A philosophical "starting point" would be to define "Consciousness". I generally agree with your reasoning, except I understand that Human Consciousness probably evolved from something even more Fundamental, such as Generic Information : the power to enform ; to create. :smile:When I ask whether consciousness is fundamental or not, I start from a very simplistic logical model. — Eugen
I. Consciousness is or is not fundamental - 100% of the possibilities — Eugen
A. It is 100% reducible to the fundamental properties of reality - weak emergence.
B. It is not 100% reducible to the fundamental properties of reality - strong emergence. — Eugen
This model looks like this:
I. Consciousness is or is not fundamental - 100% of the possibilities
II. If it is not fundamental, then:
A. It is 100% reducible to the fundamental properties of reality - weak emergence.
B. It is not 100% reducible to the fundamental properties of reality - strong emergence.
A + B = 100% of the possibilities
I + II = 100% of all possibilities — Eugen
This is a misrepresentation of the meaning of "emergence." Emergence applies to processes at one scale or level of organization that are manifestations of processes at a smaller scale or lower level. All emergent processes are "reducible to fundamental processes of reality" if by that you mean consistent with the laws of physics. The difference between what you call weak vs. strong emergence is that while both are reducible to physical processes, strongly emergent processes can not be derived, predicted, from those lower level processes. — T Clark
It really doesn't have any explanatory power. — T Clark
Maybe a reality where nothing is fundamental, or maybe a reality where something is both fundamental and emergent. — Eugen
By reasoning, obtaining empirical evidence, etc. — Eugen
- Hmmm, the way I phrased it... yes. But to me, in idealism, consciousness is fundamental, period. Indeed, I guess I wasn't very coherent.Don't some forms of idealism work like this? — Tom Storm
Is there any particular reason why the question matters to you personally? — Tom Storm
But to me, in idealism, consciousness is fundamental, period. Indeed, I guess I wasn't very coherent. — Eugen
Yes, there is. I want to be as rigorous as I can. I don't want to miss something from the picture. — Eugen
- I'm not surprised, you always find my OP's non-sensical even though you always find answers.What I think, however, is that the OP doesn't make any sense. — 180 Proof
- Let me ask you this in a different way. Forget about ''emergence", you're too obsessed with attacking this notion. Is there a way in which something (a process for example, but you can think of anything you want) is:either X is reducible or X is strongly emergent" — 180 Proof
I'm non-native, so give me an alternative word or notion.an unwarranted assumption that there is something "fundamental". — 180 Proof
Options (b) & (c) contradict each other — 180 Proof
- Water is not fundamental.B. is not fundamental — Eugen
- Water can be 100% reduced to the fundamental properties of reality.C. Its properties are 100% reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality — Eugen
Eugen, if you edit your post, let me suggest that you reduce the redundancy in all that.'absolutely anything you could think of". And I mean it in the most literal sense. Think of everything you want. — Eugen
Not 'inside' this universe or even in a multiverse imo.Can we find something outside the fundamental-reducible/irreducible? — Eugen
I think my answer to question 2 is the same as my answer to question 1 but I would suggest that that which was proved to be eternal in of itself, could not have 'parts' so would be 'irreducible.' — universeness
Eugen, if you edit your post, let me suggest that you reduce the redundancy in all that.
- "abosulutely anything"
- "I mean it in the most literal sense"
- Think of everything you want
Actually, I think that you can replace all that with just "anything you could think of"!
Please do not consider my comment a didactic or critical one. It's only that I was quite overwhelmed by so much redundancy and found it quite annoying. — Alkis Piskas
But it seems to me that you're making my model even more powerful. Not only I don't miss anything, but my model has an extra thing that we could discard namely ''strong emergence". Right? — Eugen
But it seems to me you cannot accept a thing that could be eternal and fundamental at the same time. Why? — Eugen
Binary on/off is certainly two states but I agree they are 'states' of a single object.I cannot think of something that has two fundamentally different properties. — Eugen
o me, the concept of 'fundamental' allows for more than one to exist. — universeness
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.