5 ms·

Enough credible people have publicly considered the idea credible for me to open my mind. But... I have to keep my mind open with a brace. otherwise, it'll cal

Enough credible people have publicly considered the idea credible for me to open my mind. But... I have to keep my mind open with a brace. otherwise, it'll call occam's razor & snap shut. At the heart of consciousness particles ideas (I think) is the idea that conciousness can't emerge from nonconscious stuff. This is counterintuitive to me. We now know of all sorts of emergent phenomenon. Species emerge (from other, sometimes simpler species) and that emergence dynamic turned slime into ND Tyson. Substances like coffee and coffee tables emerge from basic particle characteristics like charge (to borrow their example). Chemistry emerges from particle physics. Biology emerges from chemistry. Can someone point me to the starting point? I must be missing something. Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think?

0_gravitas 8y ago
They way that I've always thought about it is this: We are the physics that drives us, everything else is an abstraction. Chemistry as a thing didnt emerge from particle physics, it is an abstraction of particle physics, a higher-level view on how certain particles interact, and biology is an abstraction of chemistry, "when we combine certain chemicals this stuff happens". But if we take a moment, we zoom in and zoom in and we will find that the common denominator is that things exist in these ways because physics is doing what it does. The insane rube-goldberg machine of the human body is still a rube-goldberg machine that is being driven by physics, theres millions of layers of complexity, but it's still physics all the way down.
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  > it's still physics all the way down The existence of physics doesn't demonstrate that dualism is wrong.
daoxid 8y ago
Although I generally agree with you, I think there is a difference between the emergent property of a coffee table and that of consciousness: the particles the coffee table is made of are "just" matter, and so is the coffee table itself. But consciousness seems to be something different than matter (or maybe this is just a false assumption of mine). So while I find it intuitive that a table emerges from a number of particles, I think there is a qualitative difference between particles and consciousness. You can zoom into a coffee table until you see individual particles, but what would it mean to "zoom into" a consciousness?
- visarga 8y ago
  > but what would it mean to "zoom into" a consciousness? You'd find good and bad situations - from the point of view of the body. Some situations are useful for life, other are detrimental. Consciousness guides actions towards useful situations.
dual_basis 8y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
bjl 8y ago
> Can someone point me to the starting point? I must be missing something. Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think? The hard problem of consciousness has a long history, but two of the most influential contemporary philosophers in that area are David Chalmers and John Searle.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  thanks :) Can you recommend an essay or paper by either that focuses on the "starting point." IE, why a "chemical computer" version of consciousness can't exist.
- visarga 8y ago
  > Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think? I think non-conscious matter arranged precisely can think. For example, food, arranged properly by the body, can become conscious. Also AI agents can be conscious as long as they are coupled to a complex environment and put under judicious constraints they have to optimise against.
CuriouslyC 8y ago
How does Occam's Razor apply here? You have evidence that some matter (yourself) experiences its existence. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter experiences its existence. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter experiences its existence and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis requires a lot more assumptions.
- 0-_-0 8y ago
  > You have evidence that some matter (your PC) can run Windows. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter can run Windows. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter can run Windows and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis requires a lot more assumptions.
  - CuriouslyC 8y ago
    So, you'd rather posit some mystical juju that makes matter gain consciousness, that somehow magically only happens to humans, and happens to matter when humans eat it, but yet is totally undetectable?
    - kamaal 8y ago
      No I guess the parent's point is consciousness is inherent to all things. But it's just that it needs some minimal amount of biological configuration for it to manifest in a way that is meaningfully observable. Which explain things like eating food(above minimal configuration) and death(Some cells die, failing the minimal configuration criteria).
    - visarga 8y ago
      Not all matter has to fend for itself in the environment. This constraint leads to evolution and consciousness. It's not magical, just self replicating.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
kamaal 8y ago
>>Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think? Consciousness is not same as being able to communicate. Let's say a rock is conscious, how would the rock go about informing us that it is conscious? It has no way of signaling its state. Or even a way of acquiring information about anything around it. Or may there is a way, of both signaling or acquiring information that is alien to us but not to other rocks.
- Ste_Evans 8y ago
  "Let's say a rock is conscious," No, let's not.

0_gravitas 8y ago

They way that I've always thought about it is this: We are the physics that drives us, everything else is an abstraction. Chemistry as a thing didnt emerge from particle physics, it is an abstraction of particle physics, a higher-level view on how certain particles interact, and biology is an abstraction of chemistry, "when we combine certain chemicals this stuff happens". But if we take a moment, we zoom in and zoom in and we will find that the common denominator is that things exist in these ways because physics is doing what it does. The insane rube-goldberg machine of the human body is still a rube-goldberg machine that is being driven by physics, theres millions of layers of complexity, but it's still physics all the way down.

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
> it's still physics all the way down The existence of physics doesn't demonstrate that dualism is wrong.

daoxid 8y ago

Although I generally agree with you, I think there is a difference between the emergent property of a coffee table and that of consciousness: the particles the coffee table is made of are "just" matter, and so is the coffee table itself. But consciousness seems to be something different than matter (or maybe this is just a false assumption of mine). So while I find it intuitive that a table emerges from a number of particles, I think there is a qualitative difference between particles and consciousness. You can zoom into a coffee table until you see individual particles, but what would it mean to "zoom into" a consciousness?

visarga 8y ago
> but what would it mean to "zoom into" a consciousness? You'd find good and bad situations - from the point of view of the body. Some situations are useful for life, other are detrimental. Consciousness guides actions towards useful situations.

dual_basis 8y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

bjl 8y ago

> Can someone point me to the starting point? I must be missing something. Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think? The hard problem of consciousness has a long history, but two of the most influential contemporary philosophers in that area are David Chalmers and John Searle.

dalbasal 8y ago
thanks :) Can you recommend an essay or paper by either that focuses on the "starting point." IE, why a "chemical computer" version of consciousness can't exist.
visarga 8y ago
> Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think? I think non-conscious matter arranged precisely can think. For example, food, arranged properly by the body, can become conscious. Also AI agents can be conscious as long as they are coupled to a complex environment and put under judicious constraints they have to optimise against.

CuriouslyC 8y ago

How does Occam's Razor apply here? You have evidence that some matter (yourself) experiences its existence. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter experiences its existence. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter experiences its existence and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis requires a lot more assumptions.

0-_-0 8y ago
> You have evidence that some matter (your PC) can run Windows. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter can run Windows. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter can run Windows and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis requires a lot more assumptions.
- CuriouslyC 8y ago
  So, you'd rather posit some mystical juju that makes matter gain consciousness, that somehow magically only happens to humans, and happens to matter when humans eat it, but yet is totally undetectable?
  - kamaal 8y ago
    No I guess the parent's point is consciousness is inherent to all things. But it's just that it needs some minimal amount of biological configuration for it to manifest in a way that is meaningfully observable. Which explain things like eating food(above minimal configuration) and death(Some cells die, failing the minimal configuration criteria).
  - visarga 8y ago
    Not all matter has to fend for itself in the environment. This constraint leads to evolution and consciousness. It's not magical, just self replicating.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

kamaal 8y ago

>>Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think? Consciousness is not same as being able to communicate. Let's say a rock is conscious, how would the rock go about informing us that it is conscious? It has no way of signaling its state. Or even a way of acquiring information about anything around it. Or may there is a way, of both signaling or acquiring information that is alien to us but not to other rocks.

Ste_Evans 8y ago
"Let's say a rock is conscious," No, let's not.