Hmmm so do legs exist in anyway without walking?

Relax man, what are you 12? — TheMadMan

Ad hominem.
-"What you aren't getting is that I didn't start this discussion to argue with physicalists."
-No I get it, just don't accuse me for monologia.

I am interested in arguments from those whose maintain that consciousness is primary. — TheMadMan

- I get it, and I just point out to you that is pseudo philosophy. What if I was only interested in arguments from those who believe I am a billionaire(when I am not)
In philosophy you need to construct your strong foundations before embarking to a quest.
The GIGO effect is lurking!

So whatever physicalist challenge you have this is not the discussion. — TheMadMan

I am not a physicalist, I reject all materialistic/non materialistic worldviews. I am a methodological naturalist and my objection is based on basic logic to begin with.
To be conscious is to be aware (of something.) One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a "consciousness" without anything to be conscious of is not a "consciousness."

'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. — bert1

-Not really lets analyze them. His three main questions are:
"1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
2. why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does
2. why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
In all 3 questions the answer "because it does" is adequate.
Now Mark Solms in his latest theory provided evolutionary answers on "why" emotions can be better addressed by advanced mental conscious states...but that was not what Chalmer's was really asking.


-"How is it that consciousness can emerge from non-conscious systems?"
If Chalmer's did his homework he would know the role of ARAS and Central Lateral Thalamus in the emergence of our conscious states.(ARAS state of awareness and alert/ stimuli arrive as signals/ the Central lateral thalamus share them to other areas specialized in Symbolic language, Memory/expeirence/ pattern recognition/ reasoning etc and the feedback enables our conscious content to emerge).

-"How could a material world arise from consciousness? "
-thats a fallacy (begging the question )not a serious scientific question. Consciousness is a testable, quantifiable mental ability...not a creation agent. At least claim needs to be demonstrated before starting search for the "how".

-" I think both of these are insoluble, and we need more than one fundamental property."
-Both are a great example on how pseudo philosophy can derail our philosophical inquiry.

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

Doesn't this answer the question of the op then: "How does matter arise from consciousness?". "Matter" is an assumption which the conscious mind makes. We could then proceed in a method similar to Berkeley, and inquire as to whether this is a necessary assumption. Berkeley concludes that it is not.

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? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because they are!!! We observe fundamental particles interacting with each other and producing Empirically regular properties that we can observe , quantify and predict.
Matter is "cosmic energy" at a specific energetic state. Fundamental subatomic particles are registered as energetic glitches with a set of properties (charge spin etc). Since we are well in the quantum scale our empirically evolved language has limited explanatory power.

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

Are you expecting a definition like " milk from a cosmic cow"? Its a freaking label we put on this specific phenomenon that appears to be the sole enabler of everything we can interact and detect.
You can google "matter" you know!. There are definition and descriptions (analysis of its parts).

In all 3 questions the answer "because it does" is adequate. — Nickolasgaspar

No it isn't

thats a fallacy — Nickolasgaspar

No it isn't.

ARAS state of awareness and alert/ stimuli arrive as signals/ the Central lateral thalamus share them to other areas specialized in Symbolic language, Memory/expeirence/ pattern recognition/ reasoning etc and the feedback enables our conscious content to emerge — Nickolasgaspar

No it doesn't

Consciousness is a testable, quantifiable mental ability — Nickolasgaspar

No it isn't.

Both are a great example on how pseudo philosophy can derail our philosophical inquiry. — Nickolasgaspar

No they aren't!

Fab, I've fixed all your errors Nick and we can move on. No need to thank me.

Because they are!!! We observe fundamental particles interacting with each other and producing — Nickolasgaspar

Not really, we observe activity, and assume that there is particles involved in this activity. The "matter" which is supposed to substantiate the existence of the particles is just an assumption.

Empirically regular properties that we can observe , quantify and predict. — Nickolasgaspar

See, the properties are observed, not the particles.

Matter is "cosmic energy" at a specific energetic state. Fundamental subatomic particles are registered as energetic glitches with a set of properties (charge spin etc). Since we are well in the quantum scale our empirically evolved language has limited explanatory power. — Nickolasgaspar

I haven't the faintest idea what you might mean by "cosmic energy", and how this might relate to "matter". Can you just leave that aside please, and stick to the subject, "matter".

Are you expecting a definition like " milk from a cosmic cow"? Its a freaking label we put on this specific phenomenon that appears to be the sole enabler of everything we can interact and detect.
You can google "matter" you know!. There are definition and descriptions (analysis of its parts). — Nickolasgaspar

Again, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here with your metaphors. Can we just stick to the subject?

I just point out to you that is pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

And I just want to point out that I didn't ask.

Well the way you evaluate statements explains why you are susceptible to Pseudo Philosophy.
You will need to provide an argument, identify your premises, avoid fallacies, try to offer evidence in support of your premises and only then you will end up with a sound argument.

I tend to raise red flags when I spot pseudo philosophy in Philosophical forums....that's all. No bad feelings.

"Matter" is an assumption which the conscious mind makes. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see what you meant. What I wanna ask is how does this assumption arises from mind.

Doesn't this answer the question of the op then — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think it does. It just explains one way of what matter is not how it arises and whats its relation to mind.

Yeah but I too have a lot of opposition about your beliefs but I didn't make any judgement of it precisely because I didn't want too deal with them in this discussion whereas you insisted that I would engage with them.

If you like basketball don't go to a football stadium just to say that you like basketball better than football.

Not really, we observe activity, and assume that there is particles involved in this activity. The "matter" which is supposed to substantiate the existence of the particles is just an assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover

Physics is not your strong suit right?
We don't assume "particles" in the sense you understand it. Its NOT an existential claim of an entity in the classical sense! Particles is the label we use to name an observed and quantified activity.

See, the properties are observed, not the particles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure we don't observe " crystal marbles" if this is what you mean. Energetic glitches is what we observe, quantify and predict. This is what we call "particle" part of Matter.
Did anyone tell you that particles are some type of rocks? What is your argument here.???

I haven't the faintest idea what you might mean by "cosmic energy", and how this might relate to "matter". Can you just leave that aside please, and stick to the subject, "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's a huge problem if you don't understand the relation between energy and matter (Einstein's Theory). How can we even start talking about matter then?

Again, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here with your metaphors. Can we just stick to the subject? — Metaphysician Undercover

We are on the subject...let me try differently.
Matter is .....grrrhhouah... energy in a different state. We can detect this "type of energy" because it displays specific properties and characteristics.!! The conditions for this state of energy were enabled after the Big Bang event (As far as we can observe).

You (I mean anyone) can not get in a conversation about Matter and mental properties without understanding the known ontology of matter.

Yeah but I too have a lot of opposition about your beliefs but I didn't make any judgement of it precisely because I didn't want too deal with them in this discussion whereas you insisted that I would engage with them.

If you like basketball don't go to a football stadium just to say that you like basketball better than football. — TheMadMan

Judgement...? Sir, do you understand what Public forums are FOR??
We are here to present and challenge our opinions, expose the weaknesses in our arguments and find holes in our supportive epistemology.
Please let this this "hurt puppy" card go and man up. You attempted to base a public philosophical discussion on a highly problematic unfounded assumption (hard problem of consciousness) and I called it out.
I even exposed myself by communicating my objections making them vulnerable to your critique.
Instead you chose to attack the messenger without even considering the red flag in the middle of the room.

Listen I can not force you to participate in this discussion or convince you to question all your auxiliary assumptions before laying them as foundations for your thoughts.
But I have to demarcate real Philosophy from pseudo philosophy.....the type of ''philosophy'' that doesn't account knowledge and is unable to produce wisdom. I did it and I guess I am done.
Enjoy yourself.

You remind me of many religious fundamentalists people I have had the displeasure of talking to.

The OP isn't addressed to you. It is addressed to people who think consciousness is more fundamental than matter and asks how matter can emerge from consciousness. If you want to talk about how we are all engaging in pseudophilosophy, I suggest you start a thread about it. There are plenty of other threads when it might be more on topic to go on about pseudophilosophy. If this thread was arguing for the view that consciousness is fundamental, then fair game. But it isn't. It asks us to assume that (rationally or not) and proceed to enquire how matter could emerge. That's the subject of the thread, and you are not engaging with it. Twiggez-vous?

Hmmm so do legs exist in anyway without walking? — TheMadMan

:roll:

Walking is what legs do just as minding (i.e. "consciousness") is what a sufficiently intact & self-reflexive CNS interacting with its dynamic environment does. No legs, no walking. No embodied cognition, no minding (i.e. "consciousness").

Walking is what legs do just as minding (i.e. "consciousness") is what a sufficiently intact & self-reflexive CNS interacting with its dynamic environment does. No legs, no walking. No embodied cognition, no minding (i.e. "consciousness"). — 180 Proof

Yes, I suspect TheMadMan understood your point the first time you made it. Would you like to answer his question?

No legs, no walking. — 180 Proof

I asked the opposite

The OP isn't addressed to you. It is addressed to people who think consciousness is more fundamental than matter and asks how matter can emerge from consciousness. If you want to talk about how we are all engaging in pseudophilosophy, I suggest you start a thread about it. There are plenty of other threads when it might be more on topic to go on about pseudophilosophy. If this thread was arguing for the view that consciousness is fundamental, then fair game. But it isn't. It asks us to assume that (rationally or not) and proceed to enquire how matter could emerge. That's the subject of the thread, and you are not engaging with it. Twiggez-vous? — bert1

At least someone gets it. :sweat:

At least someone gets it. — TheMadMan

Drives me up the fucking wall. It's not complicated is it? It's a good OP, interesting question. I don't have much more to say on the subject unfortunately, so I should probably shut the fuck up as well.

Drives me up the fucking wall. It's not complicated is it? — bert1

Apparently for some it is.

The OP isn't addressed to you. It is addressed to people who think consciousness is more fundamental than matter and asks how matter can emerge from consciousness — bert1

Agreed. I only pointed out the a pseudo philosophical assumption in its core. Is it ok?

. If you want to talk about how we are all engaging in pseudophilosophy, I suggest you start a thread about it. — bert1

Such a thread wouldn't be convenient since the shaky auxiliary assumption is located in this thread.

There are plenty of other threads when it might be more on topic to go on about pseudophilosophy. — bert1

Why do you believe that "Philosophical ideas" should be held in ivory towers away from criticism???? This is not how Philosophy work, we question everything especially claims that can derail philosophical conversations!

If this thread was arguing for the view that consciousness is fundamental, then fair game. — bert1

Everything is fair game in Philosophy especially the auxiliary assumptions where our conversations are founded.
Its like wasting time in a conversation on the billions of money I have the investments I should do when in reality I am homeless.

It asks us to assume that (rationally or not) and proceed to enquire how matter could emerge. — bert1

-That's a subject is more suitable for a movie script, than an actual philosophical discussion.
Its like talking about what to do about your haunted house when ghosts don't exist.
Not the best way to spend your time Bert!

hat's the subject of the thread, and you are not engaging with it. — bert1

Of course I am! I am pointing out a huge error in the OP! Its in direct conflict with logic and our current epistemology.

You remind me of many religious fundamentalists people I have had the displeasure of talking to. — TheMadMan

-Strawman. Religious fundamentalists people avoid facing facts or logic and use techniques to avoid any challenges of their beliefs...like using a strawman. ; )

I presented my objections and I can argue successfully for each one with facts, logic and credible knowledge. Are you willing to break them down one by one?
This is not what a religious fundamentalists individual would do...because they lack objective evidence to begin with.
So tell me if you are willing to see the problem in your OP.

I presented my objections and I can argue successfully for each one with facts, logic and credible knowledge. Are you willing to break them down one by one? — Nickolasgaspar

That's what Jehovah's witnesses said to me when I kept telling them "I'm not interested just let me drink this cola in peace".

Sorry mate, I attempted to end this conversation twice with a greeting and wishes but you kept responding,so I thought you wanted this interaction to go on. My bad, you don't need to use these ad hominems, I won't respond to you again.
Cheers.

Of course I am! I am pointing out a huge error in the OP! — Nickolasgaspar

There is no error in the OP. It's not making a claim about the world. It's a hypothetical. If anything it's a challenge to those who think consciousness is fundamental, a project I would have thought you would approve of.

t's a good OP, interesting question. I don't have much more to say on the subject unfortunately, so I should probably shut the fuck up as well. — bert1

I understand how it could be difficult to answer it especially because for 4 centuries the west has been interested with the question in the other way around.
I was just wondering if someone has some kind of arguments to help answer that question because I've been thinking about it but haven't got far.

I was just wondering if someone has some kind of arguments to help answer that question because I've been thinking about it but haven't got far. — TheMadMan

Yes it's interesting. I think it's a genuine hard problem for pure idealists. In fact it's much easier to see the hard problem when you try to derive the physical from the non-physical. I have thought a bit about non-vague concepts and how they relate to fundamental properties. A number of philosophers perceive that the concept of consciousness is not vague (but that is not intuitive to many). The idea is that there is no intermediate step between x being conscious and x not being conscious. It's easier to see in the case of spatiality. I'm not a mathematician, but intuitively it's hard to conceive of space emerging from non-space: adding millions of 0inch lengths doesn't get you a length. There seems to be no intermediate step in-between non-spatiality and spatiality. I don't know if vagueness is essential to emergence or not, but they do seem to go together naturally. And conversely, there does seem to be a relationship between what is fundamental and what is not vague. Just conceptually, it seems easy and natural to think that both spatiality and consciousness are fundamental properties, and one could not emerge from the other. Neither admit of degree and complexity that would allow for borderline cases.

EDIT: I don't think I've explained that well.

In fact it's much easier to see the hard problem when you try to derive the physical from the non-physical. — bert1

Agree.

but intuitively it's hard to conceive of space emerging from non-space: — bert1

Interesting because for me that space-time "comes from" the spaceless-timeless makes more sense.
Also saying "emerge" and "come from" (like I did) misses the point because its implies succession in time/space. I think their relationship has to be timeless thus simultaneous.

adding millions of 0inch lengths doesn't get you a length. — bert1

I think that the spaceless is not millions of 0 inch. It is not inch at all. It is different in its nature from space.

The difference maybe can be expressed in this way: Space-time is transitory by nature whereas the spaceless/timeless is eternal. Thus making them the same but at the same time different in their manifestation.

There seems to be no intermediate step in-between non-spatiality and spatiality. — bert1

I don't think there is a step in between because there is no in-between. I would say there is a continuation of the spaceless into space and around it goes from space to the spaceless.
Separate only in difference.

This may seem paradoxical but since language is created for duality, paradoxes on this topic are unavoidable.