I don't like obscurantism. I don't need to be enlightened or inspired. I want ''spoon-feeding" with clear, logical, and concrete answers. If you can respect that, I can take you seriously. If you're here to troll me, I lose my respect very fast. From now on, I want you to answer my questions clearly or ignore my OPs. It's a matter of respect.

First of all, thank you for your beautiful answers! But again, I need your help on the following matter.
I am not trying to criticize anyone, but I need you to help me understand something. Every time I open an OP containing the words ''consciousness, emergent, fundamental", there's this weird pattern. Basically, comes and says ''This OP is nonsense." It's like this all the time. None of you or other people on my other OPs seem to have this issue except him.

He rarely gives arguments, and when he does he's very vague and uses a complicated language.
From what I understand, his argument against my question is that I somehow presuppose consciousness is ''ontic entity", like brains and chairs. As far as I'm concerned, I don't presuppose anything.
I even changed ''consciousness" with ''anything you could think of". So, my questions for you are:

1. Does ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity"?
2. If ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity", does this make my question nonsense?
3. Be super-honest guys: is my question nonsense or opinion is simply wrong?
I really need to know that, so I can fix things.

Thank you!

My point is that I don't understand you. So please answer my questions so I can make sense of what you're saying. I'm really making a strong effort to take you seriously. So help me!

Would you agree if I said ''consciousness is a brain process"?

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

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?

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.

His answer, but late.

Saw it. Thanks anyway :-)

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

- Totally agree!

o me, the concept of 'fundamental' allows for more than one to exist. — universeness

Allowing in principle is not the same with that being the case. It can be fundamental and eternal, thus not allowing for other eternals. Don't you agree?

Done! But now will come and say this is nonsense, because "anything" contains the word ''thing", and the fundamental reality is not a ''thing", and blah blah blah.
The point is I'm also overwhelmed.

Eugen, if you edit your post, let me suggest that you reduce the redundancy in all that.
- "abosulutely anything"
- "I mean it in the most literal sense"
- Think of everything you want

Actually, I think that you can replace all that with just "anything you could think of"!

Please do not consider my comment a didactic or critical one. It's only that I was quite overwhelmed by so much redundancy and found it quite annoying. — Alkis Piskas

Actually, I agree with you. Just bear in mind I'm not a native speaker. Your advice is perfect. Thank you!

Thank you for your answer!
But it seems to me you cannot accept a thing that could be eternal and fundamental at the same time. Why?

I think my answer to question 2 is the same as my answer to question 1 but I would suggest that that which was proved to be eternal in of itself, could not have 'parts' so would be 'irreducible.' — universeness

I kind of agree. Actually, I think if we want to be monists, we should reduce everything to one part/property. I cannot think of something that has two fundamentally different properties.

The topic is not about finding a solution for consciousness. The topic is different.
Can something (anything you could think of):
1. be neither fundamental, nor emergent?
2. not fundamental, not 100% reducible and not 100% irreducible either?

Can we find something outside the fundamental-reducible/irreducible?

But it seems to me that you're making my model even more powerful. Not only I don't miss anything, but my model has an extra thing that we could discard namely ''strong emergence". Right?

PS: I'm non-native, so I might type the wrong words sometimes.

You have simply misunderstood my reference to you and your recent thread. Let me clarify.
My use of the word 'novice' in my response to 180proof, contained no stealth intent to relate IN ANY WAY, to you. — universeness

- My bad, so don't worry!

He may have the knowledge, I'm skeptical about his skills though. But I'm still waiting...

I'm not sure he challenges me. It might be the case he spams me. Not sure yet.

My experience as a teacher however puts the burden of patience on me. I only get really frustrated with a novice, if they are asking me questions, but constantly demonstrate an inability to understand my answers, or do understand my answers but refuse to accept the academia behind them, without good reason. — universeness

I'm not sure I'm a novice to 180Proof, and I do understand your answers. So when you tried to compare your "novice" with me (wether in regard to you or him), I think you're wrong.

Don't put the sign ''=" between you and when it comes to me. I totally understand you, I just don't agree with you. With it's a totally different scenario. He never misses the chance to come on my OP's and say:
1. this is a nonsense
2. you're asking the wrong question
3. there is no weak or strong emergence
4. your assumptions are wrong
5. etc. etc. etc.
Solutions or coherent answers to my ''mistakes"? - never. Only general criticism and no solutions.
He is the only guy on this forum acting like that. The rest of you guys seem to understand my questions perfectly.

an unwarranted assumption that there is something "fundamental". — 180 Proof

I'm non-native, so give me an alternative word or notion.

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"?

What I think, however, is that the OP doesn't make any sense. — 180 Proof

- I'm not surprised, you always find my OP's non-sensical even though you always find answers.

either X is reducible or X is strongly emergent" — 180 Proof

- Let me ask you this in a different way. Forget about ''emergence", you're too obsessed with attacking this notion. Is there a way in which something (a process for example, but you can think of anything you want) is:
a. not fundamental
b. not reducible to the fundamental properties of the reality
c. not irreducible to the fundamental properties of reality

Ohh... it's not about making a difference in the way I live more than having a clear image in regard to something. I agree the world won't change even if 100% of us would believe in idealism.

Don't some forms of idealism work like this? — Tom Storm

- Hmmm, the way I phrased it... yes. But to me, in idealism, consciousness is fundamental, period. Indeed, I guess I wasn't very coherent.

Is there any particular reason why the question matters to you personally? — Tom Storm

Yes, there is. I want to be as rigorous as I can. I don't want to miss something from the picture. I want to know if there's a model where consciousness is not fundamental, but it doesn't fall in C or D either.

By reasoning, obtaining empirical evidence, etc. But this is not relevant to me. To me, it is relevant if we could find something outside this model.
For example, a model where something is
a. not fundamental
b. its properties are 100% reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality
c. not irreducible to the properties of the fundamental reality

Maybe a reality where nothing is fundamental, or maybe a reality where something is both fundamental and emergent.
For example, thinks that's the case. I'm not sure how because he doesn't give more details.

This is a misrepresentation of the meaning of "emergence." Emergence applies to processes at one scale or level of organization that are manifestations of processes at a smaller scale or lower level. All emergent processes are "reducible to fundamental processes of reality" if by that you mean consistent with the laws of physics. The difference between what you call weak vs. strong emergence is that while both are reducible to physical processes, strongly emergent processes can not be derived, predicted, from those lower level processes. — T Clark

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

It really doesn't have any explanatory power. — T Clark

It's not about its explanatory power. It's the place where we begin a debate. It's what we're trying to find out, i.e. is ''absolutely anything you could think of" fundamental or not? If not, is ''absolutely anything you could think of" 100% reducible to its parts or not?

I didn't try to explain anything. I think you got me wrong. I'm not trying to explain consciousness. You know what? Replace the word consciousness with ''absolutely anything you could think of". All I'm saying is:

I. ''absolutely anything you could think of":
A. is fundamental
or
B. isn't fundamental

II. If B is true (''absolutely anything you could think of" isn't fundamental):
C. its properties are fully reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality
D. its properties aren't fully reducible to the properties of the fundamental reality

For me personally, this is almost tautology. But for it isn't.
He believes ''absolutely anything you could think of" can be non-fundamental, but at the same time, neither falls into C and D categories. I personally cannot see how this could work, so I'm waiting for his explanation.

Elaborate please

Yes. Actually, the other guys were suggesting the same thing. When he's talking about consciousness, it is more in a sort of a political context.
To be honest, I don't understand that language. I can't make much sense of what people are talking even on this OP, and not because they're wrong, but because my language is limited to the classical model of debate.

Rather made me understand that there isn't much to understand. He hints at ''strong emergence", maybe even consciousness being fundamental in a way. I posted something similar on Reddit and I was a bit more successful there. It seems that Zizek goes for an irreducible mind, and it can be fundamental in a way.
But in both Reddit and here, I understand that there is no clear view on this and that this type of philosophy is not analytical, it's fuzzy, unclear, confusing, contradictory, etc.

Guys, I truly appreciate your passion for Zizek, but this OP has a clear topic with clear questions.

you might get more responses if your post was more than "Go and research Zizek for me so I don't have to." — bert1

- hahahaha 1-0 for you

I hope you enjoyed your encounter with apohotep — bert1

- actually, I find pretty good and with potential to help me on this matter. But for some reason, he sees me as a materialist trying to debunk ZIzek, or at least that's my impression.

Bro, are you going to ignore all my questions? :lol:

Ok... so you're basically saying that the fundamental-emergent framework can be replaced by another system of reference, by eliminating the ''fundamental". By doing so, emergentism disappears.
AM I right?