• space_comrade [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    If that is so then you agree with the premises of my previous comment: https://hexbear.net/post/91483/comment/1013036

    Or am I missing some nuance here?

    • RedDawn [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Why would consciousness being the result of interactions of matter mean that it doesn’t itself have any effect on other matter? That simply doesn’t follow logically

      • space_comrade [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        How does it have an effect then if the subjective contents of the consciousness are wholly dependent on configurations of matter?

        Having a causal effect would mean the subjective feels themselves exert some kind of influence over matter.

        • RedDawn [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Literally everything is the result of material things, what you’re saying makes no sense at all, it would be equally (not) applicable to literally any quality of any living thing. It’s mumbo jumbo

          • space_comrade [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Not sure I understand honestly. You admit the subjective qualities of consciousness are purely the result of matter interacting. That necessarily implies only a one way causal direction, meaning that subjective feels in of themselves don't actually do anything in the material world.

            • RedDawn [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              That necessarily implies only a one way causal direction,

              NO, IT DOESNT

                • RedDawn [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  How does it? You can’t jump from “X is the result of material reality” to “X can have no affect on material reality”. What is the logical process you’re using to claim that the first thing “necessarily implies” the second? It’s a complete non sequitor

                  • space_comrade [he/him]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    I guess it isn't necessarily implied in of itself but it sure is heavily implied in a physicalist framework. Otherwise you have to admit there's some kind of "consciousness particle" that interacts with matter, which is something no physicalist admits to.

                    Not sure why we're arguing this is not even that controversial, most scientists and physicalist philosophers admit that subjective feels have no causal effect on reality and are wholly a product of the material brain doing stuff (except Daniel Dennet and other illusionists I guess but honestly their viewpoint is just a bunch of rhetorical slights of hand and are completely missing the point)