GENIUS FORUMS

There appears to be four positions on this subject, if there are more, please correct me.

1. Some philosophers claim that consciousness precedes matter.
2. Some philosophers claim that matter precedes consciousness.
3. Some philosophers claim that matter and consciousness are inseparable, and therefore there is no hierarchy present at all.
4. And finally some philosophers claim that it cannot be known.

What is your position and why?

3.

Where is matter when we dream?

Where is matter when we dream?

Where is matter when we're awake?

My stance is that matter is reality, and all we experience is an appearance of reality. We live in a dream world created from the real world.

sschaula wrote:

Where is matter when we dream?

Where is matter when we're awake?

My stance is that matter is reality, and all we experience is an appearance of reality. We live in a dream world created from the real world.

The Matrix has you, Scott. ;-)

Matter is an appearence of the Mind.

(The same substance as dream matter.)

Experiencing Matter as Reality is form.

Experiencing Mind as Reality is formlessness.

"Your own mind is the Void" - Huang Po

The Matrix has you, Scott. ;-)

Matter is an appearence of the Mind.

(The same substance as dream matter.)

I don't really understand what you mean. That's exactly what I was saying, that matter appears as the same substance to us as dreams do.

Experiencing Matter as Reality is form.

Experiencing Mind as Reality is formlessness.

"Your own mind is the Void" - Huang Po

Form appears both as mind and matter.

Anyway, koan like sayings give me a headache. Luckily I have beers to ease the pain!

Matter is a concept, Mind is a Reality

Bah.

Got any Corona?

Point IPA. It's a state brand, I think....made in Steven's Point, Wisconsin. Best very cold...otherwise the hops are soooo bad.

Alright back to the topic, my apologies. :-)

Steven's Point, WI

Well, I'll drink to that.

;-)

Consciousness doesn't arise from matter or any one thing. The two are completely unrelated, philosphically speaking. Concsciousness arises out of the infinite itself. Observing our immediate bodys and surroundings can lead us to think that consciousness arises out of these things, but it must be remembered this it is just an abstract image that can not be looked upon as absolute Truth.

Comparing my dreaming state of mind with my waking state of mind I find that there are dramatic differences. For instance the physical boundaries and limits of objects in my dream are much less defined. My senses also seem to be much more dull when I'm dreaming. The biggest difference is that when I'm dreaming I can't compare my dream world with the real world, but when I'm awake I can compare and contrast the two worlds with eachother. Has anyone ever realized, while dreaming, that they were in fact dreaming?

There is no relationship between matter and what is usually referred to as conciousness.

Has anyone ever realized, while dreaming, that they were in fact dreaming?

That's funny. Has anyone not?

when a tiger bites your dick and you feel it,you are conscious.when a housefly shits on your head and you don't feel it: not conscious.

the body makes you conscious and you feel that 'I am'.

bert wrote:when a tiger bites your dick and you feel it,you are conscious.when a housefly shits on your head and you don't feel it: not conscious.

the body makes you conscious and you feel that 'I am'.

Cute, but incorrect. You are speaking of knowledge of something - i.e. nerve endings tingling. Not the self-aware awake state of being which overarches any local awareness. You are saying "I read in the newspaper about a train wreck, therefore I am conscious." One can be conscious without knowing of the wreck or the tiger and the fly, and unconsious in any case; when the dick is bitten one may simply feel fear, pain, and then pass out.

Concious creates matter, the concious observance of an event creates that event (including matter), without a conscious observer the event does not exist. So I would have to go for 1.

Bee buddy wrote,

There is no relationship between matter and what is usually referred to as conciousness.

So what is your explanation for the radical effects that a lobotomy has on a person?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Bee buddy wrote,

There is no relationship between matter and what is usually referred to as conciousness.

So what is your explanation for the radical effects that a lobotomy has on a person?

Cory,

Kow is right, you either can't read or are too goddam ADD to take your time and be thorough. If you want a debate then stop, read, read again, read again, read again and then ask a question that isn't so stupid.

beebuddy wrote:

There is no relationship between matter and what is usually referred to as conciousness.

so what is, in your opinion, usually refered to as consciousness?

I think most people usually regard consciousness as a state where one has memories, emotions, desires, beliefs, etc.

Do you agree?

Cory Duchesne wrote:beebuddy wrote:

There is no relationship between matter and what is usually referred to as conciousness.

so what is, in your opinion, usually refered to as consciousness?

The word 'conciousness' is most often used the way you just used it, i.e. as ego. And of course, without a brain, the ego thing doesn't happen. But to conclude that there is implicitly a relationship shows a misunderstanding of what identity/conciousness is.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:There appears to be four positions on this subject, if there are more, please correct me.

1. Some philosophers claim that consciousness precedes matter.
2. Some philosophers claim that matter precedes consciousness.
3. Some philosophers claim that matter and consciousness are inseparable, and therefore there is no hierarchy present at all.
4. And finally some philosophers claim that it cannot be known.

What is your position and why?

Trivial opinions of random philosophers: boring.

Simply put, consciousness does not matter.

hades wrote: Trivial opinions of random philosophers: boring.

Simply put, consciousness does not matter.

Of course it does, but, for the sake of argument, why doesn't it, and what does?

Ryan,

We only know ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’ as mental concepts. When we go looking for either in objective reality we always end up with more mental concepts. There is no way around this fact. Whatever we touch, smell, taste, see, or hear are only ever experienced mentally.

So, I’ll have to go for option number 5 – “None of the above”.

-
Sue

beebuddy wrote: There is no relationship between matter and what is usually referred to as consciousness.

Cory wrote: So what is your explanation for the radical effects that a lobotomy has on a person?

We can’t be absolutely certain that it is the lobotomy that caused the altered consciousness in the ‘lobotomised’ person – it could be caused by other factors that we are unaware of. We can assume that the lobotomy was the cause, and continue doing lobotomies on people, but science may discover in the future that lobotomising a person’s brain isn’t the cause of the altered consciousness, and that it instead had something to do with a chemical imbalance in the brain due to the stress of undergoing the operation – or some such other thing. And then in the more distant future, after many more years of research, science may overturn this idea and replace it with another. And then another, and another...

The bottom line is: the empirical is uncertain because we can’t know all the causal relationships pertaining to a thing – we only have our perception of the thing in the here and now to go on.

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

beebuddy wrote: There is no relationship between matter and what is usually referred to as consciousness.

Cory wrote: So what is your explanation for the radical effects that a lobotomy has on a person?

Sue: We can’t be absolutely certain that it is the lobotomy that caused the altered consciousness in the ‘lobotomised’ person – it could be caused by other factors that we are unaware of. We can assume that the lobotomy was the cause, and continue doing lobotomies on people, but science may discover in the future that lobotomising a person’s brain isn’t the cause of the altered consciousness, and that it instead had something to do with a chemical imbalance in the brain due to the stress of undergoing the operation – or some such other thing. And then in the more distant future, after many more years of research, science may overturn this idea and replace it with another. And then another, and another...

The bottom line is: the empirical is uncertain because we can’t know all the causal relationships pertaining to a thing – we only have our perception of the thing in the here and now to go on.

-
Sue

When Beebuddy said that there was no relationship between consciousness and matter, I interpreted him as suggesting that matter and consciousness were two independent things.

(futher inquiry provoked comments from beebuddy which suggest that he sees no division between consciousness and matter, that they are one)

That was why I brought up the question about the lobotomy.

Doing so is an effective way of addressing people who like to think of consciousness as some sort of indepedent entity existing apart from brain matter.

My intention was not to go into the details of a lobotomy. I could have just as easily used the example of someone who was left in a vegetative state after a head trauma, or I could have used the example of a mentally retarded person and how his brain structure has corresponding deficiencies compared to a so called normal.

The point is, 'matter' does indeed have a relationship to consciousness.

You may continue to insist that this is still empirically uncertain, however, it is no more empirically uncertain than causality itself.

Brain surgeons have exhaustively proven that matter and states of consciousness are inexorably connected.

And yes, you can also say that matter and consciousness are simply an undivided whole - - - or that consciousness is an illusion altogether, and all there is is the physical.

Carl G wrote:

bert wrote:when a tiger bites your dick and you feel it,you are conscious.when a housefly shits on your head and you don't feel it: not conscious.

the body makes you conscious and you feel that 'I am'.

Cute, but incorrect. You are speaking of knowledge of something - i.e. nerve endings tingling. Not the self-aware awake state of being which overarches any local awareness. You are saying "I read in the newspaper about a train wreck, therefore I am conscious." One can be conscious without knowing of the wreck or the tiger and the fly, and unconsious in any case; when the dick is bitten one may simply feel fear, pain, and then pass out.

I'm never used the word 'therefore'.
again,the wrong motive underlies your righteousness and you become to fault me.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

beebuddy wrote: There is no relationship between matter and what is usually referred to as consciousness.

Cory wrote: So what is your explanation for the radical effects that a lobotomy has on a person?

Sue: We can’t be absolutely certain that it is the lobotomy that caused the altered consciousness in the ‘lobotomised’ person – it could be caused by other factors that we are unaware of. We can assume that the lobotomy was the cause, and continue doing lobotomies on people, but science may discover in the future that lobotomising a person’s brain isn’t the cause of the altered consciousness, and that it instead had something to do with a chemical imbalance in the brain due to the stress of undergoing the operation – or some such other thing. And then in the more distant future, after many more years of research, science may overturn this idea and replace it with another. And then another, and another...

The bottom line is: the empirical is uncertain because we can’t know all the causal relationships pertaining to a thing – we only have our perception of the thing in the here and now to go on.

-
Sue

When Beebuddy said that there was no relationship between consciousness and matter, I interpreted him as suggesting that matter and consciousness were two independent things.

(futher inquiry provoked comments from beebuddy which suggest that he sees no division between consciousness and matter, that they are one)

That was why I brought up the question about the lobotomy.

Doing so is an effective way of addressing people who like to think of consciousness as some sort of indepedent entity existing apart from brain matter.

My intention was not to go into the details of a lobotomy. I could have just as easily used the example of someone who was left in a vegetative state after a head trauma, or I could have used the example of a mentally retarded person and how his brain structure has corresponding deficiencies compared to a so called normal.

The point is, 'matter' does indeed have a relationship to consciousness.

You may continue to insist that this is still empirically uncertain, however, it is no more empirically uncertain than causality itself.

Brain surgeons have exhaustively proven that matter and states of consciousness are inexorably connected.

And yes, you can also say that matter and consciousness are simply an undivided whole - - - or that consciousness is an illusion altogether, and all there is is the physical.

Cory,

The problem is when it is said that "matter and consciousness (are) two independent things" you are ignoring the fact that the word 'consciousness,' as it is being used, is not a 'thing' at all. This is why it's true to say that there is no relationship.