Consciousness and matter

[JuanFlorencio]

Conscious “state” modes are effects of matter activity. The conscious “state” modes of brain as you realize is multi-realizable. This allows us to switch between modes of options using mode of decision.

Do you mean that a causality chain (which in the material world is nothing else but “matter activity”) at some given point might have multiple posible “causal routes”, and that the actual route is not determined by the previous sequence?

 

[STT]

Do you mean that a causality chain (which in the material world is nothing else but “matter activity”) at some given point might have multiple possible “causal routes”, and that the actual route is not determined by the previous sequence?

I am saying that casual routes exist as a potential when they are realized by us. Once we decide we break the previous casual route and enter the one we choose. In that sense the new actual route is not determined by previous sequence.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I am saying that casual routes exist as a potential when they are realized by us. Once we decide we break the previous casual route and enter the one we choose. In that sense the new actual route is not determined by previous sequence.

I understand that concerning human nature you adopt a materialist stance. Accordingly, you affirm that consciousness is just the effect of the activity of certain arrangement of particles. Such activity would be subject to “the laws of nature”, as you use to say. These laws of nature would not be anything different from the causality chains that you are mentioning in this thread. So, a conscious “state”, in everyone of its modes (perceptions, feelings, awareness of possibilities, decisions, whatever…) would be an ephemeral effect of such activity. In other words, those conscious “state” modes would be entirely determined by the previous sequences. Now, what follows to any of them would belong to those same causality chains. Therefore, if you do not mix your materialism with a spiritualist position you need to conclude that there is no posible break of causality chains (or that your “laws of nature” are no such laws).

 

[tonyrey]

Conscious “state” modes are effects of matter activity. The conscious “state” modes of brain as you realize is multi-realizable. This allows us to switch between modes of options using mode of decision.

How is consciousness produced by objects which lack consciousness?

 

[STT]

I understand that concerning human nature you adopt a materialist stance. Accordingly, you affirm that consciousness is just the effect of the activity of certain arrangement of particles. Such activity would be subject to “the laws of nature”, as you use to say. These laws of nature would not be anything different from the causality chains that you are mentioning in this thread. So, a conscious “state”, in everyone of its modes (perceptions, feelings, awareness of possibilities, decisions, whatever…) would be an ephemeral effect of such activity. In other words, those conscious “state” modes would be entirely determined by the previous sequences. Now, what follows to any of them would belong to those same causality chains. Therefore, if you do not mix your materialism with a spiritualist position you need to conclude that there is no possible break of causality chains (or that your “laws of nature” are no such laws).

I understand what you are saying but I think we know by fact that we can break the chain of causality when we are in conscious state. That is part of our daily life. Unless you say that all realized options except one, which is related to the true chain of causality, are fake. I however don’t think that evolution or God grants such a useless trait. Therefore, I think we can agree on the fact that the realize options which are the result of motion of matter are real. So I think we should focus on the fact that a unique motion can possibly produce an conscious state with options as realizable entities. We can then choose one of the options since all of them are permissible.

 

[STT]

How is consciousness produced by objects which lack consciousness?

That is just how matter behaves when it is organized and move in specific way. Like solidity of chair you are sitting on. Or wetness of water you touch.

 

[IWantGod]

That is just how matter behaves when it is organized and move in specific way. Like solidity of chair you are sitting on. Or wetness of water you touch.

This just an assertion. We know that consciousness exists in correlation with physical events. This in itself does not provide a sufficient explanation of how it is logically possible for blind physical processes to become self conscious and act for a purpose.

Something that is essentially blind and does not act for a **purpose or a goal **cannot magically begin acting for a purpose or a goal or be conscious of it. If things really happened that way what you would be left with is a brute fact with no rational explanation. And i don’t believe in Brute facts.

Its not sufficient enough to say that’s just how physical things behave, which is what you are doing.

Rational Self Consciousness is more than the sum of its blind physical parts. The Mind involves more than just the brain.

 

[STT]

This just an assertion.

So lets discuss it.

We know that consciousness exists in correlation with physical events.

We understand the reality through correlation. Moreover, if that is not matter which creates experience, what we call conscious state, then what it is?

This does not explain how ever how it is logically possible for blind physical processes to become self conscious as-well-as being goal driven.

Matter is not completely blind. It always responds to external stimuli. Moreover there is nothing like self. The experience of self is just created by a part of brain.

Something that is essentially blind and does not act for a purpose or a goal cannot magically begin acting for a purpose or a goal or be conscious of it.

We know that brain is the most complicated entity in universe.

If things really happened that way what you would be left with is a brute fact with no rational explanation. And i don’t believe in Brute facts.

The brute fact is that there is a correlation between motion in mater and consciousness. Scientists these day know and show that each part of brain is active for a specific purpose, to create a mode of consciousness.

Rational Self Consciousness is more than the sum of its physical parts.

What do you mean?

The Mind involves more than just the brain.

There is no mind but mere experience.

 

[IWantGod]

I understand what you are saying but I think we know by fact that we can break the chain of causality when we are in conscious state. .

That is precisely why the materialist position is wrong.

 

[STT]

That is precisely why the materialist position is wrong.

There are two facts here: (1) We know that consciousness is the result of matter activity and (2) We can decide.

What is your solution?

 

[IWantGod]

So lets discuss it.

We understand the reality through correlation. Moreover, if that is not matter which creates experience, what we call conscious state, then what it is?

Something that is not matter.

Matter is not completely blind. It always responds to external stimuli. Moreover there is nothing like self. The experience of self is just created by a part of brain.

It responds to stimuli just like a ball hit by another ball responds by moving. This does not change the fact that it is blind.

We know that brain is the most complicated entity in universe.

Complexity by itself is not a sufficient explanation of why self-consciousness exists.

In principle a thing can be incredibly complex and have no consciousness at all. One does not necessitate the other.

The brute fact is that there is a correlation between motion in mater and consciousness. Scientists these day know and show that each part of brain is active for a specific purpose, to create a mode of consciousness.

Matter is blind it does not act for a purpose. The fact that parts of the brain accommodates the potential for consciousness or functions for a specific purpose is evidence of teleology in the universe. Its evidence of goal driven plan invented by God.

What do you mean?

I fear that you will never understand

There is no mind but mere experience.

You might not have self consciousness, but for everyone else whom is capable of thinking rationally self consciousness is self evident and that is what we call the mind.

 

[IWantGod]

There are two facts here: (1) We know that consciousness is the result of matter activity and (2) We can decide.

What is your solution?

We don’t now that physical processes is identical with self consciousness, and there is no sufficient reason to think that is. The idea that a physical process is aware of itself is a materialist assumption and it contradicts our experience of freewill and our ability to act for a purpose.

 

[STT]

Something that is not matter.

So you fall in trap of dualism. How something which is not matter can interact with matter?

It responds to stimuli just like a ball hit by another ball responds by moving.

Yes, that is an example.

This does not change the fact that it is blind.

How did you reach to such a conclusion?

Complexity by itself is not a sufficient explanation of why self-conscious exists.

Why not? How did you reach to such a conclusion?

In principle a thing can be incredibly complex and have no consciousness at all. One does not necessitate the other.

Yes, that is true (bold part). We are however talking about something which is conscious and complex.

Matter is blind it does not act for a purpose. The fact that parts of the brain accommodate the potential for consciousness or acts for specific purpose is evidence of teleology in the universe. Its evidence of God.

Lets put God aside. The universe is infinite and everything is possible within.

I fear that you will never understand

How do you know?

You might not have self consciousness, but for everyone else whom is capable of thinking rationally self consciousness is self evident and that is what we call the mind.

The experience of self is a byproduct of brain activity. You can read more in here.

 

[STT]

We don’t now that physical processes is identical with self consciousness, and there is no sufficient reason to think that is.

There is in fact sufficient reason to think that physical process can leads to specific matter state so called consciousness.

The idea that a physical process is aware of itself is a materialist assumption

No, it is not a material assumption. Matter can have different states, consciousness, unconsciousness, etc. We know by fact that we can change the states of brain, when we sleep or when we are under anesthesia.

and it contradicts our experience of freewill and our ability to act for a purpose.

How did you reach to such a conclusion?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I understand what you are saying but I think we know by fact that we can break the chain of causality when we are in conscious state. That is part of our daily life. Unless you say that all realized options except one, which is related to the true chain of causality, are fake. I however don’t think that evolution or God grants such a useless trait. Therefore, I think we can agree on the fact that the realize options which are the result of motion of matter are real. So I think we should focus on the fact that a unique motion can possibly produce an conscious state with options as realizable entities. We can then choose one of the options since all of them are permissible.

Independently of any “fact of our daily life”, the argument I have presented thoroughly refutes your OP and, obviously as a consequence, you have been unable to respond in a rigorous fashion, which only means you don’t possess the means to rationally support your materialism.

On the other hand, I would like you to clarify what do you mean when you say that we are able to “break the chain of causality”. Let’s suppose a fire is started in a forest owing to the conditions of the vegetation and the intensity of the sun rays. Then, a storm develops and the fire is quenched. Would you say that “a chain of causality” has been broken?

 

[STT]

Independently of any “fact of our daily life”, the argument I have presented thoroughly refutes your OP and, obviously as a consequence, you have been unable to respond in a rigorous fashion, which only means you don’t possess the means to rationally support your materialism.

I think you didn’t understand how conscious state is defined in my previous post. A conscious state is the result of matter activity and can lead to a mode with several realizable permissible options. We can also consciously choose an option. That is how matter is and that is reality that we cannot escape.

What other option do you have? Dualism is dead. We know by scientific facts that monism is correct. We observe correlation between conscious states and activities in the brain.

On the other hand, I would like you to clarify what do you mean when you say that we are able to “break the chain of causality”. Let’s suppose a fire is started in a forest owing to the conditions of the vegetation and the intensity of the sun rays. Then, a storm develops and the fire is quenched. Would you say that “a chain of causality” has been broken?

I think I was clear in my previous comment.

 

[Gorgias]

I think you didn’t understand how conscious state is defined in my previous post. A conscious state is the result of matter activity

That’s your definition. Has it reached consensus here?

If you claim that monism is the only reasonable option, then – presuming that ‘consciousness’ itself is not physical, but merely rises from the activity of physical things – then how can consciousness exist? After all, it’s not a physical thing that you can measure directly.

We know by scientific facts that monism is correct.

That depends, I suppose, on what flavor of ‘monism’ you are asserting.

We observe correlation between conscious states and activities in the brain.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[STT]

That’s your definition. Has it reached consensus here?

That is subject of discussion. What is your definition? Do you have any objection to my definition?

If you claim that monism is the only reasonable option, then – presuming that ‘consciousness’ itself is not physical, but merely rises from the activity of physical things – then how can consciousness exist? After all, it’s not a physical thing that you can measure directly.

Consciousness is just a state of matter like other states, solidity, wetness, etc.

That depends, I suppose, on what flavor of ‘monism’ you are asserting.

Could you please tell us what are the options?

Correlation does not imply causation.

We understand reality through correlation between things. Do you have any other option?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think you didn’t understand how conscious state is defined in my previous post. A conscious state is the result of matter activity and can lead to a mode with several realizable permissible options. We can also consciously choose an option. That is how matter is and that is reality that we cannot escape.

What other option do you have? Dualism is dead. We know by scientific facts that monism is correct. We observe correlation between conscious states and activities in the brain.

Of course you can build all the definitions you like. If your OP is just the announcement of another of your great definitions, that is fine, and I guess in that case there is nothing to discuss with you about it. Nevertheless, I have to say that your definition is entirely useless to me, as I don’t think it applies to our reality.

As for monism being supported by scientific facts, I think you are unable to build a solid argument based on any fact (scientific or not). Further, I don’t think you have the skills to develop a valid argument at all, nor understand why it is valid. But if you think you are able, please try to build a valid argument to sustain your materialist monism. I would like to see it.

I think I was clear in my previous comment.

No, you were not clear. Please respond. Here you have my question again: “I would like you to clarify what do you mean when you say that we are able to “break the chain of causality”. Let’s suppose a fire is started in a forest owing to the conditions of the vegetation and the intensity of the sun rays. Then, a storm develops and the fire is quenched. Would you say that “a chai of causality” has been broken?”.

 

[STT]

Of course you can build all the definitions you like. If your OP is just the announcement of another of your great definitions, that is fine, and I guess in that case there is nothing to discuss with you about it. Nevertheless, I have to say that your definition is entirely useless to me, as I don’t think it applies to our reality.

What is your definition of consciousness? What are your problems with my definition? I think my definition is based on three facts: (1) There is a correlation between brain process and consciousness (scientific fact) and (2) We are internally aware of options and (3) We are internally aware that we can decide. Do you have any problem with these facts?

As for monism being supported by scientific facts, I think you are unable to build a solid argument based on any fact (scientific or not). Further, I don’t think you have the skills to develop a valid argument at all, nor understand why it is valid. But if you think you are able, please try to build a valid argument to sustain your materialist monism. I would like to see it.

I think I just need to show that consciousness is a physical state and there is no mind. There are numerous evidences for that. Have you ever take any medicine for pain, depression, etc? The reason that medicines work is that they directly affect brain process and therefore cause a change in our conscious mode. This means that consciousness is mere experience and there is no mind, in another word all we have is conscious state, experience, and matter, which causes experience. Therefore monism is correct.

No, you were not clear. Please respond. Here you have my question again: “I would like you to clarify what do you mean when you say that we are able to “break the chain of causality”. Let’s suppose a fire is started in a forest owing to the conditions of the vegetation and the intensity of the sun rays. Then, a storm develops and the fire is quenched. Would you say that “a chai of causality” has been broken?”.

By breaking chain of causality I mean that we are are normally in a mental state following the chain of causality (following current option) unless we decide and choose another option.