Emergence smashed by Dr. Marco Biagini

[O' Yeah]

Originally Posted by eveshi

If macroscopic (or emergent) properties presuppose consciousness, then how can consciousness emerge from a situation when no consciousness is present, as materialists believe? It can't, so it must be microscopic/fundamental. That's Biagini's point, I think.

Certainly not microscopic because that would still make consciousness a material thing. I would go for "fundamental irreducible uncreated no-thing"...

[really]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

It simplified a nagging question. Is that not enough for you?

I didn't ask these questions specifically of you, but if you deem to answer then you should answer them directly.
I remember the conversation on that other forum where you were asked point blank a direct question and you did everything you could not to answer the question. Certainly you do remember ?


Let me ask again. What difference does it make in your daily life materialism is false ?

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by really

I didn't ask these questions specifically of you, but if you deem to answer then you should answer them directly.
I remember the conversation on that other forum where you were asked point blank a direct question and you did everything you could not to answer the question. Certainly you do remember ?


Let me ask again. What difference does it make in your daily life materialism is false ?

The sum total of the effect on my life is that a nagging question was resolved.

That's it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Biagini

A last typical contradiction in materialism is the claim that the electric impulse in the brain generate consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in our brain are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of our brain (electric impulses are formed uniquely by some moving electrons), and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields.

How does this differ from:

A last typical contradiction in materialism is the claim that the electric impulse in a computer generate computation. Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in a computer are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of the computer (electric impulses are formed uniquely by some moving electrons), and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields.


~~ Paul

[sbu]

I'm not sure a true materialist believes in strong emergence. Materialism is tied in with reductionism and for the materialist - consciousness must be explainable in terms of it's parts - the properties of matter.

Strong emergence fits more with David Chalmers standpoint of property dualism.

The human mind does not have a capacity to solve a problem without breaking it down into simpler parts. We do that with everything we do - from solving mathematical problems to building houses. If reality can't be explained with a reductionist approach then I suspect our science will eventually get to a stagnation without any hopes for future exploration of reality.

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by sbu

I'm not sure a true materialist believes in strong emergence. Materialism is tied in with reductionism and for the materialist - consciousness must be explainable in terms of it's parts - the properties of matter.

Strong emergence fits more with David Chalmers standpoint of property dualism.

The human mind does not have a capacity to solve a problem without breaking it down into simpler parts. We do that with everything we do - from solving mathematical problems to building houses. If reality can't be explained with a reductionist approach then I suspect our science will eventually get to a stagnation without any hopes for future exploration of reality.

Originally Posted by Stephen Hawking

We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle. The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes.

Hawking Gives Up | Not Even Wrong

[Bruce Siegel]

Wow--I love this article. It hits mainstream science where it lives. Which is to say, it attacks unexamined metaphysical assumptions by insisting that we respect the laws of physics. And it's written so beautifully (by someone who is clearly not a native speaker) that even I can understand it.

The part I like the best is this:

"Another argument used by materialists is the hypothesis that psychical life could be generated by the fact that in the brain there are many exchanges of information. Also this is a case of logical contradiction, because the concept itself of information presupposes the existence of consciousness, and so this concept cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness. Materialists often say that also in computers there are many informations, but this is an improper language. In fact, in computers there are only electric impulses. It is the human mind who has established a conventional code that allows to identify specific successions of electric impulses as pieces of information. It is the same for the Morse alphabet: a succession of points and lines is not by itself an information; it becomes an information only if a conscious and intelligent mind has established a conventional code to attribute a given meaning to that succession of points and lines. So, every information is always the product of conscious psychical life, which proves that the concept of information cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness."

I like this because the argument is made by materialists (Paul and Arouet have defended this idea) that computers, as they acquire the ability to store more and more information, may one day become conscious. This argument has great significance to materialists because, if valid, it shows that consciousness is emergent rather than fundamental. And it's made based on the assumption that what a computer contains is similar to what a mind contains--information or data.

But Biagini shows that a computer does NOT store information. And that's because the very concept of data or information presupposes consciousness.

So what exactly is the basis, then, for assuming that computers are on the way towards becoming conscious, much less assuming, as some materialists seem to do, that computers may even be conscious as they now stand?

Paul, Arouet, Really--I'd love to see you have a go at refuting any of Biagini's arguments, particularly the one I've discussed.

Really said:

To all. So now what ? How does this change your daily life ? Is your life any better now than it was before reading this article ?

Reading something like this liberates me. The more I rid my mind of its last vestiges of materialist thinking, the freer I am to trust my own logic, intuition, and experience. And they point me in a direction that, compared to my old way of seeing things, feels so much more exciting and meaningful.

[Bruce Siegel]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

How does this differ from:
A last typical contradiction in materialism is the claim that the electric impulse in a computer generate computation. Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in a computer are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of the computer (electric impulses are formed uniquely by some moving electrons), and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields.
l

Why are you even bringing computers into the discussion? As Biagini shows (see my last comment), computers and computation bear no resemblance at all to thinking and consciousness. None. There's no information inside a computer!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Bruce Siegel

Paul, Arouet, Really--I'd love to see you have a go at refuting any of Biagini's arguments, particularly the one I've discussed.

Originally Posted by Biagini

Another argument used by materialists is the hypothesis that psychical life could be generated by the fact that in the brain there are many exchanges of information. Also this is a case of logical contradiction, because the concept itself of information presupposes the existence of consciousness, and so this concept cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness. Materialists often say that also in computers there are many informations, but this is an improper language. In fact, in computers there are only electric impulses. It is the human mind who has established a conventional code that allows to identify specific successions of electric impulses as pieces of information. It is the same for the Morse alphabet: a succession of points and lines is not by itself an information; it becomes an information only if a conscious and intelligent mind has established a conventional code to attribute a given meaning to that succession of points and lines. So, every information is always the product of conscious psychical life, which proves that the concept of information cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness.

This argument is vapid.

Just because humans have named information "information," talked about the concept, and deveoped theories of it does not eliminate the fact that there is information in nature. If there was no information in nature, nothing would work. An obvious example is DNA: What the hell are codons if not carriers of information?

People constantly make the argument that because some concept is created by conscious humans, the thing/process named by the concept does not exist without consciousness. If you want to argue that nothing exists without consciousness, go for it. But don't pick out information as a special case.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Bruce Siegel

Why are you even bringing computers into the discussion? As Biagini shows (see my last comment), computers and computation bear no resemblance at all to thinking and consciousness. None. There's no information inside a computer!

Ooh, good cross-post!

Of course there is information in a computer. But that's not why I brought up computers. I was objecting to his simplistic claim that electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. Perhaps you'd rather read this:

A last typical contradiction in materialism is the claim that the electric impulse in the atmosphere generate heat. Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in the atmosphere are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of the atmosphere (electric impulses are formed uniquely by some moving electrons), and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields.

Ask the tree burned by the lightning strike.

~~ Paul