Point/counterpoint, and rhetorically speaking........

If laws constrain the universe, it should be possible the laws constrained the universe in such a manner that anything preventing consciousness from arising, was itself prevented.

Conscious beings create laws, laws constrain the behavior of the universe, therefore conscious beings are responsible for the behavior of the universe. If conscious beings created different laws, the universe would behave differently. But if the universe behaved differently, it becomes possible the conscious beings act differently, in which case, the different laws they created would constrain them from creating the laws that cause them to act differently.

To reconcile the paradox, either the conscious beings are not contained in the universe the behavior of which they are held responsible, that premise already asserted, or, laws do not as much constrain the behavior of the universe, as to serve merely as sufficient explanations of, or predictions for, the behavior of the universe pursuant to its own natural conditions.

Granting that the proof of a logical proposition is not given by its form but only by its substance, proof of the former is altogether impossible, insofar as the conscious beings which suffice as substances to insert into the form are entirely unobservable therefore determinantly inconclusive to reason. The proof of the latter, on the other hand, is possible, for the substances to be inserted into the form are sufficiently observable, hence determinantly present to reason.

The mainstream story — leo

...is just a story, or theory, and not even so much mainstream these days. There was a brief time when our galaxy was thought the universe, until more galaxies were discovered. Now, as there are many galaxies, it's supposed there are many universes - the multi-verse. The point here being that the laws of the universe we live in not necessarily the same in other universes, and, operating under different laws, they being possibly different in every conceivable way, and maybe even some that are not conceivable.

To suppose that a universe devoid of consciousness can be molded so as to make consciousness arise, is to inject consciousness from outside the universe. — leo

This assumes consciousness is something fundamentally different that the stuff the rest of the universe is made of.

Consider this, a universe devoid of stars and planets gave rise to stars and planets, even though stars and planets weren't injected from outside of the universe. This doesn't seem like it's a problem in this case... why would consciousness be any different?

Consider this, a universe devoid of stars and planets gave rise to stars and planets, even though stars and planets weren't injected from outside of the universe. This doesn't seem like it's a problem in this case... why would consciousness be any different? — ChatteringMonkey

Assume a universe initially devoid of consciousness, which behaves according to laws of motion. While being constrained by these laws, various parts of the universe can assemble into approximately spherical configurations (stars, planets) and into many other shapes. These shapes are within the realm of what is permitted by these laws. But what would make any of these configurations conscious? If there was no consciousness initially, and the laws themselves do not inject consciousness, where would consciousness come from?

In such a universe, its parts have the ability to move, but not the ability to perceive. And indeed consciousness, the ability to perceive, is fundamentally different from the ability to move. The ability to perceive must have been part of the universe from the beginning, for us to have this ability now. Rather than consciousness magically arising out of non-consciousness, there was a initial consciousness that arranged itself into various configurations, various conscious beings.

Assume a universe initially devoid of consciousness, which behaves according to laws of motion. While being constrained by these laws, various parts of the universe can assemble into approximately spherical configurations (stars, planets) and into many other shapes. These shapes are within the realm of what is permitted by these laws. But what would make any of these configurations conscious? If there was no consciousness initially, and the laws themselves do not inject consciousness, where would consciousness come from? — leo

Consciousness comes from matter being configured in a certain way. And no, i'm not going to tell you how that exactly works, because nobody really can at this moment. But the fact that we don't know exactly how it works at this point, doesn't mean that no such explanation exists. And that is a pretty reasonable idea BTW, since discovering new and better explanations is pretty much a constant in human history... we learn new things.

In such a universe, its parts have the ability to move, but not the ability to perceive. And indeed consciousness, the ability to perceive, is fundamentally different from the ability to move. The ability to perceive must have been part of the universe from the beginning, for us to have this ability now. Rather than consciousness magically arising out of non-consciousness, there was a initial consciousness that arranged itself into various configurations, various conscious beings. — leo

No, only biological (or other yet undiscovered) life has the ability to perceive... you need a sense organ to be able to perceive, and most of the universe doesn't have such organ.

This is slightly tangential, but the laws that humans make are not like the laws of nature.

The laws of nature do not "constrain the universe". They describe the (physical) universe. In a sense, the laws of nature and the universe are one and the same. What we call "laws" are really descriptions, and they only constrain our ideas about the universe (most notably our predictions) not the universe itself.

Yeah, I was going to make that exact same point, but though it was a bit of a tangent :-). But good catch just the same.

Law of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive like laws in a legal system.

Consciousness comes from matter being configured in a certain way. — ChatteringMonkey

You assume. You don’t know that.

And no, i'm not going to tell you how that exactly works, because nobody really can at this moment. But the fact that we don't know exactly how it works at this point, doesn't mean that no such explanation exists. — ChatteringMonkey

You can’t explain how consciousness can arise from matter. I can explain how it cannot.

A physical theory boils down to equations that relate how fundamental physical entities move. Logically you cannot derive from equations of motion that a configuration of physical entities will perceive anything. All you can derive is approximately where these entities will be. More accurate measurements or equations only will improve these approximations. If you start from a physical theory you will never be able to derive consciousness. You will always have to say “no one knows how that works but maybe in the future we will”. Well it can’t work. You have to invoke magic in order to have consciousness arising from matter.

No, only biological (or other yet undiscovered) life has the ability to perceive... you need a sense organ to be able to perceive, and most of the universe doesn't have such organ. — ChatteringMonkey

Again, you assume. You don’t know that. You assume consciousness arises from matter while logically it cannot, unless you ascribe to matter some magical properties but then it isn’t matter. And if you ascribe such properties to matter then you surely can’t tell what is required to have the ability to perceive. If you can’t explain how consciousness arises from matter then you surely can’t tell what is needed or not to have the ability to perceive.

the laws that humans make are not like the laws of nature.

The laws of nature do not "constrain the universe". They describe the (physical) universe. In a sense, the laws of nature and the universe are one and the same. What we call "laws" are really descriptions, and they only constrain our ideas about the universe (most notably our predictions) not the universe itself. — Echarmion

If you agree that the laws of nature describe the universe, then you must agree that these laws themselves cannot create anything, they cannot inject consciousness into matter, they cannot provide matter with the ability to perceive.

So if the laws themselves don’t do that, what does? Unconscious matter spontaneously becomes conscious, magically? That’s what you have to admit, if you assume that the universe wasn’t conscious in the past.


Regarding laws of humans and laws of nature : humans follow the laws of humans most of the time, from an outside point of view one could say these laws are only descriptions of how humans behave but they don’t constrain humans. If a human is observed to break a human law, one could put that observation into the list of “unexplained phenomena” that one hopes to be able to explain in the future. Or one could say these laws were only approximations and come up with more accurate laws. Isn’t that what we do with matter?

The difference is that we know how to break some laws of humans but we don’t know how to break laws of nature. Or maybe miracles are what happens when humans manage to break these laws.

assume consciousness arises from matter while logically it cannot — leo

I would suggest that consciousness itself defies logic, therefore to assume it does, or does not, arise from matter is an assumption based on nothing. The concept of consciousness is, essentially, thought. However, thought without communication is not verifiable, therefore, does not exist. There is a pervasive assumption that rocks are not conscious, some postulate that lesser animals do not think (no idea how this is supported, but not relevant currently), etc. all of these that lack consciousness or thought also have the distinction that we are not able to communicate with them. Ergo, our lack of ability to communicate with something seemingly immediately relegates said thing to the realm of not conscious or unthinking. Which suggest more of a lack of ability on our part, rather than a deficiency in that which we are judging.

Our "laws" of the universe are attempts to explain that which we have observed and the universe doesn't care what we use to describe it. Our laws constrain nothing, except ourselves.

Our laws constrain nothing, except ourselves. — Book273

On what days may we observe you flying?

You can’t explain how consciousness can arise from matter. I can explain how it cannot.

A physical theory boils down to equations that relate how fundamental physical entities move. Logically you cannot derive from equations of motion that a configuration of physical entities will perceive anything. All you can derive is approximately where these entities will be. More accurate measurements or equations only will improve these approximations. If you start from a physical theory you will never be able to derive consciousness. You will always have to say “no one knows how that works but maybe in the future we will”. Well it can’t work. You have to invoke magic in order to have consciousness arising from matter. — leo

Where is the explanation or proof though? All I see is a statement that consciousness cannot arise from matter. There are many things we can't mathematically derive from basic theories of physics. To give but one example, we cannot derive from these equations when and how a storm will come. But nobody thinks that we are invoking magic when we say that the patterns of a storm are ultimately just matter behaving according to the basic laws of physics. It's just to complex to calculate precisely how that works from the ground up. And I mean, I don't know why this is even something that needs to be said, it seems pretty obvious that it's not really feasible to directly derive these things because of the sheer amount of particles involves, and the number of measurements and calculations we would have to do to calculate something like that.

The argument that consciousness can't arise from matter, because we can't exactly show mathematically and logically how it does from basic laws of physics, just doesn't bother me, because there are a million things we can't do that for.... because it's just very complex. The real question is why you would expect this kind of unrealistic proof for consciousness, where we don't expect that for other things?

Yes I assume, because ultimately I think this story makes more sense than invoking some mental/conscious properties inherent in the universe. You expect the physicalist to give an exact account of how consciousness arises from a physical universe, but then invariably fail to give the same kind of detailed and accurate account for your alternative theory. How does something that doesn't have eyes and a brain, even perceive things and is conscious of them? Or do all the particles in the universe have mini planck-scale organs for that perhaps, or what is it that you are exactly proposing? It's going to be God isn't it?

If you agree that the laws of nature describe the universe, then you must agree that these laws themselves cannot create anything, they cannot inject consciousness into matter, they cannot provide matter with the ability to perceive. — leo

Your phrasing here already assumes that consciousness and the ability to perceive aren't physical, hence they need to he created by the physical. But the materialist argument is that consciousness is simply an application of the laws of nature in a specific case.

Of course logically, consciousness and the ability to perceive are what create the physical universe.

So if the laws themselves don’t do that, what does? Unconscious matter spontaneously becomes conscious, magically? That’s what you have to admit, if you assume that the universe wasn’t conscious in the past. — leo

I am not sure what the argument is for why the laws don't allow for consciousness without introducing "magic". Apart from the hard problem.

Regarding laws of humans and laws of nature : humans follow the laws of humans most of the time, from an outside point of view one could say these laws are only descriptions of how humans behave but they don’t constrain humans. If a human is observed to break a human law, one could put that observation into the list of “unexplained phenomena” that one hopes to be able to explain in the future. Or one could say these laws were only approximations and come up with more accurate laws. Isn’t that what we do with matter? — leo

If one were to observe humans long enough without any knowledge of what laws in the judicial sense are and what they say, one might arrive at a fair approximation of what the laws are, but chances are a bunch of behaviour that is legal would appear illegal and vice versa.

What makes our laws something different than mere description is that we promulgate them on the assumption of free will, and hence they contain, to us, genuine commands. This means we adopt an entirely non-physical perspective with regards to the function of these laws, since free will has no physical representation.

The difference is that we know how to break some laws of humans but we don’t know how to break laws of nature. Or maybe miracles are what happens when humans manage to break these laws. — leo

Humans have "broken" the laws of nature plenty of times. The result is a new set of laws.

To suppose that a universe devoid of consciousness can be molded so as to make consciousness arise, is to inject consciousness from outside the universe. — leo

I agree with you (more or less) but the standard rebuttal to this will be:

"We're not claiming consciousness is 'injected into the universe' (which is another way of characterising strong emergence, it seems to me). What we are saying is that consciousness just is one of these 'moldings', as you put it, and its actions. So, for example, consciousness just is the integration of information in a system such as a brain; or consciousness just is the modelling of a world by a system; or consciousness just is the action of a brain, in the same way that walking just is the actions of legs. So there is no need for any strong emergence, weak emergence is enough."

To suppose that a universe devoid of consciousness can be molded so as to make consciousness arise, is to inject consciousness from outside the universe. — leo

If self organization is the fundamental law of the universe, then it is entirely open ended as to what can arise. Consciousness is not a fixed state - it evolves over a day, a year, and over a lifetime. It is an evolving process. Where this process will ultimately end is any bodies guess, but that the process of consciousness in the form of self organization was present from the beginning of the universe seems without doubt.

There are many things we can't mathematically derive from basic theories of physics. To give but one example, we cannot derive from these equations when and how a storm will come. But nobody thinks that we are invoking magic when we say that the patterns of a storm are ultimately just matter behaving according to the basic laws of physics. It's just to complex to calculate precisely how that works from the ground up. — ChatteringMonkey

With sufficiently accurate measurements and computing power you could. You could predict when and where there is going to be lightning (photons and electrons moving in a specific way) and so on. But even with infinite accuracy you couldn’t predict from equations of motion that some configuration of physical entities is going to be conscious. You can only predict how that configuration is going to move. That’s the key point you keep missing. Equations of motion, which are at the heart of physical theories, only describe how things move.

Knowing perfectly how things move would allow you to derive when there is going to be a storm, but not that some configuration of matter is going to become conscious. Do you not see that? You will derive how each part of that configuration is going to move, that’s it.

You expect the physicalist to give an exact account of how consciousness arises from a physical universe, but then invariably fail to give the same kind of detailed and accurate account for your alternative theory. — ChatteringMonkey

If the truth is that consciousness was always there, how do you want me to explain how consciousness arose? It was always there.

Physicalism doesn’t explain how matter arose in the first place, but on top of that it cannot explain how consciousness arose.

or consciousness just is the action of a brain, in the same way that walking just is the actions of legs. So there is no need for any strong emergence, weak emergence is enough. — bert1

In saying that, there is the idea that matter itself can generate images, feelings, thoughts. That matter has this ability. So in that view matter is more than stuff that has the ability to move. It is stuff that has the ability to move AND the ability to be conscious.

But physical theories don’t take into account that second ability. They only consider and describe the first one, the ability to move. And they can never derive the second ability from the first one. The two are fundamental. That’s what is missing from physics.

The universe is made of stuff that has the ability to move and to be conscious. With our eyes we only perceive that ability to move. We don’t see with our eyes what others feel or think, we only see a part of them, the part of them that moves. And if we take into account only that part, as physicalists do, we’re missing a fundamental part of the picture.

With sufficiently accurate measurements and computing power you could. You could predict when and where there is going to be lightning (photons and electrons moving in a specific way) and so on. But even with infinite accuracy you couldn’t predict from equations of motion that some configuration of physical entities is going to be conscious. You can only predict how that configuration is going to move. That’s the key point you keep missing. Equations of motion, which are at the heart of physical theories, only describe how things move.

Knowing perfectly how things move would allow you to derive when there is going to be a storm, but not that some configuration of matter is going to become conscious. Do you not see that? You will derive how each part of that configuration is going to move, that’s it. — leo

But if we know how something moves, we know its configuration right? So if we figure out what configurations of matter produce consciousness, then you could 'in principle' derive when consciousness would arise because you can derive the configuration from those equations of motion. I don't see how this should necessarily be any different than any other property matter gets at larger scales, you also need to know what configurations give what properties, which isn't given in the laws of motion themselves.

Why is this different from saying, if we know the configuration of matter that give rise to a storm, than we can in principle derive when a storm will arise from the equations of motion? You just seem to assume they are different, but I see no reason or argument as to why.

If the truth is that consciousness was always there, how do you want me to explain how consciousness arose? It was always there.

Physicalism doesn’t explain how matter arose in the first place, but on top of that it cannot explain how consciousness arose. — leo

Yeah but saying consciousness was always there isn't even an attempt at explanation it seems to me. What is it then, and how does it interact with matter? If consciousness isn't something only brain-like organs produce, and everywhere in the universe, how is it conscious, or what does it even mean to say consciousness is in something without a brain. Slapping a label on something doesn't explain anything by itself.

But if we know how something moves, we know its configuration right? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes.

So if we figure out what configurations of matter produce consciousness, then you could 'in principle' derive when consciousness would arise because you can derive the configuration from those equations of motion. — ChatteringMonkey

One problem is that our physical senses do not perceive what is conscious and what is not. We don’t perceive other human beings to be conscious, we assume them to be. We would need a sense that would show us what they feel and think.

If you’re conscious then you at least know that your own configuration of matter (yourself) is conscious, but another problem here is that you don’t know whether what you perceive is an accurate picture of reality. So you could say that your configuration of matter is conscious, but what that configuration is exactly you don’t know. You only have an image of that configuration, a potentially very limited and flawed image. There again you would need some extraordinary, transcendental sense in order to know whether that image is accurate and complete.

So we would need a perception that we don’t currently have in order to figure out what configurations of matter are conscious. The ability to see what others feel or think, and the ability to know whether we see an accurate image of matter.


But apart from these problems let’s go with your idea anyway, let’s assume that consciousness is matter configured in a certain way. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, let’s also go with the idea that the laws of nature do not dictate how matter moves, that they are only descriptions of how matter moves.

Now, if there is nothing that constrains or forces matter to move the way it does, why does it move that way? Either matter decides on its own to move that way (hence it is conscious in the first place), or you have a bunch of unconscious matter moving in a specific, regular way for no reason at all. Unconscious matter moving in a regular way for no reason at all, and then for no reason at all it becomes conscious when it happens to arrange itself in some configuration.

Which story is the most incredible really? When you think about it. Some higher consciousness who makes matter move in a regular way? Matter being conscious and choosing on it own to move that way? Or unconscious matter moving in a regular way for no reason at all and becoming conscious for no reason at all?

I suppose it’s possible to cling to the third story, but man it seems the most implausible to me.

I don't see how this should necessarily be any different than any other property matter gets at larger scales, you also need to know what configurations give what properties, which isn't given in the laws of motion themselves. — ChatteringMonkey

The laws of motion do not tell us how something is going to feel, they don’t deal with consciousness at all. But the large scales properties of matter are derivable from the laws of motion. For instance you can derive from the laws of motion that on large scales chunks of matter eventually aggregate into large spherical objects, and when the density is high enough the internal motions lead a bunch of photons to be released in all directions, and you have a star, that is a large spherical object that emits a bunch of photons.

The laws of motion can describe how photons that reach your skin are going to modify the motions of the molecules that compose your skin, how this is going to lead electrons to travel from your skin through your nerves towards your brain and how they are going to move in your brain, but they cannot tell you that your brain or your skin or your body is feeling anything.

And if you say that a specific configuration of matter is conscious, you don’t explain what it is about that configuration that makes it conscious. If motion can produce consciousness, then it isn’t just motion, there is something more in there. It isn’t just unconscious matter in motion. Unconscious matter in motion is just unconscious matter in motion. There is something more.

One problem is that our physical senses do not perceive what is conscious and what is not. We don’t perceive other human beings to be conscious, we assume them to be. We would need a sense that would show us what they feel and think.

If you’re conscious then you at least know that your own configuration of matter (yourself) is conscious, but another problem here is that you don’t know whether what you perceive is an accurate picture of reality. So you could say that your configuration of matter is conscious, but what that configuration is exactly you don’t know. You only have an image of that configuration, a potentially very limited and flawed image. There again you would need some extraordinary, transcendental sense in order to know whether that image is accurate and complete.

So we would need a perception that we don’t currently have in order to figure out what configurations of matter are conscious. The ability to see what others feel or think, and the ability to know whether we see an accurate image of matter. — leo

Yeah let's leave radical scepticism out of the discussion for now. I have no problem admitting that there is no way of proving 1) that an external world even exists, and if it does that the way I perceive it tells me something about it, or 2) that other people have consciousness. Those apply to every theory you would want to come up with... and so we have to assume it or it effectively ends any discussion about this from the get-go.

Now, if there is nothing that constrains or forces matter to move the way it does, why does it move that way? — leo

Matter is something right, something that has certain properties. The constrains come from matter interacting with other matter because of the particular properties it has. The laws of nature are aggregate regularities we discover from how matter interacts with matter. You could off course always ask, why it has the properties it has, or why do those properties interact in the particular way they do. And maybe you will find something yet more basic that can explain the higher level... but I think ultimately the only honest answer you can give to this line of questioning when taken to the extreme, is that we don't know. And we can't really know, because there are limits to what we can observe, and we also can't step outside of this universe to compare it to some other set of universes. So either you accept that things are the way they are, and start from there... or you start speculating about things we have no way of verifying either way.

Which story is the most incredible really? When you think about it. Some higher consciousness who makes matter move in a regular way? Matter being conscious and choosing on it own to move that way? Or unconscious matter moving in a regular way for no reason at all and becoming conscious for no reason at all? — leo

Like I said in the previous paragraph, I don't know why matter ultimately has the properties it has. But higher consciousness, or God is no explanation IMO, because it just shift the question one step further to that higher consciousness. And we have no way of verifying that either way.

And look, the reason why I think physicalism is more likely doesn't come from all the things we don't know or can't know, but from what we do know. I can't move my laptop with my thoughts, I can get rendered unconscious when I get hit in the head hard enough, I feel my consciousness changing when I drink to much, I do not see any signs of consciousness in rocks or things without brains etc etc... All of these things I do know, and it points to the physical having an effect on consciousness, more than the other way around. Even if we would assume consciousness is inherent in the universe, that still doesn't explain any of these particular experiences.

The laws of motion do not tell us how something is going to feel, they don’t deal with consciousness at all. But the large scales properties of matter are derivable from the laws of motion. For instance you can derive from the laws of motion that on large scales chunks of matter eventually aggregate into large spherical objects, and when the density is high enough the internal motions lead a bunch of photons to be released in all directions, and you have a star, that is a large spherical object that emits a bunch of photons.

The laws of motion can describe how photons that reach your skin are going to modify the motions of the molecules that compose your skin, how this is going to lead electrons to travel from your skin through your nerves towards your brain and how they are going to move in your brain, but they cannot tell you that your brain or your skin or your body is feeling anything. — leo

I'm not a scientist, so unfortunately I can only rely on authority for this one, but from what I gathered directly deriving larger scale emergent properties for more basic laws is, at this point anyway, only possible for a select few things. I could dig up references for this if you insist.

And if you say that a specific configuration of matter is conscious, you don’t explain what it is about that configuration that makes it conscious. If motion can produce consciousness, then it isn’t just motion, there is something more in there. It isn’t just unconscious matter in motion. Unconscious matter in motion is just unconscious matter in motion. There is something more. — leo

No, I already said I don't think anybody can really explain it at this point, but that to me is no proof of it being not possible. In fact I think it's not all that surprising given some of the sciences that possibly could make progress on this, like say neuroscience and information-theory, are only in their infancies right now. But so, I don't disagree that there is more to discovery and to explain, but I don't see how that more necessarily has to entail some new fundamental property of the universe.

The laws of nature are aggregate regularities we discover from how matter interacts with matter. You could off course always ask, why it has the properties it has, or why do those properties interact in the particular way they do.

And we can't really know, because there are limits to what we can observe, and we also can't step outside of this universe to compare it to some other set of universes. — ChatteringMonkey

Here is the interesting thing : let’s say you could step outside of this universe into other universes in which matter behaves differently. Let’s say you came up with some greater law of nature that encompasses how matter behaves in different universes. That still wouldn’t answer the question why does matter behave the way it does? Laws of nature describe, they answer the how, not the why.

No matter how matter behaves, there is the fundamental question why does it behave in that way? And ultimately the answer to that question is that something is choosing to make matter move that way. Either some higher consciousness is choosing that, or matter itself is choosing that.

If we want to answer the ‘why’ there is no escape from that answer. Because the other alternative is to leave the ‘why’ unanswered forever.

I don't know why matter ultimately has the properties it has. But higher consciousness, or God is no explanation IMO, because it just shift the question one step further to that higher consciousness. — ChatteringMonkey

It shifts the question one step further and then finally reaches an end. Why does a consciousness choose to do something rather than some other thing? It may have reasons, but the ultimate reason is : because it can. If it couldn’t it wouldn’t. It can, and it chooses to. A consciousness has the power to create and to choose. And consciousness is an inherent part of the universe.

Why are we so afraid of that answer? Why would we prefer an absence of answer, a fundamental meaninglessness, over that answer? Essentially choosing to refuse that answer is choosing meaninglessness over meaning. Yet the very act of choosing is meaningful. Meaning exists and it’s there, in us and all around us.

I can't move my laptop with my thoughts, I can get rendered unconscious when I get hit in the head hard enough, I feel my consciousness changing when I drink to much, I do not see any signs of consciousness in rocks or things without brains etc etc... All of these things I do know, and it points to the physical having an effect on consciousness, more than the other way around. Even if we would assume consciousness is inherent in the universe, that still doesn't explain any of these particular experiences. — ChatteringMonkey

The outside has an effect on the inside, and the inside has an effect on the outside. They are interrelated. The physical and consciousness are interrelated. There are things beyond your consciousness that have an effect on your consciousness, and you have an effect on things beyond your consciousness.

You do see that your choices have an effect on the world around you. It’s not just the world around you having an effect on you.

from what I gathered directly deriving larger scale emergent properties for more basic laws is, at this point anyway, only possible for a select few things. I could dig up references for this if you insist. — ChatteringMonkey

If you want. But there is a widespread misconception surrounding ‘emergence’. For instance people are told that liquid water is water molecules in rapid motion. That the property of wetness, that is water sticking temporarily to a surface, emerges (can be derived) from the motion of these molecules. That’s true. But the property of wetness is not the feeling of wetness. Every emergent property that can be derived from fundamental laws of motion is never a feeling, a conscious experience.

Then one might say if we take the skin and the nerves and the brain into account we might derive the emergence of the feeling of wetness. No, we will only derive the emergence of electrical patterns going from the skin through the brain, we will not derive that these patterns feel like anything at all.

So the fact that macroscopic patterns can emerge from microscopic patterns has no bearing on the fact that conscious experiences can’t emerge from laws of motion. Consciousness is one of the basic building blocks of the universe.

If all there was is stuff that moves and which doesn’t require a consciousness to move, then why is there consciousness at all?

On top of that, every single observation that we make about the ‘world’ involves consciousness, our own, so it seems preposterous to pretend that we can describe the whole world without involving consciousness as something fundamental.

What physics does is describe the content of our consciousness, describing that content cannot explain the origin of that content. Also physics only focuses on a small part of that content (what we call sight/hearing/smell/...) and arbitrarily assumes that all the rest somehow derives from it (emotions, thought, will, ...) instead of seeing it all as equally important.

And the fundamental laws of physics can never explain where these laws themselves come from, so they can’t be the whole story. There is a choice behind these laws.

Here is the interesting thing : let’s say you could step outside of this universe into other universes in which matter behaves differently. Let’s say you came up with some greater law of nature that encompasses how matter behaves in different universes. That still wouldn’t answer the question why does matter behave the way it does? Laws of nature describe, they answer the how, not the why. — leo

Why isn't always a legitimate question. Just because you can ask the question, doesn't mean there is an answer to it. If say the universe is just material stuff and only created consciousness on earth as a result of biological life evolving there, then for the larger part of the universe the why-question is a meaningless question, because it pertains to meaning and purposes, which presupposes some kind biological life and consciousness that is capable of generating meaning.

The question even get more questionable if you veer outside of this universe, because outside of this universe also means outside of space and time... and I don't see how any of these question can even make sense outside of space and time.

It shifts the question one step further and then finally reaches an end. Why does a consciousness choose to do something rather than some other thing? It may have reasons, but the ultimate reason is : because it can. If it couldn’t it wouldn’t. It can, and it chooses to. A consciousness has the power to create and to choose. And consciousness is an inherent part of the universe.

Why are we so afraid of that answer? Why would we prefer an absence of answer, a fundamental meaninglessness, over that answer? Essentially choosing to refuse that answer is choosing meaninglessness over meaning. Yet the very act of choosing is meaningful. Meaning exists and it’s there, in us and all around us. — leo

The short answer is that history shows us to distrust teleological and anthropocentric explanations. Previous blanks that were filled in only with speculation because of a lack of empirical evidence have almost invariable been shown to be totally wrong once we did manage to test those theories with some data. You are free to speculate of course, but the chances that you will be anywhere close to the truth without something to test your theory to, seem to be astronomically low.

And yes, God usually serves as a stop to the infinite regress of causation. It seems to me that this only tells us something about a desire we have for meaning and a first cause, and nothing about the veracity of it.

The outside has an effect on the inside, and the inside has an effect on the outside. They are interrelated. The physical and consciousness are interrelated. There are things beyond your consciousness that have an effect on your consciousness, and you have an effect on things beyond your consciousness.

You do see that your choices have an effect on the world around you. It’s not just the world around you having an effect on you. — leo

They have a very specific relation, which is only being charted now in the sciences. I won't pretend to have a anywhere close to a full theory about this, but maybe I can say this. Information, meaning and consciousness seem to only be able to effect the physical insofar there is an organism capable of interpreting it, and only to the extend that that organism can effect the physical universe.

If you want. — leo

I'll get back to you on this, and on the rest of your post... I need to get some work done :-).

Why isn't always a legitimate question. Just because you can ask the question, doesn't mean there is an answer to it. — ChatteringMonkey

Why would it be legitimate to ask how matter behaves, but not why it behaves the way it does?

There is an answer to it. There is just a refusal to accept that answer.

Why do we do anything? Because we choose to. Choice is part of the universe. As much as what we see.

It is not possible to explain why matter behaves the way it does without a choice, either a consciousness making the choice to force matter to behave that way, or matter itself making that choice.

The alternative is the refusal to explain it. Which is a choice too. The answer exists, whether we accept it or not is a choice.

If say the universe is just material stuff and only created consciousness on earth as a result of biological life evolving there, then for the larger part of the universe the why-question is a meaningless question, because it pertains to meaning and purposes, which presupposes some kind biological life and consciousness that is capable of generating meaning. — ChatteringMonkey

How could material stuff that has no meaning or purpose, and that behaves the way it does without meaning or purpose, create something that has meaning and purpose?

How could something that is unconscious create something that is conscious?

It is mind-boggling to me that people are willing to accept the idea that something unconscious can create something conscious with the ability to make choices, but scoff at the idea that something conscious can create something unconscious which doesn't make choices.

Those who make the first choice have a God too, they call it Matter. Their God who has created them is unconscious, and does what he does for no reason at all. And they see themselves as the result of that, meaningless pieces of stuff in a meaningless world that goes wherever it goes for no reason at all. And to see themselves as that, that is a choice.

Which we could rightly see as an anthropocentric choice. They see themselves as meaningless, so they project that meaninglessness into everything.

God usually serves as a stop to the infinite regress of causation. It seems to me that this only tells us something about a desire we have for meaning and a first cause, and nothing about the veracity of it. — ChatteringMonkey

And some people seem to have a desire for meaninglessness that trumps everything else. Matter is a God too which serves as a stop to the infinite regress. The stop to the regress is that the Matter God did all he did and does all he does for no reason at all.

You have a choice between a meaningful God and a meaningless God, you can't escape that choice. When you refuse to see meaning you're making a choice already.

The one who created you, is he conscious or not? Does he have a purpose or not?

Why would it be legitimate to ask how matter behaves, but not why it behaves the way it does?

There is an answer to it. There is just a refusal to accept that answer.

Why do we do anything? Because we choose to. Choice is part of the universe. As much as what we see.

It is not possible to explain why matter behaves the way it does without a choice, either a consciousness making the choice to force matter to behave that way, or matter itself making that choice.

The alternative is the refusal to explain it. Which is a choice too. The answer exists, whether we accept it or not is a choice. — leo

Because a why-question pertains to purposes and meaning, and as far as we know only biological life develops purposes and meaning. So to ask why matter behaves the way it does, is already assuming a conscious entity capable of meaning that created matter with a purpose.

And BTW, it is in fact possible to conceive of explanations for matter behaving the way it does without resorting to the language of meaning and purpose. Universes could in theory be selected for by a non-purposeful process, akin to the process of natural selection, because some values of the properties of matter give rise to stable universes and others do not. But yes, this is all speculation, we just don't know.

How could material stuff that has no meaning or purpose, and that behaves the way it does without meaning or purpose, create something that has meaning and purpose?

How could something that is unconscious create something that is conscious?

It is mind-boggling to me that people are willing to accept the idea that something unconscious can create something conscious with the ability to make choices, but scoff at the idea that something conscious can create something unconscious which doesn't make choices.

Those who make the first choice have a God too, they call it Matter. Their God who has created them is unconscious, and does what he does for no reason at all. And they see themselves as the result of that, meaningless pieces of stuff in a meaningless world that goes wherever it goes for no reason at all. And to see themselves as that, that is a choice.

Which we could rightly see as an anthropocentric choice. They see themselves as meaningless, so they project that meaninglessness into everything. — leo

We're back at the beginning it seems. Like I said, there is no full explanation at the moment, but we do have bits and pieces of it. It's the standard story really, big bang, matter condensing into stars and planets, molecules on planets combining into larger proteins, into biological organisms capable of reproduction, into life as we know it via natural selection.... There are gaps in the explanation yes, but is that so surprising considering how complex and vast that whole process has been?

As to the question of meaninglessness, I think there are different ways you can react to that. Some people do seem to have trouble handling a purposeless universe, but maybe that's just because we were used to seeing the universe as inherently purposeful and have trouble adjusting. For me, I kinda like the idea that the universe is purposeless and that we are the only ones that seem to bring meaning into it... it makes me feel special ;-).

The OP seems to fall for the ambiguity of the term law. Human laws, the laws that govern our conduct, are created. Natural laws just are. Morover the assumption that law constrains is false. Both natural laws as well as human laws constrain and enable. A natural law, say the law of cause and effect makes our universe livable in the first place, take for instance cycle of birth. This would be impossible without cause and effect. Human law too does not only constrain. Take a traffic light. Yes, you have to stop, but because it regulates all the participants in traffic, it enables you to plan your journey and safely arrive at a destination.

Because a why-question pertains to purposes and meaning, and as far as we know only biological life develops purposes and meaning. So to ask why matter behaves the way it does, is already assuming a conscious entity capable of meaning that created matter with a purpose. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't agree with this. Asking why here simply means what makes matter behave the way it does. Just like we could ask what makes tree branches move the way they do, and we could answer "the wind", and we're not assuming the wind is a conscious entity capable of meaning.

But then we ask what makes the wind behave the way it does, and so on and so forth until we reach the question what makes matter behave the way it does?

Here we are assuming that matter represents everything that exists, I believe you agree with that statement. What are the properties of that matter? Obviously that matter has the ability to behave the way it does (which doesn't assume that matter is conscious).

Now there are only two possibilities : either there is a purpose for why matter behaves the way it does, or there is no purpose. Since matter is assumed to represent everything that exists, then if there is a purpose it would come from matter itself, and if there is no purpose then that would come from matter itself as well (matter would not have a purpose, which doesn't assume that matter is conscious).

So either matter chooses to behave the way it does, or it doesn't choose. If it chooses, then it is conscious. If it doesn't choose, then it does what it does for no reason at all.

The why-question is valid, and it has only two possible answers.

If you pick the second answer, that matter does what it does for no reason at all, then you would have to explain how something that does what it does for no reason at all, that has no purpose, has the ability to morph into conscious beings capable of meaning, purpose and choice.

Basically either you assume the universe is fundamentally meaningful or meaningless. But if you assume it is meaningless then you have to explain how meaning can appear in a meaningless universe. If matter is everything and it is meaningless, then meaning would be an illusion. But then every sentence we type here would be meaningless. And then what are we doing? Why don't we just write like this goingozinfegoizgtizsngroiqoiden,oqin,donazefonaoeingfe if it is meaningless all the same?

And BTW, it is in fact possible to conceive of explanations for matter behaving the way it does without resorting to the language of meaning and purpose. Universes could in theory be selected for by a non-purposeful process, akin to the process of natural selection, because some values of the properties of matter give rise to stable universes and others do not. — ChatteringMonkey

You're just pushing the problem one step further, the bottom line is either the fundamental substance of existence is purposeful or purposeless.

For me, I kinda like the idea that the universe is purposeless and that we are the only ones that seem to bring meaning into it... it makes me feel special ;-). — ChatteringMonkey

Well here's the kicker, if the universe is purposeless we don't bring meaning into it, because we are purposeless too and any meaning we think we bring is an illusion, and you aren't special and you feeling special is an illusion, and it doesn't matter what we do it's all meaningless, what you do here and anywhere is meaningless.

You say the universe is purposeless but you don't live it that way. You live as if there is some purpose in it. If you bring meaning into it, you who belong to the universe, then meaning exists, and then the universe can't be purposeless, and then matter can't be purposeless.

Human laws, the laws that govern our conduct, are created. Natural laws just are. — Tobias

You're arbitrarily assuming natural laws weren't created. To say that natural laws "just are" is to assume that they are there for no reason at all, that the universe is purposeless. See my last post above on that.

Morover the assumption that law constrains is false. Both natural laws as well as human laws constrain and enable. A natural law, say the law of cause and effect makes our universe livable in the first place, take for instance cycle of birth. This would be impossible without cause and effect. Human law too does not only constrain. Take a traffic light. Yes, you have to stop, but because it regulates all the participants in traffic, it enables you to plan your journey and safely arrive at a destination. — Tobias

Yes interesting point, laws both constrain and enable.

I don't agree with this. Asking why here simply means what makes matter behave the way it does. Just like we could ask what makes tree branches move the way they do, and we could answer "the wind", and we're not assuming the wind is a conscious entity capable of meaning.

But then we ask what makes the wind behave the way it does, and so on and so forth until we reach the question what makes matter behave the way it does? — leo

But even if it is merely a question pertaining to causation, then it isn't always a legitimate question either, because causation only makes sense in time and space to begin with. What happened before the big bang? Nothing, because there is no before... You can't just expect spacio-temporal reasoning to apply to something outside of it.

The why-question is valid, and it has only two possible answers.

If you pick the second answer, that matter does what it does for no reason at all, then you would have to explain how something that does what it does for no reason at all, that has no purpose, has the ability to morph into conscious beings capable of meaning, purpose and choice.

Basically either you assume the universe is fundamentally meaningful or meaningless. But if you assume it is meaningless then you have to explain how meaning can appear in a meaningless universe. If matter is everything and it is meaningless, then meaning would be an illusion. But then every sentence we type here would be meaningless. And then what are we doing? Why don't we just write like this goingozinfegoizgtizsngroiqoiden,oqin,donazefonaoeingfe if it is meaningless all the same? — leo

I pick the second because I see no signs of matter, outside of biological life which is only a small subset of matter, behaving consciously.

And I think we will come up with an explanation for how meaning can come from purposeless matter, so to me that is no argument that sways me. To be convinced, someone would have to show how purpose arising out of matter without purpose is impossible in principle.... and I haven't seen that argument yet.

And furthermore, you happily shift the burden of proof to the physicalist, but I don't think merely positing that matter is conscious, really explains all that much. For a theory to have some explanatory value, you also have to show how it helps to explain the phenomena we see all around us... not just the question why matter behaves the way it does.

Well here's the kicker, if the universe is purposeless we don't bring meaning into it, because we are purposeless too and any meaning we think we bring is an illusion, and you aren't special and you feeling special is an illusion, and it doesn't matter what we do it's all meaningless, what you do here and anywhere is meaningless.

You say the universe is purposeless but you don't live it that way. You live as if there is some purpose in it. If you bring meaning into it, you who belong to the universe, then meaning exists, and then the universe can't be purposeless, and then matter can't be purposeless. — leo

Yeah I don't agree with this, because I believe purpose can come out of an otherwise purposeless universe. We create meaning and purposes. I live as if things have purpose for me, which doesn't have to imply the belief that the whole universe is inherently purposeful...

But I think I've said about all I have to say on this now.

What happened before the big bang? Nothing, because there is no before... — ChatteringMonkey

You're assuming ...

But even if it is merely a question pertaining to causation, then it isn't always a legitimate question either, because causation only makes sense in time and space to begin with. — ChatteringMonkey

Here it is legitimate, because we're remaining within the realm of everything that exists, where matter is taken to be the fundamental substance of everything that exists.

I pick the second because I seen no signs of matter, outside of biological life which is only a small subset of matter, behaving consciously. — ChatteringMonkey

If you can't see what a person feels or thinks, how can you tell what is conscious and what is not.

And I think we will come up with an explanation for how meaning can come from purposeless matter, so to me that is no argument that sways me. To be convinced, someone would have to show how purpose arising out of matter without purpose is impossible in principle.... and I haven't seen that argument yet. — ChatteringMonkey

I gave that argument. If you start from the assumption that everything that exists is matter. And if you assume that matter is purposeless. Then immediately everything is purposeless. So there can be no purpose arising anywhere. But if you start from the assumption that purpose exists, as we indeed experience, then : either matter is not all there is, or matter has purpose.

So if you believe purpose exists, then you have to give up either materialism or the purposelessness of matter, which leads to giving up materialism as well.

And furthermore, you happily shift the burden of proof to the physicalist, but I don't think merely positing that matter is conscious, really explains all that much. For a theory to have some explanatory value, you also have to show how it helps to explain the phenomena we see all around us... not just the question why matter behaves the way it does. — ChatteringMonkey

Positing that matter has purpose explains why we experience purpose, whereas the opposite alternative doesn't explain it.

I live as if things have purpose for me, which doesn't have to imply the belief that the whole universe is inherently purposeful... — ChatteringMonkey

But if you are made solely of matter, then the matter you are made of has the ability to have purpose. And if matter is all there is, then all there is has the ability to have purpose. Otherwise you would be saying that you are made of a different stuff than the rest of the universe. No you are made of the same stuff. And something that has the ability to have purpose, is not some unconscious purposeless thing.

I gave that argument. If you start from the assumption that everything that exists is matter. And if you assume that matter is purposeless. Then immediately everything is purposeless. — leo

No, this doesn't follow. And the whole argument is based on this really. You seem to think that it is proven logically or something,

1) everything is matter
2) matter has no purpose
=> therefore nothing has purpose

But this kind of logic doesn't work because matter combines into all kinds of stuff that has properties that are not inherent in matter by itself. This is not a matter of logic, it's an empirical matter...

But this kind of logic doesn't work because matter combines into all kinds of stuff that has properties that are not inherent in matter by itself. This is not a matter of logic, it's an empirical matter... — ChatteringMonkey

Just think ... if matter is all there is, where do these properties come from ... they come from matter.

You agree with this at least, right?

Now, we observe matter in a way that is given to us by matter. You agree with this too?

Then, when we observe matter combine in ways that reveal properties of matter that were previously concealed : either these properties were already there and matter is revealing them to us ; or these properties weren't already there but were created, by none other than matter itself.

So, either these properties are inherent in matter, or matter creates them.

If matter creates them, then matter creates consciousness, purpose, feelings, thoughts. And what is it that experiences consciousness, purpose, feelings, thoughts? Matter itself, because it is all there is.

So, logically and empirically, if you assume that matter is all there is, then either matter is inherently conscious and has inherently purpose, or it has inherently the creative power to give itself consciousness and purpose. In both cases the implications are extraordinary, and that's an understatement.

You're arbitrarily assuming natural laws weren't created. To say that natural laws "just are" is to assume that they are there for no reason at all, that the universe is purposeless. See my last post above on that.

No, of necessity, in any case according to your own framework. Let's say they are created. Creation presupposes a process from something to something else. Now for creation to make any sense that process should be predicatable in some way, otehrwise one never knows what one is creating and anything can come from anything. Predictability presupposes that there is some ' way hings go' . It is not me who presupposes the eternal assistance of natural laws, it is you.

The same applies for 'reasons'. thiings have a reason when they are there to accomplish a certain something. Now one can only accomplish a certain something if it can be predicted what will cause that something to come into being. Therefore also ' reason' is only applicable against the backdrop of some natural laws.

So yes, laws are there and the question of reason is beyond us. If you want to fill it in with wild speculative metaphysics , more power to you, but why would you, if it is pointless to do so?