Yes, but the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts in the case of your car. This means that for example in the case of a car we are dealing with weak emergence. The emergence of consciousness is however strong by which I mean that the property of the whole is not a function of properties of parts.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:44 pmMany things have properties which their component parts do not. A wheel, an alternator, a battery, a crankcase etc.. none of them have the properties of a car. A lettuce is not a salad.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:26 pmYou are right that we don't know what are physical properties of matter at which the behavior of matter is defined in terms of them. The question however is that what are the properties of parts of matter (please notice that electron and proton are not conscious)? The next question is how consciousness can be the property of matter in some configuration when we accept that parts are not conscious.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:04 pm
When the atom is split, unimaginable amounts of energy are released. Science can quantify it and describe it, and even predict it: but in your book "we know very little about atomic physics", because ultimately its just magic.
When an object revolves around a planet it just keep going without failling. It stays on course for millions of years. Science can quantify it and describe it, and even predict it: but in your book "we know very little about atomic physics", because ultimately its just magic.
Really WTF are you expecting?
Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
That question, like most, "but why," questions is based on a false premise that what things are must be contingent on something else. All physical entities have mass, some also have magnetic properties, but all don't. Some atoms have two electons, some have seven, asking why the difference is absurd. It''s those differences that are the explanation. Some entities have the property life, others do not. It is the existence of the property life that explains the difference between physical entities which are inanimate and those which are organisms.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:21 pmI know that consciousness is a property. The question is why something is conscious, like a human, and something else is not, like a rock.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:42 pmYou never will because they don't. Consciousness is not a product of anything else anymore that any physical property is the product of somethng else. Consciousness is not a, "thing," or, "substance," or, "entity," it is a property, a characteristic of some living organisms, just as its weight, shape, temperature, and behavior are physical characteristics.
I will say this much about the nature of life itself. As a property or attribute, there is no evidence that it is possible for there to be life without life. All known life is the continuation of or comes from what is already living. It is the reason I reject evolution as science. Whether true or not, any assertion that is made without evidence is not science, but conjecture.
Consciousness, like life, is just another attribute or property that some organisms have. It's what differentiates between plants and animals, for example, but like any other property, nothing else is responsible for it. The property is the explanation of what differentiates animals from plants. I know it will sound trite, but the fact is, conscious organisms have consciousness because they do just as physical entities have mass because they do. Nothing else makes or causes physical entities to have mass and nothing else makes or causes conscious organisms to have consciousness. It is simply their nature and what makes them conscious organisms and not mere inanimate entities.
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Taking a journey from London to Liverpool is not within the capacity of ANY part of the car. It can only do that with key compenents. In the same why a brain on a slab is not capable of consciousness but requires a physical bidy to sypply with with nutrients such as water, oxygen and minerals supplied by warm blood.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:06 pmYes, but the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts in the case of your car. This means that for example in the case of a car we are dealing with weak emergence. The emergence of consciousness is however strong by which I mean that the property of the whole is not a function of properties of parts.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:44 pmMany things have properties which their component parts do not. A wheel, an alternator, a battery, a crankcase etc.. none of them have the properties of a car. A lettuce is not a salad.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:26 pm
You are right that we don't know what are physical properties of matter at which the behavior of matter is defined in terms of them. The question however is that what are the properties of parts of matter (please notice that electron and proton are not conscious)? The next question is how consciousness can be the property of matter in some configuration when we accept that parts are not conscious.
A canvas and paint is not a picture. Put them together is specific ways and the get Mona Lisa.
I'm sure you can think of many other examples from Airplanes to zepellins
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
We know the properties of elementary particles. They are mass, spin, charge, etc. but not consciousness at least within materialism. We know that a person when she/he is alive is conscious. The person is made of elementary particles and nothing else (this is the claim of materialism). Therefore, the question of why/how the person is conscious is relevant.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:17 pmThat question, like most, "but why," questions is based on a false premise that what things are must be contingent on something else. All physical entities have mass, some also have magnetic properties, but all don't. Some atoms have two electons, some have seven, asking why the difference is absurd. It''s those differences that are the explanation. Some entities have the property life, others do not. It is the existence of the property life that explains the difference between physical entities which are inanimate and those which are organisms.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:21 pmI know that consciousness is a property. The question is why something is conscious, like a human, and something else is not, like a rock.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:42 pm
You never will because they don't. Consciousness is not a product of anything else anymore that any physical property is the product of somethng else. Consciousness is not a, "thing," or, "substance," or, "entity," it is a property, a characteristic of some living organisms, just as its weight, shape, temperature, and behavior are physical characteristics.
I will say this much about the nature of life itself. As a property or attribute, there is no evidence that it is possible for there to be life without life. All known life is the continuation of or comes from what is already living. It is the reason I reject evolution as science. Whether true or not, any assertion that is made without evidence is not science, but conjecture.
Consciousness, like life, is just another attribute or property that some organisms have. It's what differentiates between plants and animals, for example, but like any other property, nothing else is responsible for it. The property is the explanation of what differentiates animals from plants. I know it will sound trite, but the fact is, conscious organisms have consciousness because they do just as physical entities have mass because they do. Nothing else makes or causes physical entities to have mass and nothing else makes or causes conscious organisms to have consciousness. It is simply their nature and what makes them conscious organisms and not mere inanimate entities.
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
The functioning of a car is a function of the properties of parts. That is why we can design a car.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:53 pmTaking a journey from London to Liverpool is not within the capacity of ANY part of the car. It can only do that with key compenents. In the same why a brain on a slab is not capable of consciousness but requires a physical bidy to sypply with with nutrients such as water, oxygen and minerals supplied by warm blood.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:06 pmYes, but the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts in the case of your car. This means that for example in the case of a car we are dealing with weak emergence. The emergence of consciousness is however strong by which I mean that the property of the whole is not a function of properties of parts.
A canvas and paint is not a picture. Put them together is specific ways and the get Mona Lisa.
I'm sure you can think of many other examples from Airplanes to zepellins
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Can you see a person's life or consciousness? The physical is all that can be directly perceived: seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. The false assumption that those properties of things that can be directly perceived are all the properties of reality there can be is baseless. It is as superstitious a notion as the assumption there can be the supernatural. Since there are the attributes of life and consciousness and they cannot be directly perceived, it is apparent there are natural properties of existence that are not physical.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:12 pmWe know the properties of elementary particles. They are mass, spin, charge, etc. but not consciousness at least within materialism. We know that a person when she/he is alive is conscious. The person is made of elementary particles and nothing else (this is the claim of materialism). Therefore, the question of why/how the person is conscious is relevant.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:17 pmThat question, like most, "but why," questions is based on a false premise that what things are must be contingent on something else. All physical entities have mass, some also have magnetic properties, but all don't. Some atoms have two electons, some have seven, asking why the difference is absurd. It''s those differences that are the explanation. Some entities have the property life, others do not. It is the existence of the property life that explains the difference between physical entities which are inanimate and those which are organisms.
I will say this much about the nature of life itself. As a property or attribute, there is no evidence that it is possible for there to be life without life. All known life is the continuation of or comes from what is already living. It is the reason I reject evolution as science. Whether true or not, any assertion that is made without evidence is not science, but conjecture.
Consciousness, like life, is just another attribute or property that some organisms have. It's what differentiates between plants and animals, for example, but like any other property, nothing else is responsible for it. The property is the explanation of what differentiates animals from plants. I know it will sound trite, but the fact is, conscious organisms have consciousness because they do just as physical entities have mass because they do. Nothing else makes or causes physical entities to have mass and nothing else makes or causes conscious organisms to have consciousness. It is simply their nature and what makes them conscious organisms and not mere inanimate entities.
The two principles of reason are: 1. nothing can be known without evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone, and 2. nothing can be true which denies or evades evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone. The physicalist only observes the first of those principles and ignores the second. The physicalist simply ignores (or evades) the fact that for the first to be true, there must be consciousness that is capable of observing (perceiving) and examining physical evidence, but since consciousness itself cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted) it cannot be physical. To be a physicalist one must evade or deny the evidence of their own consciousness.
Life and consciousness cannot be explained (and do not need to be) in terms of physical properties, because they are not physical properties. They are real, natural properties of existence in addition to the physical properties.
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Yes just like the functioning of a brain is a function of the properties of parts. Yet EACH part has fucntions that are useless without the whole just like a car.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:15 pmThe functioning of a car is a function of the properties of parts. That is why we can design a car.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:53 pmTaking a journey from London to Liverpool is not within the capacity of ANY part of the car. It can only do that with key compenents. In the same why a brain on a slab is not capable of consciousness but requires a physical bidy to sypply with with nutrients such as water, oxygen and minerals supplied by warm blood.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:06 pm
Yes, but the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts in the case of your car. This means that for example in the case of a car we are dealing with weak emergence. The emergence of consciousness is however strong by which I mean that the property of the whole is not a function of properties of parts.
A canvas and paint is not a picture. Put them together is specific ways and the get Mona Lisa.
I'm sure you can think of many other examples from Airplanes to zepellins
Or did that point slip your notice.
In the same way earth is made up of lifeless chemicals and energy, whose parts alone have no fucntional significance to the living reality that is the earth, yet together the result is greater than the sum of the parts.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:42 pmCan you see a person's life or consciousness? The physical is all that can be directly perceived: seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. The false assumption that those properties of things that can be directly perceived are all the properties of reality there can be is baseless. It is as superstitious a notion as the assumption there can be the supernatural. Since there are the attributes of life and consciousness and they cannot be directly perceived, it is apparent there are natural properties of existence that are not physical.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:12 pmWe know the properties of elementary particles. They are mass, spin, charge, etc. but not consciousness at least within materialism. We know that a person when she/he is alive is conscious. The person is made of elementary particles and nothing else (this is the claim of materialism). Therefore, the question of why/how the person is conscious is relevant.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:17 pm
That question, like most, "but why," questions is based on a false premise that what things are must be contingent on something else. All physical entities have mass, some also have magnetic properties, but all don't. Some atoms have two electons, some have seven, asking why the difference is absurd. It''s those differences that are the explanation. Some entities have the property life, others do not. It is the existence of the property life that explains the difference between physical entities which are inanimate and those which are organisms.
I will say this much about the nature of life itself. As a property or attribute, there is no evidence that it is possible for there to be life without life. All known life is the continuation of or comes from what is already living. It is the reason I reject evolution as science. Whether true or not, any assertion that is made without evidence is not science, but conjecture.
Consciousness, like life, is just another attribute or property that some organisms have. It's what differentiates between plants and animals, for example, but like any other property, nothing else is responsible for it. The property is the explanation of what differentiates animals from plants. I know it will sound trite, but the fact is, conscious organisms have consciousness because they do just as physical entities have mass because they do. Nothing else makes or causes physical entities to have mass and nothing else makes or causes conscious organisms to have consciousness. It is simply their nature and what makes them conscious organisms and not mere inanimate entities.
The two principles of reason are: 1. nothing can be known without evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone, and 2. nothing can be true which denies or evades evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone. The physicalist only observes the first of those principles and ignores the second. The physicalist simply ignores (or evades) the fact that for the first to be true, there must be consciousness that is capable of observing (perceiving) and examining physical evidence, but since consciousness itself cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted) it cannot be physical. To be a physicalist one must evade or deny the evidence of their own consciousness.
Life and consciousness cannot be explained (and do not need to be) in terms of physical properties, because they are not physical properties. They are real, natural properties of existence in addition to the physical properties.
I know these are new ideas you have never seen before and lt will be difficult to grasp immediately. Here is one way to start. On what basis do you assume the only attributes reality can have are those which you call physical? You know you are living and conscious and have a mind and you know you cannot directly perceive them (and can only know your own introspectively). There is no physical evidence for life, or consciousness, or minds that anyone can perceive or examine, but you cannot deny your own life, consciousness and mind. If they were physical you could perceive them in some way, but you cannot, so they exist and are not physical.
-
- Posts: 750
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
I wouldn't give people that much credit. The best folks can hope for [intellectually] is that they realize enough to comprehend its limits. This is key.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:11 am You have convinced me! I'm now certain you have correctly described what you call thinking. It's not really thinking, but a mishmash of disconnected half-understood concepts that completely explains what you believe.
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
RC Saunders wrote:
"Life and consciousness cannot be explained (and do not need to be) in terms of physical properties, because they are not physical properties. They are real, natural properties of existence in addition to the physical properties."
Top
What is known is that matter (energy) is both gross and fine, congealed in forms and fluid in forces. Science is in the process of trying to understand how the finer forces work. Discoveries do not immediately reveal relationships. How the strong, neutral and weak forces operate as a unit in the universe and in the human form and if there are finer forms of electricity other than the crude one that has been discovered is as yet unknown. It is not known what the link is between electromagnetism and gravity, although it is likely that there is one. It takes time as underlying forces are only accessible through the weak force.
It is little more than 400 years since magnetic forces were discovered and since it was understood that there was electricity in all material substances. It was only 300 years ago that the action of electricity on the human form was discovered.
It would be premature to declare that material (gross matter) or physical (fluid forces) are entirely responsible for life. When they are fully understood; how they operate and relate to each other, it will be time to consider if that is all there is or if they in turn emanate from a subtler source.
"Life and consciousness cannot be explained (and do not need to be) in terms of physical properties, because they are not physical properties. They are real, natural properties of existence in addition to the physical properties."
Top
What is known is that matter (energy) is both gross and fine, congealed in forms and fluid in forces. Science is in the process of trying to understand how the finer forces work. Discoveries do not immediately reveal relationships. How the strong, neutral and weak forces operate as a unit in the universe and in the human form and if there are finer forms of electricity other than the crude one that has been discovered is as yet unknown. It is not known what the link is between electromagnetism and gravity, although it is likely that there is one. It takes time as underlying forces are only accessible through the weak force.
It is little more than 400 years since magnetic forces were discovered and since it was understood that there was electricity in all material substances. It was only 300 years ago that the action of electricity on the human form was discovered.
It would be premature to declare that material (gross matter) or physical (fluid forces) are entirely responsible for life. When they are fully understood; how they operate and relate to each other, it will be time to consider if that is all there is or if they in turn emanate from a subtler source.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
Really!? Sounds like pudding. Besides you, who else knows this?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:22 pm What is known is that matter (energy) is both gross and fine, congealed in forms and fluid in forces.
Do you have a reference?
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
RCSaunders wrote:
"Besides you, who else knows this?"
I thought it was common knowledge. "Matter is energy" --------Einstein.
"Besides you, who else knows this?"
I thought it was common knowledge. "Matter is energy" --------Einstein.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:35 pmReally!? Sounds like pudding. Besides you, who else knows this?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:22 pm What is known is that matter (energy) is both gross and fine, congealed in forms and fluid in forces.
Do you have a reference?
My question refers to your, "gross and fine, congealed in forms and fluid in forces," nonsense.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:22 pm I thought it was common knowledge. "Matter is energy" --------Einstein.
Einstein was right. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. A genius discovers e=mc^2 An idiot thinks that mean "matter is energy."
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
No, Consciousness as a property is not a function of properties of parts since your parts are not conscious. For example, your mass is a function of the mass of your parts, which is the sum of the mass of parts. This is not the case for consciousness unless you can tell me what is the function.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:57 pmYes just like the functioning of a brain is a function of the properties of parts. Yet EACH part has fucntions that are useless without the whole just like a car.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:15 pmThe functioning of a car is a function of the properties of parts. That is why we can design a car.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 3:53 pm
Taking a journey from London to Liverpool is not within the capacity of ANY part of the car. It can only do that with key compenents. In the same why a brain on a slab is not capable of consciousness but requires a physical bidy to sypply with with nutrients such as water, oxygen and minerals supplied by warm blood.
A canvas and paint is not a picture. Put them together is specific ways and the get Mona Lisa.
I'm sure you can think of many other examples from Airplanes to zepellins
Or did that point slip your notice.
In the same way earth is made up of lifeless chemicals and energy, whose parts alone have no fucntional significance to the living reality that is the earth, yet together the result is greater than the sum of the parts.
Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:58 pmI understand what you are trying to say. You simply assign an attribute to matter and think that the problem is resolved. The problem is not resolved. Where do the natural properties such as consciousness come from? You even do not agree with materialists that they are due to the arrangement of parts of matter.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:42 pmCan you see a person's life or consciousness? The physical is all that can be directly perceived: seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. The false assumption that those properties of things that can be directly perceived are all the properties of reality there can be is baseless. It is as superstitious a notion as the assumption there can be the supernatural. Since there are the attributes of life and consciousness and they cannot be directly perceived, it is apparent there are natural properties of existence that are not physical.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:12 pm
We know the properties of elementary particles. They are mass, spin, charge, etc. but not consciousness at least within materialism. We know that a person when she/he is alive is conscious. The person is made of elementary particles and nothing else (this is the claim of materialism). Therefore, the question of why/how the person is conscious is relevant.
The two principles of reason are: 1. nothing can be known without evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone, and 2. nothing can be true which denies or evades evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone. The physicalist only observes the first of those principles and ignores the second. The physicalist simply ignores (or evades) the fact that for the first to be true, there must be consciousness that is capable of observing (perceiving) and examining physical evidence, but since consciousness itself cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted) it cannot be physical. To be a physicalist one must evade or deny the evidence of their own consciousness.
Life and consciousness cannot be explained (and do not need to be) in terms of physical properties, because they are not physical properties. They are real, natural properties of existence in addition to the physical properties.
I know these are new ideas you have never seen before and lt will be difficult to grasp immediately. Here is one way to start. On what basis do you assume the only attributes reality can have are those which you call physical? You know you are living and conscious and have a mind and you know you cannot directly perceive them (and can only know your own introspectively). There is no physical evidence for life, or consciousness, or minds that anyone can perceive or examine, but you cannot deny your own life, consciousness and mind. If they were physical you could perceive them in some way, but you cannot, so they exist and are not physical.