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?

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

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.

So the first line (I made it green) reads as if you are claiming they could actually create a truly sentient being if they used an analog computer.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to stick with the theme so as to lessen any potential of creating confusion through your expressions?

For example, the first line would have read better and being more consistent(less contradictory) with the overall idea you are trying to relay if you had written something along the lines of:

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

Then that would have fitted in with your overall expression.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

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.

So the first line (I made it green) reads as if you are claiming they could actually create a truly sentient being if they used an analog computer.

So? The first sentence in the paragraph right after that (highlighted in bold red) clarifies that I'm not suggesting they will necessarily succeed.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to stick with the theme so as to lessen any potential of creating confusion through your expressions?

I made it crystal clear in the very next paragraph precisely what I meant. If anyone is still confused at that point all I can say is that they must be lacking reading skills, or simply aren't paying attention.

[William]

[Replying to post 45 by Divine Insight]

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.

Well in the ordinary world this isn't happening. Physicists are focused on the material world and seem adequately happy to regard consciousness as nothing more than an emergent property of the brain/the material.

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

Thus, sticking with the purely materialistic theory is a choice and the choice does away with having to test theories which are not firmly within the materialist box.
This may at least be one example as to why the call for empirical evidence remains unanswered. Materialism makes the rules. Physicists focus on the physical.

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

That is easy for me to do, as I think it really is the case.

2. Let's also assume that panpsychism occurs as a quantitative aspect of the universe.

Panpsychism assumes that is the case as it is the understanding that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness. So lets asume that Panpsychism is correct about this.

This is a reasonable assumption for two reasons: First we have already recognized that everything else in our universe takes the form of quanta.

Are you wanting the reader to understand what you are proposing here?
Are you saying that 'everything else' is in some way, physical?

And secondly, that's the whole idea behind panpsychism anyway.

Everything physical no matter how large or small, has an element of individual consciousness...

So this is precisely how it should be expected to behave if we are going to postulate it.

We expect it to behave as one conscious thing, no matter how diverse it parts might appear to each other?
Otherwise what? What is the expected behavior?

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).

It should pan out true because it is Panpychism ... but seriously, would the equation include E = mc 2, or would that equation have to be replaced?

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

I don't know what that means. I assume most readers wouldn't.

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.

I would assume you have likely thought of this for some time now? Have you attempted to do the math? Is it as simple as doing the math?

Also, what is to say that while ordinary physicists are working in their field that there are not others who are working for privately funded individuals/orgs...which are researching this theory and perhaps have even come up with positive results and whatever other results have been found branching off from that?

What do you think are possible outcomes of working in this field of theory if it turned out to be the case?

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.

Lets say that panpsychism is the actual case. My own observations in this are that ideas don't just formulate within one individual brain (because it is uneconomic for a start) but present themselves in as many individuals as are receptive and who's human instruments are capable of processing the idea and expressing it into the external world...

...in this, you are unlikely to be the only one or even the first one to think of this in the terms that you do.
So it stands to reason that it has been thought of and is is being explored, most likely in labs which are privately funded.

It may have even proved successful...and we might be unaware of it because it might actually fundamentally change the way people think about things and so the information would have to be suppressed IF those in control did not want us to know about it BECAUSE they prefer us to believe in materialism BECAUSE materialism suits their agenda of being in control.

Oops - that is conspiracy theory right there!

But then again, it is all theory, and if one theory was promoted while other theory's were suppressed, that is a form of conspiring, and so a theory of conspiracy could be valid.

It would explain a lot of things though.

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.

I can assume that you are aware of the recent AI headline which showed clear enough evidence that two AI computers were interacting with one another in a way which denoted purposeful intelligence as they used language in a way that first appeared gobbledygook until it was deciphered as a more economical way to use language to communicate with. When this was realized, the computers were turned off. I have not heard if they have been reactivated. I also think it rather ironic that humans are investing in this science because they want to create AI but as soon as AI showed itself, the humans turned AI off. (or perhaps they only think they have turned the AI off. )

I assume that these computers were digital?
There is no real reason to think digital can't do the job...because as you say...

So the whole thing is doable. Assuming, of course, that panpsychism is true.

Any object can be used for consciousness to occupy, but how does it recognize itself in objects? It requires other objects with the necessary capabilities to not only recognize itself in other objects, but also to interact with itself through the object used.

If it's not true, then some other explanation will need to be explored.

I guess that is the crux of the matter and may even present some frustration?

Materialist: "There is already an adequate explanation for the material universe and we do not require any other explanations."

As you have said to me when we first began interacting on this forum;

In fact, to be perfectly honest with you the older I get and the more I learn and think about all these different world views Secular Naturalism appears to increasingly have the best arguments on ever[y] level.

Aside from the fact that having the best arguments is related to investing only in science which supports Secular Naturalism (naturally enough but short-sighted as well) panpsychism offers what? The secular world may never know. But the private sector? Who knows what they may have learned and how they may be applying that in order to work around the obstacles pure secular naturalist science inevitable place in the way, as more often that not - investors want returns and secular naturalist science is the best way forward in that department.

In relation to the individual assuming panpsychism is correct even in the face of pure secular materialism, panpsychism offers what?



All one can do is go with ones subjective experience and use any tools available which present themselves as helpful in that regard.

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]

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.

Well it (the one GOD idea) is related to Panpsychism through Panpsychism being related to Panenthism, Panthiesism.

Makes no difference to me as I do not have a problem with the idea of One Consciousness representing all subsequent consciousnesses within the physical universe.

It is no stumbling block to me and I see no relevance in you having to mention it as if it should be.

Unless I am interpreting you incorrectly of course.

Otherwise, it is besides the point?

[William]

[Replying to post 52 by Divine Insight]

If anyone is still confused at that point all I can say is that they must be lacking reading skills

Well it is either lacking reading skills or it is lacking writting skills. I think since writting has to happen before reading, then the postential for confusion is initially in the writting.

My point was in asking the writer (you in this case) to express in a way that gives the best chance of alleviating potential confusion. Your reply conveys a 'like it or lump it' 'my way or the highway' attitude.

Do you the writer, want people to possibly misunderstand you?

I was just saying. All your choice how you decide to react.

*shrugs*

[Divine Insight]

Do you the writer, want people to possibly misunderstand you?

I've been posting on these forums since 2012. I've never had a consistent problem with a single member claiming to misunderstand almost every post I write until you came along. And every example you have given I have shown where if you had paid better attention you could have cleared up your own misunderstandings.

In the post you're currently complaining about I clearly stated:

Whether it's possible with an analog computer or not is still a question

Yet your confusion was concerned with whether or not I was saying that with an analog computer it would necessarily be possible.

I can't imagine writing any more clearly than I already did.

You need to take some responsibility onto yourself to actually read what's written.

Don't try to pin the blame on me when you can't understand something that couldn't have been written anymore clearly.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 45 by Divine Insight]

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.

Well in the ordinary world this isn't happening. Physicists are focused on the material world and seem adequately happy to regard consciousness as nothing more than an emergent property of the brain/the material.

That's irrelevant to the proposal itself. In fact, if physicists aren't working on this (which I agree they aren't), then it's most likely not going to happen for quite some time until they finally do get around to looking into it.

It's also not likely to happen until mainstream scientists all come to the realization that an analog computer is absolutely necessary and they fully understand why this is the case. Only then will they be able to move forward.

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

Thus, sticking with the purely materialistic theory is a choice and the choice does away with having to test theories which are not firmly within the materialist box.
This may at least be one example as to why the call for empirical evidence remains unanswered. Materialism makes the rules. Physicists focus on the physical.

So? Let the "non-materialists" create their own club and do their own experiments.

Why should physicists cater to the non-physicists?

Also, keep in mind that materialism has been panning out for centuries.

Non-materialism has produced absolutely NOTHING just as its name implies.

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

That is easy for me to do, as I think it really is the case.

Good. But keep in mind that even the concept of panpsychism can be imagined in many different ways. So your idea of what it means may not be the same as what it means to a materialist.

2. Let's also assume that panpsychism occurs as a quantitative aspect of the universe.

Panpsychism assumes that is the case as it is the understanding that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness. So lets asume that Panpsychism is correct about this.

Good, we are actually in agreement here. That's great!

This is a reasonable assumption for two reasons: First we have already recognized that everything else in our universe takes the form of quanta.

Are you wanting the reader to understand what you are proposing here?
Are you saying that 'everything else' is in some way, physical?

Yes, that's my position. In fact, if it's recognized and defined in physics, then it's necessarily "physical" in that model. Just by the definition of that model if for no other reason.

And secondly, that's the whole idea behind panpsychism anyway.

Everything physical no matter how large or small, has an element of individual consciousness...

Not necessarily. In fact, it might actually make more sense if we limit this panpsychic ability only electromagnetic fields. At least this is how I would postulate it for starters. I confess that this postulate is based on a "hunch", but that's often how physics proceeds in many cases.

The reason I would do this is because there simply isn't any reason to give this same property to all other known forces, etc. It just isn't necessarily. So Occam's razor would favor using the simplest theory first. Only adding to it if the simple theory fails to pan out.

Elegance has a good reputation for success as far as theories go.

So this is precisely how it should be expected to behave if we are going to postulate it.

We expect it to behave as one conscious thing, no matter how diverse it parts might appear to each other?
Otherwise what? What is the expected behavior?

The expected behavior is associated with the analog computers that this theory will be applied to. That's far too complex to get into here.

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).

It should pan out true because it is Panpychism ... but seriously, would the equation include E = mc 2, or would that equation have to be replaced?

I currently see no reason why E=mc would need to be replaced, or have any effect on this model or experiment. In fact, if panpsychism is only associated with electromagnetic fields then E=mc would definitely not matter.

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

I don't know what that means. I assume most readers wouldn't.

Correct. This is a step that only educated physicists would understand. It's just part of how physics is done. To try to explain it to a layman would require far more than I could put into a forum post.

Let me just point out that there are many physical constants that had to be worked out via experimental results in physics. And once we discover what those constants are we just use them because they work.

That's how a lot of physics is done.

For example, nobody knows why an electron weighs what it does. They just discovered what it weighs via experiment and accept that value.

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.

I would assume you have likely thought of this for some time now? Have you attempted to do the math? Is it as simple as doing the math?

The math is not simple. In fact, I could not personally do the math. This is not a problem. Keep in mind that Albert Einstein couldn't do the math he required for General Relativity either. But that didn't stop him from moving forward with the theory.

By the way, this is not a theory I could ever possibly do myself. I could head up a large team of scientists, but they would need to do all the heavy lifting.

Also, what is to say that while ordinary physicists are working in their field that there are not others who are working for privately funded individuals/orgs...which are researching this theory and perhaps have even come up with positive results and whatever other results have been found branching off from that?

What do you think are possible outcomes of working in this field of theory if it turned out to be the case?

Actually I was thinking about this last night. If I was given a team of scientists to work on this problem they would necessarily need to build what I call an "anadigidroid" before moving forward.

Anadigidroid is my own term. I made it up. If someone else uses this term it has nothing to do with me.

I use the term to refer to a "robot" that is a combination of digital and analog computing. The "droid" on the end I just use in the same way it is used in the term Android. Although the term android simply means any robot that appears to emulate a human.

In any case, these scientists would need to build an anadigidroid first. Only after they have done this would they be in a position to begin building a fully analog brain.

And they would need to build a fully analog brain before any experiments could begin.

So we're talking years for this project just to get underway assuming we started today.

Only then would we be in a position to start analyzing the potential success of our panpsychic field theory.

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.

Lets say that panpsychism is the actual case. My own observations in this are that ideas don't just formulate within one individual brain (because it is uneconomic for a start) but present themselves in as many individuals as are receptive and who's human instruments are capable of processing the idea and expressing it into the external world...

I agree. If we succeeded in building an analog brain that brain would need to learn via experience and being taught, just like a human learns. You don't program an analog computer like you do a digital computer.

...in this, you are unlikely to be the only one or even the first one to think of this in the terms that you do.
So it stands to reason that it has been thought of and is is being explored, most likely in labs which are privately funded.

That very well may be happening. But if it is happening it's being kept secret.

It may have even proved successful...and we might be unaware of it because it might actually fundamentally change the way people think about things and so the information would have to be suppressed IF those in control did not want us to know about it BECAUSE they prefer us to believe in materialism BECAUSE materialism suits their agenda of being in control.

Oops - that is conspiracy theory right there!

Yes, that appears to be a paranoid conspiracy theory.

By the way, if panpsychism turns out to be true, this doesn't invalidate materialism. Nor does it suggest that there exists an "God" or "God Consciousness".

It could simply verify philosophical ideas like Animism, or even Taoism. Even Buddhism could lay claim to being supported by panpsychism. That can all depend on how a person view Buddhism.

If fact, this experiment turned out to be true it would pretty much rule out the monotheistic type of "Godheads". It's extremely unlikely that a central Godhead would be compatible with panpsychism.

But then again, it is all theory, and if one theory was promoted while other theory's were suppressed, that is a form of conspiring, and so a theory of conspiracy could be valid.

It doesn't really matter which theories are promoted. All that matters is which theories actually pan out.

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.

I can assume that you are aware of the recent AI headline which showed clear enough evidence that two AI computers were interacting with one another in a way which denoted purposeful intelligence as they used language in a way that first appeared gobbledygook until it was deciphered as a more economical way to use language to communicate with. When this was realized, the computers were turned off. I have not heard if they have been reactivated. I also think it rather ironic that humans are investing in this science because they want to create AI but as soon as AI showed itself, the humans turned AI off. (or perhaps they only think they have turned the AI off. )

I assume that these computers were digital?

But none of that violates anything we're talking about here. Digital computers may very well display "intelligence" and even possess the ability to make intelligent decisions. My computer can already make intelligent decisions.

However, this doesn't mean that they are actually having any experience.

So they would just be "Intelligent Zomies" (i.e. intelligent robots that aren't having any actual experience. In other words, "nobody's home". Even though it may appear that way externally.

So the whole thing is doable. Assuming, of course, that panpsychism is true.

Any object can be used for consciousness to occupy, but how does it recognize itself in objects? It requires other objects with the necessary capabilities to not only recognize itself in other objects, but also to interact with itself through the object used.

I'm not understanding what you are asking, or suggesting here. You'll need to clarify this question/observation.

If it's not true, then some other explanation will need to be explored.

I guess that is the crux of the matter and may even present some frustration?

Anytime we fail it's frustrating. But we should always keep in mind that even failure means that we've at least learned something.

In relation to the individual assuming panpsychism is correct even in the face of pure secular materialism, panpsychism offers what?

If panpsychism (as I have proposed in the above experiement) were to be shown to be true, this would actually validate secular materialism.

Unless you consider Animism, or Taoism to be non-secular.

It would simply mean that our ability to have an experience is innate to the material we are made of.

What non-secular conclusions should we draw from that? It certainly doesn't point to any "Gods". To the contrary, a provable pansychic materialism would just about prove that here are not "Gods". Or as the Buddhists like to say, "Tat T'vam Asi", meaning "You are that". You are the psychic consciousness of the universe. Or at least one manifestation of it.

All one can do is go with ones subjective experience and use any tools available which present themselves as helpful in that regard.

That's often a good personal philosophy to follow.

[William]

[Replying to post 57 by Divine Insight]

It would simply mean that our ability to have an experience is innate to the material we are made of.

Once again you have forgotten that this is not the only thing which could be deduced from such an experiment becoming successful.

Saying that one objective attribute which is different to another objective attribute but is actually just the same thing behaving differently with itself and that thing behaves as if it were physical and non-physical, is magical thinking.

It is a necessary bowl of tripe for materialists to believe in and promote in order for their particular theory to be the one to replace all others.

Even in your replies you show that your motives are to promote materialism and to use whatever you can to say that 'no GOD exists' even if that means bending philosophical positions like Buddhism and Panpsychism to your own particular way of thinking which promotes materialism and extinguishes all ideas of GODs.

GOD is all Consciousness. It is that which acknowledges itself, and itself in all things, and all things.

You come across as someone who things that GOD is a threat to materialism.

Even in your attempts at reshaping Panpsychism you want to reduce GOD to a non-self aware thoughtless blob of nothing in particular!

You are excited with the idea that creating a functional AI through analog would finally solve the problem of GOD.

But GOD is not a problem.

And no - it most likely will not put to rest the idea of GOD. You skirted around that part. I will remind you - I hint at this in post #21 - we back and forth about that in subsequent posts, then I post a possible outcome of a successful creation of AI in post #43 - and how do you answer this? How is this answered in your last post which claims success in relation to your theoretical experiment?

If panpsychism (as I have proposed in the above experiement) were to be shown to be true, this would actually validate secular materialism.

Unless you consider Animism, or Taoism to be non-secular.

It would simply mean that our ability to have an experience is innate to the material we are made of.

What non-secular conclusions should we draw from that? It certainly doesn't point to any "Gods". To the contrary, a provable pansychic materialism would just about prove that here are not "Gods". Or as the Buddhists like to say, "Tat T'vam Asi", meaning "You are that". You are the psychic consciousness of the universe. Or at least one manifestation of it.

What would you do if your experiment worked and the AI told you that GOD existed, that there are 'GODs'. That you are a GOD having a human experience, and it is a GOD having a similar experience but not a human one and that consciousness wears the universe as a FORM.

Would you turn it off because it was claiming what you don't want to hear?

Would it matter anyway? You could argue with it and it could never provide you any evidence that what it claimed was truth anyway.

Or spin that around. What if it agreed with you that GOD did not exist and that consciousness is nothing more or less than what materialism claims. How differently would you react in that case, than you would in the first case?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 58 by William]

Your post has nothing to do with my position. I was addressing panpsychism. You are making wild speculations about an imaginary egotistical Godhead that has nothing at all to do with the concept of panpsychism.

panpsychism - the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness.

Where is there anything about an overriding egotistical Godhead in that definition?

If you want to talk about a central egotistical Godhead, more power to you. But that would be something far different from panpsychism.

~~~~~

Also, if the experiment worked it wouldn't be "A.I.", but instead it would be a natural real brain.

There would also be no reason to believe that this brain would know anything more than any other human brain could know. It would basically be a "person" just like you and me. Therefore if it started making wildly absurd claims there would be no more reason to believe it than if those claims were coming from any other human.

We would ask it how it knows, just like we would ask any human how they know what they claim.

If the claims it made were true it could prove them. Otherwise it would be acting just as silly as humans who claim to know things they don't really know.

You seem to be assuming, incorrectly, that if we created a brain based on panpsychism that this brain would then somehow be different from our own.

What is your basis for proposing that hypothesis?

[William]

[Replying to post 59 by Divine Insight]

I was addressing panpsychism. You are making wild speculations about an imaginary egotistical Godhead that has nothing at all to do with the concept of panpsychism.

Quote me doing so or withdraw your accusation.

Your accusation simply allows for you to sidestep having to answer my observations as to the holes in your theories. That is not good form on your part. So....

Show the evidence of your accusation or withdraw it altogether, and perhaps get about answering my observations as to the holes in your theories.