Is consciousness nothing-in-itself?

[Sir Doom]

That's all good, and philosophers probably developed that method because philosophy in and of itself could not find that evidence or come up with those answers, they could only speculate. I think now the focus should be more on science rather than philosophy.

Wait, so they could only speculate until they came up with the method, huh? And then when they did come up with the method, now philosophy is useless (somehow transforming the method into something that isn't part of philosophy so that it can remain useful)?

That's your story and you're sticking to it?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Wait, so they could only speculate until they came up with the method, huh? And then when they did come up with the method, now philosophy is useless (somehow transforming the method into something that isn't part of philosophy so that it can remain useful)?

That's your story and you're sticking to it?

I think you are twisting my words and misunterstanding what I am trying to say. Oh well, so be it.

 

[John Doe]

People have a tendency of thinking consciousness is some mysterious, non-physical thing that exists everywhere. Consciousness is nothing spiritual or mysterious in my opinion. It is complex chemical interactions.

Find me a single shred of evidence for this.

Also - does that mean that all "complex chemical reactions" are conscious ?

If not, why not.

If so, how is it NOT a "mysterious, non-physical thing" ?

Please indicate any science, theoretical or otherwise, which clearly demonstrates consciousness arising from chemical interactions.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Find me a single shred of evidence for this.

Also - does that mean that all "complex chemical reactions" are conscious ?

If not, why not.

If so, how is it NOT a "mysterious, non-physical thing" ?

Please indicate any science, theoretical or otherwise, which clearly demonstrates consciousness arising from chemical interactions.

Everything is physical in some way, derived from the interactions of matter. Our bodies are composed entirely of matter. Matter is not "conscious", therefore what part of us is actually conscious? The complexity of those interactions is what leads to this feeling or "illusion" we call being conscious.

 

[John Doe]

Everything is physical in some way, derived from the interactions of matter. Our bodies are composed entirely of matter. Matter is not "conscious", therefore what part of us is actually conscious? The complexity of those interactions is what leads to this feeling or "illusion" we call being conscious.

We are entirely matter.

Matter is not conscious.

Therefore we cannot be conscious.


That obviously doesn't work to support your position.


All you have added is 'complexity' (undefined). Is there any science whatsoever indicating that 'complexity' is responsible for a fundamentally novel property of matter ?

And you still have not answered whether any 'complex chemical reaction' is conscious.


If not, then is there ANY science which suggests that a specific kind of complexity necessarily exhibits consciousness ?

 

[Bunyip]

We are entirely matter.

Matter is not conscious.

Therefore we cannot be conscious.


That obviously doesn't work to support your position.


All you have added is 'complexity' (undefined). Is there any science whatsoever indicating that 'complexity' is responsible for a fundamentally novel property of matter ?

And you still have not answered whether any 'complex chemical reaction' is conscious.


If not, then is there ANY science which suggests that a specific kind of complexity necessarily exhibits consciousness ?

Matter can be conscious, we are matter and are conscious.
Consciousness is a property of matter. Why would you would think that because some complex arrangements of matter are conscious (yourself for example) then all complex reactions should be conscious? I don't see why that makes sense to you.

 

[Bunyip]

Wait, so they could only speculate until they came up with the method, huh? And then when they did come up with the method, now philosophy is useless (somehow transforming the method into something that isn't part of philosophy so that it can remain useful)?

That's your story and you're sticking to it?

Philosophy is not useless, it is just insufficient.

Generally a good philosophical argument is very useful in determining where to look for the evidence to confirm it, and what sort of evidence to look for - but it is not evidential in iteself.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Philosophy is not useless, it is just insufficient.

Generally a good philosophical argument is very useful in determining where to look for the evidence to confirm it, and what sort of evidence to look for - but it is not evidential in iteself.

I agree with this and I take back what I said in an earlier post. I said it was useless and that is wrong. Insufficient is more accurate. Thank you.

 

[John Doe]

Matter can be conscious, we are matter and are conscious.
Consciousness is a property of matter. Why would you would think that because some complex arrangements of matter are conscious (yourself for example) then all complex reactions should be conscious? I don't see why that makes sense to you.

I don't see why your position makes sense to you either. That is precisely what I am saying to you.

You said -

Our bodies are composed entirely of matter. Matter is not "conscious"

Now you are saying-

Matter can be conscious, we are matter and are conscious.

Note, those two statements conflict.

UNLESS ! We add the amazing ( and not at all mysterious ! ) magic of ... TA DA ! COMPLEXITY !

And that explains everything.

Whew... we almost had a mystery :areyoucra

* fidgets to distract himself from noticing ZERO science in the magic of complexity creating consciousness *

 

[Sunstone]

I think of consciousness as like an optics or lens through which the world is focused and viewed.

More specifically, it seems to be involved in dividing our perception of the world into subject and object. And if that's the case, then it is involved in the creation of the ego, the "I", the psychological self -- however you want to describe the "subject" in subject/object perception.

It is possible for consciousness to come to an abrupt end while some form of experiencing or awareness remains. When that happens, subject/object perception comes to an end, the "I" comes to an end, and there is a sense of all things being one.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't see why your position makes sense to you either. That is precisely what I am saying to you.

You said -

Now you are saying-


Note, those two statements conflict.

UNLESS ! We add the amazing ( and not at all mysterious ! ) magic of ... TA DA ! COMPLEXITY !

And that explains everything.

Whew... we almost had a mystery :areyoucra

* fidgets to distract himself from noticing ZERO science in the magic of complexity creating consciousness *

Buddy, the first one of those two statements is from a different person. So what if a statement I made conflicts with a statement I did not make?

Consciousness can arise from complex arrangements of matter, it is something that happens thousands of times a day. As you formed in your mothers womb, complex chemicals arrangments eventually rose to consciousness.

 

[Bunyip]

I agree with this and I take back what I said in an earlier post. I said it was useless and that is wrong. Insufficient is more accurate. Thank you.

You're very welcome. Cheers.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Matter can be conscious, we are matter and are conscious.
Consciousness is a property of matter. Why would you would think that because some complex arrangements of matter are conscious (yourself for example) then all complex reactions should be conscious? I don't see why that makes sense to you.

Agreed. Matter, under the right conditions, can lead to a property or state we call conscious. It is the specific complexity and the particular arrangement which causes matter to "appear" conscious.

 

[John Doe]

Buddy, the first one of those two statements is from a different person. So what if a statement I made conflicts with a statement I did not make?

Consciousness can arise from complex arrangements of matter, it is something that happens thousands of times a day. As you formed in your mothers womb, complex chemicals arrangments eventually rose to consciousness.

Settle down. No call for words like 'buddy'

Yes it happens countless times every day.

And you have no idea how. Diddly squat.

 

[Sir Doom]

Philosophy is not useless, it is just insufficient.

Generally a good philosophical argument is very useful in determining where to look for the evidence to confirm it, and what sort of evidence to look for - but it is not evidential in iteself.

I agree, more or less that philosophy is not enough on its own. But what is considered evidential or not is a matter determined almost entirely by philosophy. The very idea that anything needs to be evidential in the first place is a determination of philosophy. How one might proceed with the knowledge gleaned from any given scientific accomplishment is another thing dominated by philosophy, and certainly no less important than making the accomplishment in the first place.

I agree with this and I take back what I said in an earlier post. I said it was useless and that is wrong. Insufficient is more accurate. Thank you.

:namaste

 

[John Doe]

I agree, more or less that philosophy is not enough on its own. But what is considered evidential or not is a matter determined almost entirely by philosophy.

I so very nearly agree with that.

Thing is, the philosophy which we decide determines the result is chosen on the basis of ... [x]

x is one very slippery variable

 

[Sir Doom]

I so very nearly agree with that.

Thing is, the philosophy which we decide determines the result is chosen on the basis of ... [x]

x is one very slippery variable

Its not that slippery, really. It rests solely and completely within the control of the individual. Its an arbitrary distinction determined on the whim of the being it governs, and is capable of being changed as often as desired for any reason.

Okay, that's pretty slippery.

 

[Bunyip]

Settle down. No call for words like 'buddy'

Yes it happens countless times every day.

And you have no idea how. Diddly squat.

That I have no idea how consciousness emerges is your assumption, it is not true though. Organisms becoming conscious is something that is commonplace and into which a great deal of research has been conducted.

I must admit to finding your comment that atheists need to resort to emergence because there is no scientific evidence for how consciousness arises to be hilariously misguided. You have really got things backwards there I'm afraid.

Theism gives no information whatsoever about how consciousness arises, it can teach you nothing about that process. Conversely science has learned a great deal about it. The theory of evolution teaches us more about how complex and conscious organisms emerge than religions ever have. You are criticizing science when it been far more instructive in this case than belief.

 

[John Doe]

That I have no idea how consciousness emerges is your assumption, it is not true though. Organisms becoming conscious is something that is commonplace and into which a great deal of research has been conducted.

Link to some research which indicates how organisms become conscious - and not just how a brain develops, because that does not answer the question of how consciousness arises.

I must admit to finding your comment that atheists need to resort to emergence because there is no scientific evidence for how consciousness arises to be hilariously misguided.

Then you are very easily amused.

You have really got things backwards there I'm afraid.

Back that up with any science explaining how consciousness arises.

Theism gives no information whatsoever about how consciousness arises, it can teach you nothing about that process. Conversely science has learned a great deal about it. The theory of evolution teaches us more about how complex and conscious organisms emerge than religions ever have. You are criticizing science when it been far more instructive in this case than belief.

I am an atheist with an appreciation of science.

I have not criticised science AT ALL.

I am however criticising pseudo-scientific dilettantes for making the entirely false claim that science has explained consciousness.

If you know I'm wrong, link please.

Back up your outrageous false claims or stop making them. If you really had respect for science, you would not so flagrantly misrepresent it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Link to some research which indicates how organisms become conscious - and not just how a brain develops, because that does not answer the question of how consciousness arises.

First off... What is conscious versus what is not? What part of all the matter, atoms, proteins, or molecules which make up my body are actually conscious? Is matter conscious? I don't think so. Is the matter in my brain any more conscious? No.

The way I see it, and I was trying to allude this earlier...consciousness is an "illusion" generated by the complex interactions of certain forms of matter. Under the right conditions and given enough time, certain forms of matter may eventually grow in complexity. Due to the complexity with which these forms interact, they may appear more animated, or lifelike, or aware, or conscious. It is really just physical processes at work. Therefore, creatures did not really "become conscious", they (those complex forms) simply started interacting more with their environment.


---