Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matter?

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#441  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 12:10 pm

Rumraket wrote:No, all you did was put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was something more
Ah, see you think that consciousness is the 2mm spacetime. Conclusion, 1mm spacetime is conscious to some degree also.

, I said that difference, the 1mm vs 2mm, can have consequences for how it interacts with other matter and energy. That's it. To me, C is simply such a case. This is perfectly compatible with materialism. But we can keep re-asserting this shit over and over again... your arrogance is noted.
It interacts according to the fundamental interactions identified by physics. Not according to some new irreducible higher level property.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#442  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 12:14 pm

GrahamH wrote:For once I agree with you! We do have limits in understanding complex systems from fundamental properties. It is hard, if not impossible, to understand biology in terms of quantum mechanics, and the same applies to consciousness. It is so hard you can't even imagine how to start. That does not mean that consciousness is a fundamental and irreducible property.
Problem: consciousness cannot be the result of our misconceptions. A misconception is a conscious activity. Saying that consciousness is a misconception or that it started as a misconception, is the same as saying that the first egg came out of a previous egg.

Its the same old "consciousness is an illusion" fallacy.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#443  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 12:16 pm

GrahamH wrote:What do you think "emergence" is about pl0bs? Do you think it has anything to do with "new irreducible properties?
It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that emergence is about reducible properties, or "configurations", which are reducible, by definition.
Real emergence is about quantitative differences. 2mm spacetime vs 1mm spacetime. 10 atoms vs 100 atoms. Human consciousness vs simple bigbang consciousness.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#444  Postby GrahamH » Aug 01, 2010 12:23 pm

pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:For once I agree with you! We do have limits in understanding complex systems from fundamental properties. It is hard, if not impossible, to understand biology in terms of quantum mechanics, and the same applies to consciousness. It is so hard you can't even imagine how to start. That does not mean that consciousness is a fundamental and irreducible property.
Problem: consciousness cannot be the result of our misconceptions. A misconception is a conscious activity. Saying that consciousness is a misconception or that it started as a misconception, is the same as saying that the first egg came out of a previous egg.

Its the same old "consciousness is an illusion" fallacy.

What "misconception" are you referring to? Consciousness is a "configuration of matter", not a "misconception".

BTW, There was no "first egg". :nono:
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#445  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 12:30 pm

GrahamH wrote:
pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:For once I agree with you! We do have limits in understanding complex systems from fundamental properties. It is hard, if not impossible, to understand biology in terms of quantum mechanics, and the same applies to consciousness. It is so hard you can't even imagine how to start. That does not mean that consciousness is a fundamental and irreducible property.
Problem: consciousness cannot be the result of our misconceptions. A misconception is a conscious activity. Saying that consciousness is a misconception or that it started as a misconception, is the same as saying that the first egg came out of a previous egg.

Its the same old "consciousness is an illusion" fallacy.

What "misconception" are you referring to? Consciousness is a "configuration of matter", not a "misconception".
I have no problem with C being a configuration of matter. Remember though, that the = sign works both ways. Many materialists think its a one way street, that it means that consciousness actually consists of non-conscious matter. But it works both ways, so configurations of matter are also conscious. And theres a whole universe of them out there.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#446  Postby GrahamH » Aug 01, 2010 12:31 pm

pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:What do you think "emergence" is about pl0bs? Do you think it has anything to do with "new irreducible properties?
It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that emergence is about reducible properties, or "configurations", which are reducible, by definition.
Real emergence is about quantitative differences.


Nonsense! Why do you insist the only parameter is quantity? What really counts is pattern(shape, geometry), and patterns require certain minimum quantities. A molecule is not simply a number of atoms, its emergent (reducible) properties arise from its shape, which is what patterns the fundamental propertied of the parts into something new. A molecule of a particular shape may absorb photos of a particular wavelength. Another may form a hook shape that makes it very "sticky". Another may act as a catlist by moving other molecules. These properties are not simply quantitative, they are qualitative and the qualities are the properties are the "configurations" are the shapes.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#447  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 12:31 pm

GrahamH wrote:BTW, There was no "first egg". :nono:
Why not?
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#448  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 12:34 pm

GrahamH wrote:Nonsense! Why do you insist the only parameter is quantity? What really counts is pattern(shape, geometry), and patterns require certain minimum quantities. A molecule is not simply a number of atoms, its emergent (reducible) properties arise from its shape, which is what patterns the fundamental propertied of the parts into something new. A molecule of a particular shape may absorb photos of a particular wavelength. Another may form a hook shape that makes it very "sticky". Another may act as a catlist by moving other molecules. These properties are not simply quantitative, they are qualitative and the qualities are the properties are the "configurations" are the shapes.
Dont blame me, blame physics. Everything really does consist of the same physical ingredients, working according to the same forces. Patterns btw do not "require" anything. 2 atoms are just 2 atoms. There are no "requirements" floating around them. A molecule really is nothing more than what it consists of. Just because you give the molecule a new label, does not mean it has properties that cannot be described in terms of its components.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#449  Postby GrahamH » Aug 01, 2010 12:35 pm

pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:What "misconception" are you referring to? Consciousness is a "configuration of matter", not a "misconception".
I have no problem with C being a configuration of matter. Remember though, that the = sign works both ways. Many materialists think its a one way street, that it means that consciousness actually consists of non-conscious matter. But it works both ways, so configurations of matter are also conscious. And theres a whole universe of them out there.


There's that old division fallacy again.
The following statements are fallacious:

A car is made of steel
Therefore I can drive to work on a nail

Steel is made of iron and carbon
Therefore molecules of iron and molecules of carbon both have the same properties as steel.

Photo synthesis involves oxygen
Therefore oxygen is photosynthesis
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#450  Postby GrahamH » Aug 01, 2010 12:35 pm

pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:BTW, There was no "first egg". :nono:
Why not?


Sorities paradox
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#451  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 12:36 pm

GrahamH wrote:
pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:BTW, There was no "first egg". :nono:
Why not?


Sorities paradox
So you agree there is no first consciousness either then?
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#452  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 12:37 pm

GrahamH wrote:There's that old division fallacy again.
The following statements are fallacious:

A car is made of steel
Therefore I can drive to work on a nail

Steel is made of iron and carbon
Therefore molecules of iron and molecules of carbon both have the same properties as steel.

Photo synthesis involves oxygen
Therefore oxygen is photosynthesis
The differences between all those things are all just differences in the configurations of mass in motion. There is no other kind of difference.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#453  Postby Rumraket » Aug 01, 2010 1:46 pm

pl0bs wrote:
Rumraket wrote:No, all you did was put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was something more
Ah, see you think that consciousness is the 2mm spacetime. Conclusion, 1mm spacetime is conscious to some degree also.

, I said that difference, the 1mm vs 2mm, can have consequences for how it interacts with other matter and energy. That's it. To me, C is simply such a case. This is perfectly compatible with materialism. But we can keep re-asserting this shit over and over again... your arrogance is noted.
It interacts according to the fundamental interactions identified by physics. Not according to some new irreducible higher level property.

I would really appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth or make these ridicluous assumptions about what I think about C, or what I say could possibly entail.

What you just said doesn't represent my position, or change the fact that my description of C is compatible with materialism. You seem to have this underlying assumtion that we think C is somehow... magical?

C is the product of a material pattern. That pattern, when in action and unbroken, is making what we describe as C. Just like a pattern of atoms is making electrons capture and reemit photons of a specific frequency, the pattern of matter in the brain is making C.

What that pattern does, it's specific action, is what we describe as Consciousness. You can divide this pattern up into smaller sections, but these sections individually have different actions, different behaviors. They may contribute to a part of the behavior, the action we describe and label as C. But the whole of it, when the particles are moving in that pattern, we describe as C.

The pattern, the action, the behavior we label C, is only found in the brain. When you break or alter the pattern, you either partially or completely break or alter C.
Consciousness, the brain, is just a label applied to a number of material parts interacting in a certain specific way. When you take parts away, or alter the pattern, you no longer have the same actions resulting from it. Particles no longer move in that specific pattern, the pattern has been altered and so that changed pattern is no longer producing what we describe as C.

That first thing you said was outright stupid, to be honest. C is "capture of photons at frequency H", and C only happens at 1mm apart or less. Anything over 1 mm apart will not capture photons of frequency H, at all, and is therefore not C at all. Please graps this elementary concept. The electrons can not partially/fractionally or almost capture photons. They either do, or they don't. But don't whine to me about this elementary fact of physics...
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#454  Postby GrahamH » Aug 01, 2010 1:57 pm

pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:BTW, There was no "first egg". :nono:
Why not?


Sorities paradox
So you agree there is no first consciousness either then?


Of course, the boundaries of these things, life, consciousness, eggs, is very fuzzy, yet once they did not exist and now they do.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#455  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 2:13 pm

Rumraket wrote:I would really appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth or make these ridicluous assumptions about what I think about C, or what I say could possibly entail.

What you just said doesn't represent my position, or change the fact that my description of C is compatible with materialism. You seem to have this underlying assumtion that we think C is somehow... magical?

C is the product of a material pattern. That pattern, when in action and unbroken, is making what we describe as C. Just like a pattern of atoms is making electrons capture and reemit photons of a specific frequency, the pattern of matter in the brain is making C.

What that pattern does, it's specific action, is what we describe as Consciousness. You can divide this pattern up into smaller sections, but these sections individually have different actions, different behaviors. They may contribute to a part of the behavior, the action we describe and label as C. But the whole of it, when the particles are moving in that pattern, we describe as C.

The pattern, the action, the behavior we label C, is only found in the brain. When you break or alter the pattern, you either partially or completely break or alter C.
Saying that "C completely breaks up", is like saying "the physical ingredients completely break up". These things dont happen.

Consciousness, the brain, is just a label applied to a number of material parts interacting in a certain specific way. When you take parts away, or alter the pattern, you no longer have the same actions resulting from it. Particles no longer move in that specific pattern, the pattern has been altered and so that changed pattern is no longer producing what we describe as C.
The phenomenon C does not depend on the label it is given, so the phenomenon does not vanish when we stop giving it a label. So, since consciousness is not the label, then it must actually be a type of motion. And a difference in motion (which has been around since the big bang) is also a difference in consciousness.

That first thing you said was outright stupid, to be honest. C is "capture of photons at frequency H", and C only happens at 1mm apart or less. Anything over 1 mm apart will not capture photons of frequency H, at all, and is therefore not C at all. Please graps this elementary concept. The electrons can not partially/fractionally or almost capture photons. They either do, or they don't. But don't whine to me about this elementary fact of physics...
Here you introduce the arbitrary capture/not-capture situation again. Such schisms do not exist in the physical world. Capture/not-capture is just a difference in the motion of the physical ingredients.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#456  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 2:15 pm

GrahamH wrote:Of course, the boundaries of these things, life, consciousness, eggs, is very fuzzy, yet once they did not exist and now they do.
The boundaries do not exist.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#457  Postby GrahamH » Aug 01, 2010 2:23 pm

pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Of course, the boundaries of these things, life, consciousness, eggs, is very fuzzy, yet once they did not exist and now they do.
The boundaries do not exist.


You can't tell a rock from a glass of water or a elephant, I know that. You keep repeating it and making yourself look foolish.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#458  Postby pl0bs » Aug 01, 2010 2:26 pm

GrahamH wrote:
pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Of course, the boundaries of these things, life, consciousness, eggs, is very fuzzy, yet once they did not exist and now they do.
The boundaries do not exist.


You can't tell a rock from a glass of water or a elephant, I know that. You keep repeating it and making yourself look foolish.
Dont confuse labels and appearances for something more than basic physical ingredients.
Image
Believing that a lump of meat is capable of "creating experiences" is akin to believing
that leprechauns create gold coins. - UndercoverElephant
pl0bs
 
Posts: 5298

Country: Winning!
Israel (il)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#459  Postby byofrcs » Aug 01, 2010 2:28 pm

pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:For once I agree with you! We do have limits in understanding complex systems from fundamental properties. It is hard, if not impossible, to understand biology in terms of quantum mechanics, and the same applies to consciousness. It is so hard you can't even imagine how to start. That does not mean that consciousness is a fundamental and irreducible property.
Problem: consciousness cannot be the result of our misconceptions. A misconception is a conscious activity. Saying that consciousness is a misconception or that it started as a misconception, is the same as saying that the first egg came out of a previous egg.

Its the same old "consciousness is an illusion" fallacy.

What "misconception" are you referring to? Consciousness is a "configuration of matter", not a "misconception".
I have no problem with C being a configuration of matter. Remember though, that the = sign works both ways. Many materialists think its a one way street, that it means that consciousness actually consists of non-conscious matter. But it works both ways, so configurations of matter are also conscious. And theres a whole universe of them out there.


If we took the matter of a conscious brain and reduce it to the constituent elements (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, sulphur, phosphorus, lead, boron, chromium, mercury etc so about 1x 10^26 atoms) and then further to the sub-atomic particles then we would be left with so many electrons, protons and neutrons. If we then combined these sub-atomic particles to new elements then we could end up with a variety of items e.g. bits of gold or water or a diamond (assuming we could get the right balance of electrons, protons and neutrons).

As certain combinations of matter are not wet then other combinations are not conscious and at the formation of this universe both the wetness of water and the consciousness of brains were non-existent. The big bang only formed elements up to beryllium but you need oxygen for water and quite a few more elements for brains.

The claim that consciousness exists in all matter makes as much sense as saying that wetness exists in all matter.

On the other hand it is far simpler to state that consciousness emerges in brains just as wetness emerges from water. You will not find "consciousness" other than a property of certain forms of matter just as you will not find "wetness" other than in forms of water and you will never by able detach the "consciousness" from the brain matter just as you can never detach "wetness" from water. You can stop the brain matter from being consciousness through destroying it in the same way that you can stop water from being wet by destroying it but that is not separating the "consciousness" or "wetness".

Thus materialism is true.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 60
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why does plobs think its possible that C is in all matte

#460  Postby GrahamH » Aug 01, 2010 2:29 pm

pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
pl0bs wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Of course, the boundaries of these things, life, consciousness, eggs, is very fuzzy, yet once they did not exist and now they do.
The boundaries do not exist.


You can't tell a rock from a glass of water or a elephant, I know that. You keep repeating it and making yourself look foolish.
Dont confuse labels and appearances for something more than basic physical ingredients.


Don't worry, I won't.

Don't confuse labels with material properties and effects. Oh dear, too late, by about 1,000 posts.

What do you think about a "first egg"?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20419

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest