Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Consciousness producing matter?
in Philosophy
For those who believe that consciousness isn't just an emergent property of matter ... Do you then believe that consciousness produced matter? If so, how can something subtle and intangible produce so solid a world?
1
Comments
Is the world so solid? or consciousness so subtle? I'm not so sure... we'll probably end up trading definitions...
I'm with you on the first proposition but since we do not know the answer to that - the extrapolated supposition following is even further removed.
Then if you look at the components of an atom and get into quantum reality where an electron exists as a wave and its only when observed that it behaves like a tangible particle its hard to see where the actual "stuff" really is.
For example on system, it is not solid to a neutrino...
Or for example on state consider water, jump in from 3 feet and it's liquid - hit it from a 100 feet and it's more like concrete.
Even if there is matter a world with no consciousness would be void.
Thus 'matter' as an experience is the domain of conscious mind. We have no other notion of matter other than a thought.
If scientists hooked up a mind reading machine and they told you that you were thinking of an elephant when you were really thinking of a glass of ice water would you believe the scientists or would you believe your own experience? If the latter well then you can see that our experience comes from our subjective mind rather than imputations based on conjecture.
Keep in mind that this is a very simple and basic explanation and there are other forces that can overcome this repulsion and thus bring atoms together into more complex structures (molecules). The fundamental forces of nature
Vanderwaals forces also called London Dispersion forces (makes gasoline a liquid)
Electrostatic attraction (Na+ Cl-)
Attraction of polar molecules. (dimethyl sulfoxide)
Hydrogen bonding. (water)
Have you been following Donal D. Hoffman with his theory of conscious realism?
I won't be asking for last rites... think I'd rather have a quick round up of the latest physics!!
I have posted this link on the Rainbow Body before. It is well worth the listen.
noetic.org/library/audio-lectures/the-rainbow-body-phenomenon-with-father-francis-ti/
This is from the Pali Nikayas:
Consciousness is life.
That doesn't actually answer the question. You might consider this:
According to reason an immaterial thing and a material thing cannot directly causally interact. So a third third term is required to mediate the relationship. This leaves us with the idea that mind and matter are mutually dependent phenomena, and with the consequent idea that there must be more to the world than mental and corporeal phenomena.
This is the reason why 'scientific' consciousness studies is at a standstill. Nearly all the participants assume that mind and matter are all there is. This creates a series of intractable problems and a discipline that goes endlessly around in circles. The good news is that this seems to be becoming more and more obvious. Still, I think the passing of a generation of philosopher of mind will be required for any real change, one of Thomas Kuhn's major paradigm shifts. There are signs...
Put another way, our minds like really advanced versions of cellular automata (see Conway's Game of Life); simple underlying rules (neuron impulses) leading to irreducibly complex results.
just an emergent property.
Wondrous!
One idea that does make sense is 'relative phenomenalism', which is the Buddhist solution as it appears in consciousness studies. This is certainly wondrous.
That's why science tends to work in 'layers', and each layer deals with phenomena on a certain scale. On the bottom layer there's physics, then there's chemistry, molecular biology, biology, all the way up to psychology which is the study of consciousness in western terms. I basically think of Buddha as the greatest psychologist of all time.
But with a mind, even though the underlying 'parts' may be physical matter (brains cells and so on), there's no way to convert the thought "On Tuesday I went swimming" into a physical equivalent because the physical processes underlying it are just too complex: the thought can't be "reduced" to a physical description.
If the system is very complex we may not be able to reduce it in practice but reduction is usually a conceptual thing. As Daozan points out, features may emerge that seeem to be irreducible, as in cases where the whole is greater than parts, or has features that cannot be found in the parts. But I'm not sure that this means they are not reducible or whether it's just that we haven't figured out how to do it yet. The goal for theoretical physics is a fully reductive theory, ie a theory that is fundamental. The big debate in consciousness studies is whether mind reduces to matter or matter to mind. So far neither idea can be made to work, as Buddhism predicts.
I see the point about new levels of (irreducible) complexity emerging, But I'm not convinced that we can't simply say that anything that is emergent is reducible. Certainly it seems to be necessary for the Buddhist worldview, which is reductionism with a vengeance. Hegel calls the process by which we reduce concepts 'sublation'. This is the process by which he reduces the world and the mind to a pristine unity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZlmrHMBW36w
There is nothing that isn't the result of information being shared in one form or another and the evolution of our triune brain system is a process born from intelligence but is that intelligence conscious in any way or could it be in a process of being aware of itself?
I am...
Think about it. What would form BE if there was no mentation? We have no idea what that would be, do we?
What would consciousness be if there were no form? I guess you could say it is a dream? But there seems to be form in a dream, an inner dream-form.
But i think Hinduism has the answer to this question, as it says - the whole universe is composed of Consciousness and matter. The Universal Consciousness splits into several Consciousness, which after getting into the matter of a human baby - gets individuated as an individual or 'I' due to ignorance, leading to egotism or individualization , leading to attachment, aversion and fear and in turn creating this Samsara. So the ultimate goal of human life is to realize who they really are and at the last stage of Kundalini awakening at Crown chakra, the splitted Consciousness merges back into Universal Consciousness, leading to end of Samsara for that splitted Consciousness - or - if this end objective is not attained, then at death Conciousness moves from one physical body to another physical body, depending on the output as governed by a person's actions in the past, as per the law of karma, and so the Samsara continues.
Moreover, i think Hinduism also conveys this idea that the basic thing is Consciousness as matter is also a manifestation of Consciousness - though it seems difficult to grasp this statement - but in Hinduism mythology, it is said that initially there was just Consciousness and nothing else - then Consciousness tried to manifest as a vibration of AUM sound and that vibration finally created all the matter in the universe - An interesting thing which i find here is that one of the latest theories in Quantum Physics, which is the String M theory - it shows that if we keep on breaking the atomic particles like proton, neutron, electron etc, we will end up in strings - which are nothing but vibrations. So quantum physics says that all matter at its deepest level are just vibrations.
As Buddha taught, the outer world Samsara is a projection of our mind. It is our mind which creates the solidity effect of external objects, the colours, the sound etc. So we are living in a matrix and the only way out seems to be Nirvana or Self-Realization.
MInd-Matter is a distinction. Nonduality would say that for an ultimate view there is no such thing as a distinction, and thus a 'Middle Way' would be required for a solution to the Mind-Matter dilemma. Hence mysticism as 'the doctrine of the mean'.
What do you make of it?
If you're passing through Malaysia, I can show you the original file on a
memory card.
Notwithstanding, may you all remain well and happy!
My teacher's teacher had a doha or song where he said that thinking mind and body are two leads to suffering.
I think that mind and body and matter all have to interbe..
Even with natural selection... What exactly is it that selects?
Seems to denote a certain kind of universal instinct.