What I wanna ask is how does this assumption arises from mind. — TheMadMan
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — Nickolasgaspar
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.??? — Nickolasgaspar
You (I mean anyone) can not get in a conversation about Matter and mental properties without understanding the known ontology of matter. — Nickolasgaspar
-What?....sir, "matter" describes a specific type of "activity" responsible for structure low level and high lever features (basic or advanced properties). Not all activities are matter. Its an equivocation fallacy based on a beef you have with the word "matter"!Right, there's no "matter" there, in those "particles", just activity. — Metaphysician Undercover
-No, I said that specific glitches(with specific properties) are responsible for the phenomenon of matter."'Particle' part of matter"? What does that mean? You already said that a particle is just an activity. — Metaphysician Undercover
From your questions I understand that you are not ready. I did my best to describe you the ontology of matter with really plain words and metaphors but you keep asking the same questions again and again as if nothing was said.I'm ready. What is the known ontology of matter? You've said a few things about energy, also about activity, and you've said that energy relates to matter. So let's have it, where do we find this matter that is related to energy? — Metaphysician Undercover
I think I provided an initial answer, here: — Metaphysician Undercover
Fermions & bosons. — 180 Proof
What?....sir, "matter" describes a specific type of "activity" responsible for structure low level and high lever features (basic or advanced properties). Not all activities are matter. Its an equivocation fallacy based on a beef you have with the word "matter"! — Nickolasgaspar
No, I said that specific glitches(with specific properties) are responsible for the phenomenon of matter. — Nickolasgaspar
From your questions I understand that you are not ready. I did my best to describe you the ontology of matter with really plain words and metaphors but you keep asking the same questions again and again as if nothing was said. — Nickolasgaspar
This still doesnt answer what this "matter" is in itself. Its just saying how the appearance arises.
It just says how the icon on a computer screen arises not what it is. — TheMadMan
Aren't 'things' periodic patterns of ("indivisible")^ events? Re/acquaint yourself, MU, with thermodynamics (re: plasma, steam, liquid ...) Also, read old Epicurus (and/or Lucretius) on 'swirling swerving atoms^ recombing in void'. :fire:I need an explanation as to how an activity is "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover
So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness?
And in this case consciousness is the ontological primitive — TheMadMan
Aren't 'things' periodic patterns of ("indivisible")^ events? — 180 Proof
Be careful how you speak openly of Consciousness & Matter in the same breath. Some people may think you are Mad. :joke:The physicalists have the hard problem of consciousness where consciousness is emergent from matter.
So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan
Don't forget that 99.999% of baryonic "matter" also consists of empty space. Classical atomism, after all, is grossly consistent with modern particle physics (& statistical mechanics).I’m doubtful matter is enough by itself. — Arne
X moves. This moving is not independent of X. No X, what moves?. 'X moves' describes X more exhaustively than just 'X'. Substitute brain for X and minding for moves. Minding describes what brain do (i.e. 'X moves'); don't fixate on the reifying noun – mind is a verb.How can non-extension emerge from extension? Can something with only spatial properties give rise to non-space.
Atoms are particles. Neutrons protons, and electrons are also particles. So are quarks. As far as I know, their respective volumes do not consist of "particle fields".Would you consider it empty if permeated by particle fields? — jgill
Empty of "matter". Maybe you missed by point: "matter" consists of fundamental events in void (re: Democritus), that is, consisting of more than just persistent, or tangibly discrete, "stuff". I think the next sentence (which you didn't include in your quote) makes this clear. I wasn't making a literal scientific claim and didn't mean absolute nothingness by using the term "empty space". The void is "really empty", just not absolutely, or completely, empty.Is it really empty if sustaining a magnetic field?
Minding describes what brain do (i.e. 'X moves'); don't fixate on the reifying noun – mind is a verb. — 180 Proof
I suspect that the extra-sensory sense you refer to, is Reason (ability to infer wholes from parts). A tree is a system of many parts, but treeness is a quality of the whole integrated system. All living things have some ability to sense the environment, searching for specific patterns that indicate usefulness (e.g. food) for the purposes of the organism. In humans that pattern-seeking talent, consciousness, is at its most general.Without a special “tree-sensing” sense, how can I possibly experience a tree? — Art48
Conceptualizing, with the ratcheting ability of language to leverage its effects, — schopenhauer1
I agree that the ability to conceptualize -- to form abstract representations of real phenomena -- is a major factor in human consciousness. But I'd say "in concert with" rather than "rather than Reason". Logical abstraction is the reason we represent (conceptualize) ideal Consciousness, as-if it is a real thing. Accurate maps can be confused with the actual terrain.I would use the term "conceptualizing" rather than "reason" for a number of reasons — schopenhauer1
Atoms are particles. Neutrons protons, and electrons are also particles. So are quarks. As far as I know, their respective volumes do not consist of "particle fields". — 180 Proof
Theorist Sean Carroll thinks it’s time you learned the truth: All of the particles you know—including the Higgs—are actually fields.
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.