And half remembered from Ursula LeGuin, I think — "Love is like bread, you cannot preserve it; it has to be made fresh every day." — unenlightened

She's as good as it gets!

You two nailed it. Before they're born, you know you'll love your kids. It's a given. Then it happens, and you realize you had no idea. To steal a line from comedian Larry Miller, it's like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it. It's not a decision. It's like breathing.

I don't think so, and that is the problem I've been describing to you in the inverse form, (separating the pure immaterial subjective agent, sometimes called soul, or mind, or intellect) from the material object is not possible. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. I'm just brainstorming a possibility of a physicalist scenario. I don't know if any physicalist agrees. But if physicalism is the answer to everything, then it will reveal the brain operations that are, literally, consciousness. @wonderer1 just suggested it might take another couple hundred years. But at that point, we will, perhaps, be able to literally see consciousness in some brain activity that we're unable to detect now. And then we could try what I suggested

But no, I don't think any part of that paragraph is correct.

See The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation by Peter Tse. — wonderer1

Is there any chance you can give any guidance on that? You must know it fairly well to have recommend it multiple times as having found a solution. I find it very difficult. Likely my lack of education in most areas ever discussed here. But maybe you can give me some kind of summary? Or handholds to look for along the way? Anything to keep my head above water.

The logics of intentional behavior on the one hand and being constrained to act by external causes on the other just seem incompatible. — Janus

Yet they are entirely compatible. There can be no question of that. Here we are. There is some commonality, or they could not exist in the same universe, much less in the same being. We just have to figure out what the commonality is. Something explains the different modes operating in the same being.

The question is why this is accompanied by a subjective experience of it,
— Patterner
Define subjective experience. — L'éléphant

We have devices that can detect the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we call visible light. They can even distinguish different frequencies, 430 THz and 650 THz.

We can add to the machine, and give it the ability to detect vibrations in the air, and distinguish different frequencies. Maybe it can detect simultaneous frequencies of 262.63 Hz, 329.63 Hz, and 392 Hz.

But the machine does not see red and blue, and does not hear a C major chord. That is our subjective experience of seeing and hearing those frequencies.

We can hook sensors to our machine and to us, and see where the electricity is running, observing what is happening inside of us as we both detect these things. But we won't see anything in the scans of us that explains our subjective experience that is on top of the detecting that both the machine and we do. There aren't two activities taking place, one for objectively detecting, and one for subjectively experiencing. It would be interesting, and I'm sure we'd think of ways to block the subjective activity, so a person would only detect like a machine. But we don't detect a second activity.


All of the subjective experiences are why there is, as Nagel said, something it is like to be me.

But fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism – something it is like for the organism. — Nagel - What is it like to be a bat?

I can't know what it's like to be you, even though there is common ground between us. But I'm willing to believe there's something it's like to be you - for you. You have a point of view.

I really can't know what it's like to be a bat. There is still enough common ground for me to believe there is something it's like to be a bat - for the bat. It has a point of view.

There is nothing it's like to be a boulder - for the boulder. It does not have a point of view.

There is nothing it's like to be our machine - for the machine. It does not have a point of view.

I haven't said that the factor or mechanism or whatever you might want to call it in the neural processes that gives rise to conscious self-awareness is well understood. I would say it never will be because consciousness cannot be directly observed, and because the kinds of explanations we have for intentional behavior are given in terms of reasons, not causes, and the two kinds of explanations cannot be unified into a single paradigm. — Janus

If those two kinds of explanations cannot be unified into a single paradigm, then one or both of those kinds of explanations need to be modified or discarded. Because, since everything exists in this one universe, there must be a single paradigm that explains it all.

But perhaps there is a paradigm that they both fit within. As opposed to melding the two.

Reading back to try to get a better handle on your position. my apologies for making you repeat yourself at any point. I'm just not understanding.

You say material had to have been preceded by immaterial, and organized had to have been preceded by un organized. If not, the current would not have been preceded; it would simply be a continuation of. Perhaps I have that right?

First of all, I don't know why that is the assumption. It could be the current is a continuation. if there was anything prior to the Big Bang, the Big Bang erased any empirical evidence of it. So we just don't know.

But let's just say you're right. Qualities of the current could not have existed in the prior. You say this:

Your phrasing ("how non-living matter became living") betrays an underlying misunderstanding of the problem. Classical ontology premises immaterial Forms which are prior to, and the cause of material existence. In this ontology, there is no issue of non-living matter becoming living matter, there is an immateri — Metaphysician Undercover

There was no material or organization prior, but there was life? What Is unorganized life? And why assume this particular quality of the current existed in the prior, when no others could have?

I understand that. I'm asking literally how does it exist. I'm referring to the HPoC. Always looking for how such things can exist in a physically deterministic reality.

I wonder which pretty species feel guilty. Our pets certainly seem to. Catch them in the act of eating something they shouldn't have, and they definitely look more guilty than they do anything else. But I wonder about in the wild. I don't think a wolf that takes a weaker pack member's food feels guilt over it. Or an alpha male of whatever species that kills the offspring of other males. I wonder if guilt exists outside the human sphere. If not, then can we say it evolved? Or did it come into being with us, along with our other unique mental abilities/thinking.

That makes sense for behavior. Behave this way, and you have success. Behave that way, and you fail. But it doesn't explain the subjective feeling of guilt. The fact that guilt can make people rethink their future plans, and increase their success, doesn't explain how it exists at all.

Guilt - Why would you feel guilty if you believe there is no free will? It isn't your fault that happened it was always going to happen, — Samlw

I agree. I'm not sure how guilt even exists in such a scenario.

Responsibility - That person isn't responsible for that murder, they didn't freely choose to kill that person, it was always going to happen. People would be just be charged for manslaughter at most. — Samlw

It's true that there would be no responsibility in such a scenario. However, the knowledge that there would be consequences for committing a murder would become part of the mix of a physically deterministic reality. Just as it is in our world of free will. So punishments should stay. (Although ending a life that is nothing but physical interactions of it's constituents and the environment wouldn't be any different from "killing" a robot.)

What you say makes sense, and was what I was expecting you to say. But I'm thinking, we know a) it is possible for something that is immaterial to be organized, and b) the material that the immaterial caused is organized. Don't these two things present a good case for thinking the immaterial that caused the material was, itself, organized?

I thought I understood. But I had a typo. I meant "immaterial." I just wanted to verify that you are saying only material things can be organized.
— Patterner

That is what I meant. I don't see how we could assign any type of order to something which is completely immaterial. It's a difficult subject to discuss though — Metaphysician Undercover

Why are immaterial things we deal with all the time that are organized not relevant? Logic and mathematics, for example.

But it isn't explained through physicalism alone.
— Patterner
It does explain that the processes such as the consciousness are made possible by the physical bodies that we possess.

Here is the folly of the civilized humans:
It is us that labeled the consciousness as non-physical before we have an argument for it. Let us admit this much. So how is it that we have arrived at this conclusion without first explaining its relation to the bodies. In fact what's happening here is that we already have a notion of what is non-physical before we have a reasoning for it. And the way we win this claim is by saying "no", "no", "no" to the theory of physicalism. And we feel smug about doing this because the theory of physicalism, according to us, did not even provide an adequate account of the non-physical.
Why would they? We invented the non-physical notion. And yet our senses do not deny that there are physical bodies that we perceive -- with the help of the light, the air, the atmosphere, darkness, and particle invisible to our eyes, the mass, the texture, we come to know what a tree is, a table, a chair, another human being, animals, starts and the sky. Everything we do involves matter — L'éléphant

Yes, matter is a requirement of consciousness. At least the only kind of consciousness we're aware of. But we don't have to declare consciousness non-physical. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that it's entirely physical. What is the physicalist explanation? Brian Greene is no slouch in the physical sciences, and he says there is nothing about the properties of matter that even hints at an explanation. Christof Koch paid off a 25 year old bet, admitting they don't know, after all that time he and Crick were trying.

Physicalism can even explain mental functions, like how we perceive different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, differentiate between different wavelengths, and move to avoid things that will harm the body.
— Patterner
I am guessing this is a typo. Last time I checked, you are opposed to this. — L'éléphant

No, I am not opposed to this. These things are mechanical. We've had machines that can do these things for years. The question is why this is accompanied by a subjective experience of it, rather than taking place "in the dark." The physical processes don't need consciousness, and they don't suggest it. What I've read about theories doesn't include anything that explains it. Is it the phi of Integrated Information Theory consciousness? How? How is integrated information consciousness? Why is it not just integrated information?

A nervous system allows for representations/images. Those help the body know what is good and what is harmful. We program robots work the same ability. See the depth of a drop, and stop before falling and being damaged. But that doesn't suggest subjective experience, awareness, or awareness of awareness.

How does a clump of particles knows it is a clump of particles? It's not explained by photons hitting retina, ion channels, and action potentials. Only the vision is. That's explainable, just as liquidity, fight, and life are.

I would love if someone could tell me of a book or site that explains it. I would very much appreciate a summary. Just a brief one, so I'll know what to keep in mind as I read it. This stuff is often far over my head. Like Tse. I feel like I was thrown into the middle of the ocean without a life preserver. Damasio is great. He's passionate, but goes slowly. But, still, how do these physical things accomplish the task?

Material things cannot be organized?
— Patterner

I suggest you reread that. I said "organized" refers to material things. The cause of existence of material things is cannot be material (is immaterial) and therefore cannot be called "organized". "Organized" refers to a spatial ordering, a concept which cannot be applied to the immaterial. — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought I understood. But I had a typo. I meant "immaterial." I just wanted to verify that you are saying only material things can be organized.

"Organized" refers to material existents. The term therefore is not applicable to the cause of material existence which, being prior to material existence, is necessarily immaterial. — Metaphysician Undercover

Material things cannot be organized?

And the terminology of "uncaused cause" is not very useful unless well defined, due to the multitude of distinct ways that "cause" is used. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, not very useful until well defined. Still, I don't see how you could not be talking about an uncaused cause. Immaterial and uncaused. No?



Thank you. I've started it.

The argument from Aristotle is that a body is an organized existence, and an agent is required for any type of organization, as the organizer. Therefore the agent as organizer, is prior in time to the existence of the body. Of course abiogenesis is the basis for a denial of the secondary premise, but as the op points out, it's not a justified denial. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't read Aristotle, or much of anything else. So I don't know what I don't know. This may be universally understood in a specific way, but I'm not aware of it. Is the agent not organized, therefore needing it's own agent/organizer? Are you talking about the uncaused cause?

Not roadblocks so much as I'm just done. No scenario you come up with can possibly be anything but lose/lose, lesser of the evils. I think it's wrong to sacrifice people. Going to absurd lengths to try to trap me, and my addition of absurdities to try to point out your absurdities, isn't going to change that. What if you knew the person to be sacrificed was on the verge of solving world hunger? Or inventing an energy source that would power the entire world forever? Or was making huge strides toward showing the world how to live in greater peace, allowing us to put our time and resources to much better uses? We could go on and on.

Your phrasing ("how non-living matter became living") betrays an underlying misunderstanding of the problem. Classical ontology premises immaterial Forms which are prior to, and the cause of material existence. In this ontology, there is no issue of non-living matter becoming living matter, there is an immaterial form of life, which became a material form of life.

So your phrasing, instead of questioning whether immaterial forms became material forms, or, non-living matter became living matter, already excludes the former, and assumes the latter as a starting point. However, there is no science which supports this exclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is the science which supports the premise of immaterial Forms which are prior to, and the cause of material existence? Is there some -ology?

Let's say the aliens do indeed come to Earth and demand a death row inmate for some known or unknown, potentially nefarious reason. Let's say the world leaders listen to you and refuse to capitulate because of their high-minded stance on never sacrificing a person unwillingly. A bunch of people's sons and daughters are then drafted to fight in a war against these far more technologically advanced aliens. Many millions of them die. While they would indeed now be defending our freedoms and lives, this would not have happened if not for adherence to an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule.

Let's say that we fight back the aliens, against all odds, and they decide to negotiate with us, demanding the United States' entire foreign aid budget as a sort of tithe in exchange for peace. This might directly result in millions of deaths but will stop the war. Alternatively, we keep the money and fight until every last human is dead. Should we accept the terms of the agreement? — ToothyMaw

I think the "Let's says" have gone too far to allow any points to be made. What are extraterrestrials going to do with our money??

Let's say they aren't the most honest, moral beings running around. They certainly wouldn't have any credibility with me. So maybe they were faking, and only wanted us using up our time and resources on this useless task, then they resumed their attack after we gave them the money.

And are we really still managing to send out our foreign aid as we're battling against far more technologically advanced aliens for the gate of the world?

Let's say they demand the USA's entire foreign aid budget in pennies. Maybe they need the metal.

It's not an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule. It's how I feel.

Patterner Assuming that all forms of strategic bombing involve deaths of innocents, do you think it's always immoral? For example, suppose a well placed bomb in WW2 could wipe out the Nazi leadership but also destroy a school. Would the Allies have been wrong to do it? — RogueAI

Yes. They would have been wrong. You don't kill children because of what their parents do. Find a better answer.

If there's never been an account of how the first-person nature of lived experience arises from the objective source, then wouldn't that tell you that maybe it's because it can be sufficiently explained through physicalism alone? — L'éléphant

But it isn't explained through physicalism alone. Physicalism explains physical things. If atoms are mainly empty space, how are solids solid? Why is water the universal solvent? How do things that are heavier than air fly? How does a plant get energy from the sun? we know how things like mass, charge, electron shells, and gravity explain these things.

Physicalism can even explain mental functions, like how we perceive different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, differentiate between different wavelengths, and move to avoid things that will harm the body.

But physicalism doesn't explain how the first-person nature of lived experience arises. As Chalmers puts it:

This further question is the key question in the problem of consciousness. Why doesn't all this information-processing go on "in the dark", free of any inner feel? Why is it that when electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red? We know that conscious experience does arise when these functions are performed, but the very fact that it arises is the central mystery. There is an explanatory gap (a term due to Levine 1983) between the functions and experience, and we need an explanatory bridge to cross it. A mere account of the functions stays on one side of the gap, so the materials for the bridge must be found elsewhere. — David Chalmers

And no wonder. I've quoted Brian Greene in Until the End of Time before. Here it is again;

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

I haven't seen where any scientist contradicts him, explaining how those features and the mathematical description does the job. I've tried reading Tse and Damasio, on the recommendation of @wonderer1. I've looked at other sources. But I have not seen any theory or hypothesis that addresses why it doesn't all take place "in the dark.". There just seems to be an unspoken acceptance that, when you put enough mental functions, like the ones I just mentioned, together, it just happens.

Yeah, different on my cell. I see my avatar and make at all my posts, and it says 795 posts. This will be 796. But not mentions. I can find mentions in a menu, bit it doesn't give a count. I'll grab a laptop some time and see. Not that it matters. Only 796 posts isn't going to be as informative..

Is there a count somewhere? I only use my cell phone. I've noticed other things not easy to use or find that are right there the couple times I've logged in on a desktop or laptop. Maybe this is another.

[
I'm not jumping on board for any hypothesis or theory of how non-living matter became living, because, even though we can stack the deck any way we want, we haven't managed it. We don't have to try to set up the conditions of primordial earth, and see if any life arises. We can create any conditions we want, making everything as favorable as possible. But we haven't managed to make non-living matter live.

But if that's not how life began, what other possibilities are there? Sure, some think meteorites brought what was needed. But that's not the same as bringing life. Whatever they brought would still have to have become living, presumably after joining with other non-living matter already here.

And even if meteorites brought actual life, then the question is just put off to wherever it originated.

So if life did not come from non-living material, what other options are there?

All of this leads me to conclude that the hubbub over misinformation is a campaign for more power rather than a legitimate plight for public safety. — NOS4A2

**Ding Ding**
We have a winner!

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people.
— Patterner

Are you against conscription in all cases? — ToothyMaw

No.

We live in societies, with laws. The point of it all is to ensure our rights and freedom, and make our lives better. Not take our freedom, quality of life, or our very lives.

But. Since we want to live in these societies, it can't always go the way we want. There are also responsibilities. As they say, freedom isn't free. There are times when we have to do what we have to do for the society. Regardless of the risk.

Obviously, this trolley thing is not that kind of situation.

Indeed! :grin:

We should fight the aliens to the death. Not only because it's wrong to sacrifice people (Did we learn nothing from Omelas?), but also because we would be their bitches from them on.

If you make the scenario something like they are impossible to resist, maybe they are doing this from a light-year away, but we know they can back up their threat, then we die as humans. Captain Pike said:

Giving up our values in the name of security is to lose the battle in advance.

Do we want to live like that, sacrificing another person every time they tell us to? When they demand multiple? When they demand our children instead of death row convicts? Sounds like the Hunger Games. The galactic community would speak of the pathetic humans, and they'd be right. Better to die defiant and with our humanity.

What if we raise the stakes to ridiculous levels where the fate of the world rests on running over the guy on the tracks? — RogueAI

If doing nothing means everyone dies, and throwing the switch means only he dies, then saving everyone but him isn't sacrificing him. His fate want changed.

Hey, what's the movie from decades ago when a terrorist executed a woman in (possibly) Times Square. Her fiance wasn't getting much help from the authorities, so he worked and worked, eventually tracking the guy down. Turns out the guy was CIA. They decided to execute a random person publicly, so he could convince the terrorists that he was on their side, and he could infiltrate them. DAMN!

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people.

Anyone is free to sacrifice themself. Fine if the one says, "Throw the switch! Better I die so many can be saved!"

Is there any chance Nagel's perspective is as scientifically well informed as that of anyone here?

"Jane, you ignorant slut!"

Don't sugar-coat it. Tell us how you really feel. :rofl:

It is through recognition that the pervading hypothesis is incorrect, and through examining the evidence of those failures, that we move along to better hypothesis. — Metaphysician Undercover

What hypothesis of the origin of life is better than abiogenesis? Genuinely asking,

There are different kinds of existence. The table in my dining room exists. It is a physical thing, verifiable in all the ways we can verify physical things.

My thought of a table in my dining room exists. Thoughts exist, though not physically. But we can still discuss our thoughts. I mentioned this particular thought, and now it exists in your mind, also. Thoughts come in and out of existence. Soon, no thought of a table in my dining room will exist, in my or your mind.

One specific type of thought is intentions. Intentions exist. We act on them. We shape the world because of them. If nobody had intended to build the Empire State Building - that is, if no intention to build it had ever existed - there wouldn't be an Empire State Building. But the intention existed, and, now, so does the ESB. The intention to build it no longer exists. The thought of that intention exists, at the moment, in my mind. And now in yours.

There is no absolute freedom. I am limited in various ways, due to the nature of my being. I cannot flap my arms and fly to Hawaii for the weekend. I cannot ingest dirt for nutrition. I cannot bear children. On and on.

I also cannot choose various preferences. I'm the only person I've ever heard of who doesn't like, to put it mildly, beets, watermelon, or cucumbers. I've tried, many times, but nothing I can do about it.

Love Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Chopin, Debussy, Bartok. Nothing I can do about that, and wouldn't want to.

I can choose what I listen to and when, what I have for dessert, and whether or not to murder someone. Those are decisions. Each time I do or don't do one of those things, it was not the one-and-only exact thing I was capable of doing. I literally could have chosen otherwise.

So it's fine to hold criminals accountable for their actions. They didn't have to commit the crime.

Of course, if none of us had the ability to do anything other than we did, and the murderer did not have the option of not murdering, those who hold criminals accountable for their actions can't choose otherwise, either.

I gotcha. I misinterpreted your post that I initially responded to.

I mentioned earlier that I favor physicalism. — L'éléphant

Are there different physicalist accounts, and you don't know which seems most likely? I'm not being confrontational. I'm asking. No, I don't believe physicalism is the answer. But I haven't heard of a physicalist account of the bridge. I hear of different physical structures and events added to the mix, but not of how the physical has the subjective experience of itself, rather than just taking place "in the dark." I thought maybe you had heard of a theory that had leptons in a central role.

Curiously, physics itself is largely mathematical in nature. The standard model of particle physics is understood in purely mathematical terms. But mathematics itself is not physical, but conceptual. How would you account for that? — Wayfarer

I don't think I agree that physics is mathematical in nature. I think many aspects of it can be described mathematically. Is it the same thing?

The subjective experience is a hot button because 'no' philosophical accounts have given us the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal. The critics of consciousness and subjective experience had raised an unconscionable objection against the theories of perception that sort of 'skip' the step on when this -- this consciousness -- develops from physical bodies.
I don't have my own suspicion as to the strength of their argument because, to me, consciousness is physical. As in atomic. As in leptons. The fluidity of our own experience is physical. — L'éléphant

What is your account of the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal?