tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post2711676645628471155..comments2023-08-06T00:55:44.689-04:00Comments on Kevin's Walk: lunch break thoughtsKevin Kimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-86080610757271207562008-12-03T20:25:00.000-05:002008-12-03T20:25:00.000-05:00Space and matter are one.Space and matter are one.ttufacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647253239719578445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-74713083570213174842008-12-02T19:31:00.000-05:002008-12-02T19:31:00.000-05:00Bob,Thanks for commenting. If by "prior" you mean...Bob,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for commenting. If by "prior" you mean "chronologically prior," I should think that the history of life on earth would suggest that our history as conscious beings begins with unconscious matter. <BR/><BR/>In my book <I>Water from a Skull,</I> I envision the matter-life-mind progression as a pyramid: matter gives rise to life; life gives rise to mind. Matter doesn't disappear when life appears; in fact, matter is necessary for life-- the lower level <I>undergirds</I> the levels above it. Life doesn't disappear when mind appears; in fact, I'd say that, at least up to now, life is necessary for mind. <BR/><BR/>This may no longer be the case a few decades or centuries down the line, however, if we succeed in developing artificial consciousness: we might be able to build mind from matter, thereby either dodging the question of whether an intelligent entity need be recognizably alive, or forcing us perhaps to redefine "life" to include artificially conscious beings.<BR/><BR/>I'm also constrained by my bias toward empiricism to think that, whatever mind is, it has to be rooted in matter, because matter is something we can easily perceive, whereas mind-- or more precisely, <I>other minds</I>-- is something we intuit or deduce after perceiving certain material activity. To know that I'm confronted with a conscious being, I have to watch the being and maybe listen to it as well. Other senses might have to come into play, but in the end, my conclusion that the being has a mind will be based on the deliverances of my sensorium. <BR/><BR/>So it seems natural to me to start with matter first. A pyramid that showed mind as the bottom tier would strike me as exceedingly strange-- though it wouldn't be strange at all if I were a Hindu. For many Hindus, it's <I>cit</I> or <I>citta</I> (roughly, consciousness) that lies at the root of everything.<BR/><BR/><BR/>KevinKevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8116478946778818081.post-39020690659582110742008-12-02T18:30:00.000-05:002008-12-02T18:30:00.000-05:00Hi Kevin - I'm not a substance dualist either. I w...Hi Kevin - I'm not a substance dualist either. I wonder, though, why you would think matter, whatever it is, would be prior to mind, whatever it is. (I'll confess to thinking that neither matter nor mind is a "substance" in the philosophical sense of that word.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com