
He says all such theories either deny the very thing they are trying to explain, result in absurd scenarios, or end up requiring an immaterial intervention:
This brings us at last to a currently popular approach to consciousness: emergence. Some say consciousness is an emergent property of a complex structure of matter. This solution is a bit more plausible because it can at least account for the seeming correlation we see between complex organic beings and consciousness.
However, beyond that, problems develop. At what point is a structure complex enough to become conscious? If we take away one particle from that structure then it must cease to be conscious. Likewise, there must be unconscious structures where the addition of a single particle causes them to suddenly become conscious. This also seems weird. But if we say there is no such “one particle” transition point, then no matter how many particles we remove from the structure, it must remain conscious—even to the point where there is only a single particle left. At which point, we are back to a conscious particle model, where at least some particles must be inherently conscious. And these particles must be fundamental, they cannot be built from other material objects otherwise we are back at the emergent consciousness model.
Eric Holloway, “No Materialist Theory of Consciousness Is Plausible” at Mind Matters News
See also: Eric Holloway: ID As A Bridge Between Francis Bacon And Thomas Aquinas
Follow UD News at Twitter!
News, actually, the idea of a conscious 5th dimensional “particle” that intersects with certain bodies in our 4-d spacetime world via quantum influences and acts as supervisory oracle in a cybernetic loop is worth discussion. Leibniz and his view on the monad might be a place to begin, put alongside the Smith 2-tier controller cybernetic loop model. KF
PS: Monadology, 1 – 6:
Now, where could we take it from there: ________ ???
This doesn’t make any sense. We know that there are different levels of consciousness. In a materialist, emergence explanation we would expect the level of consciousness to increase or decrease with an increase or decrease in specific types of brain cells. And, this is exactly what we see in alzheimer progression and in infant development.
Brother Brian:
There isn’t any materialist, emergence explanation for any living organism, let alone one with a brain.
@BB
> In a materialist, emergence explanation we would expect the level of consciousness to increase or decrease with an increase or decrease in specific types of brain cells.
Not talking about degree but existence. Emergence implies there is a particle’s difference between existence and non existence of consciousness.
EricMH
Why? When you put a bunch of H2O molecules together, is there a point where the addition of one molecule makes it wet? Emergence isn’t an all or nothing thing.
I don’t know, the feeling of wet actually could be something that’s entirely perceived only by us, it’s not technically wet. So I don’t think that is emergent but subjective to us, now if you want to talk about emergent properties, H2O is a great molecule to use as an example because of the combination of two hydrogens and an oxygen take on many different properties that weren’t inherent in the other molecules
But when it comes to the mystery of consciousness it’s hard to tell if it is an emergent property then there should be other things that show very similar properties to it as well but it seems to be oddly specific to a brain and not to the neurons anywhere else in your body
Which at the same time the principle of emergence being true does not necessarily explain consciousness
It’s specificness is both a boon to Materialistic arguments and at the exact same time since it doesn’t seem to be capable of being re-created it is also a deficit
I think the receiver theory, that the brain is a receiver of the consciousness fits a little bit better to what we see but I also know a lot of people don’t agree with it oh well there’s a lot of different theories out there
It also fits nicely with quantum theory’s of the mind
Aaron1978
If you want to use that as an example of “emergent” properties, I can live with that. As a chemist, I can tell you that when you add anything to a molecule, it takes on different properties.
But I am willing to stick with the “wet” property. How many molecules of H2O are required to form what we would refer to as water? Surely one molecule isn’t enough. Ten? 1000? 100000? I have no idea what the number would be, but at some point it would pool into what we would call water. But I doubt that this distinction is due to a single molecule, one way or the other.
BB, as a physicist, wetting is a property of adhesion vs cohesion so is not strictly a property of numbers of molecules. Yes, as we pile up molecules under certain structures we see spreading out as a film vs beading or forming a meniscus with upward slope or climbing up be capillary action etc. Contact angle actually operationally defines “wetting.” {I like this too.] The detergent action of soaps SLS etc is related, based on ionic heads and organic tails of molecules. The underlying physics is intermolecular forces. Coming back to the focal point, interactions and structures of particles can explain a computational, GIGO-limited substrate and would extend to a cybernetic loop. It does not explain rational insight, inference, intuition etc, indeed it simply cannot. KF
PS: Reppert on some of that cannot, as a reminder:
The basic underlying reason why “No Materialist Theory of Consciousness Is Plausible” is because mind cannot really be understood by any “scientific” methods, or for that matter by any methods requiring observation and experiment. A quote from Nobel laureate biologist George Wald’s last lecture puts this more eloquently than I could (at https://www.elijahwald.com/lifeandmind.html ):
Wald was evidently an adherent of panpsychism, which does have some problems as pointed out by Holloway. Unfortunately Holloway implicitly dismisses the alternative of interactive dualism, which is the position that mind and body are in some very substantial ways separate from each other yet still at the same time are able to interact with each other. The usual rough analogies are the filter and receiver/transmitter theories of the brain/consciousness interface. In other words mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical in nature, but mind manifests in the physical world through the specialized physical neurological structures of the brain. There is a large body of empirical evidence (of course denied by materialists) for this theory of mind.
Aaron, I certainly don’t think that water (H20) is a ‘great molecule to use as an example’ for the materialistic belief that mind can possibly be ’emergent’ from a material basis for the simple fact that water (H20) itself gives every indication of being a product of the Mind of God. Simply put, water itself gives very strong evidence of being the product of an immaterial Mind and mind therefore, since it necessarily precedes material reality, cannot possibly be an ’emergent’ property of material reality.
When we look at water, the most common substance on earth (covering 71% of the surface) and in our bodies, (averaging around 57-60% for adults), we find many odd characteristics which clearly appear to be designed. These oddities are absolutely essential for life on earth. Some simple life can exist without the direct energy of sunlight, some simple life can exist without oxygen; but no life can exist without water. Water is called a universal solvent because it has the unique ability to dissolve a far wider range of substances than any other solvent. This ‘universal solvent’ ability of water is essential to dissolve minerals and nutrients in the first place and also for the cells of living organisms to process the wide range of substances necessary for life. Another oddity is water expands as it becomes ice, by an increase of about 9% in volume. Thus, water floats when it becomes a solid instead of sinking. This is an exceedingly rare ability. Water is the only non-metallic substance on Earth with this property. Yet if it were not for this fact, lakes and oceans would freeze from the bottom up. The earth would be a frozen wasteland, and human life would not be possible. Water also has the unusual ability to pull itself into very fine tubes and small spaces, defying gravity. This is called capillary action. This action is essential for the breakup of mineral bearing rocks into soil. Water pulls itself into tiny spaces on the surface of a rock and freezes; it expands and breaks the rock into tinier pieces, thus producing soil. Capillary action is also essential for the movement of water through soil to the roots of plants. It is also essential for the movement of water from the roots to the tops of the plants, even to the tops of the mighty redwood trees. Capillary action is also essential for the circulation of the blood in our very own capillary blood vessels. Water’s melting and boiling point are not where common sense would indicate they should be when we look at its molecular weight. The three sister compounds of water all behave as would be predicted by their molecular weight. Oddly, water just happens to have melting and boiling points that are of optimal biological utility. The other properties of water we measure, like its specific slipperiness (viscosity) and its ability to absorb and release more heat than any other natural substance, have to be as they are in order for life to be possible on earth. Even the oceans have to be the size they are in order to stabilize the temperature of the earth so human life may be possible.
In summation, if any molecule should be considered miraculous, water is certainly that molecule. So again, I certainly don’t think that water (H20) is a ‘great molecule to use as an example’ for the materialistic belief that mind can possibly be ’emergent’ from a material basis for the simple fact that water (H20) itself gives every indication of being a product of the Mind of God. Simply put, water itself gives very strong evidence of being the product of an immaterial Mind and mind therefore, since it necessarily precedes material reality, cannot possibly be an ’emergent’ property of material reality.
bornagain77- Aaron was just using H2O as an example of emergent properties. NaCl also fits that bill. Aaron was saying that- those emergent properties- are not enough to explain consciousness from a materialistic scenario.
The basic reason that no “No Materialist Theory of Consciousness is Plausible,” is that materialism as a world view is not plausible.
Let’s begin with a proposition that is self-evidently true.
If the universe is all that exists there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence.
However, while that premise is self-evidently true it doesn’t logically follow that the universe is all that exists.
Let’s plug it into a simple argument.
Premise #1: If the universe is all that exists there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence.
Premise #2: The universe is all that exists.
Conclusion: There is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence.
However, there are at least a couple of other implications that we can derive from this argument.
First, there is no way to prove that Premise #2, “The universe is all that exists,” is true. It’s possibly true, the same way that the claim that “pink unicorns exists” could be true but it’s not self-evidently true. So those who claim that it is true have the burden of proof to prove it’s true. In other words, it cannot be claimed as some kind of “default position.”
Second, if there is no way to prove Premise #2 then the materialist has no basis for knowledge or Truth. The materialist is left with only his opinions and beliefs. This leaves him with an untenable and self-refuting truth claim that “there is no Truth.” That’s self-refuting because it is claiming to know truth about something that it claims cannot be known.
Furthermore, it doesn’t explain why humans appear to be hardwired to seek higher purpose and meaning that goes beyond the immediate survival needs of an accidently evolved species of hunter-gatherer apes. There is no explanation (other than empty hand waving) for why this should be true from a purely naturalistic evolutionary perspective.
What implications does this have for consciousness? It implies that the materialist starting point that matter and energy is all that exists is unwarranted. An open-minded person would at least consider other possibilities. It’s obvious that most of our regular interlocutors are not open minded. If they were they would not be dogmatically locked into atheistic materialism.
If our atheistic materialistic interlocutors have an argument they need to either state their “self-evidently true” premises (if they have any) or refute ours. Mindless pretension and posturing are not arguments. They are a big waste of time.
> Why? When you put a bunch of H2O molecules together, is there a point where the addition of one molecule makes it wet? Emergence isn’t an all or nothing thing.
@BB it’s a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Let’s grant your premise, that there is no point where the addition of a single molecule makes a collection conscious.
This also means there is no point where the removal of a single molecule makes a collection unconscious.
So, we continue removing molecules one by one until we have a single molecule left.
Based on your premise, this single molecule must still be conscious.
Furthermore, whichever order we remove molecules in, we will always be left with a single conscious molecule.
Hence, all molecules in a conscious collection are themselves conscious.
Switch out “molecule” for “neuron” and you will be getting to the root of the emergence of consciousness. In other words “they” think that there was a point in which x neurons (in configuration Y) produced consciousness. And as x grew and Y changed, so did the level of consciousness.
> Switch out “molecule” for “neuron” and you will be getting to the root of the emergence of consciousness. In other words “they” think that there was a point in which x neurons (in configuration Y) produced consciousness. And as x grew and Y changed, so did the level of consciousness.
@ET then the same argument shows every individual neuron is conscious.
Along with every molecule the neuron is made of, along with every atom, along with every electron, positron, muon, etc. If there is no discrete on/off particle point for consciousness, then we essentially end up with panpsychism.
EricMH:
Can you explain why that is, please? To me that is like saying every snowflake is a snowman and we know that isn’t so.
Regarding water and it’s emergent properties, I recall a conversation that bears on this.
I was in high school and asked a teacher why water is a liquid (I should have said at room temperature) while it’s components are gases. She said it was because a compound can have different properties from the elements that make it up.
Many years later I read some of the threads at this site and realized that she hadn’t answered my question. She had only restated it.
Interestingly, my question does have a legitimate nswer and it can be classified as an emergent explanation. It has something to do with the fact that it has parts that adhere to each other more tightly when combined than they do alone. This is a legitimate explanation because it explains HOW the combined substance obtains its additional properties rather than just asserting that it does.
Consciousness is a different story.
Folks, as a reminder, Leibniz in Monadology:
In this context it is in fact arguable that intelligence can in principle attach to a single cell or neuron or molecule by way of quantum influence interface. A computational substrate is constitutive of a GIGO-limited physical operator that transforms input signals into outputs, but that is categorically distinct from what rational, freely insightful intelligence does. I again remind, from Reppert:
KF
PS: On H2O note 9 above in reply to BB’s comments: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/eric-holloway-no-materialist-theory-of-consciousness-is-plausible/#comment-681692
@Doubter
> Unfortunately Holloway implicitly dismisses the alternative of interactive dualism, which is the position that mind and body are in some very substantial ways separate from each other yet still at the same time are able to interact with each other.
I do not dismiss the dualist position. I am only showing that if one is committed to a materialistic explanation of consciousness, they must accept a non-materialistic cause.
@ET
> Can you explain why that is, please? To me that is like saying every snowflake is a snowman and we know that isn’t so.
For example, let’s take a computer churning away at some computation. This argument implies there is a transition point where removing a single atom from the computer passes a threshold where it is no longer computing. While we are removing atoms the computational process is constantly degrading, but it is still occurring. Then there is a sudden point where all computation completely ceases.
If we deny this transition point for consciousness, then that means we can constantly remove whatever the smallest component of matter is (I’ll just call it a minimal particle) and never reach a point where consciousness completely ceases, until we are left with a single minimal particle. This particle must still be conscious, and additionally we can remove particles in any order and still get the same result, which implies that all minimal particles are conscious.
EricMH:
Or removing a single step from the program. The argument is that at a certain point with the program it will afford the computation you are seeking. And at some other point it will not.
This is akin to irreducible complexity. At a certain point removing components will make the structure fail and it will no longer be IC.
So perhaps one neuron doesn’t afford consciousness but it does offer a response to external stimuli. But then more neurons somehow evolve and when, say, 100 are grouped just right, badda-bing-> consciousness starts to arise/ emerge.
I am NOT arguing for such a scenario. I am just saying what “they” say about emergence and consciousness.
I agree with you.
brother brian:
There are plenty of evos over on AtBC that disagree with you. They think one water molecule is enough to be water cuz “water” is in its name.
@ET you write,
> So perhaps one neuron doesn’t afford consciousness but it does offer a response to external stimuli.
I see what you are saying. You mean consciousness is not really a thing in itself, but a composite. In that case, I would say we are talking about different things.
Hi EricMH- Even with emergence consciousness is a thing in itself. It just emerged as opposed to being something that was planned. And it didn’t emerge until the right circumstances were present.
It’s like watching Bob Ross paint. When he is finished there is a lovely painted scene. But along the way it isn’t.
@ET, you say:
> Even with emergence consciousness is a thing in itself. It just emerged as opposed to being something that was planned. And it didn’t emerge until the right circumstances were present.
It seems you agree with the single particle removal argument, then? I’m not quite clear what the flaw in the argument is that you are pointing out.
If consciousness is a single thing, then it either exists or doesn’t exist. And if single particles are not conscious, and a collection of particles is conscious, then there must be a discrete transition point where a single particle moves the collection from ‘not conscious’ to ‘conscious’.
Actually, the above point applies if ‘consciousness’ is the name for a composite. Some composites are ‘conscious’ and others are not, so there is still a discrete transition point. It is a logical impossibility for it to be otherwise.
EricMH:
Exactly. With emergence it doesn’t exist right up until it does thanks to some just-so configuration of neurons that nature happened upon. I was just trying to explain emergence with respect to consciousness.
But my argument pertains to neurons and not particles. But it is the same concept. We are in total agreement.