Furthermore, if a table did exist, but no one ever saw or used it, would we naturally conclude it doesn't exist? In this case it does, regardless. We just cannot appreciate its form or function therefore for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. — Benj96

:up:

Is a table natural or is it a product of human consciousness? — Benj96

Another good question. First of all, the word "table" is a term created by human vocabulary. Our knowledge and vocabulary describe table as: a flat surface, usually supported by four legs, used for putting things on.
So, at first glance, it looks like the existence of a table depends on our consciousnesses because we have elaborated the concept and give it a name.

Does the table exists naturally? Probably, but with a different name and meaning.

Well I would say I am a body. My body has a brain — Benj96

Again, you say "My body". See the contradiction, the conflict?
From the moment you say "I have" and "my" (something) you cannot be that (something). You have a car; you cannot also be your car. You have a wife. You cannot also be your wife.
The subject cannot be also the object. They are two different and separate things.

People cannot help not saying "my body", "my brain". It's very logical and natural. People actually know that they are not their body or their brain. But they get into a contradition, a delusion because they think at the same time that they are this body and this brain. And this happens because they exclude the possiblility, they cannot grasp the idea that they are something else. Something that is separate from their body and brain. Until one realizes this and accepts it as a truth, until this becomes one's reality, one will continue to be and live in delusion.

But it also doesn't make any sense to me how consciousness is emergent from matter.
That would mean that matter precedes it.
How can matter without any form of intelligence -since in this case consciousness is emergent- create something like consciousness, which is intelligence. It's like a sculpture creating the sculptor.

No matter how I go through it, science, philosophy or religion, consciousness always has to be fundamental and not emergent. — TheMadMan

For me it would not make sense for consciousness to exist in a vacuum. For me consciousness exists only in relation to something else. The word consciousness itself means 'to know together', meaning that a minimum of two things are necessary, thus it emerges in the presence of another. Can we say that a fundamental particle has consciousness? It may be possible to define consciousness in the context and terms of physical laws. If i were to disrupt the order and integrity of your brain or nervous system; what would happen to your consciousness? What happens when you take drugs? Consciousness seems to depend on structure which can only be provided by some form of stable matter. Matter and pattern in this view are the parents of consciousness.

Etymologically 'matter' and 'pattern' mean 'mother' and 'father' respectively, and everyone is preceded by their mother and father. So consciousness; the 'child' of matter and pattern.

The lowest form of intelligence in the universe are the laws of physics themselves. They are like plant tropisms; simple rules together causing complex patterns to emerge from ordered activity of energy. The universe fundamentally has 4 'tropisms' if you will: strong, weak, electro-magnetism, and gravity. Together with matter the laws begin to shape the matter in ways that guide energy in complex patterns which i believe is how higher and more complex forms of consciousness emerge.

Intelligence and consciousness are not the same thing. We can see this distinction in AI systems that are intelligent but not conscious.. yet.

If the laws of physics did not exist and the universe was pure chaos would consciousness be able to exist naturally in those conditions?

We always see that the more complex an organism is the more consciousness it seems to have. We never see any case where the less complex the more consciousness. A worm has more consciousness than a bacteria, an insect still more, a mouse even more, a dog, a person. The pattern seems obvious. More complexity equals more potential consciousness determined by the specific level of self-integration.

Well that's my two cents about it.

we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us — javi2541997

Exactly.
So, saying "I am my body" and at the same time "I am aware of my body" is a contraction. In fact, it's an impossibility. Because the body is an object and objects have no awareness, much less awareness of themselves. (This is a sound assumption because we don't have any indication of the opposite.) So, if we accept this impossiblility, then the concept of awareness has no meaning at all. Awareness simply doesn't exist as a state or faculty. Which is of course false.

We are speaking different languages.
You are using consciousness mainly as being conscious or meta-consciousness.
I'm using it as a fundamental principle of reality.
Also the use of the word intelligence is different. I'm using it as the guiding principle of consciousness.
Another difference is that you create a duality of matter and consciousness. I do not.
It's not that I disagree with most of what you have said. It's just that you use the words that I used in different meaning.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/771855

We are speaking different languages. — TheMadMan

Sometimes saying something in another language helps it make more sense. I think you might know what i mean if you're multilingual. If something doesn't make sense from a religious angle for example then pivot into philosophy, or science. The more perspectives the fuller the picture resolution, even if your data points have some error a useful pattern emerges which can be further refined. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, i'm just entertaining thoughts for my own purposes.

I'm using it as a fundamental principle of reality. — TheMadMan

But that is what i'm addressing; it's fundamentality. In your view what does consciousness essentially do?

Also the use of the word intelligence is different. I'm using it as the guiding principle of consciousness. — TheMadMan

No, i see intelligence as fundamental to consciousness and it is the guiding principle of consciousness.

Another difference is that you create a duality of matter and consciousness. I do not. — TheMadMan

Well i didn't intend to give that impression because i'm a monist not a dualist; there is one thing and all is made of it, just more complex forms of the same thing (energy and matter). If consciousness is fundamental then it must be found either at the level of pure energy (before matter), or somehow before energy itself which is as fundamental as i think one can get.

We should at least have a stable definition of what consciousness is so that we know how to identify it when it shows up. How can we tell the difference between something that is conscious and something that is not? How would you define consciousness in this context?

So, if we accept this impossiblility, then the concept of awareness has no meaning at all. Awareness simply doesn't exist as a state or faculty. Which is of course false. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, I am a bit lost on the final phrase of your argument. What is false at all? I see that you want to explain that awareness is not faculty or state and then, awareness shall not have logic itself.
But the last phrase makes me thinking for one hour straight :sweat:

I don't what is false: awareness, the object's awareness or the tables themselves! Or... is it everything false and nothing is true at all? :scream:

Right.

If something doesn't make sense from a religious angle for example then pivot into philosophy, or science. The more perspectives the fuller the picture resolution — punos

I agree but without clarification it makes thinks unnecessarily complicated.

Well i didn't intend to give that impression because i'm a monist not a dualist; there is one thing and all is made of it, just more complex forms of the same thing (energy and matter). If consciousness is fundamental then it must be found either at the level of pure energy (before matter), or somehow before energy itself which is as fundamental as i think one can get. — punos

On this we agree.

We should at least have a stable definition of what consciousness is so that we know how to identify it when it shows up. How can we tell the difference between something that is conscious and something that is not? How would you define consciousness in this context? — punos

I use consciousness as Mind -not the particular mind- or Intellect in neoplatonism, Dharma in buddhism, Tao in taoism etc. I don't mean consciousness as the capacity of humans to be conscious, I call that meta-consciousness.
I use it as pure energy which through its own intelligence creates complex/conditioned energy, which is matter.
My point is that matter is not something different from consciousness but a manifestation of it.

Does the table exists naturally? Probably, but with a different name and meaning. — javi2541997

I think in some capacity it does also. In the sense that tables have evolved in their intricacy with the improvement in woodwork, metal and glass technology. But a slabstone settled on top of some rocks naturally were probably the first tables we used. The least effort to construct them as they sit readily available along most river banks.

Interestingly, the very act of applying a new term to it can open up potential for innovation. If a tribesmen points at a slab and says table, and his child asks why is it also table and not just a slab of rock? And he explains because we use it as a flat surface for food prep/eating. Then naturally, one can think oh in that case a table does not have to weigh 2 tonnes and could be made of wood instead and therefore be mobile and have improved function. The child could then go off fashioning something entirely new - a wooden plynth on four legs and et voilà "a better table".

So in summary - giving something a new name differentiates it into a subcategory which outlines the qualities that it has that others in the set do not.

Some rocks are tables, not all rocks are tables, Therefore could not all tables be rocks? What else has tableness?

What something "is" and what something "does" are interchangeable in that sense.

From the moment you say "I have" and "my" (something) you cannot be that (something). — Alkis Piskas

I think I can. "I am my continued survival". It is self proving in that to "be" I must possess (have) that characteristic of continued survival.

The reason we have "have" is because it not only pertains to what we intrinscally are (I have blood, I have a pulse etc) but extends outside ourselves to I have a car. "is" does not serve this same function. I can't say "I am this car" (I have a car).

So in summary "have" and "are" can be the same but not always. They're like a Venn diagram with overlap but also isolated subsets.

I think these are just linguistic idiosyncrasies. I can say I am a body, therefore I am partly a brain (as brains are parts of bodies). In this case I removed the verb "have" and replaced it with "am".

A water molecule "has" 2 bound hydrogens and an oxygen, it also "is" two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen bound toghether. I see little difference in the impact of the use of "has" or "is" on the definition of the thing.

What something "is" can often be defined by the qualities it "has". If a dog has no dog like qualities "is" it still a dog?

I think the pedantics of language often hinder conveying meaning.

Some rocks are tables, not all rocks are tables, Therefore could not all tables be rocks? What else has tableness? — Benj96

Interesting.

If some or all rocks are tables depends on the management of working. We can apply the nature of "rock" to everything: tables, chairs, bathroom, etc... if a rock has tableness is thanks to us. A rock does exist in the environment and it will continue to conserve the property of "rock" during the process of transforming it in a table. During this process, a rock is not aware that it has been transformed metaphysically.
The concept of "table" is only a human thing. I mean, it is not an element of the environment. We are capable of manage and transforming stuff and then we apply different names or labels.
But the concept of tableness in only in our awareness and doesn't exist outside of us.

What else has tableness?

Nothing. Tableness doesn’t exist metaphysically. A block of wood transforms in a table but it is still a block of wood. Table is just in our vocabulary.

What else has tableness? — javi2541997

Are you sure nothing has tableness? I would argue that anything that can be used as a table has tableness.

I know it is not an innate natural property of things. But rather an applied one. Some qualities/properties are artificial (created by and only relevant to humans/human activity).

Does that mean it exists? If it isn't a natural quality like "weight", "texture" and "size"?

I think it does exist (isn't metaphysical but physical), but only because we exist and it makes sense as a physical existent to us. The proof of a table is in its use as a table. The function proves its definition.

Humans create new existents all the time.

Sorry, I am a bit lost on the final phrase of your argument. What is false at all? I see that you want to explain that awareness is not faculty or state and then, awareness shall not have logic itself. — javi2541997

Sorry if that was a little confusing. I will try to make it more clear: Let's define "awareness" as a state, condition or faculty of being able to know or perceive. Now, we know that objects cannot be in such a state or have such a faculty --there's no indication whatsoever about that. Right? So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false.

Well, this was a side argument, which I admit is somehow complex and which could well be missing. It came with the wind! :smile:

Thanks anyway from bringing this up!

. Now, we know that objects cannot be in such a state or have such a faculty --there's no indication whatsoever about that. Right? So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false — Alkis Piskas

Well aren't we all objects? We are physical bodies with defined parameters that exist in space. But we are objects that are aware. So are cats, primates, and AI robots all of which could have some level of conscious awareness that we can identify as more similar to our own than a dead clump of Rock.

So objects can have the quality of being sentient. And that allows them to assume subject status also.

So what is it about an object that makes it possess awareness? For me I would say it is the ability of it to process and store information, sufficient to gain control (autonomy/agency) over its own stability (survival) and that demands complexity.

A "Self" in this case is that system which defies subjugation to the random disorder and chaos of the universe.

I think it does exist (isn't metaphysical but physical), but only because we exist and it makes sense as a physical existent to us. The proof of a table is in its use as a table. The function proves its definition. — Benj96

Yes, I am agree they exist but what I deny is the notion of "table" or whatever new existents. We create those because our knowledge is ready to always go beyond. This is even thanks to metaphysics. We want to go more away than our limits.
We build a car. A car itself doesn't have awareness. We are aware that such object is called as a "car" because our vocabulary gives it such word. But all the elements of the car can exist with or without the car. I mean, the oil used to start up the car or the rubber used in the wheels to control the car, will always exist "there" not depending if we use them in a car. Thus, those elements weren't born to be used in a car. We, due to our awareness and sense of reality, use them in personal or professional proposes.

So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false. — Alkis Piskas

Thanks because I also want to make the same argument but it is hard to me find the exact words to express it. :sweat:
What I want to argue here is the fact that, if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary.

Yes, I am agree they exist but what I deny is the notion of "table" or whatever new existents — javi2541997

I think I get you now. The "concept" doesn't exist. Yes I agree. Ideas and concepts don't exist as physical things.

If we all decided today to replace the word car with "rolly machine" then nothing will have changed. Because everyone still agrees on what word is applied to what physical thing. In this sense the word or language, the vocabulary - is arbitrary. Any word can be used in place of any other word so long as a group of people agree as to what it refers to.

Is this sort of what you meant?

What I want to argue here is the fact that, if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary. — javi2541997

There's a word for this "cognitive bias". If humans can only know what human consciousness is, the "what it is like to be" of human experience, it is difficult to believe anything else that isn't exactly the same consciousness as us has consciousness at all.

Basically we assume that consciousness is only 1 thing - "human consciousness". And we can only prove things by comparison to a standard and that standard is our own experience.

Is a tree aware? Not like a human is, for sure. Does that mean it definitely isn't aware? I'm not so sure. How would one prove this? In essence such a question requires us to definitively define what consciousness actually is. And thus what is capable of possessing it.

Is this sort of what you meant? — Benj96

Exactly.

Is a tree aware? Not like a human is, for sure. Does that mean it definitely isn't aware? I'm not so sure. How would one prove this? In essence such a question requires us to definitively define what consciousness actually is. And thus what is capable of possessing it. — Benj96

:up:

That's the main point or cause of the debate, I guess... and it seems so interesting because I don't how can we argue using the philosophical schools: metaphysics or philosophy of language? :chin:

"Be" and "have" are two of the three auxiliary verbs: be, do and have. These are also the 3 conditions of existence.
I am a programmer, I create programs and I get money. I am not a program and I'm not money. However, "be" can can be identified with the other two, but only in a figurative way, e.g. "I am what I do", "I am my wife", etc. From that aspect, we can say "I am my body", in the sense that my body reflects who I am, how I treat it and maintain it, my eating habits etc. But all these refer to linguistic and semantic expressions (pedantic mannerisms as you say). Strictly speaking and in essence, however, "be" and "have" are totally different notions and conditions. You cannot be what you have.

You cannot have a body and be your body at the same time.
But this is too obvious. What is not obvious is the answer to the question: "If I am a body, what am I?"

We are physical bodies with defined parameters that exist in space — Benj96

Well, we come back to the conflict between "I have awareness" and "objects do not have awareness" ...

See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity.

How many deceptions, disappointments or dead ends such a thinking must produce for one to realize that it is wrong? I believe, endless, as long as one is unwilling to make a step out of preconcieved notions, fixed beliefs and is ignoring of actual experience.

if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary. — javi2541997

Yes, that is a possibility. Well, since you brought this up, you must also find out how! :grin:

See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas

Interesting view.

If we have a circularity, we must start in a basic point then. I only can guess that the basic starting point is the existence itself which is mixed with subject and properties.

Yes, that is a possibility. Well, since you brought this up, you must also find out how! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

It is a complex task, indeed :sweat: I would need to get more knowledge on metaphysics!

I only can guess that the basic starting point is the existence itself which is mixed with subject and properties. — javi2541997

I agree. This is close to what I mentioned en passant about "ignoring actual experience".
I believe that consulting our own experience more than our or other people's thoughts and beliefs, we find more and better, more "solid" answers. For ourselves, of course.
An example is what I say about the nature of consciousness, that "it can be only experienced".

Good luck with metaphysics! :smile:

Thanks for your wisdoms, friend!

ありがとうございました。

どういたしまして

Well, we come back to the conflict between "I have awareness" and "objects do not have awareness" ... — Alkis Piskas

What conflict? Many people believe "objects have awareness" - whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter.

In any case for those people there is no conflict. You don't believe this therefore for you there is a conflict. A contradiction.

See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas

But saying the two at the same time is redundant imo. I am a body suffices. Or I have a body suffices. I don't need to say both simultaneously as they impart relatively similar quality of information for all intents and purposes.

also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas

God forbid a circle/cycle ever exist. What of it? Circular arguments are presumed to be false/nonsensical because they're circular and people don't like that logic. How can you end up back where you started? But there isn't actually any reason why it's less acceptable than a linear A to B case.

It's analogous to arguing whether the true nature of something is an infinity (circular/endless) or finite/discrete, linear A to B.

Many people believe "objects have awareness" - whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter — Benj96

If they believe that, they should be able to explain it then. Can you?
Also, if this were true, there should be some evidence of at least some indication. Is there any?
Also, there should be some scientific or philosophical reference about that: Is there?
Note: All of references must prove that "objects have awareness". The awareness we all know and can define. Because if it is something different, then it's not awareness.

whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter — Benj96

I have already said that "So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define.". Also, @javi2541997 said that, in other words: "if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary." Both statements are presented in one and the same topic: yours.

You cannot hypothesize something and have nothing to offer as proof, data, explanation, description or at least some indication about that hypothesis. Banjamin. Otherwise it's an empty speculation.