What I wanna ask is how does this assumption arises from mind. — TheMadMan

I think I provided an initial answer, here:

Traditionally it's the concept Aristotle used to account for what was observed as the temporal continuity of sameness. As time passes it appears like some aspects of the observed world do not change. "Matter" was proposed as the concept which relates to the real unchanging features of the observed world. What does not change as time passes is matter. So, simply put, we see that some features remain unchanged as time passes, we figure there must be a reason for this, and we posit 'matter' as the reason for this. That is how "matter" arises from consciousness. — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't assume "particles" in the sense you understand it. Its NOT an existential claim of an entity in the classical sense! Particles is the label we use to name an observed and quantified activity. — Nickolasgaspar

Right, there's no "matter" there, in those "particles", just activity.

Sure we don't observe " crystal marbles" if this is what you mean. Energetic glitches is what we observe, quantify and predict. This is what we call "particle" part of Matter.
Did anyone tell you that particles are some type of rocks? What is your argument here.??? — Nickolasgaspar

"'Particle' part of matter"? What does that mean? You already said that a particle is just an activity.

You (I mean anyone) can not get in a conversation about Matter and mental properties without understanding the known ontology of matter. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm ready. What is the known ontology of matter? You've said a few things about energy, also about activity, and you've said that energy relates to matter. So let's have it, where do we find this matter that is related to energy?

I'm ready. What is the known ontology of matter? — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: Bullseye.

What is the known ontology of matter? — Metaphysician Undercover

Fermions & bosons.

OTOH, the (modern) specularive ontology of matter has been designated "an idea" (Berkeley), "a phenomenon" (Kant) or "res extensa" (Descartes) ...

Right, there's no "matter" there, in those "particles", just activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

-What?....sir, "matter" describes a specific type of "activity" responsible for structure low level and high lever features (basic or advanced properties). Not all activities are matter. Its an equivocation fallacy based on a beef you have with the word "matter"!

"'Particle' part of matter"? What does that mean? You already said that a particle is just an activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No, I said that specific glitches(with specific properties) are responsible for the phenomenon of matter.

I'm ready. What is the known ontology of matter? You've said a few things about energy, also about activity, and you've said that energy relates to matter. So let's have it, where do we find this matter that is related to energy? — Metaphysician Undercover

From your questions I understand that you are not ready. I did my best to describe you the ontology of matter with really plain words and metaphors but you keep asking the same questions again and again as if nothing was said.

I think I provided an initial answer, here: — Metaphysician Undercover

This still doesnt answer what this "matter" is in itself. Its just saying how the appearance arises.
It just says how the icon on a computer screen arises not what it is.

Fermions & bosons. — 180 Proof

These particles are what Nick called activities. I need an explanation as to how an activity is "matter".

What?....sir, "matter" describes a specific type of "activity" responsible for structure low level and high lever features (basic or advanced properties). Not all activities are matter. Its an equivocation fallacy based on a beef you have with the word "matter"! — Nickolasgaspar

I would say that "matter" refers to whatever it is which is involved in the activity, what is doing the activity. An "activity" without something performing the activity is just a description of an activity, an abstraction. There is no substance without something performing the activity, therefore no "structure". A "structure" requires substance, and "activity" is not substantial, the substance is what is doing the activity. "Matter" is responsible for structure, by being that substance which is engaged in the activity. Without the matter performing the activity there is no structure.

No, I said that specific glitches(with specific properties) are responsible for the phenomenon of matter. — Nickolasgaspar

I've never heard that proposal. I find it very strange. Specific "glitches" produce matter. A glitch is a malfunction. Are saying that all material existence is a malfunction of reality? Everything is a composition of mistakes.

That's an interesting "ontology of matter"; not one I'm inclined to respect though. If it is "glitches" which produce matter, and glitches are malfunctions, what was supposed to be happening? If the malfunctions had not occurred, which produced matter, and the activities operated smoothly, what would the world be like then? I suppose there would be no life without these malfunctions. And of course that would be a better reality than the one we're in, which is the product of malfunctions.

From your questions I understand that you are not ready. I did my best to describe you the ontology of matter with really plain words and metaphors but you keep asking the same questions again and again as if nothing was said. — Nickolasgaspar

OK, your ontology is 'matter is "specific glitches"'. For me, that equates with "nothing was said". Care to try again?

This still doesnt answer what this "matter" is in itself. Its just saying how the appearance arises.
It just says how the icon on a computer screen arises not what it is. — TheMadMan

Do you mean, what the icon signifies? Simply put, it has meaning, like a word or a symbol. The meaning of "matter" is as I explained, it signifies what we observe as temporal continuity. It's not like this particular icon, "matter" has a thing which it corresponds with, like a proper noun or something, it has meaning which allows it to be used in many situations. So it's more like a word than an icon. And that word relates to an "appearance", the appearance of temporal continuity.

If we want to understand the meaning here, we need to address this appearance. What is the reason for the appearance of such a temporal continuity in the world?

I need an explanation as to how an activity is "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

Aren't 'things' periodic patterns of ("indivisible")^ events? Re/acquaint yourself, MU, with thermodynamics (re: plasma, steam, liquid ...) Also, read old Epicurus (and/or Lucretius) on 'swirling swerving atoms^ recombing in void'. :fire:

So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness?

And in this case consciousness is the ontological primitive — TheMadMan

Hmm this is a challenging notion to argue but I thank you for the task. It seems fun. I'm going to ad lib with this one.

So lets say for arguments sake consciousness as an ontological primitive is an spontaneous impulse (action potential) that wishes to create tracks or patterns (thoughts) so that it can develop a store (memory) and thus perception of the passage of time (based on memory of the past) and by proxy anticipation (or the "future" ), as well as a sense of presence (the present), it requires some substance to store information and making these thought tracks/patterns - ie for making memories.

Cue matter. If energy is the impulse of thought - potent, flexible, malleable, changeable, creativity, imagination, then matter is it's rigid or crystalline counterpart - the memory generated.

And as we know the two are related (equivalent) - by Einstein equation (e=mc2).

If consciousness is a fundamental, then the hard problem of consciousness/or matter (I think they are the same in this case) cannot be found in our brains, and is not that hard at all, it would instead be a reevaluation of the e=mc2 equation with the assumption that (c2) represents the gap (or "problem" of unifying the 2 entities: thought (energetic impulse, and memory - matter: the anatomically stable structure, the neurons).

Matter is thus the form of energy with properties of stability, it takes a solid and structured or patterned form and then remains that way until acted upon again. Just as memories take form and are slowly altered every time we revisit them with our conscious attention.

Perhaps con"solid"ation of memories also involves gravity which draws in scattered "memories" and condenses them into geometric relationships/associations (orbits, solar systems etc - perhaps a basic for logic or reasoning. Organisation, complexity. Negative entropy).

So really the question would be how does thought in this case (energy - the electricity or light coursing and rippling through the system as it thinks, acts and develops) become matter (the memories formed) and I would suggest the answer lies in the e=mc2 formula.

Speed is a relationship between time and space (distance). It is also the factor that distinguishes matter from energy - (c) the speed of light (which is energy, so it's a "self-referential" equation - apt for consciousness or "self" no? ).

In order for energy to become matter, or "thought impulse" to become "memory", time and distance must change rapidly. As the equation would suggest.

Perhaps with some relativistic expansion-dilation type of change.

A given quantity of energy or "thought" could hurtle out (space) , dissipate (entropy) and it's rate of change (with relation to time) might slow and become more stable, less chaotic, and thus precipitate into an emergent form that is much less excitable and dizzyingly zippy/fast (matter).

This primitive consciousness could be said then to be a dynamic relationship between the 4 fundamentals: energy, time, space and matter (each dependant on the qualities/properties of the others for existence and their "separable individual behaviours" ).

I hope this satisfies your request for a consciousness based emergent physicalism answer that you might enjoy contemplating.

It's at most an analogy/metaphysical, metaphorical or pseudo-physics description.

It has no scientific "proof" from a purely physicalist perspective, but I guess resolving the physical with the conscious (hard problem) wouldnt come just from objective physical explanations would it? I think it could be seen as reasonable despite not being scientific.

That I imagine physicalist will detest with every inch of their "material bodies." But I don't shy away from a bit of thought paintings/art regardless of their disgruntledness

Interesting ideas thanks.

I do like the trinity, action potential (positive emptiness)-energy-matter

Interesting ideas thanks.

I do like the trinity, action potential (positive emptiness)-energy-matter — TheMadMan

Same I think it seems elegant. Ties energy and matter together nicely in an axis (action and acted upon)

Aren't 'things' periodic patterns of ("indivisible")^ events? — 180 Proof

A "thing" is what is involved in the event, as what engages in the activity. There is not matter to a described event unless an independent thing (a thing independent from the description) is signified.

Let's say "X moved from A to B" is a description of a simple event. This description is not itself an event, it is simply a description. But if "X' represents a real thing, which is involved in a supposed real event, then we have a representation of the "matter". However, "X" as representative of the matter, is not the event itself, but something which is implied to have existed before the event, and persist after the event. Therefore the matter is independent from the event.

Without consciousness matter doesn’t have a home. No consciousness of which to be an object. I’m doubtful matter is enough by itself. How can non-extension emerge from extension? Can something with only spatial properties give rise to non-space.

The physicalists have the hard problem of consciousness where consciousness is emergent from matter.
So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

Be careful how you speak openly of Consciousness & Matter in the same breath. Some people may think you are Mad. :joke:

Personally, I don't think Matter arises from Consciousness (Idealism), but I do have a theory of how Consciousness could evolve from the same origin as Matter. It's based on the 20th century discovery in Physics that Generic Information is the fundamental element of the universe*1. Just as Einstein concluded that Matter is merely a form of Energy (E=MC^2), I postulate that Energy is a form of Generic Information (my term). That's not the passive stuff that Claude Shannon made famous, but the same Awareness & Aboutness that is processed & stored in human minds. Here's a link to one of my blog posts on this topic*2. :smile:

*1. Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
Arguably, information could even be the fundamental brick with which physical reality is built (Wheeler’s ‘It from Bit thesis’)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

*2. Foundation of Reality : Matter or Consciousness? :
Several physicists and Neuroscientists of the 21st century have revived the ancient term Panpsychism to represent the evidence that metaphysical Consciousness (in the generic form of Information) is the primary element from which all physical and mental forms of the current world emerged
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note -- Although this post refers to a "First Cause", or "Creator", or "generic G*D", it is not intended to be a Religious concept, or a Scientific theory, but merely a Philosophical conjecture.

I’m doubtful matter is enough by itself. — Arne

Don't forget that 99.999% of baryonic "matter" also consists of empty space. Classical atomism, after all, is grossly consistent with modern particle physics (& statistical mechanics).

How can non-extension emerge from extension? Can something with only spatial properties give rise to non-space.

X moves. This moving is not independent of X. No X, what moves?. 'X moves' describes X more exhaustively than just 'X'. Substitute brain for X and minding for moves. Minding describes what brain do (i.e. 'X moves'); don't fixate on the reifying noun – mind is a verb.

I think the concept of mind (consciousness) makes more sense when used to refer to an activity instead of an entity. No mind-entity "emerges" because mind is not an entity. Of course, I could be mistaken – if you disagree, Arne, then by all means correct me (or not).

Don't forget that 99.999% of baryonic "matter" also consists of empty space — 180 Proof

Would you consider it empty if permeated by particle fields? Is it really empty if sustaining a magnetic field?

Would you consider it empty if permeated by particle fields? — jgill

Atoms are particles. Neutrons protons, and electrons are also particles. So are quarks. As far as I know, their respective volumes do not consist of "particle fields".

Is it really empty if sustaining a magnetic field?

Empty of "matter". Maybe you missed by point: "matter" consists of fundamental events in void (re: Democritus), that is, consisting of more than just persistent, or tangibly discrete, "stuff". I think the next sentence (which you didn't include in your quote) makes this clear. I wasn't making a literal scientific claim and didn't mean absolute nothingness by using the term "empty space". The void is "really empty", just not absolutely, or completely, empty.

Minding describes what brain do (i.e. 'X moves'); don't fixate on the reifying noun – mind is a verb. — 180 Proof

:up:

Without a special “tree-sensing” sense, how can I possibly experience a tree? — Art48

I suspect that the extra-sensory sense you refer to, is Reason (ability to infer wholes from parts). A tree is a system of many parts, but treeness is a quality of the whole integrated system. All living things have some ability to sense the environment, searching for specific patterns that indicate usefulness (e.g. food) for the purposes of the organism. In humans that pattern-seeking talent, consciousness, is at its most general.

Reason is an information processing facility, sifting sensory inputs to separate beneficial patterns from detrimental. The evolutionary path to reason begins with basic chemistry (e.g carbon atoms link with complementary atoms to form organic matter). Then organs link-up to form organisms. Eventually, those abstract puzzle pieces form recognizable patterns, that minds equipped with multiple senses can cognize into meanings.

In mathematical terms, Reason can be defined as a detector of ratios (proportions) that indicate fitness for specific functions. And those fitness functions become the basic purposes of sentient beings. So, if a tree has been found by experience to facilitate the survival of an organism, it will be engraved in memory with a name and a meaning : tree >> roots-trunk-leaves >> tall & climbable >> something to ascend when attacked by a predator. Therefore, pattern sensing is an evolutionary fitness trait that contributed to reproduction of brain genes and eventually to mind memes.

Reason, per se, is not inherent in basic matter, but the potential for reasoning must have been encoded in the mathematics of matter, in the form we now know as Information : essentially, the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative. Those opposing forces lie on the utmost ends of a continuous range of possible states. Yet, nature tends to select moderate states that are complementary & constructive, instead of contradictory & destructive. Eventually, the ability to learn the utility of treeness allowed a few mammals with hands to stand on their own two feet, and to grow big brains on the tip-top of their neural systems. :smile:

PS__Sorry for the elaboration, I got carried away with the tree metaphor. :yikes:

Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth. ___Wikipedia
Logic is the organizing mathematical structure of the world. Reason is the ability to detect logical structural patterns against the background of randomness.

Reason :
a> the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
b> to discover, formulate, or conclude

“Intelligence is based on how efficient a species became at doing the things they need to survive.” . . . . “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”
___Charles Darwin

I would use the term "conceptualizing" rather than "reason" for a number of reasons :smile:. Conceptualizing, with the ratcheting ability of language to leverage its effects, creates a recursive ability to iterate constant concepts and reformulate them. Abstraction is part of this process of conceptualizing. That is what our species does. That is how we are unique, if not in kind, then certainly in degree on how much we rely almost fully on it for survival. No instinctual mechanisms combined with early learning (like many birds and other mammals). Concepts, abstractions of concepts, recursive-ness of concepts, and the use of cultural learning, and reasons. I'm just trying to define more clearly the "sapien" part of our species' name.

Conceptualizing, with the ratcheting ability of language to leverage its effects, — schopenhauer1

:up:

We expand our vocabulary to include metacognitive concepts. We can talk about our talking to get better at talking --- and better at talking about our talking, and so on.

Indeed. If Chomsky is right (which he might not be), the ability for language gave a recursive-ness called "merge", that allows for constant thinking about thinking about thinking. Refining it and abstracting. I can agree with Chomsky's conclusion and not his explanation of evolution of it. He isn't great at that part. Better to read accounts by Michael Tomasello for that.

I would use the term "conceptualizing" rather than "reason" for a number of reasons — schopenhauer1

I agree that the ability to conceptualize -- to form abstract representations of real phenomena -- is a major factor in human consciousness. But I'd say "in concert with" rather than "rather than Reason". Logical abstraction is the reason we represent (conceptualize) ideal Consciousness, as-if it is a real thing. Accurate maps can be confused with the actual terrain.

Reasoning is the process of converting concrete sensory Percepts into abstract mental Concepts or Ideas. So both are necessary to producing consciousness (including self-awareness) of the human kind. We typically assume that "higher" animals, such as primates, are conscious. But since they lack language to express their ideas, we can't take their word for it. Some researchers have concluded that they are mimicking instead of conceptualizing*1.

So, the jury is out on that question *2. But the early notion of Reason as the uniquely human trait was expressed in Plato's use of the word for "Word" : Logos. Reason is the producer of esoteric (hidden) concepts, and exoteric (manifest) Words are the useful product for communication of subjective imagery to other minds. It's that complete system that allows humans to fly, and to walk on the moon.

Therefore, it seems obvious that the human ability to convert Real into Ideal is unique in the world. And the "hard problem" is to explain how that process of abstraction from Real to Ideal is possible, in terms of classical physics. That's why some thinkers are looking to Quantum physics for clues to the mystery of Mind in a material world. :smile:

*1. The apes taught sign language didn't understand what they were doing. They were merely "aping" their caretakers.
https://bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/

*2. Do Animals Have Concepts? :
In philosophy, concepts have also been seen in purely abstract terms. That’s in the sense that concepts are seen to have no direct relation to mentality or to biological brains — except for the fact that brains (or minds) can gain access to them.
https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/do-animals-have-concepts-3830c2f8d472

*3. Quantum mind :
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics alone cannot explain consciousness, positing instead that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain critical aspects of consciousness. These scientific hypotheses are as yet untested, and can overlap with quantum mysticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Note -- See the thread on the New Mysterians among scientists : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14203/on-chomskys-annoying-mysterianism

Atoms are particles. Neutrons protons, and electrons are also particles. So are quarks. As far as I know, their respective volumes do not consist of "particle fields". — 180 Proof

Theorist Sean Carroll thinks it’s time you learned the truth: All of the particles you know—including the Higgs—are actually fields.

Fermilab Symmetry Magazine

Yeah, ok. FWIW. The paragraph in my previous post that follows your quote, however, clarifies my meaning and why I took issue with the premise of your question about my use of the term "empty space".