You mean which came first between conscious matter and consciousness? They came into being at the same time, isn't that obvious though? I mean, you've struggled to understand basic sentences throughout the conversation, so maybe not.
They came into being at the same time, isn't that obvious though? Lol, to who, crazy people? So "the particles forming a conscious brain", i.e., neurons (i.e., the particles which you personally take to be as "sentient" and "conscious"), existed at the time of the Big Bang?
Right, I see your trouble. When I say the 'particles forming a conscious brain' I mean the particles that you would see when looking at any given conscious brain - I'm talking about the 'particles' within that context alone, and not outside of it.
That would violate the conservation of energy and second law of thermodynamics (if a closed system were to increase its own temperature) And ty for your answer. Still seems ambiguous but how sure can anyone really be?
No, you apparently don't see (that is, don't want to see) the trouble, or inconsistency on your behalf. -So, you're telling me (this is what I gather from the afore quotes) that each and every particle of (or within) a "conscious brain", is individually sentient and conscious? Is that what you're actually claiming...?
So consciousness is produced by these particles? Thus, consciousness is dependent upon these antecedent particles for feasibility, right?
Yeah.. when these particles operate in a certain way. 'Feasibility' doesn't make sense in this context either. EDIT; This is tedious, can you actually come up with an argument if you're going to continue replying? And stop asking me the same questions?
Yeah.. when these particles operate in a certain way. Now, are these particles themselves individually sentient? 'Feasibility' doesn't make sense in this context either. What are you practicing to become a substitute English teacher somewhere? Actually, when you understand that that word denotes, 'likelihood', 'probability', 'possibility of occurring or happening'; then you would see that it does make sense. The reality of a whole is only feasible if the parts are real; that is, the feasibility of the whole is contingent upon the constitution of its parts.
No, we're done here. You don't see, rather, you don't want to see, your own shortcomings, and unfounded presumptions. Your position, from the onset, is rooted in an irreconcilable contradiction;- there's a reason I asked you if you accept this axiom, "nothing comes from nothing"? But you didn't (or don't) seem to get why I did...
If the system generates an increase in temperature with 'no external influence' then its a thermodynamically closed system. As far as i know, this is not possible, if it is, physics has a lot of reworking to do.
When taken from the context of the brain; no. And I only pointed that out because you frequently use incorrect words as well as incorrect punctuation - it makes your posts more difficult to read than they should be, but that's probably why you write in that way. I didn't 'get why' because you seem to be merely pretending to have a point to make, rather than actually having one - like you were pretending to have a point in a previous conversation we had where you were trying to argue that walking is somehow a metaphysical activity.
Okay, but I didn't say that either - temperature can be generated internally despite how the temperature began generating because of an external influence.
When taken from the context of the brain; no. The feasibility of a brain function is dependent on neuronal activity. Make sense? Again, this just goes to show that you, most of the times, have no idea what you say; you just like objecting to others, so that you may find some equal footing when others object to you and your posts'. like you were pretending to have a point in a previous conversation we had where you were trying to argue that walking is somehow a metaphysical activity. Do you personally stimulate, and actuate, the plethora of synapses (efferent impulses) that occur when you walk? When walking, what instruments do you personally use to operate upon (thus stimulating) your (neuronal) effectors, Effy?
Good day, Effy. P.S. Just because you don't understand the usage of certain words (like 'efferent', 'effector', or 'feasibility'), that doesn't mean they don't have any meaning, pal. But no, such a logic and rational suits you (so I won't hold it against you).
Lao Tzû says: "Heaven and earth and all things were begotten of what is; and what is is begotten of wu, the non-existent, physically, i.e. tao, the spirit." Consciousness does not exist physically. We know this because whenever we add consciousness into the equation, the wave function collapses.
If it doesnt have to be external that implies it could be internal. Interfering microwaves within the volume of water would qualify as an external source of thermal input. I suppose we have drifted off topic but my point in objecting was to point out the temperature of water is a dissimilar analogy.