Topher, I think you should be careful when distinguishing emergentism and reductionism. These are both materialist schools of thought, and are not necessarily incompatible.

From my essay Common Fallacies Employed Against Materialism Refuted:

The crux of all this is that the dualist who asserts that materialism cannot account for X abstraction is that they are making a fallacy of conflation between reductionism and materialism. Reductionism is merely one arm of the materialist school of thought. We also have to take into account, for this exercise, emergentism, which materialism does indeed encompass. Emergentism is the doctrine that properties emerge from systems that are not necessarily reducible to their constituents. They exist only when the system is in place, and are hence not reducible to the sum of their parts. This is the schism in materialism between reductionism (whole=sum of parts) and emergentism (whole>sum of parts). The point is, these are both materialist positions. Neither invocates dualism or magic. So when the dualist is asserting that the materialist is denying the existence of X because it can be reduced to smaller constituents, they are making the greedy reductionist fallacy. Regardless of whether the system in question is emergentist or reductionist, the fallacy holds. It is analogous to saying:

1. The clicking on hyperlinks can be reduced to electrons being fired across LCD electron guns and photons through ethernet and fiberoptic cables. Therefore hyperlinks do not actually exist, only electrons and photons.

2. An atomic nuclei can be reduced to individual protons and electrons, which in turn can be reduced to quarks, which in turn can be reduced to bosons and fermions. Therefore, atoms do not actuallly exist, only bosons and fermions.

You will find that many materialist systems are indeed emergentist. That means that they cannot be reduced to their constituents, they only emerge when the complexity of the system reaches a certain point, but, the crux: They are still materialist. Emergentism is an arm of materialist philosophy. Many naturalists regard consciousness and the mind as an emergent property of the brain. Some others hold that the mind can be divided and is hence, with respect to the whole brain, reductionist, not emergent. I am sympathetic to a middle ground position . Obviously when we reduce the system to a certain degree, we find the property which we were examining in the first place disappears. Hence to some degree the two positions of emergentism and reductionism are valid and mutually reconcilable in much the same way that empiricism and rationalism are reconcilable. In fact, I do not think there has been a “pure” empiricist or rationalist since the days of Immanuel Kant. Likewise, the materialist philosophy does not usually find one taking a pure stance on emergentism or reductionism.

So, when the dualist makes the greedy reductionist fallacy by whinging that the materialist is denying the existence of X by invoking reducibility, they are invalidated by both schools of materialism. Reductionism does not say that X does not exist, merely that it is a lower ontological category than its constituents Y and Z. Emergentism says that X exists of its own accord due to a synergistic effect between Y and Z. The latter can be invoked to explain many phenomenon from a materialistic perspective, especially consciousness and the mind. Regardless, any dualist asking for a materialist to explain abstract X is revealing their own unsurprising ignorance of materialist philosophy. Abstractions in this context are merely what a reductionist would call lower ontological categories that result from increasingly complex systems, or what an emergentist would call the result of synergistic effect in the system. Emergentist materialism is extremely important in my work, since one of the things I study is enzyme kinetics, drugs and medicine, where synergistic interplay is extremely important. The same logic which causes a Calcium Channel blocker and a Beta Blocker to work better together to lower blood pressure than the mathematics of their individual workings would have us believe is the same logic that may give rise to abstractions from material systems. In other words, this may cover thoughts, emotions, rationality etc. To a reductionist however, we can explain these in terms of direct reducibility to their electrophysiological activity in corresponding neurons. Regardless of which position you take, the abstract, the thought, is still generated. And hence for the dualist to accuse the materialist of denying said abstractions is just, well, stupid. And can only be described as immensely foolish. We shall soon see how easy it is to flip this on its head.

 

Wouldn't value also be a mere by-product of brain activity,thus, does not actually exist in your view?

Yes, this is precisely what I said in my above post.

I make a distinction between the physical mind (which is really the brain) and the commonsense notion of mind (which is an abstraction, just as numbers and names are abstractions).

They're metaphysically compatable.
That's where the compatibility ends.
In contemporary debate, when they say "physicalist" they tend to mean reductive physicalist and when they say "dualist" they tend to mean property dualist like emergentism.
And they are very much against each other.

Kinda but then what do you mean by purpose or value?  I do not see how you can avoid weird circular reasoning, on your view, to defend the existence of value.  Again, I am most likely misunderstanding your view but, it seems to me that the only way to explain value in your view is to say "Value is an abastraction of a brain state, that, while not physically existing, still has value becuase we apply value to it."  The same can be said for purpose as well but I will save you that example.

Well do you agree that the likes of numbers, names, logic, morality, mathematics etc, all have value/purpose? All are abstractions.

I’m using the term ‘value’ to mean importance or significance, and the term ‘purpose’ to mean “the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc” and/or “an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.”

Well no one is saying all abstractions have value. It depends on the context of the abstraction. That said, abstractions are (I think) largely based on communication. For instance, names are valuable because they our part of our communication, as are numbers and ‘blue.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction
”Abstraction is the process of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to a ball retains only the information on general ball attributes and behaviour. Similarly, abstracting an emotional state to happiness reduces the amount of information conveyed about the emotional state.”

As for a "majority rules type-defense." It isn't a argument from majority... it’s not saying “the majority of people say X has value, therefore X has value”. It is intersubjective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective

It allows us to relate, interact and express our self.


No. You have it backwards. Neurological explanations are comprehensive and precise details of the functioning of something. Abstractions reduce that precise explanation down to a level which is relevant for a the specific purpose, such as communication. As the Wikipedia page states: ”Abstraction is the process of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.”

So in abstracting love we do not need to know about the detailed scientific brain functions, or when expressing a colour, the fact that colour derives from a wavelength entering the optical nerve which in turn is processed by the brain which consequently produces a subjective sensation is irrelevant. We do not need this information, as such, we abstract colour down to a mere abstract sensation.


All of them can relate in some way, particularly the first two.

I never said any particular purpose. I said the purpose of social communication. If you are expressing an emotion, or a colour, or pain, etc, the brain activity which produces these things are irrelevant.


Yes, this is what abstraction is, yet your misunderstanding was the exact opposite of this. Abstraction is reducing specific/detailed information, down to a more general/vague abstracted form, hence ‘leather ball’ (specific) while ‘ball’ (general). In a social context, I wouldn’t say: “hay, can you pass me that leather football” I would tend to say: “hay, can you pass me that ball” hence I’ve reduced ‘leather football’ down to ‘ball’ as this is all that was required for the purpose of getting the ball.


I don’t think it is doing the opposite. I took it to be reducing the specifics about an emotional state to just “happiness” since it clearly stated: “Similarly, abstracting an emotional state to happiness reduces the amount of information conveyed about the emotional state” while what you described includes additional information. However even if it was the case as you stated it, reducing “emotion state” to “happiness” it would not follow what abstraction is starting with an general/vague concept and ending with a detailed empirical and scientific explanation (abstraction is in fact the opposite of this).

It seems your problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of what abstract is and what concrete is.

The purpose alone is not what makes it abstract. Simply reducing information for a specific purpose does not mean you are abstracting it. In philosophy abstraction is the processes of taking something concrete and turning it into something more generalised, simplified, vague, ambiguous, etc

”Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined….”

Hence “concrete details” become abstracted and thus are now vague/ambiguous. (I talk more about concrete below.)

What you said – reducing states to neurons firing – is absolutely fine, but it is NOT abstraction since it is starting with an abstract concept and working towards something concrete. Abstraction is the reverse of that. What your talking about is actually operationalising. (I talk more about this below too)


I think you misunderstand here. I was talking about the specific concrete details about a particular emotional state like happiness (i.e. what happens in the brain, maybe external details as to why they are happy) being abstracted to just “I’m happy.”

That said, I did not write the Wikipedia entry, but here’s another definition from Dictionary.com
1. an abstract or general idea or term.
2. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances


Again, your claim is the OPPOSITE of an abstraction.
Abstraction, as I am using it, as it is in philosophy, is forming a non-physical concept from a physical entity, such as thoughts, consciousness. In one sense they are physical brain states, but we can also view them as non-physical concepts (which is exactly what we do with out commonsense notion of consciousness and thoughts.)
Other times something may only ‘exist’ as an abstraction, such as names and numbers.

In philosophy abstraction is a thought processes, an idea, NOT an object.
The non-physical concept of consciousness is an idea, an abstract… while the physical form of consciousness (i.e. brain state) is the object, it is concrete. Concrete things are not abstract. This is precisely why your example is wrong. Since the object cannot be an abstract.

Please see this page for more on abstract/concrete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object

Again, to restate my view, if something is concrete is has a physical existence. If something is abstract it does not, it only ‘exists’ as an abstract concept. Abstracts concepts can however refer to concrete things. This can make the same term be both abstract and concrete, given the context it is used in. To illustrate, tennis as a concept is abstract, although it does refer to a physical activity, a game, and this physical activity is concrete.

Moving on, abstraction is sociology is very similar to the philosophical use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_%28sociology%29
”Sociological Abstraction refers to the varying levels at which theoretical concepts can be understood. This idea is very similar to the philosophical understanding of abstraction. There are two basic levels of sociological abstraction: sociological concepts and operationalized sociological concepts.

A sociological concept is a mental construct that represents some part of the world in a simplified form. An example of a mental construct is the idea of class, or the distinguishing of two groups based on their income, culture, power, or some other defining characteristic(s). Concepts can remain abstract or can be operationalized. Operationalizing a sociological concept takes it to the concrete level by defining how one is going to measure it. Thus, with the concept of class one could operationalize it by actually measuring people's income. Once operationalized, you have a concrete representation of a sociological concept.”

So we can say:
Abstraction is taking concrete > abstract (simplification for the purpose of communication)
Operationalising is taking abstract > concrete (understanding how the abstract idea works/functions)

With this in mind your idea of taking abstract concepts and reducing them to neurons firing is operationalising the abstract concept.

Have you read deludedgod’s essays on this topic. Abstract thoughts are clearly produced or emerged from physical processes.


Who said we knew which specific neurons lead to which mental state? Neuroscientists know which region of the brain produces which mental state, even if they cannot pin-point the specific neurons or know exactly how it all works. I don’t even think specific neurons do play a role, I think it is rather a collection of neurons, which deludedgod refers to “interagency.” We know they are physical so this point of yours is somewhat of a red herring.

Anyway, if you want specific neuroscientific details I suggest you speak with deludedgod since he is the neuroscientist around here. But first, read his essays since he may have already answered your questions:

Fallacies Commonly Employed Against Materialism Rrefuted

The Matter Information conjecture is a crisis for the existence of god

vitalism Immaterialism and Christian dualism have long since been debunked

On the problem of interaction and the concluding piece of the series the absurdity of an immaterial mind

 

I've not got that impression. Are you a dualist?

Not really.  I am just struggling with terms like morality and value since these are terms that have like a "they just are" type explanation and defense which is why I am inquiring about how reductionlists and/or materialists make sense of these terms.  And if my questions seem irritating (i apologise), but I do not find calling them all brain states satisfactory unless you can show how we know that these terms stem from the brain rather than some external source (I know that sounds dualistic but I do not know of a better way to put it).  The only reason why I asked if you thought I was dualist was becuase pretty much all the essays were focused on proving dualism (all and any form of dualism) wrong. 

 

I was thinking on this matter last night. Whilst I certainly agree with you regarding dualist errors of reasoning one thing bothers me with materialism.

I find a problem with accepting that mind is an emergant  property like colour, heat , hardness etc etc. With any other emergant property I can think of we could, in principle, understand and predict that properties emergance IF we had a Gods eye view of "low level" properties of the system in question. For example with heat if we knew the motion of all the atoms in the object in question we could predict and calculate the heat of the object. Could the same be said of mind? Could a Gods eye view of the neurons and what have you predict the emergance of the "what is it like to be" of conciousness? I'm not sure that it can. I'm not sure that this aspect of conciousness could ever be predicted regardless of the detail of knowledge about the phsyical aspects of the brain. 

1- So is there another example of an emergant property of an object that could NOT be predicted by a detailed account of lower level physcial properties?

Or

2- Do you you think the "what it is like to be" of conciousness can be predicted by a detailed physical description? 

I've been scratching my head on point 1 and I can't think of one. With question 2 again I struggle to see how this aspect of conciousness can be predicted by a phsyical description.

 

Indeed that not what I'm driving at. 

 

Indeed this is distinct possability. But I think the problem may run a bit deeper than that. I can't fathom how we could ever understand the "what it is like to be" of any conciousness let alone our own. I further more contend that, unlike any other emergant property, we will not be able to even begin to describe or predict the "what it is like to be" regardless of how detailed our understanding of the physical system in question is. Could, for example, you ever woek our what it is like for a bat to "see" in sonar even if you knew exactly how its brain worked?

We can say ahhh yes but its an emergant property. We can predict how and which neurons will fire but this will not shed any light on the property of what it is like to actually experiance this. This "experiance" is fundamental to what conciousness. Any other emeregant property should at least be predicted by and accounted for by the "lower" properties of the object. I can't think of any other emergant property that is not.

Indeed. Thats what I think. But the point is that the very phenomona in question IS SUBJECTIVE EXPERIANCE this is the property we are talking about! Conciousness is subjective. We can explain all we like about what phsyically happens in the brain and still shed no light whatsoever on the fundamental defining aspect of conciousness. This to me, as you know, leads me to think that our physical description is limited. That the very concept "physical" is not fundamental it is itself an abstraction. 

 

Alright.  To be fair, I am beginning to understand more how you can call all these things like value and morality brain states even if we want to suppose they have an external source.  I suppose that is where my real confusion lies.  I have yet to be presented with anything that points to a source of these concepts.  Granted (hipefully this doesn't sound too much like a broken record) you have presented with studies that show the effects that these concepts have on the brain or the effects on the brain in various human interactions, but none of the studies have even pointed to a source of these concepts.  They all seem to assume that they exist.  I could be misuderstanding this view again but, it seems to me that, considering what the view claims, it should abandon all normative definitions and expressions of these concepts and start from scratch.  To be clear, this does not mean they should abandon the concepts comepletly but, relying on the old normative definitions or expressions of them can only lead to the same holes that various thinkers have pointed out time and time again with these concepts.  Again, to be fair, I should probably gain a better understanding of intersubjectivtivity but what i have stated has pretty much been my concern all along with your view. 

 

To me, consciousness is something far more complex than morality so I would never presume that there is a single source for consciousness.  Paradoxically, however, there is something we can point to to show the consciousness exists such as, we can say dead body lacks consciousness where as a live body has consciousness.  Granted this too is not without its problems (Terry Shrivo) but there is pretty much no question among scientists or even philosophers that there is this thing called consciousness that we all possess.  The same is not true with morality or value.  We cannot simply point to a body, alive or dead, and say "Body A has morality and body B does not" and there are many philosophers who argue that morality does not exist in any form (i honestly cannot think of any philosopher who has tried to argue that there is no such thing as consciousness.  If you know of any feel free to name them ).  Furthermore, you cannot apply a relative model to consciousness (as easily) to consciousness as you can with morality or value.  For example, you cannot, as you would in a morality thats relative to a specific society, go "IN society A I am conscious but in Society B I am not."  I guess the point I am trying to make is, we know there is a source to consciousness even if we cannot pin point it down since it does not matter what you beleive, or how you describe it, we have it and it can be lossed.  Morality and value, on the other hand are not so cut and dry since there are two dyametrically opposed views to value, for exmaple, with a third view that rejects the possibility of it existing.  And seeing as how morality and value, in many ways, determine what we do with our consciousness, it seems to me that they need to have some identifiable source somwhere, be it the brain or some sort of complex molecule thats floating around somwhere (I admit this does sound weird but thats the only way to explain an external source without it being dualist), so we simply aren't mistaking one type of brain state for something else entirely.  

You hit the nail on the head. The consciousness cannot be reduced , nor is it an emergent property.

We are so conventional that we just overlook the obvious. The conscious is the absolute and the all pervading truth. It exists everywhere , pervading the entire universe.

The body senses only. The brain / mind processes the information. But it is the Conscious that finally receives it. The Brain/ Mind processing is all what neuroscience talks about and it fails to go beyond that , since we are looking for more causation (physically) of the causes of the causes of the various electrochemical movements/events. There it runs into a blind alley. So we have to accept that the Consciousness is the ultimate truth and being everywhere. It is without space/time, without form, attributes, without colour, is ineffable and indescribable.

Now one may ask what is the evidence. The evidence is people have intuitively experienced this. You have to meditate , but before that you have to go throught the core concepts of the Vedas (Hindu scriptures) , maintain and live a way of life  and then meditate on the Self. The process may take 10-15 years. There are few fortunate few who have got it very fast because they had extraordinary intuitive capabilities.   and I am not talking about Sages of the Yore. There are people in India currently also , meditators, who have reached the final frontier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 It sounds like Venkatrajan is claiming that Hinduism has a monopoly on meditative experimentation, which is a bit like saying in order to understand reality you need only study nuclear physics. Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism all frame the intense introspection of meditation inside superstition.

Ramanujan claimed he arrived at his 9th digital accuracy of pi by having it revealed him to by a diety - saying very little about how he actually reached the formula that gave him the number. What was lost by not having the logical process that produced the formula? Another example: Fermat's Last Theorem. If Fermat did prove the impossibility of pythagorean equations of dimensions greater than 2, the proof was lost. This resulted in a 300 year struggle to recover the proof. If we're going to study mind-body empirically we need to ground the studies in the language of science, with careful recording of each experiment in repeatable terms. Terms which I'm afraid the eastern meditative philosophies not only lack, but fail to show the physical representations of in the brain.

The more apt method of answering the question of emergence, I think, is to study the generation of mind rather than its presence in fully developed brains. Barring the most insideous experiments I can think of, a reasonable way to do this is to try and construct a mind in a different context, something we are already doing.

Quote -I disagree. Conciousness is one useful anstraction buy it is not more the absolute truth about rteality than the physical descriptions are. Both are very useful but both are incomplete

You seem to be verging towards duality here. Duality is always going to end up getting contradicted. However I guess we are both trying to indicate that the Conscious is not physical.You seem to however differ that it is not the absolute. But you indicated that you believe in neutral Monism, so what might be the core of that.

 Unless one focusses on the conscious , one cant see the truth. The fact is that duality is inbuilt in our current nature, so much so that we are unable to percieve that the truth is Monistic ie the conscious only and nothing else. 

A simple experiment will indicate only the start of this. No need to believe in Hinduism or read any scripture. Try getting up in the morning around 5.30 -6.00 am when no one is awake, (presuming you slept very well atleast 7 hours and body is fresh) . Have a glass of water, after brushing your teeth. Sit on the Padma pose (Buddha's pose or need not be Padmasana as per Hatha Yoga). Close your eyes. Keep your hands in such a way that they are rested on your lap without tension, let the fingers of one hand be over the other. This is important.

Meditate with only the thought on your Self conscious . All other thoughts should be brushed aside. Bit difficult initially, but persist. One should start thinking only about  the Self Conscious. To give a hint , ask the question , how do you know you are alive , what intuitive feeling is giving you that assurance. You will be close to the Self that way. You can also try  imagining the awareness of your existence inside and around your body. If you get distracted , only observe the breathing of the nostrils and movement of air and again go back to the awareness of the Self. If you do this properly , in about 20-25 minutes time, you will feel as if you fingers and palm are not with you. Please note that this is a fully aware state, you can hear cars honking outside if there is one , or the clock ticking or the AC's gentle sound. But your fingers vanish and merge into space as it were.

This is just the start of it. If you prolong this for 1 hour for some time , you may start observing depending upon the intensity that barring the part of your torso which is touching the ground or whatever is touching your back , many other parts doesnt seem to exist, you are unaware of those

This progression takes you to the reality. Some stages later one  will have not even have the mild breathing movement, thats all , no sensation of the body , as if the outside and inside are diffused. Now this is just a physical realization of the reality that it is only the Self and nothing else.  If you doubt all this without trying yourself, which you may naturally , since this not an everyday experience  please visit India and some of the Ashrams of Vedanta. You may also visit some of the Buddhist monasteries anywhere in the world. You might be amazed to see it in person. There is hard evidence here in front of your eyes, not some mumbo jumbo.

  On prolonged practice , you will get into higher layers of the Monistic reality (all in complete awareness of yourself). In the higher stages of the monistic reality apprehension, the concept of Karma and rebirth step in.

Why does it take us so much time ( one hour daily etc) to get this, one might ask. It is because the human body and our minds are so convinced about Duality,  that it takes a long time to initially get rid of this notion. What is the  Duality that gets dispelled in this process. This needs to be addressed here. Is it the duality body/ matter  and the spirit which RSS berates. No we are not referring to the kind of  duality preached by say Christianity. The human body and ourselves are so convinced that I am a body and I am  different from the bodies outside me. So Duality is that of the Self and the Non Self.  This Duality is what is dispelled  totally in higher reaches of the practice.   Now one may ask if this is not the Reality ,why are we living it day in and day out. Yes true. The answer is that the life in front of our senes is an illusion. Just as when we dream and get up, the dream vanishes, when you meditate to certain extant , you start seeing that the duality in front of you starts vanishing.  You can see through matter

The final stage of this is the merging of the Self into its own larger Universal Cosmic Self  which is itself, but the dimensions are Cosmic.

 Many of the stages and later stages require one to read through the Vedas and the scriptures and have a particular way of life. This way of life tunes ourselves to get it properly.   Again one may ask why , why cant someone else do it. I am not forcing, but the answer is this is a well trodden path , that is all.  The path has certain extreme austerities also built in .

The common ignorance creeping up here is Hinduism as a religion.

No Hinduism is a way of life , majority of Hindus only call it a way of life. Because the Hindus arent bound by dos and donts . One neednt go to temple at specified times, neither is one supposed to pray if one doesn want to. The preyaers themselves can be created and coded by people. Meaning to say it is not like the Quran. Neither is one required to believe in the Pantheon of Gods. The Vedas really are philosophical texts primarily with certain details on way of life to be conducted. There is a ritualistic procedural first part and a philosophic second part. There are a lot of commentaries which explain to the lay person , what might appear abstract. There are separate texts called Puranas which have mythology and have detailed description of the variety of gods. But the entire philosophical aspect comes from the Vedas. The Puranas and the part of the Gods which atheists will disagree help one to prepare for the later stages and know the reality of philosophic truth

 Please note that a lot of people who go on this path have achieved what are known as Yogic Powers, though not recommended , since the same can be misused. By Yogic Powers, one can do many things which will appear as miracles to us , but it is not a miracle, it is achieved only when achieves phenomenal control of the concentration on the Self that eg one can move in physical Space time backwards and come back (to others perception only). Not mumbo jumbo again , please visit some of the places I mentioned , the hard evidence is there , you can also get it provided there is a Will. It has nothing to do with any God or preachings.

Quote -In otherwords you have to believe in Hinduism in order to believe. This is where Hindu philopshy fails. What starts of as a very interesting entreprise of introspection quickly decends into religisous nonsesne with wild claims about the nature of reality. Bhudist philosphy and Jain philsophy follow the same path. With bhudism the bhuda observations and arch empiricism where way ahead of his time. It was a good start but then we quickly decend into jibberish about rebirth and karma which are totaly unfounded claims 

For your information , Buddhism borrowed heavily from Hindu scriptures. Jainism is adjutant to Hinduism , but as a religion , whereas Hinduism is a way of life. Jainism  does have one among many preceeding him  who can be said to be the founder (Mahavira) , unlike Hinduism which has no founder.

Coming to Karma and Rebirth.

It is not a religious concept.  Karma is one of the four activities which according to the Vedas a person can engage in. The others are Dharma (being pious), Karma , Artha (earning resources and money) and Moksha (release from the cycle of rebirth).

So please note that the religious aspect or the piety aspect is an adjutant to this  and not the core. But many end up calling this as religion

Venkat Rajan

I'm not tending towards duality lets get that clear right now.

I agree that conciousness (mental) can't be explained, defined or comprehended in terms of "physical". But, and here is the crux, neither can physical be defiend, explained or comprehended in term of conciousness (mental). Trying to explain hardness in terms of a mental experiance is a futile as trying to explain "what it is like to feel pain" in terms of the motion of atoms or neurons.

We can use the mental to explain what it is like to feelm a hard object, how it feels, how it compares to other feelings other objects. We can describe it in these mental terms but nothing we say of how it feels will ever account for or explain its physical properties. We won't even get close to explaining why it is hard using these terms.

Similarly we can have an increadibly detailes physical explanation of the atomic structure of the metal, How it interacts with nerves in our fingers understand which neurons fire in our brain. We can understand that it will produce a set neurons firing that will be similar to other hard objects and so can understand that other hard objects will produce similar feelings. But none of this says anything about the actual experiance itslef. No a single clue is given by this physical analysis about what it actually feels like. The only way we gain any knowledge about this is by actually having those feelings at some stage now or in the past.

I really don't see how conciousness can be fundamental.

Physical is a good contender for being fundamental but I think it does fall at certain herdles but conciousness really does not cut the mustard at all as the fundamental property. 

Look I'm not really interseting in disussing your experiances whilst meditating. You need to provide me some actual arguments as to why you think the mental is fundamental. Meditation can lead to all sorts of results but it is not empirically testable or indeed relaible. How would you know you where wrong? If I said to you that I have meditated for hours and my insights have told me that the physical is fundamental how would you debate me? How would you prove me wrong? You can't. It is therfore rather fool hardy to expect me to take your word for it, or to take the word fo some Yogi's bronze age India. 

I'm well aware of all this. 

But there is no logical basis for Karma thats my point. There is no reason to supose that Karma is a real phenomona. None what so ever its just a faith position in the same way the Xtians believ in their God.