Materealism and morality

[RandFan]

Are you a programmer?

I am. And BTW, I'm a former dualist. A passionate one who came to this forum to debate in favor of dualism. I've been interested in mind brain for about as long as I can remember. I came up with my own version of the Chinese room long before I knew who John Searle was or had heard of his thought experiment.

Because the analogies are for something with property X that arises from something without property X, it doesn't have to be an analogy to mind-brain.

Flight is a property that arises from a number of things that individually do not have that property.

I've no doubt that the mind is much the same.

 

[JetLeg]

And BTW, I'm a former dualist. A passionate one who came to this forum to debate in favor of dualism. I've been interested in mind brain for about as long as I can remember. I came up with my own version of the Chinese room long before I knew who John Searle was or had heard of his thought experiment.

Cool.

So what did convince you?

 

[HansMustermann]

Like I said, so far I cannot present a formal argument why something private can't be a property of something non-private. It just makes no sense to me. But I'll think of it. The arguments I have presented are arguments why something private can't be a _process_ of something non-private. Because a process has to be explained in terms of its constituents. And also, why it can't be an "emergent" property - because for something to be an emergent property, the explanation of why it emerges has to be found amongst the constituents.

Actually, I just felt like adding that here you actually skirt the correct answer, but come out the other side saying that it can't be so.

Yes, the mind is explained by the individual neurons. But the wrong postulate you do (as far as I can tell) is basically that if the end result has property X, then each individual piece of it must have property X too. And that's a too simplistic view of the world IMHO.

Ok, let's try some non-computer examples:

A) a cube made of glucose.

- it's made of C, O and H atoms. Neither is sweet. (Oxygen in air doesn't taste sweet, a graphite rod from a pencil doesn't either, and adding H to O gives you water which isn't sweet either.) But a very specific combination of them is sweet anyway.

So in effect sweetness emerges from components which aren't sweet.

- no known atoms are cubical. But the end result is a cube.

B) rust. (Red iron oxide.) Iron isn't red, oxygen isn't red. If oxygen were red, you'd notice it in the air around you. But the combination of the two is red.

C) thermite. Both aluminium and iron oxide are very stable and don't burn in air. The combination of the two burns fast and creates lots of energy.

D) your computer. It's just a bunch of CMOS transistors. (No, seriously, everything from CPU to RAM is just billions of transistors.) No individual transistor can do such things as connect to the Internet or show this page. None of them is capable of even storing a single letter on this page. But the sum can do a lot more.

Etc.

 

[JetLeg]

Actually, I just felt like adding that here you actually skirt the correct answer, but come out the other side saying that it can't be so.

Yes, the mind is explained by the individual neurons. But the wrong postulate you do (as far as I can tell) is basically that if the end result has property X, then each individual piece of it must have property X too. And that's a too simplistic view of the world IMHO.

Ok, let's try some non-computer examples:

A) a cube made of glucose.

- it's made of C, O and H atoms. Neither is sweet. (Oxygen in air doesn't taste sweet, a graphite rod from a pencil doesn't either, and adding H to O gives you water which isn't sweet either.) But a very specific combination of them is sweet anyway.

So in effect sweetness emerges from components which aren't sweet.

- no known atoms are cubical. But the end result is a cube.

B) rust. (Red iron oxide.) Iron isn't red, oxygen isn't red. If oxygen were red, you'd notice it in the air around you. But the combination of the two is red.

C) thermite. Both aluminium and iron oxide are very stable and don't burn in air. The combination of the two burns fast and creates lots of energy.

D) your computer. It's just a bunch of CMOS transistors. (No, seriously, everything from CPU to RAM is just billions of transistors.) No individual transistor can do such things as connect to the Internet or show this page. None of them is capable of even storing a single letter on this page. But the sum can do a lot more.

Etc.

Ok.

Can you explain in each case, why the combination of the individuals gives rise to a new X?

(Hey, something BIG arises from many SMALL things. But there is a link between MANY small and BIG ).

 

[RandFan]

Cool.

So what did convince you?

Many things. One being a Stimpson J. Cat (former poster). He was very good in debate and had a very good understanding of the issues. Discussions/debates with Paul Anagstopolus, Upchurch, Mercutio and many others helped. It was also trying to come up with valid arguments that weren't of the form trying to demonstrate the weakness of monism. I knew that similar arguments were made to explain why humans couldn't synthesize carbon, unlock the mysteries of disease, genetics, etc.. Ultimately humans did in fact discover the answers and now they are accepted as mater of fact and they do not bring to mind supernatural explanations. I came to accept that questions are not answers.

I didn't go down without a fight though.

 

[JetLeg]

Many things. One being a Stimpson J. Cat (former poster). He was very good in debate and had a very good understanding of the issues. Discussions/debates with Paul Anagstopolus, Upchurch, Mercutio and many others helped. It was also trying to come up with valid arguments that weren't of the form trying to demonstrate the weakness of monism. I knew that similar arguments were made to explain why humans couldn't synthesize carbon, unlock the mysteries of disease, genetics, etc.. Ultimately humans did in fact discover the answers and now they are accepted as mater of fact and they do not bring to mind supernatural explanations. I came to accept that questions are not answers.

I didn't go down without a fight though.

Do you think there is something supernatural in dualism?

Can you link me to some threads?

 

[HansMustermann]

It's not as much a case of "big" vs "small", and in fact IMHO that's the over-simplification you're doing.

All those examples are a question of configurations and interactions between the pieces. That's what creates something else.

To take them in order:

A) glucose. It's not just big candy from small atoms. It's that a very specific ring configuration can bind to the relevant proteins on your tongue, to trigger the "sweetness" signal. The atoms on their own, or most other configurations of the same atoms, don't react with that protein at all.

B) rust. Metallic iron is just a reflective grey, oxygen dioxide is transparent, but a certain iron oxide mollecule has the resonance frequencies just right to look red.

C) thermite. Because in that combination the iron oxide is actually the oxidizer, wheras if you tried to burn iron oxide in the air it would be the fuel and since it's already oxidized, it doesn't burn any further. It's the transfer of oxigen from the iron oxide to the aluminium that creates that huge amount of energy when thermite burns.

D) the computer. Well, here we're getting into hardware design and I really don't know how to explain it simply. But let's try.

Let's think of a simple structure which can hold a 1 or a 0. One such is a bistable circuit. (Has 2 stable states, hence the name.) A.k.a., a flip flop. You need at least two transistors to make one.

The secret there is that when one transistor is conducting, it applies a voltage on the other transistor's gate that opens the circuit there. And viceversa. In more than one way. Because the other transistor isn't letting current through, the first one's gate doesn't get electrons on it, and it can continue to let current through.

Awful explanation, I know. But ayway: It's the combination of two transistors which can store a 1 or a 0, while each of them on its own can't.

(Well, there are many other ways to store a 1 or a 0, some with just a transistor, but then they need more transistors in some other circuitry one one way or another too. Anyway, the above is typically what you have in your CPU.)

 

[RandFan]

Do you think there is something supernatural in dualism?

I can't think of any alternatives other than there is some unknown and as yet undetectable force akin to magnetism. I tried that track but it's without a stitch of evidence and contradicted by the evidence (see Phineas Gage and Ramachandran's A Brief Tour Of Human Consciousness). It's like positing aether to explain the propagation of light through space.

In the past, my answer to Phineas Gage and other phenomena like Alzheimer's is that the brain is akin to the vehicle and the mind akin to the driver. If the vehicle is damaged then it could give the impression that the driver was addled when in fact it is perfectly healthy and unchanged. However, over time this answer became less and less convincing as it left open the question of how the driver in this case (the mind) perceives. The problem becomes an infinite regress. To posit a mind separate from the brain is to explain absolutely nothing. It's just inserting a place holder to fill in the gap of our understanding like the Aether. The homonculus/Cartesian theater tells us nothing and suggests nothing as to the ultimate answer of consciousness.

Can you link me to some threads?

I'll look but I'm afraid most of that was lost 6 or 7 years ago in the great purge.

 

[JetLeg]

It's not as much a case of "big" vs "small", and in fact IMHO that's the over-simplification you're doing.

All those examples are a question of configurations and interactions between the pieces. That's what creates something else.

To take them in order:

A) glucose. It's not just big candy from small atoms. It's that a very specific ring configuration can bind to the relevant proteins on your tongue, to trigger the "sweetness" signal. The atoms on their own, or most other configurations of the same atoms, don't react with that protein at all.

B) rust. Metallic iron is just a reflective grey, oxygen dioxide is transparent, but a certain iron oxide mollecule has the resonance frequencies just right to look red.

C) thermite. Because in that combination the iron oxide is actually the oxidizer, wheras if you tried to burn iron oxide in the air it would be the fuel and since it's already oxidized, it doesn't burn any further. It's the transfer of oxigen from the iron oxide to the aluminium that creates that huge amount of energy when thermite burns.

D) the computer. Well, here we're getting into hardware design and I really don't know how to explain it simply. But let's try.

Let's think of a simple structure which can hold a 1 or a 0. One such is a bistable circuit. (Has 2 stable states, hence the name.) A.k.a., a flip flop. You need at least two transistors to make one.

The secret there is that when one transistor is conducting, it applies a voltage on the other transistor's gate that opens the circuit there. And viceversa. In more than one way. Because the other transistor isn't letting current through, the first one's gate doesn't get electrons on it, and it can continue to let current through.

Awful explanation, I know. But ayway: It's the combination of two transistors which can store a 1 or a 0, while each of them on its own can't.

(Well, there are many other ways to store a 1 or a 0, some with just a transistor, but then they need more transistors in some other circuitry one one way or another too. Anyway, the above is typically what you have in your CPU.)

Ok. Is it possible to see in each case _why_ the constituents combined give rise to a new property?

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, there is a very good explanation for each of them.

 

[RandFan]

Ok. Is it possible to see in each case _why_ the constituents combined give rise to a new property?

I'm curious as to this question. Why is the answer significant one way or the other?

 

[JetLeg]

I'm curious as to this question. Why is the answer significant one way or the other?

Because the mind has the property of being private. No one can feel your pain. Only you can.

And I fail to see _why_ would electrons, neutrons, and protons, using the weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces would create the property of something being private. Where is the link?

Of course, you can say that we don't know the link. Fine. Invent one. Use your imagination to suggest a possible link between non-private phenomena and private.

 

[RandFan]

Because the mind has the property of being private. No one can feel your pain. Only you can.

And I fail to see _why_ would electrons, neutrons, and protons, using the weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces would create the property of something being private. Where is the link?


Of course, you can say that we don't know the link. Fine. Invent one. Use your imagination to suggest a possible link between non-private phenomena and private.

Ok, just to make certain I'm clear with your thesis, just because there was no explanation for light propagating through space it was reasonable to insert the aether? You are saying that ignorance is proof of something? My inability to "find a link" is proof of something?

• When humans could not synthesize carbon it was believed to be proof of something.
• When humans could not explain flight it was believed to be proof of something.
• When humans could not explain the motion of the planets it was believed to be proof of something.

Here's my question, when in history has ignorance ever born out to be proof of something?

 

[HansMustermann]

Because the mind has the property of being private. No one can feel your pain. Only you can.

And I fail to see _why_ would electrons, neutrons, and protons, using the weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces would create the property of something being private. Where is the link?

Of course, you can say that we don't know the link. Fine. Invent one. Use your imagination to suggest a possible link between non-private phenomena and private.

It seems to me like I did more than once, but apparently you create the impossible setup where:

- if it's about any other property X other than "privacy", somehow it doesn't matter for you because it's not exactly privacy

- if it's an example about computers, the only ones which can actually illustrate the "private" aspect, it's not good enough because you don't understand it

It's not even the first such time in this thread alone.

It seems to me like this isn't as much a discussion, as rationalizing your preconceived notions. You already have the answer you want to hear, and you work backwards towards gerrimandering the problem space so there's nothing else that's acceptable by your arbitrary redefinitions.

It's as if I postulated a dualism between running and legs, and then proceeded to reparcel the problem space so:

- any example from mechanics, I reject because I don't understand mechanics

- any other example from another domain, I reject because, pretty much, "yeah, but that's another property than running."

It's just an elaborately roundabout way of saying that you've already decided that you're not listening to anything but what you've already decided you wanted to hear. Only exception is that instead of the kindergarten "la la la, I'm not listening", you're creating an impossible set of arbitrary axioms by which anything else doesn't count for you.

Do you see any point in continuing the discussion? Because I don't see it getting any further than discussions with Kathy.

 

[JetLeg]

It's just an elaborately roundabout way of saying that you've already decided that you're not listening to anything but what you've already decided you wanted to hear. Only exception is that instead of the kindergarten "la la la, I'm not listening", you're creating an impossible set of arbitrary axioms by which anything else doesn't count for you.

First, if you think, so - ok. We don't have to continue this.

Do you see any point in continuing the discussion? Because I don't see it getting any further than discussions with Kathy.

If you understand dualism is true, you will be saved and live in heaven after death.

It seems to me like I did more than once, but apparently you create the impossible setup where:

- if it's about any other property X other than "privacy", somehow it doesn't matter for you because it's not exactly privacy

- if it's an example about computers, the only ones which can actually illustrate the "private" aspect, it's not good enough because you don't understand it

It's not even the first such time in this thread alone.

It seems to me like this isn't as much a discussion, as rationalizing your preconceived notions. You already have the answer you want to hear, and you work backwards towards gerrimandering the problem space so there's nothing else that's acceptable by your arbitrary redefinitions.

It's as if I postulated a dualism between running and legs, and then proceeded to reparcel the problem space so:

- any example from mechanics, I reject because I don't understand mechanics

- any other example from another domain, I reject because, pretty much, "yeah, but that's another property than running."

Well, I don't have enough expertise in computers to understand the analogy. Perhaps you think this is dishonesty, well....

And regarding the other examples, I single privacy, not because this is what we are discussing. I single it out, because I really can't grasp how it can be the logical result of non-private constituents.

 

[RandFan]

If you understand dualism is true, you will be saved and live in heaven after death.

Based on what theory? What does belief have to do with it? What proof do you have?

I single privacy, not because this is what we are discussing. I single it out, because I really can't grasp how it can be the logical result of non-private constituents.

Ok but bear in mind that there was a time, a long time ago (long before Columbus) when people couldn't grasp how the world could be round (spherical actually). Or (not that long ago) that the Sun didn't revolve around the earth. Hell, I can't grasp that time and space are physical things that can be manipulated.

My GPS system relies on the theory of relativity (that space time is physical) to work. That I don't understand it or can't quite grasp it doesn't negate the reality. I accept relativity because it is the only intellectually honest position I can take. Same with rejecting dualism.

Ignorance isn't a basis for believing anything. It's just ignorance. And I don't mean this to belittle you so please forgive me if it offends. Offending is not my intent.

 

[L The Detective]

And regarding the other examples, I single privacy, not because this is what we are discussing. I single it out, because I really can't grasp how it can be the logical result of non-private constituents.

Maybe that's just the way it works? Why do you assume that it isn't?

Based on what theory? What does belief have to do with it? What proof do you have?

He was kidding.

 

[RandFan]

He was kidding.

Oh.... my bad.

 

[JetLeg]

Maybe that's just the way it works? Why do you assume that it isn't?

Perhaps privacy is the effect of some objective entities.

But what materealists usually do is not say that it's an effect, but say that its like.... running to legs. Or flight to wings.

With this I can't agree, since I understand how legs cause running, but don't understand how objectivity causes privacy.

So those analogies are really bad.

 

[JetLeg]

Based on what theory? What does belief have to do with it? What proof do you have?

Yes, I was joking (see the context).


But you ask the right questions...