The "problem" is inherent in human being's tendency to differentiate self from Other.
We are born in a body that has been conditioned by natural selection for millions of years and a collective unconsciousness that has been conditioned biologically and socially.
And on top of that, our conscious has been conditioned by one's current society.

So we are kind of doomed on so many layers of conditioning to feel ourselves as a completely separate entity from the Other.
The world becomes an arena where "I" has to affirm itself and the Other is inevitably separated from you.

So the I-thou/it dichotomy is born.

So is the is this a resolvable problem? — Andrew4Handel

I would say yes but it is very difficult to resolve since one has to deal with such a deep conditioning on many levels.
And it can only be resolved experientially.

As Heraclitus beautifully said:

'The many dwell in their own private world, whilst the awakened have but one world in common' ~ Heraclitus (quoted in John Fowles, The Aristos). — Wayfarer

The many live in the Subject V Object dichotomy.
The awakened dissolve the object into the subject where the observer becomes the observed.
As expressed by stories of deepest love the I-Thou merges into One.

Unfortunately we have members who are in the southern hemisphere — Jamal

¡ǝʇɐɯ ʎǝʞᴉɹƆ

That's what an idealized Jesus might say: take up your cross ! — green flag

I think that's what was implied in what he actually said, especially in the Gospel of Thomas.

Also that's why I like the Zen attitude towards the Buddha:
"If you meet Buddha in your path cut of his head immediately"
“Cleanse the mouth thoroughly when you utter the word Buddha.”
“There is one word I do not like to hear; that is, Buddha.”
“If I had been with Buddha at the moment of his uttering this, I would surely have struck him dead with one blow and thrown the corpse into the maw of a hungry dog.”

Their goal is Buddha and yet they are aware that it is also their biggest obstacle.

to avoid having to do what he taught — Art48

Im reminded of this idea from Erich Fromm:

"...people who are firm believers in Christ as the great lover, the self-sacrificing God, can turn this belief, in an alienated way, into the experience that it is Jesus who loves for them. Jesus thus becomes an idol; the belief in him becomes the substitute for one’s own act of loving. In a simple, unconscious formula: “Christ does all the loving for us; we can go on in the pattern of the Greek hero, yet we are saved because the alienated ‘faith’ in Christ is a substitute for the imitation of Christ.”

So in a sense it is a deflection of the responsibility to be and do what Jesus said.
It's easier to worship Jesus than to become Jesus so if you call him a god you are making that goal unreachable and then go your usual way.

Interesting ideas thanks.

I do like the trinity, action potential (positive emptiness)-energy-matter

I think I provided an initial answer, here: — Metaphysician Undercover

This still doesnt answer what this "matter" is in itself. Its just saying how the appearance arises.
It just says how the icon on a computer screen arises not what it is.

Is collective intelligence greater than individual intelligence? — Benj96

Is not individual intelligence a filtered and localized collective intelligence?

Therefore, there is scope to believe a superhuman intelligence may know what's better for us than any of us do individually. — Benj96

What is this superhuman intelligence? AI? AI is not even human intelligence, it only simulates a part of human intelligence.

If AI has a grasp on ethics and morality (which I believe it does as it has been trained on all the Law and philosophical books/texts we have available to us thus far) then perhaps whatever it deems ethically fit based on those texts will surpass any notion of morality we have previous conceived of as individuals. — Benj96

I believe AI will be super useful on law (only on certain issues) and many other human endeavors but it will always be limited by its own nature as a simulation.
Its a very dangerous decision to let AI decide what is ethically fit for humanity.
Who knows maybe AI will come at the same conclusion as Ultron.

I really like AI but I don't understand why people are so quick to give to it responsibilities that can only be taken by humans.

If a mistake occurs I'm not sure it's "innocent" in the sense that the person caused it.

But the mistake is either caused by "mal-intent" or "despite good intention" . And I think that's the key difference.

If a mistake is caused but the intent was good, then the mistake is in the action/execution. Forgiveable. Perhaps the person requires a bit more careful thinking/reasoning and planning in the future. — Benj96

So you don't think that a mistake with a good intention is innocent?
Basically innocence means "meaning no harm" and a good intention means no harm.

In fact it's much easier to see the hard problem when you try to derive the physical from the non-physical. — bert1

Agree.

but intuitively it's hard to conceive of space emerging from non-space: — bert1

Interesting because for me that space-time "comes from" the spaceless-timeless makes more sense.
Also saying "emerge" and "come from" (like I did) misses the point because its implies succession in time/space. I think their relationship has to be timeless thus simultaneous.

adding millions of 0inch lengths doesn't get you a length. — bert1

I think that the spaceless is not millions of 0 inch. It is not inch at all. It is different in its nature from space.

The difference maybe can be expressed in this way: Space-time is transitory by nature whereas the spaceless/timeless is eternal. Thus making them the same but at the same time different in their manifestation.

There seems to be no intermediate step in-between non-spatiality and spatiality. — bert1

I don't think there is a step in between because there is no in-between. I would say there is a continuation of the spaceless into space and around it goes from space to the spaceless.
Separate only in difference.

This may seem paradoxical but since language is created for duality, paradoxes on this topic are unavoidable.

t's a good OP, interesting question. I don't have much more to say on the subject unfortunately, so I should probably shut the fuck up as well. — bert1

I understand how it could be difficult to answer it especially because for 4 centuries the west has been interested with the question in the other way around.
I was just wondering if someone has some kind of arguments to help answer that question because I've been thinking about it but haven't got far.

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? — Nickolasgaspar

That's what Jehovah's witnesses said to me when I kept telling them "I'm not interested just let me drink this cola in peace".

Drives me up the fucking wall. It's not complicated is it? — bert1

Apparently for some it is.

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. If you want to talk about how we are all engaging in pseudophilosophy, I suggest you start a thread about it. There are plenty of other threads when it might be more on topic to go on about pseudophilosophy. If this thread was arguing for the view that consciousness is fundamental, then fair game. But it isn't. It asks us to assume that (rationally or not) and proceed to enquire how matter could emerge. That's the subject of the thread, and you are not engaging with it. Twiggez-vous? — bert1

At least someone gets it. :sweat:

No legs, no walking. — 180 Proof

I asked the opposite

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

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.

"Matter" is an assumption which the conscious mind makes. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see what you meant. What I wanna ask is how does this assumption arises from mind.

Doesn't this answer the question of the op then — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think it does. It just explains one way of what matter is not how it arises and whats its relation to mind.

I just point out to you that is pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

And I just want to point out that I didn't ask.

Hmmm so do legs exist in anyway without walking?

Yes I agree. I don't see a question.

Why are you avoiding my challenge? — Nickolasgaspar

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

Relax man, what are you 12?
What you aren't getting is that I didn't start this discussion to argue with physicalists.
I am interested in arguments from those whose maintain that consciousness is primary.
I made that clear in the beginning.
So whatever physicalist challenge you have this is not the discussion.
Start your own discussion for that.

Isn't all we know, at all levels, "physical properties, observed an measured"? So, what more are you asking for? — Metaphysician Undercover

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

Philosophy starts with wonder and doesnt arrive at conclusions, if it does it becomes dogma.
Good luck man.

Brother you need to practice some intellectual humility.
Your are just making statement authoritatively not allowing space.
You talk about doing philosophy properly and yet your statements are monologic.
True philosophy is dialogic.

That is how "matter" arises from consciousness. — Metaphysician Undercover

What you are describing as matter is just the physical properties, observed and measured. My question is for all levels of matter that we know, to the quarks.

Was the excitation physical or idealist?

except that "consciousness" is no more mysteriously "emergent from matter" than walking is emergent from legs — 180 Proof

But still you are saying that legs come first and walking is just the epi-phenomena.

Many people, have maintained that representation is only one way of experiencing.
Mainly because of the brain's need for a model of the world for economic and safety reasons (or other idk).
But I thinks its clear that in the mind must exist a contrary way of experience, that of novelty, or even perpetual novelty or else the human species wouldn't have survived.
Basically all eastern philosophies of more than 2000 years have dealt of the problem of experiencing the world in a non-representational way.

Yes, one can express it that way. An excitation of the field of consciousness/absolute-emptiness.

Broadly speaking there are two perspectives of humanity on earth:
1. Humans are above nature so they must conquer and control it.
2. Humans are part of nature and should collaborate with it.

I'm not sure to what extent this is true but it seems that religious/spiritual traditions have played a role on people's attitude towards nature.
For example, Shintoism of old Japan or Animism of the Native Americans where everything is filled with spirit in contrast with Christianity where man is divorced from nature.

Maybe the shame and guilt come from our expectation of our self.
I don't feel guilt or shame when I fail at something I know I'm not good at.
So it maybe be from our self-image and our identification with it.

Just saying, the golden rule is a really bad rule.
"Treat others as you would like to be treated."?
A lot of times the way you would like to be treated is hell for me.
One man's treasure is another man's trash.
Silver rule is not perfect but its better in comparison :"Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."

As for any moral value I'm not sure o know what you mean exactly. Some mistakes are not morally relevant. Others are more so. — Benj96

Im not sure how one can give a moral judgment to the mistake/error. I think that the moral judgement falls to what could cause the mistake/error i.e negligence, pride, anger etc.

faultless mistake or error is a contradiction in terms — Ludwig V

It may be contradiction of terms but its a reality. Maybe "innocent mistake" would be a better term for what I mean.

OP used mistake and error with the same meaning.
Nevertheless Im not putting moral value to a mistake.
And people will feel regret even if it is a fault-less mistake/error.

But there are also mistakes that are not depended on your knowledge.
You can know all that is possible for you to make predictions and still make a mistake because there are many forces outside your knowledge that could play a role in your mistake.

If you are referring to the negative religions (buddhism, taoism, zen) notion of no-self then you have started in many wrong steps.

For example.

Secondly, to deny that the self exists at all. That the ego itself exists. — ClayG

No-self doesnt mean that ego doesn't exist.
It means ego is not fundamental. It is a byproduct e certain conditions.

Also

then it follows that there are certain religious faiths that allow for the belief that it is morally neutral for one to commit atrocities. — ClayG

Au contraire, in a state of no-self the person is even more morally responsible than the "ignorant ego-self".
The negative religions (no-self) do not maintain that a person has no moral obligation for their action.

Your understanding of the negative way is still seen through the lens of dualism and so it will creat these conflicts in your thinking of the no-self.

Perhaps you think not wanting the best for humanity is itself irrational — Ø implies everything

Yes its is irrational.

You assume humanity is the foot — Ø implies everything

No I don't separate humanity from the rest of life on earth.

what if the life on Earth in general, and/or some notion of nature, is the foot in which humanity is the thorn? — Ø implies everything

What if...?
Do you have arguments that humanity is the thorn.
You would also have to prove the pointlessness of humanity in existence and the value of the rest without humanity.

Exactly, very broad. And you expect me to "give the reasoning behind it".

Well, when you make broad statements with no reasoning behind it, kind of makes sense then that I would do that with just a claim without support. — schopenhauer1

Some things I take to be obvious to people that's why I don't go on trying to explain every statement.
I prefer parsimony when possible.

So if my statement is unclear to you that why don't you ask questions to me for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions.