I certainly agree that an eternal would be fundamental, but a fundamental need not be eternal, as no fundamental particle currently known or described in science, is considered eternal.
How much credence do you assign to the projected, eventual heat death of our universe?

I certainly agree that an eternal would be fundamental, but a fundamental need not be eternal, — universeness

- Totally agree!

What credence level do you personally assign to the proposal that an eternal CAN exist?
and if you assign a high credence level to such a proposal, how willing are you to assign it 'consciousness'/self-awareness or an agent with intent and purpose?

:up:
Your reception of the message was perfect! :smile:

Let @180 Proof say or believe "anything" ... :smile: Your point was very clear.

As for your question about the correctness of your logic, my answer is basically afirmative. :smile:
(Of course there are some things to be cleared, e.g. "fundamental to what?". But that would require a lot to be said and a long debate ....)

"fundamental to what?" — Alkis Piskas

For me, fundamental has to:
1. be irreducible
2. not created by a different substance - independent of the existence of other substance

For example, 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. Even if condition 1 is met, consciousness is not fundamental in this case because it is dependent on the existence of matter.

I was totally clear on that: if you don't agree with my notion of ''emergence", ignore it and focus on ''reduction". — Eugen

As I indicated in my previous response, I think phenomena you have identified as non-fundamental would all generally be considered reducible. Isn't that the definition of "non-fundamental?" From what I have seen in posts subsequent to my previous one, that seems to be the question you have put on the table. I don't think I have any insights to add.

Thank you very much! So, in your opinion, I haven't left anything out.

consciousness for me is fundamental. As in a non conscious universe, spacetime is not a factor. Because consciousness experiences location and Time from the pov of matter. (stored/pent up energy).

@universeness

Haven't heard philosophers using the term ''foundational" in regard to consciousness. — Eugen

Well then, use 'irreducible' instead.

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 ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/520996

Oh. Your native language? — 180 Proof

- Romanian

Either rreducible or foundational. — 180 Proof

- Haven't heard philosophers using the term ''foundational" in regard to consciousness. Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational?

↪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

You declared yourself an agnostic to me (in a PM), so is there any reason why you have not answered my recent questions to you? You complained, by insisting that @180 Proof had not answered your questions to him, to your satisfaction. I even gave you some support on this, so why have you not answered my questions at:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/803366
or
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/803368

Where is the ''nonsense"? — Eugen

Maybe not so much nonsense, as violation of principles.

Reality doesn’t have fundamental properties; the objects which constitute reality, do.

A property of water is amphoteric fluidity. The constituency of water, H and O, do not have fluidity as a property.

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.

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.

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

Just like that…..

. Can you tell me the difference between fundamental and foundational? — Eugen

HE ALREADY DID SO!!!!

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

Additional: :100: :up:

I see. Then consciousness is fundamental. It is not created by anything. This is what I have come to realize up to now, based on the vast amount of material I vae read and listened on the subject, but mainly based on my reasoning and experience (experiencing, empirical knowledge). I give much importance on the latter.

so is there any reason why you have not answered my recent questions to you? — universeness

2 reasons actually:
1. I don't usually encourage topics unrelated to my OP
2. For you, I would have made an exception, but I simply have no answer to that

Theists (and there are still vast numbers of them) consider god a valid 'fundamental' source for consciousness. God is also posited as irreducible and eternal, so I don't see why you would suggest your reason 1.
Reason 2 is fair enough but even that would have been a valid response to the three questions I posed, rather than me having to re-request a response.
I remain in hope that at some time soon, you will reject your agnostic label, and join us atheists, who have freed our will and thoughts from the notion of the machinations of a completely hidden (actually non-existent imo,) divine scrutineer.

Thanks for your answer!
It seems to me I need some clarifications.

I.

Reality doesn’t have fundamental properties; — Mww

So there are no fundamental properties, only properties. There is no fundamental reality in your opinion, right?

II.

A property of water is amphoteric fluidity. The constituency of water, H and O, do not have fluidity as a property. — Mww

Yeah, but here's my problem with this. ''Fluidity" is not a property over and above the properties of H and O. The term ''fluidity" is just a shorthand for something that could be fully described by other properties. We could discard the notion of ''fluidity" without missing anything. So no, I don't agree with this one.

III.

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

Again, water is nothing more than the sum of its constituents, therefore water is just H2O, therefore water is just mass, spin, etc. "Water" and "fluidity" are just language unless you believe water is strongly emergent.

IV.

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

Yes, there is no ''water" in the first place to begin with. It's just our convenient way to communicate. Instead of describing the interaction between fundamental molecules and spend all our lives doing that, we just call it water.

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?

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

Finally, I get your view. In your opinion, we shouldn't ask things about consciousness's ontology, we should just let science to deal with it and accept only what rigorous science tells us. Correct?

Saw it. Thanks anyway :-)

Saw it. — Eugen

Saw What?

His answer, but late.

Oh, I get what you mean now. I think you are saying that you posted your question again, before you read that 180proof had already answered it. I did the same thing once, so, c'est la vie.

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

There are properties; there are fundamental properties. These all belong to objects alone.

There is the conception of reality, a metaphysical placeholder for all that is possible to experience, all that is real. There is no qualifier for reality; fundamental reality just is reality.
———-

'Fluidity" is not a property over and above the properties of H and O. — Eugen

Depends on what you want a property to represent. If a property is the determinant factor in the identity of a thing, fluidity is a better service, insofar as H and O, in and of themselves, cannot identify anything except themselves. I mean…..H and O are gases, but water, as such, is not, so I think it difficult to maintain gases are properties of fluids.

The term ''fluidity" is just a shorthand for something that could be fully described by other properties. — Eugen

True, but the description is of water, not fluidity. Minor categorical error, so to speak. Besides, the descriptions of fluidity do not necessarily apply to water alone, but could also apply to oil. And I did say amphoteric fluidity, which is more specific in regard to which fluid substance the property relates.

”Water" and "fluidity" are just language…. — Eugen

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.
————

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

Again, strong/weak emergence is just language tripping all over itself. I’m not of a mind to embrace that which is impossible to know, which leaves me with nothing but the LNC. Even if I don’t know how, I can still hold that the brain is responsible for my intelligence, from which follows my thinking consciousness as a valid representation, all without contradicting science or reason contradicting itself. That’s as far as I’m inclined to go.

Actually, I do have some sympathy toward a part of what you're saying there.
I believe we shouldn't ascribe too many properties to the fundamental reality. But I find it impossible to avoid properties at all.
Let's assume everything is reducible to X. X is fundamental.
Property 1 of X: existence
Property 2 of X: irreducibility
Property 3 of X: diversity (having different objects)
I think I could find more if I knew what's fundamental.

so I think it difficult to maintain gases are properties of fluids. — Mww

- gas and fluids are just descriptions, they can be fully reduced to non-gas and non-fluidity. So let me put it this way:
1. fluids are in fact non-fluids
or
2. H and O are bits of fluids

True, but the description is of water, not fluidity. — Mww

I can also describe the fluidity, it's no problem. Properties can be described too. In fact, fluidity is just a concept, a word, there is no such thing.

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

I agree, it's a convention. But we shouldn't forget that the ''far'' is what is real, not the conventions.

Interpreting (explanations of) e.g. "consciousness" is, at best, philosophical; using testable models in order to explain "consciousness" is, also at best, scientific. However, conflating them, as too many contributors to this forum tend to do, is bad philosophy (i.e. obscurant nonsense (e.g. idealism)) and often pseudo-science (i.e. untestable and/or unparsimoniously explaining "too much").

I think, Eugen, one should seek adequate grounds for ontologizing "consciousness" (or any idea) before, as you do in the OP, interpreting "consciousness" as this or that kind of entity. In other words, what do we know (or do not know) about "consciousness" that presupposes it is an ontic entity? Nothing as far as I (& neuroscientists as well as e.g. Hume, Spinoza, Buddhists) can tell but I'm open to be shown otherwise.

@universeness

In other words, what do we know (or do not know) about "consciousness" that presupposes it is an ontic entity? — 180 Proof

If consciousness is reducible to brain processes as you say, then it isn't an ontic entity. Yes or no?

I didn't say that. But yes.

You have to understand that my philosophical vocabulary is not developed. What is an ''ontic entity" first of all? Use simple language, please.

What is an ''ontic entity" first of all? — Eugen

A concrete thing like a chair or brain.