Physicalists: does this question make sense?

[GrowingSmaller]

Is consciousness a primary or secondary quality?

The distinction between primary and secondary qualities was introduced by Locke. See Primary/secondary quality distinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tinker Grey]

I am not qualified to answer whether consciousness is one or the other, but I think the question makes sense.

For me the question is like asking whether love exists. That is, is it a thing or is it a name we give to a set of actions and attitudes and brain states.

Here, if the question makes sense as I think it does, is consciousness a thing (are there units of it) or is it a name we give to a brain contemplating itself--being able to distinguish itself from its surroundings. The first would be primary; the second secondary.

In Conversations on Consciousness by Susan Blackmore wherein she interviews many of the leading studiers of consciousness, I'd have to say that it seems that there are two camps. To me, those that considered Consciousness a secondary property--if I understand correctly, an emergent property would be a type of secondary property--were considerably more convincing.

It seems to me that we have all the constituent parts--atoms, etc.--and not one of them is consciousness and no combination of them is consciousness. And when all the parts function so that we say that there is consciousness, we detect no new physical particles and brain waves presumably can be replicated with machines but there is no indication that these machines are consciousness while working.

Unless we can subject a living brain to an experiment in the LHC, I don't think we can discover a consciousness particle. That is, I'm not sure how we could come to another conclusion until we can measure a consciousness field, or something akin to it.

Now, I guess what I've been saying isn't directly about primary and secondary. But, so far, consciousness appears to be how a brain experiences itself (as inadequate as those words are). And, thus it is a secondary property.

Whether one can agree with my conclusion or not, I'd certainly say that the question appears reasonable (to this n00b).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would have thought it a primary property. Secondary properties exist "only in the mind", therefore, a mind must logically precede secondary properties. If the mind is either primary or secondary, that leaves only the primary as a possibility (because it is not a secondary).

 

[variant]

I think the usefulness of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities is in question.

But, I would consider consciousness to be an emergent property of sufficient complex systems that have abstract qualities, which would mean they do not exist merely in the mind.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm in the emergent property camp as well, but I don't think that position excludes primary qualities. Since I combine emergentism with dual-aspect theory, I'd say that consciousness is another aspect of physical brain functioning. It is something objective and measurable (even if only indirectly) by observing the physical processes associated with consciousness. It is also observable introspectively, but I don't think that makes consciousness itself a secondary quality. Rather, what we are specifically conscious of (such as the color "red") might be secondary in some sense, but the recognition that we are conscious is primary.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

I would 'neither' and that the question does not make sense in that context. I see consciousness as being merely a process, a function of the parts of the brain working together.

It's like asking: Is addition a primary or secondary quality of a calculator? Is oxidation a primary or secondary quality of some molecules? So, I would say that consciousness is not any more a 'quality' of anything than 'opening and closing' is a quality of a door.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's like asking: Is addition a primary or secondary quality of a calculator?

What's wrong with saying that addition is a quality of a calculator? It is a power of a calculator. A power seems to be a quality (i.e., a property) of something.

You seem to think that a quality of something must be separate from its function. But function is where I would look first!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

“There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter—not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.”

- Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931).​

 

[GrowingSmaller]

“There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter—not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.”

- Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931).​

Kabbalah and Neoplatonism all over again?

 

[sandwiches]

What's wrong with saying that addition is a quality of a calculator? It is a power of a calculator. A power seems to be a quality (i.e., a property) of something.

You seem to think that a quality of something must be separate from its function. But function is where I would look first!


eudaimonia,

Mark

So, is eating a primary or secondary quality? Whatever the answer is for this question is the same answer for consciousness. Both processes of the same machine.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter—not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.

What nonsense. Who the hell does "we" include? Deepak Chopra?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

Kabbalah and Neoplatonism all over again?

You will find religious terms used in science. That doesnt automatically make the subject "unscientific" though. Even if atheists may hold science as theirs, science has never declared that reality began or ended in the material. And testing and observation, even if it leads to a religiously laden concept, can be accepted on scientific grounds. It goes back to who started science, hence where science is leading man to, and the end point. The alpha is the omega.

 

[Greg1234]

What nonsense. Who the hell does "we" include? Deepak Chopra?


eudaimonia,

Mark

You do know what this type of premature criticism is reminiscent of.

YouTube - Dr Michio Kaku Talks about String Theory Pt.3

 

[sandwiches]

You will find religious terms used in science. That doesnt automatically make the subject "unscientific" though. Even if atheists may hold science as theirs, science has never declared that reality began or ended in the material. And testing and observation, even if it leads to a religiously laden concept, can be accepted on scientific grounds. It goes back to who started science, hence where science is leading man to, and the end point. The alpha is the omega.

This is flat out wrong. Science is about gathering knowledge about nature and what can be detected intersubjectively. So, science does begin and end with the material. If something cannot be demonstrably verified objectively, then it cannot be known scientifically.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You do know what this type of premature criticism is reminiscent of.

Yes, critical thinking skills and some knowledge of modern physics.

Do you realize that the scientist in the video uses the word "God" metaphorically? Not literally? The video does not support your quote.

String theory does not advocate mind as "the creator and governor of the realm of matter". That's New Age pseudo-science, misunderstood quantum physics, or simply massive speculation.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, critical thinking skills and some knowledge of modern physics.

The question was already answered (3:00-3:36). Thanks anyways.

Do you realize that the scientist in the video uses the word "God" metaphorically? Not literally?

The understanding of the parallel in the usage succeeds an understanding of text handed down.

The video does not support your quote.

The quote does not need the support of the video. The purpose of its posting is as given. Premature criticism on a similar revelation.

String theory does not advocate mind as "the creator and governor of the realm of matter". That's New Age pseudo-science, misunderstood quantum physics, or simply massive speculation.



eudaimonia,

Mark

And again, the parameters as outlined in the video.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think thatphysicalism is committed to consciousness being primary, if consciousness can be reduced to the physical properties of the brain (and if they are primary properties).

As for dualism, the mind cannot be a prmary property as that would be to identify it with the physical. Would that mean it is a secondary property? I'm not sure, as I see consciousness as being inferred theoretically rather than observed directly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The question was already answered (3:00-3:36). Thanks anyways.

Please explain what the question is and how it was answered in the video. Be specific.

The understanding of the parallel in the usage succeeds an understanding of text handed down.

Please rephrase this using the English language. You don't impress with obfuscation.

The quote does not need the support of the video. The purpose of its posting is as given. Premature criticism on a similar revelation.

I'm not engaged in "premature criticism". I'm saying that scientists do not generally support your quote. It's philosophical speculation at best, and pseudo-science at worst.

Don't defend speculation with charges of "premature criticism". Saying that something is speculation, and not scientific knowledge, is never premature.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think thatphysicalism is committed to consciousness being primary, if consciousness can be reduced to the physical properties of the brain (and if they are primary properties).

Agreed.

As for dualism, the mind cannot be a prmary property as that would be to identify it with the physical. Would that mean it is a secondary property? I'm not sure, as I see consciousness as being inferred theoretically rather than observed directly.

From Wikipedia:

Primary qualities are properties objects have that are independent of any observer [...] These characteristics convey facts.

Secondary qualities are properties that produce sensations in observers [...] They can be described as the effect things have on certain people.

Don't be put off track by the examples they gave. Mind is a fact, not an effect. In dualism, the existence of mind is a fact. Minds have existence, even if they are non-physical. The contents of mind (percepts, e.g. the color red) may be due to effects, but due to effects on the factual existence of mind.

I don't see how mind could be secondary except maybe for some strange physicalist monism that declares that mind is merely "an illusion". (Likewise for physical reality in a spiritual or idealist monism where the material world is merely "an illusion" because everything is mind.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

From Wikipedia:

Primary qualities are properties objects have that are independent of any observer [...] These characteristics convey facts.

Secondary qualities are properties that produce sensations in observers [...] They can be described as the effect things have on certain people.

Don't be put off track by the examples they gave. Mind is a fact, not an effect. In dualism, the existence of mind is a fact. Minds have existence, even if they are non-physical.

But the question is "Can the purported non-physical consciousness, if it not a secondary quality, be reduced to primary properties?" If not, because primary properties relate to the physical, then the mind, for dualists, being non-physical, may well be neither a primary or secondary property. There may then be a tertiary level of analysis alongside primary/secondary quality logical division.

I suppose, if consciousness really is physical, and if it is true that it is therefore reducible to primary properties, then Chalmers' hard problem can be stated in terms of primary properties. Why are certain things of certain number, extension, solidity, etc conscious at all... and others (apparently) not? To me this seems impossible to answer in terms of primary properties. No amount of number crunching will suffice: we will simply be left with more numbers and not the appearance of mental faculties. So questions about the ultimate explanatory power or explanatory impotence of physicalism can be raised.

I think that if there is a third option, maybe it is an orthoganal axis of experience which is isomorphic with and symmetrical to the physical but not identical to it.

source

Mathematics A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set.

source Mathematics An exact matching of form and arrangement of parts on opposite sides of a boundary, such as a plane or line, or around a central point or axis.