I guess what you are getting at is that consciousness cannot be immaterial , and normally I would agree. BUT quantum entanglement, tunneling, superposition, and uncertainty are not really what we normally understand to be material, and patterns of these are likely to play a role in consciousness. Perhaps they require their own category to enable us to articulate this situation a little better. — Pop
Nothing is a very clear concept. Is the lack of something. — Helder Afonso
To doubt that the external world, and even his physical body exist, because perhaps, a demon may be deceiving him is unreasonable, not least because - it implies a much more complex explanation than the apparent reality; — counterpunch
Nothing is a very clear concept. Is the lack of something. — Helder Afonso
A lack of anything. Everything lacks something. My dog lacks a tail. — Kenosha Kid
Well, you would have to nit-pick! :cool: — jgill
I think our concept of materiality, or more specifically, the presumed dichotomy between mind and matter, is archaic, given everything we have discovered about the nature of reality — Pantagruel
Everyone brings a different interpretive context to any statement they read. For me, the conjunction of ex nihilo nihil fit and cogito ergo sum is compelling. — Pantagruel
Strictly from the primitive ontological statements I infer/intuit the continuity of consciousness with some kind of historical consciousness that preceded this "phase" and some kind of future consciousness that will follow. Without being too explicit about the nature of that more "expansive" consciousness. Perhaps it won't be "me", but it will be "composed" of me in some sense, I suppose.I agree again regarding the interpretation, but please elaborate a little regarding your conclusions.
For me, the conjunction of a universe biased to self organize, and Capra's unit of cognition contain the emotion and cognition elements necessary for a model of consciousness, long before life arose — Pop
Perhaps it won't be "me", but it will be "composed" of me in some sense, I suppose. — Pantagruel
Nothing comes from nothing. — Pantagruel
Consciousness is not nothing — Pantagruel
If not, then how have you reached your premise despite knowingly excluding some 'things' from your gathering of evidence? — Isaac
What did I exclude? — Pantagruel
What did I exclude?
— Pantagruel
Consciousness.
You either knew all along that it didn't come from nothing, or your premise "nothing comes from nothing" is speculative because there exists a known thing whose origin is unknown. — Isaac
Actually the final premise was cogito ergo sum. So far from excluding consciousness, it was (is) integral to the argument. — Pantagruel
I was referring to your first premise, as I had hoped was made clear by me quoting your first premise. — Isaac
Well, a premise contains what it contains, so saying that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't refer to consciousness is like say quid pro quo doesn't tell you what is being exchanged. — Pantagruel
Ex nihilo nihil fit is intuitively, logically, and scientifically satisfying. — Pantagruel
Quid pro quo isn't about what's being exchanged, so we woudn't expect it to tell us. Ex nihilo nihil fit is about {all the things}, so we'd expect it to tell us about one of the things. — Isaac
Secondly, how can Ex nihilo nihil fit possibly be scientifically satisfying? We've just established that there are things the origin of which you don't know, so what is satisfying about a theory the postulates nothing comes from nothing? — Isaac
Nothing comes from nothing.
Nothing becomes nothing.
Consciousness is not nothing (cogito ergo sum).
Ergo... — Pantagruel
But can nothing even be? Consciousness can become something less complex perhaps.
But becoming nothing seems to ring my intuition alarm. — DoppyTheElv
They are both generalizations. This, that. Something, nothing. — Pantagruel
for nothing to become something there must be an impulse within nothing. — EnPassant
So you're saying that the properties of a generalised set can be used to infer the properties of any member of that set simply by virtue of its membership? — Isaac
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.