Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Tegularius]

The real miracle here is how matter creates mind which implies not only as situated in organic matter. The complexities of time and space itself relies on matter existing in one form or another. Matter is not some secondary reality as expressed by Plato, but the beginning and manifestation of EVERYTHING and all its derivatives as imagined or realized by us. Consciousness is the chemical expression of an extremely complex process whose interactions creates an experience greater than the sum of its parts. And why not, considering that DNA itself has an alphabet of only four letters to create all life on Earth from bacteria and viruses to humans who question if consciousness can exist without a brain!

Is an extremely complex car greater than the sum of its parts?

Only if an extremely complex car is more conscious than you are.

Hmm, I would say that any functioning system, almost by definition, is greater than the sum of its parts, and not all systems are conscious, just as not all systems create motion.

It's obviously true that not all systems are conscious. I didn't imply otherwise. What I wrote was in regard to consciousness as per OP where there could hardly be a better example of something greater than the sum of its parts in its manifold expression of creating a non-materialistic effect which could not be surmised by any of its material agencies. In that context, I mentioned DNA as an example of what is inherently simple becoming supremely complex in its performance and output.

Why is so much misunderstood in these forums? The only way to get a conversation going is to say something stupid and persist in it, which yields a lot of responses or, if that's not the case, get no response. Worse is getting one which doesn't intersect with anything that's written. I haven't been here long, but already it's been a brain-deadening experience. I'm too old to inflict further damage. Best to join the main zombie population who have long ceased to post.

If there's one thing these "opinion forums" prove decisively is how truly separated most people are from each other.

[Sy Borg]

Is an extremely complex car greater than the sum of its parts?

Only if an extremely complex car is more conscious than you are.

Hmm, I would say that any functioning system, almost by definition, is greater than the sum of its parts, and not all systems are conscious, just as not all systems create motion.

It's obviously true that not all systems are conscious. I didn't imply otherwise. What I wrote was in regard to consciousness as per OP where there could hardly be a better example of something greater than the sum of its parts in its manifold expression of creating a non-materialistic effect which could not be surmised by any of its material agencies. In that context, I mentioned DNA as an example of what is inherently simple becoming supremely complex in its performance and output.

Why is so much misunderstood in these forums? The only way to get a conversation going is to say something stupid and persist in it, which yields a lot of responses or, if that's not the case, get no response. Worse is getting one which doesn't intersect with anything that's written. I haven't been here long, but already it's been a brain-deadening experience. I'm too old to inflict further damage. Best to join the main zombie population who have long ceased to post.

If there's one thing these "opinion forums" prove decisively is how truly separated most people are from each other.

Apologies for attempting a minor clarification after you left a gaping hole in your argument. Based on recent responses, it is clearly inappropriate for me to hold any opinions or to express myself in any way.

Forums do not prove that people are separated at all. That is nonsense. What it demonstrates that Americans today are on edge and many are inclined to overreact to even the slightest irritant.

[Tegularius]

Only if an extremely complex car is more conscious than you are.

Hmm, I would say that any functioning system, almost by definition, is greater than the sum of its parts, and not all systems are conscious, just as not all systems create motion.

It's obviously true that not all systems are conscious. I didn't imply otherwise. What I wrote was in regard to consciousness as per OP where there could hardly be a better example of something greater than the sum of its parts in its manifold expression of creating a non-materialistic effect which could not be surmised by any of its material agencies. In that context, I mentioned DNA as an example of what is inherently simple becoming supremely complex in its performance and output.

Why is so much misunderstood in these forums? The only way to get a conversation going is to say something stupid and persist in it, which yields a lot of responses or, if that's not the case, get no response. Worse is getting one which doesn't intersect with anything that's written. I haven't been here long, but already it's been a brain-deadening experience. I'm too old to inflict further damage. Best to join the main zombie population who have long ceased to post.

If there's one thing these "opinion forums" prove decisively is how truly separated most people are from each other.

Apologies for attempting a minor clarification to move things along, given that you had left a gaping hole in your argument. Based on recent responses, it is clearly inappropriate for me to hold any opinions or to express myself in any way.

Forums do not prove that people are separated, it demonstrates that Americans are on edge these days and many are inclined to overreact to even the slightest irritant. As you have done.

What gaping hole! Please quote and explain why it's "a gaping hole"!

[Sy Borg]

What are systems but interconnected parts that are more than their sum? From machines to biology to geology.

So yes, cars are more than the sum of their parts, without the need to be conscious. So, yes, you left a gaping logical hole in your argument.

Sorry for having an opinion. Out of order of me, I know.

Americans need to get their house in order. Too many tantrums over nothing. (Apologies to Americans who refrain from spreading their anger and hostility across the internet).

[Tegularius]

What are systems but interconnected parts that are more than their sum?

Show me in my post where I denied or questioned that. To deny it would be almost as stupid as demanding where is the evidence for evidence.

From machines to biology to geology

It amazes me that someone with your scientific knowledge can't figure out the very fundamental differences in system complexity or their source.

So yes, cars are more than the sum of their parts, without the need to be conscious. So, yes, you left a gaping logical hole in your argument.

Is there any afterthought in your mind as to how absurd this statement sounds? Probably not!

It's true, cars are more than the sum of their parts as is ANY system WE create whose function is already preconceived and consequently engineered. But a separation exists as the consciousness required to create these systems has not been created by us but by nature in slow time which never had any overt intention to do so. We can disassemble and reassemble whatever we create, knowing how its functions were designed. If we were able to do the same with a human brain, we still wouldn't know what accounts for consciousness.

I asked you where the gaping hole is and all I got back is cars are more than the sum of their parts without the need to be conscious. Brilliant!

Sorry for having an opinion. Out of order of me, I know.

If your opinion expresses your ability to think then I'm no-longer as interested in your opinion as I once was. You are not at all now the way you used to be.

Americans need to get their house in order. Too many tantrums over nothing. (Apologies to Americans who refrain from spreading their anger and hostility across the internet).

Another false assumption. I'm not American. I'm German living in Canada. It wasn't necessary to convey your sanctimonious apologies to Americans who refrain from spreading their anger and hostility across the internet! "Across the internet"! Wow! I must really be one bad dude even if I haven't noticed it myself. Should I thank you for your invaluable insight?

To summarize, not that it's going to make any difference in your view that I left a gaping hole in my argument , an argument you didn't even reply to, instead replying to my sarcastic one liner to Alta who couldn't see a difference between a car and a brain since both are obviously greater than the sum of their parts to which you followed suit. Nevertheless, I really wanted to get this off my chest.

The difference in the systems we create compared to that system which allows for the creation of those artifacts, however simple or complex, is a difference so great as to be almost paranormal. Or so it seems! We've never yet, and may never, expound the mystery of consciousness into a coherent scientific explanation even though there are plenty of philosophical ones.

In case you still don't get it, cars are made by us; brains are made by nature where its highest function - not likely planned by nature - is to leverage, as if by alchemy, the material substance of the brain into a wholly immaterial abstraction which creates its own systems. In short, something denoted as greater than the sum of its parts is either that which allows for creation or that which creates as agents of the former. It's hard to believe there's no difference in your mind between the two.

If you can't figure out that nature's version of something being greater than the sum of its parts exceeds astronomically its human counterpart, in effect, creating a cause we still can't explain, a foundational difference which amounts to a dichotomy, then your analytical skills have vastly eroded.

[Atla]

What are systems but interconnected parts that are more than their sum?

Show me in my post where I denied or questioned that. To deny it would be almost as stupid as demanding where is the evidence for evidence.

From machines to biology to geology

It amazes me that someone with your scientific knowledge can't figure out the very fundamental differences in system complexity or their source.

So yes, cars are more than the sum of their parts, without the need to be conscious. So, yes, you left a gaping logical hole in your argument.

Is there any afterthought in your mind as to how absurd this statement sounds? Probably not!

It's true, cars are more than the sum of their parts as is ANY system WE create whose function is already preconceived and consequently engineered. But a separation exists as the consciousness required to create these systems has not been created by us but by nature in slow time which never had any overt intention to do so. We can disassemble and reassemble whatever we create, knowing how its functions were designed. If we were able to do the same with a human brain, we still wouldn't know what accounts for consciousness.

I asked you where the gaping hole is and all I got back is cars are more than the sum of their parts without the need to be conscious. Brilliant!

Sorry for having an opinion. Out of order of me, I know.

If your opinion expresses your ability to think then I'm no-longer as interested in your opinion as I once was. You are not at all now the way you used to be.

Americans need to get their house in order. Too many tantrums over nothing. (Apologies to Americans who refrain from spreading their anger and hostility across the internet).

Another false assumption. I'm not American. I'm German living in Canada. It wasn't necessary to convey your sanctimonious apologies to Americans who refrain from spreading their anger and hostility across the internet! "Across the internet"! Wow! I must really be one bad dude even if I haven't noticed it myself. Should I thank you for your invaluable insight?

To summarize, not that it's going to make any difference in your view that I left a gaping hole in my argument , an argument you didn't even reply to, instead replying to my sarcastic one liner to Alta who couldn't see a difference between a car and a brain since both are obviously greater than the sum of their parts to which you followed suit. Nevertheless, I really wanted to get this off my chest.

The difference in the systems we create compared to that system which allows for the creation of those artifacts, however simple or complex, is a difference so great as to be almost paranormal. Or so it seems! We've never yet, and may never, expound the mystery of consciousness into a coherent scientific explanation even though there are plenty of philosophical ones.

In case you still don't get it, cars are made by us; brains are made by nature where its highest function - not likely planned by nature - is to leverage, as if by alchemy, the material substance of the brain into a wholly immaterial abstraction which creates its own systems. In short, something denoted as greater than the sum of its parts is either that which allows for creation or that which creates as agents of the former. It's hard to believe there's no difference in your mind between the two.

If you can't figure out that nature's version of something being greater than the sum of its parts exceeds astronomically its human counterpart, in effect, creating a cause we still can't explain, a foundational difference which amounts to a dichotomy, then your analytical skills have vastly eroded.

I wrote the question to point out that you have no idea about consciousness, but you think you do and condemn others. Your argument seems to be:

1. When there is motion/interaction in systems, then the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. (I think this is a very bad way of thinking, as motion/interaction is by definition always part of systems, as we live in a 4D world, not a 3D one. Besides the universe is one complex system. But okay I can go along with it for the sake of argument.)
2. When there is a super amount of motion/interaction, for example in extremely complex cars created by humans, then it's easy to see that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, but that there is still no consciousness.
3. But when there is a super-DUPER amount of motion/interaction, then we also get consciousness. Which is what happens in brains.

You seem to think that it's an obvious fact that when we reach a super-DUPER amount of motion/interaction, some magic happens and the material gives rise to the immaterial. There is 0 scientific evidence for this by the way, and doesn't even make sense in principle. Has it occured to you that maybe something else is going on?

[Sy Borg]

That's a clear way to put it, Atla.

To be fair, I think it possible that "super duper" interrelations bring a new, emergent property to nature, and today's orthodoxy claims the same with abiogenesis. If there is enough complexity - and of a certain type - then we have this emergent phenomena.

Maybe. However, as you say, it's an assumption. There's no proof and no real test has been devised. In terms of function, medicos are coming closer to being able to work out whether a comatose patient is experiencing or not, but that is a practical matter, not an ontic one. That's because human consciousness is an outlier, and to judge the consciousness of much simpler organisms by human standards cannot work.

When you closely consider emergent phenomena, you see that the new trick learned by nature is never entirely new. It's usually an exponential extrapolation of the dynamics that came before. Consider the difference between a proto star and a newly ignited main sequence star. Or the difference between the complex organic entities that directly preceded abiogenesis. They are doing the same things, but the systematics of the more mature form have made an exponential jump of complexity. That gives the appearance (to human observers, anyway) of entirely new phenomena, unrelated to the old. I suspect it's a similar situation with consciousness.

In the days of natural philosophy, it was common to see humans as being the only conscious beings. One by one, new animals were brought into the exclusive group of conscious beings, often reluctantly. Even today, many thinkers do not believe that insects experience their lives at all.

The mirror test was an example of humans judging other animals' consciousness by human standards. Only recently has it been noted that, while dogs often fail the mirror test, if humans had to identify themselves in an equivalent smell test they would fail. We would be deemed incapable of self-consciousness. Many mammals, reptiles and fish could easily pass such a test.

It's difficult to step aside from anthropocentrism because it is so deeply ingrained in our societies, so one ends up swimming against the tide of public opinion, acting as a disincentive to consider nature more broadly than through the (well funded) lens of human practicalities.

[Tegularius]

That's a clear way to put it, Atla.

To be fair, I think it possible that "super duper" interrelations bring a new, emergent property to nature, and today's orthodoxy claims the same with abiogenesis. If there is enough complexity - and of a certain type - then we have this emergent phenomena.

Maybe. However, as you say, it's an assumption. There's no proof and no real test has been devised. In terms of function, medicos are coming closer to being able to work out whether a comatose patient is experiencing or not, but that is a practical matter, not an ontic one. That's because human consciousness is an outlier, and to judge the consciousness of much simpler organisms by human standards cannot work.

When you closely consider emergent phenomena, you see that the new trick learned by nature is never entirely new. It's usually an exponential extrapolation of the dynamics that came before. Consider the difference between a proto star and a newly ignited main sequence star. Or the difference between the complex organic entities that directly preceded abiogenesis. They are doing the same things, but the systematics of the more mature form have made an exponential jump of complexity. That gives the appearance (to human observers, anyway) of entirely new phenomena, unrelated to the old. I suspect it's a similar situation with consciousness.

In the days of natural philosophy, it was common to see humans as being the only conscious beings. One by one, new animals were brought into the exclusive group of conscious beings, often reluctantly. Even today, many thinkers do not believe that insects experience their lives at all.

The mirror test was an example of humans judging other animals' consciousness by human standards. Only recently has it been noted that, while dogs often fail the mirror test, if humans had to identify themselves in an equivalent smell test they would fail. We would be deemed incapable of self-consciousness. Many mammals, reptiles and fish could easily pass such a test.

It's difficult to step aside from anthropocentrism because it is so deeply ingrained in our societies, so one ends up swimming against the tide of public opinion, acting as a disincentive to consider nature more broadly than through the (well funded) lens of human practicalities.

Who cares! It must be comforting that you and Greta are in agreement and that fixes the problem.

[Tegularius]

You seem to think that it's an obvious fact that when we reach a super-DUPER amount of motion/interaction, some magic happens and the material gives rise to the immaterial. There is 0 scientific evidence for this by the way, and doesn't even make sense in principle. Has it occured to you that maybe something else is going on?

This has nothing to do with what I wrote. super-DUPER - no idea why the last part was capitalized - are your words and describes nothing. But it has occurred to me that one needs a brain in order to think and to accomplish the latter one must be conscious. No doubt you and Greta have different theories.

OK by me! Not a problem!

[Atla]

That's a clear way to put it, Atla.

To be fair, I think it possible that "super duper" interrelations bring a new, emergent property to nature, and today's orthodoxy claims the same with abiogenesis. If there is enough complexity - and of a certain type - then we have this emergent phenomena.

Maybe. However, as you say, it's an assumption. There's no proof and no real test has been devised. In terms of function, medicos are coming closer to being able to work out whether a comatose patient is experiencing or not, but that is a practical matter, not an ontic one. That's because human consciousness is an outlier, and to judge the consciousness of much simpler organisms by human standards cannot work.

When you closely consider emergent phenomena, you see that the new trick learned by nature is never entirely new. It's usually an exponential extrapolation of the dynamics that came before. Consider the difference between a proto star and a newly ignited main sequence star. Or the difference between the complex organic entities that directly preceded abiogenesis. They are doing the same things, but the systematics of the more mature form have made an exponential jump of complexity. That gives the appearance (to human observers, anyway) of entirely new phenomena, unrelated to the old. I suspect it's a similar situation with consciousness.

In the days of natural philosophy, it was common to see humans as being the only conscious beings. One by one, new animals were brought into the exclusive group of conscious beings, often reluctantly. Even today, many thinkers do not believe that insects experience their lives at all.

The mirror test was an example of humans judging other animals' consciousness by human standards. Only recently has it been noted that, while dogs often fail the mirror test, if humans had to identify themselves in an equivalent smell test they would fail. We would be deemed incapable of self-consciousness. Many mammals, reptiles and fish could easily pass such a test.

It's difficult to step aside from anthropocentrism because it is so deeply ingrained in our societies, so one ends up swimming against the tide of public opinion, acting as a disincentive to consider nature more broadly than through the (well funded) lens of human practicalities.

The organism's sense of being and abiogenesis are soft emergences, but the material -> immaterial jmup is a hard emergence (which is probably impossible, magic).

[Atla]

You seem to think that it's an obvious fact that when we reach a super-DUPER amount of motion/interaction, some magic happens and the material gives rise to the immaterial. There is 0 scientific evidence for this by the way, and doesn't even make sense in principle. Has it occured to you that maybe something else is going on?

This has nothing to do with what I wrote. super-DUPER - no idea why the last part was capitalized - are your words and describes nothing. But it has occurred to me that one needs a brain in order to think and to accomplish the latter one must be conscious. No doubt you and Greta have different theories.

OK by me! Not a problem!

The real miracle here is how matter creates mind which implies not only as situated in organic matter. The complexities of time and space itself relies on matter existing in one form or another. Matter is not some secondary reality as expressed by Plato, but the beginning and manifestation of EVERYTHING and all its derivatives as imagined or realized by us. Consciousness is the chemical expression of an extremely complex process whose interactions creates an experience greater than the sum of its parts.

What I wrote was in regard to consciousness as per OP where there could hardly be a better example of something greater than the sum of its parts in its manifold expression of creating a non-materialistic effect which could not be surmised by any of its material agencies.

So you wrote about the material -> immaterial jump, but you didn't write about the material -> immaterial jump?

[NickGaspar]

Philosophizing on consciousness without having a scientific background is like playing tennis without lines or a net. People will always make up things to make themselves feel special ....for them the ball will always be "in".!

You could have just pointed out that Arjand was speculating and that great claims require great evidence. Instead you relied on a common and base ogical fallacy - argumentum ad hominem.

Ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with dispassionate scientific thinking and everything to do with emotional dogmatism.

Not an ad hominem sorry....Its a verified human behavior and the main reason why we came up with a systematic methodology (Science).

[NickGaspar]

The end of this type of conversations in science is close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuYrnOVmfk&t=
Mark Solms the founder of Neuropsychoanalysis and the author of a groundbreaking paper on the mechanism of dreams explains the mechanisms responsible for consciousness.

[Sy Borg]

Well, human consciousness.

[NickGaspar]

Well, human consciousness.

And the conscious states of every animal....
is there an other type of consciousness?