there a cause having the effect of T Clark leaving the room?

Perhaps not, like the instantaneous decay of a uranium ato — jgill

Yes! His leaving was not caused at all. He just instantaneously decayed spontaneously.

Do you even understand what it says? Seems fast judgment. Then again, what one doesn't like is called pseudo.

And I say "no." And you say "it's obvious." And I say, "no, it's not obvious." You are arguing that cause is real and obvious. My only argument is that it is not obvious. We're not getting anywhere with this. — T Clark

Exactly! Its you who uses no argument! Except some reference to old dusty thinkers denying cause on insufficient knowledge base.

When the going gets tough...

It is not the only approach, not even close. — Constance

Im sure there are a lot of approaches. I prefer the approach the theory is the reality.

What happens is science's views become derivative, and primacy goes to it the Cartesian center — Constance

I disagree. Scientific views become reality.

You can deny there is such a thing, which is fine; but you have arrived at a foundation for discussing things philosophically: phenomenology. — Constance

Phenomena lie at the foundation. Indeed. But there exists stuff behind the phenomena. Scìence can lift the curtain and make that stuff visible. It's all a perception, I agree. But a truthful one.

Physics is now derivative, and this means its explanatory basis as a science with all of its paradigmatic historical progression, is held to be reducible to affairs at a more basic order. — Constance

Physics is now a derivative? I don't agree. All natural processes have a fundamental basic blocks. Truly existent matter. True, its nature remains unknown, though we can feel it by eating it.

Not fantasy. More real than real, if you like: the intuitive horizon that is presupposed by science. Hard to talk about, really, unless you read about it. — Constance

More real than real? You mean what the nature of matter is? Then I agree. It's the content, the charge of matter that gives us consciousness. It's not that hard to talk about.

You haven't provided any logical argument — T Clark

The logical argument:

Russel (or C, for that matter) based their refusal of a cause on physics. They didn't have enough of this knowledge. Logical conclusion: their refusal is unwarrented.

Do you mean that every event has a cause? — T Clark

No, an event is a confusing term in relativity. It doesn't cover what it means. Events are metaphysical monsters. They don't exist. Every happening, on the other hand, is made up from a cause and effect, as they are spread in spacetime.

You're still wrong — L'éléphant

Considering previous exchange, I know who utters the word...

t wasn't obvious to Russell. It wasn't obvious to R.G. Collingwood in 1943. We're not the only ones. — T Clark

The obvious is the tip of your nose. Squeeze it too hard and you say "ouch'!

He actually made his arguments based on and with reference to his understanding of modern physics at the time. Take a look at his argument — T Clark

Then his knowledge was insufficient. It's all there is to logically conclude.

Let me explain this to you. Just saying "it's self-evident", "it's obvious", "it's a priori knowledge", "it's nonsense", or "it's undeniable" is not an argument — T Clark

I dont wanna argue! Philosophy is not about argument (but it's probably you"re good at, hence your love to argue). Every effect has a cause. Only an object on a Norton Dome can be said to have no cause for its motion. Give me one example of a cause less event. Then I might give an argument why is has a cause. Everything is determined, has a prior cause. Without cause and effect no free will.

Wrong. — L'éléphant

Considering previous exchange, I know who utters the word...

The thing I wanna make clear is that consciousness can't be programmed or created by humans. We can't create life because you need life in the first place. A human needs a human to grow in. The only environment for a baby to grow is a living womb. Which requires a human.

Still sounds mad I'm afraid, or just incorrect: the matter in the computer was created in the big bang, same as the matter in our grey matter. — Daemon

Of course. But it's origin are human hands. Human brains can only be traced back to the big bang creation.

Everything for you, my love! :love:

Do you really think a brain is a mirror to nature? — Constance

It's the only plausible way to approach reality. We assume what our brain creates is a true image. Wouĺd you assume we're given a fantasy? Would you prefer it?

TIMTOWTDI (There is more than one way to do it) BSCINABTE (But sometimes consistency is not a bad ..)

He went further. He said the idea of cause in physics is meaningless. — T Clark

Which is obvious nonsense, had he had some knowledge of physics. The problem in physics is why cause precedes effect..

You don't realize that what physicists do rests upon an intuitional givenness — Constance

That's exactly what I realize to arrive at virtual particles as the foundation of both real matter in space as well as asymmetrical thermodynamic time. Before unidirectional, intuìtional, thermodynamical time took off, time was circular, and comparable to Aristotle's eternal circular motion, which neither went forth nor back. This eternal oscillation lied at the basis of all big bangs and beginnings of TD time.

That sounds mad. What do you mean? — Daemon

The particles we're made of came into their shape in the context of the entire universe, from the very beginning. Computers dont have this feature. And its the reason you cant recreate conscious creatures. You would have to recreate the entire universe.

There are many unconscious bodily processes, does consciousness happen in them? — Daemon

They sustain the workings of the brain. If I have pain in my foot, it's the combination of body and brain that creates the pain. The body can't function without the physical world we live in. So the world is involved also.

So if you did make a mechanical functional equivalent to a working brain, you could be making something that could feel pleasure and pain. Would we really want to do that? You could be making a being that felt nothing but agony — Daemon

I agree.

The very structure and shape of neurons, like lighting flashes and roots, is a pre. You can't copy that.

I mean, what can we remove? The brain cant live without a body.

The whole organism is not a necessary condition for consciousness. You can remove quite a bit of an organism before it loses consciousness. — RogueAI

Yes, but at the cost of consciousness quality.

Agreed, but a program that can pass the Turing Test and is begging not to be deactivated because it's conscious should certainly give people food for thought. — RogueAI

I would deactivate it immediately. The difference with consciousness is that you can't turn it on and off. A computer can be turned off. The processes in the brain are not programmed, they live in a body, which moves in the world. A computer is just temporally local stuff. Consciousness, of every creature, contains the history of the whole universe.

As well as reaching out and bending space to your will — jgill

To my will?

Does science passively give knowledge and information about a world outside of the knower — Joshs

In "Constructing quarks", a fascinating account of the history of the literal construction of the quarks is given. Weel, not exactly literally, but reality is seen as a moldable material. To be molded by experiment and ideas.

Are philosophers missing the forest for the trees? — Agent Smith

Agent Smith! My man! Exactly! They study the meaning of the roots, how the bark looks in UV light, if a tree can be reduced to parts, if it makes a sound in the wind if we're not there to hear, if the tree has a function, the meaning of the word "tree", our knowledge of trees, the tree as an -ism, the tree as pleasure, the evolution of a tree, the tree in the light of God, etcetera etcetera, without knowing what a tree is. Likewise for a forrest.

The objective of many current day philosophers is to endulgence in hundreds of -isms. So they can pretend to be alive while actually repeating ideas of others.

book I'm reading plausibly suggests it may happen in the upper brain stem rather than in cerebral cortex — Daemon

Consciousness happens in the whole organism.

To perceive or be perceived, there's no question. 1000 people perceive me. All different perceptions. Im a 1000 people.

The denial of movement ex nihilo is the strongest intuitive insistence the mind can make. — Constance

If you know about virtual particles you would know that they laid the basis for thermodynamic time. They go back in forth in time. They were all that resided on the central singularity and the surroundings of that singularity set inflation off. There are infinite serial big bangs. Each has its own beginning of thermodynamic time. So the creation of the universe, with its infinity of big bangs, is not a temporal process.

I don't know what the universe being created means — Constance

What's so difficult to understand about that? The gods had plans to recreate heaven. Their words or expressions made the univerde come into existence. They created it. It's plain English.

Your posts are for the most part garbage — Banno

That's where the most interesting things are found, my dear@

What's the latest on the JWST? Will it radically transform our understanding of the universe, ourselves — Agent Smith

It will, Agent, my dear. The true nature of dark energy will be revealed. Probably it is finally shown by observation, that the present big bang episode is just one in an infinite row! Imagine you and me philosophizing in every new universe, after each new big bang. That would be heaven on Earth. We could feel how the gods once felt!

But viruses were there long before the fish.

If we consider the question in a DNA context, the question is: what came first, the protein-based ribosome, or the proteins constructed by them? The answer is, the protein. Which is the chicken.

"Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. "

In other words, a chimera.

. I dont find the idea of physical objects to be all that useful anymore for quantum physics, biology or psychology. It’s a relic of an older era. — Joshs

Quantum particles are still just particles. The wavefunction in which they are embedded makes their behavior non-local but they are still particles.