• 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)

                • RedDawn [he/him]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 years ago

                  No, I don’t agree that would need to be “consciousness particle”, I’m not sure where you’re getting all this stuff to be honest, it just keeps coming out of nowhere. Consciousness is a quality that we ascribe to things, whether something has that quality or not affects the way that thing interacts with other things.

                  What you’re saying doesn’t make any more sense for consciousness than it would for any other quality. “If pregnancy is the result of material processes, then pregnancy can’t have any affect on the material world unless there’s a pregnancy particle”. This is literal gibberish, it’s not an argument from logic. I feel that you assign some sort of mystical otherworldliness to the quality of consciousness and assuming that I share this idea about it. I don’t.

                  Edit: good talking with you, I’m going to bed as it’s quite late here. If I log on tomorrow I’ll try to continue discussing

                  • space_comrade [he/him]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    What you’re saying doesn’t make any more sense for consciousness than it would for any other quality

                    Alright, you're getting there. Now you just have to realize that all qualities are in essence mental constructs, nowhere in the material world does "pregnancy" exist, atoms and EM fields don't know nothing about babies. "pregnancy" is an abstract quality of organisms that exists only in our minds that we use to make sense of the material world, and our minds are made up of subjective experiences, which is what the discussion is about. When you're doing logic and math and science you're doing it within the confines of your awareness, which again is "just" a bunch of subjective feels. You can't really hope to separate qualities as you understand them from your own mind, because you are your mind and you understand everything through your mind. The material world can function just fine without knowing about pregnancy and other quality or abstract concept, but your mind cannot. The question is where does the mind fit in the whole picture.

                    I feel that you assign some sort of mystical otherworldliness to the quality of consciousness and assuming that I share this idea about it.

                    I'm not assigning any mysticism, you're ignoring the relevance of mind existing in a seemingly exclusively material universe. That's what the "hard problem of consciousness" is all about, explaining how our minds fit in the material world. It's a question as old as philosophy itself and it has not yet been adequately solved.