Re: Emergence denial: the consequences

r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, John W, another personal attac--- I mean, another interesting
subject for your comments. dkomo -- this is also for you.

The New York Times magazine section today (Sunday, Nov. 18) has a
piece by Jim Holt titled "Mind of a Rock: Is everything conscious". It
describes the philosophy of 'panpsychism' describing it originating
with Thomas Nagel and continuing through David Chalmers and Roger
Penrose to Galen Strawson. Basically, if you deny that consciousness
(or any other property for that matter) 'emerges' from complex system
organization and interactions, then you have to accept that the system
components themselves somehow 'contain' consciousness as a fundamental
property. As the article says: "So the entire universe must consist
of little bits of consciousness." It goes on to consider the atoms
in yonder rock. They wiggle and jiggle but not at random; the "see"
the entire universe through the gravitational and electromagnetic
influence of every other particle. As a result: "such a system can be
viewed as an all-purpose information processor... and where there is
information, says panpsychism, there is consciousness. In David
Chalmers' slogan 'Experience is information from the inside; physics
is information from the outside'.

So, John, you have a choice: it's either emergence or conscious
atoms (not to mention intelligent bacteria!). And if you try to
insist there is a third or 'middle way', you should know that that is
exactly the pathway of emergence that physicist R Laughlin describes.
dkomo, I already know your choice: it is atoms with information
processing, whether or not that implies consciousness.

For my own part, I far prefer emergence.

Or, you can refuse t commit the fallacy of composition and just assume
that combinatorial properties are the sum of the properties of the parts
and their interctions, and treat emergence as a handy way to talk about
this without believing that there is anything special going on
ontologically.

Chalmers' privileging of experience presumes that there can be no
reduction of that kind, and he is, in my view, relying on a *verbal*
trick.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Emergence denial: the consequences
    ... themselves somehow 'contain' consciousness as a fundamental ... So, John, you have a choice: it's either emergence or conscious ... atoms. ... bottom down") describes the ideal gas law, even the ideal gas law with ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Emergence denial: the consequences
    ... if you deny that consciousness ... It's not an either/or between bottom-up emergence and conscious atoms. ... the emergence is *inverted* in an interesting way: matter emerges in a downward direction from consciousness: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Emergence denial: the consequences
    ... consciousness as a fundamental property. ... It goes on to consider the atoms in yonder rock. ... So, John, you have a choice: it's either emergence or conscious ... computer is *doing* you need to also look at the electrons flowing through ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Emergence denial: the consequences
    ... consciousness as a fundamental property. ... It goes on to consider the atoms in yonder rock. ... So, John, you have a choice: it's either emergence or conscious ... computer is *doing* you need to also look at the electrons flowing through ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Emergence denial: the consequences
    ... themselves somehow 'contain' consciousness as a fundamental ... So, John, you have a choice: it's either emergence or conscious ... at the electron currents. ... a different pattern represents a completely different one. ...
    (talk.origins)