what is "consciousness"? This thread presumably takes these things for granted. If we don't give even a tentative definition, it's hard to know what we're really talking about. — Xtrix

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure such as neurons, protons, and electrons, etc. and at some point their description can only be accurately articulated through mathematical structures, that would suggest that consciousness is an abstract entity.

Then consider the law of thermodynamics where energy that exists can never be created nor destroyed.

Then go back to the essence of mathematical structures and you get a sense of timeless eternal truth's (what that truth is, we really don't know other than it's abstract much like other features of consciousness like; the will, love, intentionality , wonder, and other qualities associated with the intellect and sentience).

So as a starter can we safely say that consciousness much like matter, comes back to mathematical structures which in turn suggests some abstract platonic realm of existence?

Would you consider infinitesimals metaphysical? — jgill

Jgill!

Absolutely!!

Mr. Wood,

Thank you for the question. Religion is a part of life science which is a branch of natural science and natural phenomena (Christianity--->Jesus--->human consciousness).

hard questions. I'll end my mad ramblings here. :) — Manuel

No worries, your thoughts are welcomed and much appreciated...

Religion is a part of life science which is a branch of natural science and natural phenomena (Christianity--->Jesus--->human consciousness). — 3017amen

What is life science? What does it have to do with science. No word games. If you want to claim science, talk the talk. In what way does religion have anything to do with science? Or, do you even have any idea what science is?

What is life science? — tim wood

Mr. Wood,

Thanks again for your question(s). I would suggest you, at the very least, start here (that way you might find you'll have to reformulate most of your questions): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

And you found a reference to religion there where exactly?

Mr.Wood,

....under life science.

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure such as neurons, protons, and electrons, etc. and at some point their description can only be accurately articulated through mathematical structures, that would suggest that consciousness is an abstract entity. — 3017amen

The very idea of “matter” is itself undefined, and itself comes out of the human being. So to say consciousness is matter is like saying x is y. We have no idea about either.

So as a starter can we safely say that consciousness much like matter, comes back to mathematical structures which in turn suggests some abstract platonic realm of existence? — 3017amen

Language and mathematics are aspects of the human being, of the human mind—related to thought. If we call all of this consciousness, that’s fine—at least it’s a tentative definition. In that case, you’re saying what Descartes said—conscious awareness as “thought” can’t be doubted.

I think there’s more to say about this, of course. Like why consciousness should be a priority, and not the “sum” in the Cartesian formulation, “being” itself. Etc.

[STORY TIME]
Symbolically, suppose there's people's lives which are a phenomena whereby there is a point, let's call it a point of origin, such that no matter how fast or far a person can physically (by foot) travel from it, they have to return (to that point of origin) in their state of rest and before they can travel any further. In this scenario, many people set off with the hope of going somewhere else, perhaps to see the world, perhaps to investigate more of their reality, perhaps just to have something other than their usual experiences, etc, etc. The reasons don't matter that much.
No doubt there will be those who travel a greater distance than others. However, since they all go back to the origin, there will arise a certain distance beyond which nobody can surpass, the simplest explanation being that its the limit of the human body.

Now suppose that, as these [imaginary but relevant] people attempt to delineate the world they exist in, they must find explanations that appease the numerous ideas being thrown about. The most favourable idea being that, the greatest distance which a human has been known to travel marks the radius of life, beyond which human life cannot exist in its usual full vigour. Those who oppose it claim that when that distance was achieved, it was noted by those who observed that there was a beyond that could still be traversed by such as were or would be capable. And the arguments go on and on and on.

That's the end of my story. Poor as it may be, the point is this:- those two arguments (or ideas) about that weird life symbolically represent our version of the 'reasonable' (science, philosophy) versus the 'unreasonable' (metaphysics, mysticism/magic/esotericism, faith).

The 'reasonable' claim only the experience we can validate through sense perception is significant (perhaps due to its utility in our lives, perhaps due to its dependability through the capacity to reproduce it, etc, etc) and therefore knowledge and understanding of life/reality must be based solely upon such methodologies as conform and are based upon such experiences.

The 'unreasonable' claim that there is more to the term experience than that which is limited to being obtained solely through sense perception. For example, a hallucination can be an experience. Also, a dream can be an experience. [Perhaps because the objects and subjects of such experiences have some relevance to those minds in which they are enacted.] Therefore, knowledge and understanding of life/reality must include dimensions beyond sense perception.

Humans have accomplished much through such endeavours as conform to the scientific method.
Humans have accomplished much through endeavours based on faith, gut-feeling, intuition, self-belief, etc.

It's not a contest. Philosophy, science, metaphysics, mysticism, etc, etc, are just attempts to delineate life/reality. However, all is reality. We are a part of reality. Therefore, it is impossible to have information about anything that is not a part of reality.

Over two thousand years ago some guy claimed that there are these minute things (atomos) which everything is composed of. Now, it is impossible to be a scientist without knowledge of atoms and the role they play.
Very old literature and lore tell of substances like prana, chi, aether, etc. They claim these substances pervade everything. Now some scientists are trying to tell us that dark matter (and dark energy) does the same.

I mean, does knowledge/understanding have a point other than what we can make happen in our lives?

From your reference. "Life science is alternatively known as biology, and physical science is subdivided into branches: physics, chemistry, Earth science, and astronomy."

No religion. Time for you to put up or withdraw.
The original question.

Thank you for your input. Let's parse one at a time.
— 3017amen
My turn. Answer this:
"With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion...." Stop right there! Exactly when did religion become a natural/physical science?
— tim wood — tim wood

I do not want to ask this ten or twenty times.

I hope you will take the time review the video, as it uncovers many of those fundamental/metaphysical questions that cross over into these various areas of discourse: — 3017amen

:sweat:

1. "... I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." ~Twilight of the Idols

2. Certainly.

3. Not at all.

4. Nonbeing

5. Actually, that's an ontological position; so ...

6. "Experience", at minimum, is "made up of" a connectome of neuronal signals.

7. No. Asking oneself questions only implies that "self" is dynamically composite (e.g. tangled hierarchy).

8. Since, even in its most reductively quantifiable mode, science cannot be philosophy-free, the 'scientific problem of consciousness' is always already a matter for conceptual analysis & interpretation (i.e. philosophy). The closer science and philosophy collaborate, I suspect, the more ground they can and will cover sooner rather than later.

I think Leibniz was engaged in the practice when he postulated infinitesimals. . — jgill

I like to think of a metaphor that gives life to the formalism.But 'if metaphysics is metaphorical than metaphor is metaphysical.'

does knowledge/understanding have a point other than what we can make happen in our lives? — BrianW

Fair story, except there are occasions we didn’t make happen, but are rather foisted upon us. The weather, flat tires, your mother-in-law’s special dinner that tastes like the inside of an old shoe.....

It's not a contest. Philosophy, science, metaphysics, mysticism, etc, etc, are just attempts to delineate life/reality. — BrianW

This says more accurately the case, although you could have stopped with just philosophy and science, for metaphysics is philosophy and mysticism is merely some esoteric metaphysics.

Still, you’ve hinted here the ground of the continental Enlightenment shift in general philosophy, initiated 400–odd years ago, insofar as philosophy and science each derived from understanding and knowledge respectively, have no meaning outside the human life.

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure..... — 3017amen

Shirley you don’t intend that consciousness equate to matter. Perhaps you meant consciousness can be conceptualized as composed of parts, as matter is conceptualized as composed of its parts, understood as atomic structure, and those ultimately reducible to mathematical elements.

Even if mathematical elements are synthetic a priori constructs, they can still be represented empirically. To say consciousness equates to matter with respect to its ultimate reduction to mathematical elements, implies consciousness can be represented empirically, just as numbers represent mathematical elements.

Good example of why people these days turn their noses up at metaphysics, when all it can say about consciousness....because it knows better than to say anything else.....is that it is nothing more than a transcendental object of pure reason. A logical explanatory stop-gap.

I was much more impressed by the set of questions you posed rather than the video you included. You ask many questions, which I am inclined to do, and about the whole nature of reality, which is the whole field of metaphysics. There is just so much to explore really, and I recall when I used to write essay plans that tutors often used to tell me that it would not be possible to cover so much in one essay. However, you may explore all the topics with many people, with no word limit and it could be a thread which grows and grows.

One of your questions which I believe is very interesting is that of what experiences are made of? This does seem to be the interface of mind and body, and it probably moves into the spectrum of phenomenology. However, it does seem to me to be at the centre of the mind and body question.

One aspect of it which I think is important is emotions because they involve a complex interaction between the physical and the mental. We know that there is such a physical basis for this, especially by the way that neurotransmitters work. This is central to the whole medical treatment of mood disorders through medication. However, the whole realm of mood goes so much beyond the physical as our thoughts affect our moods in such a profound way.

I could write more, but I will stop for now, because it depends how relevant the discussion is to the way the ideas and discussions in the thread evolve. I probably brought it up at this moment because so far there is some discussion of forms, as abstract ideas which we grasp, but our experiences are embodied. Possibly, it goes into the realm of archetypes, experienced by us, and the collective unconscious, but I will say no more because I probably talk about Jung too much, and I am aware that many people on this forum see the idea of the collective unconscious as being a dubious concept.

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure such as neurons, protons, and electrons, etc. and at some point their description can only be accurately articulated through mathematical structures, that would suggest that consciousness is an abstract entity. — 3017amen
The very idea of “matter” is itself undefined, and itself comes out of the human being. So to say consciousness is matter is like saying x is y. We have no idea about either. — Xtrix

Other than the regressive nature of same, it seems to come back to mathematical structures, which in themselves, appear to us as abstract entities or things. As a manifestation of that, we know a pyramid or a structural component has a mathematical formula behind its appearance; compressive and tensile strength, axial and torsional resistance/loads etc. etc. commonly referred to as the things properties. And the design of such structure is mathematical.

And so we don't actually see the math that is unseen, behind the design of the structure. Yet its essence is abstract and can be replicated/built/created through math and material.

The question of my comparison/analogy to abstractness existing behind things like the features/qualities of consciousness, speaks to other abstract metaphysical features of intellect/sentience which I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, we are not able to replicate a brain using similar mathematical means/methods as briefly described.

If you scroll over to the second to last philosophical interview (starting at about 20:20), I'm sure you would agree that consciousness is indeed our last frontier. If we could replicate/design consciousness either ex nihilo or otherwise, game over. But the physical sciences of course have yet to discover/uncover such methodologies or theories….which is reiterated in that interview segment.

I will try to listen further to the video further. Who is the person speaking? Is it Dennett , because I am more of a reader than a watcher of You Tube?

I can't really listen to the whole video because it keeps cutting up where I am listening from. So, are you able to offer a summary of the argument or the ideas.

I am familiar with Dennett, but not that fellow from MIT who I'm referring to.... . In any case, some of his bullet-point comments, which were general in nature and more 101-ish (nevertheless useful in getting clear on the distinctions of so-called metaphysical reality) were as follows:

1. He feels philosophy and science should work together.
2. Both are concerned with the fundamental nature of things.
3. He made the distinction between the nature of a thing, and the ontological nature of a thing (are there immaterial things or is everything material).
4. Science is not in the business of exploring ontological entities or things, but they are concerned with the essences of things. (Seems to me, theoretical physics is open to exploring metaphysical things.)
5. The challenge from physical science and the said distinctions lie in parsing the nature of reality (consciousness) and the nature of things-in-themselves.
6.If physical science fails to tell us about the nature of consciousness, we will have reason to believe the Dualist ontology.
7. Science has been unable to explain consciousness.
8. Any Philosophy that interfaces with science is better served.... .

I have read some writing by Dennett and believe that he is one of the most important philosophers of our time. I think that we need to continue to read writers such as him, but also to explore our own ideas, in response to important writers because the arguments are so complex. Some may wish to leave it in the hands of the academics, but that may leave most of us out of the picture. I do believe that our ideas about metaphysics are important too, and it can be a whole area of lively debate, rather than mere discussion by those who are believed to be the professional experts. After all, we are talking about the questions which are central to the whole existence of each of us.

Oddly enough (now I'm being a bit opinionated here) I agreed with Dennett in the interview on the importance of Metaphysics in Philosophy and the part of Dualism that is alive and well, however, I don't think his book Consciousness Explained for example, really explained anything (seemed like a lot of gibberish).

To that end, the title is very misleading, because at the end of the book he basically said it's (consciousness) still a mystery. Maybe there's some theistic axe to grind there (he's an Atheist) that's kind of going on with him not sure, but he tends to politically advocate for materialism/atheism. But I find him contradicting himself. Ironically, I see him pop-up from time to time on YouTube and believe it or not, he's now using words like 'design' more often than not... .

The danger I see is trying to dichotomize the explanation of consciousness thru the exclusive use of materialism thus precluding the obvious metaphysic's. Consciousness has not been found to be logical, nor its complete explanation (its nature) understood from pure reason. That's where Kant was groundbreaking....

Many believe that Kant was groundbreaking. I have spent a bit of time reading him, but do believe him to be more worthy than the attention given to him by many of the present time. However, I was reading the thread which I believe gave rise to the one which led you to start this one. Having read that one, I became aware of all possible complications and misinterpretations.

So, I am left asking how do we interpret him in the context of our time? I am not trying to create confusion, or dismiss his ideas because I believe that they were profound. I know that some find his ideas make so much sense to some, but I find it hard to frame them in the context of the thinking of our time. I would like to be able to see a way forward in being able to demystify his ideas rather than merely rejecting them, because I do believe that he was capturing important philosophical insights. I think that the idea of 'noumenal' reality is in some ways extraordinary within the scope of our present use of language, and scientific models of the construction of 'reality'.

I'm a little short on time at the present moment. However, Kant's Metaphysics, IMO, revolves around (discovery of) the synthetic a priori. This notion of causation that is innate to consciousness and conscious thought (processes). And this innate sense of awareness (intuition) just is, and is a part of logic, yet can't be described as such. The most important question there, is to ask: What makes synthetic a priori knowledge possible.

The first possible answer has to do with self-aware conscious Beings v. Darwinian instinctual impulses. It seems that a higher level of self-awareness (consciousness) is, at the very least, required to ask synthetic a priori questions/propositions/judgements. The next question could be how does consciousness draw exclusively from sense data, and intuition, all at the same time. For example, the infamous, 'all events have a cause' metaphysical thought process, involves something more than formal logic in determining its truth value. It requires empirical analysis for its truth value, but its purpose is to satisfy an intrinsic need (Being/ontology) that is outside normal logical processes (a priori/a posteriori). This need to know, wonder about causes and effects, etc. are the basis of many novel discoveries, which are required for any thought process at all.

The next important metaphysical question could be, why do we care about asking questions about causes. If we didn't care to ask, what would our ontological existence look like? What would science look like, and what would our quality of life look like?

And so we don't actually see the math that is unseen, behind the design of the structure. Yet its essence is abstract and can be replicated/built/created through math and material. — 3017amen

This is like saying we don't see the "words" behind things. Mathematics is something humans do. There's little reason to think the structure of everything is essentially mathematical. That's a projection.

There's all kinds of questions here -- what mathematics is, what numbers are, whether it's subjective or objective, etc. The experience of light is different than the equation for light. The experience of "tree" is different from vocalizing the English word. The world is interpreted by human beings, whose perspectives are varied.

There's also the point that most of our activities, as human beings, are completely unconscious -- automatic, habitual, instinctive. Something like the use of a broom is hardly explainable through mathematics or even scientific reasoning, for example. Thinking of the world theoretically, scientifically, mathematically, and even philosophically, is one kind of thinking. It's one mode of human being. To presume the world is reducible to whatever shows up within this mode is unfounded.

It's like the common idea that language is for communication. If you look at characteristic use to determine the function of something, whether language or human activity generally, you find something very different than what the prevailing dogma states.

So, I am left asking how do we interpret him in the context of our time? — Jack Cummins

Simple. Ask yourself.....how much has a human qua individual rational agent, changed in 300 years? Not his environment, not his knowledge base, not his personal curriculum.....he himself with respect to himself alone.

If you concur a human hasn’t changed at all in so short an elapsed time, because natural evolution won’t allow it, then it is reasonable to suppose Kant’s writing regarding speculative epistemology, would still apply.

And so we don't actually see the math that is unseen, behind the design of the structure. Yet its essence is abstract and can be replicated/built/created through math and material. — 3017amen
This is like saying we don't see the "words" behind things. Mathematics is something humans do. There's little reason to think the structure of everything is essentially mathematical. That's a projection. — Xtrix

Xtrix!

No, I'm not convinced that it's a projection. Why would you surmise such?

Words are logical, not abstract. Consciousness is abstract, just like mathematics. Sure, mathematics is logical in the a priori sense, but it accurately explains how things work. That's all the point I was making on that subject. It's abstract nature is similar to our own abstract nature(?). If you agree, which I think you might at least to some degree, what about metaphysics itself, isn't that abstract?

I think that the human environment has changed so much,and it changes the whole context and scope of metaphysical questions.

Fair story, except there are occasions we didn’t make happen, but are rather foisted upon us. The weather, flat tires, your mother-in-law’s special dinner that tastes like the inside of an old shoe..... — Mww

We determine our part in those interactions e.g. building storm shelters, moving to california, spare tires, divorcing your mother-in-law's daughter/son, etc, etc.