The problem is how the brain, a public object creates a private mental world - the conscious Subject. That private mental world is only observable to one self. Any theory that describes how a mental world of the self can pop into existence from neural electrical signals (the hard problem) must fail because it can have no practical consequences. If you cant directly observe something (the mind) and it has no effects (being epiphenomenal) it produces no testable consequences. So no theory will ever work.

Dualism at least says there is an independent entity: a mind that lives inside the brain that can make a difference because it can have an independent effect on brain activity rather than being only an effect of brain activity. Dualism also explains the intuition there is a diachronic self - something more permanent that endures through sleep, anesthesia, aging and yet seems in some way to be the same old me. We know the brain creates much of the content of consciousness and we can have no viable perceptions or memories without it but that may just be a virtual reality presentation created for the benefit of an independent observer within the brain.

Here's a quote from a Christian scientist:

Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), the founder of a now well-established religion known as Christian Science, in her seminal work Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures. She asserted that Jesus' miracles were in accord with the, ``Science of God's unchangeable law.'' She also proclaimed that matter is a derivative of consciousness.

And here's the quote from Max Planck:

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

Erwin Schrödinger, on the same topic:
Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

Notice please that Planck 'regards', and not proclaims, his belief. He says it as a matter of science: something that is up for revision should the need arise to refine the theory. Mary Baker Eddy and Erwin Schrödinger disagrees with Planck: they figure consciousness is primary.

I think this is a debate that at this point is undecided. You can be an advocate of this, or that, but you can't claim that your theory is the only one and the only possibly good one.

physics is theoretical ... and metaphysics is speculative — 180 Proof

Yes, that's one difference all right.

There are other differences, too, but this is one of them.

Notice please that Planck 'regards', and not proclaims, his belief. He says it as a matter of science — god must be atheist

I don't think anyone disputed that. The quote or citation was simply to show that some leading physicists are inclined to accept the possibility of matter being a product of consciousness.

But the proponents of this sort of thinking can't prove that it's true. — god must be atheist

I dunno, what if we built the greatest microscope ever and found, written on each elementary particle:

Made in Heaven
Do not dry clean

:grin:

Really? Explain please. — 180 Proof

You explain why it is

You can drive a house, because houses are like cars. They both have windows.

I will in reply to his / her reply. Till then :point:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/546426 (@ bottom)

Because of entropy.
It’s a lot easier for a person to produce energy from matter than it is to produce matter from energy. You would need a colossal amount of energy to produce even a gram of matter, no less the amount you interact with on a day to day basis.
In this case your “mental energy-scape, mind or consciousness” would have to have the power of several million atomic bombs to manifest the physical world.

It just seems more intuitive that the energy from glucose coursing in your blood fuels a highly energy efficient biological machine which somehow generates awareness. Of pre-existing mass and external material.

It is a good question though in the sense that we should always work out why processes can’t be bi-directional because often many are.

As for another clue that consciousness (at least as it is in the human mind) probably doesn’t cause the existence of the physical world is because all of our sensory organs are clearly designed to maximise capture and focus the scattered waves, signals and stimuli of the external world.
If consciousness manifested its reality surely the organs would have evolved with a transmitter type architecture rather than a receiver type architecture.

In panpsychism an electron is a little mind as seen from the inside and matter as seen from the outside.

Yes, uncontroversially. This is a philosophy forum, I'm well aware of the difficulty in claiming to know anything beyond that I'm a thinking thing, but as much as one can be certain of anything else, I'm at least certain of that.

You're more certain that physical matter exists than of pretty much anything else? What do you base this high level of certainty on?

Also, regarding consciousness, do you believe that something that is functionally equivalent to the brain will be conscious, whatever the substrate? The example that is often given is setting up an enormous system of valves, water, pumps and pipes that is functionally equivalent to a working brain and then running it. Do you think such a system would produce consciousness? How about a system of electric switches opening and closing? Do you think that if you open and close the switches in some way, the system of switches will be conscious? If so, why? Also if so, why would that particular combination of switching actions give rise to a conscious moment of, say, stubbing your toe, while a different set of switching operations give rise to, say, the beauty of a sunset?

If so, why do you think it's taking so long to come up with an explanation for how the brain produces consciousness
— RogueAI

Those are not related things.

Sure they are. If science can't solve consciousness, then it's first going to appear as an "explanatory gap" until people realize science isn't equipped to solve it. I think that's where we're at at the moment and why we're seeing people like Christof Koch turn to panpsychism.

Also, you did not give an explanation for why consciousness has been such a tough nut to crack for so long. In an interview, Paul Davies called it the number one problem in science. I may be going out on a limb with idealism, but you are certainly going out on a limb denying there's a hard problem (which you do later on). Do you think that our brains just aren't equipped to handle the consciousness problem? But then that is ad hoc: we can detect gravity waves now, but we're still in the dark about how brains produce consciousness? That shouldn't be. That's a problem for materialists.

There is no necessary cause for a brain to come to understand consciousness. If humans hadn't evolved, perhaps no brain would even have a concept of consciousness. I don't think rats, crows and dolphins spend their time thinking about this stuff.

But we do spend our time thinking about such stuff, and science prides itself on its explanatory power, and in this one area, there has been a definite lack of progress that is starting to become embarrassing, leading people like Giulio Tononi to speculate, without a shred of proof or way to verify, that consciousness is a result of information processing. That's pretty out there, but IIT is all the rage now.

For example, suppose 1,000 years from now the Hard Problem remains. Would you reexamine your belief that consciousness arises from matter?
— RogueAI

The hard problem is not a problem, it's a protest. It's even worded by Chalmers as such. There is nothing to wait for.

How do brains produce consciousness? There is no answer, of course, which suggests there is something to wait for: the answer to how brains produce consciousness. If "there's nothing to wait for", why are so many people wasting their time trying to explain it? Your answer is not believable.

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

An of-the-gaps fallacy again. Science hasn't explained it yet, therefore it must be God/panpsychism/dualism/whatever other ism I favour.

You're not reading what I said. The reason walking/running and legs isn't like consciousness emerging is because we have an explanation for walking/running and walking and running and legs all belong to the same ontological category. We don't have an explanation for consciousness (we don't even have an agreed upon definition of it), and mental states and physical states are ontologically different things.

If you find yourself making this argument, stop, catch yourself, and remember: no one finds this a good argument when it's not used in the service of their pet theory. And more honest people don't think it a good argument period.

If physical states can cause mental states, why not vice-versa?

I'm not making a god-of-the-gaps argument. I'm saying materialism will never explain science because there's a category error going on: material things cannot, in principle, give rise to consciousness, just as consciousness cannot give rise to material things.

I suspect you're going to say that a collection of electric switches, if arranged some particular way and turned on and off some particular way, will produce consciousness. This goes to the heart of the matter. A conscious collection of switches is already an absurdity, and it entails an additional absurdity: That a collection of valves, pipes, and water, if functionally equivalent to those switches that produce a conscious moment, will also be conscious. I think the debate is over when you make that claim. I think it's an obvious absurdity, so my argument against materialism isn't "god-of-the-gaps", it's a reductio absurdum: physicalism leads to conscious systems of valves and pipes and water (among other things). To which I respond: absurd.

Why should we assume physical states even exist? What evidence do you have for the existence of the non-conscious stuff these physical states are supposedly made of? — RogueAI

Most of my body is non-conscious. We can argue about chairs having or not having experience, but I don't see good reasons to think chairs have experience.

Think of some music. Is there music playing in your skull right now? Does your mind seem to have weight? — RogueAI

I am thinking of music. I don't know which parts of my brain are involved in experience. But I know that if a person lack a brain, they won't be thinking much.

Non-conscious stuff doesn't produce consciousness. It's a category error that leads to absurdities. — RogueAI

It does. Our failure to make sense of it is irrelevant. Most of us don't make sense of QM, it's inconceivable, but it happens.

Likewise, our failure to understand how matter produces experience is an example of our cognitive limitations, which must exist.

Pretty much every other option is better than brain=mental states. — RogueAI

Here I agree. Not because I don't think mind is an outcome of brain, but because there's so much involved in experiencing the world and our state of knowledge is so rudimentary that we can't say, nor does it make sense to say, mind=brain.

It doesn't follow though, that mind is not physical.

But if you arrange the feeling of stubbing your toe with the beauty of a sunset while listening to a Bach symphony, you don't a working brain from that. — RogueAI

You (probably) need a brain to arrange any of those.

Isn't this a problem for physicalists who believe in matter/energy conversion? — RogueAI

No because your whole idea of a “mental stuff” that is different from physical stuff is rejected by physicalists in the first place.

You're more certain that physical matter exists than of pretty much anything else? What do you base this high level of certainty on? — RogueAI

This is becoming my mantra, but an objective physical universe is overwhelmingly the simplest and indeed currently only viable explanation for phenomena.

do you believe that something that is functionally equivalent to the brain will be conscious, whatever the substrate? — RogueAI

A brain doesn't have to be conscious, so I'd word it as: something functionally equivalent to my brain would have the capacity for consciousness. You're conveying incredulity but there's no way this is news to you.

If science can't solve consciousness, then it's first going to appear as an "explanatory gap" until people realize science isn't equipped to solve it. — RogueAI

Even whether science can fully explain it is irrelevant. Again, the advent of science is not a prerequisite for brains producing consciousness.

The reason walking/running and legs isn't like consciousness emerging is because we have an explanation for walking/running and walking and running and legs all belong to the same ontological category. We don't have an explanation for consciousness (we don't even have an agreed upon definition of it), and mental states and physical states are ontologically different things. — RogueAI

An of-the-gaps argument. Science hasn't explained it, therefore it's not scientifically explicable, therefore <insert pet theory here>. Science isn't done yet. Irrespective, the answer to the OP still holds: there is no scientific problem with consciousness not creating matter for the same reason there is no scientific problem with walking not creating legs. This is true whether or not we have a good scientific explanation for walking.

But we do spend our time thinking about such stuff, and science prides itself on its explanatory power, and in this one area, there has been a definite lack of progress that is starting to become embarrassing — RogueAI

There's been a huge amount of progress. Just saying there's been none doesn't make it true: this ain't religion, there's a paper trail. Your argument is reminding me of this lady:

https://youtu.be/YFjoEgYOgRo

A brain doesn't have to be conscious, so I'd word it as: something functionally equivalent to my brain would have the capacity for consciousness. You're conveying incredulity but there's no way this is news to you.

Let's explore this because this is important. Take a look at this comic:
https://xkcd.com/505/

Do you believe it's possible to simulate a universe of conscious beings by moving a bunch of rocks around in a certain way? If not, where do you and that comic diverge?

↪RogueAI
Because of entropy.
It’s a lot easier for a person to produce energy from matter than it is to produce matter from energy. — Benj96

:up:

This is becoming my mantra, but an objective physical universe is overwhelmingly the simplest and indeed currently only viable explanation for phenomena. — Kenosha Kid

:up:

Same question to you, 180. Do you believe it's possible to simulate a universe of conscious beings by moving rocks around? If not, where do you and that comic I linked diverge?

The question makes no sense. That creationist comic is, at most, charming. Divergence? I'm not a creationist because there aren't intelligible grounds to even consider such a fairytale as anything but a fairytale. Now your turn:

... how do 'mental states' interact with 'physical states' without a shared (causal) ontology? — 180 Proof

:chin:

I'm encouraged that you think it's a fairy tale! I have encountered many materialists who agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion in that comic. Maybe you see why I think it's absurd that consciousness could arise from wiring switches together, running a current through them, and turning them on and off in a certain way. If you can't get consciousness from moving rocks around (you can't), why should you get consciousness from turning switches off and on?

So, do you think it's possible to simulate consciousness?

Because of entropy.
It’s a lot easier for a person to produce energy from matter than it is to produce matter from energy. — Benj96

This is a good answer. On our level, yes, it works. But on a creationist's level, one can say that yes, there had been X amount of energy available to produce the Y amount of matter that makes up our KNOWN universe. Just because it's a large number, a scary-shit large number, it's not impossible for it to exist.

My beef is a bit different; it's got nothing to do with the amount of energy available. It has to do with the fact that energy in and by itself can't exist. It is CARRIED by matter. Some say some wave forms carry it, too, but the waveforms may need matter to propagate. There is a raging battle of minds over that; the old idea of ether filling the empty space in the universe is thought of as a form of matter. It's wholly different what Edgar Wells thought ether was, but the idea of some pervasive matter-like thing in otherwise any empty space is gaining momentum.

Anyway. Matter is the only source of energy inasmuch as energy is sapped from it. Slow down a speeding cannonball, put a resistor in a current, put a dam in a flowing river. Without some sort of energy conversion, energy rests in matter's existence. So to get the energy to create matter, without losing matter, is hugely inefficient (creating matter from heat energy, or kinetic energy); but if you use energy conversion in the maximum way, that is, converting matter into energy getting MCC energy out of it, defeats the purpose, since you need precisely as much matter to produce energy as much matter you get out of it.

So the purest energy conversion to make matter presupposes the same matter mass as you create; and every other source of energy assumes MORE mass than what gets created. In the upshot, non-matter or energy or consciousness can't create matter without using up as much matter or more as it creates.

I have encountered many materialists who agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion in that comic. — RogueAI

Can you name them?

I am only asking because I heard many preachers say, "I've met many such and such that said such and such". I think it's a rhetoric and I am having a hard time believing it any more. If you met many materialists who said this or that, some names must have stuck in your mind.

I am fully aware that you can say, "Joe Montague, Harry Griffin, Michele Adieu, Robert Frankovic, Debbi Gaal, and Rosemary Thimble." I ask you to be honest. Did you actually met MANY materialists who said what you claim they all said?

Answer my previous question and then I'll address yours.

What was the question again? The one about walking and legs?

I love passive aggressive conversations. I'm ripping my dick off I love them so much.

Can you name them?

No, there was a group of computationalist materialists over at the International Skeptics Forum in its heyday who were completely invested in that comic (and Hofstader's book Godel, Esher, Bach). The line of thinking was pretty simple to follow: if consciousness can be simulated, then it can be produced through switching operations. Switching operations can occur in lots of different substrates, like a system of pipes, water, pumps, and valves (for some reason, the materialists over at the ISF preferred ropes and pulleys). Such a system, if it was functionally equivalent to a working conscious human brain, would also be conscious.

None of this so far is controversial. How they got to "you can simulate consciousness by moving rocks around" was exactly what the comic claims: you can build a turing-complete computer by moving rocks around, if you have enough time and rocks. If you can compute by moving rocks around, and consciousness can be simulated on a computer, then consciousness can be simulated by moving rocks around. They even talked themselves into believing a bunch of people writing 1's and 0's on pieces of paper could also produce conscious moments.

I think they're actually correct in that chain of logic. If you're willing to believe in a conscious system of pipes and water, why not rocks being moved around in a certain way? Under materialism, consciousness shouldn't be substrate dependent, and if you can replicate the computational processes going on in some brain state(s) by moving enough rocks around, that collection of moving rocks, if it's computationally equivalent to brain state(s), should be conscious. The problem is that at the end of that chain of logic is an absurdity: the possibility that a universe of conscious beings are being simulated by someone moving rocks around.

I am only asking because I heard many preachers say, "I've met many such and such that said such and such". I think it's a rhetoric and I am having a hard time believing it any more. If you met many materialists who said this or that, some names must have stuck in your mind.

I can name you message board names, but they won't mean anything to you. There was a substantial group of people who did buy in to what that comic was saying. I would be surprised if there weren't some materialists here who would agree with it.

I am fully aware that you can say, "Joe Montague, Harry Griffin, Michele Adieu, Robert Frankovic, Debbi Gaal, and Rosemary Thimble." I ask you to be honest. Did you actually met MANY materialists who said what you claim they all said?

I met many materialists who believe that it was possible to simulate consciousness by moving rocks around, yes.

Now, let me ask you, can consciousness be simulated on a computer?

Why doesn't the creation of new mental states violate entropy?

Okay. I won't waste a moment more of your time or mine.

You just did by posting that, but so what. All we do here is waste time. What is your question you want me to answer?

What is your question you want me to answer? — RogueAI

He won't tell you. Even though it just involves writing one sentence. If he does write a sentence, it will have bold, italic, underline, quotation marks, and some kind of smiley.

Oh, and he'll quote himself.