Materealism and morality

[drkitten]

(NB traditional dualists actually once thought that a dead body weighed less than a living once because some mysterious substance leaves the body at death.)

What's this "actually once thought"? The 2003 movie "21 Grams" is based on exactly this belief.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What's this "actually once thought"? The 2003 movie "21 Grams" is based on exactly this belief.

I knew someone would have an example of people still believing such a thing. I was being generous, I suppose--and it would be unfair to lump all dualists (JetLeg, for one) into that group. I mostly wanted to point out that even though it sounds absurd, it's one thing that traditional dualism would predict.

 

[HansMustermann]

And most symptoms are subjective experiences--especially things like pain, aches, dizziness, weakness, fatigue, etc.

Those are _excellent_ points, but this time I'm trying to keep the mental aspects of it as far out of it as possible. Otherwise we're back to the mind/brain duality, and that's something that hasn't moved forward much in the last 10 pages. The problem basically is that I needed something that's unique and "private" without involving either a mind (which gets us back to the bare assertions about that duality) or a computer (which JL apparently doesn't understand.)

And your mentioning disease is just the thing I needed IMHO. Thanks for that idea.

 

[JetLeg]

The emergent properties are those that don't exist at lower levels of organization.

Is that your definition of emergent property?

Let us do some clarification :

A big thing is made from many small things. "Bigness" doesn't exist at lower levels of organization. Would you say that "bigness" is an emergent property, or when you speak of emergent property, you think of something more complex?

I will rebutt the previous paragraph for you : "Bigness" is not a property. Size is. Since size exists at lower levels of organization, as well as in higher ones, it isn't an emergent property.

Do you agree with the rebuttal?

------------------

Second, I prefer examples from daily life.

Let us take a stone. A stone does not possess the quality of "being a thing that a person can live in". But many stones can make a building...

Is that a good example?

What is your most radical example from daily life of properties that everyone would agree that they are emergent??? (Radical in the sense that there is not the slightest trace of the properties amongst the constituents). Hans, this is a question for you also.

Also, to repeat for the umpteenth time, even if that were a problem for materialism, there's nothing about dualism that resolves it. To use your very flawed approach on dualism, you could say, "Something private can't be a property of something non-private, including non-material 'substance.'"

Well, I disagree, but I don't think we have a productive discussion on this one.

 

[HansMustermann]

Is that your definition of emergent property?

Let us do some clarification :

A big thing is made from many small things. "Bigness" doesn't exist at lower levels of organization. Would you say that "bigness" is an emergent property, or when you speak of emergent property, you think of something more complex?

I will rebutt the previous paragraph for you : "Bigness" is not a property. Size is. Since size exists at lower levels of organization, as well as in higher ones, it isn't an emergent property.

Geeze. What a surrealistic strawman, considering that I gave you plenty of examples where size had no f-ing thing to do with it, and Joe gave some too. It was the configuration and interactions that caused something different to happen.

Plus, you do... what? Mis-use a word yourself, then object semantics to your own word?

I repeat: Reducing it all to "something big made of many something smalls" is the mistake you're doing all along. Forget that.

Do you agree with the rebuttal?

I can only speak for myself, but the only thing I can aggree there is that it's the most surrealistic strawman I've read this year. And that says a lot.

Second, I prefer examples from daily life.

Let us take a stone. A stone does not possess the quality of "being a thing that a person can live in". But many stones can make a building...

Is that a good example?

It's actually a pretty poor example, because it doesn't show much in the way of _behaviour_ of the whole. Still, it's a step up from the "bigness" strawman. Not that that says much.

What is your most radical example from daily life of properties that everyone would agree that they are emergent??? (Radical in the sense that there is not the slightest trace of the properties amongst the constituents). Hans, this is a question for you also.

I gave you a bunch of examples already.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, ok, here goes nothing again. Dunno about "most radical", but think: a mechanical clock. None of the cogs and springs involved can do timekeeping on its own. It's only the whole that does that.

 

[JetLeg]

I can only speak for myself, but the only thing I can aggree there is that it's the most surrealistic strawman I've read this year. And that says a lot.

That wasn't a strawman.

I never claimed that your position _is_ that bigness is an emergent property. Where did I claim that?


And since I didn't claim that it is your position, that can't be a strawman. I used this example to clarify, to get a better understanding of your position. And I explicitly stated this.

I know that you wouldn't say that the fact that many _small_ things compose something _big_ makes it an emergent property, since you said so. I don't know that about Joe, so I ask him. What's wrong with that?


And furthermore, I know that you don't think that the fact that many _small_ things compose something _big_ makes it an emergent property, but I don't know why. You haven't offered me an explanation why it isn't, and what is your line of demarcation.

I gave you a bunch of examples already.

Well, I am sorry, but I want examples from daily life, not from science.

There are two reasons for this :

1) My science is at the level of high-school, not college. I studied physics. (Newtonian). So I am not going to grasp a complex philosophical concept based on a discipline that I have far-from-satisfactory understanding of.

2) Even if I would have college-level science education : arguments from analogies are tricky. An argument from analogy says that "X is so and so; because is X like Y; and Y is so and so". This argument can fall at two places - first if Y isn't so and so. Second, if X isn't like Y.


Because of that, if we use an analogy, we should use an example that we have _perfect_ understanding of. Since even physics becomes really complicated when QM is involved, I prefer analogies that I have a perfect understanding of, from daily life.

And if that disqualifies me as a discussion partner for you - ok, sorry.

 

[HansMustermann]

So, basically, you feel you're qualified to argue that duality is correct because you're unqualified to understand why it doesn't work that way?

Don't take it necessarily as an insult, but that seems to me a bit arrogant.

Anyway: it's a strawman because

A) it isn't what Joe was claiming either, as far as I remember his messages.

B) you claim that that's somehow a rebuttal.

When you get to debunk your own stuff, that seems to me like the very definition of a strawman.

Anyway: the fallacy that you've been doing all along, and why size is a poor example is this: Fallacy Of Division. That claim that you can't see how a whole can have property or function X unless the parts have it too, is actually a very classic fallacy and has a name.

 

[L The Detective]

Well, I am sorry, but I want examples from daily life, not from science.

There are two reasons for this :

1) My science is at the level of high-school, not college. I studied physics. (Newtonian). So I am not going to grasp a complex philosophical concept based on a discipline that I have far-from-satisfactory understanding of.

2) Even if I would have college-level science education : arguments from analogies are tricky. An argument from analogy says that "X is so and so; because is X like Y; and Y is so and so". This argument can fall at two places - first if Y isn't so and so. Second, if X isn't like Y.

That seems a little unfair, that you won't accept examples from science. Examples from real life are all going to be of the variety of "clock" and "car," which I understand why they aren't satisfying examples for you, but I don't see how you can possibly get anything better than that. I'm thinking, though.

 

[L The Detective]

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.

Just a suggestion. If it's very important for you to convince skeptics, I think a formal argument of why something private can't be a "property" is pretty much mandatory. If you're gonna keep sharpening your arguments, I would advise that you put most of your energies into this idea.

From my own point of view, I would say I feel neutral about it. Which is to say, I have no idea whether "privateness" should or should not arise out of something non-private. Maybe, in our universe, that's just the way it works. I want to be very careful about making assumptions about something I don't understand... on the other hand, if I am able to understand that it is impossible for this to happen, then I'll have to agree with you on everything you've said. But for now, I have no choice but to stick to materialism, and put the other half of dualism on the hypothetical shelf until new evidence comes in. Hope you understand.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know that you wouldn't say that the fact that many _small_ things compose something _big_ makes it an emergent property, since you said so. I don't know that about Joe, so I ask him. What's wrong with that?

Size is a property of small things and big things. An emergent property is a property that doesn't exist at those lower levels at all.

I gave you a careful explanation of the notion of emergent properties before. IIRC, I also pointed you toward a Wiki article on it. It's not "my" definition. It's a standard idea in chemistry, biology--even philosophy.

And furthermore, I know that you don't think that the fact that many _small_ things compose something _big_ makes it an emergent property, but I don't know why. You haven't offered me an explanation why it isn't, and what is your line of demarcation.

Yes, I have. An emergent property is one that doesn't exist at the lower levels of organization.

Size is a property that exists at the lower level. Stacking up things of one size and ending up with a larger size is NOT an example of an emergent property.

Try putting "emergent property" into google and see what you find. Better yet, look up the term in any decent college-level general biology textbook.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, I am sorry, but I want examples from daily life, not from science.

There are two reasons for this :

1) My science is at the level of high-school, not college. I studied physics. (Newtonian). So I am not going to grasp a complex philosophical concept based on a discipline that I have far-from-satisfactory understanding of.

2) Even if I would have college-level science education : arguments from analogies are tricky. An argument from analogy says that "X is so and so; because is X like Y; and Y is so and so". This argument can fall at two places - first if Y isn't so and so. Second, if X isn't like Y.


Because of that, if we use an analogy, we should use an example that we have _perfect_ understanding of. Since even physics becomes really complicated when QM is involved, I prefer analogies that I have a perfect understanding of, from daily life.

And if that disqualifies me as a discussion partner for you - ok, sorry.

First, knowledge of QM is not necessary for this conversation.

However, you've got to be willing to learn about biology if you're going to argue that biology isn't sufficient to account for something. If not, your opinion is one born of ignorance.

And what you've said here about wanting examples from everyday life (but not science--as if the two were separate!) yet you have trouble with analogies makes it impossible to offer anything that will satisfy you.

In other words, the examples I offered of emergent properties were NOT analogies--they were all actual examples of emergent properties. You reject those because you are unwilling to learn a bit of science.

Examples from everyday life are more likely to be analogies. You reject those because analogies can be tricky.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which is to say, I have no idea whether "privateness" should or should not arise out of something non-private.

I'm not fond of substituting "privateness" for "subjective", but I'll show that "privateness" is no great mystery.

In a couple of locations in our bodies, there are cells that act as CO₂ sensors--that is, they detect proportions of CO₂ in the blood. (IIRC, one of these sites is in the subclavian artery, but that's just a memory from last time I studied this stuff some 12 years ago.) These "sensors" provide information to the autonomic nervous system and, for example, too much CO₂ (that is a lack of O₂) will result in elevated heartrate and quicker respiration and some other changes.

My point is this--the information they detect is "private". The sensors in my body do not measure CO₂ in your bloodstream.

 

[JetLeg]

Examples from everyday life are more likely to be analogies. You reject those because analogies can be tricky.

No. I don't reject analogies from everyday life because they can be tricky. The opposite -> because analogies can be tricky, I prefer analogies that are from everyday life.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Simple flatworms, planaria, have eyespots capable of detecting areas of more or less light. (They're not nearly as sophisticated as an eye.) Do you think the neural underpinnings of this simple visual system implies some sort of subjective experience in a planarian?

We can test them, and we see that they behave as if they could sense the presence of light. We see neural structures that would explain their ability to process the information from the light-sensitive cells in these eyespots. Yet we can't ever experience what a planarian experiences.

I don't see this as a problem to understanding how this all works. You could imagine a planarian that actually has subjective experience and you could imagine a zombie planarian that is merely an automaton and has no subjective experience. It doesn't change anything at all.

There is certainly no need to hypothesize dualism in planaria to explain anything.

The difference with humans is that I myself can experience my own subjective experience. I assume other humans have a similar experience. (To doubt that is solipsism.) I can't prove that they do. I could be the only human that actually has subjective experience.

Neuroscience is sufficient to explain how I (and others) can have that subjective experience. I personally not only assume that other humans have subjective experience but also that other organisms have similar sorts of experience--again to varying degrees. The mental capacities and functions we lump together as "mind" exist in many other animals in one form or another.

Again, neuroscience is sufficient to explain all this. To require unnecessary entities is to go against Occam's Razor. There's no need to create these additional entities.

If you don't think your argument is a violation of Occam's Razor, isn't it at least your burden to learn enough science to show that neuroscience is insufficient to explain all this?

 

[JetLeg]

So, basically, you feel you're qualified to argue that duality is correct because you're unqualified to understand why it doesn't work that way?

Don't take it necessarily as an insult, but that seems to me a bit arrogant.

Well, I am asking for examples not from science for something specific -> to demonstrate the concept "emergent property". As far as I understand the concept, it is a property that exists in the whole structure, but not in any specific constituent.

In this definition, I see no reason why it cannot be demonstrated from daily life.

If it can demonstrated in daily life, it is much better.


So the area in which I am asking for daily life examples is just to illustrate a concept... To use an analogy, this paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

is much more clear when explained on a ship, than it would be if we would explain it on a molecule...


If the question at stake would be a question of evidence, I would not do it.

Also, if some of you would tell me that emergent properties cannot be demonstrated with real life examples, I wouldn't ask him to. But since none of you told this, and I see no reason why it should be impossible, I think my request is fair.

-----------------------------------

You didn't like too much the example of "Ability to be lived in" that exists in a house, but not in its bricks. Why?

Can you supply a better example from daily life?

What about the example from your wiki link?

A plane has the property of "being able to fly accross the ocean", but each of its components when taken separately, doesn't.

Good enough? Have a better one?

That claim that you can't see how a whole can have property or function X unless the parts have it too, is actually a very classic fallacy and has a name.

Well, but this is not what I am claiming. What I say is that when one knows the parts, and the interactions between them -> it usually is possible to predict how will the whole behave, or at least understand why it behaves in such a way.

I am not a chemist, but a chemist that understands the qualities of molecules and the interactions between them would understand why a chemical reaction occurs in a certain way. Right?

A person that understands the constituents of a computer ( transistors ) and the types of interactions among them understand why they give rise to the computational ability of the pc. Right?


Now, the basic constituents of the brain are protons, electrons, and neutrons. There are four types of forces among them -> weak, strong, gravitational, electromagnetic.

I try to imagine a possible explanation why do these cause private experience, and that escapes me. By what force non-private entities, and the interactions among them cause something private to occur? How do you explain the whole by its parts?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. I don't reject analogies from everyday life because they can be tricky. The opposite -> because analogies can be tricky, I prefer analogies that are from everyday life.

OK, then consider a radio receiver. You know the function of a radio-- receive modulated signals broadcast in a certain range of frequencies and translate those signals into sound waves (a pattern of minute changes in air pressure).

Open a radio, and pull out a piece--say a resistor from a circuit board. Does this thing have the properties of a radio receiver? No, but it does have the properties of a resistor. (That is, when you pass a current across it, it will provide a certain consistently measurable resistance, as measured in units of resistance called Ohms. In this example, let's say the resistance is x Ohms plus or minus x/1000 Ohms)

So now consider the resistor. It consists of a couple of components--two pieces of wire stuck into a bit of ceramic, perhaps. Pull out just one of the wire thingies. Does it have the properties of the resistor? Nope--when you pass a current through it, the resistance it offers is substantially less than the rating for the resistor as a whole.

You could continue this process, and at each higher level of organization, there may be emergent properties--properties which don't exist at all at the lower level.

There's an example from everyday life.

To me, it makes more sense to just stick with the actual concepts in biology. Atoms are organized into molecules that have properties that none of the component atoms have. Molecules are organized into cells, which have properties that none of the component molecules have. Cells are organized into tissues, tissues into organs and organs into organ systems. The CNS is one of the most complex and highly organized systems in humans. There are emergent properties at every level.

 

[JetLeg]

That seems a little unfair, that you won't accept examples from science. Examples from real life are all going to be of the variety of "clock" and "car," which I understand why they aren't satisfying examples for you, but I don't see how you can possibly get anything better than that. I'm thinking, though.

See my answer to Han for explanations.

I am fine with "clock" and "car", I think.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now, the basic constituents of the brain are protons, electrons, and neutrons. There are four types of forces among them -> weak, strong, gravitational, electromagnetic.

I try to imagine a possible explanation why do these cause private experience, and that escapes me. By what force non-private entities, and the interactions among them cause something private to occur? How do you explain the whole by its parts?

Yep--you seem to have utterly missed the point of emergent properties.

When you bring your car into a mechanic, do you think he is concerned at all with the fact that the basic constituents of your car are protons, electrons and neutrons? I've never seen a bin at the auto parts store labeled "protons".

What force of a subatomic particle causes the functions of a car (something I can put fuel in and drive around, honk the horn, work the lights to transport me and my stuff from one place to another)?

 

[JetLeg]

transport me and my stuff from one place to another)?

This is not hard. Electromagnetic force. It is the electromagnetic force that repels atoms aside, and therefore it is the electromagnetic force that is eventually responsible for the transportation of you and your stuff.