At first thought, you may think that this piece might be a breath of fresh air. After all, it forgoes the usual claptrap about “spirituality” and “unfathomableness,” professing to approach the subject from the standpoint of materialism. Unfortunately, the professor’s “materialism” might better be called “matterism.” Like Einstein, he is a victim of “objectification” or “reification,” which is the tendency to regard motion as matter. The title says it all: consciousness is matter. Egads, that should stir up the Mind-Brain Muddle in the halls of academia for quite awhile. Now, readers know that the universe displays only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. That is as simple as our sentence structure. There should be no Muddle. The brain is matter and the mind is the motion therein. Dead brains have no consciousness. What is so hard about that?
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20160525
Regressive physics messes with consciousness again
At first thought, you may think that this piece might be a breath of fresh air. After all, it forgoes the usual claptrap about “spirituality” and “unfathomableness,” professing to approach the subject from the standpoint of materialism. Unfortunately, the professor’s “materialism” might better be called “matterism.” Like Einstein, he is a victim of “objectification” or “reification,” which is the tendency to regard motion as matter. The title says it all: consciousness is matter. Egads, that should stir up the Mind-Brain Muddle in the halls of academia for quite awhile. Now, readers know that the universe displays only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. That is as simple as our sentence structure. There should be no Muddle. The brain is matter and the mind is the motion therein. Dead brains have no consciousness. What is so hard about that?
7 comments:
Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.
For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:
Nitecruzr writes:
[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?
The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html
Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.
Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html
part 2
ReplyDeleteIt apparently is what makes so many have so much difficulty understanding matter and motion. This is in spite the fact that matter (subject) and the motion of matter (predicate) form the basis of almost every sentence in every language. Now comes the venerable, if poorly edited, New York Times offering more of the same:
{You are confabulating two different sentences. Matter (subject) is that which exists (predicate) and Motion (subject) is matter in motion (predicate).}
Prt 3
ReplyDeleteIt’s ironic that the people who are most likely to doubt or deny the existence of consciousness (on the ground that everything is physical, and that consciousness can’t possibly be physical) are also those who are most insistent on the primacy of science, because it is precisely science that makes the key point shine most brightly: the point that there is a fundamental respect in which ultimate intrinsic nature of the stuff of the universe is unknown to us — except insofar as it is consciousness.”
{Strawson means by this that our human ability to hold experience and to use reason to interpret with it, is a major part of what is consciousness, to humans. The only ones so far that have figured this out, that we know of, that is.}
Part 4
ReplyDeleteAt first thought, you may think that this piece might be a breath of fresh air. After all, it forgoes the usual claptrap about “spirituality” and “unfathomableness,” professing to approach the subject from the standpoint of materialism. Unfortunately, the professor’s “materialism” might better be called “matterism.”
{Why not give Strawson a break here since I am pretty sure he would use matter and material in essentially the same way, at least as intended in this article, that is. He does not know of your “spin” on these two words. “Matter is an abstraction for the world of physical objects” and as for “material” I couldn’t find a definition in your book TSW, but assume you would accept “That which exists” as a close approximation. Personally, I do not separate the two much at all. Material is matter, or matter is material, whatever. Just a matter of semantics.}
Part 5
ReplyDeleteLike Einstein, he is a victim of “objectification” or “reification,” which is the tendency to regard motion as matter. The title says it all: consciousness is matter. Egads, that should stir up the Mind-Brain Muddle in the halls of academia for quite awhile. Now, readers know that the universe displays only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. That is as simple as our sentence structure. There should be no Muddle. The brain is matter and the mind is the motion therein. Dead brains have no consciousness. What is so hard about that?
{Well, it is wrong that’s what is so hard about it. Matter and motion are inseparable. Didn’t you say that in TSW? Humans see (think) matter and motion as two separate items or objects, but some know that they really are inseparable. Right?}
Part 7
ReplyDelete“consciousness is itself a form of physical stuff”
{ consciousness {as an abstract idea} is itself a form of physical stuff {as an abstract idea} what is wrong with expressing it that way?}
Part 8
ReplyDeletePhilosophy and physics sidelights: Note Strawson’s confusion about the nature of energy (remember, it’s a calculation). He is reluctant to accept microcosmic infinity as the explanation for the nature of “physical stuff.” He then makes a complete turn-about, viewing the necessary failure to discover a finite particle “intrinsic” to all matter as his excuse to adopt wholesale immaterialism. Deepak and other solipsists would be proud!
{I don’t read Strawson as an immaterialist in this article, even If he is considered that in his earlier life. I don’t know. I will try to look up his current perspective.}
Part 1
ReplyDeleteRegressive physics penetrates all aspects of our lives. Among its peculiarities is the objectification of motion, which was Einstein’ greatest philosophical error.[1]
{I don’t know why we cannot have an object in thought, such as motion is such an object. Granted it is an abstraction from what is real, but then everything in the human mind is such an abstraction, anyway.}