Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness? What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life? If there is some extra property in matter that we have not ascertained, I ask, what is it?

There are at least two significations of "matter".

One is where matter is actually synonymous with "phenomena". IOW, the everyday experience of perceiving/feeling bodies and objects (outer appearances) in the environment. Even particles can be converted to that with the aid of scientific instruments.

The other is where matter is a technical description (usually mathematical). IOW, relationships and magnitudes are abstracted from phenomena and depicted with symbols, words, graphs, etc.

The latter is blatantly an artificial product (representation) and the former is quasi-artificial (i.e., biological evolution fabricating representations for the sensory systems of organisms).

So in reality, "matter" does NOT convey how things would literally exist independent of the showings of consciousness and the inventions of intellect (especially with respect to a complete tally of properties and capabilities). Matter is not "things in themselves" or the "thing in itself".

Thus, the hard problem of consciousness is the result of members on both sides of the debate taking the second version of matter or "physical" too literally -- they are reifying a concept, something abstract, turning it into an ontological stuff, indulging in metaphysics.

In one respect, Russellian Monism or "neutral monism" would best reflect the situation, since it actually has no definite commitment to what the neutral element prior to "phenomenal" (experience) and "physical" (description) is. But OTOH, it is a metaphysical stance itself.
- - - - -

Bertrand Russell: All that physics gives us is certain equations giving abstract properties of their changes. But as to what it is that changes, and what it changes from and to—as to this, physics is silent.

Lee Smolin: The problem of consciousness is an aspect of the question of what the world really is. We don't know what a rock really is, or an atom, or an electron. We can only observe how they interact with other things and thereby describe their relational properties. Perhaps everything has external and internal aspects. The external properties are those that science can capture and describe through interactions, in terms of relationships. The internal aspect is the intrinsic essence; it is the reality that is not expressible in the language of interactions and relations. Consciousness, whatever it is, is an aspect of the intrinsic essence of brains.

Henri Poincaré:

"...contrary to the naïve dogmatists’ view, that which science captures are not the things themselves, but simply relationships between them. Beyond these relations, there is no knowable reality..."

"Mathematicians do not study objects, but the relations between objects; to them it is a matter of indifference if these objects are replaced by others, provided that the relations do not change. Matter does not engage their attention, they are interested by form alone."

"[A] reality completely independent of the mind which conceives it, sees or feels it, is an impossibility. A world as exterior as that, even if it existed, would for us be forever inaccessible. But what we call objective reality is, in the last analysis, what is common to many thinking beings, and could be common to us all; this common part, we shall see, can only be the harmony expressed by mathematical laws. It is this harmony then which is the sole objective reality, the only truth we can obtain."

Scivillage topic thread about Donald Hoffman's view below: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-8427-p...l#pid35612

Actually Kant and other philosophers introduced the general idea ages ago, just "new" in terms of [contemporary] scientists and technologists grokking it

(Jan 8, 2021 05:22 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment.

OK. (Lots of open questions there, but I'll ignore them for the sake of argument.)

Quote:Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness?

The question that I would ask at that point is what does the word 'consciousness' mean?

That's the rock that the philosophy of mind ship always seems to strike. When David Chalmers proclaims what he insists is the "hard problem", it only seems hard to him because he's conceptualizing 'consciousness' in such a way that it seems to him to be incompatible with physicalism.

My first reply to Chalmers would be that we won't know whether or not the problem is really "hard" (in his metaphysical sense) until we have a lot better idea of what it is that we are attempting to explain and make consistent with the rest of our worldview. 

Quote:What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life?

Well, my own inclination is to try to conceptualize those kind of things functionally. Consciousness and intelligence (as I conceive of them) aren't ontological substances, they are activities performed by (material presumably) substances. That's seemingly consistent with all the brain physiology stuff, where awareness and intelligence aren't necessarily present whenever brain substance is present, but are only present when the brain substance is behaving as it should.

And my idea of how to study it would be to trace it back to simpler antecedents. The human brain is incredibly complex so studying it is going to be very difficult. So we might make more progress by studying simpler brains in simpler organisms.

One place where that's happening as we speak is with the tiny nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans. The most common variety of this little animal only has 959 cells in its entire body! It was the first multicellular organism to have its entire genome sequenced. So it's become the go-to organism for basic studies of how the genome directs anatomical development.

What's more, its entire nervous system consists of 302 neurons! (The opposite end of the spectrum from human beings, I guess.) These have been extensively mapped and their thousands of synapses identified. Despite the simplicity of this little nervous system, these worms display a whole array of behaviors and even seem able to remember and learn to a very limited degree. It even has a little brain, in the form of a nerve ring around its pharynx. (Many animals such as worms, insects and octopuses have brains that encircle their pharynx and in effect eat through their brains.) As we speak, lots of work is being done on what this tiny little 302 cell C. elegans nervous system is doing between sensory stimulation and behavior.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neu...is-elegans

http://www.wormbook.org/

http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/17/4/191.full.pdf

Quote:If there is some extra property in matter that we have not ascertained, I ask, what is it?

I don't conceive of it in terms of 'properties'. Perhaps the only property of matter that's necessary is causation. So I tend to reduce consciousness to causation. Kick a small rock and it moves, stimulus and response. I suspect that all the rest is elaboration on that theme. (I can already sense CC seething at that idea.) The question (as I conceive of it) is how causation compounds itself into more complex behaviors. Ultimately ending up in organisms with nervous systems of billions of cells that are able to use language to communicate, form ideas of things like abstractions, and are able to intuit (some of) their own inner states. I don't think that we are anywhere near close to explaining that. We can't even really describe it at this point.

So I can't really prove that it's built up out of simpler causal components. It's more of a heuristic hypothesis, my working assumption at this point.

(note to readers: I made a mistake and deleted the previous thread and am now reposting by memory. A repeat of your previous responses or a revision would be appreciated)

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness? What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life? If there is some extra property in matter that we are completely unaware of, I ask, what is it?

(Jan 11, 2021 04:38 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ](note to readers: I made a mistake and deleted the previous thread and am now reposting by memory. A repeat of your previous responses or a revision would be appreciated)

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness? What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life? If there is some extra property in matter that we are completely unaware of, I ask, what is it?

Life is a mystery, isn't it? Hard not to think there is something we're missing. You ask how matter became conscious and I'll ask where did matter come from? If matter has ancestry then ultimately you would have to give credit to whatever spawned it. And so on down the line. 

We can only see so far, only do so much, or perhaps much evidence from the beginning has been lost forever and the answer you seek with it.

(Jan 11, 2021 04:38 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ](note to readers: I made a mistake and deleted the previous thread and am now reposting by memory. A repeat of your previous responses or a revision would be appreciated)

I stand corrected, then. Apparently there's no time limit now for being able to delete a post (especially the OP). Sure as heck must be something recent, though, because it doesn't seem that long ago that I tried to snuff one beyond a 5 minute-mark and failed.

Just another reason not to reply to an Ostro thread.

I wrote a long post on the last thread and put quite a bit of effort into it. I'm not interested in doing it again.

(Jan 11, 2021 08:41 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I wrote a long post on the last thread and put quite a bit of effort into it. I'm not interested in doing it again.

I would guess that contributed to it being "accidentally" deleted.

(Jan 11, 2021 04:38 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ](note to readers: I made a mistake and deleted the previous thread and am now reposting by memory. A repeat of your previous responses or a revision would be appreciated)

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness? What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life? If there is some extra property in matter that we are completely unaware of, I ask, what is it?

Conscious experiences are brain activity. I see the conundrum though - physics explains biology, but there is a missing link so to speak, and that is consciousness that can't be readily explained using physics. Or can it? 

Why do you feel that ''everything from matter is just a baseless assumption?''