But it grew up from itself within the framework of laws. — Patterner

Well, not really. It grew up from within itself in accordance with it's nature and then we called the pattern of that growth "laws." I don't think this is a trivial or nitpicky distinction.

Physics expresses itself as chemistry. But the new laws of chemistry are not unrelated to the laws of physics. If the laws of physics were not what they are, the laws of chemistry could not be what they are. The laws of chemistry emerged from, and are dependent upon, the laws of physics.

Same with chemistry expressing itself as biology. — Patterner

You say "not unrelated to." That makes you seem like a spokesman for reductionism, which I know you're not. I say "not predictable from." To me, that is the essence of why reductionism doesn't work.

I think in principle, even if the level of mechanisms are different, there is at essence, a reducibility by way of organic chemistry from biological formations to chemical ones. This cannot be said of mental states to its physical components. — schopenhauer1

I don't see any reason to believe this is true. What makes you think it is?

2) Point of view. That is to say, emergence itself has in the background, the fact that there is already an observer of the "emerging". This does get into ideas of "does a tree make a sound if there is no observer", but there is a reason that trope is so well-known. We always take for granted that we have a certain point of view already whereby events are integrated and known. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand. How is this different in my way of seeing things verses your way?

As it says, that mental events are such a different type of phenomenon, that it would be an abuse of the concept to equate it with the physical correlates without explanation other than "other things in nature work thusly". — schopenhauer1

I've acknowledged that mental events are different kinds of things than physical, chemical, biological, and neurological events and processes. I think you're saying that those differences mean that the analogy I am making doesn't work. I don't agree. It's like the old SAT questions - chemistry is to biology as neurology is to [X]. Correct answer is C - psychology.

Is that not exactly how the universe was constructed? — Patterner

The universe wasn't constructed, it grew up from itself, from within. That's what reductionism misses.

you do acknowledge the difficulties of reductionism — Quixodian

You and I have been in similar discussions before and I've tried to make my attitude towards reductionism clear. See my previous post to @Patterner.

Have you read "More is Different" by P.W. Anderson? — T Clark

I have no problem saying chemistry "manifests" as biology. But it is still reducible to the chemistry. — Patterner

I'm still here because we've moved away from talking about consciousness and toward the nature of the hierarchy of scales, which I am really interested in. Have you read "More is Different" by P.W. Anderson?

…the reductionist hypothesis does not by any means imply a constructionist one: The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. In fact, the more the elementary particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less to those of society.

The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. The behavior of large and complex aggregates of elementary particles, it turns out, is not to be understood in terms of a simple extrapolation of the properties of a few particles. Instead, at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires research which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other. That is, it seems to me that one may array the sciences roughly linearly in a hierarchy, according to the idea: The elementary entities of science X obey the laws of science Y… — More is Different - P.W. Anderson

I wonder if we could have anything we would call a city without buildings. — Patterner

Aren't we getting into Aristotelian causes? A building design could be considered a building without materials. A city plan could be considered a city without buildings.

Yes, I think I understand your position and it seems like you understand mine. And there we are.

But can biology be reduced to chemistry, or is there an attribute that biological organisms possess that non-organic chemistry does not? — Quixodian

No, biology can not be reduced to chemistry. That's not at all inconsistent with the argument I'm making.

Now I really am done.

Isn't every biological process a chemical process? — RogueAI

No, not at all. As I said to @Patterner and @Quixodian, chemical processes manifest as biological processes, they are not the same thing.

It's more that I don't understand where you are coming from because it seems incredulous to me that you don't recognize the difference in kind and not just degree between the sensation of red, or seeing an apple, versus the physiological correlates such as electromagnetic frequencies, optic anatomy, neural anatomy, and the like. — schopenhauer1

I do recognize the difference in kind between neurological processes and mental experiences. I just don't think it matters. I don't think neurological processes are the same as conscious experience. I think neurological processes express themselves as conscious experiences in the same sense chemical processes express themselves as biological processes.

I think that's enough for me till the next discussion.

mental states are identical to brain states — RogueAI

No more than biological processes are identical to chemical processes.

I look at it this way... If we saw a skyscraper made entirely of liquid water, we would be stunned. To put it mildly. The properties of water and/or H2O molecules do not allow for such a thing. — Patterner

It is the essence of a hierarchical view of scale that processes at one level must be completely consistent with the rules of all lower levels. Biological processes can't violate chemical principles, but chemical principles are not adequate to determine biological principles. Principles of building design must consider the properties of building materials.

The case of consciousness seems even more unfathomable. — Patterner

Back to the unbridgeable chasm. Some people see it that way and others don't. As I noted, that's where the argument runs into a brick wall.

But, while everything about the brain and body are physical, consciousness does not seem to be. — Patterner

Back to my architectural argument. The properties of materials and characteristics of buildings are physical, but at the next step up, the properties of cities are not. They are social, economic, organizational, political.

How is it that those same physical things and processes are making something very different at the same time? That seems to be asking quite a lot. — Patterner

To vastly oversimplify, chemistry doesn't make biology, it manifests as biology. That's one of the ways it is expressed in the world. In the same way, neurology doesn't make consciousness. Consciousness is a manifestation, an expression, of neurology.

But in your case, the first step is recognizing the distinction, even if for semantic or historical reason, if not substantial ones of ontology. — schopenhauer1

I recognize the distinction between mental and physical events and processes in the same sense that I recognize the distinction between chemical and biological events and processes. The fact that you don't is an indicator of how unlikely we are to come to agreement.

But what physical properties, at any level, explain the various aspects of consciousness - such as my experience of blueness, or my awareness at different levels - that exist on top of the physical properties that explain vision and behavior? — Patterner

First off, I appreciate the clear, direct response. I've been in a lot of discussions about consciousness and it always comes down to this. I keep telling myself not to get involved, but the subject is right at the heart of the kinds of issues I like best. Even when it never gets resolved, I get to reexamine my understanding of how the world and my own self-awareness work.

I think what bothered me most about this particular iteration of the conflict is it's blatant circularity. The evidence that there is a hard problem of consciousness is that it consists of mental processes which can't be studied by science because of... the hard problem of consciousness. Of course, as I noted, all these arguments come down to this same contradiction.

It is superficially so, but not actually, no. — schopenhauer1

As often is the case, you confuse your refusal to engage in discussion with making a coherent argument.

Just saying, "that's the way hierarchies and emergence work" doesn't explain how mental comes from physical processes. — schopenhauer1

As I pointed out, the relationship between chemistry and life is analogous to the relationship between neurology and mind. Are you saying there is a hard problem of biology too? If that's true, then there must be a hard problem of chemistry also. Otherwise how to explain all those atomic processes all mixed up with chemical processes.

Do you see a distinction between something that is mental versus a physical process? What you did was just go from process to process and not process to X (mental). — schopenhauer1

I was making an analogy. Higher levels of organization, e.g. mental processes and life processes, are a mixture of higher level processes and processes from lower levels of organization, e.g. chemical processes and neurological processes. That's the way hierarchies and emergence work.

The neuron fires (process/behavioral). The neurons fire (process/behavioral). The networks form (process/behavioral). The sensory tissues/organs are acted upon (process/behavioral). A line or shape is processed in a visual cortex (mental). An object is perceived (mental). An object is recognized (mental). A long-term potentiation (process/behavioral). A memory is accessed (process/behavioral). "Fires together, wires together" (process/behavioral), associating one thing with another (mental). — schopenhauer1

How is that different from ADP chemically reacting (chemical process) to create ATP, which releases energy (chemical process) to power the reactions (chemical processes) that create cellular components (life processes) and operate cellular systems (life processes).

And please don't ask me to go into more detail. I'm already at the end, beyond the end, of my level of competence.

The human condition is our self-awareness. We must deal with our Zapffean programming. Science is a pursuit. The human condition is our very being. The human condition is primary to scientific artifices. — schopenhauer1

I like this. I looked up Peter Zapffe. His ideas are interesting. I'll take a look.

Does anyone still believe a “method” of science really exists, and that it essentially defines and differentiates science as a sui generis human endeavor? — Mikie

Yes, of course. I do think there is a scientific method, although it certainly isn't the simplistic one people often identify - hypothesis, experiment, results, theory, repeat as needed. It's not a specific method, it's an epistemological process that can lead to many different approaches.

The scientific method is really the only thing that makes science science. No scientific method, no science. It always seems to me people who want to claim there isn't one are just trying to be all iconoclastic and post-modern and stuff.

Sorry, I have to go to bed now.

This is all in my head but I began to wander whether anyone else can really contemplate without a discussion - not even an internal one. — believenothing

Thinking need not be worded thought. — I like sushi

the back and forth of internal dialogue — Paine

ideas generated without words and then modified and justified consciously. — T Clark

We can think in images, but that is not abstract thinking. — Janus

Contemplation, worded thought, internal dialogue, modified and justified consciously, abstract thinking - we're using different words, is it clear we are all talking about the same thing?

Yes, you can. Thinking need not be worded thought. — I like sushi

Contemplation need not be worded? That had occured to me, but how are we supposed to discuss a lack of discussion? — believenothing

I agree with @I like sushi, although I guess it depends on what you mean by "contemplation." In my experience, most of my thinking, and just about all my creative thinking, takes place without words, although there is certainly a back and forth, with ideas generated without words and then modified and justified consciously. Other people have said they don't experience it that way.

If you try to sacrifice yourself, the secret service knocks you unconscious and drags you to the shelter. — NotAristotle

So be it. Then let them decide who the other person will be while I'm unconscious.

I think Trump, and his movement is fast becoming one of the most destructive and corrosive forces against the image of 'all things American,' on the global stage and the longer the circus is allowed to continue, — universeness

I think you're right, and I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. As I kvetched earlier, the world's obsession with the US could use some whittling down, for your sake and ours.

Any chance this Jan 6 trial is over before the next election? I assume trump has the resources to delay it for an unreasonable amount of time. — flannel jesus

I don't think he will be able to delay the trial till after the election. He tried that in the documents case and it didn't work. On the other hand, if he is convicted, there will certainly be appeals that will go on for years. So, not matter what, I doubt he will be in jail on November 5, 2024.

There's something in a foreign country, right next door, that we can obsess about — BC

Yes, I share your concern.

I could talk in vagaries about honor and "fellow-feeling" — ToothyMaw

I don't see how honor or fellow-feeling are any more vague than judgments of utility and consequences. Those two supposedly more rational criteria are also based on human value rather than any objective basis.

"I" is the subject of the sentence, "wish" is the verb. The dependent clause "you fucking foreigners would leave the US politics to we Americans" is the object of the verb "wish". "Americans" is an object of a preposition, but so is the pronoun you used with "Americans". The pronouns "we" or "us" emphasizes that the speaker is part of the collective noun "Americans" and not a third party, — BC

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say whatever kind of crazy-ass thing you want.

That's King Flutternutter to you. — frank

Thank you for the clarification.

someone would demand people not discuss US politics — Benkei

If you'll check my post, you'll see I didn't demand anything. And I have no issue with non-Americans taking an interest in our politics. It's the obsession that is so unbecoming.

I wish you Americans would stop making unreasonable demands of the rest of the world and then act surprised we take issue — Benkei

I have no problem with non-Americans finding fault with American policies and international actions, but it makes you look like a bunch of chooches when you obsess about the intricacies of our internal politics. You should just worry about the fluffernutters or whoever it is that rules the Netherlands. And what kind of a name is that for a country, anyway?

Actually... I've been to Europe twice, and both times the Netherlands were my favorite place. I think that's at least partly because I'm an engineer and it's a country of engineers.

I learned a new lesson on English grammar this morning, — javi2541997

Note my correction of @BC.

why can't the pronoun 'we' be the object of a preposition? — Changeling

You use subjective pronouns, e.g. "we", as the subject of a verb. You use objective pronouns, e.g. "us," as the object of a verb or in a prepositional phrase. As I noted, "we" in my usage is not the object of the preposition. I looked on the web and got different answers, but I think I remember Stephen Pinker saying that either word would be appropriate in this particular usage.

I have two American grand-children. And I do have expectations that America is better than what Trump wanted to make it. — Quixodian

And I have three Scottish nieces. I'm interested in politics in the UK and I pay attention a bit, but it's not an obsession. You guys seem to care more about US politics than I do, and I'm actually responsible for it.

Anyway, I don't expect you guys to change. I was just venting and rabble-rousing. You and your cohort being the rabble I was trying to rouse.

Nattering nabob of nitpicking grammarians here — BC

I asked myself that question while I was writing the post. I think you're wrong. "We" is not the object of the prepositions, "Americans" is.

Don't be so selfish Clarky. Learn to share. — Changeling

It just seems to me feriners could find something closer to home to be obsessed with, like the endangered Tasmanian devil or the price of bilibongs.

I advocate a form of eclecticism — Dermot Griffin

I advocate for using what works. That keeps things open for taking what I find useful from all sorts of sources. Almost all of my philosophy background is from personal reading. When you get to bottom, I'm with Emerson:

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men—that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost—and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men, but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. — Emerson - Self Reliance

I was referring to spiritual practice. Are you saying this is the same as 'intellectual self awareness'? — Tom Storm

For me, spirituality means self-awareness - emotional, intellectual, physical, perceptual, social. Spiritual practice is an activity that makes me more self-aware.

No I meant I don’t know what it means. Your definition doesn’t resonate with me so much. — Tom Storm

Philosophy helps me recognize how my mind works. How I know what I know. Why I believe what I believe. Why I care about what I care about. Why I'm interested in what I'm interested in. And on a good day, why I do the things I do or don't do the things I don't do. I call that intellectual self-awareness.

If I were to believe you and T Clark, everyone is just directionless hippies and/or irresponsible pleasure-seekers with absolutely no designs on being ethical in any substantial way. — ToothyMaw

It's important to me that I treat people honorably. Sometimes I don't live up to that aspiration. The source of that isn't some formal, codified, "rational" ethical code, it's empathy and fellow-feeling. How does that make me directionless or irresponsible?

I wish you fucking foreigners would leave the US politics to we Americans. The argument that what happens here effects the whole world and that justifies your interest is baloney. What happens in Russia and China is just as important but you guys don't spend nearly as much time on that.

It's kind of pathetic. You hate us but you can't shake your obsession. Let's drop the big one now. We'll save Australia - wouldn't want to hurt no kangaroos.