You've made your point and I appreciate your sincerity. Thank you!

I was ill-inspired to use the example of information. I should have written ''any fundamental substance", you can call it X. The only condition is that X is not consciousness/conscious. I have no idea how to define information, so I have no idea if it is mind-dependent. It sounds like it is, but I have no idea :lol:

So, in your opinion, only science can tell us what is and isn't a ''fact"? I'm not going to debate that, I want to understand you.

I can resonate with that.

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

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.

Nothing wrong with that; I wouldn’t think so either. But what are you trying to say with it? What’s the point? — Mww

I'm trying to say that what we call a ''process" is not fundamentally different than what we call ''objects". If objects can be emergent, then processes can be emergent. Is that advantageous for a philosophical debate to talk about processes in terms of fundamental or emergent? I admit I have no idea.

''Meaning" is kind of consciousness....experience... it's vague

you've left out eliminativism as an option, — bert1

I did, because I think weak emergence is eliminativism. I might be wrong though...

Anything that is not consciousness or conscious.

So after all, the problem does not reside in the gap between non-subjective experience and subjective experience. Information, in your opinion, has the right properties to give rise to subjective experience even if information itself isn't conscious.

It seems to me our difference is in language.
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. It's a silly idea that playing with words (I am not referring to you here) will somehow change the reality.

Ok, but it was just an example. It could be anything else.

Trying doing that without employing concepts — Wayfarer

I don't personally think they are, but either way... I don't think concepts can avoid fundamentalism or emergence.

Chairs have properties, they don’t have processes or concepts — Mww

Chairs is concept, it is language. It can also be a process. Everything is dynamic.

processes do not have extension in space, hardness, or weight. — Mww

A porocess IS totally reducible (i.e. weakly emergent) to interaction among particles, that interraction can be reduced further and so on. There is nothing about a process that cannot be fully deducile, reducible, and explained by what is more fundamental.

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.

But the question is: is it logically possible to have more than these options on the table?

It can exist in a fundamental way, like being the foundation of reality, or it can exist like chairs, processes, or concepts, i.e. emergent from a material foundation.

I deny consciousness as an entity because it is not identifiable by a set of properties. — Mww

- how can it exist if it doesn't have properties? The property of being must be there at least. Being what it is is a property.

Still, consciousness, even if only a conception, could be said to emerge from that by which any conception emerges — Mww

- conceptions definitely emerge, I agree.

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, I'd agree with that. I posted this question on another forum, and someone suggested that we could eliminate the fundamental. Still, we wouldn't get rid of emergence.

You don't consider consciousness as being an entity because you see it as fundamental or there's another reason?
And by the way, who says something cannot be fundamental or emergent just because it is not an object like a chair? That's ridiculous.

Ok, now I totally get it hahaha! It's funny because all this time I thought it was something super-sophisticated that I couldn't understand when in fact it's such a banality. Breathing is a term used to describe the contact between lungs and air, aka atoms and atoms. Let's assume materialism is true. In this case, everything is reducible to matter, including the term ''breathing". It's precisely what materialism says, otherwise, it's not materialism.
Now I get why don't you like that - you realize this is kind of silly. So instead of saying ''breathing" is reducible, you start playing word games here and try to convince yourself that if we simply introduce a new mysterious "non-thing" like ''breathing" will solve the problem. Obscurantism.

Another perspective: the process of breathing is weakly emergent from matter - it's created by matter, exactly like a chair. There is no fundamental difference between breathing and chairs - they are both interactions of atoms, both are nothing more than descriptions, conventional language!

Finally, I deciphered you! After two f*&*(&g years! You ate my ''livers" (drove me nuts).
No, I definitely don't agree with you, but I have nothing personal with you in regard to your philosophical point of view. I think diversity is good and crucial in order to stimulate others.
With your way of dealing with things around here, I do have something against it. But that's another story.

:up:

I'm not trying to turn anyone (on)/or against anybody. As for the rest of your last reply ... :up:

Before, you asked for one or the other. Here you’re asking if something other than one or the other. — Mww

No, I didn't.

1. Is the logic of the model correct?
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?
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

I agree with you, but my question is not if consciousness is fundamental or emergent. That's a different debate.

I am not trying to find out if consciousness is fundamental or emergent. What I'm asking is if consciousness can be other than: a. Fundamental b. Emergent (weak or strong) — Eugen

Thank you for your complex and articulate answer! I actually resonate with you, but my question was different :lol:
Let me put it this way. I am not trying to find out if consciousness is fundamental or emergent. What I'm asking is if consciousness can be other than: a. Fundamental b. Emergent (weak or strong)

I have this intuition as well. @180 Proof doesn't understand himself. It looks like he has a strong bias and he created this alambicated web of notions (he's got rich vocabulary, or it seems that way) in order to protect his biased view. My style of is super-direct and not leaving much space for bs. It's not that my OPs militate for a view, they're just questions, curiosities. But for some reason, he finds my questions threatening, I am sure of that, because there's a pattern here. And he's the only guy thinking they're nonsense. So I definitely touch a soft spot, so he dismisses my question altogether and always keeping his real options hidden. He uses his vocabulary to create fog. That's my opinion.

I have nothing against them as long as they don't appeal to obscuratism. "Make your point loud and clear!" That's my opinion.

see my private message :cool:

Have fun!

Guys, you are really helping me, I truly believe you're smart people. This beef is far too low for your intelligence. You both know that.

I don't want to lie to myself. So I need to interact with all kind of opinions. But I don't want to lose my time with non-sense either. That's why I'm asking people to help me with this guy. I just want to understand him, not to label him as troll or to form alliances against him.
So far, I think I understand your explanations on his opinions

You made me think. It's not about me or him being disrespectful. It's different. I think my questions touch some sensitive spots. Far from that being my intention, but I think he's got a soft spot when it comes to consciousness and emergence. So unlike the rest, he doesn't make an argument, he just dismisses the discussion altogether. That's his tactic, now I get it! EVRIKA!
As for him having knowledge, you'd be surprised - I spent an entire OP only to realise the guy didn't have the notion of weak emergence. Yes, he's got language, I admit. But that doesn't imply wisdom.

I'm not assuming thay was a response. You made a parallel and I thought 180 Proof thought my qiestion was related to theism.

Thank you for your answer!

For 1. Yes, because whatever 'anything' you choose, you will need to go on to "encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse." to provide any kind of logical argument that your 'anything' is fundamental, emergent or indeed and emergence that is a 'by-product' of fundamentals interacting as combinatorials. — universeness

So is he suggesting that assuming ''anything you could think of" has properties is wrong? Does he want me to formulate a question about something with no properties? I don't really understand. Of course we're talking about properties.

repeated BS claims of theism or antinatalism. — universeness

What does my question have to do with theism?!?! My question is about a simple model that people use to debate consciousness. My question is if there are alternatives to this model. I can't see how this simple question can make no sense.

Here's the right approach - write a good, well supported OP. Layout what you want to discuss. Have good arguments at hand. Listen to what other people have to say and be responsive. — T Clark

I believe my question was good. If one disagrees, he must offer clear arguments and answer questions in order to clarify things. Otherwise, is a lack of respect. I have personal humility, this is why I'm offering anyone a chance to express themselves and bring arguments to the table. One of the best examples is you. The two of us disagree in many places, but we don't play ''cat and mouse". You've always offered your perspective in a clear manner. For that, thanks again!

Neither case is much reason to say "you're wrong, im right. Because i said so!" — Benj96

The problem for me is that I don't understand him. And when I don't understand something, I don't want to label it.
So I don't want to label 180 Proof as ''troll" (at least I'm trying my best not to), because he might have some good arguments, but it might be the case I don't understand him. I wouldn't want that.

This is why I'm asking you guys to help me understand him. Maybe you decipher him better than me and explain to me what he's trying to say.

Anyway... thank you, I truly appreciate!

I wouldn't care about 180 Proof. — Alkis Piskas

- I do trust my own logic, but I'm also trying to remain open because I don't want to lie to myself. So I have a particular interest in those opinions that contradict my views. 180 Proof doesn't contradict my view, he contradicts my questions! Firstly, he calls them nonsense. Secondly, after a long insistence, he says my question presupposes this or that and he uses language against me. I don't think I presuppose anything and I also think words like ''anything or everything" imply concrete things, like tables and chairs. Thirdly, and this is important, he has a totally different view. I've never heard philosophers (materialists, panpsichists, idealists, etc.) saying that a question like ''Is consciousness fundamental or emergent?" is nonsense. Never!
Anyway, there's more than that.
I just want to make sure that I'm not labeling him as ''troll" because I wouldn't want to miss a good argument. This is why I'm asking people here to explain to me his arguments, because I don't understand him.

All in all, I truly appreciate your effort and you deserve my gratitude. ευχαριστώ!

Thank you two for your answers! I'm not trying to form an alliance here or to be against anyone. I only need sincerity. I don't want to lie to myself, this is why I am truly interested in different opinions, especially in those that contradict what I believe. But when one claims I'm wrong but isn't willing to show me exactly where I'm wrong and clarify, I'm starting to think that person's trolling me. This is why I'm asking your help.

I.

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). — 180 Proof

In your opinions, did my OP presuppose an ''embodied mind"? I definitely didn't intend to do that.

II.

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. — 180 Proof

Could you guys help me on that one? I simply don't get it. What's his point here?

Thank you for your effort, I truly appreciate!

I can perfectly understand what you're saying. Complex, but not obscure.

But if it’s emergent wouldn’t it also be fundamental? In the sense that its existence was inevitable. — invicta

- I see two options:
1. it can be emergent but not fundamental - a chair
2. it can be both - if consciousness is fundamental and human consciousness is emergent from the fundamental consciousness

But you’re right some people can seem like they’re smarter than you with their abrupt replies, but really they’re not they’re just condescending fools. — invicta

It seems to me he has a rich philosophical vocabulary, this is why I'm tempted to give him a chance, maybe I can learn something from him. The problem is that I simply don't understand him and he doesn't help me with that.

Trying to get us to back you up with 180 Proof won't work. — T Clark

Trying to make it look like I'm asking you to back me up against him is a serious one. So where do I exactly try to do that?

He's a pain in the ass, but he's our pain in the ass. — T Clark

Well, if you like pain in the ass, go for it. I personally don't have this kind of fetish.

write a good, well supported OP. — T Clark

Who decides what's a "good, well supported" OP?

You ask mostly uninformed, nonsensical, and often trivial, questions. Go do your own homework — 180 Proof

I ask these questions on mulptiple forums and you are always the ONLY ONE who has this opinion. It might be the case my questions are wrong and you're smarter than everyone else, or it might be the case you're an imbecile. Both options are possible, I don't know which one is right.

It seems to me you live under the impression that you have some kind of mission here to intrigue people. I don't need that.

I asked you clear questions. You ignore them, or you deviate. It's a lack of respect. You're not inspiring, you're annoying and ridiculous. So I'm still waiting for your answer. Is consciousness a brain process?