An argument against materialism

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=482606 time=1606804850 user_id=5396]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482577 time=1606787951 user_id=15238]
[quote=Dimebag post_id=482573 time=1606786634 user_id=5396]
In the end, it is concepts which are going to have to explain consciousness in terms of brain mechanisms. The problem is, concepts require a lower level to explain things in terms of something else. But if the case is that consciousness is identical to certain brain mechanisms, you have nothing other than brain mechanisms to explain an experience, which leaves it as being purely correlational if you are trying to treat conscious experience as something different from what the brain is doing. Identical is not correlation. Ultimately, there may be no satisfying why answer, only an if then statement.
[/quote]

An answer is a framework for understanding and we have one that's perfectly reasonable and obvious, despite not yet being exhaustive. Mind Only means patterns in the brain, and consciousness is Only a subset of mind, kapiche? Materialism is both necessary and sufficient.
[/quote]
So the question then is, what is the nature of that subset of conscious patterns that distinguishes it from non conscious patterns? What properties do conscious patterns have that non conscious patterns don’t.

And what differences are the ones which make the difference, and then, why do those differences make such a difference?
[/quote]

Now we're getting somewhere. In this sense, what matters is attention. Our conscious experience corresponds to what we're paying attention to, and if we can track how attention moves from this to that, we'll at least be able to map the line between conscious and unconscious experience, and that'd be something. If we can map what we're actively aware of, that's the attention fairy that's the most meaningful piece of consciousness within that conscious realm of possible thought. Awareness is the difference between conscious and sub-conscious patterns, not that the line is necessarily so precise as it seems, which is why i use the conscious area map as an intermediate step. Beyond this conjecture on how to narrow it down, it's a problem for neuroscience. I have logic, not neurological scanning equipment. Anyhow, now we're thinking on a track that can at least potentially lead to deeper answers.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=482635 time=1606827881 user_id=11118]
[quote=bahman post_id=467262 time=1597929046 user_id=12593]
All particles in the universe are interacting with each other. This means that we have one process. Materialism claims that consciousness is the result of process in matter. Therefore there should be one consciousness. There are more than one consciousness. Therefore materialism is false.
[/quote]
You missed that consciousness can be RELATIVE. That is, it may be both one and many but dependent upon perspective.

For example, a pair of twins each have independent consciousness from each of their perspectives. But they also have a "collective consciousness" when they share the same evironmental reactions in sync with one another. I, as a twin, know this. We do not have a completed shared consciousness unless we are responding in the presence of each other and the degree of this is only minimal. It relates to both having the same modular logic as 'cells construction and architecture' AND to the degree they are active with the same 'frequency' and complementary phases. The same goes between ANY two or more beings AND includes all the physical factors down to their subatomic particles. For instance, all electrons have the same 'properties' because they share the same construction and architecture. As such, they behave in the same way BUT in different phases and proximaty.

While this is more complex to express in a mere post response, you are wrong in ignoring the 'relativity' factor. You CAN have both a one AND many consciousness. The independent parts of Earth 'percieve' reality locally even though on the whole, the Earth acts as one whole collective consciousness. Thus, materialism is not necessarily false by your argument.
[/quote]

But consciousness isn't related to perspective, it IS perspective. What you see/think/know/experience that nobody else can is perspective. That perspective is also ego/self/the explanatory story we tell ourselves about what our subconscious does when we're not paying attention and our position in the wider world. We only have collective Understanding (not consciousness) to the extent we share that perspective, based on internal representations and interpretations of the external. Collective consciousness is a contradiction in terms. Our awareness of the world is always unique, and our consciousness is indistinguishable from awareness. When you're asleep, you have no consciousness. The overall or shared experience of x does not imply that the conscious experience of x is either the same or shared. You and i can see an apple and get a completely different, low-resolution, idea of it relative to an apple vendor. Our awareness is shared in an external sense but our conscious experience can never be the same. If we're going to broaden the use of the word consciousness to mean any part of focusing mental energies in a particular direction, it's less than useless.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Scott Mayers »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:15 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:04 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:10 pm All particles in the universe are interacting with each other. This means that we have one process. Materialism claims that consciousness is the result of process in matter. Therefore there should be one consciousness. There are more than one consciousness. Therefore materialism is false.
You missed that consciousness can be RELATIVE. That is, it may be both one and many but dependent upon perspective.

For example, a pair of twins each have independent consciousness from each of their perspectives. But they also have a "collective consciousness" when they share the same evironmental reactions in sync with one another. I, as a twin, know this. We do not have a completed shared consciousness unless we are responding in the presence of each other and the degree of this is only minimal. It relates to both having the same modular logic as 'cells construction and architecture' AND to the degree they are active with the same 'frequency' and complementary phases. The same goes between ANY two or more beings AND includes all the physical factors down to their subatomic particles. For instance, all electrons have the same 'properties' because they share the same construction and architecture. As such, they behave in the same way BUT in different phases and proximaty.

While this is more complex to express in a mere post response, you are wrong in ignoring the 'relativity' factor. You CAN have both a one AND many consciousness. The independent parts of Earth 'percieve' reality locally even though on the whole, the Earth acts as one whole collective consciousness. Thus, materialism is not necessarily false by your argument.
Before we can argue about One versus Many Consciousnesses it is more important to understand what Consciousness is in the first place. Since we have no Clue what Consciousness is, debates about One or Many are irrelevant.
That's why I opened the other thread separate from this that you responded to. The way I define it is neutral and inclusive in a way that can be more agreeable to a broader range of postulates that can be then narrowed down to more specific definitons, like "human consciousness". Then we could debate whether non-human consciousness exists distinctly, such as the link you provided there regarding SETI's logic for determining this elsewhere. I think my definition is less confusing to theirs but is likely more clearer if I were to read their sources from the beginning. Mine suffices to demonstrate that this OP left out the nature of energy to be real even if it is not technically 'material'. It is a confusion similar to assuming nouns exist but verbs do not. The error there would be that the verb is 'incomplete' without having some noun (the subject) be closed by a predicate (the verb plus receiving noun or object). In that case, the sentence 'completes' the sense of the verb that alone lacks meaning without. Fair common mistake that the best of us can still make without care to the details.

Note: go to here for a digression to my definition (or if others want to discuss differences on their own).
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Dimebag »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:45 pm
Dimebag wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:37 am In the end, it is concepts which are going to have to explain consciousness in terms of brain mechanisms. The problem is, concepts require a lower level to explain things in terms of something else. But if the case is that consciousness is identical to certain brain mechanisms, you have nothing other than brain mechanisms to explain an experience, which leaves it as being purely correlational if you are trying to treat conscious experience as something different from what the brain is doing. Identical is not correlation. Ultimately, there may be no satisfying why answer, only an if then statement.
If it is the case that Consciousness is identical to Brain Mechanisms then it seems strange that there is not even the first Clue as to how this could be true. I think ultimately it will be a Correlation to Brain Activity. It is Correlated because Consciousness is Connected to the Brain and reflects what the Brain is doing. Consciousness is constantly measuring what the Brain is doing and Consciousness is constantly providing Volitional inputs back to the Brain to satisfy its Desires. A Desire is a purely Conscious Experience. So Desires that are Experienced in the Conscious Mind can be reflected back to the Physical Brain to create Activity to satisfy the Desire. I think there will be an answer someday and if Science can think more outside the Physicalist box we might be able to find it.
How is it that states of magnetic charge on a disc of silicon can just be identical to data? The two seem so different. Yet they are the same. Just viewed from different perspectives.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Belinda »

Dimebag wrote:
How is it that states of magnetic charge on a disc of silicon can just be identical to data? The two seem so different. Yet they are the same. Just viewed from different perspectives.
8) Spinoza would have said 8)
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:02 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:15 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:04 pm
You missed that consciousness can be RELATIVE. That is, it may be both one and many but dependent upon perspective.

For example, a pair of twins each have independent consciousness from each of their perspectives. But they also have a "collective consciousness" when they share the same evironmental reactions in sync with one another. I, as a twin, know this. We do not have a completed shared consciousness unless we are responding in the presence of each other and the degree of this is only minimal. It relates to both having the same modular logic as 'cells construction and architecture' AND to the degree they are active with the same 'frequency' and complementary phases. The same goes between ANY two or more beings AND includes all the physical factors down to their subatomic particles. For instance, all electrons have the same 'properties' because they share the same construction and architecture. As such, they behave in the same way BUT in different phases and proximaty.

While this is more complex to express in a mere post response, you are wrong in ignoring the 'relativity' factor. You CAN have both a one AND many consciousness. The independent parts of Earth 'percieve' reality locally even though on the whole, the Earth acts as one whole collective consciousness. Thus, materialism is not necessarily false by your argument.
Before we can argue about One versus Many Consciousnesses it is more important to understand what Consciousness is in the first place. Since we have no Clue what Consciousness is, debates about One or Many are irrelevant.
That's why I opened the other thread separate from this that you responded to. The way I define it is neutral and inclusive in a way that can be more agreeable to a broader range of postulates that can be then narrowed down to more specific definitons, like "human consciousness". Then we could debate whether non-human consciousness exists distinctly, such as the link you provided there regarding SETI's logic for determining this elsewhere. I think my definition is less confusing to theirs but is likely more clearer if I were to read their sources from the beginning. Mine suffices to demonstrate that this OP left out the nature of energy to be real even if it is not technically 'material'. It is a confusion similar to assuming nouns exist but verbs do not. The error there would be that the verb is 'incomplete' without having some noun (the subject) be closed by a predicate (the verb plus receiving noun or object). In that case, the sentence 'completes' the sense of the verb that alone lacks meaning without. Fair common mistake that the best of us can still make without care to the details.

Note: go to here for a digression to my definition (or if others want to discuss differences on their own).
The problem with your definition of Consciousness is that you are not simply defining it you are specifying what it is. You are saying Consciousness is Energy, but you have no reason to make that leap of understanding. Maybe you are assuming some sort of new Energy that is Consciousness. Whatever this new Consciousness Energy aspect is, I think it is confusing to call it Energy. Energy is a specific concept from Science. Questions will arise as to if there is a Conservation of Conscious Energy Law, or can Conscious Energy be converted into other Energies, and so on.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dimebag wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 6:41 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:45 pm
Dimebag wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:37 am In the end, it is concepts which are going to have to explain consciousness in terms of brain mechanisms. The problem is, concepts require a lower level to explain things in terms of something else. But if the case is that consciousness is identical to certain brain mechanisms, you have nothing other than brain mechanisms to explain an experience, which leaves it as being purely correlational if you are trying to treat conscious experience as something different from what the brain is doing. Identical is not correlation. Ultimately, there may be no satisfying why answer, only an if then statement.
If it is the case that Consciousness is identical to Brain Mechanisms then it seems strange that there is not even the first Clue as to how this could be true. I think ultimately it will be a Correlation to Brain Activity. It is Correlated because Consciousness is Connected to the Brain and reflects what the Brain is doing. Consciousness is constantly measuring what the Brain is doing and Consciousness is constantly providing Volitional inputs back to the Brain to satisfy its Desires. A Desire is a purely Conscious Experience. So Desires that are Experienced in the Conscious Mind can be reflected back to the Physical Brain to create Activity to satisfy the Desire. I think there will be an answer someday and if Science can think more outside the Physicalist box we might be able to find it.
How is it that states of magnetic charge on a disc of silicon can just be identical to data? The two seem so different. Yet they are the same. Just viewed from different perspectives.
Yes but Consciousness is not Data or Information. Consciousness is the thing that uses Data and Information. So Consciousness could conceivably use the information stored in computer RAM. But this doesn't mean that the Consciousness that uses the RAM is the RAM.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Scott Mayers »

SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:02 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:15 pm
Before we can argue about One versus Many Consciousnesses it is more important to understand what Consciousness is in the first place. Since we have no Clue what Consciousness is, debates about One or Many are irrelevant.
That's why I opened the other thread separate from this that you responded to. The way I define it is neutral and inclusive in a way that can be more agreeable to a broader range of postulates that can be then narrowed down to more specific definitons, like "human consciousness". Then we could debate whether non-human consciousness exists distinctly, such as the link you provided there regarding SETI's logic for determining this elsewhere. I think my definition is less confusing to theirs but is likely more clearer if I were to read their sources from the beginning. Mine suffices to demonstrate that this OP left out the nature of energy to be real even if it is not technically 'material'. It is a confusion similar to assuming nouns exist but verbs do not. The error there would be that the verb is 'incomplete' without having some noun (the subject) be closed by a predicate (the verb plus receiving noun or object). In that case, the sentence 'completes' the sense of the verb that alone lacks meaning without. Fair common mistake that the best of us can still make without care to the details.

Note: go to here for a digression to my definition (or if others want to discuss differences on their own).
The problem with your definition of Consciousness is that you are not simply defining it you are specifying what it is. You are saying Consciousness is Energy, but you have no reason to make that leap of understanding. Maybe you are assuming some sort of new Energy that is Consciousness. Whatever this new Consciousness Energy aspect is, I think it is confusing to call it Energy. Energy is a specific concept from Science. Questions will arise as to if there is a Conservation of Conscious Energy Law, or can Conscious Energy be converted into other Energies, and so on.
Everything, even matter, is reducible to energy. But the point of using energy as a more specific term for lay persons outside of physics, it means that consciousness by the OP is non-material and by using 'energy' as a way to express this gives him partial justice in meaning while also being appropriate to recognize that it is still just the EFFECT of matter.

One might say that walking, for instance, is NOT material without interpreting it to mean that it doesn't exist. This is because the gerund (verb made into a noun) is the EFFECT of matter in the same way. ALL exchanges of information by matter from one space to another is 'energy'. So this is very appropriate a term best used to describe it as real but not matter per se.

Since consciousness is energy by physical meaning, then yes, it is also 'conserved'. The brain actually uses up a very large amount of energy when conscious.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Scott Mayers »

SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:47 pm
Dimebag wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 6:41 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:45 pm

If it is the case that Consciousness is identical to Brain Mechanisms then it seems strange that there is not even the first Clue as to how this could be true. I think ultimately it will be a Correlation to Brain Activity. It is Correlated because Consciousness is Connected to the Brain and reflects what the Brain is doing. Consciousness is constantly measuring what the Brain is doing and Consciousness is constantly providing Volitional inputs back to the Brain to satisfy its Desires. A Desire is a purely Conscious Experience. So Desires that are Experienced in the Conscious Mind can be reflected back to the Physical Brain to create Activity to satisfy the Desire. I think there will be an answer someday and if Science can think more outside the Physicalist box we might be able to find it.
How is it that states of magnetic charge on a disc of silicon can just be identical to data? The two seem so different. Yet they are the same. Just viewed from different perspectives.
Yes but Consciousness is not Data or Information. Consciousness is the thing that uses Data and Information. So Consciousness could conceivably use the information stored in computer RAM. But this doesn't mean that the Consciousness that uses the RAM is the RAM.
Consciousness as energy is definitely 'data'. This is how a computer science and information theory would treat it. This is because while the hardware is 'static' the contemporary events that we associate with the PROCESS of thinking, is the literal data. And given the data is in the form of electron flow, it is also matter but is independently mean nothing. This is like the cars on a road that are moving. The independent cars themselves are not what we mean by 'traffic' (the flow of vehicular activity as a whole); so the 'traffic' report by a news represents the present activity just as consciousness does for the brain's exchange of neurtransmitters (et al).
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=482868 time=1607010569 user_id=11118]
[quote=SteveKlinko post_id=482754 time=1606913270 user_id=14793]
[quote=Dimebag post_id=482731 time=1606887667 user_id=5396]

How is it that states of magnetic charge on a disc of silicon can just be identical to data? The two seem so different. Yet they are the same. Just viewed from different perspectives.
[/quote]
Yes but Consciousness is not Data or Information. Consciousness is the thing that uses Data and Information. So Consciousness could conceivably use the information stored in computer RAM. But this doesn't mean that the Consciousness that uses the RAM is the RAM.
[/quote]

Consciousness as [i]energy[/i] is definitely 'data'. This is how a computer science and information theory would treat it. This is because while the hardware is 'static' the contemporary events that we associate with the PROCESS of thinking, is the literal data. And given the data is in the form of electron flow, it is also matter but is independently mean nothing. This is like the cars on a road that are moving. The independent cars themselves are not what we mean by 'traffic' (the flow of vehicular activity as a whole); so the 'traffic' report by a news represents the present activity just as consciousness does for the brain's exchange of neurtransmitters (et al).
[/quote]

Consciousness is not energy, it's a pattern. Everything is energy in some sense. That's not meaningful here.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:49 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:47 pm
Dimebag wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 6:41 am
How is it that states of magnetic charge on a disc of silicon can just be identical to data? The two seem so different. Yet they are the same. Just viewed from different perspectives.
Yes but Consciousness is not Data or Information. Consciousness is the thing that uses Data and Information. So Consciousness could conceivably use the information stored in computer RAM. But this doesn't mean that the Consciousness that uses the RAM is the RAM.
Consciousness as energy is definitely 'data'. This is how a computer science and information theory would treat it. This is because while the hardware is 'static' the contemporary events that we associate with the PROCESS of thinking, is the literal data. And given the data is in the form of electron flow, it is also matter but is independently mean nothing. This is like the cars on a road that are moving. The independent cars themselves are not what we mean by 'traffic' (the flow of vehicular activity as a whole); so the 'traffic' report by a news represents the present activity just as consciousness does for the brain's exchange of neurtransmitters (et al).
I am mostly interested in Conscious Sensory Experiences, like the Color Red, the Standard A Tone or the Salty Taste. From my way of thinking about it these Sensory Experiences would be the Data for the Conscious Mind. The Conscious Mind Experiences these things but the Conscious Mind is not the Data.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:38 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:02 am
That's why I opened the other thread separate from this that you responded to. The way I define it is neutral and inclusive in a way that can be more agreeable to a broader range of postulates that can be then narrowed down to more specific definitons, like "human consciousness". Then we could debate whether non-human consciousness exists distinctly, such as the link you provided there regarding SETI's logic for determining this elsewhere. I think my definition is less confusing to theirs but is likely more clearer if I were to read their sources from the beginning. Mine suffices to demonstrate that this OP left out the nature of energy to be real even if it is not technically 'material'. It is a confusion similar to assuming nouns exist but verbs do not. The error there would be that the verb is 'incomplete' without having some noun (the subject) be closed by a predicate (the verb plus receiving noun or object). In that case, the sentence 'completes' the sense of the verb that alone lacks meaning without. Fair common mistake that the best of us can still make without care to the details.

Note: go to here for a digression to my definition (or if others want to discuss differences on their own).
The problem with your definition of Consciousness is that you are not simply defining it you are specifying what it is. You are saying Consciousness is Energy, but you have no reason to make that leap of understanding. Maybe you are assuming some sort of new Energy that is Consciousness. Whatever this new Consciousness Energy aspect is, I think it is confusing to call it Energy. Energy is a specific concept from Science. Questions will arise as to if there is a Conservation of Conscious Energy Law, or can Conscious Energy be converted into other Energies, and so on.
Everything, even matter, is reducible to energy. But the point of using energy as a more specific term for lay persons outside of physics, it means that consciousness by the OP is non-material and by using 'energy' as a way to express this gives him partial justice in meaning while also being appropriate to recognize that it is still just the EFFECT of matter.

One might say that walking, for instance, is NOT material without interpreting it to mean that it doesn't exist. This is because the gerund (verb made into a noun) is the EFFECT of matter in the same way. ALL exchanges of information by matter from one space to another is 'energy'. So this is very appropriate a term best used to describe it as real but not matter per se.

Since consciousness is energy by physical meaning, then yes, it is also 'conserved'. The brain actually uses up a very large amount of energy when conscious.
But the Energy that the Brain uses is already all accounted for in the Heat generated and other Physiological processes. There is no unaccounted for Energy that can be converted to Consciousness.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Scott Mayers »

Advocate wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:11 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:49 pm Consciousness as energy is definitely 'data'. This is how a computer science and information theory would treat it. This is because while the hardware is 'static' the contemporary events that we associate with the PROCESS of thinking, is the literal data. And given the data is in the form of electron flow, it is also matter but is independently mean nothing. This is like the cars on a road that are moving. The independent cars themselves are not what we mean by 'traffic' (the flow of vehicular activity as a whole); so the 'traffic' report by a news represents the present activity just as consciousness does for the brain's exchange of neurtransmitters (et al).
Consciousness is not energy, it's a pattern. Everything is energy in some sense. That's not meaningful here.
I disagree.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Scott Mayers »

SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:23 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:38 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:44 pm
The problem with your definition of Consciousness is that you are not simply defining it you are specifying what it is. You are saying Consciousness is Energy, but you have no reason to make that leap of understanding. Maybe you are assuming some sort of new Energy that is Consciousness. Whatever this new Consciousness Energy aspect is, I think it is confusing to call it Energy. Energy is a specific concept from Science. Questions will arise as to if there is a Conservation of Conscious Energy Law, or can Conscious Energy be converted into other Energies, and so on.
Everything, even matter, is reducible to energy. But the point of using energy as a more specific term for lay persons outside of physics, it means that consciousness by the OP is non-material and by using 'energy' as a way to express this gives him partial justice in meaning while also being appropriate to recognize that it is still just the EFFECT of matter.

One might say that walking, for instance, is NOT material without interpreting it to mean that it doesn't exist. This is because the gerund (verb made into a noun) is the EFFECT of matter in the same way. ALL exchanges of information by matter from one space to another is 'energy'. So this is very appropriate a term best used to describe it as real but not matter per se.

Since consciousness is energy by physical meaning, then yes, it is also 'conserved'. The brain actually uses up a very large amount of energy when conscious.
But the Energy that the Brain uses is already all accounted for in the Heat generated and other Physiological processes. There is no unaccounted for Energy that can be converted to Consciousness.
Matter is 'stored energy'. Heat Energy is the general random movement of particles, and in many cases is just a reflection of lost forms of different energy not necessarily accounted for. We cannot actually convert all forms of energy. If we could that would be very ideal.

Any information exchange is energy. [See this question asked and answered by a variety of other professionals on this here: https://www.quora.com/Does-information- ... -particles] To discuss your prior post on specific phenomena, like the color perception of say 'red' versus 'green' or to some other sense, this is more complex and may need a digression on computation and STRUCTURES.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:38 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:23 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:38 pm
Everything, even matter, is reducible to energy. But the point of using energy as a more specific term for lay persons outside of physics, it means that consciousness by the OP is non-material and by using 'energy' as a way to express this gives him partial justice in meaning while also being appropriate to recognize that it is still just the EFFECT of matter.

One might say that walking, for instance, is NOT material without interpreting it to mean that it doesn't exist. This is because the gerund (verb made into a noun) is the EFFECT of matter in the same way. ALL exchanges of information by matter from one space to another is 'energy'. So this is very appropriate a term best used to describe it as real but not matter per se.

Since consciousness is energy by physical meaning, then yes, it is also 'conserved'. The brain actually uses up a very large amount of energy when conscious.
But the Energy that the Brain uses is already all accounted for in the Heat generated and other Physiological processes. There is no unaccounted for Energy that can be converted to Consciousness.
Matter is 'stored energy'. Heat Energy is the general random movement of particles, and in many cases is just a reflection of lost forms of different energy not necessarily accounted for. We cannot actually convert all forms of energy. If we could that would be very ideal.

Any information exchange is energy. [See this question asked and answered by a variety of other professionals on this here: https://www.quora.com/Does-information- ... -particles] To discuss your prior post on specific phenomena, like the color perception of say 'red' versus 'green' or to some other sense, this is more complex and may need a digression on computation and STRUCTURES.
That's all just standard Particle Physics. Has nothing to do with Consciousness or the occurrence of Sensory Experiences
Post Reply