On Jun 28, 5:59Â am, Art
zilch.com> wrote:> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:22:43 -0700 (PDT), zinnic
gate.net>
> wrote:
>>>Art: There's no dualism in the tenet that the universal substrate is
>>psychic, conscious energy that continually forms matter (which
>>happens
>>to be my take on it). Â My view is no more dualistic than the view of
>>physicists that e = mc ^2 ... that matter (mass) and energy are just
>>two sides of the same coin. Going deeper than physics into
>>metaphysics, I'm saying that literally everything in physical reality
>>has another side to the coin... that everything is formed by this
>>creative universal substrate (God stuff).
>
>>Z: You claim that physical reality emerges from God stuff? Â Your "God
>>stuff" is code to signify 'nothing conceivable or something
>>inconceivable'. Ascribing  an attribute such as consciousness to 'God
>>stuff 'is raw speculation.
>
> Mental faculties such as consciousness aren't inconceivable, Z. They
> are "just" difficult to define.
I agree, but "God stuff" is different. It is the non-material side of
dualism. Â
>>Z: >> >How can one possibly "intellectually derive" that the
>>propensity of
>>>>>two atoms to interact is synonomous with the existence of the unformed
>>>>>molecule.
>
>>Art: >> Huh? I said it's the idea of non-emergence that's
>>intellectually and
>>>> not mystically derived. That's all. Nothing else. I have no idea what
>>>> you're talking about here.
>
>>Z: Just emphasising that things do emerge. Â For example, water's
>>wetness emerges from its formation from hydrogen and oxygen. Wetness
>>does not pre-exist in the gases. Similarly, consciousness does not pre-
>>exist in the atoms that form the brain.
>
> Your attempt at argument from analogy fails miserably :)
>
>>Z: >Does the idea of non-emergence apply to the function of the eye.
>
>>Art: Of course not. The function of the physical eye is understood
>>according to principles of physics and other scientific disciplines.
>
>>Z: Thus, you agree that function 'emerges' from structural
>>organisation?
>
> As a engineer I've designed things with certain functionalities in
> mind. The funtions in no way "emerge" from the structural
> organization that I've designed into them. They pre-existed
> in my mind. You have things ass-backwards :)
A designed 'tool' often has an un-intended utility not previously
ideated. Scientific research is often hugely advanced by serendipity.
Evolution thrives on 'un-intentional' consequences.
>>Z: > Do you believe that 'sight' already existed before atoms
>>organised into
>>>physical structures capable of  reacting to light?
>>Art: Yes I do. It seems, based on accumulating evidence, that in
>>humans
>>at least there is what I'll call "extra-vision" ... an ability to see
>>in various kinds of ways without the use of the eyes and physical
>>vision. One example of many is remote viewing. One can posit that
>>extra-vision is a mental faculty of the immaterial soul which is
>>not limited to just physical reality and the limitations of time,
>>space and matter.
>
>>Z: You  are confusing the issue by conflating the 'spectacle' of the
>>physical eye with 'speculation of the mind's eye' :-).
>
> I'm not speculating about "extra-vision" since it has been
> established. I'm speculating that the "seeing itself" of
> "extra-vision" and seeing physically using the eyes are
> one and the same core mental experience. Like consciousness,
> the "seeing" cannot be found in the brain.
Established to the satisfaction of the mystically-inclined only.
>>Art: Now, if subatomic particles are conscious it's anyone's guess
>>concerning just what they are conscious of ... what kind of
>>perception and other mental faculties they might have.
>
>>Z: And if they are not conscious, one needs not resort to such
>>guessing!
>
> But if the _possibility_ is ignored or denied absolutely we very
> well might not ever be able to progess in our understandings
> of the underlying realities.
It comes down to a personal assessment of the degree of possibility.
What you may find reasonable, I may find outlandish. What you
interpret as conclusive evidence in support of one explanation, I may
interpret as supporting a different explanation. For example, on my
waking from a deep sleep a 'classical ghost' touched my forehead,
spoke my name and vanished as soon as I responded. My recognition of
this as a hypnopompic experience reinforced my conviction thet aliens,
ghosts and other things that 'go bump in the night' are illusory
figures of partial consciousness.
The hypnopompic explanation is not good and sufficient for many, so
they seek much more complex explanation in 'the wide, blue yonder'
>Z: >Emergence may be
>>>difficult to define but, like pornography, one knows it when one sees
>>>it.
>
>>Art: Oh really? What is it that you see that others do not? I've not
>>seen
>>you explain how consciousness arose out of "dead" matter.
>
>>Z: I've not seen how you explain how matter arose out of a 'we know
>>not what' Â consciousness.
>
> That's right. We may never be able to explain things at that deep
> of a level. But I have no doubt that human will keep on trying :) Â
>
We are in total agreement here. At this level none of us know what we
are talking about. :(
>
>
>>Z: >> >IMO, any one who subscribes to this sounds like, looks like
>>>>>and 'quacks' like a mystic. Including, IMO, the physicalist
>>>>>philosopher-Galen Strawson
>>>>>Given that 'liquidity' emerges from the interaction of hydrogen and
>>>>>oxygen atoms  to form water, one has to introduce an indefinable
>>>>>mystical factor to deny that consciousness likewise emerges from the
>>>>>enormously more complex interactions of atoms that form the brain.
>
>>Art: >> Nobody knows how consciousness and the brain work together.
>>Nobody
>>>> knows how consciousness mysteriously arises in the brain either. Those
>>>> who believe it does are the "mystics" :)
>
>>Z: >Consciousness disappears along with many other functions when the
>>>brain disintegrates.
>
>>Art: That's your belief but evidence suggests otherwise.
>
>>Z: IMO, the preponderence of evidence suggests that my belief more
>>closely  approximates to actuality than does yours.
>
> Nope. The preponderance of evidence is on my side, not yours.
Ditto! :)
>>Art: It's all quite mysterious if you open mindedly study the
>>paranormal
>>sciences and look at what they have established. Nothing mystical
>>about that. Mystery and mysticism are two different things.
>
>>Z: Been there done that! Mysticism mystifies the mundane. Mystics take
>>the road less travelled without the advantage of a physical compass.
>>That's why they get so lost :-).
>>Best regards Art,
>>Zinnic
>
> Be happy then in your overly simplistic beliefs and denials :)
Yep!, Like a baby in the bathtub. Please don't pull the plug on me!:(
Zeenic
