We are the physics that drives us, everything else is an abstraction.
Chemistry as a thing didnt emerge from particle physics, it is an abstraction of particle physics, a higher-level view on how certain particles interact, and biology is an abstraction of chemistry, "when we combine certain chemicals this stuff happens". But if we take a moment, we zoom in and zoom in and we will find that the common denominator is that things exist in these ways because physics is doing what it does.
The insane rube-goldberg machine of the human body is still a rube-goldberg machine that is being driven by physics, theres millions of layers of complexity, but it's still physics all the way down.
The existence of physics doesn't demonstrate that dualism is wrong.
You have evidence that some matter (yourself) experiences its existence. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter experiences its existence. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter experiences its existence and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis requires a lot more assumptions.
Which explain things like eating food(above minimal configuration) and death(Some cells die, failing the minimal configuration criteria).
This is just smuggling in the conclusion. We observe conscious matter and non-conscious matter. The simplest explanation (as in requires the fewest entities in our ontology) is that there is just one kind of matter and that physical processes that we already allow into our ontology for external reasons are sufficient to explain why some matter is conscious.
A particle responds to its environment. A system of particles reconfigures itself in response to the environment, sometimes in a persistent way. That's all your brain is doing when it "learns"
The hard problem of consciousness has a long history, but two of the most influential contemporary philosophers in that area are David Chalmers and John Searle.
I think non-conscious matter arranged precisely can think. For example, food, arranged properly by the body, can become conscious. Also AI agents can be conscious as long as they are coupled to a complex environment and put under judicious constraints they have to optimise against.
Can you recommend an essay or paper by either that focuses on the "starting point." IE, why a "chemical computer" version of consciousness can't exist.
Consciousness is not same as being able to communicate. Let's say a rock is conscious, how would the rock go about informing us that it is conscious? It has no way of signaling its state. Or even a way of acquiring information about anything around it. Or may there is a way, of both signaling or acquiring information that is alien to us but not to other rocks.
You can zoom into a coffee table until you see individual particles, but what would it mean to "zoom into" a consciousness?
You'd find good and bad situations - from the point of view of the body. Some situations are useful for life, other are detrimental. Consciousness guides actions towards useful situations.
But... I have to keep my mind open with a brace. otherwise, it'll call occam's razor & snap shut.
At the heart of consciousness particles ideas (I think) is the idea that conciousness can't emerge from nonconscious stuff. This is counterintuitive to me. We now know of all sorts of emergent phenomenon.
Species emerge (from other, sometimes simpler species) and that emergence dynamic turned slime into ND Tyson. Substances like coffee and coffee tables emerge from basic particle characteristics like charge (to borrow their example). Chemistry emerges from particle physics. Biology emerges from chemistry.
Can someone point me to the starting point? I must be missing something. Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think?