Matter & Consciousness [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

thylacine

12-11-2006, 04:29 PM

Skidoo

12-11-2006, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I should have stated that I was using the term 'emerged' loosely also. Like I said, I was looking more at the holistic view, and not too concerned about 'how' it happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was probably my fault, actually.

It should have read: no one knows IF consciousness emerges from matter. Though you are being careful to include the intermediate stage of life, so I withdraw the comment altogether.

Skidoo

12-11-2006, 05:03 PM

How do you get from

[ QUOTE ]
life and consciousness manifestly exist now

[/ QUOTE ]

to

[ QUOTE ]
therefore they always have had the potential to exist, and so matter has always had this potential

[/ QUOTE ]

?

keith123

12-11-2006, 05:08 PM

how do we know that plants aren't self aware? have you read the giving tree? maybe rocks are self aware too? i don't know of any giving rock stories though.

Skidoo

12-11-2006, 05:11 PM

My guess is that plants could be self-aware on some very primitive level.

Philo

12-11-2006, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
how do we know that plants aren't self aware?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll attempt an answer; because they don't have the same attributes that we have that make us self-aware (like a brain, for example).

DonkBluffer

12-11-2006, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how do we know that plants aren't self aware?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll attempt an answer; because they don't have the same attributes that we have that make us self-aware (like a brain, for example).

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is aware of what? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Philo

12-11-2006, 06:13 PM

[quote
No one knows how consciousness emerges.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question of how consciousness emerges can be seen as an aspect of the mind-body problem, and some phlosophers think that that problem is by its very nature intractable due to the conceptual gap between consciousness and matter, or the subjective and the objective.

Hoover

12-11-2006, 06:27 PM

Maybe none or just some of you guys are really conscious. I'll assume you all are, since you say so.

Philo

12-11-2006, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe none or just some of you guys are really conscious. I'll assume you all are, since you say so.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if a plant told me it was conscious I might believe it too.

Hoover

12-11-2006, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe none or just some of you guys are really conscious. I'll assume you all are, since you say so.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if a plant told me it was conscious I might believe it too.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd probably just check into a psychiatric ward. However if it was a robot, then I'd have some pondering to do.

Skidoo

12-11-2006, 06:44 PM

A talking robot plant? That's a conundrum.

John21

12-11-2006, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One crucial point is, what exactly is meant by "inanimate matter"? Most materialists, such as myself, would say that life and consciousness manifestly exist now, and so therefore they always have had the potential to exist, and so matter has always had this potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Within the scope of my question, I'm okay with your definition.

As to matter, I think it's safe to say it is inter-convertible with energy. So would a materialist go as far as saying, "energy has the potential to become conscious?" Or ultimately, has energy become conscious?

I'm wondering if the very act of consciousness is simply looking at energy in the subjective - tying into what Philo was saying...

[ QUOTE ]
The question of how consciousness emerges can be seen as an aspect of the mind-body problem, and some phlosophers think that that problem is by its very nature intractable due to the conceptual gap between consciousness and matter, or the subjective and the objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

...without having to resort to actual dualism. More of an inside and an outside. And maybe it's too much of a leap, but the objective expression of energy would be matter, and the subjective expression would be consciousness.

arahant

12-11-2006, 09:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What, if anything, is wrong with this argument?

In the beginning… the earth was composed of inanimate matter…

Life emerged from this matter.
Consciousness emerged from this life.
Therefore, matter has become conscious.

(for a holistic sense, I'm loosely defining matter, life and consciouness as common usage.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with the argument is that consciousness is an emergent property, not a property of matter in and of itself. Matter has not become conscious, it has simply aggregated in such a manner that consciousness has emerged.

But you can redefine things to make your argument 'work', so it depends how loosely you want to define things.

Still, the first step you take is 'life emerged from inanimate matter'...you could have stopped with the conclusion that matter was alive, which isn't any less paradoxical sounding than 'matter is conscious'.

John21

12-11-2006, 10:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with the argument is that consciousness is an emergent property, not a property of matter in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is where the line becomes blurry for me. For instance, if I passed a magnet across a piece of wire - wouldn't the resulting elec. potential be an emergent property of the magnet and wire? With the motion simply being the particular situation that allowed the property to emerge.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I'm having a hard time separating the emerged property from that which it emerged from. I understand we have a new 'whole' but it's still made up entirely of the originating parts.

Skidoo

12-11-2006, 10:56 PM

It's confusing because it comes from confused logic.

The current that results from passing a conductor through a magnetic field is reducible to the OBSERVABLE qualities of the starting components.

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

arahant

12-11-2006, 11:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with the argument is that consciousness is an emergent property, not a property of matter in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is where the line becomes blurry for me. For instance, if I passed a magnet across a piece of wire - wouldn't the resulting elec. potential be an emergent property of the magnet and wire? With the motion simply being the particular situation that allowed the property to emerge.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I'm having a hard time separating the emerged property from that which it emerged from. I understand we have a new 'whole' but it's still made up entirely of the originating parts.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of the magnet and wire, it's true that the whole is made up of the parts (I think...been awhile). I don't consider that an emergent property.

Consciousness isn't the sum of parts, though. It's an entirely new 'thing'.
I tried to think of good analogies, but as so often happens, Wikipedia beat me to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence), providing a nice description of the phenomenon.

John21

12-12-2006, 03:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's confusing because it comes from confused logic.

The current that results from passing a conductor through a magnetic field is reducible to the OBSERVABLE qualities of the starting components.

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Observable vs. Imagined?

How could it be any different, if we are actually looking through the thing we are trying to observe?

That's why it's hard for me to get out of that box. But the process seems the same as consciousness - with how we define consciousness, we are not only aware - we are aware that we are aware. So to me, it would seem the only way to observe the observer would be through a faculty similar to imagination. Of course we could never objectively verify it, but we could all agree on it.

arahant

12-12-2006, 05:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's confusing because it comes from confused logic.

The current that results from passing a conductor through a magnetic field is reducible to the OBSERVABLE qualities of the starting components.

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Observable vs. Imagined?

How could it be any different, if we are actually looking through the thing we are trying to observe?

That's why it's hard for me to get out of that box. But the process seems the same as consciousness - with how we define consciousness, we are not only aware - we are aware that we are aware. So to me, it would seem the only way to observe the observer would be through a faculty similar to imagination. Of course we could never objectively verify it, but we could all agree on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good policy not to listen to him...his point is that consciousness is mystical (presumably).

I wonder sometimes what the hubbub is about with consciousness. I honestly don't see the big deal. Yes, we are aware that we are aware...And it makes your head spin if you try to follow it from one 'observer' to the next, but that is precisely because there is no series of observers...it is just one integral process. It's not like that infinite chain arises every time you observe something. If you want a confusing and meaningless analogy, though...pretend your mind has two 'observers'...now it's like standing between two mirrors....O1 sees 02 seeing 01 seeing 02....

Anyway, my only point was that it doesn't make much sense to say that matter has consciousness. Category error.

DonkBluffer

12-12-2006, 02:53 PM

Maybe matter = consciousness. To be conscious OF something, you need this body/mind, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is somehow created by the eyes or neurons or whatever else is in the body. So maybe there just is consciousness, and in this body, it manifests like this.

Also, IMO it's wrong to say consciousness is a property of something or a phenomena in something.
[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. There IS consciousness. If there was no consciousness, there would be no world, no body, no mind, no you. You can't observe consciousness, only what you're conscious of. Thoughts appear in consciousness too, they can't 'catch' consciousness. So I think anything you say about consciousness is conceptual.

edit: consciousness is not in the world, but the world is in consciousness sums it up. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

arahant

12-12-2006, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe matter = consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you mean this as a literal identity, then we don't need both words. Both words have definitions, and they are clearly different. There is something to be said for the impotence of language to convey truth, but since we ARE using language, it would be rather silly to disregard agreed upon definitions.
[ QUOTE ]

Also, IMO it's wrong to say consciousness is a property of something or a phenomena in something.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong how?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. There IS consciousness. If there was no consciousness, there would be no world, no body, no mind, no you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why on earth would you believe this?
[ QUOTE ]

You can't observe consciousness, only what you're conscious of. Thoughts appear in consciousness too, they can't 'catch' consciousness. So I think anything you say about consciousness is conceptual.

edit: consciousness is not in the world, but the world is in consciousness sums it up. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I take it you aren't a realist...(in the philosophical sense, at least)

Skidoo

12-12-2006, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's confusing because it comes from confused logic.

The current that results from passing a conductor through a magnetic field is reducible to the OBSERVABLE qualities of the starting components.

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Observable vs. Imagined?

How could it be any different, if we are actually looking through the thing we are trying to observe?

That's why it's hard for me to get out of that box. But the process seems the same as consciousness - with how we define consciousness, we are not only aware - we are aware that we are aware. So to me, it would seem the only way to observe the observer would be through a faculty similar to imagination. Of course we could never objectively verify it, but we could all agree on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As mentioned by Philo earlier, the subject-object relationship is the major part of what makes consciousness irreducible to matter (whatever that is).

In those terms, "a subject cannot make itself its own object" would be an equivalent rephrase of the point you are making. Awareness in the sensory and computational sense isn't unique to conscious beings. A machine can be "aware" like that also.

DonkBluffer

12-12-2006, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, IMO it's wrong to say consciousness is a property of something or a phenomena in something.

[/ QUOTE ] wrong how?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. There IS consciousness. If there was no consciousness, there would be no world, no body, no mind, no you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why on earth would you believe this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Language sucks. We're probably talking about different things. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But what I mean with that there would be no world etc. without consciousness, is that if we were not conscious, we wouldn't be conscious of the world either. The world is not separate of consciousness. Basically, you can't prove the existence of something existing outside of your consciousness. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But that's basically non-dualism vs dualism I guess.

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe none or just some of you guys are really conscious. I'll assume you all are, since you say so.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if a plant told me it was conscious I might believe it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this supposed to be pithy sarcasm or was this serious?

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's confusing because it comes from confused logic.

The current that results from passing a conductor through a magnetic field is reducible to the OBSERVABLE qualities of the starting components.

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Observable vs. Imagined?

How could it be any different, if we are actually looking through the thing we are trying to observe?

That's why it's hard for me to get out of that box. But the process seems the same as consciousness - with how we define consciousness, we are not only aware - we are aware that we are aware. So to me, it would seem the only way to observe the observer would be through a faculty similar to imagination. Of course we could never objectively verify it, but we could all agree on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good policy not to listen to him...his point is that consciousness is mystical (presumably).

I wonder sometimes what the hubbub is about with consciousness. I honestly don't see the big deal. Yes, we are aware that we are aware...And it makes your head spin if you try to follow it from one 'observer' to the next, but that is precisely because there is no series of observers...it is just one integral process. It's not like that infinite chain arises every time you observe something. If you want a confusing and meaningless analogy, though...pretend your mind has two 'observers'...now it's like standing between two mirrors....O1 sees 02 seeing 01 seeing 02....

Anyway, my only point was that it doesn't make much sense to say that matter has consciousness. Category error.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the bottom of the line observer is you, your whole person. It really doesn't get any smaller than that, at least, not in a way that allows us to use the title 'observer.'

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's confusing because it comes from confused logic.

The current that results from passing a conductor through a magnetic field is reducible to the OBSERVABLE qualities of the starting components.

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Observable vs. Imagined?

How could it be any different, if we are actually looking through the thing we are trying to observe?

That's why it's hard for me to get out of that box. But the process seems the same as consciousness - with how we define consciousness, we are not only aware - we are aware that we are aware. So to me, it would seem the only way to observe the observer would be through a faculty similar to imagination. Of course we could never objectively verify it, but we could all agree on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As mentioned by Philo earlier, the subject-object relationship is the major part of what makes consciousness irreducible to matter (whatever that is).

In those terms, "a subject cannot make itself its own object" would be an equivalent rephrase of the point you are making. Awareness in the sensory and computational sense isn't unique to conscious beings. A machine can be "aware" like that also.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making a pretty bold assertion that consciousness isn't reducible to matter, and I think at the very least, it requires you to give an example of what it would mean if it could be. What would it mean to you if it were reducible, and what DOES it mean that it isnt? If I take away enough of your brain you will stop perceiving yourself as conscious. So at least in some sense it certainly is reducible.

Skidoo

12-12-2006, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's confusing because it comes from confused logic.

The current that results from passing a conductor through a magnetic field is reducible to the OBSERVABLE qualities of the starting components.

On the other hand, consciousness is only IMAGINED to be a product of the properties of matter (whatever that is) without any other contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Observable vs. Imagined?

How could it be any different, if we are actually looking through the thing we are trying to observe?

That's why it's hard for me to get out of that box. But the process seems the same as consciousness - with how we define consciousness, we are not only aware - we are aware that we are aware. So to me, it would seem the only way to observe the observer would be through a faculty similar to imagination. Of course we could never objectively verify it, but we could all agree on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As mentioned by Philo earlier, the subject-object relationship is the major part of what makes consciousness irreducible to matter (whatever that is).

In those terms, "a subject cannot make itself its own object" would be an equivalent rephrase of the point you are making. Awareness in the sensory and computational sense isn't unique to conscious beings. A machine can be "aware" like that also.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making a pretty bold assertion that consciousness isn't reducible to matter, and I think at the very least, it requires you to give an example of what it would mean if it could be. What would it mean to you if it were reducible, and what DOES it mean that it isnt? If I take away enough of your brain you will stop perceiving yourself as conscious. So at least in some sense it certainly is reducible.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "consciousness isn't reducible to matter" I mean no such reducibility has been observed or adequately described. I don't necessarily mean it's impossible in principle, though sometimes I go there as well depending on context.

The reducibility of one phenomenon to another means the first can be extrapolated from the properties of the second, like a current follows from a conductor being moved through a magnetic field. The flow of electric charge is derivable from the properties of magnetism plus the motion of the conductor. No such relationship exists between consciousness and matter. In fact, they seem fundamentally irreconcilable. For something to be reducible to "matter" implies it is essentially a measurable product of determinism and chance. The experience of consciousness includes another dimension entirely: subjective experience. A robot, which is without this internal aspect, is reducible to the sum of its engineering and programming with no real surprises.

A brain is apparently necessary for consciousness, but the brain itself is a big unknown as is whether or not the brain is enough to account for consciousness in the first place.

luckyme

12-12-2006, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The experience of consciousness includes another dimension entirely: subjective experience. A robot, which is without this internal aspect, is reducible to the sum of its engineering and programming with no real surprises.

[/ QUOTE ]

A robot is that way only if you define it that way. So if a designed entity experienced 'subjectiveness' we'd have to call it a Rabat?. Iow, your saying so doesn't make it so, even if that's a natural approach for you.
When I'm looking right at a material object that experiences subjectivity it's hard for me to say it's not possible.

luckyme

Skidoo

12-12-2006, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The experience of consciousness includes another dimension entirely: subjective experience. A robot, which is without this internal aspect, is reducible to the sum of its engineering and programming with no real surprises.

[/ QUOTE ]

A robot is that way only if you define it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

All robots are that way, unless you've heard of some recent development I have missed.

[ QUOTE ]
When I'm looking right at a material object that experiences subjectivity it's hard for me to say it's not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Describe this "material object" entirely in terms of measurables.

Ellsworth T

12-12-2006, 09:04 PM

The main problem with your statement is that we have absolutely no means or ability to accurately measure whether the earth actually began as inanimate matter. Perhaps it began as consciousness and the modus operendi that evolved the earth and galaxies is unbeknowst or unobservable due to the utterly cosmic time delay between the incidence and now. Your question is naturally flawed (at least I believe it is) because your attempting to rationalize through deductions such as

[ QUOTE ]
In the beginning… the earth was composed of inanimate matter…

[/ QUOTE ]

how consciouness could have formed, however, in the beginning, the earth was nothing and formed from something else, possibly inanimate but possibly not, so I believe you need to go further as your line of causality with which you use ostensibly as your primary premise does not fully explore the origin of either inanimate objects or consciousness, which is creating the problem you originally alluded to.

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 09:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The experience of consciousness includes another dimension entirely: subjective experience. A robot, which is without this internal aspect, is reducible to the sum of its engineering and programming with no real surprises.

[/ QUOTE ]

A robot is that way only if you define it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

All robots are that way, unless you've heard of some recent development I have missed.

[ QUOTE ]
When I'm looking right at a material object that experiences subjectivity it's hard for me to say it's not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Describe this "material object" entirely in terms of measurables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like....right now? Is this really the same lame argument of "explain every single geological, biological and archaelogical finding ever in the context of evolution to the degree I specify?" It sure seems that way. And just because we cannot YET explain it all in terms of its parts (although I have a suspicion we can do so more than you would expect) lends absolutely no credibility to your counter-theory, that it is unknowable. What special property would prevent it from being known? Are you a dualist?

Skidoo

12-12-2006, 10:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is this really the same lame argument of "explain every single geological, biological and archaelogical finding ever in the context of evolution to the degree I specify?" It sure seems that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Four pages into the thread, and the first strawman takes the field...

[ QUOTE ]
And just because we cannot YET explain it all in terms of its parts (although I have a suspicion we can do so more than you would expect) lends absolutely no credibility to your counter-theory, that it is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Immediately followed by the second strawman.

[ QUOTE ]
What special property would prevent it from being known?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already addressed that. Several of the properties of consciousness are completely outside any phenomenology attributable to "matter" on the basis of observation.

luckyme

12-12-2006, 11:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've already addressed that. Several of the properties of consciousness are completely outside any phenomenology attributable to "matter" on the basis of observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

On this side of the street we have endless examples of matter that exhibits all the properties of consciousness. Screaming into the wind that "matter can't do that" doesn't seem to be having any effect on the matter that is doing it.

luckyme

Skidoo

12-12-2006, 11:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've already addressed that. Several of the properties of consciousness are completely outside any phenomenology attributable to "matter" on the basis of observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

On this side of the street we have endless examples of matter that exhibits all the properties of consciousness. Screaming into the wind that "matter can't do that" doesn't seem to be having any effect on the matter that is doing it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

The obvious reply is: show me the money.

And, please, nothing from a fairytale. I'm looking for empirical evidence that demonstrates your claim.

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this really the same lame argument of "explain every single geological, biological and archaelogical finding ever in the context of evolution to the degree I specify?" It sure seems that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Four pages into the thread, and the first strawman takes the field...

[ QUOTE ]
And just because we cannot YET explain it all in terms of its parts (although I have a suspicion we can do so more than you would expect) lends absolutely no credibility to your counter-theory, that it is unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Immediately followed by the second strawman.

[ QUOTE ]
What special property would prevent it from being known?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already addressed that. Several of the properties of consciousness are completely outside any phenomenology attributable to "matter" on the basis of observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't a strawman, it was a question. This is your usual tack, it seemed like you were going down that route again. I'm still not convinced you aren't. And there is no reason its outside of any phenomenology, you are just asserting that. Demonstrate it for me. Pretend I'm stupid.

EDIT: Also, 4 pages? Are you a n00b? Edit your settings man!

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've already addressed that. Several of the properties of consciousness are completely outside any phenomenology attributable to "matter" on the basis of observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

On this side of the street we have endless examples of matter that exhibits all the properties of consciousness. Screaming into the wind that "matter can't do that" doesn't seem to be having any effect on the matter that is doing it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

The obvious reply is: show me the money.

And, please, nothing from a fairytale. I'm looking for empirical evidence that demonstrates your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have to take their word for it, there isn't really any other way. People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious. Positing some magical 'self' or 'soul' or 'central observer' requires support from your end, I'm afraid.

arahant

12-13-2006, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've already addressed that. Several of the properties of consciousness are completely outside any phenomenology attributable to "matter" on the basis of observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

On this side of the street we have endless examples of matter that exhibits all the properties of consciousness. Screaming into the wind that "matter can't do that" doesn't seem to be having any effect on the matter that is doing it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

The obvious reply is: show me the money.

And, please, nothing from a fairytale. I'm looking for empirical evidence that demonstrates your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have to take their word for it, there isn't really any other way. People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious. Positing some magical 'self' or 'soul' or 'central observer' requires support from your end, I'm afraid.

[/ QUOTE ]

The claim that people are made up of matter is pure speculation on your part. Can you show me these 'people'?

In all seriousness, though...it's really not the matter per se that is conscious.

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 01:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And there is no reason its outside of any phenomenology, you are just asserting that. Demonstrate it for me. Pretend I'm stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's as obvious as a TV diner. Where to begin? I don't get what you don't get. Since when did subjectivity become an observable phenomenon generalizable to so-called matter?

[ QUOTE ]
People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

People claim to be conscious. People are made up of magnesium. Magnesium claims to be conscious.

[ QUOTE ]
Positing some magical 'self' or 'soul' or 'central observer' requires support from your end, I'm afraid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing "magical" is necessary, just the sort of self that can read and understand the meaning of these words.

arahant

12-13-2006, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there is no reason its outside of any phenomenology, you are just asserting that. Demonstrate it for me. Pretend I'm stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's as obvious as a TV diner. Where to begin? I don't get what you don't get. Since when did subjectivity become an observable phenomenon generalizable to so-called matter?

[ QUOTE ]
People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

People claim to be conscious. People are made up of magnesium. Magnesium claims to be conscious.

[ QUOTE ]
Positing some magical 'self' or 'soul' or 'central observer' requires support from your end, I'm afraid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing "magical" is necessary, just the sort of self that can read and understand the meaning of these words.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one can read and understand these words, is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon? Like my TV diner?

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

People claim to be conscious. People are made up of magnesium. Magnesium claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second premise is wrong. They contain it, they aren't made of it.

Your point should have been I was sort of question-begging asserting that we are entirely matter (plus some energy) since thats assuming materialism, I suppose.

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 02:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If one can read and understand these words, is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon? Like my TV diner?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the self knows to be the signifiers of its own subjectivity are perceived to also come from the other, therefore subjectivity is generalizable, with or without apple pie in the self's TV dinner desert compartment.

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 02:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one can read and understand these words, is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon? Like my TV diner?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the self knows to be the signifiers of its own subjectivity are perceived to also come from the other, therefore subjectivity is generalizable, with or without apple pie in the self's TV dinner desert compartment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny part is that this made as much sense as the average Skidoo post.

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 02:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

People claim to be conscious. People are made up of magnesium. Magnesium claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second premise is wrong. They contain it, they aren't made of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to contain something in substance without also being made of it, unless you're over strawmen and have moved on to rhetorical gimmickry.

[ QUOTE ]
Your point should have been I was sort of question-begging asserting that we are entirely matter (plus some energy) since thats assuming materialism, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That also.

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 02:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

People claim to be conscious. People are made up of magnesium. Magnesium claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second premise is wrong. They contain it, they aren't made of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to contain something in substance without also being made of it, unless you're over strawmen and have moved on to rhetorical gimmickry.

[ QUOTE ]
Your point should have been I was sort of question-begging asserting that we are entirely matter (plus some energy) since thats assuming materialism, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, *I* resorted to gimmickry? The point is that we are MADE of matter, and so if we exhibit consciousness than some configuration of matter has exhibited consciousness. This is NOT equivocal to your use of magnesium. We are not made of magnesium. We are made of a wide assortment of things, all of which are matter, and that combination leads to consciousness (in my example). Your poor logic is analogous to:

Cars convert fuel to mechanical energy and transport people. Cars are made out of metal, rubber, and various other components.
All of these components convert fuel to mechanical energy to transport people.

Cars 'do all that'. Cars are made of seatbelts. Seatbelts convert fuel to mechanical energy and transport people.

These are not equivalent uses of the term 'made of.'

arahant

12-13-2006, 02:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one can read and understand these words, is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon? Like my TV diner?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the self knows to be the signifiers of its own subjectivity are perceived to also come from the other, therefore subjectivity is generalizable, with or without apple pie in the self's TV dinner desert compartment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny part is that this made as much sense as the average Skidoo post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the funny part is that i just pulled some words out of his response and strung them together randomly to see what would happen.

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 02:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one can read and understand these words, is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon? Like my TV diner?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the self knows to be the signifiers of its own subjectivity are perceived to also come from the other, therefore subjectivity is generalizable, with or without apple pie in the self's TV dinner desert compartment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny part is that this made as much sense as the average Skidoo post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the funny part is that i just pulled some words out of his response and strung them together randomly to see what would happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess:

self perceived compartment with apple TV dinner!

arahant

12-13-2006, 02:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one can read and understand these words, is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon? Like my TV diner?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the self knows to be the signifiers of its own subjectivity are perceived to also come from the other, therefore subjectivity is generalizable, with or without apple pie in the self's TV dinner desert compartment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny part is that this made as much sense as the average Skidoo post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the funny part is that i just pulled some words out of his response and strung them together randomly to see what would happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess:

self perceived compartment with apple TV dinner!

[/ QUOTE ]

heh...i meant when i used the phrase "is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon"...I hope it didn't accidently make sense!

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 02:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

People claim to be conscious. People are made up of magnesium. Magnesium claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second premise is wrong. They contain it, they aren't made of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to contain something in substance without also being made of it, unless you're over strawmen and have moved on to rhetorical gimmickry.

[ QUOTE ]
Your point should have been I was sort of question-begging asserting that we are entirely matter (plus some energy) since thats assuming materialism, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, *I* resorted to gimmickry? The point is that we are MADE of matter, and so if we exhibit consciousness than some configuration of matter has exhibited consciousness. This is NOT equivocal to your use of magnesium. We are not made of magnesium. We are made of a wide assortment of things, all of which are matter, and that combination leads to consciousness (in my example). Your poor logic is analogous to:

Cars convert fuel to mechanical energy and transport people. Cars are made out of metal, rubber, and various other components.
All of these components convert fuel to mechanical energy to transport people.

Cars 'do all that'. Cars are made of seatbelts. Seatbelts convert fuel to mechanical energy and transport people.

These are not equivalent uses of the term 'made of.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I see where you're confused. You're taking "made of" to be the same as "made exclusively of" and logically stumbling along from there.

If you wish to claim an exclusively material basis for consciousness, then what you still need to show is that there are no components outside the material that could be contributing to it, which is not an easy task, because the unique properties of consciousness have never been accounted for in exclusively material terms, but go ahead and try for the sake of amusing conversation.

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 02:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one can read and understand these words, is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon? Like my TV diner?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the self knows to be the signifiers of its own subjectivity are perceived to also come from the other, therefore subjectivity is generalizable, with or without apple pie in the self's TV dinner desert compartment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny part is that this made as much sense as the average Skidoo post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the funny part is that i just pulled some words out of his response and strung them together randomly to see what would happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess:

self perceived compartment with apple TV dinner!

[/ QUOTE ]

heh...i meant when i used the phrase "is subjectivity a generalizable observable phenomenon"...I hope it didn't accidently make sense!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's the best sense you've made in a long time.

arahant

12-13-2006, 04:15 AM

which unique properties?

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 08:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People claim to be conscious. People are made up of matter. Matter claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

People claim to be conscious. People are made up of magnesium. Magnesium claims to be conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second premise is wrong. They contain it, they aren't made of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to contain something in substance without also being made of it, unless you're over strawmen and have moved on to rhetorical gimmickry.

[ QUOTE ]
Your point should have been I was sort of question-begging asserting that we are entirely matter (plus some energy) since thats assuming materialism, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, *I* resorted to gimmickry? The point is that we are MADE of matter, and so if we exhibit consciousness than some configuration of matter has exhibited consciousness. This is NOT equivocal to your use of magnesium. We are not made of magnesium. We are made of a wide assortment of things, all of which are matter, and that combination leads to consciousness (in my example). Your poor logic is analogous to:

Cars convert fuel to mechanical energy and transport people. Cars are made out of metal, rubber, and various other components.
All of these components convert fuel to mechanical energy to transport people.

Cars 'do all that'. Cars are made of seatbelts. Seatbelts convert fuel to mechanical energy and transport people.

These are not equivalent uses of the term 'made of.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I see where you're confused. You're taking "made of" to be the same as "made exclusively of" and logically stumbling along from there.

If you wish to claim an exclusively material basis for consciousness, then what you still need to show is that there are no components outside the material that could be contributing to it, which is not an easy task, because the unique properties of consciousness have never been accounted for in exclusively material terms, but go ahead and try for the sake of amusing conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly do not need to show that, and its not just 'not an easy task' its a completely impossible task. All I need to do is show its possible to accomplish the goal without extra parts, not show that there ARE no extra parts. And while I can't do that, at least not now, I see no reason to think its impossible or that someone else might be able to. This is hardly my area.

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
which unique properties?

[/ QUOTE ]

Subjectivity, for starters.

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 12:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All I need to do is show its possible to accomplish the goal without extra parts, not show that there ARE no extra parts.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, of course, in the general case.

John21

12-13-2006, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The main problem with your statement is that we have absolutely no means or ability to accurately measure whether the earth actually began as inanimate matter. Perhaps it began as consciousness and the modus operendi that evolved the earth and galaxies is unbeknowst or unobservable due to the utterly cosmic time delay between the incidence and now. Your question is naturally flawed (at least I believe it is) because your attempting to rationalize through deductions such as

[ QUOTE ]
In the beginning… the earth was composed of inanimate matter…

[/ QUOTE ]

how consciouness could have formed, however, in the beginning, the earth was nothing and formed from something else, possibly inanimate but possibly not, so I believe you need to go further as your line of causality with which you use ostensibly as your primary premise does not fully explore the origin of either inanimate objects or consciousness, which is creating the problem you originally alluded to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points.

It seems like the only way we would be able to determine if what you are stating is the case or not, would be by discovering life on another planet. If we found another planet with advanced life on it, that had a similar geological history as the earth, but say we we're able to conclude that life evolved on that planet in one billion years instead of four - we could probably conclude there is a deeper principle at work.

To be able to determine if there is a principle at work behind consciousness, or life for that matter, we'll probably have to look outside of our own system. Or come up with something akin to Bell's Theorem, but applied to consciousness, that would prove non-locality.

arahant

12-13-2006, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which unique properties?

[/ QUOTE ]

Subjectivity, for starters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good start...what others?

DonkBluffer

12-13-2006, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Positing some magical 'self' or 'soul' or 'central observer' requires support from your end, I'm afraid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing "magical" is necessary, just the sort of self that can read and understand the meaning of these words.

[/ QUOTE ]
This self you talk about it, are you conscious of it, or is it consciousness? I'd say it's the former. Consciousness doesn't *do* anything IMO.

luckyme

12-13-2006, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Positing some magical 'self' or 'soul' or 'central observer' requires support from your end, I'm afraid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing "magical" is necessary, just the sort of self that can read and understand the meaning of these words.

[/ QUOTE ]
This self you talk about it, are you conscious of it, or is it consciousness? I'd say it's the former. Consciousness doesn't *do* anything IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying there is a 'you' that is conscious of your consciousness that is conscious of it's consciousness ... or what?

luckyme

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
which unique properties?

[/ QUOTE ]

Subjectivity, for starters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good start...what others?

[/ QUOTE ]

Subjectivity is the central one, at least for this discussion as the OP set it up. The others, like free will etc, are to one extent or another dependent on the irreducibility of the subject-object relationship.

DonkBluffer

12-13-2006, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Positing some magical 'self' or 'soul' or 'central observer' requires support from your end, I'm afraid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing "magical" is necessary, just the sort of self that can read and understand the meaning of these words.

[/ QUOTE ]
This self you talk about it, are you conscious of it, or is it consciousness? I'd say it's the former. Consciousness doesn't *do* anything IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying there is a 'you' that is conscious of your consciousness that is conscious of it's consciousness ... or what?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Ehm no. And I thought two minutes about that sentence and I'm not sure I get it yet. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
But I'm just saying that there is no seperate self.