That's why I make a pragmatic distinction between Reality (sensory) and Ideality (mental).so the reality of the objects absolutely must be different. — Mww
In other words, we see reality in the form of as-if ideas, not as-is matter & energy. — Gnomon
so the reality of the objects absolutely must be different.
— Mww
That's why I make a pragmatic distinction between Reality (sensory) and Ideality (mental). — Gnomon
I suspect that the confusion comes from using the word "consciousness" as-if it's an object or substance. Instead, Consciousness is a process of transformation (awareness) from objects to meanings.Thanks ...but I must have missed something, it doesn't explain how consciousness came from matter ? — 3017amen
As suggested by Zelebg, consciousness is in the "bricks", the basic components of material reality.
As I like to describe that process, everything in the world begins as a form of Information : the clay that composes the bricks, from which our reality is constructed.
We accept the simple abstract pixelated icon as-if it is the complex concrete mechanism inside the black box computer. And that acceptance is a useful belief for our non-technical purposes. What we see is 2D pixels, constructed by 4D computer processes, to represent some aspect of reality outside the box. Hence, Hoffmane asserts : "we see the theories we believe". You and I act as-if our senses are reporting reality, when actually all they see is the symbols. In other words, we see reality in the form of as-if ideas, not as-is matter & energy.
Yes. In my thesis, I refer to the "force" or "intention" behind progressive evolution as EnFormAction, which is similar in effect to the various notions of World Will, proposed by philosophers, and of God's Will as proposed by theologians.Well, I suppose one could interpret that as a form of Metaphysical Will in nature. — 3017amen
We may be getting closer to answering some of those existential puzzlers. But the answers will typically be in the form of metaphors based on our incomplete perceptions of reality. I'm currently reading Cognitive Scientist Donald Hoffman's book, The Case Against Reality. It proposes an evolutionary explanation for the emergence of Consciousness, and concludes that we perceive just enough of ultimate reality (symbolic objects) to negotiate the exigencies of the world (survival). That's because ultimate reality is more like Quantum than Classical physics, and would make survival decisions too complex & ambiguous for creatures with limited intelligence. [that's my brief summary of Hoffman's much deeper and broader analysis]Unfortunately, it still leaves us with the all of the existential questions about the nature of such existence; the why's of higher consciousness, the metaphysical features of consciousness itself, so on and so forth..... — 3017amen
I agree. That's why my thesis proposes a Programmer / Enformer / Creator outside of space-time. Panpsychism explains the intelligible order in the universe as an intrinsic (uncaused) property of space-time. But the actual First Cause of organization in the world must exist beyond the perceptual boundaries of space-time.Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean panpsychism. It's also compatible with emergentism and even dualism in some way. I'm not sure if it even excludes any theory at all, so it doesn't mean much as an explanation. — Zelebg
I had my own reasons for coining the neologism "Ideality". Partly to serve as a contrast to the noun "Reality". And partly to make a distinction between belief in Realism versus Idealism. It also entails a distinction between Physics (actual/material/real) and Metaphysics (virtual/mental/abstract).There is no reason to call mental reality "ideality". English dictionary already suggests pretty meaningful distinction: actual/material/real vs virtual/mental/abstract. — Zelebg
That's exactly why Evolution, according to Hoffman, has hid the "chaos" of ultimate reality from the eyes of humans with limited intelligence. That partial perception is sufficient for survival in an imperfect world, where fitness requires only enough "truth" to stay one step ahead of competitors.But if you could sense every tiny vibration, or quality of each atom in every molecule, and see all of the electro-magnetic spectrum, then perhaps you would be staring into the pure chaos and things would only make less, not more sense. So limits are not necessarily a bad thing, they can help put things into a context or bring them under a certain perspective. — Zelebg
Yes. In our human-scale macro world, we may be confident that reality is "like what we think it is". But Quantum Theory has revealed that the solid desk I perceive is "really" mostly open space, that our physical fingers would pass right through, if not repelled by strange forces in the space between protons and electrons. So, our pragmatic confidence is due to theoretical ignorance.This gives us confidence that reality is objectively real and indeed like what we think it is, as much as it matters to us at least. — Zelebg
As we concluded over the last few pages there are only two possible modes of existence we know of, actual and virtual. Thus the nature of subjective experience, aka qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg
Now, if we can agree with all the above, then the question is what do you think ‘subjective experience’ or qualia is, physical or virtual phenomena? — Zelebg
qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg
I'm pretty sure all emergent properties are equally real, including subjective ones.
. To the extent that universals are themselves emergent properties of a self-organizing system, — Pantagruel
Again, you can't compare quarks to hunger, but both are equally real.
This is true. Universals qua consciously comprehended entities is the more accurate description. I stand corrected.Universals are not a result. What ‘emerges’ if anything is the capacity to comprehend universals. But they don’t come into existence purely by dint of being comprehende — Wayfarer
Firstly, physicality is itself an abstraction.
Qualia, (as Dennett described it) is basically non-physical/Metaphysical abstract phenomenon.
There is really nothing else it could be... . The common examples include any type of human sentience, love, will, intuition, and so on.
In what sense can Qualia be physical? Is "redness" a force or a material object? That question is the crux of the mind-body debate. Physicalists try to define Qualia as-if they are real things apart from conscious minds. But that presumption is what makes the problem "hard".Thus the nature of subjective experience, aka qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg
If abstract concepts in mind are material, what kind of matter are they made of : atoms of consciousness? In my thesis they are made of Information (i.e. mental relationships). I suppose you could call bits & bytes "atoms of information". :wink:It is important to note that being abstract or virtual does not mean immaterial per se, it only means it is not directly physical, but instead it exists in the relations between chunks of matter, like angle exist wherever two lines meet. — Zelebg
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.