Furthermore, if a table did exist, but no one ever saw or used it, would we naturally conclude it doesn't exist? In this case it does, regardless. We just cannot appreciate its form or function therefore for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. — Benj96
Is a table natural or is it a product of human consciousness? — Benj96
Again, you say "My body". See the contradiction, the conflict?Well I would say I am a body. My body has a brain — Benj96
But it also doesn't make any sense to me how consciousness is emergent from matter.
That would mean that matter precedes it.
How can matter without any form of intelligence -since in this case consciousness is emergent- create something like consciousness, which is intelligence. It's like a sculpture creating the sculptor.
No matter how I go through it, science, philosophy or religion, consciousness always has to be fundamental and not emergent. — TheMadMan
Exactly.we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us — javi2541997
We are speaking different languages. — TheMadMan
I'm using it as a fundamental principle of reality. — TheMadMan
Also the use of the word intelligence is different. I'm using it as the guiding principle of consciousness. — TheMadMan
Another difference is that you create a duality of matter and consciousness. I do not. — TheMadMan
So, if we accept this impossiblility, then the concept of awareness has no meaning at all. Awareness simply doesn't exist as a state or faculty. Which is of course false. — Alkis Piskas
If something doesn't make sense from a religious angle for example then pivot into philosophy, or science. The more perspectives the fuller the picture resolution — punos
Well i didn't intend to give that impression because i'm a monist not a dualist; there is one thing and all is made of it, just more complex forms of the same thing (energy and matter). If consciousness is fundamental then it must be found either at the level of pure energy (before matter), or somehow before energy itself which is as fundamental as i think one can get. — punos
We should at least have a stable definition of what consciousness is so that we know how to identify it when it shows up. How can we tell the difference between something that is conscious and something that is not? How would you define consciousness in this context? — punos
Does the table exists naturally? Probably, but with a different name and meaning. — javi2541997
From the moment you say "I have" and "my" (something) you cannot be that (something). — Alkis Piskas
Some rocks are tables, not all rocks are tables, Therefore could not all tables be rocks? What else has tableness? — Benj96
What else has tableness? — javi2541997
Sorry if that was a little confusing. I will try to make it more clear: Let's define "awareness" as a state, condition or faculty of being able to know or perceive. Now, we know that objects cannot be in such a state or have such a faculty --there's no indication whatsoever about that. Right? So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false.Sorry, I am a bit lost on the final phrase of your argument. What is false at all? I see that you want to explain that awareness is not faculty or state and then, awareness shall not have logic itself. — javi2541997
. Now, we know that objects cannot be in such a state or have such a faculty --there's no indication whatsoever about that. Right? So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false — Alkis Piskas
I think it does exist (isn't metaphysical but physical), but only because we exist and it makes sense as a physical existent to us. The proof of a table is in its use as a table. The function proves its definition. — Benj96
So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false. — Alkis Piskas
Yes, I am agree they exist but what I deny is the notion of "table" or whatever new existents — javi2541997
What I want to argue here is the fact that, if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary. — javi2541997
Is this sort of what you meant? — Benj96
Is a tree aware? Not like a human is, for sure. Does that mean it definitely isn't aware? I'm not so sure. How would one prove this? In essence such a question requires us to definitively define what consciousness actually is. And thus what is capable of possessing it. — Benj96
Well, we come back to the conflict between "I have awareness" and "objects do not have awareness" ...We are physical bodies with defined parameters that exist in space — Benj96
Yes, that is a possibility. Well, since you brought this up, you must also find out how! :grin:if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary. — javi2541997
See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas
Yes, that is a possibility. Well, since you brought this up, you must also find out how! :grin: — Alkis Piskas
I agree. This is close to what I mentioned en passant about "ignoring actual experience".I only can guess that the basic starting point is the existence itself which is mixed with subject and properties. — javi2541997
Well, we come back to the conflict between "I have awareness" and "objects do not have awareness" ... — Alkis Piskas
See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas
also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas
If they believe that, they should be able to explain it then. Can you?Many people believe "objects have awareness" - whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter — Benj96
I have already said that "So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define.". Also, @javi2541997 said that, in other words: "if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary." Both statements are presented in one and the same topic: yours.whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.