Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.

In article <1157472692.873971.294440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ymir wrote:
In article <1157408521.550826.96400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"someone3" <glenn.spigel3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ymir wrote:
It's not (2) that is at issue here -- at least not in strict ontological
sense; given that the laws of physics make no direct reference to
consciousness, then consciousness must ultimately follow from those
things which physics does make direct reference to. The fact that
consciousness derives from physical properties does not, however, entail
that it is epistemically practical to talk about consciousness in these
terms rather than relying on higher level abstracta. Those here who have
claimed that physics and chemistry are not the appropriate sciences for
dealing with conscious experience are (at least for the most part
AFAICT) objecting to methodological reductionism, not ontological
reductionism. No one here (other than you) is claiming that
consciousness in any way violates or is separate from the fundamental
laws of physics.

I'd be perfectly willing to accept (2), though a change in the modal
verb from 'must' to 'can in principle' would probably make it more
palatable.

What is at issue is your leap to (3). Just because consciousness is
ultimately derived from the physical properties of matter does *not*
entail that consciousness does not effect behaviour. It simply implies
that consciousness is a derived concept rooted in more fundamental
physical concepts. That doesn't preclude it from entering into causal
relations, nor does it mean that it cannot afford a selective advantage
to organisms which possess it.

Without (3), of course, the remainder of your argument collapses.


Of course.

So you accept:
1) If the organism follows the laws of physics as you so clearly state,
then presumably it can be explained by physics.

and you accept:
2) Given physics doesn't reference 'consciousness', the organism's
behaviour must be explainable without reference to its 'consciousness'.

As I pointed out, I would prefer a wording with 'can in principle'
rather than 'must'.

You also seem to be overlooking the word 'fundamental' in my earlier
post. Everything in the universe ultimately derives from fundamental
physical laws, but we routinely make use of additional concepts as well.

Would you, for example, consider the ideal gas law

pV = nRT

to be a law of physics?

Most would, but it refers to entities (notably temperature and pressure)
which are not fundamental physical properties.

The behaviour of a gas ultimately results from the electrostatic forces
between the protons and electrons which comprise the molecules of the
gas (gravitational forces are also at work, but unless the body of gas
is quite large they can generally be ignored). However, actually
calculating the forces at work between each and every subatomic particle
in the gas or tracking their individual kinetic energies is simply not a
tractable problem. Therefore, we introduce abstractions such as pressure
and temperature which allow us to describe the behaviour of the
aggregate without reference to the individual particles. Pressure and
temperature are very much real physical properties despite the fact that
they can in principle be explained in terms of more basic physical
interactions. They have a causal role in explaining the way the universe
works.

Consciousness is simply a higher order of abstraction. It allows us to
discuss the behaviour of an aggregate of neurons (or of whatever since I
don't want to assume that consciousness can only arise in creatures like
us) without the tedium of dealing with each individual neuron (and
neurons themselves are yet another abstraction which allows us to talk
about a particular assembly of proteins etc. as a single entity rather
than talking about each of its component parts). More fundamental laws
of biology will not refer to consciousness, but consciousness can be
derived from those laws, which can in turn be derived from yet more
fundamental laws of chemistry, which can in turn be derived from even
more fundamental physical laws.

but you don't accept:

3) Therefore 'consciousness' does not effect behaviour, as it is not
required to explain any behaviour.

It is not *required* in the same sense that temperature and pressure are
not required. However, it is a lot more convenient to refer to
consciousness than it is to deal with the interactions between every
neuron in your body, which is in turn more convenient than describing
the behaviour of each neuron in terms of organelles, molecules, atoms,
or quarks and leptons.

Your point seems to be: "Just because consciousness is ultimately
derived from the physical properties of matter does *not* entail that
consciousness does not effect behaviour."

Correct. I can't see anyone accepting such a proposition.

Though in accepting (2) you have already agreed that behaviour can be
explained without any reference to 'consciousness', how can this be, if
'consciousness' effects behaviour?

It can be in exactly the same way that it can be that pressure effects
the behaviour of a gas despite the fact that pressure can itself be
derived from more fundamental interactions between particles governed by
forces which do not make reference to pressure.

Claiming that consciousness rests on physical properties is not, despite
what you might believe, equivalent to denying that it is a real physical
entity. The *fundamental* laws of physics do not reference consciousness
any more than they reference gasses, organisms, or any other larger
scale collection of molecules. This does not, however, entail that
derived laws (whether they be treated as laws of physics or of biology
or of neuropsychology, or whatever) cannot reference these things or
that these things cannot be used as part of explanations.

André

--
use rot thirteen to email
ntvfnnx (at) tznvy.pbz

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... >> consciousness, then consciousness must ultimately follow from those ... >> things which physics does make direct reference to. ... >> laws of physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We Robot
    ... same laws of physics that would describe the behaviour of something ... Since consciousness is what you purport to be discussing, ... with respect to their predictions regarding an entirely unobservable ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... you are conceding that consciousness is physical ... yet the brain does not violate any laws of physics. ... with the assumption that it didn't have any subjective experiences ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We Robot
    ... that because they do follow the same laws of physics that we can never ... as the robot isn't composed of organic chemicals, ... be simulating the consciousness without knowing it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... given that the laws of physics make no direct reference to ... consciousness, then consciousness must ultimately follow from those ... things which physics does make direct reference to. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading