Atheist Realism?
- Thread starter ronan
- Start date
No, look:
a substance which is conscious is not unconscious
a substance whic is unconscious is not conscious
ok?
So if A1) and A2) fails (matter being unconscious) then A3 is the only option.
The point is that if the hard problem fails then the basis of our experiences are based on an conscious subtance (consciousness)
maybe this conscious substance (consciousness) is composed of intereacting conscious particles but that it another point.
the point here is that it is consciousness alone that cause consciousness : A3) if the hard problem is impossible
Spider, I marvel at the simplicity of your words. I've never heard it put so succinctly. That wonderful collective of 100 billion individual living cells doing its thing.
Ronan,
I don’t see how any substance can be conscious. And unconscious is a term that does not apply to a substance not capable of being conscious. I can see how consciousness can emerge from arrangements of substances (matter), but they in themselves are not capable of being conscious.
Unless you mean something not obvious by your term “substance”.
If consciousness is not derived from matter then you are left with the question of how consciousness is caused. Your only proposition is that it is uncaused but that has no precedent for justification. There are two concerns here –
1. Consciousness is not observed on its own. Matter is always present. Suggesting that matter plays a role regardless.
2. Consciousness is complex and everything complex we know is derived from simpler components. Suggesting that consciousness requires a cause.
So if consciousness is not derived from matter how would you explain its cause apart from asserting it must be uncaused which is unjustified?
Note that since matter is always present then that suggests that consciousness is dependent on matter for its existence. That further leads us to conclude there is an interaction between matter and consciousness. That further suggests that matter is the cause of consciousness.
While your attempt at simple logic might seem sound it doesn’t pass the test of practical observations.
Once you realize that there is a direct correlation and relationship between matter and consciousness, i.e. consciousness cannot exist separate to matter, and we know anything complex is always derived from simpler components then the only choice you have remaining is that consciousness is an emergent property of matter appropriately configured.
There is no meaningful alternative. This suggests the hard problem will eventually be solved.
If indeed the universe only has matter and consciousness, as you imply, and we can see that consciousness needs a cause then consciousness MUST be derived from matter.
All of which might make sense if substances (whatever that means) are capable of being conscious.
I don’t see how any substance can be conscious. And unconscious is a term that does not apply to a substance not capable of being conscious. I can see how consciousness can emerge from arrangements of substances (matter), but they in themselves are not capable of being conscious.
No. The terms conscious and unconscious are inappropriate when applied to matter.
Unless you mean something not obvious by your term “substance”.
No that doesn’t follow. The hard problem is the question of how consciousness can be derived from matter.
If consciousness is not derived from matter then you are left with the question of how consciousness is caused. Your only proposition is that it is uncaused but that has no precedent for justification. There are two concerns here –
1. Consciousness is not observed on its own. Matter is always present. Suggesting that matter plays a role regardless.
2. Consciousness is complex and everything complex we know is derived from simpler components. Suggesting that consciousness requires a cause.
So if consciousness is not derived from matter how would you explain its cause apart from asserting it must be uncaused which is unjustified?
An interesting speculation. How does matter play a role since that is always present?
Note that since matter is always present then that suggests that consciousness is dependent on matter for its existence. That further leads us to conclude there is an interaction between matter and consciousness. That further suggests that matter is the cause of consciousness.
And that cause must have a cause which must have a cause etc. There is no precedent for complexity not being caused by something simpler. IOW there is no basis to assert that complexity begins from equal complexity.
While your attempt at simple logic might seem sound it doesn’t pass the test of practical observations.
Once you realize that there is a direct correlation and relationship between matter and consciousness, i.e. consciousness cannot exist separate to matter, and we know anything complex is always derived from simpler components then the only choice you have remaining is that consciousness is an emergent property of matter appropriately configured.
There is no meaningful alternative. This suggests the hard problem will eventually be solved.
If indeed the universe only has matter and consciousness, as you imply, and we can see that consciousness needs a cause then consciousness MUST be derived from matter.
Last edited:
You cannot see how a substance can be conscious.
I cannot see how unconscious matter can give rise to consciousness
This is why we are arguing
That is why matter is probably not able to give rise to consciousness
probably
exactly,
so if the hard problem is proved to be impossible
it follows that consciousness can not come from matter (unconscious substance) but consciousness exist,
So consciousness has to come from a conscious substance (consciousness)
You have the same problem with matter: what is its cause?
You assume that matter exist but if we doubt everything, we cannot be sure that matter really exist, we only know that consciousness exist.
Sure you can assume that it exist (A2 and A1) but if you prove that the hatrd problem is impossible then you have to conclude that matter cannot play a role in consciousness
You have the same problem with matter: what is its cause?
You assume it is present
Did you realize that you did not justify the fact that matter is always present?
Remember the point here is before attempting to prove the hard problem.
if the hard problem is impossible you have to forgot matter.
That was the point at issue. We are not yet at the stage of debating whether the hard problem is possible or not. The point I want you to agree or fight is that IF the hard problem is impossible it follows that matter can not give rise to consciousness (obvious) and that it means that consciousness has to arise from consciousness
I disagree,you are using a circular argument
I never say that matter existed!
As you said matter is unconscious so for me it cannot be proved to exist.
To resume:
R1) consciousness exist
R2) IF hard problem is impossible matter can not give rise to consciousness
-> consciousness has to come from consciousness
R3) IF hard problem is possible you can ASSUME the existence of matter that would give rise to consciousness
BUT you cannot prove the existence of this matter because it is unconscious
Ronan,
“
“
“
That’s a limitation on your part that you do not comprehend emergence.
That doesn’t follow. Complexity arises from simpler components.
“
You’ve said that already and it ignores practical observations.
Matter is the fabric from which everything else results. Current theories propose strings. Don’t confuse cause with creation. Observation tells us that nothing is ever created or destroyed and that infinity is necessary.
Doubting that matter exists doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. While doubting everything other than yourself is a fascinating intellectual nuance it is irrelevant for this debate to continue. While we accept consciousness, what then, what does it operate on other than matter? Consciousness only will be in a void, it follows then that what we observe, matter, actually exists.
If that is true then you need an alternate credible cause for consciousness, and since it appears to depend on matter you have a fundamental problem.
No it is not a similar issue. Consciousness is exceptionally complex; matter can be reduced to extreme simplicity. Everything from experience and from observation can be reduced to simpler building blocks. Science continues to look deeper into fundamentals of the universe to find those simplest building materials. That is reality.
“
It is plainly idiotic to ignore it.
Explained already.
“
No since it obviously plays a role otherwise why do we not see consciousness on it own.
A conclusion that is fundamentally flawed. You will first have to explain how complexity can arise from anything other than something simpler, and why matter is always present where there is consciousness.
Why so? The dependencies are clear.
You already implied it exists by introducing the term unconscious substance. Your argument is based on matter existing.
But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you pursue this line then your only conclusion can be that you are the only thing that exists and there is nothing else, which is a point beyond which we cannot proceed until you recognize that beyond consciousness is matter, i.e. the universe – that which consciousness operates within and upon.
Invalid conclusions as I have already described.
It is simply foolish to continue to ignore the axiom that matter exists, otherwise you cannot proceed with any meaningful debate.
Ronan:
What is your argument for this?
What is your argument for this?
please quote me where I explain it.
This is a quote out of context
I could say the same thing for you in the other case.
I told you it is the point at issue.
Creation from what ?
if you say from nothing, then I can say the same thing for consciousness
if you say from other unconscious matter ad infinitum , I can also say that it come from consciousness ad infinitum
cause from what?
if you say from nothing, then I can say the same thing for consciousness
if you say from other unconscious matter that existed for eternity , I can also say that it come from consciousness that existed for eternity
Not if the hard problem is impossible. We are not yet at this point of the argument
It appears only for you
you assume that matter is always present where there is consciousness
I never said that the unconscious substance existed.
On the contrary I said that if the hard problem is impossible (wh9ich I believe is , but we will argue that next) then this unconscious substance has no role for consciousness and in this case, it does not matter if it exist or not
no "I " do not exist as the one we believe we are,
only consciousness exist, indeed it is my point, but first let agree on one point:
IF THE HARD PROBLEM IS PROVED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE
THEN MATTER CANNOT GIVE RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS (obvious)
Ronan:
Here it is, bro.
Here it is, bro.
1) consciousness exists
2) we can make three assumptions:
A1) the perceptions are based on an unconscious substance
consciousness is another substance which interact with the unconscious substance to form specific experiences.
=> dualism
A2) the perceptions are based on an unconscious substance
consciousness is caused by this unconscious substance as well
=> physical monism
A3) the perceptions are based on consciousness itself
=> consciousness monism
All these 3 assumptions requires proof:
for A1) you have to prove that unconscious substance exists and that consciousness and unconscious substance can interact
for A2) you have to prove that unconscious substance exists and that unconscious substance can give rise to consciousness + perceptions.
for A3) you have to prove that the content is is a result of consciousness alone
Note: You can do prove A3) if you disprove A1) and A2) , namely, that an unconscious substance can not give rise to consciousness and cannot interact with it.
Note: you cannot prove A1) and A2) because unconscious substance cannot be experienced.
while you cannot prove that unconscious substance does not exist neither, if the interaction is prove to be impossible, it would mean that even if it exists it would have no consequence on our experiences.
As I said in a later post the link between unconscious substance and consciousness is the hard problem:
So if the hard problem is proved to be impossible, then A3) is true because A1) and A2) are impossible
For me the hard problem is impossible
why?
because no matter how complex is the relation of a supposed unconscious substance (matter), we will have to use a property that make it magically conscious.
emergence is something happening in complex system where behavior emerge that was not really predictable (neural networks, automata, genetic algorithms...)
the supposed emergence of consciousness is something we never encountered. You cannot compare the two.
First all we will use as a theory of emergence of consciousness will be concept inside consciousness. They will not explained in the first place why we have such concept.
Secondly, by knowing everything about the matter, the only way to know what is the result in consciousness would be to live it. So no matter how much you know about the matter, you will have to experience to know.
so matter itself is not enough to explain consciousness
2) we can make three assumptions:
A1) the perceptions are based on an unconscious substance
consciousness is another substance which interact with the unconscious substance to form specific experiences.
=> dualism
A2) the perceptions are based on an unconscious substance
consciousness is caused by this unconscious substance as well
=> physical monism
A3) the perceptions are based on consciousness itself
=> consciousness monism
All these 3 assumptions requires proof:
for A1) you have to prove that unconscious substance exists and that consciousness and unconscious substance can interact
for A2) you have to prove that unconscious substance exists and that unconscious substance can give rise to consciousness + perceptions.
for A3) you have to prove that the content is is a result of consciousness alone
Note: You can do prove A3) if you disprove A1) and A2) , namely, that an unconscious substance can not give rise to consciousness and cannot interact with it.
Note: you cannot prove A1) and A2) because unconscious substance cannot be experienced.
while you cannot prove that unconscious substance does not exist neither, if the interaction is prove to be impossible, it would mean that even if it exists it would have no consequence on our experiences.
As I said in a later post the link between unconscious substance and consciousness is the hard problem:
So if the hard problem is proved to be impossible, then A3) is true because A1) and A2) are impossible
For me the hard problem is impossible
why?
because no matter how complex is the relation of a supposed unconscious substance (matter), we will have to use a property that make it magically conscious.
emergence is something happening in complex system where behavior emerge that was not really predictable (neural networks, automata, genetic algorithms...)
the supposed emergence of consciousness is something we never encountered. You cannot compare the two.
First all we will use as a theory of emergence of consciousness will be concept inside consciousness. They will not explained in the first place why we have such concept.
Secondly, by knowing everything about the matter, the only way to know what is the result in consciousness would be to live it. So no matter how much you know about the matter, you will have to experience to know.
so matter itself is not enough to explain consciousness
Ronan:
Can you clarify this statement before I respond to the whole later?
Can you clarify this statement before I respond to the whole later?
Can you experience unconsciousness?
of course not
So we can only suppose it exists, not prove it.
Because everything that we will use to try to prove it will be part of our experiences and thus part of our consciousness
Ronan,
Your “IF” scenario of “The hard problem is impossible” is a what-if proposition. Part of such a proposition is to examine the alternatives. If the alternatives are not credible then the original what-if becomes an invalid scenario.
You want to conclude that consciousness has either no cause or is caused by consciousness. Your only basis is the assumption that the hard problem is impossible. What you need to do is substantiate the claim that consciousness has a credible alternative, and I don’t see you have come close. If we examine your assertion carefully it has fundamental flaws. That leads us to conclude that the hard problem cannot be impossible.
I have no case for creation. There is no precedent for it.
From simpler components, as we observe with everything.
I don’t, I say from simpler components as we observe. Consciousness being complex is likely to have a similar requirement.
No, it is not similar. Matter at its component level is simple, consciousness is complex. We have no precedent for complexity to arrive without simpler steps.
Matter exists whether the hard problem is solved or not. Matter is essential to the issue of the hard problem, and since you are quoting it then you are already assuming that matter exists.
Not when you haven’t presented a credible alternative.
Our only frame of reference for consciousness is ourseleves and we are fundamentally made of matter. There is zero precedent or evidence for consciousness to exist without matter.
Either unconscious substance is matter or it is not. If it isn’t then I have no idea what you are talking about.
Your “IF” scenario of “The hard problem is impossible” is a what-if proposition. Part of such a proposition is to examine the alternatives. If the alternatives are not credible then the original what-if becomes an invalid scenario.
I thought we had already agreed that consciousness and I are synonymous.
Not disputed, it is the conclusion you draw from that that I dispute.
You want to conclude that consciousness has either no cause or is caused by consciousness. Your only basis is the assumption that the hard problem is impossible. What you need to do is substantiate the claim that consciousness has a credible alternative, and I don’t see you have come close. If we examine your assertion carefully it has fundamental flaws. That leads us to conclude that the hard problem cannot be impossible.
Ronan:
So basically, what you're arguining is that we have no actual experience of non-conscious because everything we see is through our consciousness? Thus a rock is not an example of something which is non-conscious, because our consciousness perceives it?
So basically, what you're arguining is that we have no actual experience of non-conscious because everything we see is through our consciousness? Thus a rock is not an example of something which is non-conscious, because our consciousness perceives it?
By your argument - being completely incapable of "experiencing" life as a frog, one can only suppose a frog exists. You'll excuse me for passing you off as a twit.
In the same manner that, to the only viable meaning of the word, we can "prove" a frog exists, we can "prove" unconsciousness" exists. Indeed boxing is a testament to it. There is a reason, would you believe, that boxers punch each other in the head as opposed to in the big toe. Look at a boxing match.. Ask yourself why they bother smacking each other right in the head.. Why did Ali not smack his opponent in the bottom? Why does the ten count never happen when the opponent is bitten on the ear, (Tyson you mean old bastard!)?
Are you conveying the childly idiocy of "we might live in the matrix hence everything you say is meaningless"? If so I feel sorry for you, I shall at once declare the gun I shoot you with doesn't really exist and be done with it. To the degree of seriousness, one can show unconsciousness as much as they can show you died from a bullet.. from my gun. If you want to pretend it "might not be real" can you argue it after I've shot you? We'll take this up in matrixville.. whats your address, my arguably non-existent pistol needs to see action?
SnakeLord, please understand my point, I don't deny my existence for pragmatical reason but
by logical reason I have to doubt it.
Yes, It is not an example, you are not experiencing consciousness when you see a rock.
And you cannot logically prove that unconsciousness exists from seeing a rock.
If I am not experiencing consciousness when I see a rock the alternative is that I am experiencing unconsciousness, which you say is impossible. I would say that I was conscious of seeing a rock. Why do you disagree.
And the cause for this simpler components?
You see, you have to go ad infinitum as well
and if you say that there exists some atom (not further divisible) then you have to say that they were always there.
I can say the same thing for consciousness
consciousness being complex ?
Please do not go in such argument, complexity is what maybe you see in your perceptions, but you cannot say that for consciousness itself. You simply don't know (you assume that it is complex)
please note that complexity can come from misunderstanding.
Stop assuming matter exist.
I believed you understood that by doubting everything, only consciousness stay.
Exactly matter is essential to the hard problem
so if the hard problem is impossible we have to quit the hard problem and conclude that consciousness is not the consequence of matter.
It is not because I am quoting it that it follows that I believe it exists (where did you get this argument?)
What do you want by credible ? brain? please be open.
You ASSUME that you are matter.
Let define matter as being unconscious and in this case if the hard problem is impossible then matter do not cause consciousness
You are the one who say that the alternatives (consciousness alone exists) are not credible.
No!
We agreed that if the "I" is not what you believe you are when you think of your body, your habits... which are perceptions, then this "I" is consciousness.
But if you say that the "I" is what you believe you are when you talk about your habits, your body, your clothes... then you are maybe wrong (a butterfly dreaming that he/she is a human)
Remember we have to doubt our perceptions of ourselves.
What are the fundamental flaws saying that consciousness alone exists?
That perceptions could not have existed?
What if it is a property of consciousness to have content (What we see in our experiences in fact)