Materialism cannot account for Awareness

[AquinasForGod]

I am putting this argument in philosophy because it appeals to metaphysics.

My question for debate is: What is the metaphysical ground for consciousness if we are limited to materialism?

This argument doesn’t really work if you outright reject PPC.
PPC – Principle of Proportionate Causality.
This basically means that whatever is in the effect must in some way be in the cause. An example would be if I am the cause of your receiving $20, I must have had $20 in some way. I could have had it on person, such as in my wallet. But I could have had it in a more virtual way such as in my bank account. So although I did not physically possess a $20 bill, I did have access to it in my bank account.

I would also be the efficient cause because the government gave me the right to print $20 as legal money. Then even though I do not have a $20 bill in my wallet or on me in any way, and even though I do not have $20 in the bank, or I have nothing worth $20, I have the power granted by the government to make $20.

I did not have $20 is any of these ways or any way at all, then I could not have been the cause of your receiving $20. If you claimed I was the cause, you would be incorrect.
With that out of the way, let’s get into it.

If you prefer a more detailed visual version of this type of argument here is a video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHolDFVeG3k If videos are not allowed, please do let me know. Some forums are against it but I did not see it in the rules.

So, the universe, whatever it is will have fundamental properties. By fundamental, I mean something like primary substance. Maybe an electron is a fundamental property in the world, charge.
These fundamental properties will have properties, whatever they are. This can be hypothetical. Put together whatever properties you believe to exist, say charge, attraction, repulsion, space, change, etc.
Then find a way to logically, using just these properties, account for simple awareness.

If you posit that awareness or consciousness is one of the fundamental properties, then you are not a materialist. You are some sort of panpsychist.
Imagine if I said that if I put enough of the property BLUE together in just the right combination and under the right pressure and temperature, I get a diamond. That doesn’t follow at all.
However, we can account for emergent properties like wetness.

Wetness is found in the parts because there is liquid nitrogen and oxygen, but more so because wetness is just attraction. The molecules of water have an attraction to the surface of say your skin, and some stick to your skin. This is what makes it wet. Attraction would be a fundamental property in the physical world.

This cannot be done to account for consciousness or even simple awareness, so materialism fails.
Maybe I am wrong and you will be able to account for awareness starting from whatever base properties you claim exist in the material world.

[Miles]

I am putting this argument in philosophy because it appeals to metaphysics.

This argument doesn’t really work if you outright reject PPC.
PPC – Principle of Proportionate Causality.
This basically means that whatever is in the effect must in some way be in the cause. An example would be if I am the cause of your receiving $20, I must have had $20 in some way. I could have had it on person, such as in my wallet. But I could have had it in a more virtual way such as in my bank account. So although I did not physically possess a $20 bill, I did have access to it in my bank account.

So, if an effect is your sore butt, does that mean the shoe I kicked you with had your sore butt in it?

With that out of the way, let’s get into it.

So, the universe, whatever it is will have fundamental properties. By fundamental, I mean something like primary substance. Maybe an electron is a fundamental property in the world, charge.
These fundamental properties will have properties, whatever they are. This can be hypothetical. Put together whatever properties you believe to exist, say charge, attraction, repulsion, space, change, etc.
Then find a way to logically, using just these properties, account for simple awareness.

And what if I can't? Does that mean such properties don't exist? Of course not. It simply means "That at present I can't show how these properties account for simple awareness." Perhaps in the future I, or someone else, will. But our present failure to do so certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. That would be an asinine conclusion. Think our early failure to find a cure for polio meant that none existed?

Now, in as much as you've made an assertion here, "Materialism cannot account for Awareness," you've established the burden of proof to be yours. So, prove that materialism cannot account for awareness, and then maybe we'll have something to debate. So far your "argument" here has done no such thing.


.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I do not like the whole respond-to-respond thing. It looks messy, so I will just address the points I think should be addressed and quote them.

So, if an effect is your sore butt, does that mean the shoe I kicked you with had your sore butt in it?

No, it would mean that you must have in some way the ability to cause it so that my butt is sore. In this case, you have autonomy.

And what if I can't? Does that mean such properties don't exist?

It means that I have no reason to believe they exist, especially since we have had 1000s of years to think about it and no philosopher has come up with something that works. I am not asking for science. You can come up with any set of fundamental principles in the world and then show how they logically cause awareness to exist.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I do not like the whole respond-to-respond thing. It looks messy, so I will just address the points I think should be addressed and quote them.

So, if an effect is your sore butt, does that mean the shoe I kicked you with had your sore butt in it?

No, it would mean that you must have in some way the ability to cause it so that my butt is sore. In this case, you have autonomy.

So, does this ability have your sore butt within it? What if I never took advantage of the ability and never used it, would it still have your sore butt within it on the day I died?

And what if I can't? Does that mean such properties don't exist?

It means that I have no reason to believe they exist, especially since we have had 1000s of years to think about it and no philosopher has come up with something that works. I am not asking for science. You can come up with any set of fundamental principles in the world and then show how they logically cause awareness to exist.

Which, I assume, also means you have reason to believe they don't exist.
In any case, believe away, but let me ask. Are all your beliefs 100% accurate? I know mine aren't, which is why I often say, "I don't know."

.

[Tcg]

Moderator Action

Moved due to lack of a question for debate.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.
[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Tcg in post #5]

I thought my question for debate was clear. What is the metaphysical ground for consciousness if we are limited to materialism?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #5]

I thought my question for debate was clear. What is the metaphysical ground for consciousness if we are limited to materialism?

That question doesn't appear anywhere in your O.P.


Tcg

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Tcg in post #5]

I thought my question for debate was clear. What is the metaphysical ground for consciousness if we are limited to materialism?

That question doesn't appear anywhere in your O.P.


Tcg

True, I implied it rather than stated it. Would it matter if I edited my original post to include the question? I will do that just in case. If the post needs to remain in Random Ramblings, I understand.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #5]

I thought my question for debate was clear. What is the metaphysical ground for consciousness if we are limited to materialism?

That question doesn't appear anywhere in your O.P.


Tcg

True, I implied it rather than stated it. Would it matter if I edited my original post to include the question? I will do that just in case. If the post needs to remain in Random Ramblings, I understand.

Sure, edit it to include your question and I'll move it back to the Philosophy subforum.


Tcg

[Tcg]

Moderator Action

Moved to back to Philosophy due to the edit to include a question for debate.
______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.
[Replying to Tcg in post #9]