But that kind of thinking invites infinite regress (where does the thing conceptions emerge from, emerge from)
— Mww
- that is the case if you consider noting being fundamental — Eugen
It can exist in a fundamental way, like being the foundation of reality, or it can exist like chairs, processes, concepts, i.e. emergent from a material foundation. — Eugen
Chairs have properties, they don’t have processes or concepts — Mww
processes do not have extension in space, hardness, or weight. — Mww
Chairs is concept, it is language. It can also be a process — Eugen
A porocess IS totally reducible (i.e. weakly emergent) to interaction among particles — Eugen
Concepts might or might not be reducible to matter. If they are, materialism is true. If they aren't, materialism is false. You can't have it both ways. — Eugen
what does "fundamental" mean? — IP060903
Those opposing will argue that mental acts, such as speaking and reasoning, and perhaps even the very quality of subjective experience itself, cannot be explained in terms of physical processes. — Wayfarer
Whether consciousness can be explained in terms of physical processes is a different question than whether it or the physical (or neither) is ontologically fundamental. — Janus
For the physicalist, the physical substrate is fundamental, consciousness is epiphenomenal. — Wayfarer
1. Is the logic of the model correct? — Eugen
2. There is an alternative to this model, i.e. a model in which ''absolutely anything you could think of" is not fundamental, but it is neither 100% reducible nor strongly emergent? — Eugen
3. Does this model apply to any type of reality? I mean, if instead of matter we assume that the most fundamental thing is an immaterial computer or information, does this change have any impact on the model? — Eugen
Is there a real fundamental difference between the interaction between atoms in a chair versus the interaction between atoms in our lungs? I don't think so. — Eugen
It's a silly idea that playing with words (….) will somehow change the reality. — Eugen
Moreover, if you imagine a green bird, nobody will find that image in your brain. But that's a refutation of materialism, not a refutation of fundamental-emergent.anyone looking in my brain is never going to find my consciousness, nor will he find the words I use to express my distaste of Lima beans. — Mww
Nothing wrong with that; I wouldn’t think so either. But what are you trying to say with it? What’s the point? — Mww
if you imagine a green bird, nobody will find that image in your brain. But that's a refutation of materialism, not a refutation of fundamental-emergent. — Eugen
No.180 Proof
Do you think there is any progress offered by labelling 'consciousness' a system? — universeness
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.