Well, it is this very distinction you insist on making which is contributing to your difficulties in imagining how consciousness comes from matter. In reality, matter isn't just lumps of solid, inert stuff that exists independently of consciousness. Matter is part of the field of consciousness, just as the taste of saltiness is. There is no difference between them in this regard. They are both direct manifestations of consciousness. Beingof1 is completely correct on this point.DQ: Molecules and matter are states of consciousness too, so I'm not sure where you going with this line of thought.
[. . .]
Salt molecules are as much a mental property as saltiness is.
T: Is it really very helpful here to lump all things together on the basis that they are all states of consciousness? Surely we're headed down Beingof1's road if we do that. Whilst concepts (such as molecules and matter) are just as much states of consciousness as are sensations (such as light and saltiness), they nonetheless refer to things that are not states of consciousness. Ok, I'm skating on thin ice here: you'll probably tell me that ultimately all things are products of our minds drawing boundaries and so forth, but surely there is a distinction worth making within the context of this discussion.
Your perception of matter as solid, inert stuff existing independently of consciousness is mental in nature and obviously limited because of the problems you are having in imagining how it can create consciousness. You need to reevaluate this perception.
Likewise neuroscientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, biologists, etc, are currently providing the same kind of evidence to demonstrate the linkages between brain-processes and states of consciousness. Granted, the research is still in is infancy, but the evidence is already overwhelming.T: As I see it, photons become the phenomenon we know as 'light' when they interact with the receptors in our eyes and are 'translated' by our brain into a visual phenomenon that we experience.
DQ: Sure, but it is still a case of dark matter "mysteriously" producing light. When we strike a match in the dark and a flame flares into being, it's as though light is suddenly being produced from nowhere.
T: The sudden emergence of light from 'dark matter' when a match is struck only seems mysterious because of how my visual system (eyes, visual cortex, etc) 'reads' or 'displays' the events taking place. If the events are 'seen' through other means (such as scientific instruments and theories), the mystery vanishes as we discover that nothing is being created or destroyed: all that is happening is that the atoms, photons, electrons, energy etc comprising the match and surrounding air are moving about, rearranging and recombining, and some of them radiate at certain wavelengths towards my eye, triggering the sensation of bright light.
How about "because I falsely perceive consciousness and matter to be opposites for no real reason other than force of habit"......?So the 'discrete difference' that is perceived can be revealed as a trick of the eye/mind, and the mystery can be dissolved. To me, the discrete difference between matter and consciousness seems to be of a different level entirely. As with the striking of the match, I'd like to be able to say, "The sudden emergence of consciousness from matter only seems mysterious because _________" . . . but I just can't fill in the blank. Suggestions are welcome!
T: These provide clear evidence that consciousness has material causes, but they are not the kind of commonalities that I am seeking -- as you probably realise. I guess I want to see something that can 'join the dots' from matter to consciousness, rather than just evidence that the dots are indeed joined.
DQ: I think you may be wanting something which doesn't exist.
T: Perhaps. So would you say that the path from matter to mind is a causal process that might never be mapped?
The countless causal linkages between brain-chemistry and consciousness will eventually be mapped, and we may even reach the stage where consciousness can be created at will in the lab. But even if we do reach that stage there will always be an insurmountable gap between consciousness and matter, unless we change our underlying perception of them.
As Leyla says, it's not a scientific issue. It's a philosophic one.
-