Materialism is logically imposible

[Dalek Prime]

Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and any motion of matter can be described by laws of nature. In close form, S'=L(S), where S is the initial state, S' is final state and L is laws of nature. There is however an anomaly in this system of view so called consciousness, C, which is simply the awareness of surrounding. C is simply the expectation of what S' should be. Materialist believe that C can be derived from S by the following equation C=P(S) where P is the act of experience. There is however no reason to believe that there exist a relation between C and S' in this framework. We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen, C, and what happens, S'. This means that we are dealing with a logically impossible situation since C could be anything.

Your thought?

C exists because of matter (our wetworks). C ceases to exist on it's disincorporation. I accept other matter, including our own wetworks, because it persists in my C.

[bahman]

Are you seriously suggesting that all your life things have happened exactly as you expected them to happen? You have never ever been disappointed?

Things happen as I expected every time that I intend to do something feasible, such as picking up my cup of coffee.

[HexHammer]

LOL!!! ..very interesting nonsense and babble in OP! ..what kind of job does one such as you have?

Well, do you understand OP? I think not otherwise you get engage in a constrictive discussion.

Sorry but I do think I understand, I've been a snotty 22 y old kid in the quality department of a newspaper, telling senior chiefs and directors what to do, and how to do their stuff, even way higher educated people. I've meddled in every other area than what I was hired to do, very successfully ..so yearh I do think I know what I am talking about contrary you.

[sthitapragya]

Are you seriously suggesting that all your life things have happened exactly as you expected them to happen? You have never ever been disappointed?

Things happen as I expected every time that I intend to do something feasible, such as picking up my cup of coffee.

Okay. Wow.

[Hobbes' Choice]

FYI
The cat is on the mat

It is not logical; neither deductive, nor inductive.

It is empirical.

[Conde Lucanor]

Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and any motion of matter can be described by laws of nature. In close form, S'=L(S), where S is the initial state, S' is final state and L is laws of nature. There is however an anomaly in this system of view so called consciousness, C, which is simply the awareness of surrounding. C is simply the expectation of what S' should be. Materialist believe that C can be derived from S by the following equation C=P(S) where P is the act of experience. There is however no reason to believe that there exist a relation between C and S' in this framework. We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen, C, and what happens, S'. This means that we are dealing with a logically impossible situation since C could be anything.

Your thought?

Consciousness, awareness, sense, experience, are all related and part of the laws of nature. There's no such logical impossibility. The above is also a flawed logical construction, where the terms of the equations are defined ambiguously: "S is the inital state", the initial state of what? And then consciousness is "the awareness of surrounding", but also the expectation of what "the final state" is.

[bahman]

Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and any motion of matter can be described by laws of nature. In close form, S'=L(S), where S is the initial state, S' is final state and L is laws of nature. There is however an anomaly in this system of view so called consciousness, C, which is simply the awareness of surrounding. C is simply the expectation of what S' should be. Materialist believe that C can be derived from S by the following equation C=P(S) where P is the act of experience. There is however no reason to believe that there exist a relation between C and S' in this framework. We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen, C, and what happens, S'. This means that we are dealing with a logically impossible situation since C could be anything.

Your thought?

Consciousness, awareness, sense, experience, are all related and part of the laws of nature. There's no such logical impossibility. The above is also a flawed logical construction, where the terms of the equations are defined ambiguously: "S is the inital state", the initial state of what? And then consciousness is "the awareness of surrounding", but also the expectation of what "the final state" is.

S is initial state of any system under consideration. When you decide to do anything you expect that something happen, that is definition of C. S' in the other hand is what should happen following laws of nature. There is no reason to believe that C should be related to S', but C always is related to S'. That makes materialism impossible.

[Noax]

S is initial state of any system under consideration. When you decide to do anything you expect that something happen, that is definition of C. S' in the other hand is what should happen following laws of nature. There is no reason to believe that C should be related to S', but C always is related to S'. That makes materialism impossible.

Since C is part of the law of nature (under said materialism), why is there no reason to believe that C should be related to S'?

[Hobbes' Choice]

S is initial state of any system under consideration. When you decide to do anything you expect that something happen, that is definition of C. S' in the other hand is what should happen following laws of nature. There is no reason to believe that C should be related to S', but C always is related to S'. That makes materialism impossible.

Since C is part of the law of nature (under said materialism), why is there no reason to believe that C should be related to S'?

Because C is a human perceptible version of what should happen; or has emerged from similar observations. But C (the law) is not a set of rules that bind nature to their will. It is the distilled human account of it.
The law is only a description, and relates to S in that way only.

[Noax]

We seem to be in conflict with our definitions.

But C (the law) is not a set of rules that bind nature to their will. It is the distilled human account of it.

Account of what? The actual (not fully known) law? To which law does bahman refer? The actual laws of physics or the limited human accounting of those laws?

By actual law, I mean the actual relation between various states of this universe, not some rule book under which matter must cower.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We seem to be in conflict with our definitions.

But C (the law) is not a set of rules that bind nature to their will. It is the distilled human account of it.

Account of what? The actual (not fully known) law? To which law does bahman refer? The actual laws of physics or the limited human accounting of those laws?

By actual law, I mean the actual relation between various states of this universe, not some rule book under which matter must cower.

There is no "ACTUAL" law. That is just pure anthropomorphisation. There is no law giver, no celestial judge.

[Terrapin Station]

S is initial state of any system under consideration. When you decide to do anything you expect that something happen, that is definition of C. S' in the other hand is what should happen following laws of nature. There is no reason to believe that C should be related to S', but C always is related to S'. That makes materialism impossible.

Since C is part of the law of nature (under said materialism), why is there no reason to believe that C should be related to S'?

I've explained this to bahman already a couple times, and I don't think there's any use in explaining it to him again, but materialism doesn't actually have any correlation to stances on physical laws.

[bahman]

S is initial state of any system under consideration. When you decide to do anything you expect that something happen, that is definition of C. S' in the other hand is what should happen following laws of nature. There is no reason to believe that C should be related to S', but C always is related to S'. That makes materialism impossible.

Since C is part of the law of nature (under said materialism), why is there no reason to believe that C should be related to S'?

C is not part of laws of nature. C, what we expect to happen, supervene on S meaning that it is derived differently. You can think of C as what you expect to happen in this way, you experience S and decide to act. You expect that something should happen once you decide, C. The laws of nature however dictate that S should lead to S'. This is something beyond your control. The problem is that C always matches to what happen S' and that is problematic since C could be anything.

[bahman]

S is initial state of any system under consideration. When you decide to do anything you expect that something happen, that is definition of C. S' in the other hand is what should happen following laws of nature. There is no reason to believe that C should be related to S', but C always is related to S'. That makes materialism impossible.

Since C is part of the law of nature (under said materialism), why is there no reason to believe that C should be related to S'?

I've explained this to bahman already a couple times, and I don't think there's any use in explaining it to him again, but materialism doesn't actually have any correlation to stances on physical laws.

If it is so then how an state of matter evolve under materialism?

[Noax]

S is initial state of any system under consideration. When you decide to do anything you expect that something happen, that is definition of C. S' in the other hand is what should happen following laws of nature. There is no reason to believe that C should be related to S', but C always is related to S'. That makes materialism impossible.

Since C is part of the law of nature (under said materialism), why is there no reason to believe that C should be related to S'?

C is not part of laws of nature. C, what we expect to happen, supervene on S meaning that it is derived differently. You can think of C as what you expect to happen in this way, you experience S and decide to act. You expect that something should happen once you decide, C. The laws of nature however dictate that S should lead to S'. This is something beyond your control. The problem is that C always matches to what happen S' and that is problematic since C could be anything.

I'm saying that C is part of S. Therefore S' is determined by S, including the C part of it. Now you say C is not part of S, which is not a very materialistic view.
Supervene does not apply to states or things, it applies to ontologies. C supervenes on the physical under physicalism. S is not 'the physical', it is one state. Part of that state is the intention C.
I see consciousness as a process, like combustion. Combustion supervenes on the physical. Combustion can causally reduce the length of a candle. Contrast this with the ancient view that heat was one of the four fundamental elements.

If it is so then how an state of matter evolve under materialism?

It doesn't involve materialism. A state is related to prior states via physical law. This is true in materialism, dualism, and even idealism. All those isms and their variants are different ontological interpretations of what is experienced. Don't confuse physicalism with physics. Our modelling of physical law is not concerned with ontology, it is concerned with predicting and improving your experience.

Materialism additionally asserts that material does not supervene on a deeper ontology, and in that sense I'm not a materialist. But I cannot find a sound logical objection to that assertion, so I don't find it logically impossible.