Returning to the central issue: Does a rock have consciousness? If you say it does, then one can define consciousness as "A property possessed by a rock." If you say it doesn't, then the question becomes "why doesn't it?" If your answer is "A rock has no brain" , then you are a physicalist and must rethink your existence. :chin:

If one assumes there are degrees of consciousness, from zero to partial to full, then one may conclude a rock has zero degree and a bright, functioning human has over ninety degrees when fully awake. If one assumes partial consciousness does not exist, then when we awaken there is no continuity and its like a light being switched on instantly. Is that possible? More likely, consciousness underlies everything, always there, and we become aware of it.

But this is naive metaphysical babble on my part, and I apologize.

This is tangential, but to feel the breathtaking power of freedom of the will one might consider engaging in Castaneda's The Art of Dreaming. Over forty years ago I learned to practice this directed form of lucid dreaming and it was an epiphany. The first time was a profound experience, the most remarkable aspect being that one becomes pure will or intent. No drugs, and very simple instructions that worked for me on my first try. Look it up if you are interested. Philosophical discussions seem banal and flimsy compared to direct experience. :cool:

I believe we have agency, but some decisions seem to be made at a level below the conscious. So I'm not willing to accept your premise. Nevertheless, good luck.

↪jgill
Sounds like basically the same reason [you] wrote your history. To make some minor contribution to the field. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for the explanation. I do the same thing with mathematics, writing short notes on whatever topic interests me and posting on researchgate. Once upon a time I wrote and published, but I lost interest in the formalities and the topics I was writing about when I retired twenty years ago. It's a lot more fun now! :cool:

Why write books like this to begin with? If your goal is to formulate and express your ideas about philosophy for your own sake then don't worry about an external audience. But, if you anticipate a readership that embraces and appreciates your efforts, what sort of validation of this expectation do you have?

I created a website some years ago that contained original, albeit amateur, historical research on topics that had not been subject to investigations. Then, some time later, I wrote several print-on-demand books based on my site. I did this primarily to insure some records of my efforts survive after I pass away and the site vanishes. I check periodically and find that several of these books are bought each year, but, more importantly, copies reside in a library devoted to these pursuits. I make no money, and consider these books my contributions to these specific areas of activity. I suspect they are rarely checked out and read, but that's OK. The mere fact they exist provides satisfaction.

I have several old friends who are writing what I consider end-of-life projects. I doubt their books will be finished and published, but it gives them a purpose, a reason to persist and grow, even in old age. I suggest to them they have other projects waiting in the wings should they actually finish these books.

What motivates you to write this book? I'm sure you have explained this primary aspect of your project, but I would like to know.

neural default mode network — praxis

Thanks for this reference. It's illuminating. :smile:

OK. That makes more sense. a rock is not self-aware, only its fundamental particles are.

Oh oh. What about the virtual particles within the rock? How can they be aware if they are merely ripples in a field? Or worse, only mathematical entities without any sort of corporal existence?

Philosophy is truly a difficult discipline. :worry:

Does panpsychism imply a piece of rock is self-aware? :chin:

↪jgill
There’s a thread on UBI somewhere else. To my knowledge no one has mentioned UBI here. — I like sushi

The UBI concept probably lies in a socialist agenda, which itself lies between capitalism and communism.

How does a UBI relate to communism? I seem to recall most people had to work for a living in the USSR. :chin:

↪jgill
I have; and I've already made my contribution. — Banno

Yes, I know. You sent a ripple in the aether requiring serious meditation to unravel. Thanks a lot. :razz:

Coming out from under anesthesia one may be partially conscious for a period, recognizing a friend but unable to put thoughts together. Emerging from a deep sleep there may be a short period of partial consciousness, an inability to synchronize sensory input or think clearly. Before my daily two cups of coffee I am only partly conscious, unable to dredge up names to match faces, etc.

This thread is a little like a thread on the intricacies of quantum theory by those who do not participate in physics teaching, research or experimentation. What's needed are more posts by those who have actually engaged in mystical practices, such as experienced Zen practitioners.

Those who have had mystical epiphanies should contribute more. Please do.

I am because of the fact that consciousness does not admit of degrees — bert1

In humans, partial consciousness occurs frequently. The fundamental concept of consciousness may not, however.

Therefore, only those that have walked in madness can reflect on themselves in a later rational rime can know the most vibrant snippets of the descent, and even then it must be asked if a rational mind can ever really know the madness and despair of the journey. — bobcat

John F. Nash, Jr. (A Beautiful Mind) suffered from schizophrenia for years, but claimed to have cured himself by computer programming for his physics and math colleagues. So, yes, a rational mind can indeed really know about the journey. :cool:

Consciousness is an aspect of intelligence. — jacksonsprat22

Maybe not. Perhaps the other way around?

Wiki: Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

For example, growing and adapting plants. :chin:

A question that arises from time to time. If one were to accept Tegmark's Mathematical Universe concept the question is seen in a different context though an answer remains problematic. Apparently it's not known whether Tegmark himself has confidence in his ideas. As a retired mathematician, the MU seems far-fetched but intriguing. Other than that, who can argue with Einstein? :cool:

Virtual particles do not appear from nothing — emancipate

They seem to appear in calculations, but whether they exist as real physical entities may be questionable.

Philosophy strikes me as the fruit of intellectual dizziness, paralysis or crisis. A sense of urgency is key: an urgent or debilitating craving for intellectual illumination. There's nothing fun about a debilitating craving. Through philosophical devotion, the dizziness, paralysis or crisis may be overcome — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm here to enjoy reading delightful posts like this one. :cool:

Sorry. No.

I consider the constructs: adjective+substantive, where the substantive gets a substantially different meaning (often opposite), as an example of an intellectual illness. — philosopher4hire

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp

For a science you need to scientifically (that is: mathematically) move from one point to the next one. You need a mathematical PROOF — philosopher4hire

I'm not sure what you mean. For example, quantum phenomena can be modeled on mathematics that has not been proven valid. Feyman's path integral is a mathematical concept that functions well even when the functional integral involved is not completely understood. One uses what works in physics.

So we have a double tragedy, philosophical guidance is needed, but it's not heeded. — Metaphysician Undercover

This seems to be primarily an amateurs' forum - and I don't mean this in a pejorative way - in that few if any make their living as professional philosophers (probably requiring graduate degrees). Your ideas on the foundations of mathematics might receive a more serious scrutiny were you to post them on a site like https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=math+stackexchange . Yoiu might find some there who would agree with you. Just a thought. :cool:

So this statement implies that you misunderstand what the foundations of mathematics really are — Metaphysician Undercover

The result, modern mathematics is a disorderly mess. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know. It's a tragedy that requires competent philosophical guidance. Thanks for being there when we need you! :scream:

Mathematicians on the other hand seem to be disinterested, being more inclined to take the axioms for . . . — Metaphysician Undercover

Mathematics evolved over millennia and foundations are fairly recent. Most practicing mathematicians, especially those in classical mathematics, just do the math they are interested in and avoid arguments over the axioms that lie at the base of foundations. Of course, analytic philosophers, set theorists and other math people can be heavily involved in foundations, and keenly feel perturbations in that structure that would go unnoticed by the rest of us.

For me, arguments in transfinite mathematics seem far too abstract, but for others they may represent the soul of the subject. Personally, doing minor research in classical complex analysis I've never needed to go transfinite. But others in what is called modern or "soft" analysis have used debatable axioms like the Axiom of Choice for their investigative results.

If you are a person who feels strongly that the axiomatic structure of math contains flaws, the go for it. There's room for everyone. :cool:

It's not called the dismal science for nothing. The hard sciences are fairly good at predicting. Economics is better at analyzing the past.

I used to argue with a twenty year veteran of Zen about no-thingness. He would declare that he reached a state of "empty awareness" completely devoid of object, to which I would reply that could not be true since he was aware of empty awareness itself. But Zen knows best I suppose. :roll:

hoping to reveal the fact that ambiguity and equivocation are abundant in mathematics — Metaphysician Undercover

I'll take that under consideration since you obviously have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. :roll:

and don't comment. — Xtrix

I wasn't aware there is a rule about commenting. Seems peculiar for a forum like this one. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

Your comment on the other thread: "Interesting to read this thread, watching people gradually convincing themselves, once again, to elect Trump"

Not a good idea for a thread IMO.

I can't understand how people would so miss the point, and would take the above rhetorical question . . . — bongo fury

My point was accuracy of statement. Philosophical overthinking seems normal on this forum. :cool:

The problem is that there is no such thing as motion at time t — Metaphysician Undercover

True enough, if taking a photo of a moving object - which has the effect of freezing the motion. We use time = t in lots of formulae, and make accurate predictions. But in everyday affairs we experience time more as intervals, although we say things like "I'll meet you at three".

Is time flowing at time = t? I suspect it is.

To what extent will Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma affect the election? Do you believe "He did nothing wrong", as most of the media have stated? :chin:

Why does dividing things by three, into thirds, create an "infinite" number of threes after the decimal point, as if we can never get to an actual third of something? — Harry Hindu

6/3=2

Again, a major problem in philosophical discussions is exhibited. :sad:

What is not reasonable is to call any sort of velocity "instantaneous velocity" because any velocity requires a period of time, and "instant" implies a point in time. So that phrase is really self-contradicting, oxymoronic — Metaphysician Undercover

When you glance at your speedometer and it reads 60 mph, indeed that is based on an approximation made over a small interval of time. So you do have a point, although a rather insignificant one. "Instantaneous" velocity or speed is a shorthand for a limit process. What single word would you suggest be used in this context, rather than instantaneous?

The excitement just keeps building, doesn't it? :yawn:

Best to just do the science and not be concerned with the philosophy.

The fact is Since infinity is not an integer you can ever have such in successive addition, so an infinite past is impossible for event Infinite events from the past is impossible. — BB100

Please clarify this. :chin:

What is your native language?

There is no velocity at an instant. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because you confuse stopping a particle at a specific time and observing a particle at that time. Don't forget momentum. :roll: