Is consciousness emergent from matter?
No reason to not think it can be.
>>18769872You wouldn't be experiencing consciousness without a brain
>>18769872The fact that there are levels of how aware we are of our consciousness, for exemple when we wake up, should show that what we experience as consciousness is not the consciousness itself but different records communicating together, in that sense, maybe the tiniest amount of matter has a phenomenal experience, but lacks the structures to memorize it.Or maybe consciousness is not real
>>18769913You wouldn't be experiencing a whirlpool without a sea
Consciousness is not an independent process and is a response to the stimuli around it through its internal mechanisms. Therefore if its matter dependent, then it must be emergent from it as well.
>>18769883Because it is absurd>>18769913No proof, and also no relevance>>18769939Non sequitur, also absurd.>>18770062It does not follow because it can also be dependent on the immaterial soul.
>>18769872define consciousness
>>18769872The basis of consciousness is material, but qualia is based on emergent, nonmaterial phenomenon
>>18770087That's not a non sequitur
>>18769872Obviously so.
>>18770087Souls are absurd and have no evidence.
Consciousness is like a mold on reality. Eventually ti dies out and goes back to being sterile atoms like everything else.
>>18770087>it can also be dependent on the immaterial soul.Why not dependent upon a magic spell cast by Zeus in the age before Man? You have just as much evidence for one as the other.
>>18770120>>18770136euphoric *tips fedora*You would think if its case was not strong, it could be refuted by other, more rational means than acting like a clown and embarrassing yourself. Now, I would also need to know what you mean by evidence? Is it empirical evidence or detection by the senses only? If so, then it must absolutely denied that this is absolutely necessary for all beliefs, empiricism is absurd like materialism. If not, then it is false, because the existence of the soul is proven by direct experience and necessity, since its negation is impossible. For either man has a soul, or man has no mind.
>>18769872I'm trapped in a dead bed marriage despite both of us being young and the prospect of having to possibly support my unemployed wife who'll most likely drop out of the workforce. Which after years of financial abuse towards me both my parents fills me with utter dread.Regardless of us being conscious energy immaterial beings or us just being apes and nothing but else clever apes doesn't change the fact I want to howl at the hills.
>>18770177Seek peace in Christ, and consider His teaching about the birds of the air. Also tell your wife about these things, and admonish her to fulfill her wifely duties.
drugs prove that consciousness is material in nature. We have direct and verifiable evidence that chemicals directly interact with synapses in our brain that alter our consciousness. Our qualia relies on indeterminate timesteps between mental states, and it's this temporal aspect of our qualia that makes reducing it down to its material means complex
>>18769872Christians will look at that monkey and tell you it's not conscious.
>>18770271This does not follow, because 1. If an immaterial substance may influence a material one (as all dualists affirm) then likewise a material substance may influence an immaterial one. 2. There is no need to mention drugs specifically, for all things which affect our bodies affect our minds. If you touch me, I feel it, if the sun shines on me, I see it, what need was there to talk of drugs? All that has been established is that the brain and nervous system are involved in qualia, which was easily established from any stimulus, yet those other more typical kinds of influences do not seem to be compelling evidences to materialists, perhaps because the conclusion is not of any consequence to the question. The only way material influence upon the brain would have no influence upon mental states would be if the brain had no relation to mental states, and I am not aware of *any* philosophy of mind which has ever affirmed that. This is, therefore, the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
>>18769872>Is consciousness emergent from matter?Is a room emergent from its walls or the emptiness inside? Consciousness doesn't exit.
>>18770501Doesn’t exit what?
>>18770087>because it can also be dependent on the immaterial soul.how about a material soul?'Magic in the Cloister. Pious Motives, Illicit Interest, and and Occult Approaches to the Medieval Universe' (2013):"The idea that animals had limited souls (i.e., that endowed them with life and movement) was not in itself problematic to medieval thinkers, who followed Aristotle’s hierarchy in placing animal souls between those of plants and humans. Nevertheless, the *Liber vaccae* was transgressive because it claimed that the living soul of an animal could be extracted by the operator and used to create a new being that was endowed with reason.""many of the animal ingredients for the experiments were chosen because they adhered to Platonic and Aristotelian theories about the parts of the animal body in which the soul resided. Second, many experiments, including the most complex, are accompanied by instructions for a mixture of natural ingredients (often called the “medicina”) that will act as a catalyst. Third, some experiments manipulate living creatures by feeding them particular substances, starving them, or keeping them in confined spaces.""Blaisius of Parma (ca. 1347–1416) <...>, arguing in his 1385 treatise on the soul that human beings and their souls could be generated spontaneously with the aid of celestial influences because the human soul was inseparable from its body and therefore mortal, like the souls of other animals.[100] <...> Ultimately, the alchemical humanoid or homunculus is rather elusive in the late Middle Ages, but it achieved a vivid expression in Paracelsus’s *De natura rerum* (ca. 1537), where parallels with the *Liber vaccae*—the use of human sperm, an incubation period of forty days, the feeding of blood to the incomplete creature, and its ability at maturity to reveal magical and alchemical secrets—make it likely that Paracelsus was influenced by the magic text."
>>18770522"The first two experiments for the creation of a rational animal are similar and can be divided into three stages: first, the operator is told how to prepare the female animal (a cow or sheep in the first recipe, an ape in the second) in order to create the right conditions for the birth of the magical creature; then the offspring is described, and the operator is told how to prepare it for slaughter. Finally, the magical uses of the parts and substances of the creature’s body are described. In the first experiment, semen is mixed with “sun stone,” sulfur, a magnet, and green zinc stirred with the sap of a white willow. The resulting *medicina* is placed in the vulva of a cow or sheep. The cow is then smeared with the blood of a sheep (or vice versa). In the second experiment the sun stone is mixed with the gallbladder of a white hawk before being placed in an ape’s vulva, and the ape is then smeared with the blood of a tortoise. The human ingredient is added when the ape is fed meat that has been steeped in the blood of a son of Adam (*infusa in sanguine filii Ade*)."
>>18769872The fact that it follows the arrow of time and exists only in the now suggests it is dependent on an ongoing material process that follows entropy; immaterial hypotheses have no answer for these aspects of consciousness
>>18770525What do you mean by “exists only in the now”?
>>18770527You don't experience your future or past consciousness
>>18770531Who does experience them then?
>>18770527NTA but what he means is that time is a symmetric vector that is infinitely long in both directions, meaning advancing further in time does not advance our position on the vector and vice-versa. What this tells us is that entropy effectively gets infinitely smaller in one direction of time and infinitely larger in the other, and our experience of time is simply derived from the asymmetry of this property within a symmetric vector. Or in other words, the present is really all we can ever experience, and this presence is effectively just one static timestep where entropy increases infinitely within said timestep according to the laws of physics
>>18770533The youb that is at the appropiate time coordinate
>>18770534Word salad. We only experience the present in the present, but the future will be experienced in the future and the past was experienced in the past. Time is like a map which all exists at once but is marked at different points, objectively it is all ontologically equal, and only one’s subjective perspective is all that distinguishes past, present and future.
>>18770536So I do experience my past and future states then.
>>18770538>but the future will be experienced in the future and the past was experienced in the past. Right, but you can only speculate the future and remember the past from within a present context
>>18770539No the you now; you don't experience being a few meters from your current position until you get there, the relationship is local.
>>18770543There’s only one me.>>18770541My point is that past, present and future are not really distinct.
>>18770538>Word salad.Welcome to the world of theoretical physics
>>18770546>My point is that past, present and future are not really distinct. They are from your pov; that local relation between you and your position is what matters; if you then add emtropy it perfecly descrobes how we experience consciousness as a constant now
>>18770546>There’s only one meSure but not at the same place
>>18770549It would be more correct to say I experienced the past in the past, experience the present in the present, and will experience the future in the future.
>>18770159>euphoric *tips fedora*There is nothing euphoric about his statement, it's supposed to show how dumb and unfalsifiable immaterial consciousness theories are. Saying "cast by Zeus before time" is logically just as valid and thus equally coherent as saying "there's an invisible soul we cannot measure but it totally controls our brain"
>>18770552You cold say that but these points are all distinct; you in the past isn't were you in the future is; you only have access to "you" locally moment by moment
>>18770556>wereWhere
>>18770555It is an appeal to ridicule fallacy, and merits contempt rather than refutation. You are a complete moron.
>>18770564>appeal to ridiculeExcept you just fell into the trap. You saying it's an appeal to ridicule means you find that theory not valid and ridiculous, despite it being just as valid. Ergo, you clearly have personal bias when it comes to theories of mind and cannot argue while being logically consistent.
>>18770565I find you ridiculous, clown. Go back to eating crayons
>>18770567>no argumentAs expected, when confronted with logical inconsistencies.
>>18770569Great job, you did it, you’re a woman now.
>>18770087okay so instead of saying everyone is wrong, why not enlighten us instead with your beautiful truth?
>>18769872Brain itself is matter; consciousness is the condition of the possibility of the existence of matter, therefore consciousness is the possibility of the existence of the brain. Materialists ironically don't know what matter is and simply take its existence for granted as a thing in itself, when its existence is relative and dependent on the means by which it's experienced.
>>18770633Who is experiencing a barren lifeless planet?
>>18770087I agree that dualism is absurd, yes.
>>18770696God (YHWH)
>>18770633>consciousness is the condition of the possibility of the existence of matterWtf are you saying, retard? That's not what consciousness is.
>>18770786Sure jan
>>18770696Wdym?>>18770792It's what it is in relation to matter, which is what OP was asking about. Matter doesn't condition consciousness, although consciousness conditions matter.
>>18770815>It's what it is in relation to matterNope, it's incoherent nonsense.
>>18770820Transcendental idealism, not immanent empiricism.
>>18770822>produces more schizobabbleYou're in need of meds
>>18770825Transcendental idealism is my medication.
Idealists and dualists sure act smug when constantly seething about physicalism, but don't you dare a for even a nanosecond discuss their beliefs (it immediately reveals how retarded they are)
>>18770838Physicaliists still can't define life so further discussions are pointless
>What Kant opposed as thing in itself to mere phenomenon—called more decidedly by me representation—and what he held to be absolutely unknowable, that this thing in itself, this substratum of all phenomena, and therefore of the whole of Nature, is nothing but what we know directly and intimately and find within ourselves as the will;>that accordingly, this will, far from being inseparable from, and even a mere result of, knowledge, differs radically and entirely from, and is quite independent of, knowledge, which is secondary and of later origin; and can consequently subsist and manifest itself without knowledge: a thing which actually takes place throughout the whole of Nature, from the animal kingdom downwards;>that this will, being the one and only thing in itself, the sole truly real, primary, metaphysical thing in a world in which everything else is only phenomenon—i.e. mere representation—gives all things, whatever they may be, the power to exist and to act;>that accordingly, not only the voluntary actions of animals, but the organic mechanism, nay even the shape and quality of their living body, the vegetation of plants and finally, even in inorganic Nature, crystallization, and in general every primary force which manifests itself in physical and chemical phenomena, not excepting Gravity,—that all this, I say, in itself, i.e. independently of phenomenon (which only means, independently of our brain and its representations), is absolutely identical with the will we find within us and know as intimately as we can know anything;>that further, the individual manifestations of the will are set in motion by motives in beings gifted with an intellect, but no less by stimuli in the organic life of animals and of plants, and finally in all inorganic Nature, by causes in the narrowest sense of the word—these distinctions applying exclusively to phenomena;[1/2]
>that, on the other hand, knowledge with its substratum, the intellect, is a merely secondary phenomenon, differing completely from the will, only accompanying its higher degrees of objectification and not essential to it; which, as it depends upon the manifestations of the will in the animal organism, is therefore physical, and not, like the will, metaphysical;>that we are never able therefore to infer absence of will from absence of knowledge; for the will may be pointed out even in all phenomena of unconscious Nature, whether in plants or in inorganic bodies; in short,>that the will is not conditioned by knowledge, as has hitherto been universally assumed, although knowledge is conditioned by the will.[2/2]
>>18770872>Physicaliists still can't define lifeCan you?
>>18770919I can't, but I don't bullshit people that I have it all figured out.
>>18770959>I can't Then why are you seething about physicalists? They don't pretend to know all answers about life
>>18770980>Then why are you seething about physicalists?I am not>They don't pretend to know all answers about lifeThey do because the Science™ is settled
>>18771063Do anti-physicalists only speak in buzzwords and get triggered at any mention of something that contradicts their beliefs? Do they expect to be taken seriously when they don't offer any explanations based on things that can be observed? All they say is "reddit fedora atheism euphoric", like fucking bots lol.
>>18771070Why do you feel so called out? Calm down, go for a walk. This is not healthy.
>>18771063>I am not>seethes in the next sentence about muh evil scienceKek
>>18771139Stop projecting. Physicalists are the only ones throwing a tantrum if their dogma isn't accepted. See here>>18771070
>>18770134That's kinda sad.
>>18770290>If an immaterial substance may influence a material one (as all dualists affirm) then likewise a material substance may influence an immaterial one.This is irrelevant since there are no immaterial substances.>Yes there are.Oh really? Show me one.
>>18770159Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Put forth anything in support of a nonmaterialistic soul.
