Christianity

[Harbal]

I already dealt with that

The most interesting response I've gotten to this analogy is: consciousness might be produced by matter in the same way as electricity is produced by matter, such as via the generator effect.

One problem with this response is that it is only possible to produce electricity via the generator effect because matter already has electromagnetic properties, which this effect relies upon. The analogy in which consciousness is somehow produced from matter, then, would require matter to already have properties of consciousness - and thus we would no longer be talking about a "physical" universe but a "panpsychic" universe.

My knowledge of physics is nowhere near sufficient to enable me to judge how satisfactorily you have dealt with it, but you do seem to be assuming that all the possible properties of matter are already know about.

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:58 am
I think that a purely physical reality can potentially explain consciousness, understanding, meaning, etc.

Henry and I have both asked you to provide this explanation, but it remains unforthcoming, which is not surprising, because it doesn't exist.

Don't forget IC as well.

But of course. He got a guernsey in my latest response.

There's a real theme here :

If you don't have an explanation, then it can't be happening.

Oh dear. None of us is denying that conscious experience is happening. We're denying your (non-)explanation as to why/how that is, whilst offering genuine alternative explanations.

I've pointed out that new properties come from combining subatomic particles with simple properties.

Complex combination may produce consciousness.

Do I know for sure that it's possible? Do I know for sure that it's impossible? Do I know why or how this happens (if it does)?

No. I don't pretend to have such a great understanding of reality.

I feel forced to fabricate an explanation just for the sake of having an explanation.

[Harry Baird]

My knowledge of physics is nowhere near sufficient to enable me to judge how satisfactorily you have dealt with it, but you do seem to be assuming that all the possible properties of matter are already know about.

Nope, I'm just observing that electromagnetic effects are due to electromagnetic properties - and that in that sense, electromagnetic effects are not the generation of anything new, which is what would be required for consciousness to "emerge" out of pure physicality.

[Harry Baird]

I feel forced to fabricate an explanation just for the sake of having an explanation.

It's incumbent on you to provide an explanation given the arguments of myself and others that such an explanation is rationally impossible. All it would take to refute our arguments is to provide a plausible explanation. If you can't - well, then, whether you like it or not, our arguments stand.

[attofishpi]

So what is required for a mind to exist? Would you agree that matter is ALSO required?

Not matter per se, but some sort of energy, yes.

So. The human body is not required for our entire conscious experience? The 5 std senses can be maintained via this 'energy'?

[Harbal]

I've pointed out that new properties come from combining subatomic particles with simple properties.

Complex combination may produce consciousness.

Do I know for sure that it's possible? Do I know for sure that it's impossible? Do I know why or how this happens (if it does)?

No. I don't pretend to have such a great understanding of reality.

I feel forced to fabricate an explanation just for the sake of having an explanation.

Nobody seems to have a sufficient understanding of reality to settle the matter. And it isn't something that can be established using rational thought, so nothing remotely conclusive can come out of an argument. We can only discover laws of nature; we can't discover why they are laws of nature, which makes it difficult to say what couldn't be a law of nature.

[phyllo]

I feel forced to fabricate an explanation just for the sake of having an explanation.

It's incumbent on you to provide an explanation given the arguments of myself and others that such an explanation is rationally impossible. All it would take to refute our arguments is to provide a plausible explanation. If you can't - well, then, whether you like it or not, our arguments stand.

Let's leave it there.

[Harry Baird]

So what is required for a mind to exist? Would you agree that matter is ALSO required?

Not matter per se, but some sort of energy, yes.

So. The human body is not required for our entire conscious experience? The 5 std senses can be maintained via this 'energy'?

Correct (to the best of my knowledge): the human body is not required for conscious experience, ignoring your qualifier "our entire". However, taking that qualifier into account, the answer is different, since, by it, you seem to be referring to our embodied, physical conscious experience, in which case, yes, of course, a human body is required.

[Harry Baird]

Let's leave it there.

No worries. Thanks for the energetic exchange!

[Dontaskme]

................

[Harbal]

Nope, I'm just observing that electromagnetic effects are due to electromagnetic properties - and that in that sense, electromagnetic effects are not the generation of anything new, which is what would be required for consciousness to "emerge" out of pure physicality.

Well I'm not making any claims either way, but I don't see how anyone can say, with any authority, that consciousness could not emerge from physicality. The matter could only be settled empirically, you can't reason your way to the answer.

[attofishpi]

Not matter per se, but some sort of energy, yes.

So. The human body is not required for our entire conscious experience? The 5 std senses can be maintained via this 'energy'?

Correct (to the best of my knowledge): the human body is not required for conscious experience, ignoring your qualifier "our entire". However, taking that qualifier into account, the answer is different, since, by it, you seem to be referring to our embodied, physical conscious experience, in which case, yes, of course, a human body is required.

What do you mean by "the human body is not required for conscious experience" - are you implying that this is a conscious experience that differs from having the qualia of the 5 senses?

[Dontaskme]

But nobody understands what “supervene” precisely entails, or entails at all, or how something totally non-material can “pop out of” materials.

There is no such something as a non-material material.

That’s just a contradiction in terms, no more.

The question is, is there something non-material that is real?

And if there’s not, then you are not a mind, and I am not a mind, and there is no other mind, and we aren’t having this conversation anyway.

There is no other mind because there is no mind to be another. The seer/knower is not a physical object that can be seen by the seer/knower, because the seer/knower is only known as and through the known physical object it is looking at in the exact same instance of knowing.. there is no separation there.

You can point to a body, and say that is a body, that action of pointing to a body is a concept being known in the immediate direct experience of knowing. Now try the same experiment with the mind, see if you can point to the mind.

You can only know physical objects as you concieve them to be as known concepts. You've never literally physically seen an object separate from the seeing/knowing of it.

An object is a projection of the one projecting it onto it's own screen of awareness appearing as a superimposed image upon the imageless. You cannot point to the awareness, only that which has been superimposed upon it as a physical concept known. Both the looker and the looked upon are the same one inseparable instantaneous knowing experience.

It's like without objects there is no space, and without space there is no objects, they are conjoined twin, identical and yet different.
Space is just a metaphor for awareness, and the objects is a metaphor for the concepts known to awareness the only knowing there is.

[Harry Baird]

Nope, I'm just observing that electromagnetic effects are due to electromagnetic properties - and that in that sense, electromagnetic effects are not the generation of anything new, which is what would be required for consciousness to "emerge" out of pure physicality.

Well I'm not making any claims either way, but I don't see how anyone can say, with any authority, that consciousness could not emerge from physicality. The matter could only be settled empirically, you can't reason your way to the answer.

No, it's exactly the opposite: that question can only be resolved with reference to what the terms "mind", "consciousness", "physical", and "matter" actually mean. Whether mind/consciousness can emerge from physicality/matter is a philosophical question (based on the definition of those terms), not an empirical one.

[Harry Baird]

What do you mean by "the human body is not required for conscious experience" - are you implying that this is a conscious experience that differs from having the qualia of the 5 senses?

I mean that we have a non-physical form which interfaces with our physical form. When we permanently drop or temporarily detach from our physical form, our non-physical form has its own sensory experiences according its own non-physical means.

I'm not far off retiring for the night, so, if you respond, you might have to wait for a response in turn.