Christianity

[seeds]

He is absolutely right. Matter which is a sort of qualia cannot produce consciousness since itself is the subject of experience....Qualia is a reducible substance that is subject to change, destruction, and creation.

bahman, try to get it into your head, once and for all, that, first of all, matter (of which you keep mistakenly referring to as "qualia," is not the "subject" of experience, it is the "object" of experience.

And, secondly, "qualia" is not a "material substance."

No, according to Wiki, the word "qualia" pertains to...

...The way it ["feels"] to have mental states such as ["feeling"] pain, ["seeing"] red, ["smelling"] a rose, etc.

(Brackets and other modes of emphasis mine.)

In other words, you need to stop conflating the word "qualia" with that of the material phenomena that induce the subjective experiences (for example, "pain") that the word "qualia" actually defines.
_______

[seeds]

If you can demonstrate that mind can emerge from matter, as hq has been so persistently been challenging you to do, then do so - but you quite obviously can't, because it's impossible,...

Be careful, Harry, for I wouldn't be so sure of that "impossible" bit if I were you.

Because if it is at least a possibility that Berkeleyanism is true,...

(in that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness)

...then it means that all of the phenomenal features of the universe would, in truth, be the extremely advanced mental holography of the proposed higher mind.

And what that furthermore means is that all matter throughout the universe...

(from the cores of the fusion dynamos we call stars, right down to the keyboard you are typing on)

...is literally alive.

(Note: not conscious, just alive, in that everything would be saturated with the life essence of the higher mind to whom the mental holography belongs. And that would be in precisely the same way that the phenomenal features of the dream you may have had last night were saturated with your own life essence.)

And the point is that mind can indeed emerge from matter.

And that's because if arranged properly (in the form of a brain, for example) then it is not that difficult to imagine that the "proper arrangement" of brain matter could...

(via some extremely advanced informational process)

...summon-forth the life essence imbued within the very fabric of the brain matter itself and thus somehow cause that implicit life essence to "focalize and awaken" into a new mind.

Indeed (and as it pertains to the title of this thread), I'm talking about a new mind that is "...created in the image..." of the greater mind in which it was awakened.

This would also explain the phenomenon of "abiogenesis."

For if the essence of life (the basis of mind and consciousness) is already present within the fabric of matter itself (again, as per Berkeleyan idealism),...

...then it is simply a tiny little step in imagining how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro-organisms) that can then be guided...

(either long-term through teleologically-directed evolution - or - through direct and purposeful design)

...into becoming higher forms of life.

Which, of course, leads to the creation of the above mentioned "...proper arrangement of brain matter..." from which new minds can then "emerge" into existence.

Easy-peasy!

So, no, it is not "impossible" for mind to emerge from matter.
_______

[attofishpi]

On your point 2. above you appear to be implying that conciousness does not exist, or that you should at least define what you mean by consciousness.

Consciousness may not exist. Then again, it may. I'm fine with that. I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

I think therefore I am conscious.

The ability to think requires sensory input, qualia.

Imagine a brain from birth that had NO sensory input. Would you consider that brain to me a lump of matter with an inability to think?

Well, for me, that is the brain you envision to the degree that a brain COULD have no consciousness.

[bahman]

He is absolutely right. Matter which is a sort of qualia cannot produce consciousness since itself is the subject of experience....Qualia is a reducible substance that is subject to change, destruction, and creation.

bahman, try to get it into your head, once and for all, that, first of all, matter (of which you keep mistakenly referring to as "qualia," is not the "subject" of experience, it is the "object" of experience.

And, secondly, "qualia" is not a "material substance."

No, according to Wiki, the word "qualia" pertains to...

...The way it ["feels"] to have mental states such as ["feeling"] pain, ["seeing"] red, ["smelling"] a rose, etc.

(Brackets and other modes of emphasis mine.)

In other words, you need to stop conflating the word "qualia" with that of the material phenomena that induce the subjective experiences (for example, "pain") that the word "qualia" actually defines.
_______

Matter is a sort of qualia in my dictionary. I explain that here.

[promethean75]

Jackson''s weak and strong arguments.

the weak argument:

(1a) bahman, who is blind and has been in a room his entire life, has complete physical knowledge concerning facts about human color vision before his release.

(2a) But there is some kind of knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that he does not have before his release.

Therefore

(3a) There is some kind of knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that is non-physical knowledge.

the strong argument:

(1b) bahman knows all the physical facts concerning human color vision before his release.

(2b) But there are some facts about human color vision that bahman does not know before his release.

Therefore

(3b) There are non-physical facts concerning human color vision.

Another relevant read would be Nagel's 'what is it like to be a bahman?'

[BigMike]

Sure. A rock falling off a ledge presumably isn't conscious either, however, it can cause dirt on the ground below it to move aside, forming a crater. That doesn't mean that other things (like consciousness) can't "push atoms" too, does it?

Let's say that's a possibility (that consciousness pushes atoms).

Why do you attribute your pushing of atoms to your consciousness rather than to a non-conscious pushing?

Because prior to pushing the atoms I desire to push them. If I did not, then presumably the atoms would either stay where they are or be pushed by something or someone else.

Are you arguing that your consciousness has small hands with which it manipulates atoms? By what means does it do that?

[Harry Baird]

If you can demonstrate that mind can emerge from matter, as hq has been so persistently been challenging you to do, then do so - but you quite obviously can't, because it's impossible,...

Be careful, Harry, for I wouldn't be so sure of that "impossible" bit if I were you.

Because if it is at least a possibility that Berkeleyanism is true,...

(in that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness)

...then it means that all of the phenomenal features of the universe would, in truth, be the extremely advanced mental holography of the proposed higher mind.

Forgive me for truncating your response, but that which I've quoted is sufficient to explain where I'm coming from:

You are invoking idealism. On idealism, mind doesn't "emerge" from matter: mind is all that there is! Matter is merely illusory, being in actual fact mind.

So, no, on idealism, mind doesn't "emerge" from matter - it is there from the start!

Though I think that idealism is kind of weird and doesn't explain reality all that well, it is a logically possible state of affairs (at least in some variants), unlike the physicalism promoted by this thread's physicalist fools, who maintain that you can start with pure matter - utterly devoid of mind - and somehow extract mind out of it, like getting blood out of a stone.

Even worse is that these physicalist fools think that "mind out of matter" is less of a problem than "mind affecting matter". How dopey can you get?!

[Gary Childress]

Let's say that's a possibility (that consciousness pushes atoms).

Why do you attribute your pushing of atoms to your consciousness rather than to a non-conscious pushing?

Because prior to pushing the atoms I desire to push them. If I did not, then presumably the atoms would either stay where they are or be pushed by something or someone else.

Are you arguing that your consciousness has small hands with which it manipulates atoms? By what means does it do that?

I don't know. Are you arguing that atoms have "small hands" that they manipulate each other with? Or would you say that atoms can manipulate each other without the use of "small hands"?

[bahman]

Jackson''s weak and strong arguments.

the weak argument:

(1a) bahman, who is blind and has been in a room his entire life, has complete physical knowledge concerning facts about human color vision before his release.

(2a) But there is some kind of knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that he does not have before his release.

Therefore

(3a) There is some kind of knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that is non-physical knowledge.

the strong argument:

(1b) bahman knows all the physical facts concerning human color vision before his release.

(2b) But there are some facts about human color vision that bahman does not know before his release.

Therefore

(3b) There are non-physical facts concerning human color vision.

Another relevant read would be Nagel's 'what is it like to be a bahman?'

What is physical to you or him?

[Harry Baird]

Are you arguing that your consciousness has small hands with which it manipulates atoms? By what means does it do that?

Double standards much, fool? It's fine for the four forces to which you attribute all of reality's dynamics to operate at a distance, but when it comes to consciousness, suddenly there have to be small hands that operate by direct contact. You're a very special kind of hypocrite, aren't you?

[BigMike]

Because prior to pushing the atoms I desire to push them. If I did not, then presumably the atoms would either stay where they are or be pushed by something or someone else.

Are you arguing that your consciousness has small hands with which it manipulates atoms? By what means does it do that?

I don't know. Are you arguing that atoms have "small hands" that they manipulate each other with? Or would you say that atoms can manipulate each other without the use of "small hands"?

They do it by electrical repulsion and attraction, and to a much smaller degree gravitation. They can do this because they are physical entities with physical properties such as electrical charge and mass.

[BigMike]

Are you arguing that your consciousness has small hands with which it manipulates atoms? By what means does it do that?

Double standards much, fool? It's fine for the four forces to which you attribute all of reality's dynamics to operate at a distance, but when it comes to consciousness, suddenly there have to be small hands that operate by direct contact. You're a very special kind of hypocrite, aren't you?

Do you dispute the existence of the four fundamental interactions and assert that accepting them is hypocritical?

[Harry Baird]

Are you arguing that your consciousness has small hands with which it manipulates atoms? By what means does it do that?

I don't know. Are you arguing that atoms have "small hands" that they manipulate each other with? Or would you say that atoms can manipulate each other without the use of "small hands"?

They do it by electrical repulsion and attraction, and to a much smaller degree gravitation.

Right, so, at a distance, with no need for "small hands". You absolute fool.

Are you arguing that your consciousness has small hands with which it manipulates atoms? By what means does it do that?

Double standards much, fool? It's fine for the four forces to which you attribute all of reality's dynamics to operate at a distance, but when it comes to consciousness, suddenly there have to be small hands that operate by direct contact. You're a very special kind of hypocrite, aren't you?

Do you dispute the existence of the four fundamental interactions and assert that accepting them is hypocritical?

You're quite oblivious, aren't you? I don't dispute the forces known to physics, but you're the idiot asserting that those forces act at a distance, whereas any forces attributable to consciousness must act by "small hands" (i.e., direct contact). That's utter hypocrisy, you physicalist fool.

[BigMike]

I don't know. Are you arguing that atoms have "small hands" that they manipulate each other with? Or would you say that atoms can manipulate each other without the use of "small hands"?

They do it by electrical repulsion and attraction, and to a much smaller degree gravitation.

Right, so, at a distance, with no need for "small hands". You absolute fool.

Correct, with no hands. I struggle to see how stating that fact makes me a fool.

Double standards much, fool? It's fine for the four forces to which you attribute all of reality's dynamics to operate at a distance, but when it comes to consciousness, suddenly there have to be small hands that operate by direct contact. You're a very special kind of hypocrite, aren't you?

Do you dispute the existence of the four fundamental interactions and assert that accepting them is hypocritical?

You're quite oblivious, aren't you? I don't dispute the forces known to physics, but you're the idiot asserting that those forces act at a distance, whereas any forces attributable to consciousness must act by "small hands" (i.e., direct contact). That's utter hypocrisy, you physicalist fool.

I never said consciousness must act by "small hands". I only questioned how, or by what means, consciousness can manipulate atoms, as you never provide an explanation for this claim, only insults.

[promethean75]

Pay no attention to the vapid presumption of our insolent resident idealists, BigMike. You're doing fine.