Addressing The Physicalist Delirium

[JackDaydream]

A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.

I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious Experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious Experiences that exist in the Universe. It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

The battle between physicalism and idealism may be futile. Existence may be about understanding the various aspects of the human being and other forms of life, in which both mind and consciousness come into play. It is likely that science and other disciplines, including the arts and religion come from different angles.

To call one or the other 'delerium' may not help this at all. Perhaps, it would be more useful to try to understand the different approaches, as part of a greater multidisciplinary synthesis rather than the for or against position towards science. It may be about reason, logos, or the symbolic, mythos, as complementary ways of understanding in a more holistic consideration of the nature of consciousness, which may not be easily attributed simply to mind or matter. Dualism may have initiated this split in the first instance. Part of the problem may be viewing consciousness as separate, rather than imminent in nature, including human nature.

[Consul]

I have gone back to Dualism because Physicalist Identity Theory is the greater Dead End. I would say that Identity Theory or Reductive Materialism has no Explanatory advantage over Connectism. This would have to be an Embarrassing realization for the cocksure Physicalists.

Can your "connectism" achieve anything more than a descriptive list of psychophysical correlations? If yes, how?

[SteveKlinko]

A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.

I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious Experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious Experiences that exist in the Universe. It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

The battle between physicalism and idealism may be futile. Existence may be about understanding the various aspects of the human being and other forms of life, in which both mind and consciousness come into play. It is likely that science and other disciplines, including the arts and religion come from different angles.

To call one or the other 'delerium' may not help this at all. Perhaps, it would be more useful to try to understand the different approaches, as part of a greater multidisciplinary synthesis rather than the for or against position towards science. It may be about reason, logos, or the symbolic, mythos, as complementary ways of understanding in a more holistic consideration of the nature of consciousness, which may not be easily attributed simply to mind or matter. Dualism may have initiated this split in the first instance. Part of the problem may be viewing consciousness as separate, rather than imminent in nature, including human nature.

I think not only is Consciousness Imminent, but it is Primary, even though it is Separate from the Physical.

[JackDaydream]

A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.


SteveKlinko wrote:

I think not only is Consciousness Imminent, but it is Primary, even though it is Separate from the Physical.

This is probably where it gets complex because there is the 'I 'which observes the overall process as a witness, which is incorporated into the stream of experience. It is not separate in the sense that it is affected by bodily experience. For example, if a person is in physical pain it affects the person's thinking and it would be hard to switch off from this pain, although I have heard that some yogis can do this to some extent.

Even though you speak of the separation of consciousness from the physical it may be about a spectrum. For example, in sleep a person may lose awareness to a degree, but not completely, because the 'I' is still present in dreams. With other aspects of sleep there are various different states including theta, beta and delta ones, which may be important in understanding the spectrum from bodily experience to conscious states of awareness.

[SteveKlinko]

I have gone back to Dualism because Physicalist Identity Theory is the greater Dead End. I would say that Identity Theory or Reductive Materialism has no Explanatory advantage over Connectism. This would have to be an Embarrassing realization for the cocksure Physicalists.

Can your "connectism" achieve anything more than a descriptive list of psychophysical correlations? If yes, how?

1) Connectism predicts that there will be some sort of Unconscious Mind, because it is expected that Consciousness is only Connected to the Cortex. All other areas of the Brain can process in the Background and produce Cortical outputs at later times. This Prediction of an Unconscious Mind is unprecedented in view of any other Theory of Consciousness. The Connectism Unconscious Mind falls out Naturally and Expectedly from the basic premise of Connectivity.

2) With the assumption that Consciousness is Connected, Science can redirect the task of trying to find the whole of Consciousness in the Neurons and just concentrate on the easier task of determining how Consciousness might implement the Connection, from Conscious Space. There are several Phenomena from Quantum Mechanics that can be Experimented with. I have designed and run such Experiments in a Phase 1 attempt. I have had negative results so far but this is easily attributable to Noise and other Interferences swamping out results. My next step is to get some funding to design what I call Phase 2 versions of these Experiments with the appropriate equipment that will highly reduce the Noise. However, I am coming more and more to the thinking that I will skip the Phase 2 Experiments and go right for what I called in my original plan the Future or Advanced Phases. Primary among these is to design an Experiment using the Single Electron Transistor which operates on the Tunneling principles. There are other Advanced plans using other QM principles, on the drawing board.

3) Connectism opens up new points of view for thinking about ESP, Life after Death, Consciousness Transfer, Machine Consciousness, and other things.

[SteveKlinko]

A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.


SteveKlinko wrote:

I think not only is Consciousness Imminent, but it is Primary, even though it is Separate from the Physical.

This is probably where it gets complex because there is the 'I 'which observes the overall process as a witness, which is incorporated into the stream of experience. It is not separate in the sense that it is affected by bodily experience. For example, if a person is in physical pain it affects the person's thinking and it would be hard to switch off from this pain, although I have heard that some yogis can do this to some extent.

Even though you speak of the separation of consciousness from the physical it may be about a spectrum. For example, in sleep a person may lose awareness to a degree, but not completely, because the 'I' is still present in dreams. With other aspects of sleep there are various different states including theta, beta and delta ones, which may be important in understanding the spectrum from bodily experience to conscious states of awareness.

Pain does create effects on the body that are generated automatically by the Brain. Things such as tension in muscles and maybe a tear in the eye are some of these automatic effects. These effects are in addition and separate from the Actual Pain that is Experienced in the Mind. Some Anesthetics can relieve the automatic effects, and the Patient will report that they still feel the Pain as a Conscious Experience but it doesn't bother them anymore or as much without the automatic effects.

Yes, it could be a Spectrum. Everything is on the table when it comes to Consciousness. And thank you for Speculating. That is what Science needs to do more of.

[SteveKlinko]

Should have previewed first.

[psyreporter]

The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

Why can't there be a purely technical explanation for experiencing redness, in theory? If a scientist can make a legitimate guess in the face of the information available, then perhaps it is not possible to claim that it is delirious to do so.

Can you provide an informative or logical reference for why the experience of redness would require an explanation outside a purely technical scope?

An increasing amount of scientists and philosophers appear to be shifting to a belief in determinism, the foundation of physicalism. The fact may indicate something with regard the ability to justify the idea that a purely physical explanation for consciousness is possible.

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your consciousness is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Why would they do so?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

I do share your assertion that physicalism is absurd but I use logic that you do not seem to agree with. It concerns sensing to be primary.

My reasoning is simple: "A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued)."

At the root of consciousness would lay a moral compass (moral valuing) and human consciousness would be a semi-physical manifestation.

The 'brain in a vat' idea (causally/physically explainable consciousness) would suppose that an empirical cause of moral valuing (the origin of sensing) can have preceded the sense-data. You would need to envision an empirical cause of consciousness to reside within absolute nothingness to suddenly receive a bit of information to magically judge subjectively. It would be a nonsensical idea.

[psyreporter]

With regard physicalists being delirious. I am still trying to figure out how the following is possible:

I'm an atheist.

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

I didn't get any further than the following:

You are dodging a simple question: how are you able to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist?

The cited quote by free will sceptics indicates that it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

lol - what a jackass.

[SteveKlinko]

The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

Why can't there be a purely technical explanation for experiencing redness, in theory? If a scientist can make a legitimate guess in the face of the information available, then perhaps it is not possible to claim that it is delirious to do so.

Can you provide an informative or logical reference for why the experience of redness would require an explanation outside a purely technical scope?

I welcome a purely Technical Explanation using known principles of Science, but there are no Explanations so far. Note that I said So Far. I think there is an implication in what you have said that you think I think Science cannot Explain it, ever. All I have ever said is that Science has not Explained so far, and for me , I want to look in other directions. But an Explanation from Science using known principles may still be possible. I'm tired of waiting, but will be happy if the Explanation comes.

An increasing amount of scientists and philosophers appear to be shifting to a belief in determinism, the foundation of physicalism. The fact may indicate something with regard the ability to justify the idea that a purely physical explanation for consciousness is possible.

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your consciousness is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Why would they do so?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

I think Quantum Mechanics has blown away any residual tendency to cling on to Determinism

I do share your assertion that physicalism is absurd but I use logic that you do not seem to agree with. It concerns sensing to be primary.

My reasoning is simple: "A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued)."

At the root of consciousness would lay a moral compass (moral valuing) and human consciousness would be a semi-physical manifestation.

The 'brain in a vat' idea (causally/physically explainable consciousness) would suppose that an empirical cause of moral valuing (the origin of sensing) can have preceded the sense-data. You would need to envision an empirical cause of consciousness to reside within absolute nothingness to suddenly receive a bit of information to magically judge subjectively. It would be a nonsensical idea.

I am an Engineer by profession and I need a Chain of Logic involving Physical Processes (Old or New) to Explain Consciousness. I cannot put Moral Valuing, a Moral Compass, the Pure Meaning of Good, or any other kind of Emotional component, into any Chain of Logic or Systems Engineering Process Flow. I admit, I don't really even understand what you are trying to say with that type of verbiage.

[psyreporter]

I am an Engineer by profession and I need a Chain of Logic involving Physical Processes (Old or New) to Explain Consciousness. I cannot put Moral Valuing, a Moral Compass, the Pure Meaning of Good, or any other kind of Emotional component, into any Chain of Logic or Systems Engineering Process Flow. I admit, I don't really even understand what you are trying to say with that type of verbiage.

What can explain meaningful experience if it not involves a form of (moral) valuing?

For example, take the concept 'attention' that is involved in processing of sense experience. How can it be explained if there is not an a priori valuation being made?

Moral valuing has nothing to do with emotions. Morality simply concerns the addressing of the question 'what is good?' which - figuratively speaking - can be done by a plant, and perhaps also on cosmic scale at the foundation of 'the Universe'.

(2022) The most complex thing in the universe
Biocosmology: the birth of a new science? We went from the commonly-held perspective that the cosmos has the biggest contribution to entropy and diversity, with our planet contributing effectively nothing, to instead seeing the entropy and diversity embedded in life on earth as dwarfing the contribution from cosmological entities.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-most-comple ... -auid-2110

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life:

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008, life would not have been possible.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

[LuckyR]

A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.

I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious Experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious Experiences that exist in the Universe. It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

As pertains statement 1, does anyone (theologists, yogis, philosophers, paranormal experts etc) understand anything about consciousness?

Nobody knows anything about Consciousness. Science has Zero Explanation for Consciousness, but many Scientists claim that the problem of Consciousness is solved.

... and many philosophers, yogis, clerics and everyday folks do too. Your point?

[SteveKlinko]

I am an Engineer by profession and I need a Chain of Logic involving Physical Processes (Old or New) to Explain Consciousness. I cannot put Moral Valuing, a Moral Compass, the Pure Meaning of Good, or any other kind of Emotional component, into any Chain of Logic or Systems Engineering Process Flow. I admit, I don't really even understand what you are trying to say with that type of verbiage.

What can explain meaningful experience if it not involves a form of (moral) valuing?

For example, take the concept 'attention' that is involved in processing of sense experience. How can it be explained if there is not an a priori valuation being made?

Moral valuing has nothing to do with emotions. Morality simply concerns the addressing of the question 'what is good?' which - figuratively speaking - can be done by a plant, and perhaps also on cosmic scale at the foundation of 'the Universe'.

(2022) The most complex thing in the universe
Biocosmology: the birth of a new science? We went from the commonly-held perspective that the cosmos has the biggest contribution to entropy and diversity, with our planet contributing effectively nothing, to instead seeing the entropy and diversity embedded in life on earth as dwarfing the contribution from cosmological entities.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-most-comple ... -auid-2110

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life:

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008, life would not have been possible.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

You have just jumped around from the concept of Entropy to the Anthropic Principle. I am familiar with these things (but thank you for the links). But I do not understand how bringing up these things is at all relevant to the line of thought were were on. I'll keep trying though.

[SteveKlinko]

A Physicalist is a Physical Monist or Material Monist. They Believe that all Conscious Phenomena can be explained by Physical Material Phenomena. Some Physicalists go so far as to discount Conscious Phenomena as even Existing at all. The Physicalists have complained about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

2) Conscious Experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.

3) The Conscious Experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naive and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience not the Conscious Experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious Experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious Experience. The Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious Experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious Experience could be. If Conscious Experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious Experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists, those scary Conscious Experiences will not hurt you.

I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious Experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious Experiences that exist in the Universe. It is a logical conclusion to state that even primitive Consciousness can influence Evolution. Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires, Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious Experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious Experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious Experience so therefore the Conscious Experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.

As pertains statement 1, does anyone (theologists, yogis, philosophers, paranormal experts etc) understand anything about consciousness?

Nobody knows anything about Consciousness. Science has Zero Explanation for Consciousness, but many Scientists claim that the problem of Consciousness is solved.

... and many philosophers, yogis, clerics and everyday folks do too. Your point?

Point is that Scientists are not supposed to operate using Belief systems, but they apparently are.

[LuckyR]

As pertains statement 1, does anyone (theologists, yogis, philosophers, paranormal experts etc) understand anything about consciousness?

Nobody knows anything about Consciousness. Science has Zero Explanation for Consciousness, but many Scientists claim that the problem of Consciousness is solved.

... and many philosophers, yogis, clerics and everyday folks do too. Your point?

Point is that Scientists are not supposed to operate using Belief systems, but they apparently are.

Well, you're right about one thing, humans do tend to be imperfect (present company excluded, naturally).