Because not all particles make up the brain - the particles in a rock aren't conscious, the particles in a brain are. Is there anything erroneous about this?
Oh, okay; I didn't realize that. Wow. So you believe that some particles are individually sentient, and experience internal states? Which ones do you believe to be as so - Electrons? Protons? Neutrons? Quarks? In any case, it's good, rather a must, that you personally posit that the fundamental constituents of the natural world, i.e., quantum particles, are "conscious"; seeing as you accept that we are. Meaning, if one accepts the premise that, 'nothing comes from nothing', while accepting that matter is not conscious; then this very same person can be said to directly contradict them-self. For a consciousness, in this latter context, remains as nothing in relation to in-sensible substances, and thus cannot come from that which is not conscious. But this is good; do you have any empirical (or experiential) evidence for such a belief of yours? the particles in a brain are What particles make up the corpuscles' of the brain? Are they individually conscious?
What is time? How can it really be measured? This moment, the one that just passed, the one right now, the one in a second from now that will be the present? It's all relative.
No not necessarily i was just curious why you thought that. Most of the brain is water, would you say hydrogen and oxygen are conscious? Like i said before im not sure where i stand in all of this so im not trying to prove you wrong, just inquiring into your perspective.
So you believe that some particles are individually sentient, and experience internal states? Which ones do you believe to be as so - Electrons? Protons? Neutrons? Quarks? When I said 'some particles' I did not mean a class of particles, like 'Electrons' & 'Protons'. In any case, it's good, rather a must, that you personally posit that the fundamental constituents of the natural world, i.e., quantum particles, are "conscious"; seeing as you accept that we are. I didn't 'personally posit' that. Meaning, if one accepts the premise that, 'nothing comes from nothing', while accepting that matter is not conscious; then this very same can be said to directly contradict them-self. For a consciousness, in this latter context, remains as nothing in relation to in-sensible substances, and thus cannot come from that which is not conscious. Some matter is conscious - the second sentence doesn't mean anything because 'matter' is not 'nothing'. But this is good; do you have any empirical (or experiential) evidence for such a belief of yours? There's heaps of evidence for it.
No.. not in an ordinary context, but why are you conflating water as a whole with water in one particular context? Some water is warm, some is cold, some matter is conscious, some matter is not.
When I said 'some particles' I did not mean a class of particles, like 'Electrons' & 'Protons'. So which some, if not all? I didn't 'personally posit' that. Yes, you did; there's a reason that you bolded, IMO, in your last post. the second sentence doesn't mean anything because 'matter' is not 'nothing'. Yes, it does; precisely because I said consciousness, or, sentience, is a 'nothing' in relation to ​in-sensibility (or insensible particulates). There's heaps of evidence for it. Such as?
Temperature is an external influence on the water, is consciousness as well? I have no problem with that either. Perhaps certain atoms or molecules act as an antenna that recieves consciousness from the vacuum or higher spatial dimension.
So which some, if not all? The particles that form a conscious brain? Yes, you did; there's a reason that you bolded, IMO, in your last post. Nah, I didn't, read the post again, it isn't that difficult - I said 'IMO' for the 'reason' that most people usually say it - it's my opinion. Yes, it does; precisely because I said that consciousness, or, sentience, is a 'nothing' in relation to ​in-sensibility (or insensible particulates). Saying 'something' doesn't mean that it means anything, you've just given another example of it, lul. Apart from how not to use grammar, what is this sentence trying to infer? Be clear, please.
The temperature of the water doesn't have to be an 'external' influence in relation to the water itself, but regardless, it was just an example, not an analogy.
The particles that form a conscious brain? So you say that they ('the particles forming a conscious brain') are individually conscious and sentient? Nah, I didn't, read the post again, it isn't that difficult - I said 'IMO' for the 'reason' that most people usually say it - it's my opinion. If I were to say that I believe aliens exist on some planet; this would mean that I have personally posited, rather than actually proving, within my own frame of reference, both the reality of aliens and planets. I don't see what you're missing? Saying 'something' doesn't mean that it means anything, you've just given another example of it, lul. Apart from how not to use grammar, what is this sentence trying to infer? Be clear, please. What if I were to say that qualities define a 'thing'; thus, if there is a quality, there is a 'thing'. 'Matter' has certain qualities (e.g., size, shape, motion); now, I'm asking you if you believe that 'matter' has the quality of perceptual sentience, i.e., consciousness? Not that hard to get, or unclear (your intentional obfuscation is not cute, lol). Yet you say that some 'matter' is "conscious" or "aware"; but then does that mean you claim that some 'matter' is not? So which are, and which are not, Effy?... which seems to lead us back to my very first question in this post.
Temperature absolutely is an external influence but thats beside the point. Basically im just wondering if you view consciousness as an intrinsic or extrinsic property?
So you say that they ('the particles forming a conscious brain') are individually conscious and sentient? Read my second reply to you - that's what I meant. <span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);font-size:12px;">If I were to say that I believe aliens exist on some planet; this would mean that I have personally posited, rather than actually proving, within my own frame of reference, both the reality of aliens and planets. I don't see what you're missing?</span> <span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);font-size:12px;">I did not 'personally posit', or in other words, 'say', that 'quantum particles are conscious', I said that 'some particles' are.</span> <span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);font-size:12px;">What if I were to say that qualities define a 'thing'; thus, if there is a quality, there is a 'thing'. 'Matter' has certain qualities (e.g., size, shape, motion); now, I'm asking you if you believe that 'matter' has the quality of conscious sentience?</span> <span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);font-size:12px;">I've already answered this enough; SOME matter is conscious, k?</span> <span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);font-size:12px;">Yet you say that some 'matter' is "conscious" or "aware"; but then does that mean you claim that some 'matter' is not?</span> <span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);font-size:12px;">Lmao, for about the fifth time, yes, that's what I 'claim'. </span> So which are, and which are not, Effy? The matter that has developed consciousness has consciousness, the matter that hasn't developed consciousness does not have it - is that understandable enough?
Lol, okay, Effy... one last question (which ties into everything we've been writing so far). The matter that has developed consciousness has consciousness, the matter that hasn't developed consciousness does not have it Which do you believe came first? The former, or the latter? That is, which is contingent upon which?
Welcome back BnH.. I've missed you. Don't really feel like getting in the middle of all this, just a quick question.. but have you views on mind/matter changed? Cause you don't seem to be holding onto the 'mind precedes matter' mindset so much, which is cool with me, but I could just be reading it all wrong.