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?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 70 by Divine Insight]
Well I don't know about "divine" insight but you certainly have good well-rounded insight. I certainly don't count you among some of the dogmatic materialists that I've encountered at school and other forums. I'm a strict empiricist, in that I strive to have everything empirically verified and I hope with better technology, we can focus more on examining the brain itself rather than drawing inferences or analogies from computer systems. Either way, if anyone thinks that reductive materialism explains and solves the mind/body problem then let them demonstrate it by following this point:

Finally, the famous physicist Richard Feynman once said if you really want to show you understand how something works, build it. And it is here that we can clearly identify the limits of our knowledge regarding consciousness. I put experienced in quotes earlier because no one knows how to engineer the flow of information into emergent states of first person experience (i.e., sentience). The engineering problem of consciousness remains a great mystery.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... s-the-mind

[Bust Nak]

At least you're okay with accepting that nonphysical features can exist in the physical world. I don't accept emergent materialism because under my view the mind is an emergent non-physical property and not an emergent physical property.

What is the difference? Is this non-physical property fundamentally different from the kind of non-physical property found in computer software?

I get what you're trying to say but I don't think color is a good example because that is a secondary and relational property.

Color as perceived subjective experience is one thing, but color as reflectance properties of an item is quite another. But water is a fine example.

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

Lets take H20 as an example and square it with what you said in red font. If I single out oxygen and watch it's behavior, it doesn't follow that the behavior will remain in place when it is put together with a different element. This is an empirical point as well because we know that the way oxygen reacts to fire compared to the way H2O reacts to fire. The former feeds fire while the latter extinguishes it. So the logic behind reductionism fails here.

If you exclude the green part, yeah, but reductionism is not just the red part, it is the red part plus green part.

Using H20 again, the part of your response in green font can be right or wrong depending at what level of interaction you're referring to...

Then pick the level of interaction that is right.

A stronger case of emergence...

But I am not arguing against emergence. I am saying emergence and reductionism are two sides of the same coin. B from A automatically implies A to B. As such everything you say to support emergence, is automatically support for reductionism.

You think there is a distinction, what exactly is it, and why is it important for there to be a distinction? Surely there is more to this than simple semantics, of us referring to different concepts with the same words?

There are two simple facts that I work with in holding emergent dualism:
1. Consciousness and some other mental properties lack physical characteristics.
2. Consciousness is caused by the brain.

I simply use the concept of emergence to combine these two facts. I'm sure many scientist already acknowledge the fact that there is a difference between mental properties and physical properties but they simply take one step less than I do by keeping everything as physical.

See above comment for software.

Even if mental images were simply "digital images", that still doesn't address the fact that we view these images physically using light, screens, monitors, and most importantly, sensory organs.

What exactly is it that needs addressing? We do view images physically using light, screens, monitors, and most importantly, sensory organs. So what?

Again, none of these physical factors are involved in perceiving an image generated by our minds. In fact, I question if mental images can be limited to only two dimensional images considering the fact that hallucinations, a form of mental imagery, can occur (or be projected .. e.g. hallucination of Jesus or of something in your bedroom) in 3D space.

3D digital images exists too.

Emergence does not preclude any or all explanation. It only precludes explanation that starts from the very bottom (from the basic components and up). In fact, based on the evidence that I have and all of this (panpsychic discussion) we should start considering that all sciences be reducible to psychology and not physics!

Top down or bottom up are just ways to organize the information: Water is constructed from hydrogen and oxygen; or hydrogen and oxygen together makes up water, it doesn't matter which way we say it, the underlying explanation is the same.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 69 by AgnosticBoy]

Lets take H20 as an example and square it with what you said in red font. If I single out oxygen and watch it's behavior, it doesn't follow that the behavior will remain in place when it is put together with a different element. This is an empirical point as well because we know that the way oxygen reacts to fire compared to the way H2O reacts to fire. The former feeds fire while the latter extinguishes it. So the logic behind reductionism fails here.

Using H20 again, the part of your response in green font can be right or wrong depending at what level of interaction you're referring to. There's certainly no 'additive' effect where you have the properties of water and hydrogen strengthened since the two react differently than H2O when it comes to fire - both (hydrogen and water considered individually) lose their property to fuel fires so there's no simple summing of effects. H20 is therefore more than the sum of its parts - it's emergent, in other words.

Can you explain this further? How is H2O "emergent" from oxygen and hydrogen? Both hydrogen and oxygen exist as stable molecules in the gas phase as diatomics (ie. H2 and O2). The chemical reactions they engage in, like all molecules, depends on the arrangement of electrons in the outer shells and how those are involved in ionic and covalent bonds. So when you combine different atoms into a stable molecule, the resulting molecule can (and usually does) have completely different chemical behavior than the individual constituents. This isn't a mystery ... it is simple chemistry. You would not expect H2O to behave at all similarly to either H2 or O2 (towards fire or anything else) because they have completely different electron configurations and so will react differently. The same can be said for intermediate states of the atoms (eg. H2 breaking into H + H, or O2 breaking into O + O ... these individual atoms would also behave differently, chemically, than either H2 or O2).

If you add another oxygen to H2O to make H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) you get something completely different still in terms of chemical reactivity and "behavior" towards other chemicals (it doesn't behave like either H2, O2 or H2O). But again, this is no mystery and does not require any ideas of emergent properties ... it is a very well understood process of how molecules chemically react based on their electron configurations, and the establishment of ionic and covalent bonds. So I'd argue that this example (ie. the behavior of H2, O2 and H2O towards fire) is not a good analogy because it is completely understood at the chemical reaction level, and can indeed be reduced to materialistic definitions.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 73 by DrNoGods]
H2O is an example of "emergent" because its molecule has completely different chemical behavior than the individual constituents, it is simple chemistry. Why did you expect emergence to be mysterious?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 74 by Bust Nak]

H2O is an example of "emergent" because its molecule has completely different chemical behavior than the individual constituents, it is simple chemistry. Why did you expect emergence to be mysterious?

I'm just trying to understand the analogy to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, but yet not explained materialistically.

For the case of H2O, it is a completely different molecule than its constituent atoms so there is no connection between the chemical behavior of H2O and that of H and O (or H2 and O2). It is apples and oranges in terms of chemical behavior, but completely expected and predictable using known chemical laws so can be explained in a purely materialistic way. I don't understand how H2O is "emergent" from H and O in the same sense that consciousness is emergent from the brain, and so asked for a further elaboration.

My position is that I don't think consciousness is mysterious and that it will eventually be explained in a purely materialistic way. But I believe the essence of this discussion is that the OP posits that this is not the case, and instead consciousness is some mysterious property that cannot be explained purely as the result of interactions between neurons, sensory inputs, memory functions, etc. This is very different from the H2O analogy, which is more like how a car is "emergent" from its constituent parts but has different properties than these components because a new system (the car) has been created. So the H2O analogy is confusing to me because that is fully explained materialistically, and I would disagree with AgnosticBoy's statement in his original description (post 69) "So the logic behind reductionism fails here."

[AgnosticBoy]

What is the difference?

Emergent dualism is better understood to refer to only a nonphysical mind, as opposed to emergent monism or materialism which according to you can entail a nonphysical or physical mind.

Is this non-physical property fundamentally different from the kind of non-physical property found in computer software?

The most obvious differences are subjective experience, mental causation, will or intentionality, etc.

Using H20 again, the part of your response in green font can be right or wrong depending at what level of interaction you're referring to...

Then pick the level of interaction that is right.

The reason behind my point of choosing the correct level is that a system can have different levels of interactions. The reason that you can't rely on the lower level interactions to sufficiently account for emergence is because a variable that contributes to causation/interaction may come into play at an intermediate or higher level of interaction. Also, if we're dealing with an open system, such as the human body, then factors outside of the system may contribute to these interactions at a certain point. These are just some examples that can bring about emergent properties.

A stronger case of emergence...

But I am not arguing against emergence. I am saying emergence and reductionism are two sides of the same coin. B from A automatically implies A to B. As such everything you say to support emergence, is automatically support for reductionism.

I disagree with your premise. The two concepts start at different directions because of where each presumes that determination of the system lies. Under reductionism, the lower level components/processes determine the behavior of the entire system and that is why materialists presume that you can reference that level to understand/explain the entire system. Under emergence, there can be multiple levels that determine the behavior of the system, and in some cases, the behavior at the very top may control the behavior at the bottom. It would not make sense to try to understand how a system behaves when it is determined at the level of the whole, with the whole not only being different from the parts but also controlling the parts. Simply put, it's the difference between microdetermination and macrodetermination, although I think some systems can have both to some degree.

Even if mental images were simply "digital images", that still doesn't address the fact that we view these images physically using light, screens, monitors, and most importantly, sensory organs.

What exactly is it that needs addressing? We do view images physically using light, screens, monitors, and most importantly, sensory organs. So what?

The point is that none of those physical components are present when it comes to mental images. This precisely why I consider mental images to be nonphysical.

Again, none of these physical factors are involved in perceiving an image generated by our minds. In fact, I question if mental images can be limited to only two dimensional images considering the fact that hallucinations, a form of mental imagery, can occur (or be projected .. e.g. hallucination of Jesus or of something in your bedroom) in 3D space.

3D digital images exists too.

True, but the ones generated by the mind aren't physical. And we only perceive them through subjective experience, which also can't be said to be physical - no sensory organs, etc but yet we can perceive mental images.

Top down or bottom up are just ways to organize the information: Water is constructed from hydrogen and oxygen; or hydrogen and oxygen together makes up water, it doesn't matter which way we say it, the underlying explanation is the same.

As I mentioned before, the two concepts utilize a different point of reference to understand/explain the system. If anything, I think scientists would do some good incorporating both types of explanations, as some are already doing.

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm just trying to understand the analogy to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, but yet not explained materialistically.

For the case of H2O, it is a completely different molecule than its constituent atoms so there is no connection between the chemical behavior of H2O and that of H and O (or H2 and O2). It is apples and oranges in terms of chemical behavior, but completely expected and predictable using known chemical laws so can be explained in a purely materialistic way. I don't understand how H2O is "emergent" from H and O in the same sense that consciousness is emergent from the brain, and so asked for a further elaboration.

H2O can be explained in a purely materialistic way because we're dealing with purely materialistic substances. I was using H2O as an example to prove emergence but apparently that task was not needed. Emergence under my view of dualism involves physical and nonphysical properties. I've made my case in various posts regarding how certain mental properties lack physical characteristics.

[William]

[Replying to post 70 by Divine Insight]

I personally feel that there is a huge problem using the term "consciousness" because this term seems to be tossed about in reference to many different concepts.

Consciousness is consciousness. Generically it is descriptive of being self conscious or showing signs of being self conscious.

I would suggest that scientists have already explained how "intelligence" and logical reasoning can be reduced to basic physics. So that's already a done deal. Not only have they explained it, but we have already created "intelligent machines" that perform logical reasoning. Therefore they have not only explained it, but they have proven their explanations to be true.

Yes, but the "intelligence" isn't intelligence. "Intelligent machines" are not intelligent machines.

It is just an expression to say that "the 'intelligence' appears to behave like intelligence." It is reminiscent of intelligence.

So intelligence and the ability to think has already been reduced to physics.

Only in appearance but not in actuality.

Until, perhaps, recently. Two digital AI apparently started interacting with one another using what first appeared to be a malfunction - gobbledygook - until it was established that they were actually using language in a more economical manner. The AI were then turned off. This may well be the first sign of actual intelligence in relation to self awareness - consciousness.

The only question left unanswered at this point is the question of exactly what it is that is experiencing all this logical thinking and sensory input.

Consciousness. It is the only attribute which CAN experience anything...including itself.

There is nothing in fundamental physics that allows that anything could have an experience.

Which allows for the idea that it is non-physical and is interacting with the physical rather than being an emergent property of the physical. As much as this idea might fly in the face of physics, this is only because it cannot be shown to be the case empirically.

So it would seem to me that at this point we have two realistic options:

1. Panpsychism is somehow involved.

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things.

All things = the physical universe.
Consciousness = self awareness ability to acknowledge the self. Ability to understand the self as consciousness. Ability to acknowledge the existence of things. Ability to misunderstand that the self is a thing - a physical thing rather than a non physical attribute.

OR
2. The emergence of experience could somehow be explained via a dance of electromagnetic waves.

The problem I have with the latter is that it is extremely unclear to me how that explanation could stand without allowing electromagnetism to itself possess some form of panpsychic ability (or at least an innate ability to have an experience).

Are electromagnetic waves physical or non-physical?

Q: What came first the chicken or the egg?
A:Logically what existed before the chicken or the egg has to be consciousness. Since no thing created consciousness then logically consciousness has always existed.

Q: Are electromagnetic waves created through the non-physical interacting with the physical?

I will also be the first to agree that the term "panpsychic" may be as equally ill-defined as the term "consciousness". What we are really talking about is an ability to experience what's going on.

An ability to experience what's going on is exactly what defines consciousness.

I also believe that this would need to be true whether this ability is "emergent" or "panspychic".

Think about it, even if it is "emergent" how could we say for certain that it isn't also panpscyhic? In other words, it only "emerges" when enough panpsychic material is activated. Therefore even panpsychism would appear to be "emergent" by its very nature.

What the heck is "panpsychic material"? Panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things.

The material has to exist as an inert potential which is then activated into formation through consciousness interacting with it.

Consciousness = self aware ability to acknowledge the self. Ability to understand the self as consciousness. Ability to acknowledge the existence of things it creates.

Like the mind - it can be used to form non physical things. Think of the mind as that which is the inert potential. Think of the universe as something created with mind - something within mind which can be experienced as real by consciousness. Consciousness creates the reality and experiences the reality it creates. In relation to this universe, this process is happening simultaneously.

In relation to consciousness within the experience of human form, consciousness has diversified so deeply within the physical universe that it's creative abilities are stymied in relation to that.

We have to use our forms in order to be physically creative - to make things out of things which have already been formed into physical stuff.

Before we make those things, we first have to engage the mind and create non material images of those things. We are limited in this by the nature of the form - the human form - but even in that, the human form is ideal for such a purpose. Purpose built.

In relation to biological evolution, the process of creating the chicken and the egg through conscious purposefulness is extremely long, [from human perspective] which allows for the opportunity to interpret that process as a mindless one. Chemical reactions with no intelligent directive - when consciousness is believed to be an emergent property of the physical universe.

It might be impossible to differentiate between "emergence" and "panpsychism" precisely because panpsychism would behave precisely like emergence.

The only way we could make a distinction between the two would be to explain precisely how emergence accomplishes this task without any need for panpsychism.

But we are a very long way from being able to do that.

Or we can do it now by simply understanding that consciousness interacts with material potential and in doing so, creates a reality which it can experience - in a simultaneous fashion.

Thus the non-material looks as though it is emerging from the material - but may in fact not be doing so at all.

One cannot figure out any way in which to prove this to be the case - other than accept it is the most likely explanation [Occam's razor] or assume the more magical answer is that the material created the non-material - the mindless created the mind.

In fact, the latter explanation would be an extreme victory for secular materialists.

Secular materialists have already 'won' but it remains to be seen whether this will help or hinder the human species evolving from type zero to type one. I think there would be more chance of this happening if they just accepted that the likelihood of the non-material creating the material.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 78 by William]

Consciousness. It is the only attribute which CAN experience anything...including itself.

Throw a baseball at a wedding cake sometime, and tell me the cake doesn't experience the baseball (assuming you hit your mark). Tell me the baseball doesn't experience the cake.

Interactions between components in the universe (mass and energy in their various forms) is what experiences are. If you don't have any photons hit your eyes, you don't experience sight. If sound waves don't reach your ear drums, you don't experience sound. Throw a rock in a pond, and the pond experiences the rock. Waves propagate out on the surface, retaining a memory of the experience, at least for a while. Due to entropy, that experience is eventually transferred into other experiences between particles. The reason we can retain our experiences longer than the pond is that we are entropy reducing machines, and can forestall the transfer of those experiences into the surrounding environment. In the end though, all experiences decay into other experiences. That's entropy for you.

[William]

[Replying to post 78 by William]

Consciousness. It is the only attribute which CAN experience anything...including itself.

Throw a baseball at a wedding cake sometime, and tell me the cake doesn't experience the baseball (assuming you hit your mark). Tell me the baseball doesn't experience the cake.

You seem to be suggesting that it is not consciousness which experiences things?