Emergence Critique of Materialism/Physicalism
People are pretty much split between physicalism and non-physicalism. I think this argument below is very helpful for generating discussion to get to understand how we understand the nature of qualia in consciousness and also the way in which it comes about.
What is Physicalism?
Physicalism is a position in the theory of mind, stating that subjective experience is reducible to physical things. It is an emergent phenomena to specific physical systems such as the brain. The experience is directly tied to materiality, with some physical phenomena directly causing or being linked to subjective phenomena.
Qualia: the first-person, subjective experience
This can be the redness of the red, or the pokiness of being poked, the spirit of motivation, the sound of your internal monologue
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Argument
Physicalism tends to say qualia is emergent from certain processes. But how can that be the case when emergent things can only be assigned to orders of concept? Qualia is the foundation and conditional to our concepts, not the higher ordered concept.
Take the emergence of temperature of a gas for example. All the discrete particles each have their own translational kinetic energy as they bounce around, but we uniform all of their qualities into a single quality by taking the average. We conceptualize a oneness to the gas.
However, qualia is the lowest building blocks to our concepts. You cannot think of something without finding feeling through or being felt towards it.
Here is the argument syllogistically:
P1. All emergent properties are concept-dependent.
P2. Qualia is not concept-dependent.
C. Therefore, qualia is not an emergent property.
This is a valid modus tollens; please point out a premise you disagree with to isolate the discussion. I believe that qualia is not emergent, but is fundamental to all physical interactions itself.