Which is more strange?

[GrowingSmaller]

Consiocusness or heat? Consciousness or atoms? Consciousness or stones?

I do not mean "strange" in the sense of numerically unusual in our universe.

I mean strange from an absolute perspective if you will pardon the term.

I say this because in philosophy it seems to me that sometimes matter and "normal" physical phenomena are taken for granted, as if they didn't really need an excuse for being there. Where as consciousness has to apologise for taking us by surprise!

 

[quatona]

Whut?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I say this because in philosophy it seems to me that sometimes matter and "normal" physical phenomena are taken for granted

Of course the phenomena are taken for granted. But so is the 'phenomenon', if you wish, of consciousness.

Are you sure you are not comparing apples and oranges?

 

[Bushido216]

Consiocusness or heat? Consciousness or atoms? Consciousness or stones?

I do not mean "strange" in the sense of numerically unusual in our universe.

I mean strange from an absolute perspective if you will pardon the term.

I say this because in philosophy it seems to me that sometimes matter and "normal" physical phenomena are taken for granted, as if they didn't really need an excuse for being there. Where as consciousness has to apologise for taking us by surprise!

I'm pretty sure cogito ergo sum is beyond question. The question is the structure of consciousness. It's like a mirror trying to find out what's behind it.

 

[talktopaul]

Consciousness is 'strange' as you put it, because it doesn't have a physical presence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I mean strange from an absolute perspective if you will pardon the term.

In absolute terms?

I'm not certain how to think absolutely, because that would require that I not have a personal perspective, but I would say that physicality is no less strange (or mysterious) than consciousness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Whut?

Maybe it's just me then. I have often thought theat there is a great "mystery of consicousness" as if it were something special. As opposed to "dead matter" which we can in comparison take for granted in some way.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Of course the phenomena are taken for granted. But so is the 'phenomenon', if you wish, of consciousness.

I have heard the physase "mystery of consciousness" a lot more than I have heard the phrase "mystery of matter". There are roughly 4 to 5 times more google results for the former.

Are you sure you are not comparing apples and oranges?

What do you mean. Both are equally real, aren't they?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm pretty sure cogito ergo sum is beyond question. The question is the structure of consciousness. It's like a mirror trying to find out what's behind it.

So its not that its any more surprising that it exists per se, it's just that its more difficult to understand from a scientific perspective. A little bit like predicting next year's weather, as opposed to the weather in 5 minutes time?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In absolute terms?

I'm not certain how to think absolutely, because that would require that I not have a personal perspective, but I would say that physicality is no less strange (or mysterious) than consciousness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What I mean it that I have often taken for granterd that there might be a universe with matter in. There is no "big surprise" in that for me, that there is matter existing "absolutely" or in itself. But consciousness seems pretty bizarre in comparison, as if it somehow even defies the imagination. I suppose logically the conscious is no more untenable than the non-consious.

 

[quatona]

Maybe it's just me then. I have often thought theat there is a great "mystery of consicousness" as if it were something special. As opposed to "dead matter" which we can in comparison take for granted in some way.

Yes, must be you, then.
I neither seem to share this sentiment nor am I entirely sure what you mean by "take for granted in some way".

Of course, the term "consciousness" has a higher grade of abstraction than "matter" - maybe that´s what you mean?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes, must be you, then.
I neither seem to share this sentiment nor am I entirely sure what you mean by "take for granted in some way".

Of course, the term "consciousness" has a higher grade of abstraction than "matter" - maybe that´s what you mean?

No I meant that there being a physical universe of "dead matter" was an ordinary affair, but a universe with minds!!!! Whoosh....

MAybe it's due to muy upbringing, in a pinball machine, no less....

 

[quatona]

No I meant that there being a physical universe of "dead matter" was an ordinary affair, but a universe with minds!!!! Whoosh....

Well, my mind is of all things closest to me, and it determines all my experiences, views etc. Without it I wouldn´t even make the distinction between mind and dead matter.

 

[quatona]

Now, if chairs were conscious - THAT would be really strange.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now, if chairs were conscious - THAT would be really strange.

I've always been amazed by the mystery of chocolateness, myself.

I think the "mystery of consciousness" is just our minds doing a good job of marketing themselves. If they didn't, we would just ignore them, so you can hardly blame them for trying to promote themselves.

And I'm only half way joking. Research shows that our conscious mind is taking credit for a lot more than it's actually responsible for.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have heard the physase "mystery of consciousness" a lot more than I have heard the phrase "mystery of matter". There are roughly 4 to 5 times more google results for the former.

I think that answer may have to do with that materialists, naturalists, atheists and similar tend to be more inclined to accept that certain aspects of reality are beyond our ken. As opposed to, say, idealists, dualists, religious people. (Maybe?)

What do you mean. Both are equally real, aren't they?

I was just trying to offer a possible solution to your inquiry. If it is not that, no worries.

 

[Bushido216]

So its not that its any more surprising that it exists per se, it's just that its more difficult to understand from a scientific perspective. A little bit like predicting next year's weather, as opposed to the weather in 5 minutes time?

Basically.

 

[quatona]

Research shows that our conscious mind is taking credit for a lot more than it's actually responsible for.

Sounds intriguing! Can you elaborate a bit on that, please?

 

[quatona]

So its not that its any more surprising that it exists per se, it's just that its more difficult to understand from a scientific perspective.

The question why anything exists (be it matter or mind) is very hard to explain from a scientific perspective. I am not even sure that that´s the job of science.

On a sidenote:
Interestingly theists tend to take mind/intelligence/spirit for granted and postulate that the existence of matter is the actual mystery (i.e. they take it for granted that something non-physical can produce matter).

 

[Paradoxum]

Consiocusness or heat? Consciousness or atoms? Consciousness or stones?

Consciousness is fricken mental dude

Seeeeee?? See what I did there XD