Is consciousness nothing-in-itself?

[raw_thought]

But this idea of 'physical forces' also needs to be examined.

From one point of view, all forces may be defined as physical. The question then becomes - "Are there physical forces of a kind about which we know nothing ?"

In other words, there is no supernatural, but that does not mean we have understood, or even noticed, all natural forces.

This is why I will not accept that 'awareness' is currently explained in terms of the physical forces which constitute our model so far. There is a fundamental difference between 'event' and 'experience', and so far science has not plumbed the depths of this. The suggestion that there is still something to discover is not a suggestion of 'the supernatural', but of 'the unknown'.

But if everything is defined as physical, then the definition is meaningless. True, one can say that consciousness is dependent on the brain ( physical) but now that matter has been shown to violate basic common sense * ( Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) , it is better to say,


The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.

James Jeans quotes
* Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) was invented because at the quantum level A does not have to = A! When one says, " all is physical" it gives the impression that reality is geometrical. In reality, a particle can be here and there!
If one says that consciousness= brain states, it is just as legitimate to say " brain states = consciousness." If A=B then B=A. I agree with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Spinoza idealism and materialism are perspectives, that converge at the truth. An outside ( objectivity) requires an inside ( subjectivity.)

 

[raw_thought]

Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) *
"substance" is like existence, it is not a predicate. Philosophy of Religion » Existence is not a Predicate
Only predicates are quantifiable. Science only deals with the measurable.
Subjects are not quantifiable. However, try having a predicate ( lets say "red") without a subject ( something that is red).
* The irony is that materialism is based on the very metaphysical ( I am using the term "metaphysical" in its philosophical sense, not its new age sense. I am not talking about bending spoons or crystals) concept "substance"! "Substance" can best be understood by understanding http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-haecceity/ , a very metaphysical concept!

 

[raw_thought]

To address your initial objection to philosophy as inadequate, it's important to understand that different fields of study have different applications. Science would also be inadequate without philosophy.

But what is philosophy? It means the love of wisdom or truth. Personal definition is that it is also the art of thinking well. To go forwards in philosophy, you generally have to go backwards to begin with. This is because when people start thinking about anything in great depth they usually start halfway up some very shallow, muddy conceptual **** creek. They get stuck in this obscure, overgrown place where various assumptions that haven't been thought through have drifted and gathered over many years.

Philosophy is largely about dumping those assumptions overboard and carefully backing out of the shallow waters of the conceptual **** creek into the deep open ocean of the open mind. Philosophy builds by destroying assumptions. From out on the open ocean, we may finally notice the broad mouth of the estuary that leads to truth. The truth being, incidentally, that life is not a conceptual, but a very real existential **** creek, despite what the fluffy-bunny brigade wants us to believe.

I agree!
[youtube]KZoChLxaWoE[/youtube]
René Magritte on the Nature of the Object. - YouTube