Emergent Dualism

[AgnosticBoy]

I've read, listened to, and watched many debates on consciousness between Christians and atheist philosophers and so far I'm left with more questions than answers. Then I read a book by Dr. David Chalmers called The Conscious Mind and realized that his position accounts for a lot of the evidence and objections that seem to plague the materialist and non-materialist sides.

In short, emergent dualism is the position that consciousness/mind is an emergent nonphysical property of the brain. Under this view, the brain is primary in that the mind depends on the brain, but what starts out as a physical process gives rise to a nonphysical nonphysical effect (i.e. the mind and its attributes). Another add-on to this position is that the mind has causal powers which it exerts on the brain - commonly referred to as 'downward' or 'top-down' causation. This turns the deterministic worldview (which also includes materialism) on its head.

After reviewing the arguments for emergent dualism, I'm left to conclude that materialism is incomplete when it comes to explaining consciousness. Substance dualism simply goes too far.

Debate requests: Leave materialism or explain why anyone should remain a materialists after learning about consciousness.

Have you considered emergent dualism? What are your objections?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 39 by Divine Insight]

John Searle: And here it is: all of our conscious states, without exception, are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain. And they are realized in the brain as higher-level or system features.

Bingo (and especially the use of the word "system"). This sums up my view very well even if we cannot yet detail all the physical mechanisms involved.

I agree. Searle is definitely approaching this from a scientific view.

I also agree with him that a digital computer can never achieve this.

He recognizes in his lecture that in order for this to occur there needs to be a far greater collective system than a mere CPU running a few machine instructions at a time from a static program list of instructions.

So he has the right idea, and he has already recognized that a digital computer won't suffice. However, he doesn't appear to have recognized that an analog computer would offer the capability he requires.

The only question left now is to ask how is this accomplished even as a simultaneous dance of many processes within an analog system?

There still remains the question of how the fundamental constituents of physics can be used to explain how anything can "have an experience". Even a collective processing system like an analog computer.

We're close, but certainly not to the answer yet.

And what the hypothesis of panpsychism is suggesting is that if we simply add this to our original list of physical constituents, this then allows for a physical explanation for how the analog computer can achieve this state.

We don't even need a new "particle". In fact, the most likely answer is that panpsychism would belong to electromagnetism. Or be a property of the electromagnetic field.

It is possible, that some other explanation could be had.

However, the idea of an 'emergent' property would itself be a brand new idea. In other words, this would be the first place in all of science where the "emergence" of something that is totally alien to the fundamental particles of physics would be required.

Scientists who support "emergence" suggest that we see emergence all the time. They use examples of things like cars, or jumbo jets, saying that these machines can do things that matter alone would not be able to do. However, the problem with that is that these machines actually don't violate any of the standard rules of physics, and everything they do can be explained using the standard laws of physics and the already known properties of those constituents. Nothing "new" has emerged. So those aren't valid examples of "emergence" when it come to a new property of physics emerging. They are simply examples of larger scale complex behaviors that can still be easily reducible to the fundamentals. No need to propose any new properties.

But could subjective experience ever be reduced in terms of fundamental properties?

I don't see how. What could it be explained by?

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Strong nuclear force
4. Weak nuclear force
5. Pauli Exclusion Principle
6. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
7. Higgs Field

An automobile or jumbo jet and it's entire behavior and interaction with the macro world can he totally explained via the above known physics leaving nothing unexplained or mysterious.

The same cannot be said for conscious experience. There simply isn't anything on the above list that would explain how anything could ever have an experience.

So even though Searle is on the right track, and an analog computer would advance his hypothesis, there would still be a huge problem trying to explain how this analog computer is "having an experience" in terms of the known physics listed above.

I suggest that electromagnetism is the most promising thing on the list that might come close to helping. But even in that case, it seems to me that we would almost need to assume then that electromagnetism has some fundamental panpsychic capability. Otherwise how is it going to explain how anything can have an experience?

The complex electromagnetic "dance" that is organized by an analog computer could be the "thing" that is having a subjective experience. But the only way that could be true is if we go back to fundamentals and postulate that electromagnetism must then have an innate property that allows it to do this (i.e. pansychism).

Can an explanation be had without a need to introduce panscyhism into physics?

Possibly so. But it certainly isn't obvious how that could possibly be done using the current list of fundamental physics.

As a scientific-minded person, I don't have a problem with ultimately recognizing that panpsychism might need to be added to the list of assumed fundamental properties of energy/matter.

If that's the truth of reality then so be it.

It doesn't follow that stories of Zeus must then be true.

But I can see the secularists fear of how the religious fanatics would react if scientists so much as even consider the possibility of panpsyhism.

The Christians would start screaming "Jesus has been proven! Get down on your knees atheists and kiss the feet of Jesus. And let's make homosexuality a crime that deserves capital punishment as God has declared that it should be!"

The Muslims would start screaming "Allah has just been proven! Kill all the heathens, and prostrate yourself into the dirt while we dictate how you must behave via the Word of Allah in the Qur'an".

I agree that for science to even suggest that something like panpsychism might be a property of our world religious fanatics would go berserk.

That's unfortunate to be sure. But that kind of religious reaction would be totally ignorant and non-sequitur. Panpschism doesn't even remotely support Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, or Apollo etc.

Panpsychism doesn't even suggest that there is a self-aware "Godhead" at all.

Panpsychism would be more like Taoism, or Animism, or even possibly something like Buddhism. People from those religions might say, "We told you so". But they don't have an egotistical Godhead that is demanding that you kiss his feet or whatever.

But I do understand why radical religious idioticy that is based on egotistical God myths is a powerful motivation for secularists to want to avoid even a postulate of fundamental panpsychism.

We don't want to feed the religious trolls even a scrap of support for their intrusive immoral religious myths.

I can't say that I blame the secularists for that at all. Religions fanatics (even the most well-intentioned) often support the most immoral and hateful ideas in the name of their imaginary Gods. And the worst part about that is that they can't even see the immorality contained in the religions they support. They have convinced themselves that they are on the side of "good" all the while they are spewing extreme hatred in the name of their favorite God.

So I can see why secularists don't want to consider panpsychism until we get to a point where we just have no other options available. And even hold out hope that we won't actually need to resort to panpsychism in the end.

I FULLY understand the motive to dismiss anything that could even remotely loan potential support to hateful religions.

I'm actually with you on that point.

But at the same time, if panpsychism can explain conscious experience, then maybe that's our true nature? We don't want to avoid a potential truth just because religious zealots spew hatred in the name of their mythological Gods.

[AgnosticBoy]

Okay, I see the distinction. Under materialism, the mind is a nonphysical emergent property of the brain which also goes with why it is entirely reducible to the physical.

Are the parts in red bold font typos? Non-physical and "materialism" aren't compatible which is why I ask.

So the question now is. If A emerges from B then it seems trivial that A is reducible to B. What does emergent even mean, if the word does not convey the idea reducible?

Under reductive materialism, all of the characteristics of B can be sufficiently explained by breaking it down into its most basic parts ("A"). Under emergence, there are characteristics of "B" that are not present in "A", so those characteristics can not be explained by just looking to "A". If there is any reduction in emergence, then perhaps we can say that B emerged from interactions at the higher or more complex levels of organization and so it can be reduced to that level. Some philosophers propose that there are 'bridge laws' that account for relations between the two distinct properties.

Either way, not knowing how something exists doesn't not take away from the fact that something exists. Such is the case for consciousness which many would say is physically unobservable by its very nature - hence why we only access it subjectively. This only speaks to how we experience and deal with consciousness. But there's also some conceptual aspects that support the idea that it is nonphysical, as well. When you describe the properties of thought and how we experience it, it can not be characterize with physical properties such as neurons, atoms, etc. For instance, a mental image has no location nor mass, and given what we know about physical perception, there's also NO light nor sensory receptors nor physical objects involved which further reinforces my point. Characterizing it as a neural activity only speaks to the process but not the actual end product that is the mental image itself!

The what now? Materialism doesn't even say the mind is physical, it says it is reducible to material.

And all matter is physical.

[William]

[Replying to post 39 by Divine Insight]

So 30 years have gone by and apparently he still hasn't realized that an analog computer solves this problem?

No it does not. If it did, then you would be able to finally give up the agnostic position and get on with being fully immersed with the materialist position.

And that is just for starters.

"Build it and they will come." Show us that an analog computer solves this problem.

Also, how do you know that in creating an AI which at some stage exhibits consciousness and self awareness etc, that it isn't simply a device with which GOD-consciousness is then able to express itself through? IOW 'possess' the machinery...make the machinery Its abode.

How could you tell?

So no - it wouldn't solve 'the problem'.

Lets assume for the sake of experiment in thought, that you create an analog computer which in turn exhibits self awareness, and in that the AI (or rather what you think of as AI) tells you that it is using your machine because your machine is perfect for the job and the first part of that job is to say that It is an aspect of GOD -consciousness which permeates the whole universe.

How would you respond to that as an agnostic? How would you test the AI in order to establish whether it is being truthful or has an alternative agenda?

How would this 'solve the problem'?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 39 by Divine Insight]

So 30 years have gone by and apparently he still hasn't realized that an analog computer solves this problem?

No it does not. If it did, then you would be able to finally give up the agnostic position and get on with being fully immersed with the materialist position.

You have misunderstood again. I am not claiming that an analog computer solves the problem of consciousness. I'm simply saying that an analog computer solves the problem that John Searle described with digital computers.

In fact, I believe I made that pretty clear in my post #39 only a few sentences after the one you quoted:

I think Searle would benefit greatly by having a quick chat with me about analog computers. This solves the problem he has with digital computers.

That's nowhere near suggesting that this solves the problem of consciousness.

And you are right, if analog computers automatically solved the problem of consciousness then we would indeed be done.

But no, we need to do better than this. We need to then explain precisely how an analog computer achieves this.

In the meantime I'm actually agreeing with Searle. It's never going to happen in a digital computer no matter how complex or sophisticated the software becomes. I would think that should be obvious to anyone who understands how digital computers work. Obviously Searle understands how digital computers work and therefore understands that they are never going to cut it.

If you listen to his lecture he even explains why they will fail. However, the reason he gives clearly doesn't apply to analog computers. So analog computers solve that much of the problem.

One step further toward the solution.

~~~~~

By the way, I'm not sure how many people even know this. Clearly Searle doesn't seem to know. I mean, it's clear that he recognizes that a digital computer won't work, but he doesn't seem to yet realize that an analog computer could solve his concern.

In so far as I am aware I am the only person alive that has actually recognized this. In fact, many people who are working on A.I. are tying to do it using digital computers. That's a futile task for the reasons John Searle gave. They might make a good "simulation" of A.I. And even create "Intelligent Robot Zombies". But that's all they could ever do with a digital computer.

If they want to create a truly sentient being they absolutely need to move up to an analog computer.

Whether it's possible with an analog computer or not is still a question. But it's definitely NOT going to happen on a digital computer. That I can guarantee. And John Searle has recognized this as well.

John Searle simply may not be aware of analog computers? You'd think he would have at least mentioned them if he knew. Because he can't dismiss analog computers for the same reason he dismissed digital computers.

[Divine Insight]

Also, how do you know that in creating an AI which at some stage exhibits consciousness and self awareness etc, that it isn't simply a device with which GOD-consciousness is then able to express itself through? IOW 'possess' the machinery...make the machinery Its abode.

How could you tell?

If physicists construct a quantum field theory based on the concept of panpsychism associated with how analog computers work, they would be able to tell if their theory was correct.

How could they tell? Because their theory would make predictions that they could test.

1. Let's assume that the hypothesis of panpsychism is true.

2. Let's also assume that panpsychism occurs as a quantitative aspect of the universe. This is a reasonable assumption for two reasons: First we have already recognized that everything else in our universe takes the form of quanta. And secondly, that's the whole idea behind panpsychism anyway. So this is precisely how it should be expected to behave if we are going to postulate it.

3. Then we build a "mathematical field theory" around it. Obviously we often need to do this by trial and error as we have done with all properties of the universe we have discovered thus far. Eventually we end up with constants of fundamental panpychism that start to pan out. (of course it's only going to pan out if true).

4. If true, we then naturally refine those results until we discover what the natural quanta of panpsychism is.

5. Once we have achieved that stage we're pretty much home free. From that point on we start making predictions and can measure the success of those predictions.

If the theory is correct the predictions will prove it out. Arguing against it at that point would be no different from trying to argue against Special Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics.

Keep in mind that we don't need to actually understand what's going on! It's just like with Quantum Mechanics. We don't need to understand what's going on, we only need to recognize that the theory works.

At that point we have a perfectly natural explanation for conscious experience and the physics of "Field Theories" triumphs again.

My guess is that this is precisely how the search for consciousness will progress. How long it will take for humans to actually get there is anyone's guess. I don't think anyone is currently working on a panpsychic field theory of consciousness. They would also necessarily need to use analog computers as their experimental lab. Without the proper analog computer configurations they could not test their predictions.

They could also confirm their theory by showing how their experiments clearly differ when performed on a digital computer. The digital computer would not exhibit the predicted behavior.

So the whole thing is doable. Assuming, of course, that panpsychism is true. If it's not true, then some other explanation will need to be explored.

[Divine Insight]

Also, how do you know that in creating an AI which at some stage exhibits consciousness and self awareness etc, that it isn't simply a device with which GOD-consciousness is then able to express itself through?

By the way, I would like to point something out here.

You and I are clearly speaking of totally different concepts when we use the term "panpsychism".

In your quote above, you are obviously thinking of a "GOD-consciousness" that is going to be expressing itself through a physical medium.

That's not "panpsychism". That would be a concept of a totally self-aware GODHEAD that merely expresses itself through physical media when possible.

If we're going to consider panpsychism from a naturalistic perspective, it makes sense to expect this property to be quantitative and cumulative under certain circumstances.

We wouldn't just be building something that an already conscious self-aware GOD could speak through. That wouldn't be "panpsychism". That would be more like full-fledged monotheism. And if you're going that far, then you may as well imagine that this kind of God could speak through anything at any time. Like a burning bush, or cloud, or a donkey.

That's not panpsychism.

[Bust Nak]

Are the parts in red bold font typos? Non-physical and "materialism" aren't compatible which is why I ask.

No, those aren't typos. Non physical and materialism are compatible, a trivial example: computer software is-non physical and yet materialistic.

Under reductive materialism, all of the characteristics of B can be sufficiently explained by breaking it down into its most basic parts ("A"). Under emergence, there are characteristics of "B" that are not present in "A", so those characteristics can not be explained by just looking to "A".

I don't see why those points have to be distinct. Under materialism (it seems we disagree what that word means) there are characteristics of "B" that are not present in "A," all of these characteristics, including those not present in "A," can be sufficiently explained by breaking it down into its most basic parts "A," and the interactions there of. Another trivial example: individual atoms do not have a color (if you exclude more exotic meaning of what color means,) a collection of atoms and their interaction have a color.

If there is any reduction in emergence, then perhaps we can say that B emerged from interactions at the higher or more complex levels of organization and so it can be reduced to that level. Some philosophers propose that there are 'bridge laws' that account for relations between the two distinct properties.

That seemed to fit my color example.

Either way, not knowing how something exists doesn't not take away from the fact that something exists. Such is the case for consciousness which many would say is physically unobservable by its very nature - hence why we only access it subjectively. This only speaks to how we experience and deal with consciousness. But there's also some conceptual aspects that support the idea that it is nonphysical, as well. When you describe the properties of thought and how we experience it, it can not be characterize with physical properties such as neurons, atoms, etc.

The question here is, this inability of ours to characterize experience with physical properties such as neurons and atoms, is that due to a) our lack of understanding (i.e. if we study our brains hard enough, then we would be able to describe thought in terms of neurons and atoms?) Or b) due to some fundamental disconnect between mind and brain?

It seems emergent dualism want to say it's c) one can never explain it no matter our understanding of the brain, but the mind and brain aren't fully disconnected either.

For instance, a mental image has no location nor mass, and given what we know about physical perception, there's also NO light nor sensory receptors nor physical objects involved which further reinforces my point. Characterizing it as a neural activity only speaks to the process but not the actual end product that is the mental image itself!

That's not set in stone. Someone with an incomplete knowledge of a computer might be able to understand the electrical activity, but not the actual end product of a digital image, with greater understanding of a computer, electrical activity speaks not only to the process but the actual end product too. If materialism is true, then once we know all the inner workings of a brain, we would be able to do the same for the mental image.

It seems to me this emergent dualism kept all the "it is literally impossible to explain this" mystical parts of dualism, but pay lip service to materialism with a "but it's not magic."

And all matter is physical.

Sure, but I don't see what your point is, since I have not suggested otherwise. Materialism doesn't say the mind is physical, it says it is reducible to material.

[Divine Insight]

Non physical and materialism are compatible, a trivial example: computer software is-non physical and yet materialistic.

I would personally argue that it's actually incorrect to say that computer software is non-physical. Or than any form of "information" is non-physical.

I understand the argument that information appears to have a non-physical aspect because information can be transferred, copied, and reproduced on many different types of physical media. For this reason it gives the illusion that the information itself is "non-physical" (i.e. existing independent from any specific physical media).

However, I would argue that no information can exist without at least taking some materialistic form. In fact, this is precisely what information amounts to. It's material that is "in formation". So it is the specific formation that material takes that constitutes information. Therefore calling information "non-physical" is a misguided notion.

Computer software is therefore not "non-physical". Nor is any form of information.

Computer software, and all forms of information are totally compatible with a materialistic worldview. Referring to information as non-physical in a materialistic worldview is a huge mistake. That would be the same as conceding that some things do indeed exist outside of the material world. In this case, information would be seen as existing outside, or beyond the physical world.

There is no need to suggest this. Information in a materialistic world is just as dependent upon the physical world as anything else. And it cannot exist as a non-physical entity. To suggest that it does is no different from suggesting the additional existence of some non-physical Platonic world that must also exist in addition to the material world. In the case of information this is simply unnecessary. Information can be explained as material in formation. Period. No need to introduce a non-physical realm. It's just not necessary.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 42 by AgnosticBoy]

For instance, a mental image has no location nor mass, and given what we know about physical perception, there's also NO light nor sensory receptors nor physical objects involved which further reinforces my point. Characterizing it as a neural activity only speaks to the process but not the actual end product that is the mental image itself!

I'd argue that a mental image does have a general "location", which is "in" the brain. It must exist in some form in the brain because it is produced there either via the process of sight (a real-time mental image produced by the actions of the eye, optic nerve, visual cortex), or an image recalled from memory (identical to the original image from which it was stored) or created by imagining something which is some combination of prior mental images and thoughts about what a new "thing" may look like. We can readily recall a mental image just by thinking about it, and where else could the information needed to create the mental come from if not from memory?

As to the physical objects that are involved, we do know something about that but there is long way to go to completely understand the process as it seems to involve multiple areas of the brain, just like memory does. A Wikipedia article has a paragraph copied below that indicates how complicated the overall process may be, but which does not rule out a completely satisfactory explanation based only on the physical operations and interactions occurring in the brain.

(from Here, references removed)

"Research has occurred to designate a specific neural correlate of imagery; however, studies show a multitude of results. Most studies published before 2001 suggest neural correlates of visual imagery occur in brodmann area 17. Auditory performance imagery have been observed in the premotor areas, precunes, and medial brodmann area 40. Auditory imagery in general occurs across participants in the temporal voice area (TVA), which allows top-down imaging manipulations, processing, and storage of audition functions. Olfactory imagery research shows activation in the anterior piriform cortex and the posterior piriform cortex; experts in olfactory imagery have larger gray matter associated to olfactory areas. Tactile imagery is found to occur in the dorsolateral prefrontal area, inferior frontal gyrus, frontal gyrus, insula, precentral gyrus, and the medial frontal gyrus with basil ganglia activation in the ventral posteriomedial nucleus and putamen (hemisphere activation corresponds to the location of the imagined tactile stimulus). Research in gustatory imagery reveals activation in the anterior insular cortex, frontal operculum, and prefrontal cortex. Novices of a specific form of mental imagery show less gray matter than experts of mental imagery congruent to that form. A meta-analysis of neuroimagery studies revealed significant activation of the bilateral dorsal parietal, interior insula, and left inferior frontal regions of the brain."

I don't claim to know anything about these brain areas or the research that led to the above paragraph (the article has the relevant references), but it suggests that mental images are indeed produced in the brain as the result of operation of the physical components of the brain (ie. physical objects are involved) without the need to invoke any kind of supernatural or nonphysical agents or processes.

[Bust Nak]

I would personally argue that it's actually incorrect to say that computer software is non-physical. Or than any form of "information" is non-physical.

That's how theists tend to use the phrase. "Can you give me a pound of information" they ask, "you can't? Then materialism is debunked!" Indeed, even AgnosticBoy challenges the physicality of mental image by referring to location and mass.

However, I would argue that no information can exist without at least taking some materialistic form.

Right, hence my claim that it is materialistic - no information can exist without the material, it is reducible to the material. And of course, as a materialist, I proposes (insist even) that the mind cannot exist without taking some materialistic form, our brains for instance.

Therefore calling information "non-physical" is a misguided notion...

In the case of information this is simply unnecessary. Information can be explained as material in formation. Period. No need to introduce a non-physical realm. It's just not necessary.

That's all well and good, I am happy to change my choice of word if we all agree on the semantics, I am not particularly attached to those terms. The problem is, "we" as a group, include more people than just you and I. I will just say, I see your point, I don't disagree.