That premise rests on the assumption that mental states aren't physical states.
There is no reason to believe that physical stuff isn't mental stuff.
There's no other intelligible option given what we know.
"The reason it is a one way street is because mind is not opposed to physical stuff, it is physical stuff. It's the physical stuff of which we are most acquainted with in merely having experience."
You never get anything material from mental states — RogueAI
When alarmed, your body will produce adrenaline, when in love, oxytocin. The whole field of mind-body medicine relies on this.
"Walking from legs" is not the same as "consciousness from non-conscious stuff". — RogueAI
His general point stands: legs are a prerequisite for walking; walking does not cause legs. Atomic structure is a prerequisite for materials; material structure is not a prerequisite for atoms. A prerequisite for atoms is massive, charged particles; atoms are not a prerequisite for massive, charged particles. Or, more simply, trees are a prerequisite for forests; forests are not a prerequisite for trees.
"You have an invalid assumption: that every hierarchical relationship in physics is or ought to be a two-way street. That is not a peculiarity of physics (just your conception of it) so, no, it's a problem for physicalists that consciousness is a function of brains but cannot create brains."
Sure methodological / pragmatic / phenomenological 'materialists' can ... via linguistics, semiotics, discursive pragmatics, embodied cognition, cultural anthropology, etc. Vide Peirce, Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, Austin, Chomsky, Levi-Strauss, Eco, Deleuze, Haack, Bourdieu, Dennett, Lakoff, Flanagan et al.What materialism can't provide a satisfactory explanation for is meaning, and the faculty that perceives it, namely, reason. — Wayfarer
If so, then how do 'mental states' interact with 'physical states' without a shared (causal) ontology? Not Malebranche's occasionalism ... :roll:Not so with physical states and mental states. They are obviously ontologically different things. — RogueAI
How 'materialistic' (Turing computational) of you – Democritus ... and Wolfram / Deutsch, I'm sure, would approve. :up:The resolution to the apparent paradox is that it's all just information. Matter is like data, mind is like code. Code is nothing but data being executed, data is just anything accessible to code... and all data can in principle be executed as code, though most of it does nothing interesting when executed. — Pfhorrest
Do you believe the brain is a prerequisite for consciousness? — RogueAI
If so, why do you think it's taking so long to come up with an explanation for how the brain produces consciousness — RogueAI
For example, suppose 1,000 years from now the Hard Problem remains. Would you reexamine your belief that consciousness arises from matter? — RogueAI
As for running and legs and brains, we have an explanation for running/walking. We have no explanation for the emergence of consciousness from the actions of neurons. — RogueAI
If physical states can cause mental states, why not vice-versa? — RogueAI
All signs, symbols, and codes, all languages including formal mathematics are embodied as material physical structures and therefore must obey all the inexorable laws of physics. At the same time, the symbol vehicles like the bases in DNA, voltages representing bits in a computer, the text on this page, and the neuron firings in the brain do not appear to be limited by, or clearly related to, the very laws they must obey. Even the mathematical symbols that express these inexorable physical laws seem to be entirely free of these same laws. — Howard Pattee
so no, it's [not, Shirley?] a problem for physicalists — Kenosha Kid
Even the mathematical symbols that express these inexorable physical laws seem to be entirely free of these same laws. — Howard Pattee
You're barking up the wrong tree. What materialism can't provide a satisfactory explanation for is meaning, and the faculty that perceives it, namely, reason. — Wayfarer
The general argument seems to be that reason and the foundations of logic can only be possible if there is a god or higher consciousness as the guarantor of their fidelity. — Tom Storm
Many people then proceed to an argument for a higher intelligence, but if you only say that physical laws aren’t explicable in their own terms, then you can leave it as an open question - which is the best philosophical stance. — Wayfarer
Why not mental/physical conversion? Why is it a one-way street? — RogueAI
The problem here is the dualistic assumption that there two incompatible states.Not so with physical states and mental states. They are obviously ontologically different things.
— RogueAI
If so, then how do 'mental states' interact with 'physical states' without a shared (causal) ontology? — 180 Proof
Explaining a mystery with another mystery. — Tom Storm
I think Max Planck said that matter is a derivative of consciousness. — Apollodorus
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
We know that f=ma but we don’t know why it is - that is not really ‘explaining a mystery with another mystery’, though. It’s recognising the limits of knowledge. — Wayfarer
The famous quote is:
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Which can’t help remind me of the famous Einstein quote along similar lines. — Wayfarer
Science is mum on metaphysics. — RogueAI
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.