- Totally agree!I certainly agree that an eternal would be fundamental, but a fundamental need not be eternal, — universeness
"fundamental to what?" — Alkis Piskas
I was totally clear on that: if you don't agree with my notion of ''emergence", ignore it and focus on ''reduction". — Eugen
Well then, use 'irreducible' instead.Haven't heard philosophers using the term ''foundational" in regard to consciousness. — Eugen
To my mind 'fundamental' connotes ontological reductionism (i.e. metaphysics re: entities) and 'foundational' connotes methodological reductionism (i.e. science re: explanations). With respect to "consciousness", is it – I prefer mind – 'foundational', or methodologically irreducible (i.e. cannot be reduced to – explained by – a substrate of processes or properties)? Neuroscientists like the philosopher Thomas Metzinger demonstrate that mind can be explained reductively (e.g. self model theory of subjectivity) – as a system of brain functions, and therefore, is not 'foundational' for knowledge of mind (i.e. metacognition) or even, upon critical reflection, not 'foundational' for subjective experience (re: nonordinary / altered mental states).Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational?
It is conceptually incoherent to even ask whether or not embodied mind (synonymous with "consciousness" in the absence of any shred of dis-embodied minds) is "fundamental" if only because embodiment is composite and perdurant. This nonsense – the OP – is what you get, Eugen, from trying to reduce a scientific problem (re: seeking a hypothetical explanation for 'how things are or work') to a philosophical question (re: positing a categorical idea or supposition). Of course, you're not alone in this confusion and exemplify the typical bias of reifying folk concepts and projecting them as stuff, "fundamental" or otherwise. I've already pointed this out in our previous discussion about Spinoza, especially this post ...Where is the ''nonsense"?
- RomanianOh. Your native language? — 180 Proof
- Haven't heard philosophers using the term ''foundational" in regard to consciousness. Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational?Either rreducible or foundational. — 180 Proof
↪180 Proof
Options (b) & (c) contradict each other
— 180 Proof
B. is not fundamental
— Eugen
- Water is not fundamental.
C. Its properties are 100% reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality
— Eugen
- Water can be 100% reduced to the fundamental properties of reality.
Where is the ''nonsense"? — Eugen
Where is the ''nonsense"? — Eugen
let's assume for the sake of the argument that consciousness's existence is dependent on matter (created by matter), but its properties are not reducible to matter. — Eugen
. Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational? — Eugen
Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational?
To my mind 'fundamental' connotes ontological reductionism (i.e. metaphysics re: entities) and 'foundational' connotes methodological reductionism (i.e. science re: explanations). With respect to "consciousness", is it – I prefer mind – 'foundational', or methodologically irreducible (i.e. cannot be reduced to – explained by – a substrate of processes or properties)? Neuroscientists like the philosopher Thomas Metzinger demonstrate that mind can be explained reductively (e.g. self model theory of subjectivity) – as a system of brain functions, and therefore, is not 'foundational' for knowledge of mind (i.e. metacognition) or even, upon critical reflection, not 'foundational' for subjective experience (re: nonordinary / altered mental states). — 180 Proof
so is there any reason why you have not answered my recent questions to you? — universeness
Reality doesn’t have fundamental properties; — Mww
A property of water is amphoteric fluidity. The constituency of water, H and O, do not have fluidity as a property. — Mww
The properties of the constituent matter to which water is reducible, are weight, number, charge, spin, and so one, but these are not properties of water. — Mww
Water, if reduced to its fundamental constituency, is no longer water. It follows that water cannot be reduced beyond the very properties by which its identity is determinable. — Mww
let's assume for the sake of the argument that consciousness's existence is dependent on matter (created by matter), but its properties are not reducible to matter. — Eugen
Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational?
To my mind 'fundamental' connotes ontological reductionism (i.e. metaphysics re: entities) and 'foundational' connotes methodological reductionism (i.e. science re: explanations). With respect to "consciousness", is it – I prefer mind – 'foundational', or methodologically irreducible (i.e. cannot be reduced to – explained by – a substrate of processes or properties)? Neuroscientists like the philosopher Thomas Metzinger demonstrate that mind can be explained reductively (e.g. self model theory of subjectivity) – as a system of brain functions, and therefore, is not 'foundational' for knowledge of mind (i.e. metacognition) or even, upon critical reflection, not 'foundational' for subjective experience (re: nonordinary / altered mental states).
Where is the ''nonsense"?
It is conceptually incoherent to even ask whether or not embodied mind (synonymous with "consciousness" in the absence of any shred of dis-embodied minds) is "fundamental" if only because embodiment is composite and perdurant. This nonsense – the OP – is what you get, Eugen, from trying to reduce a scientific problem (re: seeking a hypothetical explanation for 'how things are or work') to a philosophical question (re: positing a categorical idea or supposition). Of course, you're not alone in this confusion and exemplify the typical bias of reifying folk concepts and projecting them as stuff, "fundamental" or otherwise. I've already pointed this out in our previous discussion about Spinoza, especially this post ... — 180 Proof
Reality doesn’t have fundamental properties;
— Mww
So there are no fundamental properties, only properties. There is no fundamental reality in your opinion, right? — Eugen
'Fluidity" is not a property over and above the properties of H and O. — Eugen
The term ''fluidity" is just a shorthand for something that could be fully described by other properties. — Eugen
”Water" and "fluidity" are just language…. — Eugen
let's assume for the sake of the argument that consciousness's existence is dependent on matter (created by matter), but its properties are not reducible to matter.
— Eugen
That is strong emergence. Are you embracing it? — Eugen
- gas and fluids are just descriptions, they can be fully reduced to non-gas and non-fluidity. So let me put it this way:so I think it difficult to maintain gases are properties of fluids. — Mww
True, but the description is of water, not fluidity. — Mww
True, but language is nothing but representation of conceptions. The conception that “water” represents is very far from the conceptions by which the constituent matter of water are represented. — Mww
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.