You say language reaches its limit dealing with empirical experience. Can you elaborate on "dealing with"? For example, "Dealing with" means perceives and understands as if through a glass darkly.

I've been forming the impression you see clearly two distinct experiences, one linguistic, the other hands-on material. — ucarr

Small point to start with. If your reference is to 1 Cor. 13; 12, then what you think is "through a glass darkly..," is actually, "through a mirror [now] as a riddle, but then [later] face to face." The word darkly is actually the word αἰνίγματι - ainigmati. And if you can see the word enigma in that, then you are exactly right, the usual translation being "riddle."

It may be useful to note that all experience is empirical; that is, experienced. As such, subjective. Language then (of course) describes that experience, the language itself being neither the experience nor constitutive of the experience. You saw a pretty girl: neither your experience nor the description of it is the pretty girl. And she is beyond doubt pretty! But did you see her in infra-red or ultra-violet? Or the zillion or so neutrinos we now understand are passing through all of us all the time? Perception - experience - is what it is and nothing else. The world is something else.

And there is speculation about matters not experienced, like first causes. A common form is to admit ignorance, and then immediately to pretend to knowledge. Kant covers all of this in the opening pages of his CPR.

You think paradoxes logical things categorically apart from hands-on material things? You think paradoxes the products of narratives made incoherent due to missing pieces? Do you have any ready-to-hand examples? — ucarr

Creatures of logic yes, of the world, no. From missing pieces? I prefer to say from incomplete or inadequate descriptions. Case in point the Cantor paradox referenced above. The idea is that the set of all sets presumably contains its own power set as a subset, which implies that the cardinality of the subset is greater than the set itself. The resolution in this case is to correct the description to state that there can be no set of all sets because it leads to a paradox - or contradiction if you prefer. But you may protest that the universe itself is the set of all sets, but that would simply be a misunderstanding of the terms: the universe contains everything as distinct elements, no subsets, and thus cannot contain its own power set, which in this case would be meaningless. .

The premise that "the chain of Cause & Effect is infinite" is also an ungrounded assumption. Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity? — Gnomon

What empirical evidence could there be? Can anyone experience infinity?
It can be only conceived or deduced rationally.
Anyway, the only other possibility for First Cause is to attribute it to a God who has created everything and to whom everything can be traced back. For which there is no empirical evidence either. This can be also deduced rationally, in the sense that since I can't find a first cause --empirically or rationally-- I have to invent one: I'll call it God.
Which of the two is more "ungrounded"?

the point of this thread is to avoid infinities, and to trace Cause & Effect only back to the First Concept within space-time. — Gnomon

But, as I showed, infinity is necessarily involved in the cause and effect chain. You cannot avoid it! :smile:

This means that {in space-time} time is required for the act of creation. There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. — Gnomon

Right. This is almost the same with saying "the creation of an effect is impossible without a cause". So we are led again to the subject of "First Cause". Infinity again. All roads lead to Infinity! :grin:

When & where & how did Matter become self-conscious enough to ask about its own origin? — Gnomon

Do you mean that matter can be self-conscious? It is not even established that animals can be.
You really surprised me here, Gnomon! :smile:

(Re: "Assuming one accepts the law of causality"]
And there you have it. Assuming you accept X, you get Con(X) (consequences of X) ... — tim wood

The word "assuming" that i used was just en expression, Tim. Not part of a logicical scheme.
I could also say "based on" or "according to" or just say "the law of causality says ..." or even not mention it at all.

The point I suppose when looking at foundational concepts, is to question everything and assume nothing, so far as is possible. — tim wood

I don't think this is possible. To propose something, make a statement, etc., about a subject, you must see the subject from a certain aspect or within some context, a frame of reference. You must start from something. You must be based on something, on some ground. Otherwise, what you propose would be an empty, groundless talk. Insn't that right?
In my case, the frame of reference was the "law if cause and effect".

The idea of a first cause or concept seems not to work (in this context) leading to paradox. That alone would suggest it be rejected. — tim wood

See, you used "in this context" youself. And "leading to a paradox" implies that you used a logical frame of reference. Only that you didn't show why the first cause doesn't work and/or why it would be a paradox ... :smile:

In my case, the frame of reference was the "law if cause and effect".... Only that you didn't show why the first cause doesn't work and/or why it would be a paradox — Alkis Piskas

If you only assume there is a first cause, then you've shown nothing. If your law is that every effect has a cause, then is every cause caused? If not, then what is different about a first cause (and why only one)? If yes then what causes the first cause? And, this is just an exercise in language; what does it have to do with the world?

A first cause in the world, then, is speculation. Make it real.

If you only assume there is a first cause, then you've shown nothing. — tim wood

I have never assumed that, Tim. In fact, I said one could never find a first cause and that looking for it is a wasted effort. And I explained why. (Have you really read my message?)

If your law is that every effect has a cause — tim wood

What do you mean "my law"? It's a universal law. And BTW, do you know of some other law that opposes it?

is every cause caused? — tim wood

Yes. This is what the chain of cause and effect means. A cause is the effect of another cause.
What don't you get, Tim? I really can't see what are you looking for. Your questions and arguments go in circles and they do not show anything substantial. At least I can't see anything ...

There are no "exercises in language" or playing with words either. There's only pure logic here. Can't you see that logic or do you maybe deny (the existence of) logic?

A first cause in the world, then, is speculation — tim wood

But this is exactly what I showed in the first place, Tim! What's with you? Really.

What do you mean "my law"? — Alkis Piskas

Cause-and-effect is a presupposition. I'm under the impression that a lot of science - not all - no longer thinks of cause-and-effect as an adequate description of how the world works. I think the replacement is to think in terms of fields - subject to correction.

There's only pure logic here. — Alkis Piskas

Logic is fine. What does it have to do with the world?

With the right presuppositions, I can prove anything logically. But that does not make it so. Trivially, if I assume P ^~P, then I can prove anything.

Aristotle thought the world was eternal in the past and future. A constant loop. But something kept the whole from falling into its parts or losing all its parts and hence ceasing. Some way the world can be understood rationally, however that is. But why does this imply there was a First reason or a Final reason for the whole? Again the loop. Reality keeps the world alive — Gregory

Yes. Aristotle, with no telescopes, had no reason to imagine a Big Bang beginning of the material world, so he assumed it was eternal. But then, his "substratum" (substance, matter) was known to be changeable & perishable. Hence, he concluded that it was not likely eternal itself, and must have been created from some sub-substratum (fundamental element). Anyway, he went on to postulate an un-caused First Cause to stop the infinite regression of causes.

But this thread is not about First Causes, or Final Effects. It's about the First Concept : the original light bulb in the chain of mindless material evolution. Do you have any ideas about when, where, & how that Initial Inkling emerged from Material Reality? :smile:


Eternal World vs First Cause :
Aristotle asserts that all things must come into existence from an underlying "substratum", which is a sort of essence of being. Then he argues that matter itself (the Aristotelian concept of matter) is the substratum of all things, so it must have either created itself, or been eternal.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2281/how-well-did-aristotle-feel-his-belief-in-the-eternity-of-the-universe-was-estab

What empirical evidence could there be? Can anyone experience infinity?
It can be only conceived or deduced rationally. — Alkis Piskas

Infinity is not an empirical feature of reality. Like the concept of Zero, it is a sort of imaginary anti-reality. That's why scientists try to weed-out infinities in their calculations. It's also why I chose to eliminate discussions of unreal First Causes in this thread. The topic is First Concept. Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion? :nerd:

Is infinity rational? :
If infinity were rational, it could be written in the form a/b, where a and b are integers. But, no matter what a and b are, a/b will always be finite. So, you could say infinity is irrational.
https://mathematics.science.narkive.com/jX1EK8QX/is-infinity-rational#:~:text=If%20infinity%20were%20rational%2C%20it,could%20say%20infinity%20is%20irrational.

But, as I showed, infinity is necessarily involved in the cause and effect chain. You cannot avoid it! — Alkis Piskas

I must have missed that showing. Probably because it is off-topic. But I'll accept that First Cause and Infinity/Eternity are related concepts, where FC defines a finite world of reason, and IE is an undefined imaginary notion beyond reason. :cool:

Infinity again. All roads lead to Infinity! — Alkis Piskas

Which is why forum threads about First Causes (infinity stoppers) inevitably lead to never-ending arguments about unknowable roads to nowhere, "world without end". :wink:

Do you mean that matter can be self-conscious? It is not even established that animals can be.
You really surprised me here, Gnomon! — Alkis Piskas

Now we're getting back to the topic of this thread! The implicit assumption of many posters --- not Gnomon --- is that Mind naturally evolved from Matter in accordance with the known laws of physics. If so, when, where & how did the First Concept emerge? :grin:

If you want to continue the never-ending dialog about First Causes, please go back to the
A first cause is logically necessary thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

The topic of this thread is First Concept --- the original idea in a chain of material transformations --- which for the purposes of the OP, presumably occurred somewhere in the middle of the cosmic chain of causation, . . . . . . or perhaps at some point prior to the First Cause. :wink: ironic smilie

The first idea in the mind of primitive man would have been the first concept. Impossible to narrow down from there.

Infinity is not an empirical feature of reality. — Gnomon

I know that. But it is you who asked for empirical evidence (Re: "Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity?") ! :smile:

It's also why I chose to eliminate discussions of unreal First Causes in this thread — Gnomon

Why, are there real First Causes? What are they?

The topic is First Concept. Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion? Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion? — Gnomon

How can I have anything to offer on something I don't undestand? I was very clear on this. I said that I don't know what do you mean by "First Concept". But you didn't bother explaining to me, or give me some example. You still aren't. Some teachers do that on purpose to torture their students! :grin: (And others do it unintentionally. I've had both kinds in my school.)

So, I have nothing else to offer here ...

But this thread is not about First Causes, or Final Effects. It's about the First Concept : the original light bulb in the chain of mindless material evolution. Do you have any ideas about when, where, & how that Initial Inkling emerged from Material Reality? — Gnomon

If the underlined above are your essential focal points for this conversation, I'm struggling to see why it isn't chiefly a scientific inquiry within evolutionary biology rather than a philosophical inquiry within theory of consciousness.

Are you not examining emergence of mind from matter? Is not this the focus as opposed to examining the structure and functioning of cognition once emergent?

If you're seeking after an argument that labels such and such content as the earliest thinking, isn't it likely you'll get an argument for concepts of purposeful behavior towards survival? Isn't it likely you'll get claims about earliest thinking based on observation of apparent cause-and-effect relationships?

Isn't it possible you'll get arguments underscoring the essential nature of cause-and-effect thinking and how it's supported by something more reliable than intuition? For example, is math more verifiably true in the world than intuition? Well, math equations tell us how input values are changed by logical operators. An equation is language that details a cause and effect relationship. If you think this is unreliable intuition floating about in the mist, I conclude your heart is in your mouth every time you drive across a suspension bridge. Is it the case, instead, that you refuse to drive across suspension bridges?

The first idea in the mind of primitive man would have been the first concept. Impossible to narrow down from there. — jgill

Of course, in the absence of empirical evidence*1, it's scientifically impossible to specify the origin of ideas. But this is a philosophical forum, so I'm looking for informed speculations on how that emergence of sentience might have been possible in a world of evolving material forms & species. And I don't limit concepts to humans : animals may have pre-verbal ideas that they express behaviorally. Or to animals with brains : some brainless flatworms seem to have intentional behavior. No judging in this thread. Give it a free shot. :grin:

*1. Fossilization of brain, or other soft tissue, is possible however, and scientists can infer that the first brain structure appeared at least 521 million years ago, with fossil brain tissue present in sites of exceptional preservation. ____Wikipedia

I know that. But it is you who asked for empirical evidence (Re: "Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity?") ! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

I assumed you would know that was a rhetorical question. :cool:

Why, are there real First Causes? What are they? — Alkis Piskas

I'll ignore that off-topic question. :wink:

I said that I don't know what do you mean by "First Concept". But you didn't bother explaining to me, or give me some example. — Alkis Piskas

I didn't define the topical term because I was hoping to avoid putting my preconceptions in your head. Why don't you describe what you would mean by "First Concept"? This is an open forum. Is free speech "torture" for you? :smile:

If the underlined above are your essential focal points for this conversation, I'm struggling to see why it isn't chiefly a scientific inquiry within evolutionary biology rather than a philosophical inquiry within theory of consciousness.

Are you not examining emergence of mind from matter? Is not this the focus as opposed to examining the structure and functioning of cognition once emergent? — ucarr

I was intentionally a bit vague in my title and OP, in order to avoid putting my pre-conceptions into impressionable minds. But, I did give you a hint. Please feel free to define your notion of First Concept any way you like. I'm assuming that nobody knows for sure, so there are no wrong answers.

This is a philosophy forum, so empirical evidence is not necessary. But relevant scientific data is welcome. You can describe the first-of-its-kind event as you see fit : material, physical, metaphysical, accidental, intentional, magical, etc. :smile:

PS__I Googled "first concept" and mostly got marketing links.

You are right. The discussions on the subject of First Cause can go forever. As those about the concept of time and a lot more. — Alkis Piskas

That's why I started this spin-off from the depleted First Cause thread. But most respondents, so far, seem to have missed the point of this new thread : to discuss, not the First Cause, but a mid-evolution Effect : the origin of Consciousness in an ever-changing physical world. Perhaps I should have titled the thread : "Origin of Consciousness", but "First Concept" seemed to be more to the point.

Panpsychism*1 & Idealism assume that Consciousness was inherent in the world, from the beginning or from eternity, whichever came first. However, "First Concept" is not about chatty atoms, but about the early signs of self-aware mentation in the only animals we know have language to discuss abstract concepts.

Materialism*2 also assumes that the potential for Consciousness is inherent in the natural world, but not in the form of a supernatural God or Cosmic Mind or sentient Atoms. If so, what was the fundamental form of matter that produced thinking beings?

With these essential problems in mind, I was hoping to stimulate a discussion on how both of those presumptions might explain the eventual evolutionary emergence of abstract conceptualizers, such as posters on TPF could have evolved from nothingness or from eternal matter. For Panpsychism the crux would be the Combination Problem*3. For Materialism, the key issue might be what form proto-consciousness might take in evolution of Consciousness*4.

Do you have any ideas to contribute to a forum of mostly amateur philosophers with varying degrees of scientific background? There may be other sub-categories of Consciousness theories, but they would seem to boil down to primacy : fundamental Mind versus elemental Matter. Thoughts? :smile:


*1. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

*2. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

*3. Combination Problem :
Nevertheless, panpsychism is subject to a major challenge: the combination problem. This is
roughly the question: how do the experiences of fundamental physical entities such as quarks and photons combine to yield the familiar sort of human conscious experience that we know and love.
https://consc.net/papers/combination.pdf

*4. Can Materialism Explain the Mind? :
Nevertheless, in the eyes of many philosophers of mind, materialism has now reached an insurmountable quandary in the question of consciousness. . . . Physicalist theories that attempt to explain mental states include eliminative materialism, behaviorism, identity theory, and functionalism.
https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/can-materialism-explain-the-mind

1. Accept existence
2. Accept causality in support of existence.
3. Fail to make sense of causality. Reject it.
4. Accept eternity in support of existence.
5. Fail to make sense of eternity. Reject it.
6. Reject existence in favour of the number 42.

I am under the impression cause-and-effect is no longer accepted in much of physics as being the right account for how the world works — tim wood

That's a good point --- if you want to distinguish Physics from Philosophy. Academic (fundamental) physics is only concerned with mathematical correlations*1 . . . . until the time comes that you want to make a Pragmatic prediction based on that correlation, e.g. to produce a stable chemical correlation for a specific application. In that case, it helps to know what causes what.

Academic Philosophy is impractical for controlling the material world. So, the function of Meta-Physics is to organize & control the mental realm of reality --- our beliefs. On this forum, we are not producing commercial or military products, only personal concepts & attitudes. To that end, an understanding of causal correlations is helpful for self-control and social harmony. :smile:


*1. Does causation exist in physics? :
(In fact, in fundamental physics, almost all calculations involve correlation functions). We are thus forced into a surprising conclusion: There is no fundamental notion of causation — only correlations. Thus, our notion of causation must be a macroscopic emergent phenomenon derived from specific types of correlations.
https://towardsdatascience.com/why-causation-is-correlation-a-physicists-perspective-part-1-742696d130e8
Note --- According to David Hume, Causation is a useful belief, not a proven fact of physics.