Dualism on the chopping block

[Stoic]

The most fundamental truth to me at this point, is that consciousness did not arise from non conscious processes. Consciousness in some form is eternal, that is, the lights have always been on. The only alternative is to say that something came from nothing. Some people seem to be comfortable with that. It doesn't make me feel any particular way, other than wondering how someone can even suggest the possibility. It collides with the very notion of existence. If something comes from nothing...what are some implications of this. That is, if this is true, what are some implications with regard to logic and reality?

It seems and feels to me, that there has always been something rather than nothing. Something that is existent, did not appear into existence from non existence. We must begin with self existence, and more specifically, the self existence of a Rational Mind. If we don't, then we are implying that rationality arose and came into existence via non rational processes. That's the same as saying there was nothing, then there was something. If there was nothing, then something, there would mean there was something enfolded into that nothingness, which would in turn mean there was something, even if you posit the quantum state. You can't really escape this brute fact. It's the beginning of all logic and reality.

To me, the claim that consciousness cannot arise from non-consciousness sounds a lot like "water cannot come from non-water" or "fire cannot come from non-fire".

[Machinist]

To me, the claim that consciousness cannot arise from non-consciousness sounds a lot like "water cannot come from non-water" or "fire cannot come from non-fire".

Interesting comparison. I don't know what to think about that right now, but on a related note: That consciousness did arise into existence...what does that say about the universe and it's properties?

The mere fact that it did so, means that prior to doing so, there existed some potential configuration of matter and space (perhaps even time), that if this arrangement came about, it would result in a dualism of sorts: something would perceive something.

[Stoic]

Interesting comparison. I don't know what to think about that right now, but on a related note: That consciousness did arise into existence...what does that say about the universe and it's properties?

The mere fact that it did so, means that prior to doing so, there existed some potential configuration of matter and space (perhaps even time), that if this arrangement came about, it would result in a dualism of sorts: something would perceive something.

I don't think we know enough to say with confidence, but it could be that a sufficiently complex universe is all that is needed to make the rise of consciousness very probable.

[Machinist]

I don't think we know enough to say with confidence, but it could be that a sufficiently complex universe is all that is needed to make the rise of consciousness very probable.

Yes, of course. It had that potential. I mean, obviously.

Does this potential, that the universe obviously had before consciousness was manifested, mean that consciousness is fundamental and eternal? In some form, even if it was enfolded into the geometries of space and time, it was there. Wouldn't this mean that consciousness is a property of certain configurations of matter and space and time?

EDIT: or enfolded with the quantum state, or realm...or soup.

[Stoic]

Yes, of course. It had that potential. I mean, obviously.

Does this potential, that the universe obviously had before consciousness was manifested, mean that consciousness is fundamental and eternal? In some form, even if it was enfolded into the geometries of space and time, it was there. Wouldn't this mean that consciousness is a property of certain configurations of matter and space and time?

EDIT: or enfolded with the quantum state, or realm...or soup.

Couldn't that reasoning be applied to anything that exists? The universe obviously had the potential for it even before it was manifested, which means that it is fundamental and eternal.

[Machinist]

Couldn't that reasoning be applied to anything that exists? The universe obviously had the potential for it even before it was manifested, which means that it is fundamental and eternal.

I thought about that, and yes, that would be true. That kind of sets me back a little on where I thought this was going. I'm just thinking there must be a simple way to prove, through logic, that consciousness is a fundamental and eternal substance. It just seems like the greatest mystery in the world as to why a purely physical universe would need to produce a non-physical facet that is very much like a mirror for the universe to observe itself.

On the problem of interaction:

The mind is immaterial, yet can interact with the material, or influence the material. A hammer is material and can interact with a material nail, but if I had an imaginary nail that wasn't really there, except in my thoughts, that physical hammer couldn't interact with it.

Events exists, and are immaterial, yet they interact with and influence physical objects, sometimes even causing objects to come into existence. The opposite seems to be true as well: physical objects can cause non-physical events to take place. It would seem then, that there is real world verifiable evidence that this interaction problem is not really a problem.

Also, fears of things that don't exist...immaterial fears can have cause bodily stress. That's another good example of the immaterial affecting the material.

Those were just random thoughts I had this morning. Not really sure where that's going either...just groping around in the dark here...

I do appreciate you your time. I think something will come into focus soon.

[Machinist]

Dad gummit!The universe produced something, us, with minds, that can observe and analyze the universe. Why in the world would it do something like that if if it didn't already possess the intention of doing so?

[Stoic]

I thought about that, and yes, that would be true. That kind of sets me back a little on where I thought this was going. I'm just thinking there must be a simple way to prove, through logic, that consciousness is a fundamental and eternal substance.

I think if it was simple, somebody would have done it by now. No slight to you, but a lot of great minds have thought about it.

It just seems like the greatest mystery in the world as to why a purely physical universe would need to produce a non-physical facet that is very much like a mirror for the universe to observe itself.

I wouldn't say it "needed to", but rather it "happened to". And it has yet to be determined definitively that consciousness is non-physical (in the sense of "not the result of nor subject to physical laws").

On the problem of interaction:

The mind is immaterial, yet can interact with the material, or influence the material. A hammer is material and can interact with a material nail, but if I had an imaginary nail that wasn't really there, except in my thoughts, that physical hammer couldn't interact with it.

Events exists, and are immaterial, yet they interact with and influence physical objects, sometimes even causing objects to come into existence. The opposite seems to be true as well: physical objects can cause non-physical events to take place. It would seem then, that there is real world verifiable evidence that this interaction problem is not really a problem.

Also, fears of things that don't exist...immaterial fears can have cause bodily stress. That's another good example of the immaterial affecting the material.

Those were just random thoughts I had this morning. Not really sure where that's going either...just groping around in the dark here...

If the mental and the physical are of different kinds, the question is how they interact, not whether they interact. We all know that the mind can influence the body, and vice versa.

But the physical is subject to the laws of nature and, as far as we know, everything it interacts with is also physical.

The simplest solution, and the one that I've settled on (pending someone disproving it) is that the mental and physical are of the same kind; i.e. what's mental is physical. The obvious analogy is a computer, every part of which is physical, including the operating system, software, memory, logic, algorithms, etc.

[seer]

The obvious analogy is a computer, every part of which is physical, including the operating system, software, memory, logic, algorithms, etc.

Not really, does a computer have the experience of love? The wonder of a sunset? Does a computer ever experience qualia? Besides a computer was created by a rational mind...

[Teallaura]

Couldn't that reasoning be applied to anything that exists? The universe obviously had the potential for it even before it was manifested, which means that it is fundamental and eternal.

Er, no. That's just lipstick on the ex nihilo pig. Potential doesn't exist in nothing. Nothing exists in nothing, including the concept of nothing.

Amazing how hard the concept of nothing is - and no, I'm not being sarcastic. Nothing really means nothing at all. No nouns regardless of what they represent. Not even an errant preposition. No space, time, conception, possibility, probability - none of anything exists in nothing so not even potential exists in true nothingness.

[Teallaura]

Dad gummit!The universe produced something, us, with minds, that can observe and analyze the universe. Why in the world would it do something like that if if it didn't already possess the intention of doing so?

It didn't. God did.

[Teallaura]

...

But the physical is subject to the laws of nature and, as far as we know, everything it interacts with is also physical.

Sorry, but this is false. Energy isn't physical.

And yes, I know there are definitions that say otherwise, but they all rely on energy affecting the physical and not physical properties of energy.

The simplest solution, and the one that I've settled on (pending someone disproving it) is that the mental and physical are of the same kind; i.e. what's mental is physical. The obvious analogy is a computer, every part of which is physical, including the operating system, software, memory, logic, algorithms, etc.

Wow, I haven't seen a devoted materialist in years. Seriously, there aren't many around any more.

The analogy doesn't hold. Energy really isn't physical. It has no physical properties of its own. We can measure it as is interacts with the physical world but can't even observe it otherwise.

And some of the memory of a computer isn't physical. Completely drain a computer of energy (and modern computers REALLY don't like this) and that memory is gone.

[Stoic]

Sorry, but this is false. Energy isn't physical.

And yes, I know there are definitions that say otherwise, but they all rely on energy affecting the physical and not physical properties of energy.

Energy is a physical quantity, the measurement of the ability of a system to do work.

Wow, I haven't seen a devoted materialist in years. Seriously, there aren't many around any more.

The term "physicalist" is generally preferred, and it applies to approximately half of all philosophers.

The analogy doesn't hold. Energy really isn't physical. It has no physical properties of its own. We can measure it as is interacts with the physical world but can't even observe it otherwise.

You might as well say that momentum isn't physical. It has no physical properties of its own. We can measure it by measuring the mass and velocity of an object, but can't even observe it otherwise.

And some of the memory of a computer isn't physical. Completely drain a computer of energy (and modern computers REALLY don't like this) and that memory is gone.

Draining a computer of energy means making a physical change to the computer.

[Stoic]

Not really, does a computer have the experience of love? The wonder of a sunset? Does a computer ever experience qualia?

Probably not yet.

Besides a computer was created by a rational mind...

Irrelevant.

[Stoic]

Er, no. That's just lipstick on the ex nihilo pig.

Actually, it was a reductio ad absurdum.

I believe machinist understood what I meant.