Michael Egnor: Is consciousness the sort of thing that could have evolved?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 29, 2022

Human evolution, Intelligent Design, Mind}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Researchers Simona Ginsberg and Eva Jablonka have written a book attempting to trace the evolution of consciousness. Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor responds:

In addition to the problem of intentionality, the capacity of human beings to reason and use intellect and will is an insurmountable obstacle for Darwinian theories of the evolution of consciousness. As Aristotle and scientists and philosophers who have followed his thinking have noted for millennia, the human capacity for abstract reasoning is inherently immaterial. No material explanation for the human capacity of reason is even conceivable.
For example, how can human beings contemplate “infinity” using physiological (material) processes in the brain? All material processes are finite and could not thereby account for thoughts about infinity. Nor can material processes explain the perfection inherent in certain mathematical concepts, such as triangularity. All material instantiations of triangularity are imperfect — lines aren’t perfectly straight and angles in actual (material) triangles don’t add up to exactly 180 degrees. Yet our abstract understanding of triangularity is perfect, in the sense that we understand triangularity as involving straight sides and 180 degree sums of angles.
Michael Egnor, “Is consciousness the sort of thing that could have evolved?” at Mind Matters News (June 28, 2022)

The book is Picturing the Mind (MIT Press, 2022). Here’s a free excerpt.

Takehome: Material processes cannot, for example, account for the power to grasp infinity or perfection — which are not material ideas.

Note: A common response among naturalists is to claim that such abstractions, like consciousness itself, are an illusion. Egnor would respond, “If your hypothesis is that your mind is an illusion, then you do not have a hypothesis.” That’s one reason that panpsychism is better tolerated in science than it used to be. The reality is, slowly but surely, sinking in.

You may also wish to read: Did minimal consciousness drive the Cambrian Explosion? Eva Jablonka’s team makes the daring case, repurposing Hungarian chemist Tibor Gánti’s origin of life studies. The researchers point out that life forms that show minimal consciousness have very different brains from each other. Behavior, not brain anatomy, is the signal to look for.

Comments

LCD@48, You objected to SA writing that computers can learn to recognize chairs. The fact is, I can take open source software, make a big training set of pictures of chairs and other things, and feed the images to the learning software. Afterwards, I can take any picture, input it, and the system will tell me if it is a picture of chair or not, agreeing with my judgement just as closely as another person would. Please tell me why you think it is erroneous to say that this computer system has learned to recognize chairs.dogdoc_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

computers learn to recognize chairs
Yep, and a scarecrow "learn" to scare crows. I guess hollywood sci-fi movies damaged many minds. Computers are scrap metal and metal have no awareness or conscience.Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

BA77/39
In fact, Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, (for an audience full of academics at a college), a ‘miracle’ simply by, via his free will, raising his arm.
I must have missed the miracle; I was too busy trying to follow his excessive gesticulation......chuckdarwin_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

SA,
Yes, “chair” would be a universal as an abstract concept – like triangle or song. They’re not “a particular chair” or “this triangle” or “that song” but rather the concept of a chair, triangle or song.
Let's agree that all concepts are abstract, in the sense that we don't comprehend any sort of absolute, fundamental ground for physical objects. (Certainly the physical notion of a quantum particle is very highly abstract). If we think of a chair in the abstract, we are not thinking of any particular chair, but rather we are thinking of what distinguishes a chair from things that are not chairs. And if we think of a particular chair, we are taking a bundle of sensory data and deciding that it meets the abstract criteria we have for "chair". OK?
But that’s just realist-philosophy and idealists and others will disagree. Beginning with Abelard through Descartes there was the idea that universals do not exist as real things, but they’re only names that we give them from our own mind.
I'm glad to hear you say that there is legitimate debate on these metaphysical topics!
There’s a lot of debate on that, but I can’t accept that we created the concept of a triangle, for example. That seems to be a universal that transcends what the human mind produces by itself. It’s a concept that we discovered.
Sure, I mentioned this too regarding mathematical Platonism. But I've tried to make the point it's not just mathematical - it's every concept we have.
But in either case, the concept of a triangle is not something instantiated in physical reality. It’s different from a triangle we can observe empirically. That would be a particular triangle.
OK, we seem to agree on everything here, actually. What I do not understand still, though, is how all this has any significance vis-a-vis metaphysical ontology. To me, the fact that we can have a description in our heads of what a chair is, even though we are not thinking of a perceived instance that matches that description, says nothing at all about whether human thought is ontologically distinct from the rest of the world. There is no connection to libertarian free will, to the possibility of conscious experience without physical embodiment, or any other aspect of mind/body dualism that people are typically motivated to defend.dogdoc_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

DD
Now of course computers learn to recognize chairs without programmers figuring out what distinguishes them. Does this mean that something about neural network computer systems is “immaterial”?
Yes, "chair" would be a universal as an abstract concept - like triangle or song. They're not "a particular chair" or "this triangle" or "that song" but rather the concept of a chair, triangle or song. The fact that a computer can model these concepts does not mean they are reducible to material components. The computer knows what a triangle is and can display a triangle or give analytic descriptions of a triangle, but describing what something is or being able to choose a particular item based on its universal aspect is not the same as having "the concept of triangle as a material object". The concept is an abstraction, as you stated. The abstraction exists as something we can understand and refer to but it is not instantiated as a physical object. But that's just realist-philosophy and idealists and others will disagree. Beginning with Abelard through Descartes there was the idea that universals do not exist as real things, but they're only names that we give them from our own mind. There's a lot of debate on that, but I can't accept that we created the concept of a triangle, for example. That seems to be a universal that transcends what the human mind produces by itself. It's a concept that we discovered. But in either case, the concept of a triangle is not something instantiated in physical reality. It's different from a triangle we can observe empirically. That would be a particular triangle.Silver Asiatic_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Relatd/41
Do you like propaganda? Because that’s all I’m seeing.
All I'm seeing is a statement of your religious beliefs.
The supernatural exists.
It depends on how you define it but in my view, no, it doesn't.
God exists.
Which god? There's no compelling evidence for any of them.
Human thought and creativity come from God.
If there's no god, it's all down to us, both the good and the bad.
Animals do not have human creativity.
Not human creativity, no, but some of them are still pretty smart.Seversky_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

SA, UB, The way that particles are identical in quantum physics has specific experimental consequences. The weirdest is the Bose-Einstein condensate, predicted because of particle indistinguishability and observed in the lab. In these supercooled boson gases the particles become a single entity, actually sharing a single quantum state. But take a step back. Even if we accept Feser's argument, it seems superfluous. It isn't just universal concepts like triangles that defy physical characterization; we've already agreed that things like corporations are real but immaterial, even though they are not universal. In other words, we are able to think abstractly, something we should all agree on. We conceive of all sorts of things, at all sorts of levels of abstraction. The concept of "chair" is actually highly abstract! Before neural networks (in symbolic AI) it was very difficult for a computer to categorize objects as chairs or not chairs, because it was hard for programmers to specify a set of rules that captured what people meant. Now of course computers learn to recognize chairs without programmers figuring out what distinguishes them. Does this mean that something about neural network computer systems is "immaterial"? In the sense of being reducible to physics, I'd say no, but they do come up with abstract representations (in the hidden layers) of things they are exposed to. Anyway, the main point I made remains: calling abstract things "immaterial", and saying this means "irreducible to physics", doesn't seem to get you any distance toward the sort of dualism that I imagine you're really after.dogdoc_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Lieutenant Commander Data@33 You hit the nail on the head.doubter_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

CD at 38, Do you like propaganda? Because that's all I'm seeing. The supernatural exists. God exists. Human thought and creativity come from God. Animals do not have human creativity.relatd_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

DD
So when you talk about electrons, they are not particular, they are universal, because every electron is exactly like every other electron and they cannot be distinguished by any means at all, even in principle.
Just following UD's response on this - electrons must be particular for purposes of analysis and measurement. "This electron" is contrasted with "that one". You can't do that with universals. "Triangularity" is a universal, non-localized, non-particular. You can't measure the concept of a triangle. We observe electrons and measure their movements.Silver Asiatic_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

ChuckyD, "I suppose it is “inconceivable” that you could focus on my point rather than digressing to a cut and paste olio of nonsense" FYI, you are not the only one commenting on this thread, and thank God we do not exist in ChuckyD's solipsist world where only his thoughts and beliefs matter. As for you discounting the agent causality of the Wright Brothers as truly being 'supernatural', well atheistic materialists brought this upon themselves, and made agent causality 'miraculous', and/or 'supernatural', when they denied the reality of the free will of the immaterial mind. (which is something we all experience first hand)
The Illusion of Free Will - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.,,," - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/
And indeed, since atheists deny the reality of their own free will, and thus deny the reality of their own agent causality, then demonstrating a miracle becomes something as easy as falling off a log: In fact, Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, (for an audience full of academics at a college), a ‘miracle’ simply by, via his free will, raising his arm,,
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVByFjV0qlE#t=746s
Supplemental note:
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." https://www.reddit.com/r/exatheist/comments/nvknoy/atheism_to_catholicism_a_professors_journey_out/
bornagain77_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

BA77/26 I suppose it is "inconceivable" that you could focus on my point rather than digressing to a cut and paste olio of nonsense:
The airplane simply would not exist otherwise, unless it was first ‘supernaturally’ intelligently designed by the immaterial minds of the Wright Brothers when they, via their free wills, infused the proper immaterial Information into the proper material substrates. Again there was certainly nothing ‘natural’ about the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane.
The mere fact that you have to put supernaturally in parenthesis demonstrates my point. You and Egnor have assigned supernatural status to human thought. You have taken behavior as natural as breathing and a priori cordoned it off by fiat from scientific study. It shows lack of imagination. Yes, indeed, ID is a science stopper.......chuckdarwin_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

A few related note:
,,,Plato valued abstract ideas more than the physical world and rejected the notion that attributes such as goodness and beauty were “mechanical manifestations of material atoms.” Where Democritus believed that matter could not move through space without a vacuum and that light was the rapid movement of particles through a void, https://www.britannica.com/science/atom/Development-of-atomic-theory "I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato, (and against Democritus). In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language." - Werner Heisenberg - Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie (1967), as translated in Natural Law and the Structure of Matter (1981), p. 34 "[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not." - Eugene Wigner - Concluding sentence after a review of the experimental evidence from quantum mechanics: "Science has not buried God, it has revealed Him and with it buried materialism." - https://drewtestblogblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/test-post/ Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.,, The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical - and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/why-quantum-theory-does-not-support-materialism/ Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup - March 25, 2019 Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,, To make sense of this conundrum, we don’t need the word games of information realism. Instead, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself. Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/
Also of note:
The Representation Problem and the Immateriality of the Mind Michael Egnor - February 5, 2018 Excerpt: Thoughts may be divided into thoughts about particulars and thoughts about universals. Thoughts about particulars are thoughts, including perceptions, imagination, memory, etc., about particular objects in our environments. Thoughts about my coffee, or my car, or my family would be thoughts about particulars. Thoughts about universals are abstract thoughts, and are thoughts about concepts. Justice, mercy, logic, mathematics, etc., are abstract thoughts.,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-representation-problem-and-the-immateriality-of-the-mind/
bornagain77_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

.
So when you talk about electrons, they are not particular, they are universal, because every electron is exactly like every other electron and they cannot be distinguished by any means at all, even in principle.
I am not following this conversation at all, but this sentence caught my eye. Perhaps they should just be called “electron” then, in the singular. On the other hand, if we have good reason to call them “electrons” as a reliable product of measurement, then apparently they are discernible, despite their anonymity. Perhaps a rule about universals might turn out to be an anthropic imposition. Or, I could be completely out of context. :)Upright BiPed_{July 1, 2022
July
07
Jul
1
01
2022
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

SA,
Yes, in general they would be [considered to be "immaterial entities"]. If they cannot be reduced to material qualities then we call them immaterial entities. Like universals – a triangle. That’s an immaterial entity.
(my emphasis) Okay, thanks for your answer. In order for something to be material, they must be reducible to material qualities. The first thing I'd say is, as I mentioned above, physics no longer describes material qualities in terms of anything that we generally think of as being material. Subatomic particles don't doesn't exist at a single location in space and time until they are observed. They are not bits of material stuff. Quantum field theory - the most successful physical theory ever - reduce the physical world to things (quantum fields) that exist in a state with no specific location, length, height, or weight as we think of those qualities. Some would say in the light of modern physics, then, it's not all that clear what "reducible to material qualities" means. But in the spirit of generously attempting to come to a common understanding, let me hazard a good-faith guess as to what you might mean by "material qualities": Those qualities currently used by physics to explain the nature of physical reality. Hopefully that captures your meaning. But even so, this is not an ontological distinction - it only represents (current) limits of reductionist physics, not some law that prevents grounding these phenomena in physics in principle. Even chemistry and physiology are not fully reducible to physics! All of this makes your distinction between "reducible to physics" vs. "not reducible to physics" a weak one. In other words, when you base your distinction between "material" and "immaterial" on what is reducible to physics, it no longer reflects the ontological distinction that I believe you're hoping for (correct me if I'm wrong).
You don’t know what people mean by “a rock”, “the Pacific Ocean” or “Bank of America”?
No, those were my examples of things that exist but cannot be characterized purely in terms of physical properties like location, height, weight, and so on. I said I didn't understand what people meant by "material" or "immaterial". As for the definition of a triangle being immaterial: I'm sure you're aware that the reality of geometric forms, or mathematics in general, has been a topic of debate for millennia. Are numbers real, as Plato thought? Or are they purely mental constructs? I'm not asking to bait you - I truly have no opinion on the matter. All I know is that brilliant people have argued both sides of that since before Plato and it's all a lot more complicated than many assume :-)
It sounds like you want to re-write every dictionary – or perhaps just get rid of them all (and Wikipedia as well)?
You are trying very, very hard to pretend that I am arguing things that are not at all what I am arguing. Aren't you tired of that yet?
Ed Feser analyzes James Ross’ argument for the immateriality of thought:
Here you are promoting the idea that thought is immaterial. Given your definition of that word, I would agree: We cannot currently reduce thought to physics. Calling thought "immaterial" under your definition ought to be uncontroversial.
1. Everything physical is particular.
I don't think this is true according to physics. In physics, bosons and fermions are known as indiscernible particles. They are identical in every respect and cannot be distinguished from one another, even in principle. (Remember, "particles" in subatomic physics are not little bits of matter - they are something else). (look up "identical particles in quantum physics") So when you talk about electrons, they are not particular, they are universal, because every electron is exactly like every other electron and they cannot be distinguished by any means at all, even in principle. But let's set that aside and look at the rest of the argument:
1. Everything physical is particular. 2. However, some thoughts are universal. 3. Therefore, some thoughts are not physical.
This doesn't seem to map at all to your distinction between material and immaterial. In your view, immaterial things are those irreducible to physics. But Feser is saying that "physical" (material) things are "particular" things, while "not physical" (immaterial) things are "universal" things.dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

SA @31, its pretty clear that he was saying he doesn't know what the terms material and immaterial mean to the people who are using them here. He has never said he doesn't know what a rock is. It reads like you are being deliberately disingenuous.TimR_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Very funny that some people are hyperskeptical with their own senses with things they actually see ,taste and touch but in the same time they are anti-skeptical with their own intelligence and accept whatever insanity fly through their mind..."because they are special". If you want to be hyperskeptical start with your intelligence that tell you in the first place to be hyperskeptical . :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Ed Feser analyzes James Ross' argument for the immateriality of thought:
James Ross developed a simple and powerful argument for the immate- riality of the intellect, an argument rooted in the Aristotelian-Scholastic tradition while drawing on ideas from analytic philosophers Saul Kripke, W. V. Quine, and Nelson Goodman. This paper provides a detailed exposition and defense of the argument, filling out aspects that Ross left sketchy. Kripke, Ross, and the Immaterial Aspects of Thought https://www.newdualism.org/papers/E.Feser/Feser-acpq_2013.pdf
Summarizing the argument: 1. Everything physical is particular. 2. However, some thoughts are universal. 3. Therefore, some thoughts are not physical. First premise: Every physical thing is restricted to this or that particular instantiation, There is, for example, this triangle drawn on this chalkboard and there is that triangle drawn on that chalkboard, but never do we encounter in the physical realm triangularity as such. Second premise: Triangularity or "a triangle" is a universal concept.Silver Asiatic_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

DD
I genuinely don’t understand what these terms mean to those who use them.
You don't know what people mean by "a rock", "the Pacific Ocean" or "Bank of America"? It sounds like you want to re-write every dictionary - or perhaps just get rid of them all (and Wikipedia as well)?Silver Asiatic_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

DD
And then I ask if these existing things can’t be described in terms of physical properties, would they be considered as “immaterial entities”.
Yes, in general they would be. If they cannot be reduced to material qualities then we call them immaterial entities. Like universals - a triangle. That's an immaterial entity.Silver Asiatic_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

SA@28,
You’re giving some kind of standard by which you evaluate things and definitions of things.
Sorry but no, I have not really offered standards by which I "evaluate things and definitions of things".
You don’t know if the color red exists.
As I just finished explaining to Relatd, there is a long history of study of color perception. Obviously we experience the qualia of red, but there is great uncertainty about what the relationship is between our perception and the physical properties of things that we perceive as red. Here's the reference I gave to Relatd which will give you a good idea of what the issues are: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/
You don’t have the answer to what a material thing is...
Well, apparently I'm not the only one! Nobody here has suggested any criteria for deciding if something is material or immaterial despite my repeated questions. And that includes you!
...or if Texas exists...
You mistate my position here, badly. I actually said of course we would all agree that Texas (or the Bank of America or income tax or electrons etc) exists even though these things cannot be characterized in terms of the physical properties that "material" things are supposed to have (location, size, weight, etc). And then I ask if these existing things can't be described in terms of physical properties, would they be considered as "immaterial entities". Anyway, if you can't make your point without mischaracterizing what I've said maybe you shouldn't be so sure of yourself?
I’ll suggest that this is hyper-skepticism but even if not, it will make it very difficult to communicate if you’ll reject definitions of things but at the same time take no position on what things are.
What definitions have I rejected? I agree that it is possible to be hyper-skeptical, but I don't think I've said anything along those lines. I am asking about one particular concept - that of "material" vs. "immaterial" entities - and what is meant by that delineation. If you think that is somehow "difficult" to discuss that then perhaps you might want to just skip this discussion.
That is, it’s fine to say that you don’t know if anything exists,
Wow, again you completely misstate what I've said here! Read the entire page, I have never said or implied anything like "I don't know if anything exists"! I'm not the one who is being difficult to communicate with, that's for sure. Read what I've said and stop making things up and pretending I've said them.
We have these kinds of discussions often with one or more idealist (mind-only) proponents and we end up talking in circles and wasting a lot of time and not learning very much.
Either give it a try or don't, but it doesn't help to complain before you've even tried. Once again: I do not understand the distinction that the OP and others here make regarding material vs. immaterial entities. I am asking for someone who uses these concepts to explain it to me. If you can offer some explanation then do so!
With that, again, I’d suggest and prefer that you lay out your views beyond merely that you don’t know.
Are you joking? Should I pretend that I know what you mean by these terms even though I don't?
Why not seek some mutual understanding from everyone?
I can't think of a better way of seeking mutual understanding with everyone than trying to understand what they are saying.dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

DogDoc
Anyway, sorry, but I actually don’t have the answers to these questions. I think it’s very difficult to understand in what sense these things exist. Even something like the color “red” – does that color exist? In what sense?
That's a start anyway. You're giving some kind of standard by which you evaluate things and definitions of things. You don't know if the color red exists. You don't have the answer to what a material thing is or if Texas exists, etc. I'll suggest that this is hyper-skepticism but even if not, it will make it very difficult to communicate if you'll reject definitions of things but at the same time take no position on what things are. That is, it's fine to say that you don't know if anything exists, but that has very big consequences in all of your thinking and all of your attempts to explain reality and various truths. We have these kinds of discussions often with one or more idealist (mind-only) proponents and we end up talking in circles and wasting a lot of time and not learning very much. With that, again, I'd suggest and prefer that you lay out your views beyond merely that you don't know. This is not being primed for a fight, but just being wary of conversations that end up in needless conflicts that could be avoided. Why not seek some mutual understanding from everyone?Silver Asiatic_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Hi BornAgain, You seem comfortable with the concepts of "immaterial" and "material". Maybe you could chime in and help clarify their meaning. Is there some particular criterion you apply to decide if something is "material" or not? (I assume there is). Can you show how to apply that criterion to a list of entities to determine which class they fall into? 1) a rock 2) an electron 3) the Bank of America 4) the Pacific Ocean By the way, I'm not trying to trick or attack anyone here as some have suspected - I'm a curious person and I genuinely don't understand what these terms mean to those who use them. Likewise I have trouble with "natural" vs. "supernatural".dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

ChuckyD: "Wright Bros. example simply demonstrates that something that what was once claimed “inconceivable” came to fruition. Without appealing to the supernatural……." Well ChuckyD, hate to inform you once again, but there was certainly nothing 'natural' about the Wright Brothers invention of the airplane. Again, only when the Wright brothers infused immaterial information into the proper material substrates, via their immaterial minds, in order to 'intelligently design' an airplane was the airplane brought into existence.
Wright Flyer – Airplane Blueprint. https://pixels.com/featured/3-wright-flyer-restored-patent-drawing-for-the-1906-orville-wilbur-wright-brothers-flying-machine-jose-elias-sofia-pereira.html
The airplane simply would not exist otherwise, unless it was first 'supernaturally' intelligently designed by the immaterial minds of the Wright Brothers when they, via their free wills, infused the proper immaterial Information into the proper material substrates. Again there was certainly nothing 'natural' about the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane. Moreover, even the computer sitting right in front of your face proves the existence of the immaterial mind. As George Ellis explained, “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone's plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.”
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y. Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? - September 29, 2013 Excerpt: To get an handle on how top-down causation works, Ellis focuses on what's in front of all us so much of the time: the computer. Computers are structured systems. They are built as a hierarchy of layers, extending from the wires in the transistors all the way up to the fully assembled machine, gleaming metal case and all. Because of this layering, what happens at the uppermost levels — like you hitting the escape key — flows downward. This action determines the behavior of the lowest levels — like the flow of electrons through the wires — in ways that simply could not be predicted by just knowing the laws of electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Structured systems such as a computer constrain lower level interactions, and thereby paradoxically create new possibilities of complex behavior.” Ellis likes to emphasize how the hierarchy of structure — from fully assembled machine through logic gates, down to transistors — changes everything for the lowly electrons. In particular, it "breaks the symmetry" of their possible behavior since their movements in the computer hardware are very different from what would occur if they were just floating around in a plasma blob in space. But the hardware, of course, is just one piece of the puzzle. This is where things get interesting. As Ellis explains: “Hardware is only causally effective because of the software which animates it: by itself hardware can do nothing. Both hardware and software are hierarchically structured with the higher level logic driving the lower level events.” In other words, it's software at the top level of structure that determines how the electrons at the bottom level flow. Hitting escape while running Word moves the electrons in the wires in different ways than hitting escape does when running Photoshop. This is causation flowing from top to bottom. For Ellis, anything producing causes is real in the most basic sense of the word. Thus the software, which is not physical like the electrons, is just as real as those electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Hence, although they are the ultimate in algorithmic causation as characterized so precisely by Turing, digital computers embody and demonstrate the causal efficacy of non-physical entities. The physics allows this; it does not control what takes place. Computers exemplify the emergence of new kinds of causation out of the underlying physics, not implied by physics but rather by the logic of higher-level possibilities. ... A combination of bottom-up causation and contextual affects (top-down influences) enables their complex functioning.” The consequences of this perspective for our view of the mind are straightforward and radical: “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone's plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.” http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/29/225359504/how-does-the-world-work-top-down-or-bottom-up
To deny the obvious immateriality of the human intellect in the process of inventing airplanes, computers, and etc.., etc.., is to be "deep in the mire of folly". As Adam Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly."
From Adam Sedgwick - 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction? As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,, You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,, We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,, in speculating upon organic descent, you over state the evidence of geology; & that you under state it while you are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree:,,, Lastly then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter—not as a summary—for in that light it appears good—but I dislike it from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a tone I condemned in the author of the Vestiges),7 & prophesy of things not yet in the womb of time; nor, (if we are to trust the accumulated experience of human sense & the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.— https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
Of supplemental note, the Wright Brothers just so happened to be sons of a Christian Bishop
Milton Wright (November 17, 1828 – April 3, 1917) was the father of aviation pioneers Wilbur and Orville Wright, and a bishop of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. - per wikipedia
bornagain77_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

CD at 23, Before Darwin, a lot of important scientists gave credit to God for their discoveries. As far as powered aircraft, a lot of people had seen powered aircraft in the form of living birds. Thanks to Henry Ford, internal combustion engines were applied to the Wright Brothers' glider. You're talking fiction if you think powered aircraft falls under the inconceivable category. Man-carrying gliders proved the concept before the gas engine was added. What designers often do is look to nature to try to figure how certain things are possible for living things. Bats and sonar, for example. The human brain, for example.relatd_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Relatd@22,
I read a lot of professional writing and it includes actual psychology and actual perception.
Are there other sorts of psychology and perception besides those that are "actual"? I don't mean to be snarky, I really don't know if you're trying to say that my comments or sources are somehow not bona-fide or something else.
So immaterial just means something that you can’t hold in your hand – that’s all.
You don't mean that literally, though. If you did, then we would have to say the Pacific Ocean is immaterial, and elephants are immaterial, and so on, which I don't think you would agree to. Moreover, modern physics has shown that even the things we can literally hold in our hand, like a rock, is composed of things that do not exist in time and space the way we consider that rocks do. I'm referring to, for example, particle-wave duality and non-locality in quantum physics, where an electron is said to exist but it doesn't exist in a particular place at a particular time. And no, this is not a limit of our ability to measure things (epistemic uncertainty), but rather a feature of the reality of things like electrons (ontological uncertainty).
No debate needed as far as I’m concerned.
Well then it's all settled! (for you at least :-))
To put it another way – I know for a fact that what I read for publication WILL be perceived a certain way by most people. I’ve been doing this for years.
I'm sure you're very expert at your job, but I don't see how your ability to predict what colors will be reported by your customers resolves any of these complex, long-standing questions regarding how color perception works. If you're not interested in reading a book, here's a great reference to introduce you to the issues: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/ ADDED: Here is the introduction to that page on Stanford Philosophy:
Colors are of philosophical interest for a number of reasons. One of the most important reasons is that color raises serious metaphysical issues, concerning the nature both of physical reality and of the mind. Among these issues are questions concerning whether color is part of a mind-independent reality, and what account we can give of experiences of color. These issues have been, and continue to be, inextricably linked with important epistemological and semantic issues.
dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

BA77/5 Wright Bros. example simply demonstrates that something that what was once claimed "inconceivable" came to fruition. Without appealing to the supernatural....... No more complicated than that......chuckdarwin_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Dd at 21, I read a lot of professional writing and it includes actual psychology and actual perception. So immaterial just means something that you can't hold in your hand - that's all. No debate needed as far as I'm concerned. To put it another way - I know for a fact that what I read for publication WILL be perceived a certain way by most people. I've been doing this for years.relatd_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Relatd@20,
The example given makes no sense in the real world.
Well, we're in the real world, and so is that image, and we really see those colors differently, and that really does say something powerful about how our perceptions are not simple measurements of physical properties. Of course this particular example is just a terrific illustration; the subjective aspects of color perception have been discussed for a long time.
I am involved in judging colors for print. Time and again, selecting a red has become quite obvious in terms of how people respond. I suggest getting a copy of Color Image Scale by Shigenobu Kobayashi for examples of color and people’s perceptions.
Again, color perception has been studied (by cognitive psychologists and philosophers) for a very long time and debates about how it all works continue. I would recommend to you the classic "Color for Philosophers: Unweaving the Rainbow" by C.L. Hardin, who gives a fascinating analysis of the phenomenology of color perception - both the objective (physical) and subjective (mental) components. Anyway, I brought up color as just one of innumerable things we say are real but are not (entirely) objectively measurable. Things like the Bank of America, or Texas, or income tax -I think we'd all agree these things exist, but they don't have physical properties. But my question remains: Would that mean they are "immaterial entities"? And does "immaterial" mean "abstract", or if not, what does it mean?dogdoc_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Dd at 19, I have an arts and graphic design background. The example given makes no sense in the real world. I am involved in judging colors for print. Time and again, selecting a red has become quite obvious in terms of how people respond. I suggest getting a copy of Color Image Scale by Shigenobu Kobayashi for examples of color and people's perceptions.relatd_{June 30, 2022
June
06
Jun
30
30
2022
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply