I am entirely matter. Suppose everything about me can be explained in terms of matter, in terms of biological, chemical, and electrical processes. Then matter can become conscious, as demonstrated by the fact that I, who am entirely matter, am conscious. So, obviously, “dumb” matter has enormous potential. It can appear as dumb as a rock, but don’t let it fool you. You exist. You are conscious. If you are entirely material, then not so much the worse for you, but so much the better for materialism! Look what matter can do. Clearly, it’s extraordinary. Clearly, I don’t know all matter can do. Let’s call this view “enlightened materialism.” — Art48

Finally someone else gets it. Its sometimes frustrating that people get stuck in the idea that being conscious matter is somehow despairing. What's the amazing conclusion they're missing? Matter can be CONSCIOUS. Matter and energy is amazing magic, and we've only scratched the surface of what we can do with it.

So, maybe I do somehow continue to exist. — Art48

Given an infinite duration, if the same matter combines in the same pattern, maybe we keep being reborn.

As an attitude, I think what you describe is great. Embrace the world and embodiment and the strangeness of the higher emerging from the lower, 'mind' from 'matter.'

Good thinking. For so long we've disparaged the worldly in favor of the spiritual, and this has likely led to the upsetting and devastating fear you've expressed. Perhaps it has led to the destruction of the worldly. When it is discovered that the worldly is all we have, the task of philosophers should be the opposite, to disparage the spiritual in favor of the worldly, so that past wrongs can be corrected.

The materialist/physicalist view is that consciousness can be explained as exclusively a product of biological, chemical, and electrical activity. Consciousness merely is “what the brain does.” People who consider themselves hard-nosed realists often take this view. . . . .
You exist. You are conscious. If you are entirely material, then not so much the worse for you, but so much the better for materialism! Look what matter can do. Clearly, it’s extraordinary. Clearly, I don’t know all matter can do. Let’s call this view “enlightened materialism.” — Art48

I disagree that Consciousness can be satisfactorily explained in purely material terms. Matter can explain Facts, but not Meanings. Yet I don't think of sentient awareness as some supernatural entity like a divinely endowed Soul. Instead, "Consciousness" is the name we give to a mysterious process (function) of complex material organisms (brains). Superficially, the brain may seem like a hydraulic mechanism, but its output, its work, is the production of invisible & intangible concepts (insights, intellect, ingenuity, vision), that would be of no use to creatures with no means to make them personally meaningful. "What matter can do" is to convert ordinary physical Energy into psychic Ideas that can motivate other sentient beings toward cooperative goals ; it transforms physical Nature into metaphysical Culture --- but how?.

Therefore, Mind may be defined simplistically as "what the Brain does" (its function). But that doesn't completely explain what Mind is essentially (ontologically). The Identity Theory, that Brain = Mind, ignores a wide explanatory gap between physical actions and mental processes. Obviously neural activity is correlated with mental ideation, but a tree is not the same thing as a representation of a tree. In the 20th century, Behaviorism was a popular approach to psychology. But it reduced presumed moral agents to philosophical zombies. Hence, ordinary Materialism is missing something fundamental (mental) in the world. Some feature of the whole system that cannot be found in its isolated parts. So yes, conventional Materialism is in need of Enlightenment. We need, not an "exclusive" reduction, but a holistic inclusive induction (part to whole).

However, I don't view acquiescence to the obvious, or ignorance of essence*1 as "enlightening". For example, Isaac Newton mathematically defined what Gravity does, but was mystified by what it is*3. Gravity functions like a material connection between massive objects, except there is no actual medium, no matter, in the gap. So, Einstein re-defined Gravity mathematically as a geometric relationship, a ratio*4. And it's now mostly imagined as a Field of attractive Force. Yet again, the Field is defined mathematically instead of materially. Which leaves open the question of what Gravity is essentially.

As with Mind, the mystery of Gravity is not in its Function, but its Form. Mathematical forms, e.g. Geometry, cannot be detected by the physical senses. Instead, we know of such immaterial "stuff" only by the sixth sense of Reason, which translates physical interrelationships into mental models. And the "stuff" that our Rational (mathematical) sense detects & interprets is multivalent Information*2 in the form of Ideas & Meanings, not Matter*5.

Tegmark's far-out theory of a Mathematical Universe is merely one of many alternatives to the commonsense Material World model. Since math is merely a system of abstract ideas, sans material, you could call the whole Cosmos an Information Reality.*6 So, what is Consciousness? The ability (power ; potential ; capacity ; faculty) to see, in the mind's eye, the invisible mathematical structure of the world. That meaningful/useful faculty has only been imputed to sentient/rational observers, most (if not all) of whom have large complex material brains, producing immaterial internal mathematical models of reality. :smile:

PS___My own term for an enlightened update of ancient Materialism is Enformationism*7.


*1. Essence :
In philosophy, essence is the attribute (or set of attributes) that makes a thing be what it fundamentally is. It is often called the “nature” of a thing. . . . . In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence
Note --- A modern alternative to the ancient notion of Ousia (divine essence) may be the broad concept of Information, which has been found in many forms, from Ideas to Energy to Objects*2.

*2. The many forms of Information :
Consciousness only emerges at the later stages of evolution. But the universal substance of reality might be called an Information Field, analogous to a Quantum field as an immaterial pool of potential.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

*3. Spooky action at a distance :
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers. — Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

*4. What does gravity consist of? :
To summarize, according to Einstein, gravity is the curving of spacetime by all the objects in it, combined with the "geodesic" (straight) motions of those objects through the spacetime.
https://www.space.com/classical-gravity.html
Note --- Einstein's poetic metaphor of warped space may be philosophical, but not scientific. It imagines empty space as-if it is a material substance, when in fact mathematical space is the absence of matter in between objects.

*5. Information Realism : Mathematical Reality
This abstract notion, called information realism is philosophical in character, but it has been associated with physics from its very inception. Most famously, information realism is a popular philosophical underpinning for digital physics.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

*6. Information Reality :
The concrete things we perceive may be virtual reality, yet we have no choice but to act as-if it they are actually real. Although it is meta-physical, Information is not super-natural. Instead, it is the essence of Nature.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page18.html

*7. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

THE MATERIAL WORLD IS A MATHEMATICAL MODEL IN YOUR MIND
Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

Suppose the materialist view is somehow discovered to be 100% correct. — Art48

The problem is that very simple expressions such as 'this is the same as that', or 'this means that' or 'this is equal to that' have no material equivalent. There is no material equivalent of the concept of equality, for example. When we say that 2 + 2 = 4, we're relying on the innate capacity of reason to recognise sameness and difference, but that precise relationship cannot be observed in the physical domain except by a process of abstraction. Remove the capacity for abstraction and comparison, and you can't even form a coherent thought. That's the sense in which reason is not material - not as some 'spooky substance' or 'ethereal thing'.

If I really do cease to exist when I die, then I’ll never know it. If I cease to exist, there’s nothing left to know I no longer exist. — Art48

The problem that introduces is nihilism. Nihilism doesn't have to present itself in a very dramatic form, like a deep sense of foreboding or dread. It can simply manifest as the sense that nothing really matters. So if death nullifies or negates any differences between what beings do in life, that amounts to a form of nihilism, as Neitszche predicted (although of course he didn't believe in trying to cling to anything like belief in an after-life.)

The problem that introduces is nihilism. — Quixodian

How is that supposed to be a problem?

The problem that introduces is nihilism. Nihilism doesn't have to present itself in a very dramatic form, like a deep sense of foreboding or dread. It can simply manifest as the sense that nothing really matters. So if death nullifies or negates any differences between what beings do in life, that amounts to a form of nihilism, as Neitszche predicted (although of course he didn't believe in trying to cling to anything like belief in an after-life.) — Quixodian

Did you add to your post after I asked my question?

You seem to be speaking of nihilism as a sort of psychological condition rather than as a philosophical perspective. Is that what you intended?

If I really do cease to exist when I die, then I’ll never know it. If I cease to exist, there’s nothing left to know I no longer exist. — Art48

The problem that introduces is nihilism. Nihilism doesn't have to present itself in a very dramatic form, like a deep sense of foreboding or dread. It can simply manifest as the sense that nothing really matters. So if death nullifies or negates any differences between what beings do in life, that amounts to a form of nihilism — Quixodian

It is unarguable that if it's a FACT that I cease to exist, then I'll never know I'm dead.Because I no longer exist.

You seem to be taking issue with the BELIEF that I cease to exist after death and asserting the belief implies life is meaningless. That's arguable but, in any case, is not what I'm saying and an entirely different question, i.e., does life have meaning?

Look what matter can do. Clearly, it’s extraordinary. — Art48

By itself, Matter can do nothing. It's merely the inert stuff that Energy acts on. In my post above, I said that "Materialism is missing something fundamental"*1. Actually that missing essence is immaterial Energy (Ergos), which the ancient Greek Atomist/Materialists knew only as a mythical spiritual worker*2, and that modern Materialists typically take for granted. That's because we can see & touch matter, but energy is invisible & intangible. We only know it by its after-effects. Energy is physical only in the sense that it causes the transformations of matter that Physicists are interested in.

Besides, in the last century, Einstein proved mathematically that "hard massy" Atoms are merely a stable form of "wispy massless" photons (force carriers), which gain mass as they slow down. So, it seems that immaterial dynamic Energy is more fundamental to reality than the immobile static Matter that our senses tell us is real. Matter gets pushed around by Energy, and it's the Change of form or position that our senses detect.

So, I will propose that it's the Causal Force that is "extraordinary", and Mundane Matter that is ordinary. However, the natural power to cause physical Change can be found in many different forms*3. And perhaps the most important form to humans is Information, which is the essence of Mind. Consequently, your enthusiasm for malleable matter seems to be misplaced. Instead, an Enlightened Materialism would acknowledge the ubiquitous role of the immaterial change agent we now know as Information*4. In its mental forms, energy exists as Ideas & Imagination, which are the causal forces of human Culture. Realization of Information, as the incognito essence of reality, might usher in a new Age of Enlightenment. :smile:

*1. Materialism :
materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note --- In fact, physical processes and mental functions are "causally dependent" on the motive force we call "Energy". The lumps of mass are acted upon, not actors in world events. Ancient Phusis was focused on sensible matter, but modern Physics is all about the stuff we only know via the eye of the mind : Reason.

*2. Mechanism :
Mechanical materialism is the theory that the world consists entirely of hard, massy material objects
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note --- A mechanism transmits something from one pinion to another. But what is that passes between them? Not matter obviously, but the power to cause material Change.

*3. Forms of Energy :
Energy exists in many different forms. Examples of these are: light energy, heat energy, mechanical energy, gravitational energy, electrical energy, sound energy, chemical energy, nuclear or atomic energy and so on.
https://vikaspedia.in/energy/energy-basics/forms-of-energy
Note --- To that list of energetic Forms I would add a recent discovery of Quantum Physics : Information (the power to cause change of form)

*4. Information is Energy :
Just as the principle of conservation of energy is essential to understanding energy, the principle of conservation of information leads to a deeper understanding of information.
Information is strongly related to entropy, always in motion, cannot disappear, and is independent of subjects.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

That's arguable but, in any case, is not what I'm saying and an entirely different question, i.e., does life have meaning? — Art48

You seem to be speaking of nihilism as a sort of psychological condition rather than as a philosophical perspective. — wonderer1

In the exploration of the topic of nihilism, Nietszche is often cited, which puts me at a disadvantage as I am not well acquainted with his writings. But even in terms of general knowledge, his proclamation of the death of God is viewed as a kind of harbinger of the advent of nihilism, on the grounds that it undermines the basis of long-held and deeply-cherished beliefs and doctrines about the ultimate aim of life. There is a current of thought in modern scientific culture that life itself is a kind of chemical reaction, formed as a consequence of physical causes and operating according to the survival algorithm comprising the neo-darwinian synthesis. Life originates as a kind of biochemical fluke, and human beings an accidental by-product. Existentialist philosophers attempted to accomodate that, for example Camus and Sartre. I believe Heidegger also says quite a lot about it, although I'm not well-schooled in his writings either. Suffice to say, it surfaces as the widely-held feeling that life has no inherent meaning or significance, often accompanied with the encouragement to make the heroic effort to give it a meaning of your own.

It is unarguable that if it's a FACT that I cease to exist, then I'll never know I'm dead.Because I no longer exist. — Art48

That's certainly true from the egological point of view. But no man is an island. The human comprises layers of understanding, some of which are inherited from previous existences, and bequeathes causes which continue to manifest in the future.

In the exploration of the topic of nihilism, Nietszche is often cited, which puts me at a disadvantage as I am not well acquainted with his writings. But even in terms of general knowledge, his proclamation of the death of God is viewed as a kind of harbinger of the advent of nihilism, on the grounds that it undermines the basis of long-held and deeply-cherished beliefs and doctrines about the ultimate aim of life. — Quixodian

Yeah, "nihilism" has been used as a boogeyman for a long while now. It's like the Reefer Madness of philosophy. But can we set aside such arguments from consequences for now and talk about the intellectual position of moral nihilism?

There is a current of thought in modern scientific culture that life itself is a kind of chemical reaction, formed as a consequence of physical causes and operating according to the survival algorithm comprising the neo-darwinian synthesis. Life originates as a kind of biochemical fluke, and human beings an accidental by-product. — Quixodian

It's a tad bit more complex than that, but yes. There is a huge amount of evidence, the existence of which would be a fluke if something along the lines of that narrative hasn't occurred.

Suffice to say, it surfaces as the widely-held feeling that life has no inherent meaning or significance, often accompanied with a encouragement to make the heroic effort to give it the meaning of your own

I don't think it does suffice to simply say that.

For one thing, it looks to me as if that is an appeal to consequences. The fact that some people might experience such a psychological condition doesn't play any obvious role in determing whether or not there is some ultimate aim of life.

Finding things meaningful is an evolved aspect of our psychology. There is no need for things to be 'ultimately meaningful' in order for us to be creatures that find things meaningful. Not to say there aren't people in situations where they find it difficult to find things meaningful, but I think that for most of us most of the time, finding things meaningful comes fairly naturally.

Finding things meaningful is an evolved aspect of our psychology. — wonderer1

So, an appeal to evolutionary theory. But that is not really a philosophy, even though it's often taken as such - it's a biological theory, and viewing motivation solely through that lens is biological reductionism. 'People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.' ¹ This objection is similar to one made by Alfred Russel Wallace, who differed with Darwin on these types of questions.

I think that for most of us most of the time, finding things meaningful comes fairly naturally. — wonderer1

Good for them! But this kind of issue can't rest on pure happenstance.

Yeah, "nihilism" has been used as a boogeyman for a long while now. It's like the Reefer Madness of philosophy. — wonderer1

!LOL

So, an appeal to evolutionary theory. But that is not really a philosophy, even though it's often taken as such - it's a biological theory, and viewing motivation solely through that lens is biological reductionism. — Quixodian

Well, I'm glad I don't view motivation solely through that lens. It's important to be able to consider things from a variety of perspectives, and to lack the ability to look at things from an evolutionary perspective is is to be intellectually impoverished.

'People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. — Quixodian

Sure. There is no incompatibility between being informed about our evolutionary history and recognizing the existence of altruism, as is illustrated (in several ways) by this love story/obituary written by Jerry Coyne - author of Why Evolution Is True.

On the other hand, understanding that there is variation in people's neurological wiring resulting from humanity's evolutionary history helps in understanding psychopathy, and that there is only so much that nurture can do.

This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. — Quixodian

Do you know through experience with having the sort of knowledge of evolutionary psychology that you are referring to, that it does not help "at all"? That is not my experience.