Matter is emergent from mass habit. I keep thinking I am.

Without matter consciousness doesn't have a home. No place, no body to be in. I'm doubtful consciousness is enough by itself. How can extension emerge from non-extension? Can something with no spatial properties at all give rise to space?

I think this is the "real" hard problem, actually. The problem is matter in general, not consciousness more narrowly considered.

First of all, baryonic matter makes up about 5% of the universe, whereas 27% is made of, so- called "dark matter" (which isn't even clear is "matter" at all), and then most of it is "dark energy", which we also don't know what it is.

Now, of the 5% of the matter we do know and love, we do not know its inner nature nor why it came to be (as opposed to anti-matter or something else), and why there is so little of it in the universe.

From all these very serious complications, one then can proceed to ask how consciousness may arise out of specific configurations of matter, or why matter works without direct contact, or how can quite insubstantial particles form living creatures, or colours or music, or almost anything else.

So yeah, matter is the hard problem. Consciousness is the specific configuration of matter we are best acquainted with out of everything there is, so it is (or should be) the least mysterious aspect of matter, while still admitting that it is, in a sense, mysterious.

What, exactly, is matter? Excitations of a field?

Yes, one can express it that way. An excitation of the field of consciousness/absolute-emptiness.

How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

We become involved in life's experiences and discover what really matters.

Oh, wait . . . that's another kind of matter. But, you see, the crux of the matter is poorly defined words and concepts in philosophy. As a matter of "fact", take being. Many have tried, but few if any have succeeded in this matter. :cool:

How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

Our consciousness receives seven inputs: the five physical senses of touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound, emotions, and thoughts.

But if all I can directly experience of the physical world is sense data: i.e., sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste, then how can I experience a tree? Without a special “tree-sensing” sense, how can I possibly experience a tree?

The answer is I do not directly experience the tree. I directly experience sense data. I see, i.e., directly experience, patches of brown and green. The brown patches feel rough; the green patches feel smooth. My mind retrieves the idea of a tree from the mindscape. Or, if you prefer, my mind creates the idea of the tree. In any case, all I directly experience is the thought of the tree, along with the physical sensations of touch and color.

The tree I experience is a mental representation of the physical sensations that I experience. My idea of the tree represents the sense data I receive. That the tree is a material object in an exterior world is a (quite logical) conclusion, but it is not what I directly experience. What I experience is the mental idea of a tree. My idea of the tree and the physical object called a tree are two different things. Similarly, a city map has lines which correspond to city streets. But the map and city streets are two different things.

The tree I experience is a mental representation. I do not directly experience an external material world. Rather, that world is an idea which makes sense of what I do directly experience: the five physical senses. Similarly, when I watch a video on a computer or TV monitor, all I experience are light and sound. Based on the lights and sounds, my mind accesses ideas such as people, sand, ocean, clouds, etc. I experience the monitor’s light and sound, and the ideas that my mind accesses. Similarly, I experience the world’s lights, sounds, odors, tastes, and tactile sensations, and the ideas that my mind accesses.

In the process of perception, we objectify the physical universe. We experience only sensations (physical, emotional and mental sensations) but we think object. “Tree” is a representation, something our mind creates to explain what we do experience: the sight of brown and green, the feel of rough and smooth.

The physicalists have the hard problem of consciousness where consciousness is emergent from matter. — TheMadMan

Well perhaps, except that "consciousness" is no more mysteriously "emergent from matter" than walking is emergent from legs or respiration is emergent from lungs or a symphony is emergent from an orchestra. "Consciousness" is a (higher mammalian) CNS activity, or process, and not a discrete entity. I think the "mind from matter" formulation, therefore, is a pseudo-problem (resulting from assumed fallacies of misplaced concreteness & category error) that's "hard" only for cartesian dualists, ontological idealists & mysterians; for physicalists and/or (most) cognitive neuroscientists, modeling "consciousness" is only a highly complex research project that's still very much a work-in-progress – which demonstrates that "consciousness" is not some simple, quantifiable 'brute fact' like gravity, electromagnetism or vacuum fluctuations.

How does matter arise from consciousness?

Good question. :up:

Berkeley says "matter is an idea", no? Of course it is, and it is also more than just an idea – matter is the idea of more-than-/non-ideas (i.e. more-than-/non-consciousness).

edit:

NB: By "matter" – materiality – I understand embodied (i e. res extensia) as well as observational / experimental data. Physical then indicates any data-set (i.e. materials) which can be structured into a dynamic model. Rule of thumb concepts.

How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

Matter is purely conceptual. Traditionally it's the concept Aristotle used to account for what was observed as the temporal continuity of sameness. As time passes it appears like some aspects of the observed world do not change. "Matter" was proposed as the concept which relates to the real unchanging features of the observed world. What does not change as time passes is matter. So, simply put, we see that some features remain unchanged as time passes, we figure there must be a reason for this, and we posit 'matter' as the reason for this. That is how "matter" arises from consciousness.

What, exactly, is matter? Excitations of a field? — RogueAI

I had an excitation in a field with a farmer's daughter years ago and it did matter.

:clap: :lol:

The physicalists have the hard problem of consciousness where consciousness is emergent from matter. — TheMadMan

There isn't such a thing as a hard problem of consciousness. Chalmer's "Hard problem" is nothing more than fallacious teleological "why" questions.
There are hard problems in Neuroscience on how specific characteristics of our conscious states arise but none of them are "why" questions.

So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

It doesn't. In order to be conscious of anything, Something must exist in the first place. To be conscious means to be conscious of something. By studying our world we observe properties of matter giving rise to the everything around us...not the other way our.

And in this case consciousness is the ontological primitive, I don't mean wakening consciousness — TheMadMan

"God did it" claims do not qualify as good philosophy! Making up substances/entities/agents/primitives by borrowing labels from observable processes is a medieval way to practice philosophy. I thought we were done with Phlogiston, Miasma,Orgone energy, Philosopher's stone etc etc.
An existential claim needs to be demonstrated not asserted.

There are many other questions that arise from that question so feel free to put the forward. — TheMadMan

Yes they are and its a trap. This is how Pseudo Philosophy sounds You begin with an unfounded assumption (an questionable existential claim...at best) and you drift away from the real goal of Philosophy.(arriving to a wise conclusion with epistemic and instrumental value).

Update: I'm not trying to argue with physicalists here.
As I said this is directed to those who consider the fundamental reality as non-material. — TheMadMan

Physicalism, materialism, idealism, non materialism are pseudo philosophical worldviews. Why even engaging those pseudo ideas in a philosophical thread?

I want to inquire how do you think matter comes to be out of consciousness/mind-at-large/sunyata/the-one/unmoved-mover/etc. — TheMadMan

That's a fallacy. (Poisoning the well) How can you even start a philosophical conversation with an epistemically and philosophically outdated , self refuting assumption? Well you can but its no longer a philosophical discussion.

Many people, have maintained that representation is only one way of experiencing.
Mainly because of the brain's need for a model of the world for economic and safety reasons (or other idk).
But I thinks its clear that in the mind must exist a contrary way of experience, that of novelty, or even perpetual novelty or else the human species wouldn't have survived.
Basically all eastern philosophies of more than 2000 years have dealt of the problem of experiencing the world in a non-representational way.

except that "consciousness" is no more mysteriously "emergent from matter" than walking is emergent from legs — 180 Proof

But still you are saying that legs come first and walking is just the epi-phenomena.

Was the excitation physical or idealist?

That is how "matter" arises from consciousness. — Metaphysician Undercover

What you are describing as matter is just the physical properties, observed and measured. My question is for all levels of matter that we know, to the quarks.

Brother you need to practice some intellectual humility.
Your are just making statement authoritatively not allowing space.
You talk about doing philosophy properly and yet your statements are monologic.
True philosophy is dialogic.

Brother you need to practice some intellectual humility. — TheMadMan

But I am not the one declaring the existence of "hard problems" in specific field of study that I know nothing about (from a scientific aspect that is)....you are displaying a type of intellectual arrogance by ignoring that epistemology.(and avoiding to answer any of my objections).

Your are just making statement authoritatively not allowing space. — TheMadMan

I am only pointing the obvious, you are free to challenge my statements.

You talk about doing philosophy properly and yet your statements are monologic. — TheMadMan

Logic is hard and it forces rules. Its not my fault though. But again, you are the one who attempts to create an echo chamber by saying " I'm not trying to argue with physicalists here.
As I said this is directed to those who consider the fundamental reality as non-material."
So why accusing me for something that you are literally trying to do.

True philosophy is dialogic. — TheMadMan

I exposed my position to you...now its on you to turn this interaction in to a dialogue.
You can start by addressing my Objections..or you can keep accusing me for things I didn't do...which isn't productive at all.

I think this is the "real" hard problem, actually. The problem is matter in general, not consciousness more narrowly considered. — Manuel

Correct , the diversity of properties emerging from different arrangements of matter is the amazing thing. Asking "why" this is possible its like a kid asking his mum ....why the sky is blue as if there is a purpose behind it.

What you are describing as matter is just the physical properties, observed and measured. My question is for all levels of matter that we know, to the quarks. — TheMadMan

Isn't all we know, at all levels, "physical properties, observed an measured"? So, what more are you asking for?

By studying our world we observe properties of matter giving rise to the everything around us...not the other way our. — Nickolasgaspar

Why do you say that these are properties of "matter"? If all we observe is properties, and "why" questions are fallacious teleology, how do you get "matter" here?

Correct , the diversity of properties emerging from different arrangements of matter is the amazing thing. Asking "why" this is possible its like a kid asking his mum ....why the sky is blue as if there is a purpose behind it. — Nickolasgaspar

Again, if we observe arrangements, what is this "matter" you assume here?

Correct , the diversity of properties emerging from different arrangements of matter is the amazing thing. Asking "why" this is possible its like a kid asking his mum ....why the sky is blue as if there is a purpose behind it. — Nickolasgaspar

'Hard problems' ,of the kind that Chalmers referred to, are not about 'why' in the teleological sense. They are about how. How is it that consciousness can emerge from non-conscious systems? How could a material world arise from consciousness? I think both of these are insoluble, and we need more than one fundamental property.

Philosophy starts with wonder and doesnt arrive at conclusions, if it does it becomes dogma.
Good luck man.

Isn't all we know, at all levels, "physical properties, observed an measured"? So, what more are you asking for? — Metaphysician Undercover

Thats what we know on the scientific front.
Im asking philosophically and even experientially.

:100:

Seriously? You yourself accepted Chalmers's conclusion (Hard problem of consciousness) and played favorites with a specific philosophical conclusion (non materialists).
Is something you want to change in your statement?
Why are you avoiding my challenge? I can analyze all my objections, provide resources for all my statements if you are willing to test your beliefs.

Thats what we know on the scientific front.
Im asking philosophically and even experientially. — TheMadMan

Why do you think you can practice meaningful philosophy when ignoring our most credible epistemology on the subject????

Thats what we know on the scientific front.
Im asking philosophically and even experientially. — TheMadMan

As I said in the first post we assume "matter" as the reason for the observed temporal continuity, consistency, in those observed properties and measurements.

Walking (or running) gets bodies from place to place, maIntains / improves cardovascular fitness and strengthens legs, so the activity is not epiphenomenal.

Why are you avoiding my challenge? — Nickolasgaspar

Why do you think you can practice meaningful philosophy when ignoring our most credible epistemology on the subject???? — Nickolasgaspar

Relax man, what are you 12?
What you aren't getting is that I didn't start this discussion to argue with physicalists.
I am interested in arguments from those whose maintain that consciousness is primary.
I made that clear in the beginning.
So whatever physicalist challenge you have this is not the discussion.
Start your own discussion for that.

Yes I agree. I don't see a question.