

Is there a more true form to the rock? Is electrons protons neutrons better then say quarks or molecules or any other configuration of parts? I would go out on a limb and say the rock is the truest form of the rock would you agree? Of course this is just silly I am being silly arnt I :)

Rocks are, by definition, aggregates of crystals and other compounds, often many different kinds of crystals, thus defining what the 'true form' might be is probably pointless. But say we dissolve a rock in a solution. Where did the rock go? All its parts are still there and if we evaporate the solute we might get a 'rock' again, but not the 'same' rock. Similarly death might dissolve whatever it is that makes 'consciousness' and eventual consumption of the body's components might bring about another 'consciousness', but asking where it went in between the two might be as meaningless as where the rock went.

Might be. I'm posing this as one metaphysical possibility that no one has yet eliminated from consideration.

 

[pftest]

Is there a more true form to the rock? Is electrons protons neutrons better then say quarks or molecules or any other configuration of parts? I would go out on a limb and say the rock is the truest form of the rock would you agree? Of course this is just silly I am being silly arnt I :)

The rock can be described fully in terms of its components and their configuration. So those components give the full description, whereas the statement "its a rock" gives an incomplete description. The componental description also makes the "its a rock"-description redundant, whereas the "its a rock"-description does not make the componental description redundant (by reading the statement "its a rock" you would never know it consists of atoms and such).

So the more accurate form is the componental one.

 

[qraal]

The rock can be described fully in terms of its components and their configuration. So those components give the full description, whereas the statement "its a rock" gives an incomplete description. The componental description also makes the "its a rock"-description redundant, whereas the "its a rock"-description does not make the componental description redundant (by reading the statement "its a rock" you would never know it consists of atoms and such).

So the more accurate form is the componental one.

For a specific rock, yes, but rocks in general? Maybe not. Higher level descriptors are often more succinct than ultra-detailed decompositions, but of course one can do more with more details. Geology, for example, would be impossible if we left out too much detail, and would be too cumbersome if we left in too much detail. One can always be more accurate, but become less meaningful in the process. Coarse-grain descriptions make science communicable.

 

[pftest]

True, from a social perspective the higher level descriptions are useful and needed. Physically, ignoring all social requirements, the lower level descriptions are most accurate. "rocks in general" do not physically exist, since any rock is always a specific physical object. The "in general" part is an abstraction that takes place in human minds.

 

[qraal]

True, from a social perspective the higher level descriptions are useful and needed. Physically, ignoring all social requirements, the lower level descriptions are most accurate. "rocks in general" do not physically exist, since any rock is always a specific physical object. The "in general" part is an abstraction that takes place in human minds.

Thus the snake swallows its tail...

 

[apeiron]

For a specific rock, yes, but rocks in general? Maybe not. Higher level descriptors are often more succinct than ultra-detailed decompositions, but of course one can do more with more details. Geology, for example, would be impossible if we left out too much detail, and would be too cumbersome if we left in too much detail. One can always be more accurate, but become less meaningful in the process. Coarse-grain descriptions make science communicable.

This is the correct line of thinking. Substance opposed to form. But we just need to generalise "rock" further to really get there in this argument. And this can be done using the template of a spatiotemporal (or scalar) hierarchy.

So substance and form are at opposing limits of a hierarchy. One is the most local or smallest scale, the other the global or largest. Causality at the bottom scale is constructive, at the top scale it becomes constraints based.

Now with rocks, we can agree that a rock is a compound (constructed) of a mix of atoms. At this level of discussion, compounds and how they achieve their form, we need to find what is actually the organisational principles appropriate to this level.

A rock isn't. But a geological strata is. We can then see that this global scale view gives us sight of "rockness" formed over geological timescales, as the result of temperatures, pressures, large-scale mixing processes. It explains why a rock is mixed as it is, with perhaps quartz crystals and other inclusions. And also why the rock is cool, not hot lava temperature.

So it is always easy to win the "its just a configuration of substance" argument if the wrong scale of analysis is applied. We can take some real world object that interests us, like a rock, and reduce its substances towards their most local. But then we leave the formal aspects of the rock at the scale we found it, rather than "reducing it" - though it should seem more like expanding it, as we are increasing scale to head towards the global view.

Once you also expand the configurational or organisational principles of the object, you can then see how the global aspects are also fundamental. Rocks would not exist without rock-forming processes and contexts.

Of course, it can be tricky identifying where to stop in the stepping back to global scale. But atoms and geology seem fairly accurately complementary in this particular example.

Now the trick with consciousness and theories of mind is to do the same thing. To reduce the thing in itself, people who have what we label "consciousness" and "unconsciousness" as aspects of their being, towards both the local and global levels of explanation.

When discussing minds, the question becomes what are the atoms, what the geology, of this area of science?