Ad hominem.Relax man, what are you 12? — 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)I am interested in arguments from those whose maintain that consciousness is primary. — 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.So whatever physicalist challenge you have this is not the discussion. — TheMadMan
'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
Yes I agree. I don't see a question. — TheMadMan
Because they are!!! We observe fundamental particles interacting with each other and producing Empirically regular properties that we can observe , quantify and predict.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
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.Again, if we observe arrangements, what is this "matter" you assume here? — Metaphysician Undercover
In all 3 questions the answer "because it does" is adequate. — Nickolasgaspar
thats a fallacy — Nickolasgaspar
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
Consciousness is a testable, quantifiable mental ability — Nickolasgaspar
Both are a great example on how pseudo philosophy can derail our philosophical inquiry. — Nickolasgaspar
Because they are!!! We observe fundamental particles interacting with each other and producing — Nickolasgaspar
Empirically regular properties that we can observe , quantify and predict. — Nickolasgaspar
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
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
I just point out to you that is pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
"Matter" is an assumption which the conscious mind makes. — 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.Doesn't this answer the question of the op then — Metaphysician Undercover
Physics is not your strong suit right?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
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.See, the properties are observed, not the particles. — 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?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
We are on the subject...let me try differently.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
Judgement...? Sir, do you understand what Public forums are FOR??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
:roll:Hmmm so do legs exist in anyway without walking? — TheMadMan
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
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
Agreed. I only pointed out the a pseudo philosophical assumption in its core. Is it ok?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
Such a thread wouldn't be convenient since the shaky auxiliary assumption is located in this thread.. If you want to talk about how we are all engaging in pseudophilosophy, I suggest you start a thread about it. — 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!There are plenty of other threads when it might be more on topic to go on about pseudophilosophy. — bert1
Everything is fair game in Philosophy especially the auxiliary assumptions where our conversations are founded.If this thread was arguing for the view that consciousness is fundamental, then fair game. — bert1
-That's a subject is more suitable for a movie script, than an actual philosophical discussion.It asks us to assume that (rationally or not) and proceed to enquire how matter could emerge. — 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.hat's the subject of the thread, and you are not engaging with it. — bert1
-Strawman. Religious fundamentalists people avoid facing facts or logic and use techniques to avoid any challenges of their beliefs...like using a strawman. ; )You remind me of many religious fundamentalists people I have had the displeasure of talking to. — TheMadMan
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
Of course I am! I am pointing out a huge error in the OP! — Nickolasgaspar
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 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
In fact it's much easier to see the hard problem when you try to derive the physical from the non-physical. — bert1
but intuitively it's hard to conceive of space emerging from non-space: — bert1
adding millions of 0inch lengths doesn't get you a length. — bert1
There seems to be no intermediate step in-between non-spatiality and spatiality. — bert1
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.