For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Right. So somehow matter follows our ideas about physical laws in your view? How would that work?bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:04 pmThe laws exist as an object, no. Exist as a subject, yes, our abstract ideas about them. They are real in the sense that matter follows them.
The matter follows the laws of physics. The matter has properties like mass which makes matter resistant to acceleration for example. What is really mass? No-one knows.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:20 pmRight. So somehow matter follows our ideas about physical laws in your view? How would that work?
THe brain is the seat of consciousness and experience.bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:02 pmSo the difference between a rock and you is that you have a brain. The brain however is a material object. So if we believe in the emergence of consciousness in the brain, that is due to two things: The type of matter process and the type of matter. Could we agree on these?
I'm starting to believe that a lot of people on these boards are incapable of thinking beyond what are essentially prepared "scripts." When you note inconsistencies in their scripts, it just doesn't register and they simply repeat the most relevant part of the script.
Certainly there must be a brain for a human to have consciousness, but only because consciousness is an attribute of a living organism, and a human being cannot live without one, and, for human beings at least, when the brain does not function there is no consciousness. What cannot be said is, "where," consciousness is, because consciousness is not a physical attribute. It has no color, shape, weight, charge, or any other physical property and there is no way to physically observe consciousness. Certainly brain activity can be observed, but that is just so much biological, electrical, chemical behavior which in no way describes or resembles what one means by their consciousness. Consciousness cannot be observed at all and can only be known by the one whose consciousness it is. That is the problem of psychology.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:20 pmTHe brain is the seat of consciousness and experience.bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:02 pmSo the difference between a rock and you is that you have a brain. The brain however is a material object. So if we believe in the emergence of consciousness in the brain, that is due to two things: The type of matter process and the type of matter. Could we agree on these?
If matter is not arbitrarily organized, why would an emergent property of matter be arbitrary?bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 8:58 pmIt is an argument against materialism since materialism claims that matter is fundamental and conscious phenomena emerge from matter activity. I am asking why EDC exists at all if anything including the human body governs the laws of physics. Why EDC is not arbitrary?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:57 pmI don't see why this would be an argument against materialism. It might be an argument against realism, but given that idealism must admit some form of realism in order to avoid arbitrariness, it could well be an argument against idealism.bahman] Let's assume all our experiences, decisions, and causation (EDC) are the buy product of the matter process. The question is why EDC is coherent always. Why things are the way they are like they are coherent and not incoherent.[/quote] [quote= wrote:I think we can agree that there are two components here: 1) Matter and 2) conscious phenomena so-called EDC. Matter does its job based on a set of laws so it is coherent. In reality, there is no need for consciousness since matter does its job blindly. But let accept that consciousness can emerge. The question is that why matter and EDC are always coherent. Let me give you an example: Supposed that you live in a universe that your conscious experience is any possible thing unrelated to what is going on under conscious reality, matter reality. Like when you experience chaos while you are doing any proper thing that a human being can properly do. Why EDC corresponds to the reality of matter?
I am asking why EDC that is the by-product of the matter process is not arbitrary. Matter behaves according to the laws of nature and there is no consciousness needed for this.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:57 pm In any case, experiences and decisions necessarily involve the participation of sentient agents, and since in materialism sentient agents are products of matter, their sentience follows the rules by which matter operates. If consciousness is a process of matter, then it must correspond to the reality of matter.
Not sure why you are using the phrase "only because".RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:21 amCertainly there must be a brain for a human to have consciousness, but only because consciousness is an attribute of a living organism, and a human being cannot live without one, and, for human beings at least, when the brain does not function there is no consciousness.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:20 pmTHe brain is the seat of consciousness and experience.bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:02 pm
So the difference between a rock and you is that you have a brain. The brain however is a material object. So if we believe in the emergence of consciousness in the brain, that is due to two things: The type of matter process and the type of matter. Could we agree on these?
No consciousness of a physcal attribute. You just have to have a thicker understanding of "physical". I agree that consciousness is not a material attribute. "Physical" also includes energetic attributes. Consicousness is an energetic attribute of brain matter.What cannot be said is, "where," consciousness is, because consciousness is not a physical attribute.
Neither can you observe gravity or heat expept by its effects.
It has no color, shape, weight, charge, or any other physical property and there is no way to physically observe consciousness.
If this is truely a problem for consciousness then it is also a problem for all energy. You simply cannot observe electircity either. In a very profound way we do not directly observe anything, not light sound, ad infinitem. We can only apprehend energies through their effects, such as light stimulating the retina.Certainly brain activity can be observed, but that is just so much biological, electrical, chemical behavior which in no way describes or resembles what one means by their consciousness. Consciousness cannot be observed at all and can only be known by the one whose consciousness it is. That is the problem of psychology.
Nor can an electrician study or observe electricity.
Psychology cannot study consciousness at all.
Science has always been thus. It's a massive collection of interwoven metaphors.When some psychologist claims neurological activity corresponds to some individual's conscious experience he must depend on the testimony of the conscious individual, but there is no way for a psyhologist to know if the witness to the actual consciousness is telling the truth, can actually accurately report his experience, or is experiencing anything at all?
Real science cannot be based purely on what some individual claims, especially if no one else can examine that about which a claim is made. When the subject of a psychological experiment says, "I'm feeling a pain," while some neurological activity recorded by electrodes is observed, no one else can actually examine the claimed feeling of pain. Since when are scientific principles based on the testimony of individuals claiming experience it is impossible for anyone to check. That's what every religious con man in history has done.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I do have to say, I notice your are always reasonable when not assaulted by idiots, so I especially appreciate your explanation. I cannot agree with your view, but I think you have helped understand why you hold it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:32 pmNot sure why you are using the phrase "only because".RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:21 amCertainly there must be a brain for a human to have consciousness, but only because consciousness is an attribute of a living organism, and a human being cannot live without one, and, for human beings at least, when the brain does not function there is no consciousness.No consciousness of a physcal attribute. You just have to have a thicker understanding of "physical". I agree that consciousness is not a material attribute. "Physical" also includes energetic attributes. Consicousness is an energetic attribute of brain matter.What cannot be said is, "where," consciousness is, because consciousness is not a physical attribute.
"Physical" encorporates energy; in this case literally.Neither can you observe gravity or heat expept by its effects.
It has no color, shape, weight, charge, or any other physical property and there is no way to physically observe consciousness.If this is truely a problem for consciousness then it is also a problem for all energy. You simply cannot observe electircity either. In a very profound way we do not directly observe anything, not light sound, ad infinitem. We can only apprehend energies through their effects, such as light stimulating the retina.Certainly brain activity can be observed, but that is just so much biological, electrical, chemical behavior which in no way describes or resembles what one means by their consciousness. Consciousness cannot be observed at all and can only be known by the one whose consciousness it is. That is the problem of psychology.Nor can an electrician study or observe electricity.
Psychology cannot study consciousness at all.Science has always been thus. It's a massive collection of interwoven metaphors.When some psychologist claims neurological activity corresponds to some individual's conscious experience he must depend on the testimony of the conscious individual, but there is no way for a psyhologist to know if the witness to the actual consciousness is telling the truth, can actually accurately report his experience, or is experiencing anything at all?
Real science cannot be based purely on what some individual claims, especially if no one else can examine that about which a claim is made. When the subject of a psychological experiment says, "I'm feeling a pain," while some neurological activity recorded by electrodes is observed, no one else can actually examine the claimed feeling of pain. Since when are scientific principles based on the testimony of individuals claiming experience it is impossible for anyone to check. That's what every religious con man in history has done.
No problemRCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:10 pmThanks for taking the time to answer. I do have to say, I notice your are always reasonable when not assaulted by idiots, so I especially appreciate your explanation. I cannot agree with your view, but I think you have helped understand why you hold it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:32 pmNot sure why you are using the phrase "only because".RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:21 am
Certainly there must be a brain for a human to have consciousness, but only because consciousness is an attribute of a living organism, and a human being cannot live without one, and, for human beings at least, when the brain does not function there is no consciousness.No consciousness of a physcal attribute. You just have to have a thicker understanding of "physical". I agree that consciousness is not a material attribute. "Physical" also includes energetic attributes. Consicousness is an energetic attribute of brain matter.What cannot be said is, "where," consciousness is, because consciousness is not a physical attribute.
"Physical" encorporates energy; in this case literally.Neither can you observe gravity or heat expept by its effects.
It has no color, shape, weight, charge, or any other physical property and there is no way to physically observe consciousness.If this is truely a problem for consciousness then it is also a problem for all energy. You simply cannot observe electircity either. In a very profound way we do not directly observe anything, not light sound, ad infinitem. We can only apprehend energies through their effects, such as light stimulating the retina.Certainly brain activity can be observed, but that is just so much biological, electrical, chemical behavior which in no way describes or resembles what one means by their consciousness. Consciousness cannot be observed at all and can only be known by the one whose consciousness it is. That is the problem of psychology.Nor can an electrician study or observe electricity.
Psychology cannot study consciousness at all.Science has always been thus. It's a massive collection of interwoven metaphors.When some psychologist claims neurological activity corresponds to some individual's conscious experience he must depend on the testimony of the conscious individual, but there is no way for a psyhologist to know if the witness to the actual consciousness is telling the truth, can actually accurately report his experience, or is experiencing anything at all?
Real science cannot be based purely on what some individual claims, especially if no one else can examine that about which a claim is made. When the subject of a psychological experiment says, "I'm feeling a pain," while some neurological activity recorded by electrodes is observed, no one else can actually examine the claimed feeling of pain. Since when are scientific principles based on the testimony of individuals claiming experience it is impossible for anyone to check. That's what every religious con man in history has done.
And what is consciousness?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:20 pmTHe brain is the seat of consciousness and experience.bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:02 pmSo the difference between a rock and you is that you have a brain. The brain however is a material object. So if we believe in the emergence of consciousness in the brain, that is due to two things: The type of matter process and the type of matter. Could we agree on these?
Emergence properties are not even necessary since the matter follows the laws of physics. The matter acts blindly. The question is why something which is not necessary exists and is not arbitrary.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 3:50 amIf matter is not arbitrarily organized, why would an emergent property of matter be arbitrary?bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 8:58 pmIt is an argument against materialism since materialism claims that matter is fundamental and conscious phenomena emerge from matter activity. I am asking why EDC exists at all if anything including the human body governs the laws of physics. Why EDC is not arbitrary?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:57 pm
I don't see why this would be an argument against materialism. It might be an argument against realism, but given that idealism must admit some form of realism in order to avoid arbitrariness, it could well be an argument against idealism.
I am asking why EDC that is the by-product of the matter process is not arbitrary. Matter behaves according to the laws of nature and there is no consciousness needed for this.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 10:57 pm In any case, experiences and decisions necessarily involve the participation of sentient agents, and since in materialism sentient agents are products of matter, their sentience follows the rules by which matter operates. If consciousness is a process of matter, then it must correspond to the reality of matter.
It is the energetic field emitted from neural matter. It is what the brain does.bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 8:31 pmAnd what is consciousness?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:20 pmTHe brain is the seat of consciousness and experience.bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:02 pm
So the difference between a rock and you is that you have a brain. The brain however is a material object. So if we believe in the emergence of consciousness in the brain, that is due to two things: The type of matter process and the type of matter. Could we agree on these?
Tcha! Well nobody knows what consciousness really is, which is weird given it's the only thing we know for certain exists. But fuck it, I can go along with this consciousness as energetic field, materialist thing. The mad thing is if you think of the flow of thoughts as a change in a field, and accept the conservation of energy as a rule, any conscious state will be an influence on the universe for as long as there is a universe. Whoops-a-daisy, looks very like survival of consciousness, which is totally against my atheist principles.
In other words, no regard for particular relations and particular materials being necessary for specific properties to obtain.uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:31 pmTcha! Well nobody knows what consciousness really is, which is weird given it's the only thing we know for certain exists. But fuck it, I can go along with this consciousness as energetic field, materialist thing. The mad thing is if you think of the flow of thoughts as a change in a field, and accept the conservation of energy as a rule, any conscious state will be an influence on the universe for as long as there is a universe. Whoops-a-daisy, looks very like survival of consciousness, which is totally against my atheist principles.
Yep, you can put it like that. Do you know something I don't?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:36 pmIn other words, no regard for particular relations and particular materials being necessary for specific properties to obtain.