Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I would like to write the following using logic symbols but am unfamiliar with the practice. Here is the statement:
If it is accepted that life will arise from matter given the right conditions and if it is accepted that intelligence will arise from life given the right conditions and if it is accepted that consciousness will arise from intelligence given the right conditions then it can be concluded that consciousness will arise from matter given the right conditions.
"The right conditions" = R (but see the comment below, it's problematic to assume this can be represented with one variable)
Matter = M
Life = L
Intelligence = I
Consciousness = C
"x gives rise to y" = A(x, y)
Using -> for material implication, & for logical conjunction:
[ (R -> A(M, L)) & (R -> A(L, I)) & (R -> A(I, C)) ] -> (R -> A(M, C))
This is a true statement if we also assume that A(x, y) & A(y, z) -> A(x, z) for any x and y.
However, there is an issue about R. Are "the right conditions" to evolve life from matter, really the same "right conditions" to evolve consciousness from intelligence? It seems we might more accurately have four separate "right conditions," one condition for evolving life from matter, one for evolving intelligence from life, one for evolving consciousness from intelligence, and one for evolving intelligence from matter. And if we do that, then the statement is no longer necessarily true.
We could, however, interpret "the right conditions" as the combination of all conditions needed to evolve life from matter, intelligence from life, and consciousness from intelligence. Under this interpretation we can use a single R, and the statement is true.
