This argument works from the perspective of Physics. But, in Aristotle's Meta-Physics, he introduces the non-physical notions of Potentiality & Actuality*1, Form & Matter, Essence & Substance. Hence, the Function of a System is non-physical, even though the parts are material items. It's a mathematical input/output relationship that you can't see, but can infer as purpose or meaning. — Gnomon

Mental phenomena, to me, are divided into strong and weak emergence as well. The example of weak emergence is perception, and the example of strong emergence is creating an idea.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said. I'm speaking from an entirely different angle. And I know nobody agrees with me, but I still think what I think. I think consciousness and various aspects of mental states have been incorrectly mixed together forever. I do not think consciousness means being aware. I do not think there is such a thing as being conscious. I think consciousness means subjective experience, and, consciousness being fundamental, I think everything is conscious.

Particles are conscious, meaning they subjectively experience. They do not know that they subjectively experience. They do not have any mental capabilities in order to know, think, prefer, or feel anything. But none of those things have anything to do with consciousness. They are simply the things that we subjectively experience.

Mental phenomena, to me, are divided into strong and weak emergence as well. The example of weak emergence is perception, and the example of strong emergence is creating an idea. — MoK

Yes, creative Ideas are considered to be emergent*1 in that they present a novel or unique perspective on an old problem that, presumably, no one has thought of before. But the emergence of Consciousness in a material world is more challenging to empirical scientists because Sentient Awareness*2 is not an empirical Property, but a philosophical Quality, that includes the power to generate mental images & ideas. We can't trace a lineage of cause & effect leading up to an entity that not only senses its environment (like a plant), but knows that it knows. That self-knowledge is limited to "higher" animals. And, as far as we know, only homo sapiens is able to both imagine abstract ideas, and to communicate them in language.

However, I was taking a different approach to the notion of Emergence, by bringing in the Aristotelian concept of Potential and the modern science of Complexity. Routine physical Cause & Effect*3 is an example of Weak Emergence : the emergent Effect is simply the final state in a chain of causation. For example, the amazing collective patterns created on the fly by thousands of birds, seemingly acting as a single organism. In principle, scientists could trace the complex interactions from single bird to "murmuration" {image below}, but in practice it would be very difficult to collect & analyze the data.

Moreover, Strong Emergence implies that some unpredictable novel property is manifested, not just in localized group behavior, but in the specialized talent of a single species for abstracting ideas (imaginary information) from concrete reality. Emergence of novelty from complexity seems to be inherent in the evolutionary process. But modern science has only recently developed mathematical techniques & computer programs for analyzing & understanding non-linear systems, that defy traditional reductionist methods.

Some say that Consciousness is not produced mechanically, but magically. I suspect that Mind only seems like Magic, due to our inability to comprehend functions & effects that arise from the most complex structure in the universe : the human brain. Personally, I think a key to understanding the Consciousness Effect will be found in the equation of Information (meaning) and Energy (causation) along with the notion of Potential (latent causal power). And that's the topic of my thesis*4. :nerd:


*1. Yes, new and complex ideas are often considered emergent, meaning they arise from the interaction of simpler parts or processes in a system and possess novel qualities that are not inherent in those individual components. This concept applies to creativity, where ideas can surface from actions, experiences, and contexts, transforming from unarticulated "know-how" into conceptual "know-what". Emergence also refers to phenomena that arise from complex systems, such as consciousness from the brain, which cannot be fully understood by examining its simpler constituents alone.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=are+ideas+emergent

*2. Sentient awareness refers to the capacity of a living being to feel, perceive, and be conscious of its surroundings and experiences, often implying an ability to suffer or experience pleasure, and is distinct from mere behavioral responsiveness or simulated intelligence. It involves an "inner experience" or subjective reality, which may be distinguished from "self-awareness" (knowing one is aware) or "sapience" (wisdom)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sentient+awareness

*3. Cause and effect emergence refers to phenomena where macro-level patterns and behaviors arise from the interactions of many micro-level components, leading to outcomes that are qualitatively novel and cannot be predicted by examining the components in isolation. While simple cause-and-effect relationships involve one event directly preceding and influencing another, emergent cause-and-effect involves collective interactions creating new, unexpected patterns. This concept is explored in causal emergence theory, which uses mathematical frameworks from information theory and network science to study these complex relationships in systems like the brain, ant colonies, and starling murmurations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cause+and+effect+emergence

*4. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
Note --- Life & Mind are emergent, not miraculous

STARLINGS SCULPTING A SELF-IMAGE

But the emergence of Consciousness in a material world is more challenging to empirical scientists because Sentient Awareness*2 is not an empirical Property, but a philosophical Quality, that includes the power to generate mental images & ideas. We can't trace a lineage of cause & effect leading up to an entity that not only senses its environment (like a plant), but knows that it knows. That self-knowledge is limited to "higher" animals. And, as far as we know, only homo sapiens is able to both imagine abstract ideas, and to communicate them in language. — Gnomon

Consciousness, to me, is the ability of the mind, namely, the ability to experience, and it cannot be an emergent thing. The quality of the experience, however, whether it is a simple perception or complex thought processes, is an emergent thing, and for that, you need an organism with a complex brain and a mind. There are two reasons why I consider the mind as an extra component: 1) The hard problem of consciousness, and 2) The efficacy of mental events. I am sure you have heard about (1) but not (2). So, we are dealing with (2) as a serious problem in physicalism, even if the hard problem of consciousness could possibly be resolved. But why (2) is a serious problem? The problem is that mental events have no physical property, so they cannot be causally efficacious in the physical world. So, we are dealing with an anomaly that physicalism cannot resolve.

Moreover, Strong Emergence implies that some unpredictable novel property is manifested, not just in localized group behavior, but in the specialized talent of a single species for abstracting ideas (imaginary information) from concrete reality. Emergence of novelty from complexity seems to be inherent in the evolutionary process. But modern science has only recently developed mathematical techniques & computer programs for analyzing & understanding non-linear systems, that defy traditional reductionist methods. — Gnomon

You cannot get consciousness from complexity. You can, however, get complex behavior when the system under investigation is complex enough.

Some say that Consciousness is not produced mechanically, but magically. I suspect that Mind only seems like Magic, due to our inability to comprehend functions & effects that arise from the most complex structure in the universe : the human brain. — Gnomon

The mind, to me, is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. The mind is not by byproduct of physical processes in the brain.

Some say that Consciousness is not produced mechanically, but magically. — Gnomon

Who says that?

2. Sentient awareness refers to the capacity of a living being to feel, perceive, and be conscious of its surroundings and experiences, often implying an ability to suffer or experience pleasure, and is distinct from mere behavioral responsiveness or simulated intelligence. It involves an "inner experience" or subjective reality, which may be distinguished from "self-awareness" (knowing one is aware) or "sapience" (wisdom) — Gnomon

Isn't "inner experience" or "subjective reality" usually the definition of consciousness?

Consciousness, to me, is the ability of the mind, namely, the ability to experience, and it cannot be an emergent thing. . . . .
]The mind, to me, is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. The mind is not by byproduct of physical processes in the brain. — MoK

Yes. I agree that there is a fundamental "substance", in the Aristotelian sense, that eventually produced the Consciousness that we Sapiens take for granted. And Panpsychism is based on the assumption that Mind is fundamental to the Cosmos. But, I think that implies a much too broad definition of "the ability to experience". For me, Consciousness is not a "thing", but a process, a function.

Modern Cosmology portrays a universe with no sign of Life or Mind for over 10 billion years of evolution. Only in the last few billion years, has Life emerged as single cells with crude senses for finding food. Billions of years later, the entities we call animals, evolved along with more sophisticated sensory apparatus, that eventually became controlled by brains. However, it's only in the last few thousand years that animals with big brains emerged with sufficient complexity to produce the talent that we humans experience as Self-Consciousness. We know what it's like to be human, but "what it's like to be a bat" is still a mystery. We can't see or touch the substance of Consciousness, we can only infer it's existence by means of the very subject of our investigation : the mental tool of Reason.

Based on current developments in science (complexity, information, etc), I have concluded that Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon & noumenon. Hence the "ability to experience" was absent from the Big Bang event, and from the expanding universe for about 90% of the evolutionary period to date. The human era, with Consciousness as-we-know-it-and-experience-it, it has existed for only about 2% of Cosmic time.

But the Big Bang was powered by Energy (causation) and Information (natural laws) from the beginning of space-time. And my name for that original Substance (form + matter) is what I call EnFormAction*1. A term I coined to contrast with Shannon's negative definition of Information in terms of dissipating Entropy. EFA is equivalent to what Schrodinger coined, in his book What is Life?, as Negentropy : positive causation. In my thesis, EFA is the fundamental substance, from which Life & Mind evolved, and Emerged.

So, Consciousness may have been present at the beginning, in the form of Potential. But that creative power only fulfilled its promise after eons of "physical processes". Perhaps, not a "byproduct", but definitely a long-delayed Effect of cosmic Causation. :smile:


*1. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note --- The evolutionary unfolding of that original Potential may be what some call Panpsychism : EFA (Energy & Form) is everywhere forever.

Some say that Consciousness is not produced mechanically, but magically. — Gnomon
Who says that? — Patterner

Daniel Dennett, for one*1.

*1. The idea that "consciousness is magic" can refer to different concepts: some see consciousness as a literal, wondrous phenomenon that imbues the world with meaning and feeling, while others, like philosopher Daniel Dennett, use the metaphor of magic to describe how the brain creates an illusion of a unified, rich inner experience from complex, non-magical processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+is+magic

Sentient awareness refers to the capacity of a living being to feel, perceive, and be conscious of its surroundings and experiences, often implying an ability to suffer or experience pleasure, and is distinct from mere behavioral responsiveness or simulated intelligence. It involves an "inner experience" or subjective reality, which may be distinguished from "self-awareness" (knowing one is aware) or "sapience" (wisdom) — Gnomon
Isn't "inner experience" or "subjective reality" usually the definition of consciousness? — Patterner

Yes. But some alternative terms for Consciousness are : awareness, attention, mindfulness, knowledge, cognition, mind, observation, etc.

My point is that C is not a thing, but a process ; not a material substance, but a Function of a complex organism. Your cell phone is a complex mechanism, it processes a lot of information, and it performs several useful functions. But at the moment, it's AI functions have not reached the status of Personhood.
So, it is not Sentient or Aware of what it's doing. It's simply a mechanism.

One requirement for Sentient Awareness seems to be, not just complexity, but an integrated system of information processing, as postulated by Tononi's Integrated Information Theory*2. IIT is intended to be the kernel for a scientific theory, but at the moment, it's a philosophical conjecture. But I think it's pointing in the right direction.

Consciousness seems to require A> material complexity (entanglement ; feedback loops), B> systematic integration (Holism), and C> inherent Potential (power, ability, capacity) for "higher functions" such as Life & Mind. So, simple objects like Atoms or single cell organisms may have the Potential (Panpsychism), but they lack sufficient Complexity or Systematic Integration for awareness & intelligence. Hence, not Conscious, in the human sense. :smile:


*2. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is a scientific framework proposing that consciousness is a fundamental property of physical systems with the capacity to integrate information; it quantifies this capacity using a measure called Phi (Φ).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=integrated+information+theory

The physical substance cannot even cause a change in itself. I have a thread on this topic here. Therefore, the Mind sustains the physical substance (I have a thread on what the Mind is here).

By the way, I am wondering how such a thing as a physical substance that has no control over its movement at all, given the first argument in the first thread above, could be the cause of something that is intelligent, something that can freely decide, etc. what you call the mind. This is a bad model to work on since it has tons of problems and anomalies on the first side. Just accept the substance dualism at least, and you can describe how the physical substance moves.

The physical substance cannot even cause a change in itself. I have a thread on this topic here. Therefore, the Mind sustains the physical substance (I have a thread on what the Mind is here).
By the way, I am wondering how such a thing as a physical substance that has no control over its movement at all, given the first argument in the first thread above, could be the cause of something that is intelligent, something that can freely decide, etc. what you call the mind. This is a bad model to work on since it has tons of problems and anomalies on the first side. Just accept the substance dualism at least, and you can describe how the physical substance moves. — MoK

I think you misunderstood my usage of the term "substance"*1. I was not talking about malleable Matter, but about Causal Energy. For modern scientists, Energy is defined as "ability" or "capability", but Aristotle called it "Potential", as contrasted with Actual, which is the form of frozen Energy we know as Matter (E=MC^2). Energy is physical only in the sense that it is the Dynamic (Causal) Force for the science of Physics. The "control" is provided by Natural Laws (principles ; regulations).

In my thesis, I suppose that Aristotle's Potential (power , ability , possibility), which I call EnFormAction*2 (power to transform), is not only the Causal Source of tangible Matter (hylomorph), but also of intangible Mind (intellect, nous, reason). I arrived at that conclusion from the scientific equation of Energy and Information*3. That equivalence is not yet established as a scientific fact, but it serves as a reasonable assumption for philosophical conjectures. The Triad of Energy-Matter-Information may sound strange, but I use it as an illustration of a difficult concept in my Information-centric thesis.

Exactly how the holistic complex of Energy + Matter + Information produces the effect in a material brain that we call "Intellect" or "Intelligence" or "consciousness" has not been completely worked out. But I think of Thinking & Reasoning as meta-physical processes, similar to the physical processes caused by inputs of Energy.

Although the scientists noted in the link below envisioned a triple-set, Descartes viewed the mind/body relationship as a duality of res extensa (matter) and res cogitans (thought). However, I imagine that our local duality or triality are merely manifestations of an ultimate universal Monism : EnFormAction : the power & program of the Big Bang Singularity, that provided the Cause & Laws of evolution, from which has emerged thinking & reasoning lumps of mobile matter that we now call philosophers & scientists. Note --- the ResearchGate image calls that triple aspect Monism : "Universal Substance".

Therefore, although we may not be on the same page, we seem to be on adjacent pages, regarding the question of how Consciousness could emerge in a Material world. :smile:

PS___ I guess my analysis of Consciousness is more scientific than Hegelian. :wink:


*1. In Aristotle's philosophy, a substance is the primary kind of being, an individual thing composed of matter (pure potentiality) and form (actuality). Potentiality is a thing's capacity to become something else, while actuality is the realization of that capacity. Every substance has the potentiality to develop its inherent capacities and achieve its specific purpose or telos, thus actualizing its form.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+potential+and+substance
Note --- Information, like Energy, is physical only in the sense that it produces physical effects in matter.

*2. EnFormAction :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals (potential) that become real (actual); “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*3. Is information energy or matter? :
The fundamental triad of energy/matter/information |
The concept of information as a physical element has been put forth by various researchers (Landauer, 1996;Stonier, 1990;Vopson, 2019;Wheeler, 1989). It is now considered as fundamental as well as matter and energy in the universe (Meijer, 2013; Stonier, 1996).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-fundamental-triad-of-energy-matter-information_fig1_275017053
Note --- ResearchGate image below. I don't agree with all of these labels. It's just an imaginary illustration of how Information relates to Energy and Matter.


THE hypothetical FUNDAMENTAL TRIAD
https://www.researchgate.net/about

According to Alex Rosenberg down at Duke, this is simply true of all of us. The reason paradoxes emerge is because the "self" and "intentionality" are akin to ghosts and magic, i.e., superstitious folk explanations. Neurons are not about anything. They don't "think" or "believe" anything. Everything, including neurons, are just elementary particles, and these are not "about" anything either. Hence, it is quite impossible for "thoughts" to be "about" anything else, or for there to be "intentional" states about the future. Five hundred years of scientific progress back this up. Mechanism cannot spontaneously produce aboutness and there is only mechanism. Ergo, intentionality doesn't exist. Ergo, the self doesn't exist!

He wrote a 400 page book "about" this (titled with his name, which is of course not a reference to a self). It has some good advice, like "solve unhappiness with medication, not introspection, since you are your neurochemistry and some tools work better than others for producing chemical changes," although when he gives this advice it's not wholly clear "who" or what is capable of even being "unhappy." It's a fun book from the parts I read though.

Now, we could laugh at Rosenberg, but he has some serious philosophical chops and knowledge (much more so than a Dawkins, etc.) and I think he's interesting because his target isn't so much the non-physicalist (a lost cause of course) but the "non-reductive naturalist," who he wants to convert by showing that naturalism entails his point of view.

Isn't his book Atheist's Guide to Reality? An excerpt from the NY Times review (2011):

The book expands the campaign of militant modern atheism, the offensive launched against religion by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Rosenberg’s broadsides attack a wider horizon. Since atheism is thought to be territory already secured, the targets now in view are the Big Questions, questions about morality, purpose and consciousness that puzzle softheaded people who muddle over them. Science brings good news. The answers are now all in. This conviction that science can resolve all questions is known as “scientism” — a label typically used pejoratively (as by Wieseltier), but one Rosenberg seizes as a badge of honor.

The evangelical scientism of “The Atheist’s Guide” rests on three principal ideas. The facts of microphysics determine everything under the sun (beyond it, too); Darwinian natural selection explains human behavior; and brilliant work in the still-young brain sciences shows us as we really are. Physics, in other words, is “the whole truth about reality”; we should achieve “a thoroughly Darwinian understanding of humans”; and neuroscience makes the abandonment of illusions “inescapable.” Morality, purpose and the quaint conceit of an enduring self all have to go.

...Rosenberg’s cheerful Darwinizing is no more convincing than his imperialist physics, and his tales about the evolutionary origins of everything from our penchant for narratives to our supposed dispositions to be nice to one another are throwbacks to the sociobiology of an earlier era, unfettered by methodological cautions that students of human evolution have learned: much of Rosenberg’s book is evolutionary psychology on stilts.

Nonplussed to find you in such company, Tim :yikes:

Hey, I didn't say it wasn't absurd, insane even. But his argument that it follows from some commonly held positions is not bad. I think the idea is that the good naturalist should be an eliminativist and that the "non-reductive naturalist" is in a sense kidding themselves or else really a dualist because they believe in an irreducible, "strongly emergent" (and thus fundamental) causally efficacious mental activity/substance whose behavior cannot be reduced to or wholly explained by physical laws. The second option isn't really physicalist, its dualistic, and it's arguably not "naturalist" if it makes intentionality causally fundamental (granted, that terms is stretched ridiculously far in different directions).

It's admirable in a way. In the same way that Luther is admirable when, challenged by Erasmus that God would be evil if He creates creatures without freedom just to cosign them to an eternal torment they could never have avoided, Luther simply claims that God's "goodness" is wholly equivocal (i.e., that God is evil in human terms, or as he puts it, that we are evil in God's terms, which is still the same thing). It's following things out to their conclusion at least... (I suppose it's one way or solving the ol' "Problem of Evil" :meh: )

OK, so the question is, how can consciousness, as you've defined it, be any sort of advantage when all the advantages I can think of fall into the categories that you've excluded. — noAxioms

Consciousness is the property by which the thing experiences itself. Without it, nothing experiences itself. — Patterner

Consciousness does not have physical properties. — Patterner

This seems all contradictory. it would seem that having a survival advantage (being more fit), or being physically causal at all, would constitute a physical property. By your assertion, consciousness does not contribute to that fitness, else it would have those physical properties.

You can see my confusion. You define consciousness as a lack of all these properties, and I don't see what's left. A thing doesn't experience itself, it experiences phenomena. That's what experience is. So perhaps you've redefined that as well. How is a unit defined? How is one collection of particles (none of which has phenomenal experience) have it, but a slightly different collection of particles does not, or does not as much? Did I word that correctly?

When we're talking about a particle, the experience is of things like mass, charge, and spin. — Patterner

A particle cannot measure any of those things, let alone experience them. It doesn't even have a spin except as measured by something else. Not even you can experience your own mass, charge, or spin. Arguably charge if you have a lot of it. Anyway, experience of those things requires physical interaction with something not-you, and also requires cognition.

I don't imagine there's much of an advantage, because a particle can only interact with things according to the laws of physics.

There are those of us that say a human can only interact with things according to the laws of physics, despite your assertion of "It is not simple physics taking place.". No demonstration otherwise has ever been made. Going out of your way to not know how it works does not constitute a demonstration.

It is not simple physics taking place. If it was, we wouldn't have everything humanity has created.

Non-sequitur

Do you think physical laws and interactions intend states of the future?

It doesn't make logical sense to suggest that laws have intentions. Intentionally created laws in theory reflect the intentions of their creators, but I don't think physical laws are intentionally created. That would be ID, which is different magic.

No step in the manufacture of a computer violates the laws of physics.

This seems to contradict your assertions since the manufacture of a computer probably involves humans and their intent, which you seem to assert do more than just interact with things according to the laws of physics. Perhaps you're including this consciousness as part of those laws, but no laws of consciousness has ever been required to describe how a particle interacts with other particles, and in the end, we're just collections of particles.

Something that didn't exist was wanted. Planned. Intended. It was decided that something that could not be found anywhere, no matter where you look, and that would never come into being due to the interactions of matter and energy following the laws of physics, must come into being. Interactions that were not going to occur had to be arranged. Consciousness used the laws of physics to do very specific things in very specific orders and combinations, that would never have occurred spontaneously.

All that is also true under physicalism, the only difference being a definition of consciousness as a physical process.

I am not asserting that physicalism is necessarily correct, but I am asserting that nobody has demonstrated it being incorrect, or that any alternative offers a better explanation.

I notice you frequently use the fallacious tactic of refusing to use a word for anything nonhuman or at least nonbiological, as if a definition proves anything. — noAxioms

A definition 'proves' how the word is used. If you wish to re-define memory as 'the past', then the onus is on you to justify it.

Memory: the faculty by which the mind stores and remembers information.
"I've a great memory for faces"
2. something remembered from the past.
"one of my earliest memories is of sitting on his knee — Wayfarer

Excellent illustration of most of my points. You've redefined 'memory' as "information that is conserved for the sake of maintaining homeostasis". OK, you didn't explicitly state that as a definition, but you disqualified all my examples of memory because they did not meet that particular definition.
Ability to recognize people from their faces (a baby knowing its mother say) is not information conserved for the sake of maintaining homeostasis. Thus the onus is upon you to justify that very narrow definition, especially since you've quoted the google response to 'memory definition'.

Another point of mine was your 'tactic of refusing to use a word for anything nonhuman or at least nonbiological', nicely illustrated by you omitting the 3rd definition provided by google, which is:
"3.the part of a computer in which data or program instructions can be stored for retrieval."

You are correct that the information about the past stored in say rocks did not meet the dictionary definition. People tend not to use the word that way, just like they don't use 'memory' to describe the information of our evolutionary past stored in our DNA. @Patterner specifically brings up that example as one of information processing above and beyond what a machine does.

When I say memory is characteristic of life, I mean it in the strong sense: not just a trace of the past, but the active retention of previous experience for the sake of survival and adaptation. — Wayfarer

That's quite different than 'for the sake of maintaining homeostasis'. The kind of memory you now describe is not characteristic of all life, but sure, even trees retain previous experience and act on it.

Secondly, memory is also a characteristic of non-life, although it might not necessarily serve the purpose of survival and adaptation, similar to how a memory of trivia doesn't serve that purpose. So it does not follow that only living things utilize memory, nor that all living things utilize memory, since plenty (majority?) of them continue existing without it. Again, this presumes that DNA is not consciously accessed/recalled, but your definitions might differ on that point.

To equate memory with anything in the past—erosion marks or planetary orbits —dilutes the meaning of the word until it just means “the past.”

It means a record of the past in that context. It does not mean 'the past'. And I agree that the term 'memory' is not often used in that context, hence its lack of appearance in the dictionary. The word tends to be used for things that do their own access of that stored information. There is no obligation for a rock to retain a fossil.

But organisms, in contrast to geological or crystal structures, must retain and carry their past forward in order to continue existing

Technically they don't. But OK. Memory is still not defined as only that recall of past information solely for the purpose of being fit.

Artificial systems such as RAM only “remember” as extensions of the organisms that do (those organisms being us).

I deny this. Sure, most devices are currently slaved to people or other devices, so their purpose is currently not their own (quite similar to an employee), but that in no way disqualifies their recall of data as 'memory'. Yet again, it being memory is not dependent on the purpose to which it is recalled, but I do concede that there needs to be some sort of self-recall for the word to be reasonably applicable.

I suggest that the reason you find that unacceptable is that it represents an ontological distinction which your philosophy can't accomodate.

Your google quote (the entire quote) also does not make an ontological distinction between the two cases.

I think everything is conscious.

Particles are conscious, meaning they subjectively experience. — Patterner

But how do you know that. What is this based on? Anything? Anything at all besides what made 15th century people who had to crap in holes in the ground and tell stories to pass the time between famines and brutal periods of war?

There are millions of dust particles on the average person's body at any given moment. Are each of them really observing the world or aware they are dust particles? Are they really like you or I, if either of us were strapped to a chair, unable to speak or use our limbs and basically intelligent beings in a brain in a jar scenario?

A dead person is still a person, but they have no awareness of what's going on around them. It requires a brain with a nervous system to be able to think. Unless we're just cheapening or misusing the word and replacing it with your own definition, that's one thing. But you should own up to it, if so.

Otherwise, no, there are not millions of microscopic forms of life that are experiencing emotion, observing life, and being aware of time and contemplating their own existence on any given person's forearm.

. You've redefined 'memory' as "information that is conserved for the sake of maintaining homeostasis". — noAxioms

I quoted the definition! Memory is an attribute of living organisms, things that have memory. 'The earth' only has memory in a figurative sense.

Ability to recognize people from their faces (a baby knowing its mother say) is not information conserved for the sake of maintaining homeostasis. — noAxioms

Damned well is! You don't remember your own mother's face, your homeostasis is in deep doo-doo.

you omitting the 3rd definition provided by google, which is:
"3.the part of a computer in which data or program instructions can be stored for retrieval." — noAxioms

Did not omit it. Noted that computers are constructed by humans, to which I will add, to conserve memories for human purposes.

And I agree that the term 'memory' is not often used in that context, hence its lack of appearance in the dictionary. — noAxioms

Maybe you might start your own dictionary, then. Just don't expect others to use it.

I think it is the problem of the model, namely, physicalism, which is a monist model. You have this strange phenomenon, so-called the experience, that you cannot explain its existence. You also cannot explain how the experience can be causally efficacious, as well, given the fact that the experience is a mental event and the physical substances are causally closed.

But how do you know that. What is this based on? — Outlander

It is based on the fact that there is no physicalist explanation for consciousness, nor even a guess. (If you look below the ********** below, I've copied and pasted what I've said about that before.) Therefore, I'm looking for non-physicalist explanations.


Regarding the other things in your response, we are defining consciousness differently. I do not think the things humans are conscious of are what consciousness is. Consciousness is not intelligence, awareness, the ability to contemplate, or the ability to observe.




***************
I present these three steps regarding it not being physical.

1)
Chalmers presents the problem in his famous Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness, Chalmers says:

There is no analogous further question in the explanation of genes, or of life, or of learning. If someone says “I can see that you have explained how DNA stores and transmits hereditary information from one generation to the next, but you have not explained how it is a gene”, then they are making a conceptual mistake. All it means to be a gene is to be an entitythat performs the relevant storage and transmission function. But if someone says “I can see that you have explained how information is discriminated, integrated, and reported, but you have not explained how it is experienced”, they are not making a conceptual mistake.

This is a nontrivial further question. This further question is the key question in the problem of consciousness. Why doesn’t all this information-processing go on “in the dark”, free of any inner feel? Why is it that when
electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red? We know that conscious experience does arise when these functions are performed, but the very fact that it arises is the central mystery. — David Chalmers

2
A couple quotes that I think make the problem a little more clear. From people who I think know what they're talking about.

At 7:00 of this video, while talking about the neural correlates of consciousness and ions flowing through holes in membranes, Donald Hoffman asks:

Why should it be that consciousness seems to be so tightly correlated with activity that is utterly different in nature than conscious experience? — Donald Hoffman

In Until the End of Time, Brian Greene wrote:

And within that mathematical description, affirmed by decades of data from particle colliders and powerful telescopes, there is nothing that even hints at the inner experiences those particles somehow generate. How can a collection of mindless, thoughtless, emotionless particles come together and yield inner sensations of color or sound, of elation or wonder, of confusion or surprise? Particles can have mass, electric charge, and a handful of other similar features (nuclear charges, which are more exotic versions of electric charge), but all these qualities seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience. How then does a whirl of particles inside a head—which is all that a brain is—create impressions, sensations, and feelings? — Greene

3
What exactly is the, or a, physicalist theory of consciousness?

David Eagleman in this video,

Your other question is, why does it feel like something? That we don't know. and the weird situation we're in in modern neuroscience, of course, is that, not only do we not have a theory of that, but we don't know what such a theory would even look like. Because nothing in our modern mathematics days, "Ok, well, do a triple interval and carry the 2, and then *click* here's the taste of feta cheese. — David Eagleman

Donald Hoffman in this video,

It's not just that we don't have scientific theories. We don't have remotely plausible ideas about how to do it. — Donald Hoffman

Donald Hoffman in The Case Against Reality Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes, when he was talking to Francis Crick:

“Can you explain,” I asked, “how neural activity causes conscious experiences, such as my experience of the color red?” “No,” he said. “If you could make up any biological fact you want,” I persisted, “can you think of one that would let you solve this problem?” “No,” he replied, but added that we must pursue research in neuroscience until some discovery reveals the solution. — Donald Hoffman

We don't have a clue. Even those who assume it must be physical, because physical is all we can perceive and measure with our senses and devices, don't have any guesses. Even if he could make something up to explain how it could work, Crick couldn't think of anything.

I think it is the problem of the model, namely, physicalism, which is a monist model. You have this strange phenomenon, so-called the experience, that you cannot explain its existence. You also cannot explain how the experience can be causally efficacious, as well, given the fact that the experience is a mental event and the physical substances are causally closed. — MoK

Yes. In the worldviews of Materialism and Physicalism, subjective experience is indeed "strange" because scientists can't track an experience (feeling, sensation, image) back to its source via physical cause & effect evidence. A particular sensation (ouch!) seems to just emerge unbidden in the midst of the "flow" of energy from one material substrate to another. There is an inexplicable break in the causal chain, which Chalmers called the "Hard Problem" for empirical science.

The chain of causation transfers electro-chemical Energy from material object (neuron) to material object (synapse) until, suddenly & inexplicably, a new effect occurs that is neither electrical nor chemical, but personal. That novel effect is "strange" because it is subjective or holistic or systemic or metaphysical instead of objective or analytic or particular or physical. It's personal & subjective because no one else can feel what you feel. Or what a bat experiences.

Materialism and Physicalism are monistic*1 models in the sense that they deny any Substance other than Matter or Energy. My worldview is also a monism in that it postulates a single substance that is responsible for all physical and mental effects in the world. But in order to actualize, the monistic Singular Substance (Plato's abstract Form) must transform into Dual intermediate concrete sub-forms : Energy & Matter.

For example, Aristotle defined Substance (hylomorph) as a duality of "Matter" (pure potentiality) and "Form" (actuality). Obviously, his concept of Matter is different from the modern usage in that it is not-yet-real, it is un-formed (amorphous). And his Form (Intent) is the enformer (actualizer) of Potential. Only when ideal Potential is realized by some Cause does it become the real stuff we now call Matter. Ari's Matter is like malleable clay : formless until molded by the design intent of a sculptor. Hence, the Actualizer*2 of the sculpture is an idea (intention, image) in the mind of a man.

The Physicalist model is "causally closed" to immaterial substances like Ideas, Concepts, and Intentions. An Idealist model is open to the existence of non-empirical essences that transform into material substances. Bats are real, but nobody knows the inner essence of batness. :smile:



*1. Monism is the philosophical view that everything is ultimately a single kind of substance or reality, while physicalism is a specific type of monism that asserts this single reality is physical. In essence, a physicalist believes that all existing phenomena, including mental states, can be explained in terms of physical processes and matter, making the physical the only fundamental substance in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=monism+physicalism

*2. AMORPHOUS CLAY PRIOR TO ACTUALIZATION
by input of mental intention and manual energy

There are those of us that say a human can only interact with things according to the laws of physics, despite your assertion of "It is not simple physics taking place.". No demonstration otherwise has ever been made. — noAxioms

Billions of human-made objects are a demonstration of things that did not come about due only to the laws of physics. The interactions of particles and collections of particles that were following nothing but the laws of physics - that were acting only as gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces dictated - are not how the cell phones I have used to post here came into being. Or particle colliders, Saturn V rockets, the Snow White movie, indoor plumbing, every book, every pen, and more thanks than we could ever make. Do laws of physics come up with the idea of something that did not exist, the desire to make it exist, a plan, and then do the work to make that future goal a reality? That's not a non-sequiter. That's a key point.

The mental event/experience has no physical properties, so it cannot be detected nor affect reality. We, however, observe a fascinating relationship between mental events and the part of reality that we form them in; for example, I can type my thoughts. You cannot possibly explain this within physicalism or any form of monism, since you need two substances at least, the experiencer and the object of experience, to explain the experience.

The mental event/experience has no physical properties, so it cannot be detected nor affect reality. We, however, observe a fascinating relationship between mental events and the part of reality that we form them in; for example, I can type my thoughts. You cannot possibly explain this within physicalism or any form of monism, since you need two substances at least, the experiencer and the object of experience, to explain the experience. — MoK

Sounds like you are talking about Language as Materialized Thought*1. Meta-physical*2 ideas in an intellectual mind can be Realized by exporting Ideal thoughts into the Real world by means of physical sound waves (speech), or material ink on paper (writing), or digitized data (electronic signals). And the recipient (experiencer) can interpret those coded messages back into meta-physical Meanings, by means of physical-to-mental decoding events in the brain.

Hence, the communication process necessarily requires "two substances" : both Matter (object) & Mind (subject) ; concrete Physical & abstract Metaphysical. The Message has intermediate material effects, but the final effect (meaning) is Ideal, not Real. However, my thesis explains the whole cosmic system of Matter/Mind, Physical/Metaphysical, Real/Ideal, in terms of a hypothetical ultimate Monism : EnFormAction*3, the power to transform Potential to Ideal to Real, and vice versa. :smile:


*1. The phrase "language materialized thought" refers to the complex philosophical and linguistic concept that language is the physical manifestation of abstract thought. It is the process by which internal ideas, emotions, and concepts are given an external, tangible form, such as speech or writing, that can be perceived and shared by others.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=language+materialized+thought

*2. Meta-physical : theoretical, theoretic, abstract, conceptual, mental, spiritual, intellectual : i.e. non-physical.

*3. EnFormAction : similar to Schopenhauer's Will (power, force, energy) and Representation (mental experience, idea, Form, law, rule) combined into the directed causation process we call cosmic Evolution : one rule to rule them all. It's a Substance only in the sense of an Essence.

All I am saying is that experience is a mental event, so we cannot perceive it. What we perceive is a substance, so-called object, with the appropriate information. We say that we experience once we perceive the object. I am a perceiver, so we need another substance too, so-called the mind.

Billions of human-made objects are a demonstration of things that did not come about due only to the laws of physics. — Patterner

I deny this. No law of physics is violated by that vague example. In an anthropocentric universe, perhaps humans, as an exception to all other arrangements of the same particles, operate under different laws. But such a universe has not been demonstrated by this weak attempt. I'm asking for where the physics is explicitly violated. Incredulity is not a valid demonstration.

The interactions of particles and collections of particles that were following nothing but the laws of physics - that were acting only as gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces dictated - are not how the cell phones I have used to post here came into being.

Why not? Incredulity again, or something actually valid? Is this the best you can do?

Do laws of physics come up with the idea of something that did not exist, the desire to make it exist, a plan, and then do the work to make that future goal a reality?

No. Never mind the mechanical laws involved in moving the body parts in such a way to create these things. Information processing does that, and information processing can be (but needn't necessarily be) accomplished with neural networks, and such networks are composed of cells that operate under the rules of biology, which in turn operate under chemical laws, which in turn operate under atomic laws, then quantum law, which are in turn grounded by laws of physics. Your incredulity partially stems from your mistake of attempting to comprehend something complex in terms of the most fundamental terms.

To ground your assertion, you need to demonstrate (and not just assert) where in that sequence one things cannot be a function of the immediate more fundamental thing.



[quote="Wayfarer;1012030"I quoted the definition! Memory is an attribute of living organisms[/quote]Not at first you did not, and that's what I was protesting. Yes, two of the definitions from a quick google def indicated it being used mostly for living organisms. You omitted the third definition that did not have this requirement.

'The earth' only has memory in a figurative sense.

I already conceded this point, not that it doesn't have it, but that 'memory' is not typically used for such a context, and a different term should be selected to describe such a record of past events.

physicalism, which is a monist model. You have this strange phenomenon, so-called the experience, that you cannot explain its existence. — MoK

Lack of a physical explanation isn't evidence that it isn't a physical effect. There's plenty of things not explained, which is why the scientists still have a job. But science presuming supernatural explanations held progress to a crawl, resulting what's been since named the dark ages. Changing their methodology to presume otherwise resulted in the renaissance and all the progress since.

Yes. In the worldviews of Materialism and Physicalism, subjective experience is indeed "strange" because scientists can't track an experience (feeling, sensation, image) back to its source via physical cause & effect evidence. — Gnomon

Actually, they can and do. Not so much an image. It's not like you can clamp on sensors and get a picture of what Bob is thinking about. But they can measure feelings, sensations, and they can detect decisions being made before you realize it yourself.

The hard problem seems to revolve around a difference of perspective, that no knowledge of how it all works lets anything know what it's like. So for instance, one could simulate a bat in its environment and that bat would feel just like a real one and know 'what it's like', but neither the computer running the simulation nor those that program/operate it would know. I find that disconnect to be intrinsic, but not a hard problem that disproves any particular view.

But in order to actualize, the monistic Singular Substance (Plato's abstract Form) must transform into Dual intermediate concrete sub-forms : Energy & Matter.

From a physics standpoint, same thing. I mean, all matter seems to be just a form of energy. As for there being any actual 'material', well, they've never actually found any. The closer you look, the more illusive it gets. Even energy sort of fades away on close inspection, arguably giving way to just mathematics.


About your quoted physicalism/monism search result:

*1. ... In essence, a physicalist believes that all existing phenomena, including mental states, can be explained in terms of physical processes and matter, making the physical the only fundamental substance in the universe."

My only edit would be that all that stuff is a function of physical processes, not that it necessarily can be explained, especially given the limits of knowledge of those laws. Look at all the quantum interpretations, each giving a different explanation of the same phenomena. OK, that's multiple explanations, not a lack of even one. Maybe the lack of a unified field theory is a good example of something that (currently) unexplained, but without any conclusion that physicalism is thus necessarily wrong. But so many posters come to exactly that conclusion.

Why not? Incredulity again, or something actually valid? Is this the best you can do? — noAxioms

No doubt there is a perfectly functioning iPhone lying on a planet somewhere out there, the result of avalanches, volcanic activity, and meteorites. Amazing how such things happen. Metals naturally refine and fall into exact shapes, plastics form just so, tectonic activity bounces all the parts so they happen to land in exact configuration, the tiny screws even jiggling until tight. All I need to do is charge it. Ah, but I'm sure a tiny flicker from a distant lightning strike reached over and did that for me.

Needing to believe physicalism so badly that you are willing to embrace that degree of gullibility is surely as bad as incredulity.

Goodbye.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said. I'm speaking from an entirely different angle. And I know nobody agrees with me, but I still think what I think. — Patterner

Okay, it's too bad that I can see no reason at all why you would think such things―are you just being contrarian or perverse?

I'm not being contrarian. I have a different view of things than you do. I do not think the things humans are conscious of are what consciousness is. You say "Being conscious means being aware." I disagree. I think awareness is our consciousness of - our subjective experience of - various functions of our brain. Entities without the same brain functions cannot have the same subjective experience.

I don't think that's perverse.

It's obvious that you have a different view of things than I do, but that does not constitute either an explanation or a justification for your views.

I haven't said that what people are conscious of is what consciousness is―I've asked you what the difference is between consciousness and being conscious. To give some analogies sleeplessness just is being sleepless, restlessness just is being restless and sexlessness just is being sexless. Or, closer to home, unconsciousness just is being unconscious.

You also say that you don't think being conscious means being aware, and yet you offer no explanation of what you think the difference is.

I don't understand why you talk about subjective experience of various functions of our brain, when I think it is obvious that we have no in vivo awareness of brain functions. Perhaps you meant to say that our subjective experience is a manifestation of certain brain functions.

Lack of a physical explanation isn't evidence that it isn't a physical effect. There's plenty of things not explained, which is why the scientists still have a job. But science presuming supernatural explanations held progress to a crawl, resulting what's been since named the dark ages. Changing their methodology to presume otherwise resulted in the renaissance and all the progress since. — noAxioms

Even if I grant that the experience can one day be explained, then we still have the problem of how the experience can affect physical substance. The second problem is a serious issue since the experience is a mental event only, and it lacks any physical property, so it cannot affect the physical.

Even if I grant that the experience can one day be explained, then we still have the problem of how the experience can affect physical substance. The second problem is a serious issue since the experience is a mental event only, and it lacks any physical property, so it cannot affect the physical. — MoK

Do you have a solution to that problem with substance dualism?

It's obvious that you have a different view of things than I do, but that does not constitute either an explanation or a justification for your views. — Janus

I have frequently said why I think what I think. Most recently, a few posts above, I explained why I think :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012079
But that was not to you, and I guess I can't expect you to read every post everyone makes. Anyway, all of that is why I don't think consciousness is physical. And if it's not physical, I have to wonder what it is, and how it all works.

Currently, my thinking is that consciousness is fundamental. A property that is in all things. Because there isn't anything special about the particles we are made of, so the same thing could happen anywhere in the universe.

I haven't said that what people are conscious of is what consciousness is — Janus

You said "Being conscious means being aware." I'm saying it doesn't. Awareness is just what we subjectively experience/are conscious of. Awareness is not consciousness. Some things that are conscious are not aware.

I've asked you what the difference is between consciousness and being conscious. To give some analogies sleeplessness just is being sleepless, restlessness just is being restless and sexlessness just is being sexless. Or, closer to home, unconsciousness just is being unconscious. — Janus

I don't think of "being conscious" the way I think you do. I don't think it's particular mental states, or complex brain activity. I don't know how you would word it.

I think consciousness is subjective experience. I think being conscious is subjectively experiencing. Pretty much the same thing?

You also say that you don't think being conscious means being aware, and yet you offer no explanation of what you think the difference is. — Janus

A couple people said they appreciated that I tried to be clear about what I think consciousness is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16075/consciousness-is-fundamental/p1

I don't understand why you talk about subjective experience of various functions of our brain, when I think it is obvious that we have no in vivo awareness of brain functions. Perhaps you meant to say that our subjective experience is a manifestation of certain brain functions. — Janus

No, I very much do not mean that. I mean there is activity in the brain. Ions crossing barriers, neurotransmitters jumping synapses, signals running along neurons. Etc. Etc. That is all just physical activity. More complex and intricate than pool balls banging around on the table, but physical just the same. Photons hit retina, setting off a chain reaction of physical events in the brain. Vibrations in the air enter through the ear, setting off a chain reaction of physical events in the brain. A molecules of NaCl touches the tongue, sitting off a chain reaction to physical events in the brain. We are able to distinguish various frequencies of protons and vibrations in the air, and distinguish between different molecules that hit our tongue.

Our subjective experience of all that is seeing red, hearing a C major chord, and tasting salt. We could put salt on our corn flakes in the morning. Physically, the activity in our brains would be able to distinguish that from putting sugar on them instead. But that's not the same as tasting corn flakes with salt on them.

Do you have a solution to that problem with substance dualism? — Patterner

There is an interaction between two substances. The mind is a light substance, so it affects the matter slightly. So it is difficult to measure the contribution of the mind in the process in the brain.