Thankfully, those involved in REAL scientific research tend to do exactly as you suggest and leave the 'why' aspect of any of the current 'big questions,' as something in the range of personal entertainment to personal psychosis via the personal rumination of philosophers, who can actually make useful contributions to the ensuing discussions and theists/theosophists who offer noting but woo woo. — universeness

Correct, why questions are a slippery slope for...getting back in bed with Aristotelian teleology and enabling the pollution of our epistemology.

I'm not saying it's important as such. I'm just saying that if the subjective aspect of consciousness is inaccessible to science then nothing would count as evidence that the subjective aspect of consciousness is reducible to some physical phenomena like brain activity. — Michael

-Wow that is a huge leap you made there. First of all you are setting a false relation (absence of direct observation-zero evidence).
"Forensic" methods is how we get to know things of events that we can not detect(directly). Its nothing new in Science. From cosmology, evolution to..... quantum fluctuations , we puzzle facts from different aspects and we construct credible models that are able to produce meaningful Descriptions, Accurate predictions and Technical applications of the phenomenon in question. This is also true with Consciousness.
So we don't really need to be present in a murder in order to identify the murdered.
This is a non sequitur objection.

Now when we verify causal mechanisms , we don't reduce the nature of a phenomenon.We identify the Necessary and Sufficient causes for its emergence. Whether our efforts point to physical mechanisms , that either means the phenomenon IS PHYSICAL or that we don't need to make up additional entities to explain it (parsimony).
After all we have no way to falsify unnecessary and unobservable causes so we will poison our hypotheses without reason.

Describing a phenomenon is not necessary an act of reduction, plus in the case of Conscious States we deal with emergence, which means that Complex Science, not reductionism, is the proper tool for this description. In addition to that we don't know the actual ontology so how one can even accuse as for reducing it??? Explaining things with what are available to us is a Pragmatic Necessity not a biased choice.

Well we might not be able to experience the original "movie" of a conscious state but we can access it by numerous ways and methods. Not only that we can even achieve great things beneficial to our knowledge and the well being of others.
I don't know why you find it so important not to be able to replay from a first person view. Why do you think this is a problem?

Scientific evidence for what? that conscious creatures experience things and they experiencing them differently due to their previous experiences and biological setup?

You asked for evidence, not theories. So assume you have two theories to explain how and why it works. What evidence would prove which one is correct, assuming you can never look inside the box, and that both always correctly predict the box's response? — Michael

- I think that phenomenal consciousness is the last desperate attempt by philosophers to keep consciousness in their curriculum.

if there is such a thing as first person consciousness, and if first person consciousness is essentially private, then by necessity there can’t be any sort of public, scientific evidence of or explanation for it. — Michael

In my opinion this is a failed attempt to hide behind the subjective aspects of the phenomenon.
By first person consciousness you refer to the subjective content of a conscious experience and because we can not share the exact same experience, your claim is that it makes it inaccessible to science.
Well recipes, medicines, brain surgery protocols and marketing exist because we are able to understand people's subjective experiences.We know how specific things feel and we try to make money out of it.
We even have the technology to decode complex conscious content of our thoughts by just reading brain scans with 85% accuracy! (far higher than the ability a married couple has to communicate to each other lol!)
Just because a phenomenon has a subjective aspect that doesn't mean we are unable to objectively study it (fallacy of ambiguity). Thousands of papers are published every year on the subject. New findings allow new techniques and treatments that can improve the quality of our subjective conscious states. We are able to identify pathology, physically alter a brain and satisfy the expectation of our patient by altering his subjective experience.
For me its' dishonest to pretend that we have no clue how subjective conscious states feel like especially when the free market is making big money through this knowledge.

Brain function, previous experiences and our biological setup are Necessary and Sufficient explanations for the subjective nature of our conscious experiences.
i.e. The number of taste buds on human tongue and previous experiences will "decide" whether one will enjoy the experience of a spicy food.
There is no need to imply undetectable dimensions and magical sources. The facts alone explain why experiences are subjective and why we can understand them enough so that we can produce accurate Diagnoses and Technical applications.

Then how do you know that the answers given so far are unsatisfactory. If I went into a room searching for something and you asked what it was I was looking for, if I said "I don't know", you might reasonable ask "then how do you know you haven't found it yet? — Isaac

The problem with Bert's and the hard problem approach in general, is that they don't even attempt to enter the room because finding anything appears to be impossible.
Chalmers's hard problem is based on what people find reasonable or possible. T Clark's statement verifies this position , I quote:"It doesn't seem objectively unreasonable to me that physical processing should give rise to a rich inner life.

I find your arguments very reasonable and pure. In my opinion the problem rises when we focus on specific questions like "why we exist" or "why should physical processes give rise to conscious experience". For such "why" questions (asserting teleology and meaning) any answer can be correct! lets say" Maybe the universe wanted plastic. A species being able to produce some would be the way to go".
Jokes aside , if we look closer in what motivates people to come up with this type of questions we will find our epistemic and existential anxiety pulling all the strings (Terror Management theory). This is why we don't find "unanswerable question" on digestion or bowel movement but on things that allow ideas like immortality or special nature to sneak in.
So I also appreciate these type of "question" for a different reason! They reveal more things about our psychology than the actual phenomenon in question.!
We place mysteries where answers are a threat to the "magic" of our existence. We avoid linking our mental existence with biology and the expiration date it comes with at any cost.
The main issue I have with these questions ( "hard problem" of consciousness) is that they are based on what people personally find unreasonable or impossible to be caused/produced by physical means(argument from ignorance fallacy), while others look at it and say "Cool, lets find out what makes it possible!"
Don't get me wrong. Symbolic language/ thinking always puzzled me because it is the main reason why our conscious experiences feel the way they do(nobody talks about it though), but after studying and learning about the brain mechanisms responsible for it you can see how it emerges and the survival advantage it provides to a species.

Right, there's no "matter" there, in those "particles", just activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

-What?....sir, "matter" describes a specific type of "activity" responsible for structure low level and high lever features (basic or advanced properties). Not all activities are matter. Its an equivocation fallacy based on a beef you have with the word "matter"!

"'Particle' part of matter"? What does that mean? You already said that a particle is just an activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No, I said that specific glitches(with specific properties) are responsible for the phenomenon of matter.

I'm ready. What is the known ontology of matter? You've said a few things about energy, also about activity, and you've said that energy relates to matter. So let's have it, where do we find this matter that is related to energy? — Metaphysician Undercover

From your questions I understand that you are not ready. I did my best to describe you the ontology of matter with really plain words and metaphors but you keep asking the same questions again and again as if nothing was said.

Maybe you don't understand how basic rules of logic work. ITs not me who has to "have something" on an unfalsifiable, irrational ontological speculation. You might not have any critique on teapotism, but that doesn't make teapotism a legit philosophical thesis.
Not all ideas are serious, philosophical or useful...just because some people attempt to force them in Philosophy.

Have you ever read anything about that topic? Because it seems to me closely connected to the hard problem argument. — Wayfarer

If the conflict is closely related to a made up "hard problem" based on ''why'' questions, things don't look promising.
Can you define what Darwinian Naturalism means to you ,because I had problems in the past to agree on a definition.

You will always reflexively equate philosophy with naturalism. — Wayfarer

It depends from the type of naturalism .If you are referring to Philosophical naturalism, then you are wrong.
I am a Methodological Naturalist, so Philosophy for me has to remain metaphysically neutral

.

I mention it because of the very well-known arguments about the apparent conflicts between Darwinian naturalism and the faculty of reason, although if you're not familiar with them, I won't go to the trouble of trying to explain them. — Wayfarer

Now we are on a different topic without making any acknowledgements for the previous theses....
BTW there aren't any real conflicts between Darwinian Naturalism and reason.

Nevertheless, in a philosophy forum, one that features people interested say in Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Wittgenstein and so on in the tradition, it is quite important to deal with these why questions, to differing degrees and with different perspectives in mind. It's built into the fabric of the discipline. — Manuel

I don't disagree with the traditional aspect of it. I (and I can only speak for myself) find it a waste of time trying to address unanswerable "why" questions. Its feels like all philosophers are in a race to produce the most unanswerable question in order to guarantee the immortality of their names in the Academia.
The bigger issue I have with this discussion is that most Philosophers are more interested in chronicling "who said what and when" than studying the latest breakthroughs of the respective scientific field.

And it is a very good list, and I agree that all these things are quite baffling, as I think existence should be.

I am surely not going to get in the way of a scientists and suggest them what they should, or should not do. Science has been a spectacular success story since it lifted off in the 17th century and it should continue as far as it can. — Manuel

Its good to know that you also feel baffled by the properties of matter in general. ITs sad to see most people ignoring the real "magic" in our world.

Now, if a scientists were to say, that free will is an illusion or that we don't actually perceive colour, we only think we do, then the philosophers can have say, and rightly so, in my opinion. — Manuel

-They can and should have a say, but only after justifying their conclusions in relations to the facts made available by scientists.

I find it really ridiculous to even criticize this unfalsifiable speculation on the unobservable nature of reality (if there is one to begin with).
The burden of proof demands evidence from the side making the claim, so I will insist on demanding a demonstration. The ridiculous nature of the claim is enough I guess.

But it doesn't provide criteria for judgement of epistemelogical or existential or metaphysical questions, because that is not the problem it is addressing. — Wayfarer

- Well evolutionary principles do provide answers to our hypotheses or questions. So by default the theory has the epistemic power to provide answers to our metaphysical questions (by metaphysical I mean beyond our current knowledge /classical definition) Since evolution deals with the diversity of life, ontology is the main focus of the theory.

And it does so quite successfully, although it is continually being modified to deal with varoius evolutionary facts. — Wayfarer

That is the main characteristic of science. Its call learning.

But the bottom line of evolutionary biology has to do with survival, reproduction, mutation and evolution. — Wayfarer

Or better....changes in allele frequencies over time.

When those criteria are applied to the use of reason, then it's reductionist, because it is reducing reason to an adaptation for the purposes of survival (when the vast bulk of evolved species have gotten along perfectly well without it.) — Wayfarer

No you are wrong. It reduces nothing, and reason was not the mind property in question here.
People tend to confuse different mind properties as if they are one.
Reason, memory , awakeness , awareness, pattern recognition, intelligence etc etc are different properties of the mind.

Indeed - but that's pretty well all you do here. You basically barge into every philosophical discussion with Look! Science! Can't you see, fools! That's exactly how you responded to me. — Wayfarer

You can not do science without philosophy and you can not have philosophy without science...well you can but it would be pseudo philosophy (Epistemically ignorant theoretical models).
Now, you are confusing politics (social Darwinism ), an irrational belief (scientism) with the act of using credible knowledge (science) to produce wise claims about the world (philosophy).
Your claims are all over the place. Revisit your thoughts pls.

I did. Its arrogant to thing that "we" are the sole creator of everything humans ever created. Humility alone should be enough to reject that silly worldview.

So you don't accept that science has a cultural role? That evolutionary theory is often used as a guide to how we should think or what we are? Have you ever studied philosophy of science? Do the names Kuhn, Feyerabend, Polanyi mean anything to you? — Wayfarer

I accept the cultural role of science. I rejected you paragraph for the nonsensical statement on evolution ("But evolutionary theory may not be up to the task, simply because it was never intended as a philosophy as such, or the basis for an epistemology and metaphysic. And if you try to adapt it to that purpose, it's very hard to avoid something like social darwinism or scientism.").
Evolution IS a theory so by definition its a philosophical narrative (natural philosophy)about observable facts. As a theory Evolution is part of our epistemology and it is used to inform our metaphysics.
The last part is even more weird. ITs not the theory's fault when people use it inappropriately. A theory has a specific place in science....its not for boosting our petty agendas

Yes I know those names but I prefer Hoyningen and Sanders.

Any similar claim outside that worldview would be identified as arrogant . So you will need to come up with a far better explanation and keep the same standards and criteria in your evaluations.

But since we don't understand it very well in our own case (human beings), and cannot prove other animals are conscious, to say that an AI has experience can be misleading — Manuel

Its one thing to not understand the details of how conscious states emerge/are sustained and another to talk about other people/animals ability to be conscious.
Actually we are very good in identifying conscious states of other people or species. Our survival used to depend on that ability.
In my opinion we don't have to "prove" it, because its not a mathematical problem.
Other animals are conscious not just because they behave exactly how conscious agents are expected to act, they also share the same hardware function and patterns with ours.
If we are going to question the ability of animals to be conscious of their environment, needs and urges then I don't know what the word "conscious" means.

The puzzle, for many people, and I assume even some scientists is the why question. And there should be space for surprise. There seems to be nothing in the "physical stuff" of nature which could lead one to conclude "consciousness comes from that". If there were, then, it wouldn't be surprising. — Manuel

The same should be true about Metabolism, constipation, mitosis, memory, photosynthesis, conductivity, liquidity, fluidity, replication, organization, emergence etc. As a scientists we should ignore the "why" questions and try to answer the how and what questions.

However, I don't see why this would entail people giving up on neuroscience at all. There is plenty of good research being done in the field with all sorts of practical applications. Some of it can have bearing on practical stuff concerning experience, such as the Libbett experiments, which have to do with will and when we become aware of us making a decision. — Manuel

Agreed.

However, human beings are past the point of doing what every other creature does - the four F's of feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing — Wayfarer

You will be surprised by the actual number of humans who do just that and don't ask questions. But I agree our Symbolic language does allow us to form complex concepts and questions and even ask things that have no meaningful answers. "

Because of the cultural role of science, Darwinism has tended to fill the vacuum caused by the collapse of religion in secular culture. But evolutionary theory may not be up to the task, simply because it was never intended as a philosophy as such, or the basis for an epistemology and metaphysic. And if you try to adapt it to that purpose, it's very hard to avoid something like social darwinism or scientism. — Wayfarer

- you clearly don't understand Evolution or Science so I will not even try to comment or correct the misconceptions in that paragraph...

By the way, in return for all the neuroscience articles, I will offer only one, a NY Times review prompted by the replication crisis with a particular eye on fMRI scans, Do You Believe in God, or is That a Software Glitch? — Wayfarer

Sure studies do go wrong....and this is why meta analyses are far more important.
The important thing with our findings in neuroscience is not to learn people's beliefs but to inform our technical applications (real life evaluation of our findings).

It's much simpler than that: we don't understand how matter can think. We simply lack an intuition of how the stuff we see in the world, could, in certain combination, lead to experience. — Manuel

Actually we understand how matter can think....through specific structures of matter with specific functions.
"intuition"? I don't think we can trust Intuition. What we need is to study and gather more knowledge and construct more detailed models.
We don't fully understand many things in nature i.e. organization,electricity, gravity, light, life, quantum behavior etc etc but that doesn't mean we haven't identify the responsible mechanisms for them and use this knowledge to come up with predictions and applications.
I get what you mean but these type of statements look more like an excuse people give to avoid doing the hard work (studying the actual science of the field). They sound more like a "why "question (why matter can do that) highlighting our surprise for being possible.

"How does brain function necessitate consciousness? What is it about brain function that means it can't happen without consciousness also happening?" — bert1

-That's better.
Well its turns out that being conscious offers survival advantages, so the brains that could reflect upon the environmental and organic stimuli, comprehend the meaning and implications of i.r. a tiger silhouette and the feeling of being cold or hungry and construct a plan how to deal with these problems were those that managed to pass their genes to the next generation.
How it is achieved?
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/neurobiology-of-consciousness-study-explained
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-generation-loss-13009/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-brain-area-could-enable-consciousness
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-mapping-21146/
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-network-17491/
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-conductor-16352/
https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-organization-consciousness-15132/
https://neurosciencenews.com/l5p-neuron-conscious-awareness-14997/
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-patterns-10756/
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-patterns-10698/
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-neuroscience-7189/
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-time-slices-4034/
https://neurosciencenews.com/how-the-brain-loses-and-regains-consciousness/
https://neurosciencenews.com/math-models-brain-state-22789/
https://neurosciencenews.com/eyes-consciousness-22032/
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news-stories/2017/june/brain-decoding-complex-thoughts.html
https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-one
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121175/

This is the implication of such outlandish claims.

btw when you talk to Penrose, give him this paper.

Our Brains Use Quantum Computation
https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-quantum-computing-21695/

There is some truth to this post, no doubt. Especially when one considers the sheer amount of books on the neurophysiology of consciousness — Manuel

Are you familiar with the the role Ascending Reticular Activating System and Central Lateral Thalamus?

If we had a much more sophisticated and intelligent cognitive system, we could discover how it is that brains produce experience. — Manuel

-Do you really thing that's the main issue? How about the complexity of organ and its functions?
What percentage of books and publications have you studied in order to arrive to that conclusion? Are you sure that we haven't pin point the responsible mechanisms for conscious experiences.
https://neurosciencenews.com/?s=brain+consciousness
There are many papers that beg to differ.

Not that I'm remotely well educated on this stuff, — bert1

-you don't say.....

-"but nowhere do I see any answer to the question "That's all fab, but why can't that happen in the dark? Why does any of this constitute or necessitate subjective awareness. or consciousness, or the capacity to experience?""
-oh....ok Why questions again....and its science's fault for not being able to answer your fallacious question.
Sure Bert...keep feeling sad for me I guess.lol

What two basic steps?
Philosophy is not a how to manual. There are no frameworks to wisdom. — Fooloso4

You don't sound to be familiar with Aristotle's work on the systematization of the field.

How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't see how they could. — Fooloso4

-And this is why those two steps are important in any Philosophical inquiry.

This is simply wrong. Socratic philosophy is dialectical. The result is often aporia not wise claims. There is a reason Socrates never wrote anything. No book of "wise statements". — Fooloso4

Well Socrates was (probably) Plato's creation and this is why we don't have any writings from this dude.
Yes Socrates's method guided a discussion through challenging questions(απορίες), but those questions were design to expose inconsistencies between opinions, facts of the world and logic.
So its not wrong. Socrates identified the inconsistencies between popular beliefs and real life facts and attempted to expose them through diplomacy allowing the interlocutor to answer the final "aporia" set by the philosopher.

I don't know what this means. Statements have content. — Fooloso4

Yes they do but their content doesn't change the Philosophical method.
A philosopher first needs to acknolwedge the available knowledge , identify the most credible through the latest empirical evaluations and attempt to arrive to a wise statement or right question.

Plato's writings are works of philosophy. If you or Bunge make these overarching claims about what philosophy is and those claims exclude what Plato does, then the problem is with your claim. — Fooloso4

-No they don't. Like in any Philosophical work, there is good philosophy and bad philosophy in Plato's work. We don't throw the baby with the bath water
But I still don't understand why you insist on talking about Plato or Socrates.
My question is really simple. How one can philosophize without using objective knowledge as the foundation for his auxiliary assumptions.
I have a great example of a thread (The hard problem of matter.(consciousness)) where the author ignores the science around the topic but he goes on using a pseudo philosophical assumption (Chalmers's fallacious teleology) for his main question.
The same is true with a guy I was chatting in a different thread,who ignores the scientific definition of matter but he has no problem making strawmen claims on what scientist claim about matter.
The list of such individuals is long.....they trying to do philosophy while ignoring relevant knowledge.

"Wise statements" are not the final product of the dialogues. They often end in aporia. — Fooloso4

Sure, apories (asking right questions) are also the strong point of Philosophy. Right questions need to be wise too...and how do you know when a question is wise? We check their empirical routes.

They often end in aporia. It is the inquiry itself, thinking through the questions raised, that is at issue — Fooloso4

Actually they almost always end in aporia. If they don't , then it means we have the data to answer them....in that case we are no longer doing Philosophy, we are doing science. Philosophical frameworks (wise statements) are usually theories within a scientific field or in Mathematics.

We are left in the position of the philosopher, that is, of one who desires to be but is not wise. — Fooloso4

You will need to provide an example or else I can not accept it as a meaningful answer .

This leaves you in the precarious position of having to defend the claim that the Socratic dialogues are not philosophical. — Fooloso4

Of course they are...they posses this value. I already explained it.(above)

Self-knowledge is the example. — Fooloso4

that isn't an example. that is a vague claim. what Self knowledge means to you and how do you achieve it. Don't you make any observations(acquire knowledge) ...how do you arrive to this type of knowledge. You just pick ideas without any type of criteria or judgment???

Not according to Bunge. According to him solving problems is the goal of philosophy. I questioned that assumption. I don't think you understand that. You claimed that it is not an assumption. I asked you for clarification. If solving problems is only a side effect then you too reject his assumption. — Fooloso4

-You shouldn't question that because is not an assumption. Its a fact. This is what we as human beings do, trying to solve problems and questions.
You can not separate Wisdom and knowledge from puzzle solving. Knowing wise things is how we successfully inform our actions.

Here we have a good example of why philosophy is not "wise statements". Statements cannot defend themselves against misunderstanding. — Fooloso4

That's not even even meaningful. Statements don't have "a self". Can you elaborate?

According to Aristotle it is not the ability to solve problems that makes one wise. You are looking at him through the lens of modern science. — Fooloso4

- Again the definition of the word includes the ability to make good judgment....I think that proves puzzle solving is what one can do by making a good judgment.

Ignorance is bliss...I guess

Sorry mate, I attempted to end this conversation twice with a greeting and wishes but you kept responding,so I thought you wanted this interaction to go on. My bad, you don't need to use these ad hominems, I won't respond to you again.
Cheers.

You remind me of many religious fundamentalists people I have had the displeasure of talking to. — TheMadMan

-Strawman. Religious fundamentalists people avoid facing facts or logic and use techniques to avoid any challenges of their beliefs...like using a strawman. ; )

I presented my objections and I can argue successfully for each one with facts, logic and credible knowledge. Are you willing to break them down one by one?
This is not what a religious fundamentalists individual would do...because they lack objective evidence to begin with.
So tell me if you are willing to see the problem in your OP.

The OP isn't addressed to you. It is addressed to people who think consciousness is more fundamental than matter and asks how matter can emerge from consciousness — bert1

Agreed. I only pointed out the a pseudo philosophical assumption in its core. Is it ok?

. If you want to talk about how we are all engaging in pseudophilosophy, I suggest you start a thread about it. — bert1

Such a thread wouldn't be convenient since the shaky auxiliary assumption is located in this thread.

There are plenty of other threads when it might be more on topic to go on about pseudophilosophy. — bert1

Why do you believe that "Philosophical ideas" should be held in ivory towers away from criticism???? This is not how Philosophy work, we question everything especially claims that can derail philosophical conversations!

If this thread was arguing for the view that consciousness is fundamental, then fair game. — bert1

Everything is fair game in Philosophy especially the auxiliary assumptions where our conversations are founded.
Its like wasting time in a conversation on the billions of money I have the investments I should do when in reality I am homeless.

It asks us to assume that (rationally or not) and proceed to enquire how matter could emerge. — bert1

-That's a subject is more suitable for a movie script, than an actual philosophical discussion.
Its like talking about what to do about your haunted house when ghosts don't exist.
Not the best way to spend your time Bert!

hat's the subject of the thread, and you are not engaging with it. — bert1

Of course I am! I am pointing out a huge error in the OP! Its in direct conflict with logic and our current epistemology.

Yeah but I too have a lot of opposition about your beliefs but I didn't make any judgement of it precisely because I didn't want too deal with them in this discussion whereas you insisted that I would engage with them.

If you like basketball don't go to a football stadium just to say that you like basketball better than football. — TheMadMan

Judgement...? Sir, do you understand what Public forums are FOR??
We are here to present and challenge our opinions, expose the weaknesses in our arguments and find holes in our supportive epistemology.
Please let this this "hurt puppy" card go and man up. You attempted to base a public philosophical discussion on a highly problematic unfounded assumption (hard problem of consciousness) and I called it out.
I even exposed myself by communicating my objections making them vulnerable to your critique.
Instead you chose to attack the messenger without even considering the red flag in the middle of the room.

Listen I can not force you to participate in this discussion or convince you to question all your auxiliary assumptions before laying them as foundations for your thoughts.
But I have to demarcate real Philosophy from pseudo philosophy.....the type of ''philosophy'' that doesn't account knowledge and is unable to produce wisdom. I did it and I guess I am done.
Enjoy yourself.

Not really, we observe activity, and assume that there is particles involved in this activity. The "matter" which is supposed to substantiate the existence of the particles is just an assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover

Physics is not your strong suit right?
We don't assume "particles" in the sense you understand it. Its NOT an existential claim of an entity in the classical sense! Particles is the label we use to name an observed and quantified activity.

See, the properties are observed, not the particles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure we don't observe " crystal marbles" if this is what you mean. Energetic glitches is what we observe, quantify and predict. This is what we call "particle" part of Matter.
Did anyone tell you that particles are some type of rocks? What is your argument here.???

I haven't the faintest idea what you might mean by "cosmic energy", and how this might relate to "matter". Can you just leave that aside please, and stick to the subject, "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's a huge problem if you don't understand the relation between energy and matter (Einstein's Theory). How can we even start talking about matter then?

Again, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here with your metaphors. Can we just stick to the subject? — Metaphysician Undercover

We are on the subject...let me try differently.
Matter is .....grrrhhouah... energy in a different state. We can detect this "type of energy" because it displays specific properties and characteristics.!! The conditions for this state of energy were enabled after the Big Bang event (As far as we can observe).

You (I mean anyone) can not get in a conversation about Matter and mental properties without understanding the known ontology of matter.

I tend to raise red flags when I spot pseudo philosophy in Philosophical forums....that's all. No bad feelings.

Well the way you evaluate statements explains why you are susceptible to Pseudo Philosophy.
You will need to provide an argument, identify your premises, avoid fallacies, try to offer evidence in support of your premises and only then you will end up with a sound argument.

Anyone can search the internet for material to back up one's biased opinions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well this is why we have Logic....
Logic is what renders the material important and conclusive.

Your referenced "academic material" was off topic and not interesting to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it wasn't. My material render your claims wrong...this is why you are not interested in them.After all this material is only taught in all major Universities....lol

Sorry Nickolasgaspar. (Now I apologize, so I am somewhat affected by your suffering, or maybe just being polite). — Metaphysician Undercover

-Sophistry.

The more you beg the less I am inclined toward submission. I will enjoy, while you suffer, but I'll make it perfectly clear, in all honesty, my enjoyment is derived from what I am doing, not from your suffering. There is no "shared experience" here (to quote Janus), because you've had no success in your attempt to communicate. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Ignoring Academic knowledge won't make your claims true.
You made claims that are factually wrong and I was kind enough to provide resources for your information.
Now your education is your suffering...not my job.

Why do you say that these are properties of "matter"? If all we observe is properties, and "why" questions are fallacious teleology, how do you get "matter" here? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because they are!!! We observe fundamental particles interacting with each other and producing Empirically regular properties that we can observe , quantify and predict.
Matter is "cosmic energy" at a specific energetic state. Fundamental subatomic particles are registered as energetic glitches with a set of properties (charge spin etc). Since we are well in the quantum scale our empirically evolved language has limited explanatory power.

Again, if we observe arrangements, what is this "matter" you assume here? — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you expecting a definition like " milk from a cosmic cow"? Its a freaking label we put on this specific phenomenon that appears to be the sole enabler of everything we can interact and detect.
You can google "matter" you know!. There are definition and descriptions (analysis of its parts).

'Hard problems' ,of the kind that Chalmers referred to, are not about 'why' in the teleological sense. They are about how. How is it that consciousness can emerge from non-conscious systems? How could a material world arise from consciousness? I think both of these are insoluble, and we need more than one fundamental property. — bert1

-Not really lets analyze them. His three main questions are:
"1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
2. why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does
2. why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
In all 3 questions the answer "because it does" is adequate.
Now Mark Solms in his latest theory provided evolutionary answers on "why" emotions can be better addressed by advanced mental conscious states...but that was not what Chalmer's was really asking.


-"How is it that consciousness can emerge from non-conscious systems?"
If Chalmer's did his homework he would know the role of ARAS and Central Lateral Thalamus in the emergence of our conscious states.(ARAS state of awareness and alert/ stimuli arrive as signals/ the Central lateral thalamus share them to other areas specialized in Symbolic language, Memory/expeirence/ pattern recognition/ reasoning etc and the feedback enables our conscious content to emerge).

-"How could a material world arise from consciousness? "
-thats a fallacy (begging the question )not a serious scientific question. Consciousness is a testable, quantifiable mental ability...not a creation agent. At least claim needs to be demonstrated before starting search for the "how".

-" I think both of these are insoluble, and we need more than one fundamental property."
-Both are a great example on how pseudo philosophy can derail our philosophical inquiry.

Relax man, what are you 12? — TheMadMan

Ad hominem.
-"What you aren't getting is that I didn't start this discussion to argue with physicalists."
-No I get it, just don't accuse me for monologia.

I am interested in arguments from those whose maintain that consciousness is primary. — TheMadMan

- I get it, and I just point out to you that is pseudo philosophy. What if I was only interested in arguments from those who believe I am a billionaire(when I am not)
In philosophy you need to construct your strong foundations before embarking to a quest.
The GIGO effect is lurking!

So whatever physicalist challenge you have this is not the discussion. — TheMadMan

I am not a physicalist, I reject all materialistic/non materialistic worldviews. I am a methodological naturalist and my objection is based on basic logic to begin with.
To be conscious is to be aware (of something.) One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a "consciousness" without anything to be conscious of is not a "consciousness."

Well I am biased towards logic and objective evidence. Opinions without epistemic validation are weak. Mine are strong because they are backed up by facts. I offered you objective facts (academic material) on why there isn't just one set of steps in a scientific method (one scientific method)and you had nothing to offer in return.
I guess we both know why you are avoiding this challenge and to be fair when I lay facts on the table...nobody really want's fight for a lost cause.
Its your right, enjoy whatever this is (but its not philosophy).

Thats what we know on the scientific front.
Im asking philosophically and even experientially. — TheMadMan

Why do you think you can practice meaningful philosophy when ignoring our most credible epistemology on the subject????