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]

The mind is a result of the brain but software is not a result of hardware. This is very simple logic that explains why software is not a higher level property.

This is untrue when taking about analog computers. The "software" in an analog computer is the organization of the hardware. There is no distinction between hardware and software in an analog computer. You can't upload software onto an analog computer nor can you download the software which is the physical configuration of an analog computer.

We already know that our brains are not digital computers. That much is certain. They most likely are analog computers since that's the only thing left.

So to even make arguments about digital computer when speaking about human brains is irrelevant. A human brain is not a digital computer. That much is certain.

[William]

[Replying to post 90 by Divine Insight]

Maybe talking about the brain as if it were either analog or digital computer is incorrect.

As for uploading/downloading data, this is simply information and is happening all the time - the data comes from external and internal experience

[AgnosticBoy]

I just can't understand what's difficult in understanding that the digital images you refer to are viewed via physical means and mental images are not. Your rebuttal doesn't even touch my argument regarding hallucinations.

I realize the above comments were made in response to Bust Nak, but I'm wondering how you know that "mental images" even exist at all?

We experience them, and they have physical effects. An example of the physical effects are documented in scientific studies show that imagining lifting weights can sustain and/or increase physical muscle strength in immobile patients. You also find in these studies that imagining lifting a heavy weight causes more electrical stimulation of muscles (measured by electromyography) compared to imagining lifting lighter weight. This is exactly what occurs in during actual or physical weight lifting.

When we physically see an "image" this is because our sensors (i.e. our eyes) are being stimulated to create electrical pulses in the brain. We assume that these pulses then create "images" within the brain that are then experienced.

However, is that really what's happening? Is there a screen on the back of our brains that produce images that we then experience?

We know there is no literal screen but there is something screen-like. It is undeniable also that mental images are image-like since people describe them as "seeing" them, even in 3D, with color, etc - all features of "images". I've been skeptical of physical explanations because they tend to involve denying one or all of the characteristics that people describe. I suspect that this is simply done to avoid explaining the difficulties that this experience poses to current materialistic mainstream theories.

When we imagine an image in our brain do we really know what's going on?

Well we can rule out some things based on what we do know. We know that no light is involved, we know that no sensory organs are involved, we know that we can't objectively nor physically see mental images, we know that these images don't occupy physical space (e.g. hallucinations, dreams, etc). This all shows the lack of physical characteristics in mental images.

Is the electrical activity that we see in the brain during this time actually creating a mental image? Or is it just creating the experience of having seen an image?

If the electrical activity is just creating the experience of having seen an image, then no image is actually required when we imagine a "mental image".

No only this, but if the electrical activity in the brain is actually creating the 'experience' of having seen an image, then the electrical activity is the experience itself.

I can certainly accept that electrical activity is involved in the causing mental imagery. I don't understand the reasoning behind your second question/scenario and that's because the imagery is part of the experience. It seems you try to separate the two. I also don't agree with your conclusion that electrical activity is the experience just because it causes the experience. You are conflating cause and effect. If the two are identical then you wouldn't even need to say that one causes or creates the other, it would already be there and couldn't be broken down further, but that isn't the case since you can have one without the other. Also, the properties between the two are different.

But I don't see where there is anything to gain about suggesting that anything "non-physical" has occurred, or is responsible.

How does claiming that something is non-physical "explain" subjective experience?

This is not the point behind my view. I refer to nonphysical not as an explanation but as a description of what consciousness and certain mental features appear to be. Any explanation should incorporate that feature rather than denying it as scientists have tended to do when they tried to ignore subjective experience in the past.

It seems to me that this doesn't help the problem one iota.

What good is a hypothesis that doesn't explain anything?

I'd rather ask, what good is a hypothesis when it refuses to put all of the facts on the table. Emergent dualism puts all of the facts on the table, the facts that materialism and Christian dualism tends to want to ignore because it doesn't fit in with their respective worldviews. Then emergent dualists posit that emergence is involved. Furthermore, the emergence is of the strong type where you have the higher level properties being able to exert influence on the lower level. From this, we can gain insight on how there are different levels of interactions effect the system. In terms of the mind/body problem, this would mean that we look at the mind/consciousness as not only being a higher level property but also one that's distinct (irreducible, in a sense) from lower properties and having it's own higher level and unique interactions, laws, and causal powers, etc. These points are being documented empirically with all of the examples of mental causation and how it influences its parts (the brain).

Reducitve materialism fails because it does not "respect" the level of the whole. Soft materialism, or rather watered-down materialism, which seems to be what Bust Nak is advocating is a cop-out to materialism.

[Divine Insight]

When we physically see an "image" this is because our sensors (i.e. our eyes) are being stimulated to create electrical pulses in the brain. We assume that these pulses then create "images" within the brain that are then experienced.

However, is that really what's happening? Is there a screen on the back of our brains that produce images that we then experience?

We know there is no literal screen but there is something screen-like. It is undeniable also that mental images are image-like since people describe them as "seeing" them, even in 3D, with color, etc - all features of "images". I've been skeptical of physical explanations because they tend to involve denying one or all of the characteristics that people describe. I suspect that this is simply done to avoid explaining the difficulties that this experience poses to current materialistic mainstream theories.

I don't see where the description you are giving poses any problem to materialists.

For one think, either there is an image being produced in the brain, or their isn't. That's a given. Also, if there is an "image" being produced in the brain it doesn't need to have anything to do with "light" in terms of the wavelengths of "light" we see with our eyeballs. Are you forgetting that "light" is electromagnetic vibrations? If there is electrical activity going on in the brain, then there necessarily needs to be electromagnetic vibrations (i.e. light) it's just not light that is visible to an eyeball.

Also, are you suggesting that these mental "images" that are being constructed within the brain are actual "images" that then something else is "observing"?

It seems to me that if that's the case, then you're right back to square one since now you need to explain how this other entity is capable of "seeing" this image that is being produced within the brain.

My suggestion is that perhaps what we are calling "images" in the brain are the electrical activity that actually produced subjective experience. Nothing is "looking" at these images, but rather the activity that represents these images is the activity that is producing the subjective experience of seeing them.

If that's the case, then your argument is totally wrong. Also to say that this electrical activity in the brain is "non-physical" is nonsense unless you are trying to claim that electrical activity is "non-physical". But electromagnetism has already been recognized to be a physical property of the material world, so the materialists have that covered.

When we imagine an image in our brain do we really know what's going on?

Well we can rule out some things based on what we do know. We know that no light is involved, we know that no sensory organs are involved, we know that we can't objectively nor physically see mental images, we know that these images don't occupy physical space (e.g. hallucinations, dreams, etc). This all shows the lack of physical characteristics in mental images.

But what you are saying here is incorrect. Light is involved. Electromagnetic waves or activity is "light". It doesn't need to be within the visual wavelengths. So you are wrong to say that "light" is not involved. You also seem to be assuming that images created within the brain are then being observed by an additional entity. But that could be a totally wrong assumption on your part. In fact, it most likely is a wrong assumption. The activity that we are referring to as a "mental image" is most likely the activity that produces the subject experience of seeing an image. No actual image is required if that's the case.

Secondly, you bring up hallucinations and dreams, but what does that have to do with anything? They would be produced in precisely the same way images we have actually seen via our eyes are produced. So there's no need to even suggest that there is a difference between reconstructing an image from memory versus constructing a brand new image from pure imagination. Which is what would be happening in hallucination and dreams. Keep in mind that images seen in dreams would be the same as images seen in daydreams, even purposeful daydreams. I create images in my mind all the time because I love to dream and imagine new things. In fact, since I'm creating those images it's extremely unlikely that they need to exist for me to 'view' within my brain before I create them. Thus giving credence to my suggestion that images in our brains are really not images at all, but instead they are the electrical activity that creates the subjective experience of seeing an image.

In this way there is no need for an imagine entity that is "seeing" the images in the brain. The electrical activity in the brain is the subjective experience. And we're done.

I'll be the first to agree that this does NOT explain how electrical activity can create a subjective experience. But that's not my point here. My point here is that your argument is making all manner of unnecessary and most likely incorrect assumptions that an actual "image" is being produced within the brain which then some additional entity "sees". You bring yourself full-circle at that point by having created an entirely newly imagined entity that is now "seeing" images that are being produced within our brains.

Also, your claim that this brain activity does not occupy space is absolute nonsense. How can you say that? If there is electrical activity going on during this process (which there most certainly is) then this electrical activity takes place in space and time. So your claim that this process does not occupy space is simply wrong. You are making a claim that is outright wrong. Period.

Is the electrical activity that we see in the brain during this time actually creating a mental image? Or is it just creating the experience of having seen an image?

If the electrical activity is just creating the experience of having seen an image, then no image is actually required when we imagine a "mental image".

No only this, but if the electrical activity in the brain is actually creating the 'experience' of having seen an image, then the electrical activity is the experience itself.

I can certainly accept that electrical activity is involved in the causing mental imagery.

Well there you go. This confirms my previous observation that your claim that these are "non-physical" and do not occupy space is wrong. Electrical activity is a physical activity that occurs in space and time.

I don't understand the reasoning behind your second question/scenario and that's because the imagery is part of the experience. It seems you try to separate the two. I also don't agree with your conclusion that electrical activity is the experience just because it causes the experience. You are conflating cause and effect. If the two are identical then you wouldn't even need to say that one causes or creates the other, it would already be there and couldn't be broken down further, but that isn't the case since you can have one without the other. Also, the properties between the two are different.

When do you ever have one without the other?

I also there's no need to say that the electrical activity in the brain "causes" subjective experience, but rather it would be the subjective experience. So from a materialistic view everything has been accounted for via material activity.

The only problem the materialist has at this point is to explain just how it is that electrical activity can "create" or "have" a subjective experience.

However, at this point we're at a place where the materialists very well may be able to do this at some future date. At that is what the materialists are arguing for.

They may not even need to propose a panpsychic property to electromagnetism at all. They might be able to explain this in terms of "closed-loop feedback systems".

I'll grant you that this may seem pretty far-fetched, but in terms of how the natural explanations of the world have panned out thus far it may not be as impossible at it may seem at first glance.

So this may actually turn out to be the answer.

My only point with bringing up the difference between digital and analog computer is that this is never going to happen in a digital computer. But it's definitely going to happen in an analog computer because closed-loop feedback circuits are precisely how an analog computer works.

My guess is that IF the materialists are correct, then closed-loop feedback systems are going to be the answer.

But I don't see where there is anything to gain about suggesting that anything "non-physical" has occurred, or is responsible.

How does claiming that something is non-physical "explain" subjective experience?

This is not the point behind my view. I refer to nonphysical not as an explanation but as a description of what consciousness and certain mental features appear to be. Any explanation should incorporate that feature rather than denying it as scientists have tended to do when they tried to ignore subjective experience in the past.

Well, I disagree that anything associated with the brain and brain activity has been shown to be "non-physical". Unless the term is being grossly abused like suggesting that software is non-physical, or even that information is non-physical.

The claim that we have "discovered" that there are things going on in the brain that are non-physical is a bogus claim. In fact, I hold that if that could be demonstrated to be true this should be front page news in all physics journals and someone should be getting a Nobel Prize for having made the discovery.

Currently I am not aware of that having happened.

It seems to me that this doesn't help the problem one iota.

What good is a hypothesis that doesn't explain anything?

I'd rather ask, what good is a hypothesis when it refuses to put all of the facts on the table. Emergent dualism puts all of the facts on the table, the facts that materialism and Christian dualism tends to want to ignore because it doesn't fit in with their respective worldviews. Then emergent dualists posit that emergence is involved. Furthermore, the emergence is of the strong type where you have the higher level properties being able to exert influence on the lower level. From this, we can gain insight on how there are different levels of interactions effect the system. In terms of the mind/body problem, this would mean that we look at the mind/consciousness as not only being a higher level property but also one that's distinct (irreducible, in a sense) from lower properties and having it's own higher level and unique interactions, laws, and causal powers, etc. These points are being documented empirically with all of the examples of mental causation and how it influences its parts (the brain).

Reducitve materialism fails because it does not "respect" the level of the whole. Soft materialism, or rather watered-down materialism, which seems to be what Bust Nak is advocating is a cop-out to materialism.

I simply disagree with your analysis here.

In fact, I would argue that this entire line of thinking is based on the idea that higher level logic and reasoning is "non-physical". Most likely a spin-off from the philosophical view of the need for a purely "mental world" (i.e. Platonic World) which many mathematicians feel is required to explain pure mathematics.

I disagree with that entire philosophical line of thinking. There has never been any proof or even evidence for the need for any imaginary "Platonic Mental World".

The emergence of logical reasoning and thought can be fully explained via the physical emergence from a naturally evolving analog brain.

So the claim that this is "irreducible" to physics is just plain wrong.

That has never been shown to be true. It's just a philosophical guess that has no evidence to back it up. Not unlike the philosophical notion of the need for a Platonic Mental World to "explain" the existence of pure mathematics. In fact, I can prove that the Platonic Mental World idea in philosophy is totally bogus, unnecessary, and would not explain pure mathematics in any case.

So I think this philosophy that you are supporting is deeply flawed. We do not, as of yet, have any sound reason to suggest that subjective experience cannot possibly be explained via a purely materialistic worldview. And your claim that there are provably "non-physical" things taking place within a brain is simply false. Like I say, if that could be shown to be true it would be on the front page of every physics journal, and someone would be smiling big time as they are being handed the Nobel Prize for having show this to be this case.

Insofar as I am aware, that has not yet happened.

If that happens, let me know, then you'd be onto something.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 90 by Divine Insight]
Maybe talking about the brain as if it were either analog or digital computer is incorrect.

No problem. If you have an alternative model to suggest by all mean do so.

I'm not aware of any other viable options that are currently known.

As for uploading/downloading data, this is simply information and is happening all the time - the data comes from external and internal experience

Actually this isn't true. Information isn't simply uploaded into the human brain. This only appears to be the case superficially. But our colleges actually demonstrate that this is not the case. You can't just tell the students what they need to know. The students need to work at it and study hard. In doing so they are actually "rewiring' their analog brains. In fact, this process is known to occur.

So the information isn't simply being 'uploaded' in the conventional sense of uploading data into a digital computer. But for information to truly take root on a comprehensible level the brain need to be rewired. This is why students are encouraged to do all the homework problems. Working through problems is how the brain is rewired.

So it's not just a superficial uploading of data.

In a similar way you can't just download your knowledge of say, differential calculus, to another human. They only way for them to truly learn differential calculus is the same way you learned it. Through many years of doing problems and rewiring their brain.

So you don't just upload and download information from either an analog computer or a human brain. Obviously both an analog computer and a human brain are capable of conveying small amounts of superficial data quickly. But that data can be quickly lost and forgotten if not incorporated into the actual wiring of these brains.

So it may appear at first glance that a human brain can upload and download information, but that's just a superficial observation that doesn't take into account the true nature of these machines. It has a very limited capacity for information exchange actually. Not like with a digital computer where the entire contents can be transferred from one computer to the next. You can't do that with an analog computer or a human brain. You'd need to replicate its physical wiring to transfer the true knowledge contained within.

[AgnosticBoy]

For one think, either there is an image being produced in the brain, or their isn't. That's a given. Also, if there is an "image" being produced in the brain it doesn't need to have anything to do with "light" in terms of the wavelengths of "light" we see with our eyeballs. Are you forgetting that "light" is electromagnetic vibrations? If there is electrical activity going on in the brain, then there necessarily needs to be electromagnetic vibrations (i.e. light) it's just not light that is visible to an eyeball.

True, but I'm referring to light in the context of perception. The light is not being reflected off of or to any object, monitor, nor sensory organs.

Also, are you suggesting that these mental "images" that are being constructed within the brain are actual "images" that then something else is "observing"?

I'd rather say we turn our awareness inwardly to perceive mental images, sorta like meditation or introspection.

I can certainly accept that electrical activity is involved in the causing mental imagery.

Well there you go. This confirms my previous observation that your claim that these are "non-physical" and do not occupy space is wrong. Electrical activity is a physical activity that occurs in space and time.

Being involved in a cause doesn't mean that's all the cause involves because there can be many other factors involved in causation. So it's necessary but not sufficient in explaining mental images. In fact, I'm being a little generous since I could've simply said "correlation".

Secondly, you bring up hallucinations and dreams, but what does that have to do with anything? They would be produced in precisely the same way images we have actually seen via our eyes are produced. So there's no need to even suggest that there is a difference between reconstructing an image from memory versus constructing a brand new image from pure imagination. Which is what would be happening in hallucination and dreams.

Again, how do we perceive color 2D/3D images without sensory organs, light, physical objects, etc?

If it was physical, then why do we only perceive this subjectively rather than objectively? In other words, light is observable, sensory organs are observable, so why aren't mental images objectively observable?

Please provide scientific and logical answers that address my questions fully.

It's okay to say, "I don't know".

[William]

[Replying to post 94 by Divine Insight]

No problem. If you have an alternative model to suggest by all mean do so.

I'm not aware of any other viable options that are currently known.

There is no need for me to come up with some viable alternative option. My statement was designed to suggest that the present models may be inadequate as examples re computers/brains.

Actually this isn't true. Information isn't simply uploaded into the human brain. This only appears to be the case superficially. But our colleges actually demonstrate that this is not the case. You can't just tell the students what they need to know. The students need to work at it and study hard. In doing so they are actually "rewiring' their analog brains. In fact, this process is known to occur.

Actually that may be precisely the difference between analog/digital computers and brains.

The data is indeed uploaded/downloaded but is also arranged by that which is having the experience re the data. Not the brain. The consciousness.

'Rewiring their analog brains' is essentially the domain of consciousness, but what analog computer rewires itself?

[Divine Insight]

Again, how do we perceive color 2D/3D images without sensory organs, light, physical objects, etc?

If it was physical, then why do we only perceive this subjectively rather than objectively? In other words, light is observable, sensory organs are observable, so why aren't mental images objectively observable?

Please provide scientific and logical answers that address my questions fully.

It's okay to say, "I don't know".

Where would you expect to "see" mental images in terms of observing them exterior to the brain?

As far as I can see your question isn't even making any sense.

You say that mental images aren't objectively observable. This actually supports my suggestion that there may not even be any "mental images" at all. At least not in terms of any objectively observable images. Therefore the very idea that you are asking where they are is a meaningless question.

I'm saying that the brain activity that we do objectively see when someone "visualizes" a mental image may actually be subjective experience in action.

So I don't even know what you mean when you claim that "mental images" cannot be objectively observed. It seems to me that you are assuming, without evidence, that there needs to be an observable image to accompany the subjective experience of visualizing a mental image. They may not be the case at all.

I think you may be jumping to conclusions based on assumptions that you are making that are themselves unwarranted.

Why would there need to be an objectively observable image when a brain is subjectively experiencing an image that is totally conjured up by the brain itself?

Can you answer me that?

The brain only needs to conjure up the "experience" of seeing an image. Not the image itself.

So the objection that there doesn't appear to be any actual physical image when we imagine seeing an image doesn't hold water as far as I can see. It's just an argument that is based on the incorrect idea that there would need to actually be a physical image to "view". That simply may not be the case at all. In fact, I can't even imagine why that would be the case.

What would then be "viewing" this physical image if that was the case?

I just don't see where your argument is meaningful. You seem to be making assumptions about the brain that haven't been shown to be true.

[William]

[Replying to post 97 by Divine Insight]

Why would there need to be an objectively observable image when a brain is subjectively experiencing an image that is totally conjured up by the brain itself?

Can you answer me that?

The brain only needs to conjure up the "experience" of seeing an image. Not the image itself.

I just don't see where your argument (in bold, above ) is meaningful. You seem to be making assumptions about the brain that haven't been shown to be true.

[Divine Insight]

There is no need for me to come up with some viable alternative option. My statement was designed to suggest that the present models may be inadequate as examples re computers/brains.

If you don't have an alternative hypothesis to offer, then complaining about existing hypotheses is hardly impressive.

Anyone can complain. That's hardly helpful.

'Rewiring their analog brains' is essentially the domain of consciousness, but what analog computer rewires itself?

Designing analog computers that can rewire themselves is not a problem. In fact, in biological systems this occurs naturally all the time.

Biological systems are analog systems. It's not merely an analogy. That's what they are.

Moreover, you can't speak of "consciousness" as though it is an entity that somehow has an existence of its own as your explanation for consciousness. That's circular.

Consciousness (or to be far more precise: subjective experience) is what we are trying to explain. You can't use the thing we are attempting to explain as the explanation for itself.

Yet that's precisely what you are attempting to do.

Also, your hypothesis that consciousness is required to rewire the brain fails because this would then require that consciousness existed prior to a conscious brain. So that can never get off the ground in the first place.

This is really no different from just tossing your hands in the air and saying "God did it". That's not an explanation, that's just an open confession that you have nothing useful to add to the conversation in terms of being able to explain anything.