Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This question is resolved by an outdated, old philosophy – the philosophy of the 19th century. And in modern philosophy, it is reduced to the same old question about the relationship between consciousness and the brain. No, it is not solved – all possible answers and their corresponding directions are available (parallelism, physicalism, and mysticism).
This is just one of the aspects of the main question of philosophy (CF, not private sciences): about the relation of the material to the ideal and is solved only in the categories of philosophy, and not in the categories of private sciences-physics, mathematics, etc.. To answer the question whether it is solved or not, you need to review the proposals for its modern solution. As part of my awareness of this issue, I can offer a collection of articles by the author who did and will continue to do this, and especially his latest article in the NJD_46_2pdf collection and his book ” The Principle of Hierarchical Relativity. 23 centuries of the path from Plato to Aristotle – to a new solution to the basic question of philosophy.”
https://yandex.ru/collections/user/wymh1cj19f806xgyfn2qt1w6mg/chaikin-iu/
When incompetent people (including philosophers) try to approach this philosophical question, formulate it, and even more so solve it, it becomes an unsolvable problem for them three times, because when it arises and manifests itself in the concepts of particular sciences, it is solved only in the categories of theoretical philosophy. The latter also does not stand still, but develops together with the problems of private sciences. Here is one of the modern examples
https://docviewer.yandex.ru/view/78937804/?page=56&*=tJI0gCA9Vjf8PChppIK6n84013J7InVybCI6InlhLW1haWw6Ly8xNzM2NzAwNjA2MzA0ODM4NzcvMS4yIiwidGl0bGUiOiJOSkRfNDZfMi5wZGYiLCJub2lmcmFtZSI6ZmFsc2UsInVpZCI6Ijc4OTM3ODA0IiwidHMiOjE2MDEzMTg2NDc5OTcsInl1IjoiNDA1OTM2ODg5MTU2NTE2OTQ4MSJ9
Yes, it is allowed. The answer was – not surprisingly – dualistic.
If a person wants to go to the toilet, then matter is primary. When he poops or pees, consciousness becomes primary.
No, this question is not resolved, as long as there are both materialists and idealists in the world, this question cannot be resolved.
The choice of the Subject of its primacy, this issue does not solve.
This is a question that every philosopher decides for himself. Modern science is the science of processes in space-time, which, by implication, generate relations of quantities. In the foundations of science, this question is: do material processes depend on mathematical relations? And the new, emerging relational paradigm in physics responds positively to it.
Modern science, and with it philosophy, has declared that the main or primary being is that of the material type. Those who disagree with all this point to the inconsistency of the fact, since they did not provide the proper (for that) justification, evidence.
But (and) this philosophical (and scientific) problem was not resolved by another system of philosophy, which received its name (and definition) — idealism. Although the most profound philosophical minds have worked on this (from him) since, so to speak, deep philosophical antiquity. But it is not necessary to say that their theoretical and research attempts were unsuccessful. After all, thanks to the ideology (on which they are based and from which they proceed), there are still some successes. They have developed a rather well-formed (but again purely theoretical) approach and method of cognition, which includes not only targeting the cognition of the external (in relation to the knower), but also the knower himself, i.e., the subject (knowledge) — a person. They clearly recognized that the organizing principle (and force) of being is universal Reason… They also discovered one of the most important disciplines in the field of philosophical knowledge, called metaphysics…
So, idealism, or rather classical idealism, purposefully tries to justify and prove that the only primary being should be non-corporeal entities of the type that is the human soul, intelligible ideas… but again, even today, it is not necessary to say that this is the truth (for everyone), i.e. reliably established and proven. But it is also not worth reproaching them for the fact that they have not yet produced it. Apparently, there are objective reasons for this, which can be attributed to time, or more precisely, to historical time, which has not yet (in all its objective course) come, has not come, has not yet come.…
So far, there is no definitive solution to the issue. What was in the beginning (before): matter (nature), consciousness (spirit). Until the question of the origin of life in general is finally resolved, various answers to the basic question of philosophy remain.
This question has been solved for many thousands of years, and it is amazing that you are asking this question. I think that you have already graduated from the fifth grade and taught what matter consists of and understood that matter consists of atoms. And the atom itself consists of 99.999% of the void. So make a conclusion about what matter and everything else is. Connect your consciousness and get the answer to your question. With respect.
In this formulation, the question is solved by physics, chemistry, and evolutionary biology. If we are talking about the connection between the material and the ideal, then under the cut. So, consciousness without a material carrier is not observed, as far as we know, but is possible only in the nervous system, and the nervous system is only in animals, and animals are a product of evolution. There was a period in the history of the planet when life had not yet appeared, so obviously consciousness is the result of the evolution of matter.
But how matter and consciousness are connected, we will now discuss. Our ideas about matter are based on experience and are formulated in the form of a system of concepts. Concepts do not convey subjective feelings. I know that this statement may raise objections. But if you think about whether, for example, the novel “War and Peace” conveys the feelings of Natasha Rostova at the ball, then obviously “no”, since Natasha Rostova was never in nature. The novel only evokes the subject's memories of his own sensations and only within the limits of his consciousness, and physically-within the limits of the nervous system.
Similarly, instrument measurements that transform the measured phenomenon into some sign system associated with a system of concepts also do not provide information about the sensations that might accompany physical processes. Sensations can be perceived only directly by the subject from his sense organs and exist only within a specific nervous system. They are non-communicable from subject to subject until it is technically possible to combine the nervous systems of two subjects. From the scientific instrument to the subject, sensations are also non-communicable. However, the fact that an instrumental study does not provide information about sensations that may accompany any physical phenomena does not mean at all that physical phenomena are not accompanied by sensations. It is usually stated that where there are physical processes, there are no sensations, but this is just a hypothesis that can neither be proved nor refuted by measurements. However, the sensations that accompany the transmission of nerve impulses in the brain are felt by the subject directly and without instrument measurement. This suggests that at least some physical processes of the same type may be accompanied by something similar to sensations. After all, if there is nothing but physics and chemistry in the brain, then nothing more is needed for sensations, except for a certain organization of matter and processes in it.
Regarding primacy, I would agree with the primacy of matter, provided that the possibility of proto-sensations accompanying physical processes is not denied (although, as I said, there is no empirical reason to deny them).
It will never be resolved for those who are prone to radicalism.
Consciousness cannot exist without a carrier – matter, just as matter is not conceivable without consciousness.
But, however, “In the beginning was the Logos,” i.e., the “external” Consciousness, which awakened Matter, like a Ray of Light from non-being, which stirred up a vortex in the chaotic movement of non-conscious matter.
No. The answer to this question is possible only if someone can experimentally confirm the conclusions. That is, to create matter from spirit(as far as I know, this was not done) or spirit from matter(the notorious artificial intelligence). The latter is currently possible. Modern philosophy usually avoids this question
In a way. But some still don't recognize some facts, apparently they are stuck in the past as well as their worldview. However, not everyone thinks so.
There isn't even a close resolution. Philosophy.as a science, it is very far behind the requirements of life. Some lone researchers are already having conversations with representatives of the subtle (disembodied) world. To apply to academies with such an offer is equivalent to calling yourself the nickname Gonalo.
The philosophy of this issue will not solve it. This requires a different approach. This approach is defined through the knowledge of Life itself, a variety of sciences, religious teachings and observation. It is necessary to have a single-minded attitude to knowledge.
Peace To All.
NOT IN NATURE
……
(1) THE UNIVERSE is
THE ABSOLUTE NATURAL UNITY OF ALL THAT EXISTS
…….
(2) MATTER is
ABSOLUTE INTANGIBLE
LOGICAL UNITY
EVERYTHING that exists in NATURE (in the universe)
…….
LOGICAL UNITY OF OBJECTS
……
(1) There can be only TWO OPPOSITES.
(2) OPPOSITES can only exist in PAIRS.
…….
MATTER is the opposite of NON-MATTER
(consciousness, concepts, thinking, thoughts).
…….
MATTER cannot exist without NON-MATTER.
……
PLATO is THE CREATOR
…….
MATTER was created by PLATO,
so how exactly is Plato
for the first time in human history
contrasted as opposites
++++++
Only a PERSON has CONSCIOUSNESS.
CONSCIOUSNESS is
……..
THERE IS NO CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BRAIN.
…….
BRAIN (spinal cord and brain)
is
MIDDLE (central) PART OF THREE PARTS
REFLEX ARC OF THE nervous system
……….
THE BRAIN is
NERVE IMPULSE JUNCTION BOX
among the performers of reflex
(muscles contract, glands secrete secretions)
++++++
THERE are only TWO TYPES OF CONCEPTS:
(1) SINGLE concepts that refer to ONLY ONE subject
……
(2) GENERAL terms denoting
(a) Not the subject and not the subjects
(b) A UNITY OF objects on a certain BASIS:
…….
GENERAL CONCEPTS are divided into THREE groups:
…..
(1) GROUP concepts denoting the UNITY of a group of objects
……..
(2) UNIVERSAL concepts denoting the UNITY of a set of objects
…….
(3) ABSOLUTE concepts denoting
THE UNITY OF ALL THAT EXISTS in NATURE, in THE UNIVERSE
(unity of absolutely ALL material units)
……..
GENERAL CONCEPTS:
(a) CAN ONLY denote THE UNITY OF UNITS (objects, objects)
…..
(b) CAN'T represent ONLY ONE UNIT (only one item, object),
……..
UNITY of material units (items, objects, etc.)
maybe
………
MATTER IS AN ABSOLUTE GENERAL CONCEPT,
denoting
ABSOLUTE INTANGIBLE
LOGICAL UNITY
EVERYTHING that exists in NATURE (in the universe)
…….
In a sense, yes: in the classical formulation, it is very outdated. For school and university education, it is in textbooks, but the actual problems there are already so different that it begins with clarifying what the questioner means by ” matter “and”consciousness”. Without this clarification, a serious philosophical discussion is meaningless.