How do you separate the two? — Questioner

The content of consciousness is not consciousness itself, is it? The content is the input data of your experience via perception, sensation and imagination etc. Consciousness itself is your mind which is the theater of all the images, sounds and thought are appearing in.

How we analyze incoming information, a thought, a memory, an instinct, represents a fixed neural pathway. We all have different neural pathways. They can be changed even into adulthood because of neuroplasticity. A brain develops (connections made between neurons) according to the stimuli it receives. Since one person's experiences are unique to the person, so too is the way the brain develops. — Questioner

You seem to be talking about the content of consciousness, not consciousness itself. Even my own consciousness content would be different from this morning to tonight after having read some books, watched youtube videos and listened to some jazz music.

Here we are talking about consciousness not the contents in consciousness, aren't we?

Well, we do, and the most basic knowledge of brain development will provide you with an answer. — Questioner

OK, let us suppose that they are different. How does the content of brain difference affect on what aspect of human consciousness?

But no two humans brains on the entire planet are identical. No two brains have the identical shape in the pattern of gyri and sulci (ridges and furrows). Not two brains have the same circuitry, the vast patterning of connections between neurons. that develops in response to how brains are stimulated. — Questioner

I am not sure on that claim. It is something we don't have definite answer. Without actual detailed examination, investigation and comparison, we can never tell if they are exactly the same or not. If they are all different, then how different, and how the difference of the structure of the content of brains affect consciousness. We need detailed conclusive answer to be able to claim that they are different.

My guess is that consciousness is fundamental, a property of particles, just like things like mass, charge, and spin are. — Patterner

What is the ground for it being fundamental? IOW, how is it fundamental?

If consciousness is not physical, then it is either mental existence of the Cartesian nature or it doesn't exist. Does consciousness exist as soul or spirit, or is it just function and operation of the complex biological beings? Or is it just a word describing the perceptive ability and behavior of conscious beings?

if God is real, — Truth Seeker

Don't you have to prove that God is real prior to further points? Your are introducing a dubious premise which has no proof or foundation here. Until it is proved and accepted as a valid premise, any arguments relating to the dubious premise will remain fictitious.

None of that applies to consciousness. The problem isn't that we cannot figure out how the physical characteristics of consciousness emerge from the properties of its constituents. That is something that, in theory, we could eventually figure out. The problem is, consciousness does not have physical characteristics. — Patterner

That was my point all along too. We have agreement here. :fire: :sparkle:

If consciousness emerged from brain, then why all consciousness differ from other consciousness?
Does it mean that our brain structure is all different from individual to individual? If so, how does our brain structure differ? Or is it same?

Surely if brain structure were all identical, then our consciousness must be all identical too. But we don't even know what others' consciousness is like apart from being able to see and hear their conscious actions, behaviors and expressions in words. This is another question arising.

Yes. Things happen consistently. H2O is liquid within a range of temperatures and pressures, solid at others, gas at others. This is not due to random chance. If that was the case, why would they occur consistently? — Patterner

But when the temperature is higher, and the molecules are moving around enough, the hydrogen bonds are constantly forming and breaking. Liquid!!! :grin: — Patterner

Very thorough and detailed explanation indeed. :up: :pray: Thank you. Yes, it seems definitely a cause and effect relation exists in the process. However, could we say the process is emergence? Isn't liquidity a property of H2O in certain temperature range? And what is happening to H2O via temperature changes is just transformation of the property?

It would help for analyzing alleged emergence of consciousness for its validity, if we could further analyze what emergence means.

In my opinion, this is an emergence. You can also draw (too short) lines that do NOT form a triangle.

So the triangle depends on the configuration, just like in a physical example. — SolarWind

So, you are saying the triangle is not a separate existence from the lines. Is this correct?
Does it mean the triangle is the lines, and triangle exists in the lines?

It sounds something not quite correct too. Emergence is an event on its own. You don't make up things to make something to emerge. If you did, then you wouldn't call it emergence.

A triangle can only be made from the lines by your intervention either by your drawing it, or making it up with the straight lines of wire or sticks. It is your doings, fabrication or workings whatever you may call it, but it is not an emergence.

I don't see how X exists separate from Y. — Patterner

Does liquidity emerge from the properties of particles? Could you explain how it happens in detail?

hmm. I guess we live in quite different worlds; metaphorically. That seems wholly inadequate to me and a clear ad hominem continuing. — AmadeusD

I am not your work boss. I wasn't saying to you not to use negative words in your posting. My point was, say whatever you want, but if you did, don't make up the other party's response in the same level as yours into ad hominem.

By the way, your examples for evolution look like variances in different individuals, or adaptations in life, rather than evolution. IOW, you seem to be confusing between adaption and evolution.

Let's take an example. X = triangle, Y = lines.
If a triangle emerged from lines, then the triangle must exist separate from the lines.
That doesn't make sense to me. — SolarWind

The triangle was made up with the lines. It didn't emerge from the lines.

I don't get how that answers my question to T Clark. — Patterner

I was trying to give some ideas on emergence. It wasn't an answer for your questions to TC.

That is panpsychism. — SolarWind

Another reasoning on emergence. If X emerged from Y, then X must exist separate from Y. If X exists in Y after emergence, then X is equal to or part of Y.

Consciousness does not exist separate from body. Or does it exist in the body? Or it does not exist in the form of existence.

If X exists in the form of non-existence, then does X exist? If X emerged from Y, then it must exist. But it doesn't exist. Therefore X could not have emerged from Y.
(X= consciousness, Y= body) We need to clarify this point.

Correct. They usually don't use "the" in sentences either. They will say "the frog", only when asked "which frog?".

it does not disprove the possibility that consciousness may have already existed in a preliminary form. — SolarWind

Yes, maybe it may have. It could be further point of discussion for clarification?
Some nights in my dreams, I see places and houses I have never been in my life, and folks I have never met in my life. Maybe that is the reason why.

And there are rules how a word should be used in a sentence, in that “over pass frog me the” would not be correct English — RussellA

Japanese and Korean language say in the order of "Frog to me pass over." They have different order of saying words in sentences, i.e. the different rules.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. There has to be a misunderstanding. Anything that exists and is the product of the laws of physics was constructed on the laws of physics. But you're saying they cannot be constructed on the laws of physics. — Patterner

If X emerged from Y, then X cannot be before Y in time. If consciousness emerged from body, then consciousness cannot know anything before existence of the body in time. But consciousness can know time before the body it emerged from by imagination. We can imagine what happened before our birth. We can imagine how life was like in ancient and prehistoric times.

Therefore consciousness cannot have emerged from body.

Suppose we make any rule, which we agree to follow. But we need another rule that we agree to follow the rules. But we need another rule that we agree to follow the rule that we agree to follow the rules.

Ultimately, rules are no more than social agreements. — RussellA

I am not sure if rules are being made on everything. Some are made, but some are inherent.
And not every rules are social agreements. There are private rules between individuals.
From my understanding, rules of concepts are the meanings. How you use concepts in sentences are the grammatical rules.

All concepts comes with its own meanings, and meanings imply the logic and rules how they should be used.

If you say "Pass me over the cup." in the restaurant, they will know what you mean and a cup will be brought to you, which is the use of the concept of cup in social settings and rules.

But if you say "Pass me over the frog.", then they will not know what you mean, even if you meant the cup. But your wife will know what you mean, because you two have the private agreement that frog means cup.

Therefore the rules of concepts can be social, private and also inherent.

"fail" and "nonsense" are objective descriptors. — AmadeusD

Totally unnecessary words in philosophical discussions. You are just letting everyone know you lost control of your emotion.

Clearly. This may be way you think Evolution isn't true. — AmadeusD

I would rather discuss any topic with the folks who think with their own mind rather than listing lots of links. Right or wrong can be clarified and judged later by more discussions, arguments and evidence.

You claimed there were no examples. I gave them. They are about 0.0001% of the plethora of evidence showing evolution by natural selection. — AmadeusD

I said in my previous post that your examples don't seem to have credibility for the concrete evidence of evolution is true. Please read it again.

in the face of my pointing out that typos exist — AmadeusD

If you keep making the same mistakes more than once, then it cannot be typos.

The claim to ad hominem was just a plain reading of your responses. — AmadeusD

You seem to be being too sensitive and emotional.

You can say you agree or disagree with the other poster's point with your supporting arguments why you do or don't. But if you add the words like "fail", "nonsense", "silly", or any of derogatory negative emotional nature which is not adding anything to the actual argument in the topic, then your posts will not get credibility, and the other poster will hit you back with the similar tone in their response to you.

If you'd like to do a bit of reading, I presume you will take the requisite several weeks to get comfortable with the concepts in these papers, read them, parse them and then interpret them to your heart's content before commenting: — AmadeusD

Thanks for the link. But recently my way of philosophizing is via mostly relying on my own thinking and reasoning. I don't read any information in the internet. I will read the original works by the historical philosophers. Hence my idea on evolution is from my own reasoning and inferring on the theory.

Because humans are a part of the Universe, and our concepts are part of us, it may well be that our concepts are rule-governed operating according to the laws of nature. I don’t know. — RussellA

Chess has rules and society has laws that are consciously made by humans — RussellA

Not sure about the universe - how large it is and how it began. One thing seems to be clear is that concepts are made by man. Western chess has its rules, but the Chinese chess has it own rules, and Japanese chess called "Go" has its own rules too, which are all different and specific on how they work.

On the concept of freedom, you could write a dissertation on its origin of the word, analysis of the meaning and uses of the concept, if needed.

We can make up any rules on anything, and as long as we agree to follow, that would be the rule. And in some cases, there is no rule for something such as random events and operations, and that is a rule too.

The rule of random determination? Can't randomness be considered as a rule? — Corvus


Not as a rule. — RussellA

There seem many things operating under the rule of random selection or random events. Consider the lottery jackpot numbers drawn from 50 numbers plus 12 lucky star numbers. The winning jackpot numbers consists of 5 numbers and 2 lucky star numbers randomly chosen. No one can predict or say why those numbers came out. But they do.

Another example, consider your own birth. Was there a rule for you having been born as yourself?
Can you explain why you were born as RussellA? Nope. I guess not. It was a pure random event. But there you are.

Many things happen and exist without explanation why. That is the truth of reality. Is it not?

The problem with using your own private language is that there wouldn't be a way to confirm rules. That same issue shows up if you ask yourself what rules you've been following up till now. There's no fact of the matter. — frank

Can you not make up your own rules for own private language, confirm and agree with the other member who uses the private language too?

Yes, it is a point to mull over as you indicated. Will get back for further thoughts on the point, if crops up.

However, I don't see that there are rules that determine our concepts. In other words, what rules determines our concept of freedom (what a concept is). — RussellA

The rule of random determination? Can't randomness be considered as a rule?

1. It doesn't appear that language acquisition in childhood could be explained by rule following. — frank

But when they are learning language, are they not also learning the rules i.e. how to use the words? When child learns words, it will be by experience of seeing objects and hearing the words for the objects. I am not sure child language acquisition is 100% innate ability.

2. By way of Kripke's insights, the Private Language argument itself gives us reason to doubt that you're discerning rules when you look out at human communication. — frank

I am not familiar with Kripke, but again when you are using your own private language, doesn't it presuppose rules for its origin of the words in the private language? If you and your wife agree to mean "frog" for "cup" just between you too, then you will have your personal reason why you decided and agreed to call "frog" to mean "cup". Something like, you have many cups with frog images on them or whatever. Or it could have been randomly chosen too. But the rule doesn't need explain why it was set. The crucial point of of a rule is that it had been set. You have been following it.

But there are no rules as to why we have the concept in the first place (rules as to what the concept is) — RussellA

Fair enough on your point. But it seems that no rule is necessary for why concepts have rules and logic in them. We could only say some concepts are a priori, and some are a posteriori. We know by instinct pleasure is good, pain is bad. We know by experience stone is heavier than water, and if you throw a stone to the window, the window will break.

Without the rules and logic in concepts, we wouldn't be able to build sensible statements or propositions. And all logical and rational thinking will fall apart, because we think and communicate with concepts in language and speech. Without concepts, there is no language and no speech.

I've provided you with ample evidence of evolution. If you chosen path is to talk about grammar, in the face of my pointing out that typos exist, I can only assume you are attempting to remain ad hominem. — AmadeusD

Your examples don't prove human evolution conclusively. Not sure where you shoveled across the examples from, but those are just features which could be different from individuals to individuals. Some folks are more tolerant than others, and some folks have different sizes just like everyone has different heights and weights for their bodies. Not concrete evidence for evolution.

It is not a good practice to claim ad hominem when your weakness has been exposed by your own doings. I would have never mentioned your grammar and spelling, if you didn't attack the simile statements as if they were the central part of the argument.

Are you not quite aware of typos? This is an absolutely ridiculous ad hominem. — AmadeusD

I was only pointing out your ability of understanding English and bad spelling at times, which seems to be the cause for your misunderstanding, because you asked silly questions. It was not ad hominem at all.

As noted i the quote you've used, no, it did not :) Status quo remains...Evolution is occurring. — AmadeusD

"i the quote you've used"? It doesn't make sense grammatically. There is no sign of evolution anywhere. :)

Do you have trouble getting around the city? — AmadeusD

It wasn't about me, but it was about clarifying your misunderstandings. Your posts contain spelling mistakes on the basic simple English words too, which gives impression you are not in clear mind when typing posts.

This may be because you provide no arguments to make your similies work. They are suggestions, in your comments. If you want to be clear, be clear. If not, continue :) — AmadeusD

You sounded you were taking in the figure of speech statements in wrong way, hence it was for clearing your misunderstandings on them. Hope it helped.

As there is a difference between what a rock is and what a rock does, there is a difference between what a concept is and what a concept does. — RussellA

Concept doesn't do anything. Humans do things - use concepts in thoughts and statements. Stone is heavier than water. - The concept of stone has the inherent meaning what stone is, which implies and states the clear logic and formal rule.

There is a difference between what a concept is and what a concept does. — RussellA

A concept is not just a word, but it has meanings. When the meaning is stated, it presents the formal rules and logical structure of the concept.

I don’t see that a concept is something with a logical structure or formal rules. — RussellA

Concepts are logical structure and have formal rules. A human is not a cup. Consciousness is not unconsciousness. A fool is not wise. Socrates is mortal. etc.

This misunderstands evolution in many ways: We do not need to fly around cities. Pollution hasn't been a big issue for more than about 300 years. — AmadeusD

The suggestions were purely to give some ideas if evolution worked, what could be the case. It is not saying that we need to fly around cities. But if we could, we would save lots of money for transportation and time too. Who says we don't need to fly around cities apart from you?

Pollution is a serious problem. I am not sure where you live. If you lived in some place forest off grid hunting for your daily meals, maybe you could be pardoned for your ignorance on the issue.

But if you lived in a large city with loads of cars, then you will know the problem. Air pollution destroys folks lungs putting them in the hospitals in large numbers every year.

To develop wings would take in excess of 100 million as I understand. These are simply silly suggestions the betray misunderstandings of hte theory. Some examples of observed evolutionary changes in humans: — AmadeusD

Again it was a simile suggestive point to emphasize that evolution doesn't work. It sounds like you always try your best criticizing the simile suggestions for putting the point across as if it were the central point of the argument. That is real silly.

Your comments give strong impression that you can't read and understand any suggestions put forward in simile statements.

I wasn't. And I don't know what "abrupt" when reading posts in forums like this. — L'éléphant

Without any logical argument, just your blurting out "Fail" and "Nonsense" to the others' point sounded abrupt and pretentious too.

First, I'm neither of the above. But I didn't think your post, which I criticized, should even be the question -- meaning, I expected more from you than posting nonsense like that. — L'éléphant

It appears that you feel it is nonsense due to your prejudice on something. Talking in vague science words beating around the bush clouding the point is not always a good way to do philosophy. Looking at the problem from different angle is. You seem to rubbish the latter, and blindly adore the former.

No, atoms, molecules, neurons, brain - that is structure. But when engaged in its highly complex function - that produces consciousness. A brain has to be working to produce awareness. — Questioner

Yes, I said no one is denying that. But they are not consciousness.

And doesn't that just make the brain all the more the marvel of human evolution? — Questioner

It does. But it needs good education and philosophical training for maximum performance. :grin:

I don't think it is so much "explaining" as finding the structural source for it. — Questioner

More or less the same thing, but more accurate word is "explaining".

Since we all have it, we know what consciousness is. The role of science is to try to link consciousness - the function - with the structure - the brain. — Questioner

It really doesn't say much. No one is denying brain is connected to consciousness. But consciousness is not brain or neurons. It is not atoms or particles.

Consciousness cannot be meaningful without time (knowledge of past present future) and space (knowledge of where one is existing in), as well as self identity. Alertness just awakened from matter is CCTV camera.

Consciousness presupposes far more than that. It needs personal history, emotions, thoughts and reasoning and imagination as well as linguistic abilities which are backed by past memories of living individual.

Science tries to explain how information is processed in what path of the neurons conjunction to which part of brain, when they claim to be explaining consciousness. It is much similar explanation analogous to computer processing information in conjunction to the central processor. It does not touch anything about what consciousness is.