The hard problem of matter.
The physicalists have the hard problem of consciousness where consciousness is emergent from matter.
So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness?
And in this case consciousness is the ontological primitive, I don't mean wakening consciousness.
There are many other questions that arise from that question so feel free to put the forward.
Update: I'm not trying to argue with physicalists here.
As I said this is directed to those who consider the fundamental reality as non-material.
I want to inquire how do you think matter comes to be out of consciousness/mind-at-large/sunyata/the-one/unmoved-mover/etc.
So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness?
And in this case consciousness is the ontological primitive, I don't mean wakening consciousness.
There are many other questions that arise from that question so feel free to put the forward.
Update: I'm not trying to argue with physicalists here.
As I said this is directed to those who consider the fundamental reality as non-material.
I want to inquire how do you think matter comes to be out of consciousness/mind-at-large/sunyata/the-one/unmoved-mover/etc.
Comments (84)
First of all, baryonic matter makes up about 5% of the universe, whereas 27% is made of, so- called "dark matter" (which isn't even clear is "matter" at all), and then most of it is "dark energy", which we also don't know what it is.
Now, of the 5% of the matter we do know and love, we do not know its inner nature nor why it came to be (as opposed to anti-matter or something else), and why there is so little of it in the universe.
From all these very serious complications, one then can proceed to ask how consciousness may arise out of specific configurations of matter, or why matter works without direct contact, or how can quite insubstantial particles form living creatures, or colours or music, or almost anything else.
So yeah, matter is the hard problem. Consciousness is the specific configuration of matter we are best acquainted with out of everything there is, so it is (or should be) the least mysterious aspect of matter, while still admitting that it is, in a sense, mysterious.
We become involved in life's experiences and discover what really matters.
Oh, wait . . . that's another kind of matter. But, you see, the crux of the matter is poorly defined words and concepts in philosophy. As a matter of "fact", take being. Many have tried, but few if any have succeeded in this matter. :cool:
Our consciousness receives seven inputs: the five physical senses of touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound, emotions, and thoughts.
But if all I can directly experience of the physical world is sense data: i.e., sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste, then how can I experience a tree? Without a special tree-sensing sense, how can I possibly experience a tree?
The answer is I do not directly experience the tree. I directly experience sense data. I see, i.e., directly experience, patches of brown and green. The brown patches feel rough; the green patches feel smooth. My mind retrieves the idea of a tree from the mindscape. Or, if you prefer, my mind creates the idea of the tree. In any case, all I directly experience is the thought of the tree, along with the physical sensations of touch and color.
The tree I experience is a mental representation of the physical sensations that I experience. My idea of the tree represents the sense data I receive. That the tree is a material object in an exterior world is a (quite logical) conclusion, but it is not what I directly experience. What I experience is the mental idea of a tree. My idea of the tree and the physical object called a tree are two different things. Similarly, a city map has lines which correspond to city streets. But the map and city streets are two different things.
The tree I experience is a mental representation. I do not directly experience an external material world. Rather, that world is an idea which makes sense of what I do directly experience: the five physical senses. Similarly, when I watch a video on a computer or TV monitor, all I experience are light and sound. Based on the lights and sounds, my mind accesses ideas such as people, sand, ocean, clouds, etc. I experience the monitors light and sound, and the ideas that my mind accesses. Similarly, I experience the worlds lights, sounds, odors, tastes, and tactile sensations, and the ideas that my mind accesses.
In the process of perception, we objectify the physical universe. We experience only sensations (physical, emotional and mental sensations) but we think object. Tree is a representation, something our mind creates to explain what we do experience: the sight of brown and green, the feel of rough and smooth.
Well perhaps, except that "consciousness" is no more mysteriously "emergent from matter" than walking is emergent from legs or respiration is emergent from lungs or a symphony is emergent from an orchestra. "Consciousness" is a (higher mammalian) CNS activity, or process, and not a discrete entity. I think the "mind from matter" formulation, therefore, is a pseudo-problem (resulting from assumed fallacies of misplaced concreteness & category error) that's "hard" only for cartesian dualists, ontological idealists & mysterians; for physicalists and/or (most) cognitive neuroscientists, modeling "consciousness" is only a highly complex research project that's still very much a work-in-progress which demonstrates that "consciousness" is not some simple, quantifiable 'brute fact' like gravity, electromagnetism or vacuum fluctuations.
Good question. :up:
Berkeley says "matter is an idea", no? Of course it is, and it is also more than just an idea matter is the idea of more-than-/non-ideas (i.e. more-than-/non-consciousness).
edit:
NB: By "matter" materiality I understand embodied (i e. res extensia) as well as observational / experimental data. Physical then indicates any data-set (i.e. materials) which can be structured into a dynamic model. Rule of thumb concepts.
Matter is purely conceptual. Traditionally it's the concept Aristotle used to account for what was observed as the temporal continuity of sameness. As time passes it appears like some aspects of the observed world do not change. "Matter" was proposed as the concept which relates to the real unchanging features of the observed world. What does not change as time passes is matter. So, simply put, we see that some features remain unchanged as time passes, we figure there must be a reason for this, and we posit 'matter' as the reason for this. That is how "matter" arises from consciousness.
I had an excitation in a field with a farmer's daughter years ago and it did matter.
There isn't such a thing as a hard problem of consciousness. Chalmer's "Hard problem" is nothing more than fallacious teleological "why" questions.
There are hard problems in Neuroscience on how specific characteristics of our conscious states arise but none of them are "why" questions.
Quoting TheMadMan
It doesn't. In order to be conscious of anything, Something must exist in the first place. To be conscious means to be conscious of something. By studying our world we observe properties of matter giving rise to the everything around us...not the other way our.
Quoting TheMadMan
"God did it" claims do not qualify as good philosophy! Making up substances/entities/agents/primitives by borrowing labels from observable processes is a medieval way to practice philosophy. I thought we were done with Phlogiston, Miasma,Orgone energy, Philosopher's stone etc etc.
An existential claim needs to be demonstrated not asserted.
Quoting TheMadMan
Yes they are and its a trap. This is how Pseudo Philosophy sounds You begin with an unfounded assumption (an questionable existential claim...at best) and you drift away from the real goal of Philosophy.(arriving to a wise conclusion with epistemic and instrumental value).
Quoting TheMadMan
Physicalism, materialism, idealism, non materialism are pseudo philosophical worldviews. Why even engaging those pseudo ideas in a philosophical thread?
Quoting TheMadMan
That's a fallacy. (Poisoning the well) How can you even start a philosophical conversation with an epistemically and philosophically outdated , self refuting assumption? Well you can but its no longer a philosophical discussion.
Many people, have maintained that representation is only one way of experiencing.
Mainly because of the brain's need for a model of the world for economic and safety reasons (or other idk).
But I thinks its clear that in the mind must exist a contrary way of experience, that of novelty, or even perpetual novelty or else the human species wouldn't have survived.
Basically all eastern philosophies of more than 2000 years have dealt of the problem of experiencing the world in a non-representational way.
But still you are saying that legs come first and walking is just the epi-phenomena.
What you are describing as matter is just the physical properties, observed and measured. My question is for all levels of matter that we know, to the quarks.
Brother you need to practice some intellectual humility.
Your are just making statement authoritatively not allowing space.
You talk about doing philosophy properly and yet your statements are monologic.
True philosophy is dialogic.
But I am not the one declaring the existence of "hard problems" in specific field of study that I know nothing about (from a scientific aspect that is)....you are displaying a type of intellectual arrogance by ignoring that epistemology.(and avoiding to answer any of my objections).
Quoting TheMadMan
I am only pointing the obvious, you are free to challenge my statements.
Quoting TheMadMan
Logic is hard and it forces rules. Its not my fault though. But again, you are the one who attempts to create an echo chamber by saying [b]" I'm not trying to argue with physicalists here.
As I said this is directed to those who consider the fundamental reality as non-material."[/b]
So why accusing me for something that you are literally trying to do.
Quoting TheMadMan
I exposed my position to you...now its on you to turn this interaction in to a dialogue.
You can start by addressing my Objections..or you can keep accusing me for things I didn't do...which isn't productive at all.
Correct , the diversity of properties emerging from different arrangements of matter is the amazing thing. Asking "why" this is possible its like a kid asking his mum ....why the sky is blue as if there is a purpose behind it.
Isn't all we know, at all levels, "physical properties, observed an measured"? So, what more are you asking for?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Why do you say that these are properties of "matter"? If all we observe is properties, and "why" questions are fallacious teleology, how do you get "matter" here?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Again, if we observe arrangements, what is this "matter" you assume here?
'Hard problems' ,of the kind that Chalmers referred to, are not about 'why' in the teleological sense. They are about how. How is it that consciousness can emerge from non-conscious systems? How could a material world arise from consciousness? I think both of these are insoluble, and we need more than one fundamental property.
Philosophy starts with wonder and doesnt arrive at conclusions, if it does it becomes dogma.
Good luck man.
Thats what we know on the scientific front.
Im asking philosophically and even experientially.
:100:
Is something you want to change in your statement?
Why are you avoiding my challenge? I can analyze all my objections, provide resources for all my statements if you are willing to test your beliefs.
Why do you think you can practice meaningful philosophy when ignoring our most credible epistemology on the subject????
As I said in the first post we assume "matter" as the reason for the observed temporal continuity, consistency, in those observed properties and measurements.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Relax man, what are you 12?
What you aren't getting is that I didn't start this discussion to argue with physicalists.
I am interested in arguments from those whose maintain that consciousness is primary.
I made that clear in the beginning.
So whatever physicalist challenge you have this is not the discussion.
Start your own discussion for that.
Ad hominem.
-"What you aren't getting is that I didn't start this discussion to argue with physicalists."
-No I get it, just don't accuse me for monologia.
Quoting TheMadMan
- I get it, and I just point out to you that is pseudo philosophy. What if I was only interested in arguments from those who believe I am a billionaire(when I am not)
In philosophy you need to construct your strong foundations before embarking to a quest.
The GIGO effect is lurking!
Quoting TheMadMan
I am not a physicalist, I reject all materialistic/non materialistic worldviews. I am a methodological naturalist and my objection is based on basic logic to begin with.
To be conscious is to be aware (of something.) One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a "consciousness" without anything to be conscious of is not a "consciousness."
-Not really lets analyze them. His three main questions are:
"1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
2. why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does
2. why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
In all 3 questions the answer "because it does" is adequate.
Now Mark Solms in his latest theory provided evolutionary answers on "why" emotions can be better addressed by advanced mental conscious states...but that was not what Chalmer's was really asking.
-"How is it that consciousness can emerge from non-conscious systems?"
If Chalmer's did his homework he would know the role of ARAS and Central Lateral Thalamus in the emergence of our conscious states.(ARAS state of awareness and alert/ stimuli arrive as signals/ the Central lateral thalamus share them to other areas specialized in Symbolic language, Memory/expeirence/ pattern recognition/ reasoning etc and the feedback enables our conscious content to emerge).
-"How could a material world arise from consciousness? "
-thats a fallacy (begging the question )not a serious scientific question. Consciousness is a testable, quantifiable mental ability...not a creation agent. At least claim needs to be demonstrated before starting search for the "how".
-" I think both of these are insoluble, and we need more than one fundamental property."
-Both are a great example on how pseudo philosophy can derail our philosophical inquiry.
Doesn't this answer the question of the op then: "How does matter arise from consciousness?". "Matter" is an assumption which the conscious mind makes. We could then proceed in a method similar to Berkeley, and inquire as to whether this is a necessary assumption. Berkeley concludes that it is not.
Because they are!!! We observe fundamental particles interacting with each other and producing Empirically regular properties that we can observe , quantify and predict.
Matter is "cosmic energy" at a specific energetic state. Fundamental subatomic particles are registered as energetic glitches with a set of properties (charge spin etc). Since we are well in the quantum scale our empirically evolved language has limited explanatory power.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Are you expecting a definition like " milk from a cosmic cow"? Its a freaking label we put on this specific phenomenon that appears to be the sole enabler of everything we can interact and detect.
You can google "matter" you know!. There are definition and descriptions (analysis of its parts).
No it isn't
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No it isn't.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No it doesn't
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No it isn't.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No they aren't!
Fab, I've fixed all your errors Nick and we can move on. No need to thank me.
Not really, we observe activity, and assume that there is particles involved in this activity. The "matter" which is supposed to substantiate the existence of the particles is just an assumption.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
See, the properties are observed, not the particles.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I haven't the faintest idea what you might mean by "cosmic energy", and how this might relate to "matter". Can you just leave that aside please, and stick to the subject, "matter".
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Again, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here with your metaphors. Can we just stick to the subject?
And I just want to point out that I didn't ask.
You will need to provide an argument, identify your premises, avoid fallacies, try to offer evidence in support of your premises and only then you will end up with a sound argument.
I see what you meant. What I wanna ask is how does this assumption arises from mind.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think it does. It just explains one way of what matter is not how it arises and whats its relation to mind.
Yeah but I too have a lot of opposition about your beliefs but I didn't make any judgement of it precisely because I didn't want too deal with them in this discussion whereas you insisted that I would engage with them.
If you like basketball don't go to a football stadium just to say that you like basketball better than football.
Physics is not your strong suit right?
We don't assume "particles" in the sense you understand it. Its NOT an existential claim of an entity in the classical sense! Particles is the label we use to name an observed and quantified activity.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Sure we don't observe " crystal marbles" if this is what you mean. Energetic glitches is what we observe, quantify and predict. This is what we call "particle" part of Matter.
Did anyone tell you that particles are some type of rocks? What is your argument here.???
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's a huge problem if you don't understand the relation between energy and matter (Einstein's Theory). How can we even start talking about matter then?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
We are on the subject...let me try differently.
Matter is .....grrrhhouah... energy in a different state. We can detect this "type of energy" because it displays specific properties and characteristics.!! The conditions for this state of energy were enabled after the Big Bang event (As far as we can observe).
You (I mean anyone) can not get in a conversation about Matter and mental properties without understanding the known ontology of matter.
Judgement...? Sir, do you understand what Public forums are FOR??
We are here to present and challenge our opinions, expose the weaknesses in our arguments and find holes in our supportive epistemology.
Please let this this "hurt puppy" card go and man up. You attempted to base a public philosophical discussion on a highly problematic unfounded assumption (hard problem of consciousness) and I called it out.
I even exposed myself by communicating my objections making them vulnerable to your critique.
Instead you chose to attack the messenger without even considering the red flag in the middle of the room.
Listen I can not force you to participate in this discussion or convince you to question all your auxiliary assumptions before laying them as foundations for your thoughts.
But I have to demarcate real Philosophy from pseudo philosophy.....the type of ''philosophy'' that doesn't account knowledge and is unable to produce wisdom. I did it and I guess I am done.
Enjoy yourself.
:roll:
Walking is what legs do just as minding (i.e. "consciousness") is what a sufficiently intact & self-reflexive CNS interacting with its dynamic environment does. No legs, no walking. No embodied cognition, no minding (i.e. "consciousness").
Yes, I suspect TheMadMan understood your point the first time you made it. Would you like to answer his question?
I asked the opposite
At least someone gets it. :sweat:
Drives me up the fucking wall. It's not complicated is it? It's a good OP, interesting question. I don't have much more to say on the subject unfortunately, so I should probably shut the fuck up as well.
Apparently for some it is.
Agreed. I only pointed out the a pseudo philosophical assumption in its core. Is it ok?
Quoting bert1
Such a thread wouldn't be convenient since the shaky auxiliary assumption is located in this thread.
Quoting bert1
Why do you believe that "Philosophical ideas" should be held in ivory towers away from criticism???? This is not how Philosophy work, we question everything especially claims that can derail philosophical conversations!
Quoting bert1
Everything is fair game in Philosophy especially the auxiliary assumptions where our conversations are founded.
Its like wasting time in a conversation on the billions of money I have the investments I should do when in reality I am homeless.
Quoting bert1
-That's a subject is more suitable for a movie script, than an actual philosophical discussion.
Its like talking about what to do about your haunted house when ghosts don't exist.
Not the best way to spend your time Bert!
Quoting bert1
Of course I am! I am pointing out a huge error in the OP! Its in direct conflict with logic and our current epistemology.
-Strawman. Religious fundamentalists people avoid facing facts or logic and use techniques to avoid any challenges of their beliefs...like using a strawman. ; )
I presented my objections and I can argue successfully for each one with facts, logic and credible knowledge. Are you willing to break them down one by one?
This is not what a religious fundamentalists individual would do...because they lack objective evidence to begin with.
So tell me if you are willing to see the problem in your OP.
That's what Jehovah's witnesses said to me when I kept telling them "I'm not interested just let me drink this cola in peace".
Cheers.
There is no error in the OP. It's not making a claim about the world. It's a hypothetical. If anything it's a challenge to those who think consciousness is fundamental, a project I would have thought you would approve of.
I understand how it could be difficult to answer it especially because for 4 centuries the west has been interested with the question in the other way around.
I was just wondering if someone has some kind of arguments to help answer that question because I've been thinking about it but haven't got far.
Yes it's interesting. I think it's a genuine hard problem for pure idealists. In fact it's much easier to see the hard problem when you try to derive the physical from the non-physical. I have thought a bit about non-vague concepts and how they relate to fundamental properties. A number of philosophers perceive that the concept of consciousness is not vague (but that is not intuitive to many). The idea is that there is no intermediate step between x being conscious and x not being conscious. It's easier to see in the case of spatiality. I'm not a mathematician, but intuitively it's hard to conceive of space emerging from non-space: adding millions of 0inch lengths doesn't get you a length. There seems to be no intermediate step in-between non-spatiality and spatiality. I don't know if vagueness is essential to emergence or not, but they do seem to go together naturally. And conversely, there does seem to be a relationship between what is fundamental and what is not vague. Just conceptually, it seems easy and natural to think that both spatiality and consciousness are fundamental properties, and one could not emerge from the other. Neither admit of degree and complexity that would allow for borderline cases.
EDIT: I don't think I've explained that well.
Agree.
Quoting bert1
Interesting because for me that space-time "comes from" the spaceless-timeless makes more sense.
Also saying "emerge" and "come from" (like I did) misses the point because its implies succession in time/space. I think their relationship has to be timeless thus simultaneous.
Quoting bert1
I think that the spaceless is not millions of 0 inch. It is not inch at all. It is different in its nature from space.
The difference maybe can be expressed in this way: Space-time is transitory by nature whereas the spaceless/timeless is eternal. Thus making them the same but at the same time different in their manifestation.
Quoting bert1
I don't think there is a step in between because there is no in-between. I would say there is a continuation of the spaceless into space and around it goes from space to the spaceless.
Separate only in difference.
This may seem paradoxical but since language is created for duality, paradoxes on this topic are unavoidable.
I think I provided an initial answer, here:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Right, there's no "matter" there, in those "particles", just activity.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
"'Particle' part of matter"? What does that mean? You already said that a particle is just an activity.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I'm ready. What is the known ontology of matter? You've said a few things about energy, also about activity, and you've said that energy relates to matter. So let's have it, where do we find this matter that is related to energy?
:up: Bullseye.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Fermions & bosons.
OTOH, the (modern) specularive ontology of matter has been designated "an idea" (Berkeley), "a phenomenon" (Kant) or "res extensa" (Descartes) ...
-What?....sir, "matter" describes a specific type of "activity" responsible for structure low level and high lever features (basic or advanced properties). Not all activities are matter. Its an equivocation fallacy based on a beef you have with the word "matter"!
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
-No, I said that specific glitches(with specific properties) are responsible for the phenomenon of matter.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
From your questions I understand that you are not ready. I did my best to describe you the ontology of matter with really plain words and metaphors but you keep asking the same questions again and again as if nothing was said.
This still doesnt answer what this "matter" is in itself. Its just saying how the appearance arises.
It just says how the icon on a computer screen arises not what it is.
These particles are what Nick called activities. I need an explanation as to how an activity is "matter".
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I would say that "matter" refers to whatever it is which is involved in the activity, what is doing the activity. An "activity" without something performing the activity is just a description of an activity, an abstraction. There is no substance without something performing the activity, therefore no "structure". A "structure" requires substance, and "activity" is not substantial, the substance is what is doing the activity. "Matter" is responsible for structure, by being that substance which is engaged in the activity. Without the matter performing the activity there is no structure.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I've never heard that proposal. I find it very strange. Specific "glitches" produce matter. A glitch is a malfunction. Are saying that all material existence is a malfunction of reality? Everything is a composition of mistakes.
That's an interesting "ontology of matter"; not one I'm inclined to respect though. If it is "glitches" which produce matter, and glitches are malfunctions, what was supposed to be happening? If the malfunctions had not occurred, which produced matter, and the activities operated smoothly, what would the world be like then? I suppose there would be no life without these malfunctions. And of course that would be a better reality than the one we're in, which is the product of malfunctions.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
OK, your ontology is 'matter is "specific glitches"'. For me, that equates with "nothing was said". Care to try again?
Quoting TheMadMan
Do you mean, what the icon signifies? Simply put, it has meaning, like a word or a symbol. The meaning of "matter" is as I explained, it signifies what we observe as temporal continuity. It's not like this particular icon, "matter" has a thing which it corresponds with, like a proper noun or something, it has meaning which allows it to be used in many situations. So it's more like a word than an icon. And that word relates to an "appearance", the appearance of temporal continuity.
If we want to understand the meaning here, we need to address this appearance. What is the reason for the appearance of such a temporal continuity in the world?
Aren't 'things' periodic patterns of ("indivisible")^ events? Re/acquaint yourself, MU, with thermodynamics (re: plasma, steam, liquid ...) Also, read old Epicurus (and/or Lucretius) on 'swirling swerving atoms^ recombing in void'. :fire:
Hmm this is a challenging notion to argue but I thank you for the task. It seems fun. I'm going to ad lib with this one.
So lets say for arguments sake consciousness as an ontological primitive is an spontaneous impulse (action potential) that wishes to create tracks or patterns (thoughts) so that it can develop a store (memory) and thus perception of the passage of time (based on memory of the past) and by proxy anticipation (or the "future" ), as well as a sense of presence (the present), it requires some substance to store information and making these thought tracks/patterns - ie for making memories.
Cue matter. If energy is the impulse of thought - potent, flexible, malleable, changeable, creativity, imagination, then matter is it's rigid or crystalline counterpart - the memory generated.
And as we know the two are related (equivalent) - by Einstein equation (e=mc2).
If consciousness is a fundamental, then the hard problem of consciousness/or matter (I think they are the same in this case) cannot be found in our brains, and is not that hard at all, it would instead be a reevaluation of the e=mc2 equation with the assumption that (c2) represents the gap (or "problem" of unifying the 2 entities: thought (energetic impulse, and memory - matter: the anatomically stable structure, the neurons).
Matter is thus the form of energy with properties of stability, it takes a solid and structured or patterned form and then remains that way until acted upon again. Just as memories take form and are slowly altered every time we revisit them with our conscious attention.
Perhaps con"solid"ation of memories also involves gravity which draws in scattered "memories" and condenses them into geometric relationships/associations (orbits, solar systems etc - perhaps a basic for logic or reasoning. Organisation, complexity. Negative entropy).
So really the question would be how does thought in this case (energy - the electricity or light coursing and rippling through the system as it thinks, acts and develops) become matter (the memories formed) and I would suggest the answer lies in the e=mc2 formula.
Speed is a relationship between time and space (distance). It is also the factor that distinguishes matter from energy - (c) the speed of light (which is energy, so it's a "self-referential" equation - apt for consciousness or "self" no? ).
In order for energy to become matter, or "thought impulse" to become "memory", time and distance must change rapidly. As the equation would suggest.
Perhaps with some relativistic expansion-dilation type of change.
A given quantity of energy or "thought" could hurtle out (space) , dissipate (entropy) and it's rate of change (with relation to time) might slow and become more stable, less chaotic, and thus precipitate into an emergent form that is much less excitable and dizzyingly zippy/fast (matter).
This primitive consciousness could be said then to be a dynamic relationship between the 4 fundamentals: energy, time, space and matter (each dependant on the qualities/properties of the others for existence and their "separable individual behaviours" ).
I hope this satisfies your request for a consciousness based emergent physicalism answer that you might enjoy contemplating.
It's at most an analogy/metaphysical, metaphorical or pseudo-physics description.
It has no scientific "proof" from a purely physicalist perspective, but I guess resolving the physical with the conscious (hard problem) wouldnt come just from objective physical explanations would it? I think it could be seen as reasonable despite not being scientific.
That I imagine physicalist will detest with every inch of their "material bodies." But I don't shy away from a bit of thought paintings/art regardless of their disgruntledness
Interesting ideas thanks.
I do like the trinity, action potential (positive emptiness)-energy-matter
Same I think it seems elegant. Ties energy and matter together nicely in an axis (action and acted upon)
A "thing" is what is involved in the event, as what engages in the activity. There is not matter to a described event unless an independent thing (a thing independent from the description) is signified.
Let's say "X moved from A to B" is a description of a simple event. This description is not itself an event, it is simply a description. But if "X' represents a real thing, which is involved in a supposed real event, then we have a representation of the "matter". However, "X" as representative of the matter, is not the event itself, but something which is implied to have existed before the event, and persist after the event. Therefore the matter is independent from the event.
Be careful how you speak openly of Consciousness & Matter in the same breath. Some people may think you are Mad. :joke:
Personally, I don't think Matter arises from Consciousness (Idealism), but I do have a theory of how Consciousness could evolve from the same origin as Matter. It's based on the 20th century discovery in Physics that Generic Information is the fundamental element of the universe*1. Just as Einstein concluded that Matter is merely a form of Energy (E=MC^2), I postulate that Energy is a form of Generic Information (my term). That's not the passive stuff that Claude Shannon made famous, but the same Awareness & Aboutness that is processed & stored in human minds. Here's a link to one of my blog posts on this topic*2. :smile:
*1. Is Information Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
Arguably, information could even be the fundamental brick with which physical reality is built (Wheelers It from Bit thesis)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21
*2. Foundation of Reality : Matter or Consciousness? :
Several physicists and Neuroscientists of the 21st century have revived the ancient term Panpsychism to represent the evidence that metaphysical Consciousness (in the generic form of Information) is the primary element from which all physical and mental forms of the current world emerged
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note -- Although this post refers to a "First Cause", or "Creator", or "generic G*D", it is not intended to be a Religious concept, or a Scientific theory, but merely a Philosophical conjecture.
Don't forget that 99.999% of baryonic "matter" also consists of empty space. Classical atomism, after all, is grossly consistent with modern particle physics (& statistical mechanics).
X moves. This moving is not independent of X. No X, what moves?. 'X moves' describes X more exhaustively than just 'X'. Substitute brain for X and minding for moves. Minding describes what brain do (i.e. 'X moves'); don't fixate on the reifying noun mind is a verb.
I think the concept of mind (consciousness) makes more sense when used to refer to an activity instead of an entity. No mind-entity "emerges" because mind is not an entity. Of course, I could be mistaken if you disagree, Arne, then by all means correct me (or not).
Would you consider it empty if permeated by particle fields? Is it really empty if sustaining a magnetic field?
Atoms are particles. Neutrons protons, and electrons are also particles. So are quarks. As far as I know, their respective volumes do not consist of "particle fields".
Empty of "matter". Maybe you missed by point: "matter" consists of fundamental events in void (re: Democritus), that is, consisting of more than just persistent, or tangibly discrete, "stuff". I think the next sentence (which you didn't include in your quote) makes this clear. I wasn't making a literal scientific claim and didn't mean absolute nothingness by using the term "empty space". The void is "really empty", just not absolutely, or completely, empty.
:up:
I suspect that the extra-sensory sense you refer to, is Reason (ability to infer wholes from parts). A tree is a system of many parts, but treeness is a quality of the whole integrated system. All living things have some ability to sense the environment, searching for specific patterns that indicate usefulness (e.g. food) for the purposes of the organism. In humans that pattern-seeking talent, consciousness, is at its most general.
Reason is an information processing facility, sifting sensory inputs to separate beneficial patterns from detrimental. The evolutionary path to reason begins with basic chemistry (e.g carbon atoms link with complementary atoms to form organic matter). Then organs link-up to form organisms. Eventually, those abstract puzzle pieces form recognizable patterns, that minds equipped with multiple senses can cognize into meanings.
In mathematical terms, Reason can be defined as a detector of ratios (proportions) that indicate fitness for specific functions. And those fitness functions become the basic purposes of sentient beings. So, if a tree has been found by experience to facilitate the survival of an organism, it will be engraved in memory with a name and a meaning : tree >> roots-trunk-leaves >> tall & climbable >> something to ascend when attacked by a predator. Therefore, pattern sensing is an evolutionary fitness trait that contributed to reproduction of brain genes and eventually to mind memes.
Reason, per se, is not inherent in basic matter, but the potential for reasoning must have been encoded in the mathematics of matter, in the form we now know as Information : essentially, the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative. Those opposing forces lie on the utmost ends of a continuous range of possible states. Yet, nature tends to select moderate states that are complementary & constructive, instead of contradictory & destructive. Eventually, the ability to learn the utility of treeness allowed a few mammals with hands to stand on their own two feet, and to grow big brains on the tip-top of their neural systems. :smile:
PS__Sorry for the elaboration, I got carried away with the tree metaphor. :yikes:
Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth. ___Wikipedia
Logic is the organizing mathematical structure of the world. Reason is the ability to detect logical structural patterns against the background of randomness.
Reason :
[i]a> the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
b> to discover, formulate, or conclude[/i]
Intelligence is based on how efficient a species became at doing the things they need to survive. . . . . In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.
___Charles Darwin
I would use the term "conceptualizing" rather than "reason" for a number of reasons :smile:. Conceptualizing, with the ratcheting ability of language to leverage its effects, creates a recursive ability to iterate constant concepts and reformulate them. Abstraction is part of this process of conceptualizing. That is what our species does. That is how we are unique, if not in kind, then certainly in degree on how much we rely almost fully on it for survival. No instinctual mechanisms combined with early learning (like many birds and other mammals). Concepts, abstractions of concepts, recursive-ness of concepts, and the use of cultural learning, and reasons. I'm just trying to define more clearly the "sapien" part of our species' name.
:up:
We expand our vocabulary to include metacognitive concepts. We can talk about our talking to get better at talking --- and better at talking about our talking, and so on.
Indeed. If Chomsky is right (which he might not be), the ability for language gave a recursive-ness called "merge", that allows for constant thinking about thinking about thinking. Refining it and abstracting. I can agree with Chomsky's conclusion and not his explanation of evolution of it. He isn't great at that part. Better to read accounts by Michael Tomasello for that.
I agree that the ability to conceptualize -- to form abstract representations of real phenomena -- is a major factor in human consciousness. But I'd say "in concert with" rather than "rather than Reason". Logical abstraction is the reason we represent (conceptualize) ideal Consciousness, as-if it is a real thing. Accurate maps can be confused with the actual terrain.
Reasoning is the process of converting concrete sensory Percepts into abstract mental Concepts or Ideas. So both are necessary to producing consciousness (including self-awareness) of the human kind. We typically assume that "higher" animals, such as primates, are conscious. But since they lack language to express their ideas, we can't take their word for it. Some researchers have concluded that they are mimicking instead of conceptualizing*1.
So, the jury is out on that question *2. But the early notion of Reason as the uniquely human trait was expressed in Plato's use of the word for "Word" : Logos. Reason is the producer of esoteric (hidden) concepts, and exoteric (manifest) Words are the useful product for communication of subjective imagery to other minds. It's that complete system that allows humans to fly, and to walk on the moon.
Therefore, it seems obvious that the human ability to convert Real into Ideal is unique in the world. And the "hard problem" is to explain how that process of abstraction from Real to Ideal is possible, in terms of classical physics. That's why some thinkers are looking to Quantum physics for clues to the mystery of Mind in a material world. :smile:
*1. The apes taught sign language didn't understand what they were doing. They were merely "aping" their caretakers.
https://bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/
*2. Do Animals Have Concepts? :
In philosophy, concepts have also been seen in purely abstract terms. Thats in the sense that concepts are seen to have no direct relation to mentality or to biological brains except for the fact that brains (or minds) can gain access to them.
https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/do-animals-have-concepts-3830c2f8d472
*3. Quantum mind :
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics alone cannot explain consciousness, positing instead that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain critical aspects of consciousness. These scientific hypotheses are as yet untested, and can overlap with quantum mysticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Note -- See the thread on the New Mysterians among scientists : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14203/on-chomskys-annoying-mysterianism
Fermilab Symmetry Magazine