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]

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.

I don't claim to be able to explain mental images beyond what they are NOT. I know that mental images are NOT physical for the various reasons that I've argued, arguments which you've failed to logically refute. Only now you're claiming to not know what I mean after I refuted your latest attempts to characterize them as physical. It's like an atheist who spends his or her time arguing against God, and then suddenly wants to say I don't know what god is when it's convenient (the timing is suspect to say the least!).

I do know that mental images exist. We experience them. I resort to analogous language because we don't have any rational vocabulary to characterize nonphysical phenomena, unless we borrow religious terms.

Here's one source that explains the purpose of analogies:

Writers use analogies to link an unfamiliar or a new idea with common and familiar objects. It is easier for readers to comprehend a new idea, which may have been difficult for them to understand otherwise.

Source: https://literarydevices.net/analogy/

[William]

[Replying to post 99 by Divine Insight]

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.

I am not complaining. My alternate hypothesis has already been shared in this and in many others threads.

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

This only circles back to points made in earlier posts in this thread. Everything material can be said to be part of the overall analog system called 'the physical universe.'

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

Is there such a thing as an analog computer made by a human being from non biological material which has been shown to be able to rewire itself?

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.

In what way is that 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.

Consciousness is more than just subjective experience. And yes, I certainly can explain consciousness through using consciousness. What else in the universe explains anything? It is therefore not some 'attempt' on my part to point out the obvious. It is - rather - an attempt on your part to ignore the obvious by trying to explain it without acknowledging the very ingredient which gives one the ability to explain anything in the first place.

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.

Yes we have established that the material cannot account for the non material due to the fact that non material has to stay in the realm of imaginative invisible friends, pink unicorns and GOD because it is not empirically evident in the objective manner that such rules enforce, and is why such ideas are 'grounded' according to the rules of secular materialism.

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.

Fortunately the reader can decide whether your assertion as to what is happening here is the truth or simply a deceptive attempt to sully my character on your part. They can also see for themselves that I explain in great detail how "GOD did it" throughout the pages of my Members Notes.

[Divine Insight]

I am not complaining. My alternate hypothesis has already been shared in this and in many others threads.

What is your alternative hypothesis other than to say that consciousness explains consciousness?

I know that you have also proposed an 'EE' or 'Earth Entity' that you apparently believe is conscious. But there is the evidence for the existence of this hypothetical entity? Can you demonstrate that it exists? If not, then how is this any different from just saying "God did it" where your invisible undetectable 'EE' serves the role of God in this apparently faith-based religion?

Is there such a thing as an analog computer made by a human being from non biological material which has been shown to be able to rewire itself?

Not that I'm aware of to date. But the technology to build one certainly exists. The only reason one hasn't been constructed yet is because analog technologies have taken a back seat to digital technologies and have been basically ignored. However, that is about to change as more and more scientists realize the power of analog computing.

Consciousness is more than just subjective experience.

In that case you'll need to present your definition for precisely what you mean by consciousness. Then we can address each item individually.

Consciousness Definition Psychology - Consciousness refers to our awareness of our own mental processes, such as our thoughts, feelings, and sensations. It is possible that we are the only beings on this planet that have this type of self awareness or level of consciousness and the ability to introspect, or look inward and examine these processes.

The above definition can be reduced to subjective experience because everything else in the definition can already be explained via secular materialism.

Medical Definition of Consciousness - The state of being aware, or perceiving physical facts or mental concepts; a state of general wakefulness and responsiveness to environment; a functioning sensorium.

Even the medical definition of consciousness can ultimately be reduced to subjective experience. Everything else is just a description of what's being experienced and those things can all be reduced to secular materialism.

And yes, I certainly can explain consciousness through using consciousness. What else in the universe explains anything?

Replace the term consciousness with the term God and how is this any different from what religious people keep saying?

They can't explain anything so they invoke the concept of a "God" to explain what they can't explain.

All you are doing here is when asked to explain consciousness, you're simply saying that consciousness is its own explanation.

Sorry but that doesn't "explain" anything.

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.

Yes we have established that the material cannot account for the non material due to the fact that non material has to stay in the realm of imaginative invisible friends, pink unicorns and GOD because it is not empirically evident in the objective manner that such rules enforce, and is why such ideas are 'grounded' according to the rules of secular materialism.

And so they should be until such time that evidence can be produced to valid them.

As it currently stands all this amounts to is an argument not unlike "The God of the Gaps". If you can't explain something you just make up something can call that an "explanation".

Thank kind of thinking should be taboo. I agree with the secularists on that point. If we're going to make a claim we need to have some valid reason to make it, not simply because we are allergic to the thought of a secular existence.

Just because you don't approve of secularism doesn't make it wrong.

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.

Fortunately the reader can decide whether your assertion as to what is happening here is the truth or simply a deceptive attempt to sully my character on your part. They can also see for themselves that I explain in great detail how "GOD did it" throughout the pages of my Members Notes.

On a debate forum it does not amount to "sullying" someone's character by pointing out where their arguments are flawed.

Also, I call you out on your claim that you have made a compelling explanation in your Member Notes on this forum. If that were the case then why don't you print out your Member Notes and send them off to the scientific and philosophic communities for evaluation?

Without even reading your Member Notes I can be certain they do not contain anything compelling, for if they did you would have published them in places where they could be reviewed and supported by the proper professionals.

Did you write a book on the subject? I might be interested in reading the reviews of your book if you wrote one.

[Bust Nak]

I don't but I do like the fact that you're open to accepting the existence of nonphysical properties.

I see. In which case the I will switch my language: Non physical and materialism are incompatible, computer software is physical and hence materialistic.

The mind has both physical and nonphysical properties. I've already given you the examples of the nonphysical properties and they do not occupy space.

But the mind does indeed occupy space. It's right here, located between my ears.

The mind is a result of the brain but software is not a result of hardware.

Why would you think that?! Software is a 100% the result of hardware.

It's apparent that you don't give scientists enough credit for the understanding of perception that they do have.

Whatever gave you that impression?

Likewise, no one can tell me how mental images are physical when we perceive them without the physical means of perception.

But we DO perceive them with the physical means of perception.

That's not a rebuttal because it doesn't explain how mental images can project in 3d and yet still not be physically perceptible.

I don't have to explain any of that since mental images in 3d are physically perceptible.

What I see from experience is that some materialists giving up some ground to dualists because they see inherent weaknesses in their position. You can not maintain that all that exists is composed of matter and yet want to claim that nonphysical things exists.

Then I won't maintain that. Like I said, I am flexible with words, all I care about is the underlying concepts.

[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.

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

If you read the 2nd paragraph in post 79 (the one you did not quote in your reply) I believe you will find the answer to your question

[Kenisaw]

Sure, but is it a fundamental difference? And if it is, what does it mean for a potential explanation of the mind?

The difference between software and mind? Software is code so it is not nonphysical as you say. It occupies space - disk space. In terms of your view, it would mean that your approach is just a number of many that can not account for subjective experience.

The mind is just as physical as software.

I guess I'm befuddled why so many people on this website have a hard time understanding this basic fact.

The mind is the sum representation of the physical activity of the brain. The electrical impulses, chemical reactions, and physical structures of the brain are what make up consciousness. Take the electrical impulses away, or the chemical reactions, or the physical structures, etc and the consciousness is reduced or diminished to some degree (depending on the amount you take away).

It can go the other way too for that matter, if the system is overloaded. Taze someone and they can't operate their motor functions properly. They usually also have problems taking in and processing external stimuli (the senses), and have reduced memory of the event.

There is no evidence that the mind, or consciousness, exists separate from the physical brain. While the conversation in this thread is certainly interesting, no evidence has been brought forth to support such claims...

[Divine Insight]

Interactions between components in the universe (mass and energy in their various forms) is what experiences are.

I actually disagree with this. Unless you are attempting to suggest that the entire universe is always having a subjective experience of everything that happens.

If you throw a baseball into a wedding cake I don't think anyone believes that either the cake or the baseball have any subjective experiences of the event. Have forces and energy been exchanged? Sure, but that hardly qualifies as subjective experience that these objects actually had.

Moreover, if you are happy with this view of subjective experience then according to this view a laptop computer is already having a subjective experience.

Also wouldn't this view embrace "panpsychism" since it holds the view that everything in the universe is having an experience? Including baseballs and wedding cakes?

The interactions of forces and energy does not automatically imply that anything is having a subjective experience.

I would suggest the following:

Interactions between components in the universe (mass and energy in their various forms) is what can be experienced. But to say that these interactions themselves fully explain the phenomenon of subjective experience doesn't follow. What part of physics suggests that anything is having a subjective experience?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 95 by AgnosticBoy]

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".

The last sentence above seems to suggest that if "someone" doesn't know (someone being an individual, or science in general) that your point is made. That is a god-of-the-gaps type of argument with god replaced by whatever it is that you think creates a mental image. Just because science may not be able to explain something "fully" at an atomic or molecular level with all the signaling pathways understood, etc. doesn't at all mean that there isn't a scientific, materialistic explanation there waiting to be found.

You made the statement earlier:

You can not maintain that all that exists is composed of matter and yet want to claim that nonphysical things exists.

Why not? These are not mutually exclusive. Would you call a thought nonphysical? A memory? If I simply think that I'd like another drink of coffee a whole sequence of electrical signals and muscle contractions are set in motion to cause my arm to move towards the coffee cup, pick it up, move it to my mouth, and many more to execute the swallowing function. I don't have to "think" to have all of these functions happen ... but my brain is definitely what is controlling all of the electrical signals and muscle movements in a coordinated way to accomplish the results of my simple original thought. These actions by the brain are all controlled by matter, but the original thought is a nonphysical thing because of how we define the word "thought."

A mental image can simply be how the brain perceives a complicated series of interactions between memory and other brain areas to create the perception of the image. There is no need to describe it in terms of light, sensors, etc. within the brain analogous to how a real-time visible image is processed via the eye, retina, optic nerve and visual cortex, or to make any analogies to how a normal physical image is produced. I can't describe the process fully as far as all the detailed physical mechanisms involved, but it doesn't follow that mental images are not created by physical means. "I don't know" may well be replaced in the future by "here is exactly how it works", and at this point you can't exclude that such knowledge may exist eventually (ie. a purely physical explanation for mental images).

[Divine Insight]

These actions by the brain are all controlled by matter, but the original thought is a nonphysical thing because of how we define the word "thought."

Exactly. We need to be very careful of how much value we place on some of our semantic ideas and definitions. Just because we have traditionally considered complex thoughts to be "non-physical" doesn't mean they are.

In fact, this is more of a philosophical assumption or assertion that has been made by philosophers who are merely pondering idea in their own mind and coming to conclusion that seem to be reasonable to them at the time. However, this type of philosophical pondering has already proven itself to often be mistaken.

So we need to be real careful about making a distinction between philosophical ideas and actual confirmed facts.

Thoughts may not be "non-physical" at all really. If they are a complete result of the physical world then they are reducible to the physical world.

In the case of having a thought to make a cup of coffee the link to the physical world should be crystal clear. We wouldn't even be able to have that thought if making a cup of coffee wasn't already known to be something that is physically possible to do.

Now one may argue that we can have thoughts of things that are not physically possible. However, I would argue that this is actually a weak argument. The reason being that while we can imagine objects that don't actually exist in the physical world, we are always imagining object that 'could' exist in our physical world. In other words, all of our thoughts are related to our experiences in the physical world.

Some may wish to argue against the above paragraph, but I think it's truth has been well-established. We can actually imagine concepts that we cannot visualize or comprehend in any meaningful way in our thoughts, such as higher dimensional spaces, or even an infinite space. We have found ways to work with these ideas using mathematics, but the ideas themselves are not intuitively comprehensible. In other words, we can't even "think" in terms of things that we have no physical experience of. So our thoughts are indeed linked to our physical existence perhaps far more than many philosophers would like to believe.

So to even say that our thoughts are "non-physical" is really nothing more than an unproven philosophical notion. This certainly hasn't been established as a scientific fact. Yet it appears that some people are attempting to use this idea as though it's carved in stone as an indisputable fact. But it actually isn't. It's just an unproven philosophical notion that could very well turn out to be wrong.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 108 by Divine Insight]

So to even say that our thoughts are "non-physical" is really nothing more than an unproven philosophical notion.

Yes, and of course my opinion on all of this is that I think thoughts, mental images, etc. are all ultimately explainable by physical processes in the brain. But I was trying to think of something like a mental image that is conventionally defined as a "nonphysical" thing because of language, but that (in my view) is just the manifestation of physical structures and their interactions within the brain, as are mental images. I can't properly imagine superposition and entanglement in terms of analogies to macro physical things, but I have no doubt that they exist.