{consciousness causes}
The structure of my argument is as follows:
_Either consciousness is a cause or an effect or both, or it starts out as an effect then becomes a cause, ie, emergent property.
_It is not an effect
_It is not both at once
_It does not start out as an effect, then become a cause, ie, it is not an emergent property
_Therefore, it is a cause
_If it is a cause, then it causes motion
_Energy causes motion
_Therefore, consciousness is energy
Now let’s analyze each premise in more detail.
{The central contradiction of the mind/body problem}
The central contradiction that any theory of mind must resolve is the following:
_I am conscious.
_I am made only of particles.
_Particles are not conscious.
_Therefore, I am conscious and not conscious.
One of the above three beliefs must be false. There are four methods for resolving this contradiction using valid reasoning. Eliminativism: deny statement one. Dualism: deny statement two by asserting that we are made of something in addition to particles. Panpsychism: deny statement three by asserting that particles are conscious. Emergentism: assert that collections of particles are conscious. The other theories of mind result from invalid reasoning. At the moment the orthodox position is some form of emergentism.
{the orthodox position}
The orthodox position is that all atomic movement and all genetic mutation is random. Consciousness does not emerge until possibly after the Cambrian Explosion or maybe after the higher mammals or maybe 100,000 years ago. And species change due to either random genetic drift or natural selection acting on random mutation. Therefore, consciousness is an effect of random atomic movement. However, this is an obvious contradiction since the majority of philosophers believe consciousness is a cause, not an effect. For example, the official name of the theory that the mental does not affect the physical is epiphenomenalism which according even its defenders most philosophers find repugnant. Quote Chalmers. Further, the very definition of functionalism is yyy.
{Supervenient physicalism is epiphenomenalism renamed}
According to William Robisnon epiphenomenalism is the belief that “mental events have no effects in the physical world.” In other words, the physical causes the physical and the mental is a mere effect of the physical. Put briefly, consciousness is an effect. Let us now show that supervenient physicalism leads to the belief that consciousness is an effect.
_Supervenient physicalism asserts that, one, if there is a change in the physical, then there is a change in consciousness, and two, if one sets the physical properties of the universe, then the conscious properties follow automatically.
_If setting the physical properties of the universe determines the conscious properties, then the physical properties cause the conscious properties.
_If the physical properties cause the conscious properties, then consciousness is an effect.
Any Philosopher that rejects epiphenomenalism should reject supervenient physicalism. But this is certainly not the case as supervenience physicalism is currently the most fashionable materialistic philosophy.
{motion is random and it is not random}
The orthodox position leads to the following contradiction:
_The cause of all motion is random energy and laws of motion.
_Random is uncoordinated and laws of motion are uncoordinated.
_Therefore, random energy is the mover and that which is moved is a body.
_If the mover is random, then the moved is random.
_Not everything that is moved is uncoordinated.
_Therefore, everything that is moved is uncoordinated and it is not uncoordinated.
Let us now prove this argument more rigorously. Practically everyone already admits that we do not understand how random motion results in the non-random motion we see everywhere around us.
Quote Stenger and Churchland
We can resolve this contradiction by simply denying premise one: the cause of all motion is random energy. The cause of all motion is conscious energy.
{What is deterministic motion and random (uncoordinated) motion?}
Determinism: If conditions are F at time T, then conditions G must follow at time T2.
Indeterminism: If conditions are A at time T, then nothing causes a finite number of different conditions to follow at time T2.
_Randomness can appear deterministic at large orders of magnitude.
_Large orders of magnitude are abstract not real.
The random motion of bodies can ultimately result in a deterministic system provided one groups entities into larger entities at a high level of magnitude. The law of gravity is only realized at very large masses, therefore when enough bodies bind together and reach a high mass, then motion can be described with an equation involving the gravitational constant.
{What is coordinated motion?}
_A B and C are coordinated iff only A B and C together result in D and D is specified by consciousness in advance and D is one possibility from an enormous range of possibilities.
For example, language is enormously improbable. The effect of language (D above) is that another speaker of the language can understand the beliefs of the speaker. Moreover, the arbitrary sounds that the speaker uses uttered in a grammatical sequence is enormously improbable, that is to say, there are roughly 26 discreet symbols that a speaker of English can string together, thus the number of possible words composed of 3 letters is 27^3 or roughly 17,000 of which only about 200 are considered correct by an English speaker. In almost every human activity which involves achieving a complex goal the same follows. With dance the effect (D above) is to produce a desirable feeling in the audience. There are numerous sequences of possible dance-moves, only a very tiny minority will actually produce a desirable feeling in the audience. The same follows for numerous other coordinated activities such as architecture, music, art, engineering, etc.
{Laws of motion cannot coordinate}
Laws of motion cannot coordinate for the following reason:
_A, B and C compose deterministic conditions.
_A, B and C are at P1, P2 and P3 and time T2.
_Therefore, they will only be at P5, P6 and P7 at time T2. No other coordinated conditions are possible.
Say that A, B and C are blocks and the goal specified in advance is to build with them a pyramid such that A and B are the case and C is the top. The base is P8 and P9 and the top is at P10. Since conditions are deterministic A B and C can only move from P1, P2 and P3 and will never move to P8, P9 and P10. Therefore, the pyramid will never be realized.
Blocks A, B and C are qualitatively identical.
_(L)aws of motion treat qualitatively identical bodies (I)dentically.
_In order to (C)oordinate, one must treat qualitatively identical bodies differently.
_Therefore, laws of motion cannot coordinate.
L ⊃ I, C ⊃ ~I, L, ∴ I, ∴ ~C, ∴ L ⊃ ~C
The laws of motions will always cause the blocks to end up at P5, P6 and P7. Say you want the blocks to coordinate such that they form a T and to do this they must be on points P9, P10, and P11. The laws of motion will not be able to it. Say you want the blocks to coordinate such that they form an L. Law will not be able to do it for the same reasons.
{Why do laws of motion treat qualitatively identical bodies identically?}
_Lawlike is a property of motion iff beginning conditions can be numerically quantified to a high degree of accuracy and they inevitably result in ending conditions which are also numerically quantified to a high degree of accuracy.
_If a property of a body and its conditions can be numerically quantified, and if two bodies with the same numerically quantified properties and conditions inevitably result in the same numerically quantified properties and conditions, then the name of that motion is lawlike.
Dennett writes: “Suppose an author is accused of plagiarism, and the evidence is, say, a single paragraph that is almost identical to a paragraph in the putative source. Might this be just a coincidence? It depends crucially on how mundane and formulaic the paragraph is, but most paragraph-length passages of text are “special” enough (in ways we will soon explore) to make independent creation highly unlikely.” What Dennett is saying is the following: there are a transfinite number of possibilities, say, 10^300 of which only 10^12 are the right possibilities. Randomness chooses each possibility equally, in other words, randomness is not conscious of the proper possibilities. The odds of randomness choosing the proper possibility are one in 10^288. It is unreasonable to expect these numbers to be obtained given the arguments stated in line yyy.
{
Supervenient physicalism cannot explain coordination
}
{the right neurons must fire at the right time}
The orthodox philosopher believes that atomic motion in the brain changes direction for two reasons: one, it just randomly happens and two, the electro-magnetic force. Gravity is too weak to affect atomic movement in the brain and the strong and weak force are confined to too narrow a range inside the nucleus. The following argument is very difficult for a physicalist to understand mostly because they believe that they understand how the brain causes behavior. What is not known is how myriads of neurons are able to coordinate such that coordinated muscular movement is achieved. For example, quote Churchland etc
In order to understand the argument below, we need to go through all the neurological details of how a muscle moves. Inside the neuron it is more negatively charged than outside which is called the extracellular fluid. This fluid is rich in positively charged sodium ions and negatively charged chlorine ions. Inside the neuron, called the cytoplasm, it is rich in positively charged potassium and mostly free of sodium and chlorine. That which separates the neuron from the extracellular fluid is the membrane which at rest only potassium ions to pass through it, preventing all other types of ions from crossing in either direction. Lining the membrane are several potassium channels which allow potassium to flow in and out of the neuron. When enough positively charged potassium ions flow out of the neuron the cytoplasm becomes negatively charged and thus begins to attract sodium. Electricity levels are measure in volts, here millivolts. The cytoplasm at rest is about -70 mV. When enough sodium enters the neuron the voltage increases to about -65 or -60 mV and once that level is reached an action-potential spike occurs which sends electric signals down the length of the axon to the feet where neurotransmitters are propelled into the next neuron. Now, let us keep in mind that the current wisdom held that positively charged sodium ions which are attracted to the negatively charged neurons do not care about the outside, they don’t know what language, they do not know that they are inside a brain, they do not understand mathematics or anything.
{If consciousness is an effect, then we cannot speak language}
_All atomic motion in the brain is caused by randomness and the electromagnetic force.
_The ratio of right combination of sounds to possible combination of sounds is one divided by some transfinite number.
_If one is to utters the right sounds, then one must move the right muscles.
_If one must move the right muscles, then one must fire the right synapses at the right time.
_The right synapse is defined as a certain synapse located at a certain space.
_Electromagnetic forces and randomness act independently of space and time.
_Therefore, randomness and the electromagnetic force cannot force a human to speak language.
Some people might quarrel with premise yyy. Inevitably someone will confuse space with conditions. Electromagnetic forces are dependent on conditions not space. For example, if there is an electron at space P and the conditions C are such that there is a proton 2cm east and a proton 1cm west, then the electron will be attracted to the proton located west not east. Now, take the same conditions and locate it at Space Q and the electron will do the same thing.
{To identify objects or to decide an object’s meaning is to cause movement}
_If I identify conditions as dangerous, then that identification will cause my body to avoid those conditions.
_Consciousness identifies conditions.
_Therefore consciousness causes.
For example, as we walk through reality we are constantly putting objects into categories. Not everyone identifies objects equally. A patriot tank means something different if one is a rebel or a patriot. If I’m a rebel and I see a patriot tank, my decision to label that as a patriot tank is going to cause me to move away from the tank.
{all bodies are conscious}
_If consciousness does not cause the motion of bodies up to the level of molecule, then the cause of the motion of bodies is random energy.
_Therefore, the cause of all motion is random.
_If the cause of all motion is random, then the observed effects of motion are random.
_Not all observed effects are random.
_Therefore, consciousness causes the motion of bodies.
_If consciousness causes the motion of bodies, then it causes the motion of all bodies.
_If it causes the motion of all bodies, then all bodies are conscious.
_If all bodies are conscious, then panpsychism is true.
Essentially what we are arguing is that consciousness has free will. We will deal with this in more depth later but for now we want to stress that in order to avoid contradiction one must believe that if one has free will, then one must be able to move matter where one wants. Only 12% of philosophers according to the Chalmers survey lean to or accept determinism. 60% lean to or accept compatibilism, but it is not known exactly what that means. It could mean indeterminism which is the belief that particle movements are statistical but we have no control over the particles moving around in our brain. Many philosophers believe that consciousness causes but I have never seen any of them follow the consequences of their belief to the point where they accept that we can move the atoms in our brain. Let’s show that this leads to a contradiction.
{What is that which causes bodies to move?}
It can be disputed that energy causes motion. The physics community does not directly concern itself with causation. They are more interested in just focusing on effects, measuring effects and coming up with equations that describe effects. Feymann said: “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity… It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.” Vaclav Smil writes: “Energy is not a single, easily definable entity, but rather an abstract collective concept, adopted by nineteenth century physicists to cover a variety of natural and anthropogenic (generated by humans) phenomena. Its most commonly encountered forms are heat (thermal energy), motion (kinetic or mechanical energy), light (electromagnetic energy) and the chemical energy of fuels and foodstuffs.” Hogdson writes: “Energy is a numerical quantity, calculated according to various formulae, such that (according to classical physics) its form can change but not its overall quantity. One form of energy (called kinetic energy) is associated with motion: for a given mass, it is proportional to the square of the speed. Another form (called potential energy) is associated with position, either in relation to fields of force or in relation to mechanical contrivances (such as springs). Other forms of energy were identified (such as heat, chemical energy, electrical energy), and it came to be realized that they reduce in various ways to kinetic energy and/or potential energy.” And Susskind write: “Heat is, of course, the energy of random molecular motion.”
From the above four writers energy appears to be an abstraction, that is to say, a description of the properties bodies have, no causation involved. Feynmann clearly says that energy does not tell us the reason for the equations. However, one can say
_Work causes force to be applied for a distance.
_Force causes mass to accelerate.
_Energy causes work.
_Acceleration causes motion.
_Therefore, energy causes motion.
The equations are: E = W, W = Fd, F = MA. If someone were to object that energy does not cause motion, then the first step is to find out if they believe laws of motion are mere descriptions, as many do, if so then that belief can be refuted at line yyy. If they believe that laws of motion cause, then the argument above should be enough to show that energy causes motion. If they still deny that energy causes motion but do not dispute that bodies are conscious then we simply have an argument over semantics. We simply have a dispute on what to name that thing that causes bodies to move. Whatever that thing is, it is conscious.
{you must move matter in order to enact a desire}
_One has free will iff one can enact a desire.
_If one can enact a desire, then one must move matter to where they want.
_If all motion of matter is due to randomness and laws of motion, then no motion of matter is due to desire.
_If no motion of matter is due to desire, then no one has free will.
_Therefore, if one has free will and if all motion of matter is due to randomness and laws of motion, then one has free will and one does not have free will.
Some people also have a hard time understanding statement two above. Let’s show why it’s true.
_Your body is made of matter.
_If one is to enact a desire, one must move their body.
_Therefore, if one is to enact a desire, one must move matter.
Even if one desires to be still, one’s brain is still moving and the right neurons have to fire at the right time. Many people for some reason exempt the movement of lips from motion of matter. If you’re trying to say something, ultimately the atoms that make up your mouth have to move.
{causation is not observed}
Even though Hume, the philosopher most identified with among professional philosophers according the Chalmers survey, expressly pointed out that causation cannot be observed, still many people have an incredibly difficult time understanding this. If we observe motion, then we observe the effect not the cause of motion. If we could observe an electron jumping to a higher orbit upon absorbing an electron, then we observe the effect of some law of motion, we do not observe the law of motion itself. In my worldview that law of motion is God and we do not observe God acting.
_Almost all real effects except maybe two can be observed.
_No causes can be observed.
_Consciousness cannot be observed.
_Therefore, consciousness is a cause.
The graviton and maybe dark matter cannot be observed. Abstract effects, i.e., beliefs, cannot be observed.
{causation transcends space}
_Effects exist in three-dimensional space.
_Causation transcends space, that is to say, it effects things in three dimensional space, but is not in three-dimensional space. (Conscious causation exists in mental space and God exists in Divine space)
{abstractions do not cause}
A reasonable objection to the above is to assert that the cause of a billiard ball moving is a cue ball and the cause of the cue ball moving is the human being.
_A cue ball is an abstraction which describes a collection of subatomic particles.
_We cannot observe the cause of the motion of subatomic particles.
_Therefore, we do not observe the cause of the cue ball moving.
The same applies to the human being that set the cue ball in motion:
_The body of a human is a collection of subatomic particles which are arranged in a hierarchical relationship such that consciousness causes its coordinated movement.
_We cannot observe consciousness causing its body to move.
_Therefore, we do not observe what causes the human being to cause a cue ball to move.
{We do not observe consciousness by observing the brain}
_If we observe a brain we observe coordination, we do not observe the cause of coordination.
_Consciousness causes coordination.
_Therefore we do not observe consciousness by observing the brain.
For example, if coordinated muscular movement is to occur then the neuronal firings must be coordinated. What causes that coordination cannot be observed.
{the non-physical can interact with the physical}
Dennett writes: “How, precisely, does the information get transmitted from pineal gland to mind? Since we don’t have the faintest idea (yet) what properties mind stuff has, we can’t even guess (yet) how it might be affected by physical processes emanating somehow from the brain, so let’s ignore those upbound signals for the time being, and concentrate on the return signals, the directives from mind to brain. These, ex hypothesi, are not physical; they are not light waves or sound waves or cosmic rays or streams of subatomic particles. No physical energy or mass is associated with them. How, then, do they get to make a difference to what happens in the brain cells they must affect, if the mind is to have any influence over the body? A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy, and where is this energy to come from?”
For the moment we will assume that that which exists in three-dimensional space is physical even though this is not true.
_What does not exist in three-dimensional space cannot interact with something in non-three dimensional space or the physical cannot interact with the non-physical.
_Consciousness is not located in three-dimensional space and it is non-physical.
_Therefore, consciousness cannot interact with the physical.
_That which moves matter is not located in three dimensional space.
_Matter moves.
_Therefore, that which does not exist in three-dimensional space can interact with that which is in three-dimensional space.
_We do not know how the physical interacts with the physical.
_We do not know why
-
why the photon does not interact with the Higgs Field
-
why fermions take up space and bosons do not
-
why Dark Matter does not interact with the Electro-magnetic force or the Strong Force
-
how two entangled particles interact with each other without exchanging matter even though they are several kilometers apart.
-
how a photon interact with an electron.
-
We do not know how the physical interacts with the physical.
-
Therefore we do know that the physical does not interact with the non-physical.
-
We do not know what an atom is.
-
Therefore we know that the atom does not interact with consciousness.
As you can see this is a straight-up argument from ignorance. They are going from ignorance in line one to knowledge in line two which is a fallacy. And finally we cannot in principle know how two simple entities interact:
_ To explain how X interacts with Y is to reduce X to A and B and Y to C and D.
_Simple things cannot be reduced and things reduce to simple things.
_Therefore, there can be no explanation how simple things interacts with each other.
{Consciousness is not an emergent property}
_Emergent is a property of bodies/matter iff the properties that result from the arrangement of bodies cannot be predicted.
_Therefore, the arrangement of matter cause the emergent property.
_The emergentists believe consciousness is an emergent property of matter.
_Therefore, according to the emergentist consciousness is an effect.
_Consciousness is not an effect.
_Therefore, consciousness is not an emergent property.
Let’s now look at some candidates for emergent properties: nuclear fusion inside stars, supernovas, blackholes, cell division and sexual reproduction. Can the first three be predicted with physics? It is not yet known how the sun fuses hydrogen into helium, however, there does not seem to be a fundamental obstacle to knowing this. It is known how supernovas acquire the property of being able to explode at a certain point and it is known how blackholes eventually become so massive that not even light can escape. Therefore, these are not emergent properties. It is not known how cells divide. We know that the chromosomes line up and then the cell divides but this alignment is spontaneous and there is no known mechanism for why they do this. Further, given all we know about cells there is not seem to be anything that predicts this behavior. But is cell-division an emergent property?
_(P)roperties (D)escribe (E)ntities and e(M)ergent properties describe entities
_Causation itself is not a property.
_If a word stands for the ability to cause, then the word, not the thing itself, is a property.
_Something causes cell-division.
_Therefore, that which causes cell-division is not a property.
_Therefore, cell division is not an emergent property.
for every x if x is a property, then there is a y that is an entity and x describes y
for every x if x is causation, then there is a y that is an entity and x does not describe y
there is an x such that x causes cell-divisio(N)
for every x if x is a cause, then x is not a property (this has been proved elsewhere)
therefore, there is an x that causes cell-division and that x is not a property.
therefore, for every x if x causes cell-division then x is not an emergent property.
x(Px ⊃ ∃z(Ez & Dxz)) & y(My ⊃ (∃w(Ew & Dyw))
x(Cx ⊃ ∃y(Ey & ~Dxy))
∃x(Cxn)
x(Cx ⊃ ~Px)
∴ ∃x(Cxn & ~Px)
∴ x(Cxn ⊃ ~Mx)
Px ⊃ (Ez & Dxz) & (My ⊃ (Ew & Dyw))
Cx ⊃ Ey & ~Dxy
Cbn
Cx ⊃ ~Px
∴ ∃x(Cxn & ~Px)
∴ x(Cxn ⊃ ~Mx)
Cx
~Px
{Consciousness does not start out as an effect then become a cause.}
The orthodox philosopher can simply claim that their definition of property is false and still assert that consciousness emerges from matter. Instead of consciousness being an emergent property, it is now an emergent being or an emergent causer.
_The (B)ody is the cause(D) and (C)onsciousness is the cause(R).
_The caused does not cause a causer, a causer causes the caused.
_Therefore, the body does not cause consciousness.
Causation exists in non-three-dimensional space. What the emergentists are arguing is that motion in three-dimensional space causes something new to exist in non-three-dimensional space. We can only appeal here to intuition for the apparent absurdity of this hypothesis.
_Effect follows cause, cause does not follow effect and the effect of some cause does not become a cause of a subsequent effect.
_If matter causes consciousness, then consciousness is an effect.
_If statement two is true, then consciousness is the effect of some cause which becomes the cause of a subsequent effect.
_Therefore, statement one is true and false.
Let’s assume that consciousness does in fact emerge from bodies/matter, i.e., it is an effect of matter and that effect can become a cause of a subsequent effect. Is it rational for consciousness to then cause bodies to move?
_The principle of Ockham’s Razor states that two different entities do not cause the same effect.
_Energy causes bodies to move.
_After consciousness emerges from bodies, it then causes bodies to move.
_Therefore, energy causes bodies to move and consciousness causes bodies to move.
_Therefore, two different entities cause the same effect and two different entities do not cause the same effect.
A way out for the orthodox philosopher would be to claim that “consciousness directs energy only after certain arrangements of bodies have been accomplished.” Is this rational? Kim has pointed out that this leads to an overdetermination of the physical. Since I do not believe the word physical is well-defined I will use the word material which is well-defined.
{Consciousness causes therefore we are not only our bodies.}
Although eliminativism has been rejected by philosophers, the phrase “we are our bodies” is still very popular. Let’s first show that this is eliminativism.
_If we are only our bodies, then there is nothing unobserved that affects our bodies.
_Consciousness is unobserved and it affects our bodies.
_Therefore, if we are only our bodies, then consciousness does not exist.
_Consciousness exists.
_Therefore, there is something unobserved that affects our bodies.
_Therefore, we are not only our bodies.
Finally there is the hypothesis that consciousness causes the body to move and the body affects consciousness. Since almost everyone who believes consciousness causes also believes the body affects consciousness we will deal with this in the following section of how the consciousness works.
{
There is not a mechanism for consciousness, therefore consciousness is not an effect
}
One common objection that one hears to panpsychism or dualism is the following:
_Everything that causes, is caused by a mechanism.
_Consciousness causes.
_Therefore, it is caused by a mechanism.
If we accept this reasoning, then consciousness is once again relegated to the status of effect.
_If everything that causes is caused by a mechanism, then all effects become causes.
_Consciousness causes.
_Therefore consciousness becomes an effect.
{effect does not become a cause}
We often hear that there is a chain of causation where causes become effects which then cause an effect and so on. This is false. At the quantum level the position of particles is statistical. There is only a probability that they will be in a certain location at a certain time. Nothing causes them to be in one location at time T1 and in another location at time T2. As particles bind into larger bodies the electromagnetic bonds cause a probability that the bodies will be in one location more often than another. These probabilities eventually average out at high orders of magnitude such that the large composite body appears to be in one place and that its location at T2 seems to be caused by its location and momentum at T1. In simplistic terms, the mechanism that causes the large body, say a bowling ball, is, one, that it is composed of hundreds of particles which are bound in such a fashion that it is unlikely for them to change their position to the point where humans notice it and two, the body's position over time as a whole is governed by its momentum.
Human beings are a strange mixture of classical and quantum bodies. On the hand are arms and legs are clearly classical but on the other hand swimming through the extracellular fluid in our brains are quantum bodies, namely, atoms (mostly sodium) and it is these atoms that cause our movement.
_At the (Q)uantum level (CA)usation is the not the result of some (P)revious (E)ffect.
_Human (M)uscular movement begins at the (Q)uantum level.
_Therefore, muscular movement is not the result of some previous effect.
_Either (C)onsciousness causes muscular movement or (R)andom atomic motion causes muscular movement.
_From line yyy atomic motion is not random.
_Therefore, consciousness causes muscular movement.
_Therefore, consciousness is not the result of some previous effect.
Q ⊃ CA ⊃ ~PE, M ⊃ Q, ∴ M ⊃ ~PE, (C ⊃ M) v (R ⊃ M), ~R, ∴ C ⊃ M, ∴ C ⊃ ~PE
We will now refute the idea that there is a mechanism for everything with a series of arguments from infinite regress.
{EPR demonstrated instantaneous awareness}
Einstein showed theoretically 1935 that particles could communicate with each other without a third body with his paper: “Can a Quantum-Mechanical description of reality be considered complete.” However, his intention with the paper was to show that because Quantum Mechanics predicts “action at a distance,” or instantaneous communication between two particles without a third particle, Quantum Mechanics is therefore absurd. It was not until about 1982 that Alain Aspect gave strong experimental support that particles do communicate instantaneously without a third body. Insightful philosophers should have seen this coming. There are strong intuitive reasons why this must be the case. First, we must prove that there are finite indivisible atoms. Of course Democritus and Leucippus posited the existence of atoms but their reasons for believing in them have been lost if there ever were any reasons. Zeno however pointed out the paradoxes that result when one believes that space is infinite.
{Proof that bodies do not become infinitesimally small}
- A is composed of B and C.
- B is composed of D and E.
- D is composed of F and G.
- Let X be the name of a body that has been infinitely divided from larger parts.
- Let the size of X be 1.
- Eventually the size of X will become 1/∞
- Therefore, X will occupy zero space.
- If X occupies zero space, then it can never touch another body.
- If X can never touch another body, then complex bodies cannot emerge.
- Complex bodies do emerge.
- Therefore, belief four is false.
{Proof that space is composed of finite quanta}
(Aristotle’s Physics Book 6.9)
- Let the size of body X be 1.
- The distance between points A and B can be divided into an infinite number of units.
- It will take an infinite amount of time for body X to cross from points A to B.
- Bodies do travel between points in space.
- Therefore, belief two is false.
Ancient Philosophers did recognize that there are good intuitive reasons for space being composed of finite quanta. They did not make the leap that instantaneous communication is therefore possible, but they did believe that light was instantaneous.
{if A desires body B to move to point C, then how does body A communicate with body B?}
We know how humans communicate. Human A communicates with human B by using information embodied in C. B understands C. But how do two bodies communicate without using a third body?
- B communicates with A by using C.
- C communicates with B by using D.
- There are a finite number of bodies in the human.
- Therefore, there must be some bodies that communicate without a third body.
{How is consciousness conscious of bodies}
We all know how humans perceive. We use our eyes. In other words, human A perceives body B by using C. How does C perceive body B?
- D perceived C because it used B.
- B perceived C because it used A.
- Perception begins in time.
- Therefore, there must be a body that starts the perception without using something else.
{Proof that unobserved observers exist}
_Observation is dependent on millions of bodies.
_That which depends on millions of bodies, is not itself a body and dependence is not a body.
_That which is not a body cannot be observed.
_Therefore unobserved observers exist.
Armstrong recognized this: “Because our awareness cannot be an awareness of itself, there must always be ultimate awareness which is not itself an object of awareness. In Materialist terms, although the brain may contain self-scanners which scan the rest of the brain, and scanners which in turn scan the self-scanners, and so on as far as we please, we must come in the end to unscanned scanners. This seems to cast light on what philosophers have called the ‘systematic elusiveness of the subject. When we look into our own mind, they have complained, something always escapes us. We observe particular mental states, but where is that which is doing the observing?” (page 111)
{Consciousness causes a live animal to move differently from a dead animal}
Consciousness explains why the motion of a dead animal is different from a live animal. Quote Paul Davies.
_If one throws a dead duck into the air, then laws of motion cause its movements.
_If one throws a live duck into the air, then consciousness and laws of motion cause its movement.
_Therefore, consciousness causes.
{The orthodox theory of motion leads to eliminativism}
This argument has been well-argued by other philosophers trying to refute epiphenomenalism.
_If randomness and laws of motion explain all motion, then consciousness is not necessary.
_Whatever is not necessary can be eliminated through Ockham’s Razor.
One might argue that consciousness explains why it is that we believe and perceive the world.
_If I believe but cannot realize my beliefs, then my beliefs are unnecessary.
_If my beliefs are unnecessary, then their existence is unnecessary.
{If consciousness is an effect, then we are not intelligent}
_If intelligent motion demonstrates an ability to know truth, then for intelligent motion to exist one must set up a test where success indicates knowledge of truth and failure indicates ignorance of truth.
_If one is to pass this test, then one must be the cause of the motion of matter.
_If consciousness is an effect, then one cannot cause the motion of matter.
_Therefore, if one cannot causes the motion of matter, then one can cause intelligent motion.
For example, to be an intelligent basketball the test is move the basketball such that it goes through the hoop and the truth one demonstrates is that if they move their arm in a certain way then the ball will go through the hoop. To be an intelligent French speaker the motion one causes is that their lips move such that a French speaker will understand their beliefs. And the truth one knows is that certain sounds mean certain things to a French speaker. To be an intelligent mathematician you need to move your pencil such that the proper theorems are written and the truth demonstrate knowledge of is the theorem that solves a problem.
{Computer programmer thought experiment}
Imagine a computer programmer. He is composed of just two neurons, two muscles and two sodium ions. One muscle will hit a 1 on the computer keyboard and the other muscle will hit a zero. For simplicity sake, let’s imagine that the number of positions in the computer programmer’s brain are discreet, that there are 100 positions and 50 of them result in a sodium ion going into neuron 1 and the other half result in the sodium ion going in to neuron 0. Now the computer programmer has been asked to input the following binary code into the computer, one error and the program won’t work:
10001110101010000000111010101111100110100011101010
There are fifty digits in the above code and the odds of getting it correct through chance are 1 in 2^50 or 1 in 10^15, or one in a thousand trillion. And yet gravity and EM do not care about the binary code, do not even know it exists and do not prefer one position in the brain over another. It’s quite obvious that gravity and EM alone cannot produce the above code. Unless the programmer can move the sodium ions into the proper neurons, the code will never be written.
The standard response to this thought experiment is to move the problem of intelligence one step back: “It is not we who are intelligent but the software in our brain that is intelligent and that software has evolved through the impersonal laws of natural selection. Further, this software does not move matter, rather it is programmed to enact certain muscular movements given the right stimuli.” This brings us to the possibility of whether or not artificial intelligence can be constructed, so let’s refute that right now. If it can be shown that humans cannot design artificial intelligence then certainly mother nature cannot.
Very few philosophers believe that mind can move matter yet only 12% of philosophers lean towards or accept determinism. Quantum Mechanics more or less conclusively demonstrated that reality is not determined. Those who deny that it did posit multiple universes so as to maintain their belief in determinism. Nevertheless, 60% of philosophers believe in compatabilism which posits that at least some free will exists and another 12% accept or lean toward free will libertarianism. The other 16% believe something else. 72% of philosophers should believe that the mind can move matter but they do not.
{Refuting Eliminativism}
First, the Eliminativists never asserted that it could be shown that consciousness does not exist now, rather they merely promised that it would be shown one day. This is clearly not a rock solid argument.
- Eliminativists assert that free will does not exist.
- Proof yyy demonstrates that free will does exist.
- Therefore, eliminativism is false.
Third, one can even make a very strong case that the leading proponents of eliminativism, the Churchlands and Daniel Dennett are not really eliminativists.
{Refuting dualism}
Energism is not dualism, though I can understand why some people would want to pigeon-hole me in that category. It is true that I believe in three very distinct worlds, but two of those worlds, the public and the private world are so deeply enmeshed that they can almost but not entirely be thought of as one world. Here is how dualism gives a valid solution to the paradox:
- If I exist then desire etc exists.
- If I exist then I am made of particles and mind-stuff.
- If mind-stuff exists, then desire etc exists.
- If particles exist, then they do not desire.
- I clearly exist.
- Therefore, mind-stuff exists.
- Therefore desires etc exists and desire exists.
First argument against Dualism: it violates Ockham’s Razor
Ockham’s Razor gets thrown around a lot, and is used in several different ways, consequently sometimes its meaning is confused. Here is what it means. Say we observe a phenomenon P and we then locate its cause which we call Q. We then no longer need to posit an additional thing. Logically:
- Q ⊃ P
- ∴ C
C can be eliminated since it serves no purpose and there is nothing in line 1 which points to the existence of C. It’s a type of non-sequitur. Usually what happens is that it was long thought that C was the cause of P but then it was shown that Q was the cause of P. A deep emotional attachment developed around C and consequently people were reluctant to eliminate it through Ockham’s Razor.
- Desire, beliefs, consciousness, perception exists.
- Energy can be used to explain why bodies desire, believe, are conscious and perceive.
- Therefore, there is no need to posit the existence of mind-stuff.
{Epiphenomenalism cites luck at the cause of the first cell}
- There is no explanation for how the complex arrangements of particles form, nor is there an explanation as to why this complex arrangement of particles is conscious and another complex set is not conscious.
- Therefore, the epiphenomenalists appeals to luck.
- Energism does not appeal to luck.
- If one is choosing between two theories, the one that invokes the least amount of luck is preferred.
{
Psychological laws do not explain consciousness
}
The orthodox philosopher still believes that consciousness began with the Big Bang they just don’t realize it. They believe that there are regularities of consciousness. In order to explain these regularities they are forced to invoke laws of consciousness due to the following reasoning:
_If consciousness is the result of natural selection, then consciousness is dependent on the arrangement of matter which cause consciousness.
_If certain arrangements cause consciousness, then there must be laws which specify which arrangements cause consciousness and which do not.
What this does is it simply relocates all the powers of consciousness to laws. The powers that I believe consciousness has are ability to believe and realize beliefs, ie, move bodies where it wants in accord with its belief. Now instead of consciousness believing and moving bodies, it is these laws that are doing it. This leads to the positing of unnecessary entities.
{If something causes, then it knows}
_If there is a thing that causes, then it must be able to identify the thing it causes and identify the things that it does not cause.
_If it identifies things, then it knows how to identify things.
_Laws of motion and laws of consciousness cause.
_Therefore laws know.
_Whatever knows is conscious.
_Therefore laws are conscious.
For example, say you are the law which causes a photon to move at 300,000 km/s. You need to be able to know what a photon is in order to cause that photon to move regularly.
_Bodies obey different laws of motion under different conditions.
_Therefore laws must know what conditions exist.
_Therefore laws are conscious of conditions.
When we posit laws of consciousness, the problem becomes even worse.
_Not all subjects obey the same laws of consciousness, therefore some subjects instantiate law X and others law Y.
_Therefore, if there are laws of consciousness, then these laws must be able to distinguish subject X from subject Y.
_Therefore, laws of consciousness are conscious of who is subject X and who is subject Y.
_Subjects instantiate different laws under different conditions.
_Therefore laws are conscious of conditions.
The physicalist must decide:
_Either there is one law that is conscious of which subjects obey which law or there are many laws, one law for each condition.
_If there is one law, then it is hard to not identify this as God.
_If there are many laws, then they are a transfinite number.
Let’s prove statement 3 more rigorously.
_That which determines what conditions follow present conditions is a mixture of randomness and law.
_If randomness exists, then the number of possible conditions is transfinite.
_If there must be laws for all possible conditions, then there are a transfinite number of laws.
(We now have the counterintuitive situation where not only is there a law which dictates what I do if there is a paper clip located at 1.1111 cm from my hand, there is also a law that dictates what I do if it is 1.1112 cm from my hand. The physicalist will then face the following dilemma:)
_Either there are a transfinite number of laws or laws categorize bodies into groups.
_If laws categorize bodies into groups, then they must be conscious of these groups.
_Therefore, reducing the number of laws does not eliminate the problem of conscious laws.
The physicalist must also answer when these laws were established. Any point in time other than the Big Bang leads to contradictions.
_Either laws of consciousness existed at the Big Bang or not.
_If not then they came into being uncaused.
_If they came into being uncaused, then this is another inexplicable fact.
_The theory which has fewer inexplicable facts is superior to the one with more.
_Therefore, the orthodox philosopher is motivated to locate the origin of laws at the Big Bang.
Hence the orthodox philosopher and the panpsychist agree that consciousness originated with the Big Bang:
_Laws of consciousness are conscious.
_Laws of conscious originated with the Big Bang.
_Therefore, consciousness originated with the Big Bang.
Thus we are led to the absurd conclusion that there was a law which knew about Shakespeare’s Hamlet eons before it was instantiated:
_If there are laws of consciousness, then there is a law that causes Shakespeare to write Hamlet.
_The laws of consciousness were established before Shakespeare existed.
_Therefore, the law that causes Shakespeare to write Hamlet existed eons before Shakespeare existed.
_In order to cause Hamlet, one must have an aesthetic taste.
_Laws of consciousness caused Hamlet.
_Therefore, laws have aesthetic taste.
Not only must there be laws for conditions that actually exist but also for all possible conditions, this includes laws for all the possible languages that humans never spoke, a huge number.
_The vast majority of laws of consciousness are never instantiated.
_Therefore, the physicalist posits a vast number of useless entities.
As always the physicalist is forced to give an explanation of why everything is physical. They never offer a justification but in this particular case it is very hard to justify these laws as being physical.
_Laws of consciousness are not made of anything and do not exist in three-dimensional space.
_Therefore there is no justification of their physicality.
The physicalist has no explanation as to why some subjects are smarter than other subjects.
_If there are laws of consciousness, then there are laws which force a consciousness to consistently fail to determine truth.
_Intelligence is the ability to determine truth.
_Therefore laws of consciousness are responsible for the variation of intelligence in humans.
It makes much more sense that it is simply a property of consciousness that it varies in intelligence. Instead what we have is the situation where laws are responsible for the stupidity or genius of humans. The physicalist also has a very difficult time justifying that laws of consciousness are not a type of demigod.
_A demigod influences the affairs of humans, does not exist in three-dimensional space and did not cause the Big Bang.
_Laws of consciousness influence the affairs of humans, do not exist in three-dimensional space and did not cause the Big Bang.
_Therefore laws of consciousness are demigods.
In positing psychological laws, the physicalist has simply created a vast number of unnecessary entities. Clearly consciousness does have some regularities. We feel hunger-pangs when we haven’t eaten for a long time. Certain smells are always repugnant. Certain materials always appear to individuals as the same color. Panpsychism has an explanation for this: consciousness is conscious of bodies and consciousness decides what regularities will govern its own behavior. If it turns out that their decisions lead to death, then they will be weeded out of the population. In the physicalist ontology we have bodies which are conscious but their consciousness is governed by laws which are conscious of the conscious bodies. So instead of having one type of consciousness we now have two. One way out for the physicalist is to deny the laws of consciousness exist and simply assert that regularities are due to coincidence. This can be refuted as follows:
_Either there is a (C)ause of why the subatomic particles have the same properties each time we measure them, or there is not a cause.
_If there is not a cause, then the name for that is (CO)incidence.
_If there is a cause and if one is an atheist, then the name for that is (L)aw.
_If there is a cause and if one is a (T)heist, then the name for that is (G)od.
_If there are (L)aws which cause certain bodies to be electrons and other bodies not to be electrons, then laws (K)now that body x is body x.
_If laws know, then they are (CON)scious.
_Therefore, we have not eliminated the problem of consciousness, we have just relocated it.
C v ~C, ~C ⊃ CO, C & ~T ⊃ L, C & T ⊃ G, L ⊃ K, K ⊃ CON, ∴ (~C & ⊃ CO) & (C & ~T ⊃ CON)
Some mechanists are willing to accept that laws do not exist and that it is a coincidence that regularities exist. This leads to extremely negative results.
_If coincidence explains regularity, then either coincidence explains all regularity or not.
_If coincidence explains all regularity, then it explains how humans regularly produce meaningful sentences.
_If coincidence does not explain all regularity, then there must be a cause for those non-coincidental regularities.
_Non-coincidental regularities are explained either by law or by consciousness.
_Therefore, if coincidence explains all regularity, then one has no reason for believing that, for example, Barack Obama does not understand English.
For example, it could be the case that Obama does not know English, he’s just getting lucky when he opens his mouth. Those who believe that coincidence explains regularity would have no method for falsifying the thesis that Obama is just a lucky poser. I need not go into the details of the argument that positing laws of consciousness makes morality absurd. Plenty of other authors have analyzed that debate. Not wishing to posit an infinite number of laws and wanting conscious agents to be responsible for their actions, the orthodox philosopher will then start transferring the properties of laws back on to consciousness and will say something along the lines of: some behavior is due to conscious free will and some behavior is due to laws of consciousness. Even with this qualification we still have the problem that we have two conscious entities and that laws are indistinguishable from demigods. Not only that, it also leads to a violation of Ockham’s Razor:
_If consciousness can decide what regularities will determine its behavior, then there is no need to posit the existence of laws of consciousness to explain regularities of behavior.
There is one final way out for the orthodox philosopher, they can simply refuse to be falsified and declare by fiat that laws of consciousness exist but the laws themselves are not conscious and that there are only a few basic principles which govern conscious behavior. First, to assert this is to simply contradict our intuitions regarding the link between knowledge and causation. Second, the orthodox philosopher can come up with no explanation as to how there are a few basic principles which govern conscious behavior.
Robinson, William. Epiphenomenalism. Standford Philosophical Encyclopedia.
Dennett, Daniel. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Pg 71
Feynmann, Richard. Lectures on Physics.
Smil, Vaclav. Energy. Pg 11
Hogdson, David. The Mind Matters. Pg 201
Susskind, Leonard. The Cosmic Landscape. Pg 29
Dennett, Daniel. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.