So Joscha Bach's computationalist theory of mind would be wrong in your opinion, right?

Yep. That is how the reductionist ends up with substance dualism. The mind just pops out as a whole new class of property with its own causal story. — apokrisis

- Agree. In strong emergence, that is exactly what happens.

The very thing of “stuff” is emergent from the deeper “thing” of a logical vagueness, a Peircean Firstness, an Anaximanderian Apeiron. — apokrisis

- So there is an ultimate fundamental reality from which everything else emerges. The difference is that this reality is not ''material", palpable but some kind of platonic mathematical/logical world. And from that world emerges the rest.
But in regard to this fundamental ''logical vagueness", mind and matter are both strongly emergent. Correct?

↪apokrisis
the whole idea of “100% reduction to material cause” is the reductionist delusion.
— apokrisis

But if something is not 100% reducible to the fundamental reality, it is strongly emergent. Later, it seems to me you're denying strong emergence as well. I don't understand. — Eugen

Or to be more specific: what is the difference between not being 100% reducible and being strongly emergent?

the whole idea of “100% reduction to material cause” is the reductionist delusion. — apokrisis

But if something is not 100% reducible to the fundamental reality, it is strongly emergent. Later, it seems to me you're denying strong emergence as well. I don't understand.

Thank you for your complex answer! But that's exactly my problem: I'm not equipped to understand such a complex thing you wrote. This is why I keep it so simple. Is there a way to give me some simple answers to these questions?

1. Is consciousness fundamental for Zizek? (I guess not)

2. If it is not fundamental, can it be 100% reduced to the most fundamental properties of reality or does it have properties irreducible to its constituents?

3. Does Zizek really have another successful alternative to the classic fundamental vs weak/strong emergence model?

Thank you!

He’s saying there’s not been a technical notion of matter/material since the 17th century, so the mind/body problem can’t be answered (since we don’t know what “body” is). — Mikie

Reality, existence, consciousness, and many other things have no clear definition or "technical notions". Still...

But humans can't do that for one another. Or it wouldn't be interesting. Concepts are essentially/ideally public. If you correct me, you help prove my point.

I asked you to clarify what you meant to bring you in to my approach. That's all I can offer. To me this is not like a chess problem. It's as deep as the problems of meaning and being. — green flag

At this moment, people have already expressed their opinion in unanimity. So even if your opinion were different, it wouldn't matter without a very logical and complex argumentation behind it.
Long story short: due to your repeated avoidance of the topic, you lost time, so your potential short answer would be irrelevant anyway.
So, you either do it on my terms and start expressing your opinion and back it up with strong arguments, or you choose to remain irrelevant to the topic.

All the best!

You too, man. Nothing personal here, just that I am looking for a very specific answer. Maybe we'll get to debate your interesting view on other OPs. Have a good one!

Thank you!

Dude, I don't bother reading your messages :lol:

From my perspective, this OP is closed.
I don't have a clear view on what Penrose and Hameroff mean when they mention proto-consciousness.
Thank you for sharing your opinions!

Even if your discussion is civilised, it is not relevant to the topic. You're here to make propaganda. I have nothing against you personally, but you're troll8ng my OPs. I was civilised, but you didn't stop.

I am a Methodological Naturalists. — Nickolasgaspar

Blah blah blah... I don't even bother reading the rest. This OP has a clear formulated question. Answer it or leave the OP. I'm not interested in your theories, views on reality, opinions, etc.

Ok, you're totally right. Everything you say is right. I won't answer you any questions. You gave me your answer. Now you're invited to leave this OP. Thank you for your cooperation!

Guys, I admire your passion for debate, I really do. But the topic of this OP is different.

If one of you has heard or seen Penrose or Hameroff defining proto-consciousness, or if one of you has enough developed skills to deduce with certainty what proto-consciousness is in Penrose and Hameroff's views, then you're welcome to post your thoughts.

Materialism vs non-materialism is another topic guys.

Mark Solms is a Spinozist. He even said he believes reality is mind. And I don't want to debate further on this. Please save your criticizms for other OPs, not for this one.
This OP is a simple question, no need for criticizm. Just answer.
Thank you and have a nice day!

I admire your intention to make things better, but they aren't related to my inquiry. Thanks for your understanding and for your answer! PS: Mark himself, although he provides an interesting epistemology, believes consciousness is fundamental. But again: IT'S A DIFFERENT TOPIC!

Thanks

How do you determine whether something has consciousness ? — green flag

Obviously, we don't determine. We just assume. But this is irrelevand.
Ok, let me simplify this again.
1. This question doesn't assume and doesn't want to prove anything. It's just a question.
2. I give you the freedom to define consciousness exactly as you like.
3. It is not important what I believe, so please ignore my personal opinions.
So...

Under your definition of consciousness, can one come up with a theory that avoids both weak and strong emergence?
If yes, how would that theory avoid emergence?

I don't think they've got agendas. I think their brains simply look for alternatives, it's natural. Maybe they're right and we're wrong. Maybe we're biased, who knows?

Consciousness = subjective experience, i.e. the way it is like to be something.

Another question : How do we know it when we see it ? — green flag

I totally don't understand this question.

The problem is that you assume that my question assumes something. It doesn't. My question is very direct, and simple. The terms I defined are simple. I don't need to do anything, the ball is exclusively in your field.
You gave examples of cloud computing and software, both being weak emergent phenomena. So everything I can deduce is that you believe we cannot avoid weak emergence.

Weak emergence example: water emerges from H and O; it is emergent, but still matter
Strong emergence: starting with matter, ending with a new substance.
I am sure you reject strong emergence. So forget about this one.

But do you think someone could come up with a theory that avoids weak emergence as well?

I'm hoping to bring him into the fold a little. If he carries on like that he'll be banned eventually, but we all have to start somewhere. — bert1

Stop hoping! :lol:

But you're an emergentist! And a functionalist as far as I can tell. These are philosophical positions. You haven't escaped into science. — bert1

:lol: :lol: :lol: You guys spent tons of virtual paint only to argue if that's philosophy or science? Judging by the quantity, I thought you guys have solved the hard problem together. You didn't even start :lol:

bert1, I've recently had this type of debate and I think this is a trend. From a philosophical point of view, they kind of realize one cannot defend materialism. So here's what they do: they deflect the topic into the scientific realm, falsely implying:
a. that this is science, not philosophy
b. science is all-powerful
c. science hasn't proven yet that consciousness is fundamental, therefore we shouldn't believe that
Then, they come back to philosophy and say:
d. therefore, materialism must be true

In principle, I cannot disagree with your answer, i.e. Penrose is actually referring to matter. Thank you!

Why don't he call it matter?

You must suffer from some kind of masochism. Otherwise, I can't explain why you're torturing yourself trying to refute non-arguments presented by persons/bots like .

I know the interview. Towards the end he makes it pretty clear.

Thank you for your answer!
There has been some term confusion here. I mentioned two types of emergence: weak and strong. Weak emergence does NOT imply other new substance. Weak emergence can apply to water, water being emergent from H and O, but still nothing over and above the sum of properties of H and O.

Perhaps consciousness is something that networked cooperative/competitive brains do. — green flag

So do you think this avoids weak emergence?

What about cloud computing ? — green flag

Cloud computing isn't emergent?

Maybe the opening poster will benefit from a step away from the usual egocentric veil-of-ideas Cartesianism (I don't mean 'egocentric' ethically but just in terms of a focus on [oxymoronic?] individual consciousness.) — green flag

This OP doesn't suffer from anything unless people confuse emergence with strong emergence, i.e. a new phenomenon arising from its constituents, but having fundamentally new properties, irreducible to its components.

Thank you for answering! Because it is not related to the topic directly, I will answer you in private.

Guys, thank you so much for your answers!

Unless wants to add something, I consider this thread closed.

Thank you again!

Thank you very much for your answer!

Do you consider an 'impression' that something is plausible, to be convincing enough that it CAN be done? — universeness

In order to be as certain as possible in regard to a thing, I sometimes become very doubtful of my own logic. When this happens, I go on TPF and open an OP :lol:

Do you think there could have been an aspect, of whatever started THIS universe, that was aware of its own existence? — universeness

Even if that's the case, our consciousness is still emergent. I don't know if reality is self-aware.

why is it hidden from us? — universeness

It's not hidden, it's actually the only thing we can be sure of.

then why is it so undetectable? — universeness

If you're talking about consciousness, it is not undetectable.

It's the source of my and your consciousness, but it is INDEPENDENT of us, and it cannot (so far) be detected by us. What a useless crappy substance! Don't you agree? — universeness

No, I don't.

Most of us are genuinely seeking truth, yes? — universeness

I do, I don't know about everyone, but I'm sure some do and some are just looking for confirmation bias.

o my mind, 180 Proof is an emergentist at least with regard to the properties necessary for a system to realise consciousness, but we may have different understandings of what emergence is. — bert1

Agree.

Well, thanks for making my point, lil troll, and confirming you're not worth any more of my time. — 180 Proof

1. I'm trying to be as empathic and sincere with you. so PLEASE don't get upset and don't take it personally. You've got two issues: one is psychological and the other comes from your poor philosophy. You're paranoid - you look at every question as having a hidden substrate, an anti-materialistic assumption, so instead of answering the question and giving arguments, you start assuming this and that and after 1-2 exchanges you're enetinrg ''it's time to defend materialism" mode. And when you're like this and your philosophy is also bad, things like conflating Spinoza with materialism and saying emergence entails dualism happen.
Now, I still hope you're able to be rational. So I still believe you could be helpful. Bear with me please...


2. You think that emergence can be avoided (weak or strong). And your argument was that as long as you consider consciousness a process, and processes non-emergent, then emergence disappears. So far, so good...
The problem is that I mention two types of emergence: weak (where properties are entirely reducible from their fundamental constituents - monism) and strong (properties cannot be reduced entirely to their constituents - dualism). So I guess you're definitely saying that strong emergence can be avoided. And I'd totally agree. Functionalism and identity theory reject strong emergence, but there's still weak emergence here.
Water is a weakly emergent process from H and O. I am not postulating any kind of dualism here, water is matter, and water emerges from non-water. Now the question remains if we could reach consciousness from non-consciousness as we reach water from non-water, WITHOUT weak emergence.

I've heard this argument before. It sounded like this: everything is kind of vague. For example, tables are vague. If you remove one leg, would it still be a table? Consciousness is not vague, therefore .... .
Well... at first it sounded good, but then I asked myself: is water vague? I don't think so. Water is H2O. So I don't think vagueness is an argument for consciousness being fundamental or so.

What do you think?

I did not intend for it to annoy you — universeness

I know you didn't and I wasn't offended. Still, it was a crappy move.

it's woo woo! — universeness

The problem is that the more I say it, the more I imagine a gay orgy between de Grasse, Sean Caroll and Dennett where they're moaning wooo wooo wooo wooo. I simply don't want that in my head.
Besides, woo is apparently the most humoristic thing that physicalist nerds have ever invented, it would be unfair to take advantage of their wonderful term.

Would you not question the rationality of a 'static reality' being the source of human consciousness?
Do you propose this static reality entity, is concentrated somewhere in the universe, or omnipresent? — universeness

I genuinely find your questions interesting, but I'm afraid this OP has departed from its origins too much.
I would like to know your opinion about my initial questions. Thank you!

assumes, in effect, entity-A emerges from entity-NotA. — 180 Proof

It's time to expose some bullshit here.

Eugen's OP questions about "emergence of consciousness from non-consciousness" assumes, in effect, entity-A emerges from entity-NotA. — 180 Proof

-
1. My question wasn't assuming emergence was true. My question was totally different, but this guy simply cannot comprehend the fact that some people are genuinely curious and ask questions because they simply want to find an answer. Guys, my question DOES NOT imply anything. If you're on this OP, please answer my question without assuming I believe this or that.
2.

Eugen's OP questions about "emergence of consciousness from non-consciousness" assumes, in effect, entity-A emerges from entity-NotA. — 180 Proof

- No, it doesn't assume that, this is why I mentioned weak and strong emergence. Weak emergence means water emerges from H and O, without having extra-properties.

because it presupposes substance dualism. — 180 Proof

3. Because your philosophy is poor and you're closed-minded, and because your only purpose is to defend materialism. You even spent months trying to convince me Spinoza was a materialist.

Make your case, Eugen, — 180 Proof

I don't have a case, I only have questions. Are you capable to understand that some people don't ask questions in order to find answers and not to defend their crappy views like you do?

I am not implying anything, I just asked things about a guy's use of a word. I have no idea about Whitehead, what's a non conscious experience or how does he gets from "events" to qualia. It doesn't make much sense to me to be honest. That's not related to the topic anyway and I am not against monism either. I am open to adopt any theory that makes logical sense.

Not entity as in a person (god, aliens) but entity as in substance, i.e., something which exists independently, in its own right. — Art48

Excellent answer!

But I guess that would be woo in 's view, so he wouldn't take it seriously. It's a non-starter for him.

I hope the above quote satisfies your request. — universeness

By the contrary. That was pure crap from your side to quote me with something I never said. I don't care if consciousness is a process or a unicorn and I have never said consciousness is not a process.

Consciousness the entity!!! What entity? — universeness

I can imagine the following:
1. An entity that's doing absolutely nothing - a static reality;
2. An entity whose one of its properties is to change - process.

What I cannot imagine is a process without the thing. The process is what the thing does.
AGAIN: I'm not saying consciousness cannot be a process. It just seems to me you're prioritizing processes over things.