Without wanting to sound facetious, it is like an example of the old saying about the drunk looking for his keys under a lamp post. He’s joined by an onlooker, and they both search for the keys but to no avail. ‘Are you sure you lost your keys here?’, says the onlooker. ‘No’, says the drunk, ‘but the light is better here.’ — Wayfarer

:rofl: I'd forgotten that one.

I suggest that likewise, you’ve painted yourself into a corner, because of the inability to conceive of the nature of mind in any sense other than that of a combination of particulate matter. And I understand that, because it is pretty well the mainstream view. But I think it’s a dead end: that the nature of mind can’t be understood in terms of the laws that govern inanimate matter, because it operates according to different principles altogether. — Wayfarer

Correct. Which is why I think we're dealing with something that does not operate by the laws you're referring to, re materialism. I think the universe has physical and non-physical elements. There can't be a problem with the two things working in conjunction, because we are physical beings and we are conscious. They are working in conjunction. I'm just saying this is how I think it all comes about.

What they might be - well, that’s the question! — Wayfarer

Now you know. :grin:

If you look further into the David Chalmers famous essay Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness... — Wayfarer

All parts of what you quoted are exactly what I'm saying.

It expands the ontology slightly, to be sure, but Maxwell did the same thing.

As did Penrose/Hameroff , “Orch OR”, 1994.

Rebutted, or not depending on who’s commenting, in Tegmark, 2000;
Also by Churchill, the female edition, 1996; supported by a whole bunch of analytic types, so…..

Minor contribution, of no particular import. Theories do abound, though, don’t they.

I can't see that you're saying anything that means anything.

All [parts] of what you quoted are exactly what I'm saying. — Patterner

But they're not.

You acknowledge, on the one hand, that currently known physics doesn't or cannot capture the nature of first-person experience, per the quotes you have given. But then you say that sub-atomic particles must have some undiscovered property, which accounts for the nature of consciousness:

I'm saying there must be an explanation for our consciousness in the properties of the particles that we are made out of. — Patterner

But there must be a property there (i.e. of particles) that can give rise to the "what it's like" of consciousness, because, if there isn't, then our subjective experience emerges for no reason — Patterner

The properties of particles, forces, and laws of physics dictate how things are. — Patterner

So the question is, what if consciousness has no basis in particle physics whatever? What if it is of a completely different order to the entities of physics?

I do believe it's understood in terms of the particles. (In conjunction with the forces, laws of physics, and anything else anyone would care to mention.) But it involves non-physicsl properties of the particles. So it's not materialism or physicalism. It's panpsychism. — Patterner

That's still a form of physicalism. It is like the form of panpsychism that Galen Strawson advocates. See this brief Chat description.

So the question is, what if consciousness has no basis in particle physics whatever? What if it is of a completely different order to the entities of physics? — Wayfarer

Proto-consciousness (or just call it consciousness) has no basis in particle physics whatever, and is of a completely different order to the entities of physics. No physics can explain it, define it, describe it, or even detect it. It "can’t be understood in terms of the laws that govern inanimate matter."

We are physical beings, and we are conscious. Which means it is impossible for physical and consciousness to be mutually exclusive. If it is an undeniable fact, then why claim it cannot be possible at that level?

Speaking of Strawson, here, he says:

My intuition says there is no way in which you can just put completely non-experiential things together to cross into [can't make out a word] this other realm. So, if you can't do that, some of the experiencing stuff must be right there, down at the bottom, right from the beginning. — Galen Strawson

We are physical beings, and we are conscious. Which means it is impossible for physical and consciousness to be mutually exclusive. If it is an undeniable fact, then why claim it cannot be possible at that level? — Patterner

Please re-phrase that. I don’t understand it.

Do you think that we can safely rule out reductionism, as far as consciousness is concerned?

I generally do.

If you look further into the David Chalmers famous essay Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness ...

Thanks.

I sort of skimmed through Chalmers' essay. At some point he says:

There is an obvious problem that plagues the development of a theory of consciousness, and that is the paucity of objective data. Conscious experience is not directly observable in an experimental context, so we cannot generate data about the relationship between physical processes and experience at will. — Chalmers

Can't we monitor people's physiology - brain activity, heart etc - with specialized equipment designed specifically for this purpose, in relation to various stimuli, thereby building a huge database correlating physical processes with experiences? Can't it be done in a controlled environment, like a lab, or in everyday life, via the use of wearables - wrist watches, holter equivalents, helmets etc? Subjects must be sincere to report their feelings of course.

Can't we monitor people's physiology - brain activity, heart etc - with specialized equipment designed specifically for this purpose, in relation to various stimuli, thereby building a huge database correlating physical processes with experiences? — Pussycat

Of course. Those kinds of exercises are stock-in-trade for cognitive science. But, says Chalmers, those are easy problems. They are not the hard problem. So you’d better do more than skim.

I just wanted to point out what he sees as

an obvious problem that plagues the development of a theory of consciousness

: the paucity of objective data. But by monitoring the general population, this problem is solved. Why not invest time and effort in doing that, instead of theorizing? Well maybe Chalmers has a theoretical inclination, but why should the rest of us?

Can't we monitor people's physiology - brain activity, heart etc - with specialized equipment designed specifically for this purpose, in relation to various stimuli, thereby building a huge database correlating physical processes with experiences? — Pussycat

Yes, but that won't tell you which things are conscious, or will it?

We are physical beings, and we are conscious. Which means it is impossible for physical and consciousness to be mutually exclusive. If it is an undeniable fact, then why claim it cannot be possible at that level?
— Patterner

Please re-phrase that. I don’t understand it. — Wayfarer

What is the reason for thinking matter cannot subjectively experience at one level when we know it subjectively experiences at another level? Why is it deemed impossible at the micro when it is a fact (possibly the only undeniable fact) at the macro?

Babysteps, besides we are also talking about experiences and feelings, apart from consciousness. An objective map of all feelings to physical processes would be nice to have.

I think the universe has physical and non-physical elements. There can't be a problem with the two things working in conjunction, because we are physical beings and we are conscious. They are working in conjunction. I'm just saying this is how I think it all comes about. — Patterner

But thinking in this way complicates things unnecessarily. How do physical and non-physical elements interact? Would it require positing a third element, or how does that work? Why do you think there are physical and non-physical things when the only way you "know" of "physical" things is the way they are represented by the non-physical mind?

So the question is, what if consciousness has no basis in particle physics whatever? — Wayfarer

I still don't understand how we've come to "understand" the nature of particle physics when the only access we have to particles is via our particle-less immaterial mind. It's like scientists are merely focused on the things in the view and fail to account for the view itself. Ultimately when talking about particles, we are talking about mental objects. It seems to be more of a problem of direct (naive) vs indirect realism. Is the world really made up of particles (naive realism) or is physical particles merely a mental representation of what is out there that is not physical or particles? We know that the simple act of observing can turn waves into particles.

Proto-consciousness (or just call it consciousness) has no basis in particle physics whatever, and is of a completely different order to the entities of physics. No physics can explain it, define it, describe it, or even detect it. It "can’t be understood in terms of the laws that govern inanimate matter." — Patterner

Minds cause bodies to move. It seems to me that both you and physicists are wrong. I think that we have a better term to use here instead of "proto-consciousness" and that is "information". Information is the property of causal interactions and information is the basis of the mental.

But thinking in this way complicates things unnecessarily. How do physical and non-physical elements interact? Would it require positing a third element, or how does that work? — Harry Hindu

In Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe, Brian Greene writes:

What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. — Brian Greene

It goes in both directions. The property of matter that makes it produce something also makes it respond to that same thing. At least when it comes to gravity and electrical charge. If there's a property of matter that gives it consciousness, then there's no way to rule out the possibility that that property can also make matter susceptible to consciousness.

Why do you think there are physical and non-physical things when the only way you "know" of "physical" things is the way they are represented by the non-physical mind? — Harry Hindu

Because I don't see why a non-physical mind in a non-physical reality would interpret and represent things in a way that doesn't exist. Fabricating a system of interpreting reality that has no basis in reality doesn't make sense. Why fabricate a system that doesn't exist to interpret reality, instead of interpreting reality in a way that reflects the true nature of reality and/or the mind?

Minds cause bodies to move. It seems to me that both you and physicists are wrong. I think that we have a better term to use here instead of "proto-consciousness" and that is "information". Information is the property of causal interactions and information is the basis of the mental. — Harry Hindu

I think information is the the key to it all. The last five paragraphs of my OP touch on that. I would be very happy to discuss it more, even though I don't have a firm understanding of a lot of it.

It goes in both directions. The property of matter that makes it produce something also makes it respond to that same thing. At least when it comes to gravity and electrical charge. If there's a property of matter that gives it consciousness, then there's no way to rule out the possibility that that property can also make matter susceptible to consciousness. — Patterner

In physics, the mass of an elementary particle is believed to be generated by its passing through a Higgs field:

A vacuum Higgs field is responsible for spontaneous symmetry breaking the gauge symmetries of fundamental interactions and provides the Higgs mechanism of generating mass of elementary particles.

And

In the Standard Model of particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is essential to explain the generation mechanism of the property "mass" for gauge bosons. Without the Higgs mechanism, all bosons (one of the two classes of particles, the other being fermions) would be considered massless, but measurements show that the W+, W−, and Z0 bosons actually have relatively large masses of around 80 GeV/c2. The Higgs field resolves this conundrum. The simplest description of the mechanism adds to the Standard Model a quantum field (the Higgs field), which permeates all of space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism

Do you think that something similar happens with consciousness, with matter passing through a field to rise?

No. I don't think everything about proto-consciousness necessarily works the same as everything about any other property of particles. The others (at least the others that we know of) are all physical properties, and proto-consciousness is not. It could be nothing about them works the same as how anything physical works.

the paucity of objective data. — Pussycat

You’re not seeing the point of the article. It’s not a matter which can be assessed objectively.

What is the reason for thinking matter cannot subjectively experience at one level when we know it subjectively experiences at another level? Why is it deemed impossible at the micro when it is a fact (possibly the only undeniable fact) at the macro? — Patterner

I’ve been arguing that this is based on a principle that something can be understood solely in terms of constituent parts. This is why I’m saying you’re still thinking about the problem in a basically materialist way. You’re positing that there must be some unknown property because we’re ‘thinking matter’, also a materialist assumption. Does matter experience anything, or is that something which only embodied mind is capable of? What if what you’re calling ‘proto-consciousness’ has a causal role in the emergence of organic life?

Organism have attributes which no non-organic matter displays: the ability to maintain themselves seperately from the environment, homeostasis, growth, healing and reproduction. None of those activities can be satisfactorily described in terms of physics, although not for want of trying.

Is the world really made up of particles (naive realism) or [are] physical particles merely a mental representation of what is out there that is not physical or particles? — Harry Hindu

Good question! That is an idealist perspective on the issue.

What is the reason for thinking matter cannot subjectively experience at one level when we know it subjectively experiences at another level? Why is it deemed impossible at the micro when it is a fact (possibly the only undeniable fact) at the macro? — Patterner

OK, so we know matter can experience, as we and the other animals are material beings and we know they and we experience things. Other emergent properties such as wetness, hardness and so on don't obtain at the level of fundamental particles because they are the result of interactions between particles, so why should we think the case is any different with experience or consciousness?

It's not a matter of saying that it is impossible that particles experience, but that we have no idea how it could be that they experience anything. In other words, we don't know what it could even mean to say that particles are conscious. We are satisfied with saying that particles have the potential, in their interactions with each other, for other emergent properties, so why not think the same for consciousness?

Is the world really made up of particles (naive realism) or [are] physical particles merely a mental representation of what is out there that is not physical or particles?
— Harry Hindu

Good question! That is an idealist perspective on the issue. — Wayfarer

Can either of you explain what I said a couple posts ago? If physical and particles don't exist, why would our minds concoct this interpretation of reality, extraordinarily detailed, every second of our lives, that is all about physical and particles, rather than show us actual reality? Inventing a false reality to hide the real seems extremely odd.

I’ve been arguing that this is based on a principle that something can be understood solely in terms of constituent parts. This is why I’m saying you’re still thinking about the problem in a basically materialist way. — Wayfarer

I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. "Matter" means "physical". And that's the only way people conceive of it. Largely because of Galileo's Error, and the spectacular success of our sciences. I think we should think of matter - of everything, everywhere - as both physical and conscious. From the ground up. Another word entirely would be good, since "matter" is so entrenched in our language.

You’re positing that there must be some unknown property because we’re ‘thinking matter’, also a materialist assumption. — Wayfarer

Perhaps your responses to my first paragraph will convince me otherwise.

What if what you’re calling ‘proto-consciousness’ has a causal role in the emergence of organic life? — Wayfarer

Go on.

If physical and particles don't exist, why would our minds concoct this interpretation of reality, extraordinarily detailed, every second of our lives, that is all about physical and particles, rather than show us actual reality? Inventing a false reality to hide the real seems extremely odd. — Patterner

What is physical? Charles Pinter says in Mind and the Cosmic Order that 'what we regard as the physical world is “physical” to us precisely in the sense that it acts in opposition to our will and constrains our actions. The aspect of the universe that resists our push and demands muscular effort on our part is what we consider to be “physical”.'

Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order: How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things, and Why this Insight Transforms Physics (p. 6). (Function). Kindle Edition.

He goes on to say 'On the other hand, since sensation and thought don’t require overcoming any physical resistance, we consider them to be outside of material reality.' And among those thoughts are
theories of the physical. They are a different matter, as they're reliant on abstraction, categorisation and measurement, which are purely intellectual in nature. They are what mind brings to the picture, so to speak.

I would never say that what is physical does not exist. What I do say, is that what is real is not exhausted by, or limited to, the physical. To clarify — I’m not suggesting we invent a false reality, nor that the physical is an illusion. What I’m questioning is the assumption that the appearance of a world with particle-like structure entails that the physical structure is primary, or exists independently of the mind that apprehends it. In other words, ‘physicalism’.

Pinter’s point is subtle but important: what we call “physical” is not a self-explanatory domain; it’s an abstraction built on resistance, measurement, and predictability. These are relational features, experienced by a conscious agent. The fact that our scientific theories work so well tells us something deep — but it doesn't tell us everything. It certainly doesn't explain how consciousness arises within a model, particularly a model that starts by excluding it.

I think we should think of matter - of everything, everywhere - as both physical and conscious. From the ground up — Patterner

But there's no evidence that it is. Neither the Large Hadron Collider nor the James Webb Telescope has produced the slightest hint of how matter could be considered conscious. That's why I call your style of panpsychism the 'secret sauce' model - 'hey, matter has some unknown property that allows it to become conscious. We just can't work out what that property is'. It's a secret sauce.

Can't we monitor people's physiology - brain activity, heart etc - with specialized equipment designed specifically for this purpose, in relation to various stimuli, thereby building a huge database correlating physical processes with experiences? — Pussycat

We can monitor brainwaves, to a very minimal degree, distinguishing different frequencies as corresponding with different types of activities. But our knowledge of brainwaves is very primitive and the difficulty is in determining which frequencies are associated with which matter.

https://news.mit.edu/2024/study-reveals-universal-pattern-brain-wave-frequencies-0118

You’re not seeing the point of the article. It’s not a matter which can be assessed objectively. — Wayfarer

Isn't the "point of the article" the same as being "objective"? If there is a point to the article that one is not seeing, isn't that the same as saying the article can be assessed (seen) objectively which you have "seen" and the other has not "seen"? How can we hope to see the point of anything if all we have to go by is "subjective" experiences? It would seem that we have both subjective and objective experiences and the issue is trying to discern which is which.

It goes in both directions. The property of matter that makes it produce something also makes it respond to that same thing. At least when it comes to gravity and electrical charge. If there's a property of matter that gives it consciousness, then there's no way to rule out the possibility that that property can also make matter susceptible to consciousness. — Patterner

Sure, mind causes matter to move and vice versa, but that would lead me to believe in a form of monism, not dualism. Properties are information and it seems that is all was have access to - the properties of "stuff". If properties (information) is all there is then we essentially access the world as it is and dichotomy between physical and non-physical, and direct vs indirect realism disappears.

Because I don't see why a non-physical mind in a non-physical reality would interpret and represent things in a way that doesn't exist. Fabricating a system of interpreting reality that has no basis in reality doesn't make sense. Why fabricate a system that doesn't exist to interpret reality, instead of interpreting reality in a way that reflects the true nature of reality and/or the mind? — Patterner

I don't understand this. Are you saying that things that are non-physical don't really exist? Are you not also saying that the mind is non-physical? Does that mean that minds do not exist? If the contents of the mind do not exist then how can "it go in both directions" where the contents of the mind cause changes in matter outside of it? If you have an idea and that idea causes you to change your behavior, how can you say the idea does not exist? What caused your change in behavior?

This idea that the contents of the mind are non-existent stems from the faulty idea of dualism (existence vs non-existence). Non-existence is one of those things that exists as a idea but not in any other form, but it can cause you to do things like typing scribbles on the screen about it. Non-existence exists - as an idea. There is nothing that does not exist because any time you think about it you bring it into existence. The only question is what is the nature of its existence (what are its properties). Is it just an idea, or something more?

Because I don't see why a non-physical mind in a non-physical reality would interpret and represent things in a way that doesn't exist. Fabricating a system of interpreting reality that has no basis in reality doesn't make sense. Why fabricate a system that doesn't exist to interpret reality, instead of interpreting reality in a way that reflects the true nature of reality and/or the mind?
— Patterner
I don't understand this. Are you saying that things that are non-physical don't really exist? Are you not also saying that the mind is non-physical? Does that mean that minds do not exist? If the contents of the mind do not exist then how can "it go in both directions" where the contents of the mind cause changes in matter outside of it? If you have an idea and that idea causes you to change your behavior, how can you say the idea does not exist? What caused your change in behavior?

This idea that the contents of the mind are non-existent stems from the faulty idea of dualism (existence vs non-existence). Non-existence is one of those things that exists as a idea but not in any other form, but it can cause you to do things like typing scribbles on the screen about it. Non-existence exists - as an idea. There is nothing that does not exist because any time you think about it you bring it into existence. The only question is what is the nature of its existence (what are its properties). Is it just an idea, or something more? — Harry Hindu

Heh. No, you entirely misunderstood me there. But likely I entirely misunderstood what you meant when I asked that. I still don't understand you, but I believe my question is a non-issue.

What I do say, is that what is real is not exhausted by, or limited to, the physical. To clarify — I’m not suggesting we invent a false reality, nor that the physical is an illusion. What I’m questioning is the assumption that the appearance of a world with particle-like structure entails that the physical structure is primary, or exists independently of the mind that apprehends it. — Wayfarer

I agree with all of this, but I think it has a different explanation. I do not think the physical and conscious properties of what exists can be separated. No more than the mass and charge of a particle can be separated. And, just as it doesn't make sense to say either mass or charge are more important than the other, it doesn't make sense to say either or both are more important than consciousness. So no, what is real is not exhausted by, or limited to, the physical. No, the appearance of a world with particle-like structure does not entail that the physical structure is primary. And it is impossible for the physical structure to exist independently of the mind that apprehends it.

I do not think the physical and conscious properties of what exists can be separated. No more than the mass and charge of a particle can be separated — Patterner

But the attributes of particles can easily be separated. Particles can have an identical mass and a different charge. And a corpse can easily be differentiated from a living subject.

And it is impossible for the physical structure to exist independently of the mind that apprehends it. — Patterner

But how does that square with:

The solution I like is that there is another property of particles, in addition to those science has discovered. — Patterner

And

big things are made of little things. And the big things have the characteristics they have because of the properties of the little things — Patterner

You’re all over the place! But I appreciate the conversation — I think we may be coming at this from quite different frameworks, but I’ve found it helpful to lay some of this out. Thanks for the exchange.

But the attributes of particles can easily be separated. Particles can have an identical mass and a different charge. And a corpse can easily be differentiated from a living subject. — Wayfarer

The corpse's particles all still have the same properties they had when the organism wads alive.

You’re all over the place! — Wayfarer

I'm not. You're focused on contradicting me, instead of trying to understand what I'm saying.