The relation between consciousness and matter is a basic question of philosophy. This question can be properly address if the fabric of reality is discovered. It is argued that the structure of the universe fractal like, made of 3D-spiral swirls of basic matter [1]. In a fractal like structure of reality everything is everything at scales of its own. Hence the properties of consciousness have to be found in every fragment of nature considered in the terms of its revealed 3D-spiral structure. The question is the fabric of reality fractal like, i.e. undergoing nearly self-similar transforms? Could we trust the Occam’s razor if it points toward a fractal like underlying structure? 1. http://www.world-mysteries.com/toi_esavov.htm
What definition of 'consciousness' are you implying? The elements that make up the mind are the same basic elements that make up the rest of the universe. This is fact and not a revolutionary new paradigm.
Wow. Talk about a seriously myopic reductionalist materialist point of view. You're assuming, right from the start, that 'consciousness' (undefined) is somehow contingent upon matter. Even if this assumption is granted, it's not necessarily the case that 'consciousness' would be 'found' after 'discovering' (sic) the fabric of reality. After a complete and thorough physical analysis of a blueberry muffin, does one find a nice taste sensation? Furthermore, what is it you're assuming when you say 'fabric of reality'? Are you implying a completely physical approach? Defining your terms is always a good place to start.
Probably we will never guess the taste of a body in a way different than tasting it but this does not mean that there are not general similarities in the way the bodies couple and the way think. The properties of the underlying structure must find expression in thoughts but details like taste will be always missing similarly to the unpredictable eddies of a turbulent flow.
There is definitely something going on inside the physical brain that is not physical per se. When we think of physical objects, we're talking about things that we can measure, graph, communicate objectively, etc. But show me a graph and/or measurement for "feeling angry" or "seeing a ball". You can offer images of the brain in states of "anger" and "seeing", but not the experience of the brain state...of being angry or seeing the ball. Heck, where is this "image of ball" located? You could say, "It's on the retina" or "It's been sucked into the brain via the optic nerve and is now being processed"; but that's not the same as seeing it. There is subjectivity occuring that is not a physical state that can be analyzed with any tool of science. And this doesn't necessarily imply dualism (which has its own problems), but that strict physicalism cannot account for subjectivity. It's there; we all experience it. But where is it and how is it? Also...how do you account for things like truth, neotic unity ("web of beliefs"), and logical relations in a physicalist position? The ontological structure of knowing and knowledge also seems contrary to physical things. Until we can link the vast web of beliefs that make up knowledge via truth and logical relations with brain states, we cannot say that physicalism has really accomplished anything on the subject. Pictures of my brain learning something is not the same as learning. That's my two cents. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! e-bow
I like your post e-bow. Physically we are helpless beyound certain scale. Then comes the concept of a creation of scale, a difference in the basic objects of Eugene Savov's theory of interaction. What is amazing according to Savov is that we behave like atoms looking for interaction that will unfold our structure. The details as the "seeing of ball" are just like turbulent edies, which are beyond quantification at the scales of observation.
E-BOW I like your post as well. You articulate your message, in a way that tells me you have a reasonable opinion. I should say that it is worth far more than two cents. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! pmt
FADING CAPTAIN WROTE: What definition of 'consciousness' are you implying? The elements that make up the mind are the same basic elements that make up the rest of the universe. This is fact and not a revolutionary new paradigm. GOOD COMMENT! BOOMBOX: I respectfully disagree; however, that mind and matter are the same. There is much going on in this universe that is not matter as we know it. At one time we thought the brain was far too complicated to ever decipher, so to speak. Now, we understand so much about the brain that it is staggering, but all the scientific data now present cannot supply much logic when it comes to feelings, spirituality, or psychological magnets. ....pmt
thorne makes a distinction between the "mind" and the brain. for although the brain is indeed composed of matter, the "mind" - in this sense of the word - is not. rather, it is - if i understand the usage correctly - our perception of the outside world, a system of thoughts or ideas, not something tangible. moreover, the "mind" is not the organ capable of thought, but the thought itself... if that makes any sense. whatever.
ANTIFREEZE: Why, I thank you, Sir. That is about as close as one could come to my point, with what I gave. BOOMBOX: I apologize for leaving the box open. In my mind was the comment previously made that our minds are made up of the same thing as the universe; therefore, I sought to make it clear that the universe is more than "matter" as we know it. Antifreeze explained me so well, I shall bid farewell, until next time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We are missing the basic objects in which to comprehend the universe and the mind. A bold attempt to contruct these objects can be seen at 1. http://www.world-mysteries.com/toi_esavov.htm mind seems like a human expression of the revealed fundamental properties of existnce.