How can something be a “symptom” of itself?
Stop getting bogged down in semantics and look at his point.
mattemuse: You’re assuming that “awareness” is something tangible, capable of being “added” to something. That’s where my potato flake analogy fails. I’ll stop using that. Let’s, instead, go with the car analogy.
At what point does a “car” come into existence from its separate parts? A lug nut doesn’t have any inherent “car-ness” to it. A strip of rubber doesn’t have any inherent “car-ness” to it. A sheet of metal doesn’t have any inherent “car-ness” to it. A pane of glass doesn’t have any inherent “car-ness” to it. So, whence, when you put all these things without inherent “car-ness” together, does the car come from?
Inversely, if you take all the glass out of the car, is it still a car? At what point of disassembly does the “car” become “not a car anymore and just separate elements”?
A “car” is not added to these elements when they’re put together. A “car” is all of these elements together.
dongs
edit: also
When it stops working. Next.
Go back to your own thread.
“I’m” assuming it, because it follows from the analogy you used? Fixed, I think.
The pieces of a car never change from “not car” to “car,” exactly like dehydrated mashed potatoes never change from “not potatoes” to "potatoes. A bolt in a car is only a bolt, regardless of whether it’s holding an engine together or not. The constituent elements of a car never transform into anything other than themselves.
Making the analogy explicit, because it’s necessary
“Car” is awareness
“Car parts” are [unaware] matter
Matter (pieces of a car) never changes from not aware (“not car”) to aware (“car”). A brain cell (bolt in a car) is only a cell (bolt), regardless of whether or not it’s part of an aware organism’s functions (holding an engine together). It’s never aware (it’s never a car). If you allow for awareness (the fundamental existence of a car as an entity which exists separate from it’s constituent parts), which you do, then you must be positing that awareness (car-ness) is added [/SIZE]to matter (car parts) when it reaches a certain configuration.
haha. oh wait you were being serious.
But the separate elements are still simply bolts, sheets of metal, pieces of glass, etc, regardless of their current configuration. “Car-ness” is not added to the parts. “Car-ness” is only what happens when the parts come together.
Same, too, with awareness. At our core, we’re simply a collection of elements. Together, we are aware. But each element itself is not “aware” just like each part of the car is not a car.
Are you really aware, or are all your neurons just reacting with their miniscule environment?
Screw the psychobabble. Anything with mass is aware of its surroundings on a physical basis, and there is no such thing as an elevated awareness. There is no such thing as a car, only an engine with fuel performing its duty with wheels and a human pilot.
We just form abstractions. A group of atoms is a metal, the shape of this group makes it a piston, its placement in conjunction with fuel supply and spark plug and belts and whistles makes it an engine, which grouped with more shaped metals forms an automobile.
To an objective observer, there is no such thing as human.
If something which isn’t present becomes present, it’s literally being added. If parts don’t have “car-ness”, but “car-ness” “happens” when car parts come together, then “car-ness” is added. If car-ness isn’t added to the parts, but it is added, what is it added to?
Making the analogy explicit, If cells dont have awareness, but awareness “happens” when cells are assembled, what is awareness “happening” to?
To a human, there is no such thing as an objective observer.
Our perception.
The cells, in their interaction with stimuli, “manufacture” awareness. As a rock hit by water will move, light hitting photo-sensitive cells inside a human eye sends electrical impulses to the brain, where that electricity interacts with various biochemicals stored; the production of which is “perception” and that “perception” is awareness.
Awareness is not a tangible thing. It is the preponderance of things working together, just as a “car” is not technically tangible, but the things that make up what we perceive to be a “car” is.
Break a brain to a point that perception is lost and the person is no longer aware.
So matter “manufactures” awareness, but the awareness which matter creates is not added to the matter itself. Awareness is created by matter, therefore it exists discretely of matter, but it is not composed of matter or existing within matter. So what is it composed of and what is the medium which it exists in? If not matter, then what?
Oh wait, you already answered that question in response to your analogy of how this works -
Which brings us back to my attribution to you of the idea that “perception” (or awareness) is a fundamental medium in the same way that magnetism is. You are still arguing against it, but it still follows logically from the premises you’re using.
Take a look at your avatar pic. It’s literally just bits that are either turned on or off (1 or 0). It’s when those bits come together in a way that a computer can interpret as colored pixels that are arranged in such a fashion that these many layers of interpretation becomes a coherent picture that we can perceive through the use of lightwaves flowing from the screen to the eye.
But, there is no “blue” in the 1s or 0s. It’s just on and off bits. The “blue” comes from the 1s and 0s together.
Let’s resolve the implications of the last analogy you posted before we move on to the next one. Did you not understand the question?
Actually, I do not. Can you explain?
Of course, I’m not going to leave you hanging after debating for this long. What did you not understand about the question “since you say awareness is a property created by matter, but not a property of matter, than what is it a property of?”
Your analogy being “car-ness” is created by car parts, but not a property of (added to) car parts, therefore it’s a property of “our perception.”
Yes but unlike “car-ness” awareness derives from itself, not an outside perception.
Hardly, it’s not like I can do anything.
So, you answered the question.
I think I’ll leave it here; spent far too long on this subject.
You’re both saying awareness is a fundamental (“derives from itself”) property of reality that exists independently (“awareness is a property of awareness”) in it’s own separate realm apart from matter. I’ve been saying for pages now that this is how I interpret your position, but for some reason you guys really don’t want to admit in your belief in anything apart from “star dust.”
I think a seperate realm of fundamental consciousness which interacts with the material realm is an interesting concept, so it’s a shame you’re bowing out of the discussion after we’ve finally nailed down the fact that its actually your position.
My beliefs come from a careful study of the facts. We are all “stardust” because this planet and all life that now exists on it, came from the dust of stars.