I made a copy of your long post to read at my leisure. But for now, I'll just note that your metaphor of a Mind/Body Equation may have some merit. Personally, I have resolved the Mind vs Body or Physics vs Metaphysics "problem" with a BothAnd approach. Since an equation is supposed to balance out, arbitrarily assigning a value of zero to one side is a cop-out. Instead, we need to take the value of both sides seriously.Physicalists get rid of this problem by simply deleting the right side of this "equation" and claiming that there is no consciousness at all. — Wolfgang
:up:Since life only begins at the molecular level, there is no need to search for life on all the scales below. — Wolfgang
:fire: Ergo the 'panpsychic' woo-of-the-gaps of (pseudo-scientistic) idealists / anti-physicalists.Since the philosophy of mind addresses consciousness as an entity in its own right, it fails to present it as an (emergent) consequence of life.
The MBP was dis-solved in the 17th century by Spinoza (re: property dualism). Furthermore, given that mind is an activity or process (i.e. minding) and not a thing, the dualistic fetish of "mind" separate from, or without, "body" (or brain) is a category error (e.g. dancing without legs? digesting without guts?) ...
And why confuse the scientific problem of explaining 'mind' with antiquated metaphysics of making up shit without evidence or sound reasoning about 'mind'? — 180 Proof
One can now use different models with which this excitement can be described and concretized. We are still at the biological level here. Thus, the physical theory of dynamical systems could be transformed into a model in which that consciousness could be described as an attractor, the physical concept of information (not Shannon!) in connection with information or structure density describes the same dynamic 'center', or evolutionary graph theory can be described as an orientation (random) walk. — Wolfgang
Since life only begins at the molecular level, there is no need to search for life on all the scales below.
— Wolfgang
:up:
Since the philosophy of mind addresses consciousness as an entity in its own right, it fails to present it as an (emergent) consequence of life.
:fire: Ergo the 'panpsychic' woo-of-the-gaps of (pseudo-scientistic) idealists / anti-physicalists.
NB: Excerpt from an old post ...
The MBP was dis-solved in the 17th century by Spinoza (re: property dualism). Furthermore, given that mind is an activity or process (i.e. minding) and not a thing, the dualistic fetish of "mind" separate from, or without, "body" (or brain) is a category error (e.g. dancing without legs? digesting without guts?) ...
And why confuse the scientific problem of explaining 'mind' with antiquated metaphysics of making up shit without evidence or sound reasoning about 'mind'?
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof
Thus, the physical theory of dynamical systems could be transformed into a model in which that consciousness could be described as an attractor, the physical concept of information (not Shannon!) in connection with information or structure density describes the same dynamic 'center', . . . — Wolfgang
t. It is neurons A (physics) plus/ multiplied neurons B = consciousness (philosophy). — Wolfgang
the whole is something other than the sum of its parts — Wolfgang
Nowadays, Spinoza's approach is more represented by the so-called four E's. There one sits on a naïve phenomenalism and squanders the opportunity to analyze the complex levels of regulation and their connection analytically. — Wolfgang
:chin:Neurons, individually, can't do this :point: comprehend, but, together, as a brain, they can. — Agent Smith
Exactly!How can a group (the brain) consisting of stuff that can't understand (neurons) understand? — Agent Smith
Just as this sentence consisting of individually meaningless letters conveys meaning. :roll:How can a group (the brain) consisting of stuff that can't understand (neurons) understand? — Agent Smith
Equivocating non sequitur. :roll:If I rubbed two sticks together and consciousness emerged that would be an emergent property but it would also be magic and inexplicable like neurons firing creating consciousness. — Andrew4Handel
The article offers a further reading reference, not an argument. I gave an example of how 'a whole greater than the sum of its parts' is the most ordinary, least mysterious thing (again, such as semantics of a sentence). It's a mystery to me, Andrew, how any numerate person would find emergence – nonlinear dynamic (i.e. chaotic) processes or systems – "mysterious".↪180 Proof You didn't cite any of the article.
t was just about showing that you can't explain philosophy with physics — Wolfgang
How can a group (the brain) consisting of stuff that can't understand (neurons) understand?
— Agent Smith
Just as this sentence consisting of individually meaningless letters conveys meaning. :roll: — 180 Proof
Non sequitur. — 180 Proof
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.