Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective

[SteveKlinko]

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp. This is Connectism.

The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is CSp.

At the developmental level we now will have the PM developing in PSp and a separate CM developing in CSp. There is also an IM which is developing the Connections between the PM and the CM. The CM is no longer trapped in the PM which is in PSp. The CM now has a separate development and existence in CSp. Maybe an IM, along with a CM, inhabits and uses a PM from conception. The IM and CM grow as a particular PM grows. First there is only one Neuron, then there are two, then three, and four, and so on until a fully formed PM, IM, and CM are produced. Note that maybe the IM will only need to connect with the Cortical Areas on the surface of the PM. With regard to memory, it is thought that it is possible that the recognition of objects and faces comes down to one Neuron firing. With this theory, the IM must know what a particular Neuron means when it fires in order to send a feeling of Recognition to a CM. On the other hand, if Memory has a more distributed configuration among many Neurons involving feedback and feedforward connections, then the IM will need to interpret the Memory using that more complicated activity.

Could an IM attach to a fully formed PM and just start using it? Or does an IM need to grow as a PM grows in order to properly use it? I will speculate that there probably is a developmental aspect involved in PM, IM, and CM connections. The act of growing from a single Neuron might be absolutely necessary for an IM and CM to properly connect. The IM might eventually be in contact with every Neuron in the PM. Maybe the only way an IM can be in control of billions of Neurons is if, as the PM slowly develops, the IM learns how to use each Neuron. It is not known how the IM learns the meaning of any particular Neuron that is firing. The PM and the IM might have built in mechanisms that facilitate the interconnection process. Maybe individual types of Neurons have some sort of chemical signatures that the IM can read in order to know what Conscious Experiences to produce. This seems to predict that the IM must have some innate ability to operate with Neurons.

We can make some statements about things that are in the CM and things that are in the PM. For example, the CM is where the Experiences of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste are located. The CM is also where the Conscious Self is located. Examples of things that are located in the PM are Memory, Pattern Recognition, Eye Convergence/Tracking, and Balance.

Separating the CM from the PM allows a whole new Perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness may have to be overturned when using this new Perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new Perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted, so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new Perspective, Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption. But since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations, the PM will not have been able to save any Memories of the interruption, that could be accessed by the CM after the Connection is reestablished.

The old assumptions about how PM injuries affect Consciousness will have new interpretations using the Connection Perspective. After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed. But these are PM degradations and not CM degradations. The CM will not be affected because the CM is connected through the IM to the PM. The IM protects and buffers the CM from PM damages. The CM will effectively be Connected to something different after a PM injury. The CM will try to do the best it can with whatever PM it is Connected to, regardless of the PM degenerations that exist.

This separation of CM from PM also presents a new Perspective for thinking about the Sub-Conscious Mind versus the CM. It is logical to speculate that the Sub-Conscious Mind is completely implemented in the PM. Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness. The IM needs to make the Processing decisions for which of the Activities in the PM should be Translated into Conscious Experiences. The IM implements the Binding Processing necessary to create a usable Conscious Experience of the External world for the CM to operate in. It would be very confusing and inefficient if the IM had to Translate all Neural Activity, including the Background Brain Programs, into Conscious Experiences. There has always been an intuition that there was a separate Conscious Mind and Sub-Conscious Mind. It is now easy to see how this PM to CM separation logically and naturally predicts a Sub-Conscious Mind concept separate from the CM.

Does the shape of the Brain say anything about the Connection Perspective? Interconnecting axons take up the bulk of the space inside the Brain (the white matter). The Conscious Experience part of the Brain consists of a thin layer of Neurons on the outer surface of the Brain (the gray matter). This is of course the Cortex. All Experience seems to to be correlated with Neural Activity in specific Areas of the Cortex. Maybe it is easier for the IM to Monitor and Connect to the Brain given that kind of surface configuration. Of course there are some large folds to the cortex, but it is essentially a surface structure. When you think about all those distinct functional Experiential Areas that make up the Cortex, it just looks like it must be some kind of Interface to some next Processing stage. But this is just a speculation. The only explanation from Brain Physiology is that it is a surface on the exterior of the Brain in order to promote cooling. But what if there is more to it than that?

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

[JackDaydream]

@Steve Klinko
Your writing is interesting and, of course, philosophy is seeing ideas and concepts rather than science. However, that is where it gets complex, in how far one needs to explore general theoretical perspectives and empirical observations. So much of discussion on consciousness is based on neuroscience, but a lot of it involves interpreting the findings

The main reason why I am saying this is because you are speaking of connections in the brain as a basis for your arguments. But it is a little unclear where you are coming from, as the basis for your claims and how this fits in with other writers on the topic of consciousness.

[SteveKlinko]

@Steve Klinko
Your writing is interesting and, of course, philosophy is seeing ideas and concepts rather than science. However, that is where it gets complex, in how far one needs to explore general theoretical perspectives and empirical observations. So much of discussion on consciousness is based on neuroscience, but a lot of it involves interpreting the findings

The main reason why I am saying this is because you are speaking of connections in the brain as a basis for your arguments. But it is a little unclear where you are coming from, as the basis for your claims and how this fits in with other writers on the topic of consciousness.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about Connections within the Brain when I talk about the Connection Perspective from the point of view that there is a separate Physical Mind (Brain) and a separate Conscious Mind. So I am talking about Connections from the Brain to the Conscious Mind which is outside (conceptually) of the Brain. However, if Physicalism is true then I am talking about Connections within the Brain because the functionality of an Inter Mind will have to be in the Brain. The Inter Mind is missing Processing and this has to ultimately be somewhere.

[JackDaydream]

@Steve Klinko

I am not a physicalist and I have read your thread about science not being able to explain consciousness. It may be not simply about what research finds but about how it is framed and interpreted, especially in angles of viewing it. Neuroscientists have a specific language and so do philosophers and, perhaps it is here that ideas of consciousness may evolve, such as being able to connect the findings of science with thinkers like Schopenhauer and Hume. In this sense it may be about making connections rather than simply giving processes new names, although it may be that new models may be useful in issues of clarity.

However, it is already the case that there are many who have thought outside the box, including Jung, whose idea of the subconscious and the unconscious may tie in more with what you describe as the 'Inter mind'. There are so many different perspectives and I think that part of the understanding of consciousness may involve reading and thinking widely. Ultimately, the nature of consciousness may never be explained absolutely because it is about how it is framed It is likely that it will always remain an area of debate within philosophy, as a recurrent issue for speculation.

[Sculptor1]

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp. This is Connectism.

The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is CSp.

At the developmental level we now will have the PM developing in PSp and a separate CM developing in CSp. There is also an IM which is developing the Connections between the PM and the CM. The CM is no longer trapped in the PM which is in PSp. The CM now has a separate development and existence in CSp. Maybe an IM, along with a CM, inhabits and uses a PM from conception. The IM and CM grow as a particular PM grows. First there is only one Neuron, then there are two, then three, and four, and so on until a fully formed PM, IM, and CM are produced. Note that maybe the IM will only need to connect with the Cortical Areas on the surface of the PM. With regard to memory, it is thought that it is possible that the recognition of objects and faces comes down to one Neuron firing. With this theory, the IM must know what a particular Neuron means when it fires in order to send a feeling of Recognition to a CM. On the other hand, if Memory has a more distributed configuration among many Neurons involving feedback and feedforward connections, then the IM will need to interpret the Memory using that more complicated activity.

Could an IM attach to a fully formed PM and just start using it? Or does an IM need to grow as a PM grows in order to properly use it? I will speculate that there probably is a developmental aspect involved in PM, IM, and CM connections. The act of growing from a single Neuron might be absolutely necessary for an IM and CM to properly connect. The IM might eventually be in contact with every Neuron in the PM. Maybe the only way an IM can be in control of billions of Neurons is if, as the PM slowly develops, the IM learns how to use each Neuron. It is not known how the IM learns the meaning of any particular Neuron that is firing. The PM and the IM might have built in mechanisms that facilitate the interconnection process. Maybe individual types of Neurons have some sort of chemical signatures that the IM can read in order to know what Conscious Experiences to produce. This seems to predict that the IM must have some innate ability to operate with Neurons.

We can make some statements about things that are in the CM and things that are in the PM. For example, the CM is where the Experiences of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste are located. The CM is also where the Conscious Self is located. Examples of things that are located in the PM are Memory, Pattern Recognition, Eye Convergence/Tracking, and Balance.

Separating the CM from the PM allows a whole new Perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness may have to be overturned when using this new Perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new Perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted, so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new Perspective, Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption. But since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations, the PM will not have been able to save any Memories of the interruption, that could be accessed by the CM after the Connection is reestablished.

The old assumptions about how PM injuries affect Consciousness will have new interpretations using the Connection Perspective. After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed. But these are PM degradations and not CM degradations. The CM will not be affected because the CM is connected through the IM to the PM. The IM protects and buffers the CM from PM damages. The CM will effectively be Connected to something different after a PM injury. The CM will try to do the best it can with whatever PM it is Connected to, regardless of the PM degenerations that exist.

This separation of CM from PM also presents a new Perspective for thinking about the Sub-Conscious Mind versus the CM. It is logical to speculate that the Sub-Conscious Mind is completely implemented in the PM. Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness. The IM needs to make the Processing decisions for which of the Activities in the PM should be Translated into Conscious Experiences. The IM implements the Binding Processing necessary to create a usable Conscious Experience of the External world for the CM to operate in. It would be very confusing and inefficient if the IM had to Translate all Neural Activity, including the Background Brain Programs, into Conscious Experiences. There has always been an intuition that there was a separate Conscious Mind and Sub-Conscious Mind. It is now easy to see how this PM to CM separation logically and naturally predicts a Sub-Conscious Mind concept separate from the CM.

Does the shape of the Brain say anything about the Connection Perspective? Interconnecting axons take up the bulk of the space inside the Brain (the white matter). The Conscious Experience part of the Brain consists of a thin layer of Neurons on the outer surface of the Brain (the gray matter). This is of course the Cortex. All Experience seems to to be correlated with Neural Activity in specific Areas of the Cortex. Maybe it is easier for the IM to Monitor and Connect to the Brain given that kind of surface configuration. Of course there are some large folds to the cortex, but it is essentially a surface structure. When you think about all those distinct functional Experiential Areas that make up the Cortex, it just looks like it must be some kind of Interface to some next Processing stage. But this is just a speculation. The only explanation from Brain Physiology is that it is a surface on the exterior of the Brain in order to promote cooling. But what if there is more to it than that?

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

You seem to be failing to make sense as you seem to be obsessed to demonstrate yourself as anti-science.
Your description of IMM is interesting enough, but does not sound like it would fly against any science as far as I can see.
And its usefullness and predictive value will rise or fall and the exact degree to which it is capable of conforming to the principles of science. If it fails to satisfy science then it will be abandoned and added to the other objects on the mountian of discarded consciousness theories.
Science is always thinking out side the box. It not only thinks in and aout of the box, but it created the box and defines where it is.
It can even gift wrap the box.

[SteveKlinko]

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp. This is Connectism.

The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is CSp.

At the developmental level we now will have the PM developing in PSp and a separate CM developing in CSp. There is also an IM which is developing the Connections between the PM and the CM. The CM is no longer trapped in the PM which is in PSp. The CM now has a separate development and existence in CSp. Maybe an IM, along with a CM, inhabits and uses a PM from conception. The IM and CM grow as a particular PM grows. First there is only one Neuron, then there are two, then three, and four, and so on until a fully formed PM, IM, and CM are produced. Note that maybe the IM will only need to connect with the Cortical Areas on the surface of the PM. With regard to memory, it is thought that it is possible that the recognition of objects and faces comes down to one Neuron firing. With this theory, the IM must know what a particular Neuron means when it fires in order to send a feeling of Recognition to a CM. On the other hand, if Memory has a more distributed configuration among many Neurons involving feedback and feedforward connections, then the IM will need to interpret the Memory using that more complicated activity.

Could an IM attach to a fully formed PM and just start using it? Or does an IM need to grow as a PM grows in order to properly use it? I will speculate that there probably is a developmental aspect involved in PM, IM, and CM connections. The act of growing from a single Neuron might be absolutely necessary for an IM and CM to properly connect. The IM might eventually be in contact with every Neuron in the PM. Maybe the only way an IM can be in control of billions of Neurons is if, as the PM slowly develops, the IM learns how to use each Neuron. It is not known how the IM learns the meaning of any particular Neuron that is firing. The PM and the IM might have built in mechanisms that facilitate the interconnection process. Maybe individual types of Neurons have some sort of chemical signatures that the IM can read in order to know what Conscious Experiences to produce. This seems to predict that the IM must have some innate ability to operate with Neurons.

We can make some statements about things that are in the CM and things that are in the PM. For example, the CM is where the Experiences of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste are located. The CM is also where the Conscious Self is located. Examples of things that are located in the PM are Memory, Pattern Recognition, Eye Convergence/Tracking, and Balance.

Separating the CM from the PM allows a whole new Perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness may have to be overturned when using this new Perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new Perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted, so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new Perspective, Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption. But since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations, the PM will not have been able to save any Memories of the interruption, that could be accessed by the CM after the Connection is reestablished.

The old assumptions about how PM injuries affect Consciousness will have new interpretations using the Connection Perspective. After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed. But these are PM degradations and not CM degradations. The CM will not be affected because the CM is connected through the IM to the PM. The IM protects and buffers the CM from PM damages. The CM will effectively be Connected to something different after a PM injury. The CM will try to do the best it can with whatever PM it is Connected to, regardless of the PM degenerations that exist.

This separation of CM from PM also presents a new Perspective for thinking about the Sub-Conscious Mind versus the CM. It is logical to speculate that the Sub-Conscious Mind is completely implemented in the PM. Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness. The IM needs to make the Processing decisions for which of the Activities in the PM should be Translated into Conscious Experiences. The IM implements the Binding Processing necessary to create a usable Conscious Experience of the External world for the CM to operate in. It would be very confusing and inefficient if the IM had to Translate all Neural Activity, including the Background Brain Programs, into Conscious Experiences. There has always been an intuition that there was a separate Conscious Mind and Sub-Conscious Mind. It is now easy to see how this PM to CM separation logically and naturally predicts a Sub-Conscious Mind concept separate from the CM.

Does the shape of the Brain say anything about the Connection Perspective? Interconnecting axons take up the bulk of the space inside the Brain (the white matter). The Conscious Experience part of the Brain consists of a thin layer of Neurons on the outer surface of the Brain (the gray matter). This is of course the Cortex. All Experience seems to to be correlated with Neural Activity in specific Areas of the Cortex. Maybe it is easier for the IM to Monitor and Connect to the Brain given that kind of surface configuration. Of course there are some large folds to the cortex, but it is essentially a surface structure. When you think about all those distinct functional Experiential Areas that make up the Cortex, it just looks like it must be some kind of Interface to some next Processing stage. But this is just a speculation. The only explanation from Brain Physiology is that it is a surface on the exterior of the Brain in order to promote cooling. But what if there is more to it than that?

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

You seem to be failing to make sense as you seem to be obsessed to demonstrate yourself as anti-science.
Your description of IMM is interesting enough, but does not sound like it would fly against any science as far as I can see.
And its usefullness and predictive value will rise or fall and the exact degree to which it is capable of conforming to the principles of science. If it fails to satisfy science then it will be abandoned and added to the other objects on the mountian of discarded consciousness theories.
Science is always thinking out side the box. It not only thinks in and aout of the box, but it created the box and defines where it is.
It can even gift wrap the box.

Science is trapped in the Box that it has created. But I know that Science itself doesn't go outside the Box, but rather it must be dragged out of the Box from time to time by new concepts that cannot be ignored forever.

[SteveKlinko]

@Steve Klinko

I am not a physicalist and I have read your thread about science not being able to explain consciousness. It may be not simply about what research finds but about how it is framed and interpreted, especially in angles of viewing it. Neuroscientists have a specific language and so do philosophers and, perhaps it is here that ideas of consciousness may evolve, such as being able to connect the findings of science with thinkers like Schopenhauer and Hume. In this sense it may be about making connections rather than simply giving processes new names, although it may be that new models may be useful in issues of clarity.

However, it is already the case that there are many who have thought outside the box, including Jung, whose idea of the subconscious and the unconscious may tie in more with what you describe as the 'Inter mind'. There are so many different perspectives and I think that part of the understanding of consciousness may involve reading and thinking widely. Ultimately, the nature of consciousness may never be explained absolutely because it is about how it is framed It is likely that it will always remain an area of debate within philosophy, as a recurrent issue for speculation.

Well then let's find the right Framework and charge ahead. I have read what the Great Thinkers have Thought. They all have Speculations but none of them has the Explanation that is needed.

[JackDaydream]

@Steve Klinko
Who do you regard as the 'great thinkers' and what are their limitations? I am not sure that anyone can come up with a complete explanation of reality, but it may be a question of synthesis and interpretation. Can anyone come up with an 'ultimate', or objective understanding of consciousness, as it experienced subjectively? I am inclined to the view that keeping up to date with the latest research, in conjunction with reading and philosophy speculation, may be the most that can be achieved. Of course, I am open to new theories and models, including those which you may develop, for greater understanding.

[SteveKlinko]

@Steve Klinko
Who do you regard as the 'great thinkers' and what are their limitations? I am not sure that anyone can come up with a complete explanation of reality, but it may be a question of synthesis and interpretation. Can anyone come up with an 'ultimate', or objective understanding of consciousness, as it experienced subjectively? I am inclined to the view that keeping up to date with the latest research, in conjunction with reading and philosophy speculation, may be the most that can be achieved. Of course, I am open to new theories and models, including those which you may develop, for greater understanding.

There are too many Great Thinkers all through history to list. I don't have allegiance to any particular Thinker or Theories. The limitations on any of the Thinkers and Theories is that, literally no Thinker and no Theory can Explain Conscious Experience. Everything is a Speculation. It's even worse than that because there are a lot of Consciousness Cults out there that just Believe in things with no Chan of Logic. Note that I have always said that what I say is also a Speculation, but it is a Speculation driven by the Reality of the Existence of Conscious Experience. I don't Ignore the Experience, rather, I study and try to understand the Experience. You cannot seriously be aware of and study that beautiful, High Def, Wide Screen, Visual Experience that is embedded in the front of your face and just shrug it off as Neural Activity. But this is what I primarily see out there in the literature and on the Forums.

[Sculptor1]

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp. This is Connectism.

The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is CSp.

At the developmental level we now will have the PM developing in PSp and a separate CM developing in CSp. There is also an IM which is developing the Connections between the PM and the CM. The CM is no longer trapped in the PM which is in PSp. The CM now has a separate development and existence in CSp. Maybe an IM, along with a CM, inhabits and uses a PM from conception. The IM and CM grow as a particular PM grows. First there is only one Neuron, then there are two, then three, and four, and so on until a fully formed PM, IM, and CM are produced. Note that maybe the IM will only need to connect with the Cortical Areas on the surface of the PM. With regard to memory, it is thought that it is possible that the recognition of objects and faces comes down to one Neuron firing. With this theory, the IM must know what a particular Neuron means when it fires in order to send a feeling of Recognition to a CM. On the other hand, if Memory has a more distributed configuration among many Neurons involving feedback and feedforward connections, then the IM will need to interpret the Memory using that more complicated activity.

Could an IM attach to a fully formed PM and just start using it? Or does an IM need to grow as a PM grows in order to properly use it? I will speculate that there probably is a developmental aspect involved in PM, IM, and CM connections. The act of growing from a single Neuron might be absolutely necessary for an IM and CM to properly connect. The IM might eventually be in contact with every Neuron in the PM. Maybe the only way an IM can be in control of billions of Neurons is if, as the PM slowly develops, the IM learns how to use each Neuron. It is not known how the IM learns the meaning of any particular Neuron that is firing. The PM and the IM might have built in mechanisms that facilitate the interconnection process. Maybe individual types of Neurons have some sort of chemical signatures that the IM can read in order to know what Conscious Experiences to produce. This seems to predict that the IM must have some innate ability to operate with Neurons.

We can make some statements about things that are in the CM and things that are in the PM. For example, the CM is where the Experiences of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste are located. The CM is also where the Conscious Self is located. Examples of things that are located in the PM are Memory, Pattern Recognition, Eye Convergence/Tracking, and Balance.

Separating the CM from the PM allows a whole new Perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness may have to be overturned when using this new Perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new Perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted, so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new Perspective, Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption. But since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations, the PM will not have been able to save any Memories of the interruption, that could be accessed by the CM after the Connection is reestablished.

The old assumptions about how PM injuries affect Consciousness will have new interpretations using the Connection Perspective. After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed. But these are PM degradations and not CM degradations. The CM will not be affected because the CM is connected through the IM to the PM. The IM protects and buffers the CM from PM damages. The CM will effectively be Connected to something different after a PM injury. The CM will try to do the best it can with whatever PM it is Connected to, regardless of the PM degenerations that exist.

This separation of CM from PM also presents a new Perspective for thinking about the Sub-Conscious Mind versus the CM. It is logical to speculate that the Sub-Conscious Mind is completely implemented in the PM. Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness. The IM needs to make the Processing decisions for which of the Activities in the PM should be Translated into Conscious Experiences. The IM implements the Binding Processing necessary to create a usable Conscious Experience of the External world for the CM to operate in. It would be very confusing and inefficient if the IM had to Translate all Neural Activity, including the Background Brain Programs, into Conscious Experiences. There has always been an intuition that there was a separate Conscious Mind and Sub-Conscious Mind. It is now easy to see how this PM to CM separation logically and naturally predicts a Sub-Conscious Mind concept separate from the CM.

Does the shape of the Brain say anything about the Connection Perspective? Interconnecting axons take up the bulk of the space inside the Brain (the white matter). The Conscious Experience part of the Brain consists of a thin layer of Neurons on the outer surface of the Brain (the gray matter). This is of course the Cortex. All Experience seems to to be correlated with Neural Activity in specific Areas of the Cortex. Maybe it is easier for the IM to Monitor and Connect to the Brain given that kind of surface configuration. Of course there are some large folds to the cortex, but it is essentially a surface structure. When you think about all those distinct functional Experiential Areas that make up the Cortex, it just looks like it must be some kind of Interface to some next Processing stage. But this is just a speculation. The only explanation from Brain Physiology is that it is a surface on the exterior of the Brain in order to promote cooling. But what if there is more to it than that?

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

You seem to be failing to make sense as you seem to be obsessed to demonstrate yourself as anti-science.
Your description of IMM is interesting enough, but does not sound like it would fly against any science as far as I can see.
And its usefullness and predictive value will rise or fall and the exact degree to which it is capable of conforming to the principles of science. If it fails to satisfy science then it will be abandoned and added to the other objects on the mountian of discarded consciousness theories.
Science is always thinking out side the box. It not only thinks in and aout of the box, but it created the box and defines where it is.
It can even gift wrap the box.

Science is trapped in the Box that it has created. But I know that Science itself doesn't go outside the Box, but rather it must be dragged out of the Box from time to time by new concepts that cannot be ignored forever.

As I thought. You are just anti-science.
Einstein took Newton out of the box and Newton took Ptolemy out of the box.
THere are dozens of cosmologies all out of the box as we speak.
science says what the box is.

[Consul]

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity.

If X can be regularly influenced by manipulating Y, this is evidence for a causal relation between Y and X.
For example, the effects of neural manipulations by means of anesthetic or psychotropic drugs on the state of consciousness and conscious contents are well known.

In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

What has got wrong is your way of thinking about the problem! If your thoughts about it are informed and directed by a dualistic bias, then it's no wonder that "the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity."

What exactly makes you think so? That you are not introspectively aware of your experiences as neural processes? Well, you aren't; but, as David Armstrong argues with his Headless Woman argument, it doesn't follow that what you aren't introspectively aware of as neural processes aren't in fact neural processes. That is, it doesn't follow that the objects of introspection are non-neural entities. You don't innerly perceive your experiences as neural processes, but it doesn't follow that you innerly perceive non-neural processes. So there is no compelling introspective evidence for the immateriality of experiences or experiential qualities (qualia)!

[SteveKlinko]

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp. This is Connectism.

The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is CSp.

At the developmental level we now will have the PM developing in PSp and a separate CM developing in CSp. There is also an IM which is developing the Connections between the PM and the CM. The CM is no longer trapped in the PM which is in PSp. The CM now has a separate development and existence in CSp. Maybe an IM, along with a CM, inhabits and uses a PM from conception. The IM and CM grow as a particular PM grows. First there is only one Neuron, then there are two, then three, and four, and so on until a fully formed PM, IM, and CM are produced. Note that maybe the IM will only need to connect with the Cortical Areas on the surface of the PM. With regard to memory, it is thought that it is possible that the recognition of objects and faces comes down to one Neuron firing. With this theory, the IM must know what a particular Neuron means when it fires in order to send a feeling of Recognition to a CM. On the other hand, if Memory has a more distributed configuration among many Neurons involving feedback and feedforward connections, then the IM will need to interpret the Memory using that more complicated activity.

Could an IM attach to a fully formed PM and just start using it? Or does an IM need to grow as a PM grows in order to properly use it? I will speculate that there probably is a developmental aspect involved in PM, IM, and CM connections. The act of growing from a single Neuron might be absolutely necessary for an IM and CM to properly connect. The IM might eventually be in contact with every Neuron in the PM. Maybe the only way an IM can be in control of billions of Neurons is if, as the PM slowly develops, the IM learns how to use each Neuron. It is not known how the IM learns the meaning of any particular Neuron that is firing. The PM and the IM might have built in mechanisms that facilitate the interconnection process. Maybe individual types of Neurons have some sort of chemical signatures that the IM can read in order to know what Conscious Experiences to produce. This seems to predict that the IM must have some innate ability to operate with Neurons.

We can make some statements about things that are in the CM and things that are in the PM. For example, the CM is where the Experiences of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste are located. The CM is also where the Conscious Self is located. Examples of things that are located in the PM are Memory, Pattern Recognition, Eye Convergence/Tracking, and Balance.

Separating the CM from the PM allows a whole new Perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness may have to be overturned when using this new Perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new Perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted, so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new Perspective, Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption. But since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations, the PM will not have been able to save any Memories of the interruption, that could be accessed by the CM after the Connection is reestablished.

The old assumptions about how PM injuries affect Consciousness will have new interpretations using the Connection Perspective. After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed. But these are PM degradations and not CM degradations. The CM will not be affected because the CM is connected through the IM to the PM. The IM protects and buffers the CM from PM damages. The CM will effectively be Connected to something different after a PM injury. The CM will try to do the best it can with whatever PM it is Connected to, regardless of the PM degenerations that exist.

This separation of CM from PM also presents a new Perspective for thinking about the Sub-Conscious Mind versus the CM. It is logical to speculate that the Sub-Conscious Mind is completely implemented in the PM. Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness. The IM needs to make the Processing decisions for which of the Activities in the PM should be Translated into Conscious Experiences. The IM implements the Binding Processing necessary to create a usable Conscious Experience of the External world for the CM to operate in. It would be very confusing and inefficient if the IM had to Translate all Neural Activity, including the Background Brain Programs, into Conscious Experiences. There has always been an intuition that there was a separate Conscious Mind and Sub-Conscious Mind. It is now easy to see how this PM to CM separation logically and naturally predicts a Sub-Conscious Mind concept separate from the CM.

Does the shape of the Brain say anything about the Connection Perspective? Interconnecting axons take up the bulk of the space inside the Brain (the white matter). The Conscious Experience part of the Brain consists of a thin layer of Neurons on the outer surface of the Brain (the gray matter). This is of course the Cortex. All Experience seems to to be correlated with Neural Activity in specific Areas of the Cortex. Maybe it is easier for the IM to Monitor and Connect to the Brain given that kind of surface configuration. Of course there are some large folds to the cortex, but it is essentially a surface structure. When you think about all those distinct functional Experiential Areas that make up the Cortex, it just looks like it must be some kind of Interface to some next Processing stage. But this is just a speculation. The only explanation from Brain Physiology is that it is a surface on the exterior of the Brain in order to promote cooling. But what if there is more to it than that?

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

You seem to be failing to make sense as you seem to be obsessed to demonstrate yourself as anti-science.
Your description of IMM is interesting enough, but does not sound like it would fly against any science as far as I can see.
And its usefullness and predictive value will rise or fall and the exact degree to which it is capable of conforming to the principles of science. If it fails to satisfy science then it will be abandoned and added to the other objects on the mountian of discarded consciousness theories.
Science is always thinking out side the box. It not only thinks in and aout of the box, but it created the box and defines where it is.
It can even gift wrap the box.

Science is trapped in the Box that it has created. But I know that Science itself doesn't go outside the Box, but rather it must be dragged out of the Box from time to time by new concepts that cannot be ignored forever.

As I thought. You are just anti-science.
Einstein took Newton out of the box and Newton took Ptolemy out of the box.
THere are dozens of cosmologies all out of the box as we speak.
science says what the box is.

I have been, and always will be, Pro Science. Because I point out problems with Science does not mean I am Anti Science. I would just say that I am disappointed with Science as it stands relative to Conscious Experience at this point in time. I fully expect Science will eventually be forced out of its Box relative to Conscious Experience and then we will make some progress. The IMM is not a Theory. The IMM is a Framework for what any theory of Consciousness must show.

[SteveKlinko]

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity.

If X can be regularly influenced by manipulating Y, this is evidence for a causal relation between Y and X.
For example, the effects of neural manipulations by means of anesthetic or psychotropic drugs on the state of consciousness and conscious contents are well known.

In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

What has got wrong is your way of thinking about the problem! If your thoughts about it are informed and directed by a dualistic bias, then it's no wonder that "the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity."

What exactly makes you think so? That you are not introspectively aware of your experiences as neural processes? Well, you aren't; but, as David Armstrong argues with his Headless Woman argument, it doesn't follow that what you aren't introspectively aware of as neural processes aren't in fact neural processes. That is, it doesn't follow that the objects of introspection are non-neural entities. You don't innerly perceive your experiences as neural processes, but it doesn't follow that you innerly perceive non-neural processes. So there is no compelling introspective evidence for the immateriality of experiences or experiential qualities (qualia)!

You did not read for enough down in the OP:

Separating the CM from the PM allows a whole new Perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness may have to be overturned when using this new Perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new Perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted, so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new Perspective, Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption. But since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations, the PM will not have been able to save any Memories of the interruption, that could be accessed by the CM after the Connection is reestablished.

The old assumptions about how PM injuries affect Consciousness will have new interpretations using the Connection Perspective. After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed. But these are PM degradations and not CM degradations. The CM will not be affected because the CM is connected through the IM to the PM. The IM protects and buffers the CM from PM damages. The CM will effectively be Connected to something different after a PM injury. The CM will try to do the best it can with whatever PM it is Connected to, regardless of the PM degenerations that exist.

This separation of CM from PM also presents a new Perspective for thinking about the Sub-Conscious Mind versus the CM. It is logical to speculate that the Sub-Conscious Mind is completely implemented in the PM. Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness. The IM needs to make the Processing decisions for which of the Activities in the PM should be Translated into Conscious Experiences. The IM implements the Binding Processing necessary to create a usable Conscious Experience of the External world for the CM to operate in. It would be very confusing and inefficient if the IM had to Translate all Neural Activity, including the Background Brain Programs, into Conscious Experiences. There has always been an intuition that there was a separate Conscious Mind and Sub-Conscious Mind. It is now easy to see how this PM to CM separation logically and naturally predicts a Sub-Conscious Mind concept separate from the CM.

[Sculptor1]

You seem to be failing to make sense as you seem to be obsessed to demonstrate yourself as anti-science.
Your description of IMM is interesting enough, but does not sound like it would fly against any science as far as I can see.
And its usefullness and predictive value will rise or fall and the exact degree to which it is capable of conforming to the principles of science. If it fails to satisfy science then it will be abandoned and added to the other objects on the mountian of discarded consciousness theories.
Science is always thinking out side the box. It not only thinks in and aout of the box, but it created the box and defines where it is.
It can even gift wrap the box.

Science is trapped in the Box that it has created. But I know that Science itself doesn't go outside the Box, but rather it must be dragged out of the Box from time to time by new concepts that cannot be ignored forever.

As I thought. You are just anti-science.
Einstein took Newton out of the box and Newton took Ptolemy out of the box.
THere are dozens of cosmologies all out of the box as we speak.
science says what the box is.

I have been, and always will be, Pro Science. Because I point out problems with Science does not mean I am Anti Science. I would just say that I am disappointed with Science as it stands relative to Conscious Experience at this point in time. I fully expect Science will eventually be forced out of its Box relative to Conscious Experience and then we will make some progress. The IMM is not a Theory. The IMM is a Framework for what any theory of Consciousness must show.

The box which you think science is in , is a figment of your imagination.
I IMM is nothing if not a theory.
If it does not fit empirically IMM is fantasy not science.
All you seem to be doing here is creating your own box which you demand "any" theory of consciousness "must" show. This is laughable.
I doubt your IMM BOX has much to recommend it.

[Pattern-chaser]

As I thought. You are just anti-science.

I don't think that's quite right. I think he's trying to 'drag science out of its Box', when that 'Box' actually defines and delineates the area to which science is applicable and valid. Outside that box lie philosophical problems that science cannot deal with (and other problems too, perhaps, that even philosophy cannot deal with?). Those metaphysical examples, where there is little or no evidence available, are typical of such things. If we drag science out of that Box, we end up with invalid conclusions. Science is Really Good at what it does, so let's not complain of what it can't do. No tool is universally applicable, after all.