The universe at it's largest scale, seems to be a system based on disorder-order-disorder. — universeness

Just a tiny notice. The terms "order/disorder" are observer depended. ITs not an intrinsic feature that a system can be "based on". The different phases of entropy might appear to us as a state of disorder but in reality we are not fully aware of a system's all hidden variables.
Now I am not sure that "singularity" is valid idea because according to quantum mechanics singularities are impossible. Changes in state across larger areas of the cosmos is closer to what we identify as "singularity".

This great topic demonstrates the instrumental role Philosophy should have in everyday life(reality)...but nobody seems to care about weighing in!(answerable metaphysical ideas sound more appealing for some reason).
Living in Greece during a pre election period I can only agree with "Habermas" theses. Look at the evolution of Morality and its obvious powerful establishments have being carving its ever changing profile through ages. From Religious establishments to current economical systems those in power have always been using their tools to redefine our moral standards of evaluation according to their narrative.

Never said they do fail. I said egalitarian causes fail. — frank

"Egalitarian cause" is an abstract concept. Abstract concepts can not fail. What fails is the process displaying the property described by the abstract concept. Societies are where egalitarian causes are realized. Do you agree?

I've expressed this sentiment multiple times in this thread. Thanks for repeating it. — frank

-So we agree there are different expressions of human behavior...not a specific type of Human Nature!

Just out of curiosity, why are you capitalizing certain letters that wouldn't generally be capitalized in English? Such as "Scientific Knowledge?" Capitalizing it in that way makes it look like you're using it as a proper name. — frank

Emphasizing central/main points in statements.

In Human Behavioral Psychology there isn't such a thing as "A" Human Nature but Human Nature has different expressions. Human behavior is affected by the environment(current and past).
Egalitarian societies score higher numbers in Societal Markers in functionality and Happiness, so they don't really fail. What really happens is ... powerful individuals within the society take advantage of our Economical and Political systems by either affecting our Environment or present a darker version of it while dividing the population. The problem is the environment (the established systems) not the "egalitarian causes".

Again I can not stress enough the importance of Scientific Knowledge in these topics.

Right, and but that is smuggling in value statements as if they were objective fact about what comprises what. — schopenhauer1

That value statement lies on objective criteria.
Pseudo Philosophy is:
1.Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion
2. and/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises.
3.isn't corrected when discovered.
(https://www.richardcarrier.info/philosophy.html)
Chalmers's claims tick all three.

It does not (at least now, possibly never because the answer might never be empirical) tell us how it is that emergent phenomena supervene on its constituents. — schopenhauer1

-Again you are asking a "why" question in disguise. This is what emergent features do! This is why we classify them as emergent in the fist place. Just because you constructed an answerable question that doesn't make it a serious question and No....made up magical substrates do not qualify as an answer.

Facts of reality render that claim wrong. — Nickolasgaspar
Which are based observationally. Convenient. — schopenhauer1

-Observations are the foundation of our evaluations. You can not go around it. If you do then you will need to lower the standards and accept Every claim out there.

No the analogy of a container is wrong since Diachronic Emergence wouldn't be possible. (persistence after the causal mechanism ceasing to exist). — Nickolasgaspar
Still doesn't bypass it. You are assuming the consequent again. — schopenhauer1

-Your comment is irrelevant to the fact of Diachronic Emergent phenomenon (Where the low level system ceases to exist but the Emergent property persists).
(i.e. Photons even when the electron is at its resting state.)

Yep they are observable indeed. And I did not say "ghosts" but "ghostly" big difference in what I am conveying. — schopenhauer1

And I didn't say you said ghost. You said ghostly and I pointed out that the phenomenon doesn't share the same ghostly qualities.(or the other way around to be fair -"Ghosts do not share the same qualities.".
Either way the phenomenon is observable , measurable and predictable to a huge degree allowing us to develop technical applications.

Rather, what is the nature of this emergence from its constituent parts? — schopenhauer1

It depends what "nature" you are looking for. If you are looking for its contingency then its nature is physical and its taxonomy is Strong Emergence.
If you are looking for "why this emergent property is possible" then there is no question...its a pseudo philosophical questions that pollutes the well.

You are making an odd antagonism. Most philosophers are not denying empirical claims. Functionally, the science carries on, no matter what the argument behind the metaphysics and epistemology is, so not sure what has got you so annoyed besides just general incredulity over and over. — schopenhauer1

Wrong accusations are not philosophical arguments.
I am using the topic of this thread to inform people on the latest epistemology from relevant scientific fields so they can inform their premises. This also allows me to let them know how to demarcate Philosophy from pseudo philosophy.(meaningful from useless philosophy).

Glad it's not science we are discussing. In Fight Club we don't talk about Fight Club. But I'm not in Fight Club, so I'll talk about it and not limit myself in such a way. — schopenhauer1

-you stated , I quote "Philosophy and science are doing two different things." So I pointed out that its not about science vs philosophy, its Philosophy vs Pseudo philosophy.

Also about emergence, there are whole sections of philosophy that discuss the trickiness of emergence and reduction- how it is that the whole reduces to its parts. Weak and strong emergence, which I think you were alluding to. We know that new entities supervene on their constituents, but we aren't clear on how. — schopenhauer1

-Classifying different types of emergence doesn't change the nature of an observable phenomenon like human conscious states.
We can talk about Emergence if you want but your starting point needs to be anchored on our current epistemology and go from there. You shouldn't start from the actual metaphysical claim you have the burden to prove!

An Idealist, for example, could make the claim that emergence could never take place without an observational standpoint. — schopenhauer1

Facts of reality render that claim wrong.

-"There has to be "something" for which emerging happens in."
_Correct. We observe physical systems producing emergent phenomena ,either Synchronic or Diachronic. (Taxonomy of emergence).

Sort of a container. — schopenhauer1

No the analogy of a container is wrong since Diachronic Emergence wouldn't be possible. (persistence after the causal mechanism ceasing to exist).

Otherwise, we get ghostly new entities from fiat, which itself has to be explained. — schopenhauer1

The new emergent phenomena are observable, measurable and most of the times quantifiable. We can affect them and manipulate them by changing the setup of the responsible process. Ghosts do not share the same qualities.

In other words, answering it by giving its constituents would simply be circular reasoning and not a sufficient answer. — schopenhauer1

"Answering it"? I am not sure your statement is on topic. We identify the Necessary and Sufficient mechanisms responsible for the emergence of the phenomenon.
We do it so well, that we can even make predictions when specific aspects of a mechanism is damaged (brain injury, pathology, intoxication) ,we can make diagnosis and design surgical and medical protocols to treat and improve the quality of the emergent property.
THERE is nothing circular in this approach.
The suggested magical idealistic ontology of the phenomenon has nothing to contribute to the discussion other than stating "wow its so different so a magical source should be hiding behind it".
Sorry this is not Philosophy!

When someone assumes an unobservable untestable ontology in addition to a necessary and sufficient scientific description , then the source of that ontology is not distinguishable from Magic.

This is your whole argument repeated. — schopenhauer1

You didn't quote my argument so I am not sure you understood it correctly

Philosophy and science are doing two different things. — schopenhauer1

Correct. Science produces the most credible Epistemology while Philosophy is the tool we use to understand its implications and make us wiser.
When our Philosophical doesn't start from an epistemic foundation then we are guilty of pseudo-philosophizing. (like Chalmers did with this idea).

The assumption you’re making is the value statement that philosophy is to only be subordinate to science to have any value. — schopenhauer1

Not true. As I pointed out many times before ,claims with unknown epistemic value can never be accepted as wise. (this isn't difficult to comprehend).
We can not do science without philosophy and we can not do meaningful philosophy without credible knowledge.

Rather, it is a never ending dialogue that poses questions and proposes avenues to explore to answer them — schopenhauer1

-We can agree on that. The problem emerges when a dialogue doesn't start fromasturdy epistemic foundation allowing it to drift towards wishful thoughts and desires.
Philosophy is an exercise in frustration NOT a quick fix for our Existential and Epistemic anxieties.

It considers science as a methodology but is not bound to not ask questions science cannot be able to answer. — schopenhauer1

-That is a factually wrong statement. Science, previously known as Natural Philosophy is a Philosophical Category with the addition of a huge set of empirical and statistical methodologies.
Science IS philosophy practice on far better Data(this is why we also have theoretical frameworks, hypotheses and interpretations!). When data are available we do Science, when they aren't we do Philosophy.
What we don't do in Natural Philosophy is to accept pseudo philosophical worldviews like idealism, occasionalism,solipsism as frameworks of our epistemology.
There are many reasons why some questions can't be answered, but not all sentences with a question-mark at the end qualify as real philosophical questions.(look Chalmers's fallacious teleological questions).
The problem we are dealing with here is not between Science and Philosophy, but Philosophy and Pseudo Philosophy.

Idealism is Pseudo philosophy. ITs principles are assumed, they aren't founded on observations or epistemology and an assumed conclusion not a testable hypothesis to put on the test.

You are asking philosophy to do something it’s not bound to do and say why isn’t it so bound. Sounds like a you problem. — schopenhauer1

_No I am only demarcating Philosophy from pseudo philosophical claims based on fallacious reasoning and total lack of epistemic support in their metaphysical assumptions.

ok bert...........

You are missing his point. Rotating a cube in your mind is a phenomenon. Physiological/biological processes are a phenomenon. They are correlated. Yet that correlation, while no one is doubting its correlation through observation, has it such that a completely new kind of phenomena takes place that is different from all the other physical phenomena — schopenhauer1

-Yes that is his point and I am not saying he is not making that point. I am only saying that his objections are hugely misinformed! All Emergent properties BY DEFINITION do NOT share the same characteristics with mechanisms responsible for their "existence".
Physiological/biological processes are emergent phenomena. life,Metabolism, mitosis,self organization, Photosynthesis etc are emergent properties irrelevant how amazing or impossible they appear to us!

Again, Science doesn't arrive to conclusions through simple correlations. The systematic and methodological nature of Science allow us to identify Strong Correlations between a low level mechanism and its high level features even in complex biological systems. This is what makes those Strong Correlations capable to produce Meaningful Descriptions, Accurate Predictions and Technical applications.!

That is, it is the fundamental phenomena of qualitative-ness/ experiential-ness. — schopenhauer1

You are using way to many abstract concepts for your statement to make any meaning. I will try to break it down in known processes. "Yes the ability of the brain to receive internal or external stimuli through the workings of a complex sensory system and to reflect upon them through the unique biological setup of an organism and a large list of mental properties(memory, reasoning, imagination, symbolic language, pattern recognition etc) renders its role fundamental for our ability to experience the qualities of the worlds subjectively.

That such a unique thing exists that is so different than all the physical phenomena is the question. — schopenhauer1

All emergent phenomena are different from any other phenomenon. i.e. Cellular Self Organization is a unique feature! We just cherry pick the phenomenon experience to produce our narrative for our "special nature" or to justify our death denying ideologies.

Why should neural networks be correlated with qualatitiveness? — schopenhauer1

-Again, "why" questions are not good questions when it comes to understand Natural phenomena.
Neural Networks enable mental properties(like conscious experiences) to emerge. The subjective nature of our conscious experiences depends on:
1.our biological setup. i.e. A super taster(one with a huge number of taste buds on his tongue) finds the experience of spicy foods really bad compared to people with a smaller number of taste buds.
2.our previous experiences. i.e throwing up a meal for irrelevant reasons will make us hate that taste.
3. Physiological Anomalies. Eyes lacking specific color rods are unable to accurate convey the actual information of energy carried by a photons.
Childhood experiences are stronger, stress affects our ability to store info, feelings enhance our abilities to store memories, hormones and receptors work different on different individuals so people tend to experience things differently based on how their limbic system works and whether they had positive or negative childhood experiences.
We can NOT provide answers to those questions without proper scientific knowledge on the relevant mechanisms.

A purely physical description would simply be some sort of behaviorism. — schopenhauer1

-That is a false conclusion.First all we haven't verified any other realm so a physical description is the only thing we can evaluate. Such a description could NEVER be an ism (since it is a description)....It can only be Science.

. It would be like AI that has no qualitative experience but has inputs and outputs. But that's not the case, we have experience. — schopenhauer1

That's a wrong example. AI works on algorithms. We on an other hand work on emotions reasoned in to feelings which in turn inform our Actions.
Mark Solms, the founder of Neuropsychoanalysis in his latest Theory explains how emotions fuel our states and how advanced mental properties like Symbolic language and previous knowledge and experience introduce meaningful content in our conscious experiences.

You can play ignorant hobbit, and say we don't need to explain that, but then you are just pouting that it is such a hard question and then delegitimizing it because of its difficulty. — schopenhauer1

You are not listening , I am not saying "we don't need to explain that". I am only pointing out that "amazing properties" are what matter is capable off. The bigger the complexity of the structure and function is the more advanced these emerging properties get.
Asking ''why'' matter is capable of this thing is a nonsensical question. IF you have a way or a method to go beyond the physical realm (if of course there is a "beyond") and study whatever (if) lies beyond then be my quest.
From the moment you are unable to verify or study anything beyond the Physical realm, you are doomed to speculate without epistemology....and Philosophy without epistemology is Pseudo Philosophy.

Well, poo poo, it is a quite difficult question, and thus will remain a thorn in the side of your sour grapes that it cannot be explained. — schopenhauer1

Again these questions are not hard, they are fallacious (poisoning the well).
Its a huge argument from ignorance fallacy too...since they "create" a fake unknown and they use it as an excuse to introduce magic as a potential answer.

My answer is "we don't know" we can only observe empirical regularity in our Strong Correlations. Specific structures of Matter appear as Necessary and Sufficient for these phenomena .
You on the other hand claim...because we can not prove 100% the ultimate ontology of the phenomenon(ignorance fallacy) and because the phenomenon seems to us completely different (personal incredulity fallacy) we are justified to assume additional dimensions ,realms and agents (argument from magic).
The truth is that biology is not the smallest scale of our world. Its bigger than the quantum scale and the molecular scale. Phenomena like the mind can only emerge in this larger scale (biology).

So there is no reason to assume hidden scales or dimension and reject our current Scientific Paradigm just because we ask the wrong questions.

But to make the problem go away by simple fiat that philosophical inquiry just sucks is not going to do anything other than show your feeling about it. — schopenhauer1

Please, don't project your personal motivation!.I am not the one who really needs to have an answer even if it means to invent a completely new substrate (its not wise to attempt to answer a mystery with a bigger mystery). My approach is cold, scientific and in total agreement with the basic rules and principles of science.
The moment to assume an additional dimension/substance/agent as necessary and sufficient is ONLY after we manage to demonstrate its existence and role...not a second sooner.

I don't know the answer to the hard question obviously. But what I do know is that there is a hidden dualism in materialist assumptions. — schopenhauer1

For that...you will need to talk to materialists. I am not a materialist but a Methodological Naturalist. I reject all metaphysical worldviews and I try to keep out from our epistemology and working hypotheses all metaphysical artifacts that can't be falsified.
And yes I know you don't know the answer of the "hard question" because it doesn't have an answer. Its a "why" question. Teleology is useless when we are trying to understand natural phenomena.

Emergence/integration/binding it doesn't matter your phrasing, it is all stand ins for "magical experience takes place". You are always thus jumping from category physical to category mental activity. — schopenhauer1

-This doesn't make sense. Pls read about Scientific Emergence and Complexity science. It will help you understand the differences between Pragmatic Necessity ( to accept a empirical regular phenomenon without making ontological questions) and Idealistic preferences (making up claims for an assumed underlying ontological mechanism).
In Methodological Naturalism we don't accept made up Substances to explain a phenomenon. We know for decades now its a waste of time. Phlogiston , Miasma, Orgone energy etc etc derailed our efforts to understand the world by assuming these agents responsible for the phenomena in question.
We identify our limits in our observations and within the realm accessible to us we try to construct the best descriptions we can.
Materialists might say "there is nothing beyond Matter" , idealists might say "there is mind beyond matter"....Methodological Naturalists say who cares with your unfalsifiable stories...lets do science and provide justification to our knowledge claims.

You are always thus jumping from category physical to category mental activity. — schopenhauer1

Mental Activity is contingent to physical structure and function. Without the latter you can not have the first.
What may lie beyond our observations is something that both Materialists and Idealists need to justify free from fallacies before bringing their ideologies in Philosophy.

The assumption is simply just put there because we know indeed we experience. Nothing is explained otherwise as to the nature of this "experience" other than it is correlated with these physiological correlations. — schopenhauer1

-You need to study Neuroscience before making those false claims. Again don't talk about "correlations" . Science systematicity doesn't deal with simple correlations.

No, again, that is not ontologically how they are one and the same, just that these physical processes correlate to these experiential ones. Those are indeed the easy problems Chalmers mentions. — schopenhauer1

We Shouldn't care for any assumed, untestable metaphysical ontology.We only care about the observable ontology that enables a phenomenon to manifest in our realm.
You don't know and have no way to prove the existence of an underlying ontology so it is irrational to keep pushing this ideology on the excuse "conscious experience appear to be magical"!

Experience the very thing which observes the other phenomena. How is it this is the biological/physical substrate, and if it "arises" from the physical substrates, "what" is this "arising"? — schopenhauer1

-Be aware of your bad language mode since it derails and pollutes your train of thought. Experience is NOT an agent. Its a label we put on a biological process where sensory systems feed stimuli to the brain and the brain process them in to meaning through the consumption of metabolic molecules and by achieving connections to different brain areas specialized on different properties of mind..
Again you are asking "Why" questions and that is a fallacious practice.
Those questions do not address the same thing with what science tries to explain.
They go beyond our verified realm and ask questions on unobservable and unverifiable ontologies.
This is Pseudo philosophy.

Cool. End of philosophy — schopenhauer1

Well the end of Philosophy came with that "why" question. There is nowhere to go from there. If we embrace the right "how/what" question there is plenty of philosophy to be done on available scientific data.
Philosophy's goal is to produce wise claims on available facts and expand our understanding of the world. Fallacious questions don't really serve that purpose.

Rather, how is it that experience is at all, along with biochemical processes. — schopenhauer1

Again a disguised "why" question that doesn't really ask anything meaningful. Why Weak and Strong forces exist?......they just do. Why electricity exists....etc.
Now experience DOESN'T exist as an entity or a force or a substance. Experience is a process enabled by biochemical systems /structures(brain).
We need to be careful not to assume entities when using abstract concepts and to accept observable mechanism that are verified through Strong Correlations.

Just the piling on of more biochemical (or any physical) processes is not going to get you closer to that answer. — schopenhauer1

Even if that was true...How can you ever make claim that? BUt it isn't . For 35 years we have managed to get closer and closer to a descriptive framework about the Necessary and Sufficient role of a biological mechanism in our ability to experience ourself and surroundings.
Denying it is just scientifically wrong. The data are overwhelming.
As Laplace replied to Napoleon's question "where God fits in your model" we can say with certainty " We have no need for that hypothesis, the model works without it".(not only Describes accurate, it Predicts and it offer us Technical Applications)
Necessity and Sufficiency are met...and Chalmer's "why" questions aren't enough to justify any unnecessary entity/process/substance/force (unparsimonious).

It simply answers the easier problems of what events we can observe correlating with subjectivity/experientialness. — schopenhauer1

-Again, a "why question" that doesn't have an answer is not harder....its irrelevant and without meaning.
Teleological fallacies do not qualify as serious questions or helpful to our quest for wisdom....
Again you are committing the same mistake by addressing the quality some personal experiences have, not the actual ability(process) of a thinking organism. You take us back in time when Philosophy and early science were hunting Plogiston, Miasma, Panacea, Orgone Energy and many other discredited substances.

Yeah now you are just making categorical errors all over the place. — schopenhauer1

No I am not, I am pointing to the descriptive framework of a mechanism proven to be Necessary and Sufficient for that specific property to manifest in reality.

You went from "mental state" (the thing in question), to its physical correlates, — schopenhauer1

-No I pointed to Strong Correlations that render specific physical processes Necessary and Sufficient for a mental state to emerge. Strong Correlations in Science are the closest we can get to a proof(philosophy of Science-Paul Hoyningen). Of course Science is not a tool of Logic/mathematics(the other way around) so we can not prove 100% anything. What we can do is to try and falsify our working Hypothesis. For 35-40 years we are constantly failing to falsify and render thes biological mechanisms Unnecessary and Insufficient.
We can not disprove a universal negative (a source of the phenomenon beyond physical mechanisms) so we are forced to reject that claim(Null Hypothesis) and stay within our limits of observations and work with the current scientific paradigm and model. This is Logic 101

but no closer to how the correlates ARE the mental state (ontologically). — schopenhauer1

-For that question you will need to visit Neurosciencenews.org , put the search key phrase "How the brain does" and you will learn the "hows" and "whats" for many mental functions.

Homunculus here and there and everywhere. You do not seem to be getting the hard problem or are obstinately ignoring it. — schopenhauer1

-Again the "hard problem" is a made problem without an answer. We don't have a way to judge the truth value of an answer in favor of a teleological question. In addition to that, Intention and Purpose need to be demonstrated before they are asserted.

So now it really does show you do not know the difference between easy and hard problem and are repeating this error over and over. — schopenhauer1

-No I'm just pointing out that "why" questions (like why there is something rather than nothing) are pseudo philosophical questions. Just because we can not answer them it doesn't mean they are hard. They are nonsensical, fallacious and they are far from the real hard questions of the field.
Try reading Anil Seth's essay on AEON.

I can try to explain it better if you want, but I feel that I have in my last post so not sure what else to say but you are not getting it. — schopenhauer1

-Please do, but I think the problem here is that you ignore the latest science what fallacies are.

That's not scientific at all. The very thing that is most well known to us (our own subjective experience) you are just saying "It is". N — schopenhauer1

Of course it is. In science we are honest enough to say we don't know what gravity is, it behaves the way it does, but we won't make claims about a supernatural source for its properties. We just identity the necessary and sufficient mechanism for the emergence of the phenomenon, do our measurements and math and describe/ predict the phenomenon.
We use the exact same approach for the biological phenomenon of the mind. Its the most honest thing to do.
There is no need to commit an Argument from ignorance fallacy (just because we don't know why neurons have this ability and can't prove a universal negative..we can assume a supernatural source for the mind).

Not very scientific. — schopenhauer1

-Science is based on the Principles of Methodological Naturalism.That means our methods and description can only be within the realm we can observe and investigate and we are forced to keep supernatural explanations outside our frameworks until we are able to verify/falsify them.
So asking a "begging the question" fallacious question is unscientific and irrational.

The other stuff you mentioned, ironically can go straight into the realist versus idealist debate for if those phenomena (scientific or otherwise) are anything beyond our empirical observation of it. — schopenhauer1

-You shouldn't go to that debate. Idealism is a pseudo philosophical worldview that hasn't assisted our Epistemology or Philosophy. Philosophy's first stem is the evaluation of our Epistemology(what we know and how we know it). Unfortunately for idealists, we don't have any knowledge based on Idealistic principles.

You have conflated easier problems with the Hard Problem. — schopenhauer1

No I have not, I haven't suggested any problems. I am just addressing one of the pseudo philosophical "why" questions of Chalmers's supposedly "hard problem.[/quote]

Easier problems deal with mechanisms for brain function. — schopenhauer1

No they are not Neuroscience deals with far more difficult problems than Chalmers teleological fallacious questions.[/quote]

This can be tested and is amenable to empirical verification. — schopenhauer1

-Please watch Anil Seth lectures on the subject. You will learn about our difficulties.

The Hard Problem is how it is that there is a point of view. — schopenhauer1

Its like asking "why previously exited electrons produce a particle out of thin air"....the answer to all this type of questions is "because they do".

The problem is that people who try to handwave the question by purporting the easier problems as the solution, aren't getting it. — schopenhauer1

-The question is fallacious(teleology) since the answer can only be whatever the questioner desires.
The fact is that in Nature fundamental or emergent properties "exist" and asking ''why" they exist is a nonsensical question.

They are ALREADY assuming the consequent without explaining it. — schopenhauer1

If you study the scientific material of the interdisciplinary fields you will see that we are tackling far more meaningful and logical questions. As I wrote before,this why question can be answered by Evolutionary biology. Experiencing your Environment provides a Survival advantage to Organisms(animals) that aren't plants and need to move around and compete for resources. The fact that we have 2.5 milion of species (animals and insects) with different qualities of experiences verifies the evolutionary character of the property.

It is the Homunculus Fallacy. Simply listing off physical processes doesn't get at things like subjective qualia or imagination. — schopenhauer1

You are confusing the ability to be conscious with the quality of a conscious experience. That is a common error idealists do based on Bad Language Mode. You also confuse a secondary Mind Property with Consciousness which is the top 3 (According to Neuroscience).
Again I can not stress it enough. Individuals you want to understand the phenomenon they NEED to study our official Scientific knowledge on the topic. The second important step is to STOP using abstract concepts and assume that it points to a substance/entity/agent.

What IS that thing that mind-thing that I am doing when I am imagining a blue cube being rotated in my mind? What is THAT. — schopenhauer1

-That is a mental state. Your Central Later Thalamus has the ability to connect different areas of your brain, specialized in Memory/past experience, logic, Abstract thinking, Symbolic language, Critical thinking, Imagination etc and introduce content in that specific mental state....and all this is enabled by your Ascending Reticular Activating System.

You can say it is "such-and-such neural networks" and that it developed because of "such-and-such evolutionary reasons", but that is not answering the question. — schopenhauer1

-Of course it answers a huge part of that answer and not only that!!!! We can use this knowledge either to force a brain to recreate that specific state, we can read brain scans and based on the brain patter we can accurately (up to 85%) decode the conscious thought of the subject, we have designed Surgery and Medical protocols that can reestablish or improve specific mental states in patients and we can make Accurate diagnoses by looking at the physiology and function of brains and by analyzing the symptoms of a patient's mental states. We can predict mental malfunctions by studying the pathology of brains...and the list goes on.

How is it that there is this rotating of the blue cube that is happening with the firing of the neurons. — schopenhauer1

-brains are connected to a complex sensory system and they can store images. People who haven't observed such images are unable to reproduce them. The evolution in Arts , Music, Architecture, design etc verifies the importance of experiencing existing patterns in order to be able to modify and improve on them.
But your questions is a why question in disguise. In reality you are asking: why neurons have the ability to store and reproduce this optical stimuli. (why a silicon processor turn zeros and ones in complex pictures on a monitor). If they couldn't you wouldn't be able to see, remember and...ultimately survive.
The answer is simple your neurons can do that because you are the descendant of organisms with brains who could and they survived enough to pass this trait to the next generation.

It is superimposed, and forced into the picture but without explanation, only correlation with various obvious empirical stuff that isn't getting any closer to the answer to the question. — schopenhauer1

-Why gravity has the quality it has...why it pulls but never pushes. Why conductivity manifest solely in metals. Why electricity passing through silicon ICs can produce images on a TFT or LED panel.
Why molecules act differently in different temperatures.
The answer is always "because they do".

You are a modern Don Quixote who asks questions that are meaningless.

[re

Are they highly accurate? After all, for much of human history, we've had some kooky beliefs about what, exactly, the world is and is made of. — RogueAI

First of the content of a metaphysical belief(accuracy) about the nature of the world does not really play any role in our survival.
Accuracy is needed when we experiencing the world around us (not its underlying ontology), for spatial navigation and temporal navigation, to avoid obstacles or predators, identify patterns, find resources or mates,decode social cues and behavior and in general to avoid suffering and increase our percentage of survival.
We are the decedents of those organisms who were able to experience the world in the best possible way.

Way to many problems in your philosophy, but I think we are done.
Thanks for your time.

Only the content of our experiences has a subjective quality. The process enabling our conscious experiences is biological thus it is affected by all known evolutionary pressures like any other biological trait. So the high accuracy of our experiences raises our chances for survival and procreation.

Well if I understand your question correctly the answer should go like this.
Being able to experience your environment and what patterns, emotions and social cues mean you gain a huge survival and flourishing advantage.

Why not letting science weigh in on this issue?

Giving Up on Consciousness as the Ghost in the Machine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121175/

I really don’t accept that. You’re talking about him as if he lived in Medieval Europe. He had a career spanning 50 years, which wasn’t even 100 years ago. — Wayfarer

Again, you are committing a Strawman and a false authority fallacy. I am NOT talking "about him". I am criticizing the obvious teleological error in his so called "Hard problem".
The longevity of his carrier or his academic accolades do not guarantee the truth or logic in his ideas. All claims rise and fall on their own merits.
Anil Seth, true Authority on the problems of consciousness verifies my objections on Chalmers's idea.
The auxiliary principles he uses place his idea in the Medieval period, not my critique of doing so.

It wasn’t so much an appeal to authority, — Wayfarer

...but you insist on mentioning the longevity of his carrier ?

It wasn’t so much an appeal to authority, but the observation that a lot of people say that Chalmer’s work is pseudo-philosophy, without, I think, demonstrating an understanding of the rationale behind his ‘hard problem’ argument. And indeed, that single paper launched Chalmers into a career as an internationally-renowned and tenured philosopher, which says something. — Wayfarer

-Without demonstrating or understanding? Does the term fallacy mean nothing to you? I literally named the fallacy he is committing and I quoted his 2 fallacious questions while pointing out that he needs to demonstrate Intention and purpose in natural process, not assert them.

AGAIN here are his questions :

1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
2.why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does, why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

The answer for the first question is Survival advantage(Evolutionary Principles) and for the second "because it does".
So the first one can be answered Through science as if it was a "how" question while the second is just nonsensical.

Well its true but its trivial, commonly known as a deepity. Information uses other mediums than i.e. procreation where transferring biological material is necessary. Biological organisms have sensory systems that enable them to exchange information.

There is the logic that biology alone fails in any explanation of consciousness. — Mark Nyquist

that has nothing to do with logic (or knowledge). That is mostly scientific ignorance.

We communicate ideas but no biology is transfered brain to brain in the process. — Mark Nyquist

-....there are these things called eyes, ears and mouth which are connected to the brain. The communication of ideas use the exact same mechanism like any other environmental stimuli that ends up in our brains.

That points away from reductionism and suggests something emergent is necessary in understanding consciousness — Mark Nyquist

-Again, reductionism is not the only tool science have.We use Complexity Science to study the emergent properties in complex systems.
https://complexityexplained.github.io/

This is the science of the problem. Observable and repeatable. — Mark Nyquist

Actually the main problems are Complexity and Observation Objectivity collapse (our ability to make observations without interacting with the system).

Here is some Academic material for those who are interested in updating their philosophy on the topic.
Our epistemology on Consciousness is a huge mosaic of data offering answers to all kind of "how the brain..." questions.
Aristotle systematized Logic,Philosophy and highlighted Epistemology as the first and hugely import step for all Philosophical inquiries !

publications
Giving Up on Consciousness as the Ghost in the Machine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121175/

HOW AND WHY BRAINS CREATE MEANING FROM SENSORY INFORMATION
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218127404009405

https://neurosciencenews.com/?s=how+the+brain+meaning+semantics

https://neurosciencenews.com/?s=how+the+brain+consciousness

Thalamus Modulates Consciousness via Layer-Specific Control of Cortex
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2

Moocs
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/what-is-a-mind
https://www.coursera.org/learn/neurobiology

Lectures - talks
Alok Jha: Consciousness, the hard problem? - Presentations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=313yn0RY9QI

Anil Seth on the Neuroscience of Consciousness, Free Will, The Self, and Perception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hUEqXhDbVs

mark solms theory of consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+solms+theory+of+consciousness

BS 160 Neuroscience of Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwOfSKmo_I&t=

Brain Science Podcast with Ginger Campbell
https://www.youtube.com/@BrainSciencePodcast/videos

You did the same mistake. You didn't provide definitions!
Words don't have intrinsic meaning they have common usages. You will need to define Theory and Definition.
i.e. Theory in science means something very different compared to the every day use of the world (even in Philosophy).
In a more general note, all definitions rely on theory. (Paul Hoyningen Philosophy of Science)

Curious then that Chalmers is University Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science and co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at New York University, and an Honorary Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University. Must have fooled a lot of important people! — Wayfarer

That's an argument from false authority fallacy. Reasoning doesn't really have experts . We are all experts on matters of logic as long as we are aware of its rules principles and criteria .
Second point. Do you think that Chalmers's occupies those chairs because of this Teleological fallacy alone? Is this his only work?
Does all those accolades ensure the quality of all his philosophical ideas?
If you understand why agency (in Nature) needs to be demonstrated not asserted, then you can easily understand why looking for intention and purpose behind a natural process is fallacious reasoning and produces unanswerable questions.
Academic Accolades do not have the power to change logic or the negative value of a Fallacious statement.

Science got rid of Teleology centuries ago. The epistemic success of science is founded on that really small but important change.

Unfortunately, "consciousness" is an analogous term, and using this definition, when I define consciousness differently (as "awareness of intelligiblity"), is equivocation. If you want to criticize my work, then you must use technical terms as I use them. In saying this, I am not objecting to ypur definition in se, only to its equivocal use. — Dfpolis

-Ok I get what you mean by that word, but there is a huge practical problem in that definition.
You define consciousness as "awareness of intelligibility", to be aware of our ability to understand. What about our ability to be aware on the first place....known in Science as Consciousness!(the ability to be aware of internal or environmental stimuli , to reflect upon them with different mind properties through the connections achieved by the Central Lateral thalamus i.e.intlligibility" and thus creating conscious content during a mental state.)

Its looks like we have the practice of cherry picking a specific secondary mind property known as intelligibility or Symbolic thinking or Meaning and assigning the word Consciousness which is already in use for a far more fundamental property of the mind.

To be honest I am with you on that. I always found our ability to produce meaning far more "magical" than our ability to attend consciously stimuli in the first place. After all we have a huge sensory system constantly feeding signals to our brains.

Is this the Hard problem for you? because if that is the case a simple search will provide tones of known mechanisms on how the brain uses symbolic language and learning (previous experience) to introduce meaning to stimuli (internal or external).
i.e. How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661313001228
Huge database
https://neurosciencenews.com/?s=how+the+brain+meaning

Either way the practical problem of the suggested definition remains. We already have labels for that mind property and we experience an ambiguity issue since we already use the term Consciousness in a more fundamental mind property than Symbolic thinking.

Then you will have no problem in explaining how this hypothesis, which I am calling the Standard Model (SM), conforms to the facts I raised against it. — Dfpolis

I will agree with you that it is a Working Hypothesis since we don't already have a Theory mainly because we have to many competing frameworks at this point.
Are the facts you raised the following.
(1) The Fundamental Abstraction of natural science (attending to the object to the exclusion of the subject);
(2) The limits of a Cartesian conceptual space.
If yes I have already answered that they are irrelevant to the phenomenon. We can elaborate more if you verify those facts.
This hypothesis is the Conclusion we arrive after 35 years of systematic study of the functions of the brain.
To be clear this is not a metaphysical claim. After all I reject all metaphysical worldviews, Physicalism/ Materialism included.
I am a Methodological Naturalist and like science my frameworks and gaps of knowledge are shaped by our Scientific Observations and Logic solely based on Pragmatic Necessity , not because of an ideology.
When we don't know, we admit we don't. We shouldn't go on and invent extra entities which are in direct conflict with the current successful Paradigm of Science.

Please note that I fully agree that rational thought requires proper brain function. So, that is not the issue. The issue is whether brain function alone is adequate. — Dfpolis

-Yes a healthy functioning brain is a necessary and sufficient explanation for any property of mind known to us. We may miss many details on how specific properties correlate to specific brain functions but that's not a reason to overlook the huge body of knowledge that we've gained the last 35 years.
The question "whether brain function alone is adequate." sounds more of a begging the question fallacy based on an general argument from Ignorance fallacy.
Again our data and logic (Parsimony) doesn't really allow us to introduce unnecessary entities we are unable to test or verify as a solution to our current problems.
This is a really easy way to pollute our epistemology with unfalsifiable "artifacts" (its Phlogiston,Miasma, Philosopher's Stone, Orgone Energy all over again).

That may well be true. I do not know what neuroscientists consider hard, nor is that what I am addressing in my article. As I made clear from the beginning, I am addressing the problem Chalmers defined. That does not prevent you from discussing something else, as long as you recognize that in doing so you are not discussing my article or the problem it addresses. In saying that, I am not denigrating the importance of the problems neuroscientists consider hard -- they're just not my problem. — Dfpolis

-An important question that comes in mind is: " Is your problem relevant to our efforts to understand".
As I explained Chalmers's problem is a fallacious teleological one. Its like me trying to find intention and purpose behind behind an unfortunate event....i.e. my house is destroyed by an earthquake.
Those types of questions are a distraction.

I want to focus on a specific issue common to almost all philosophers I talk to.
You stated: ". I do not know what neuroscientists consider hard, nor is that what I am addressing in my article."
I find this to be a serious problem for any discussion. How can you be sure about the epistemic foundations of your ideas and positions when you are not familiar with the latest epistemology on the topic? How can you be sure that we haven't answered those questions when your philosophy is based on ideas and knowledge of the past?

In defining the Hard Problem, you quote a reputable secondary source (Scholarpedia), but I quoted a primary source. So, I will stick with my characterization. — Dfpolis

- I find my source pretty accurate because I have watched Chalmers asking the same "why" questions plus Anil Seth shares the same opinion with me. But my all means please share your primary source and I will retract my characterization "Teleological fallacy".

There are many senses of "why." Aristotle enumerates four. I suppose you mean "why" in the sense of some divine purpose. But, I did not ask or attempt to answer that question. The question I am asking is how we come to be aware of neurally encoded contents. So, I fail to see the point you are making. — Dfpolis

-Agreed. But if Chalmers wanted answers to his ''why" questions with a different sense, he should have been Studying Cognitive Science. i.e. his first why question "Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?" the answer is simple. Evolutionary principles. Making meaning of your world ads an advantage for survival and flourishing(Avoiding suffering, managing pleasure etc).
The answer on the other two why question is equally simple "because it does".(example of the electron).

The question I am asking is how we come to be aware of neurally encoded contents. So, I fail to see the point you are making. — Dfpolis

In my opinion you fail because as you said yourself, you ignore the latest work and the hard questions tackled by Neuroscience.

However, if you wish to call something "pseudo philosophical" or claim that it "create unsolvable questions," some justification for your claims would be courteous. Also, since I solved the problems I raised, they are hardly "unsolvable." — Dfpolis

-I was referring to Chalmers's pseudo philosophical "why" questions. Questions like "Why there is something instead of nothing" are designed to remain unanswered.
Now what problems you raised and how they were solved???I will wait for a clarification on that interesting claim.

I have never denied that the SM is able to solve a wide range of problems. It definitely is. The case is very like that of Newtonian physics, which can also solve many problems. However, I enumerated a number of problems it could not solve. Will you not address those? — Dfpolis

-Sure there are many problems we haven't solved (yet). Why do you think that the SM won't manage to finally provide a solution and how are you sure that some of them aren't solved already. After all,as you stated you are not familiar with the current Science on the topic.
IS it ok if I ask you to put all the problems in a list (bullets) so I can check them?

Again, this does not criticize my work, because you are not saying that my analysis is wrong, or even that reduction is not involved.cogency of your objection. — Dfpolis

Well I don't know if it was a critique of your work. I only address the paragraph (Article) on Reduction and Emergence"Does the Hard Problem reflect a failure of the reductive paradigm? "
Also I addressed the following statement in your OP.
"Yet, in the years since David Chalmers distinguished the Hard Problem of Consciousness from the easy problems of neuroscience, no progress has been made toward a physical reduction of consciousness. "
The right answer is , yes they have been huge progress to the emerging physical nature of consciousness.

Maybe you use "reduction" in a different sense and if you do that is a poisoning the well fallacy imho. By default we know,can verify and are able to investigate only one realm, the Physical.
As far as we can say there are details in the physical system that we don't know or understand. Assuming extra realms is irrational without direct evidence and objective verification of their existence.

Rather, you want me to look at a different problem. Further, with respect to that different problem, you do not even claim that the named methods have made progress in explaining how awareness of contents comes to be. So, I fail to see the — Dfpolis

-As I explained if you are pointing to a different problem then you are committing a logical error. Science and every single one of us are limited within a single realm. The burden is not on Science to prove the phenomenon to be physical, but its on the side making the claim for an f an additional sub-straight. The two justified answers are "we currently don't know" Or"this mechanism is necessary and sufficient to explain the phenomenon".
In my academic links you can find tones of papers analyzing which(and how) mechanisms enable the brain to introduce content in our conscious states. I can list them in a single post if you like.

It is a definition, specifying how I choose to use words, and not a claim that could be true or false. — bert1

-My objection was with the word "prove", since in science we don't prove anything.

Sorry, I just don't think you've grasped the distinction between definition and theory. — bert1

-ok I think we are on the same page on that.

I agree. I did not say that science proved frameworks, but that we use their principles to deduce predictions. That is the essence of the hypothetico-deductive method. — Dfpolis

-Because the hard problem ...is a made up problem.(Chalmers's teleological questions).

If you read carefully, you would see that I criticized Chalmers' philosophy, rather than basing my argument on it. — Dfpolis

-Yes you did, but you also accept a portion of it...right? In retrospect you did stated that your questions seek the "how" and I pointed out that Science has addressed many "how" questions on Brain functions and meaning/Symbolic thinking.

-"Then you will have no difficulty in showing how my specific objections about reports of consciousness, one-to-many mappings from the physical to the intentional, and propositional attitudes, inter alia, are resolved by this theory -- or how neurally encoded intelligible contents become actually known. Despite the length of your response, you have made no attempt to resolve these critical issues"
- Have you look in our latest epistemology and failed to find answers.?
Can you give me an example for every single problem?

This is baloney. I am asking how questions. The SM offers no hint as to how these observed effects occur. In fact, it precludes them. — Dfpolis

-Sure you clarified that and I pointed out the problem with your "how" questions. Many "how" questions have already been addressed and if they haven't been that is not a justification to reject the whole model (the Quasi Dogmatic Principles protects the framework at all time). After all its a dynamic model in progress that yields results and the only one that can be applied,tested produce causal descriptions and Technical Applications!

Obviously, you have never read Aristotle, as he proposes none of these. That you would think he does shows deep prejudice. Instead of taking the time to learn, or at least remaining quiet when you do not know, you choose to slander. It is very disappointing. A scientific mind should be open to, and thirsty for, the facts. — Dfpolis

-Strawman, I never said he did. I only pointed out the main historical errors in our Philosophy. Teleology in nature(Chalmers's hard problem) and agency with properties pretty similar to the properties displayed by the phenomenon we are trying to explain.(your claim on the non physical nature of Consciousness)
I only hope philosophers would take half of the courses on Neuroscience I have before talking about the unanswered mysteries of consciousness. Btw I am Greek. Studying Greek philosophers is my hobby.

Nor am I suggesting that we do. I am suggesting that methodological naturalism does not restrict us to the third-person perspective of the Fundamental Abstraction. That you would think that considering first-person data is "supernatural" is alarming. — Dfpolis

-Abstract concepts do not help complex topics like this one. On the contrary they introduce more ambiguity in the discussion. Plus you strawmanned me again with that supernatural first person data.

Mario Bunge's Ten Criticisms of contemporary academic philosophy highlighted this problem.
Here is the list.

Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions

• Confusion between Philosophizing & Chronicling

• Insular Obscurity / Inaccessibility (to outsiders)

• Obsession with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems

• Idealism vs. Realism and Reductionism

• Too Many Miniproblems & Fashionable Academic Games

• Poor Enforcement of Validity / Methodology

• Unsystematic (vs. System Building & Ensuring Findings are Worldview Coherent)

• Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization (science, technology, and real-world ideologies that affect mass human thought and action)

• Ivory Tower Syndrome (not talking to experts in other departments and getting knowledge and questions to explore from them or helping them)


Science tells us that the brain is necessary and sufficient to explain the phenomenon even if we have loads of question to answer
You see an issue in brain function being sufficient to explain the phenomenon.
So here is my question. Lets assume that our current model never manages to reduce consciousness to a physical system. Does that point to a non physical function? If yes please elaborate.

That seems right to me. It really makes discussing a topic hard work. Nickolasgaspar might be a case in point, assuming we want to bring back the Gods and the ether. — bert1

Again you are wrong. First of all I am a Methodological Naturalist. This means that I reject all metaphysical worldviews (materialism/physicalism/metaphysical naturalism) and I stick to the paradigm : We currently don't know, so lets keep studying what is available to us by avoiding unnecessary entities and supernatural paradigms.
The problem with your claims is that you ignore our current epistemology and you keep trying to answer thing we don't know by introducing magic in the equation.

Sorry, I just don't think you've grasped the distinction between definition and theory. — bert1

-You are wrong. You are trying to make an argument from ambiguity by using lame or specific meanings on both concepts.

-" I grant that it's not always possible to clearly separate the two."
-Of course it is...you just need to define them before use .

-Strawman, I just posted the definition used by science .
My goal in providing this definition was to point out a practical need for labeling a far more fundamental property than that suggested "(us being aware of our ability to understand).
To be aware of stimuli (internal (other mental properties) and external) is far more basic.
Our ability to project meaning in our thoughts is just one more (secondary)property of the mind.

A label for that mental property already exists in Cognitive science (Intelligibility or Symbolic Language and Thinking).
i.e. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218127404009405

So once again Philosophers fail to identify and distinquish basic Mental Properties of the Mind.

That's interesting. Sorry I still haven't read your article in detail yet, but I'm curious on where you think this definition likes on the spectrum of theory to definition. How theory laden is this? Is this what people in general mean, when talking about the hard problem? Is this what Chalmers means, for example? — bert1

Again A theory is the narrative that glues together definitions, descriptive theoretical frameworks, mathematical formulations,Evidence etc. This is the scientific definition of a Theory and this is how I use it.
Now the text I quoted is a DEFINITION of what science identifies as consciousness and the second part points to the Necessary and Sufficient mechanism needed for a conscious state to emerge. (I also included a link of the paper where you can find the definition).
I don't know why this is so difficult for you.....

What people or Chalmers mean when they talk about the Hard problem doesn't have any value.
In order to be able to talk about the problems one needs to be educated on the latest epistemology. Chalmers's why questions are pseudo philosophical questions (Sneaks in Intention and purpose in to nature).

One should consider the term reductionism in a differentiated way. Those who cannot imagine the mundane physiological activity producing consciousness, or seek some intermediate step, are quick to speak of reductionism. Such nonsensical themes as the serious problem of consciousness then arise from the rejection of it. — Wolfgang

.
-The issue here is that the reductionistic approach is not the only tool available to Science so people shouldn't accuse Science for failing to solve the puzzle because of that "tool".

Sure reductionism is essential in understanding which parts of the brain are responsible for a specific property of the Mind (memory, vision,pattern recognition, symbolic thinking, meaning, intelligence etc etc etc) but in order to understand how all those properties merged (by Central Lateral Thalamus) to a conscious state with a specific concept we will needs a different set of tools.
So from what I understand accusing Science for being a failure due to Reductionism...that is just ignorant.

Now what is reductionism? This is legitimate in physics, because there you can always (at least mentally) reduce complexities to their individual parts.
Very different from all living things. This can only be explained as a structure, so from the outset it is not just more than the sum of its parts, it is something completely different from the sum. Central nervous systems are very different from protein synthesis. The term strong emergence is actually still too weak for this. — Wolfgang

-You can not study living things without including all the tools available to us. As I just explained we can reduce a system in order to identify function and use them to pin point where emergence occurs. Science is the systematic and methodical way to understand things and it would be an error to exclude a methodology , just because it can't go all the way.

The term strong emergence is actually still too weak for this. — Wolfgang

-Not really, again its an observer relative term which help us classify this emergent phenomenon based on its specific characteristics and qualities.

-

However, physics has no suitable categories for life that could explain the movement, change and development of a self-active system with its own will. — Wolfgang

-....and this is why when we study life we don't "do" physics....we do "biology".

-

Here people like to ask whether physics should not have any justification in relation to life. Of course it has, but not by being able to explain the structure called life, but by exploring the relationships between the individual parts (biophysics). — Wolfgang

-One very important thing is to ask the right questions independent if we like it or not. Again the process called life is explained by Biological disciplines, not physics.

-"

That is, the question of how physiology creates consciousness is not a physical one.
And the question of how a single individual being feels, certainly not. — Wolfgang

"
-It isn't physical? How do you know that and how can you demonstrate it? That is an unfounded declaration plus it excludes the only ontology we have ever verified to exist!!!!

Of course we can address the question of how a biological structure can produce conscious properties . And even if we haven't arrived to a final theory yet that shouldn't be used as an excuse to invent an imaginary ontology and present it as an answer.
ITs an argument of Ignorance at best. (just because we don't have an answer yet...thus magic?)

Again there are many frameworks on the test bench and there are huge breakthroughs constantly elevating our understanding about the human mind. The problem I see is with Philosophy is its insistence to latch on Philosophical worldviews instead of constructing new frameworks based on the latest epistemology.

Just observe this thread. I have posted a number of academic links which introduce new data in the discussion, but no one cares enough to update his misconceptions about what we know or don't know.

Sure, this bit is reasonably theory free, and can more or less serve as a definition (I'd leave out the arousal bit):
"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self,... — bert1

-You shouldn't because it describes an observable fact. A human being can NOT experience a Conscious state without the arousal of this specific brain area.

...whereas this bit (whether it is true or not) is pure theory, even if it has become so accepted in the community you refer to as to be, for practical purposes, a definition: — bert1

- Again I think you don't understand what "theory" means in science. Theory is the narrative that includes all our observations, available facts, math formulations etc etc. I guess you meant " just a Hypothesis. No, it isn't just a hypothesis. Its a description of a mechanism that renders its Necessary and Sufficient the for the phenomenon to emerge. Our Working Hypothesis comes later to explain how the content of an conscious experience emerges.

This is a philosophy forum, not the community you are talking about. So we can't take this as definition here. This must be treated here as theory, to be shown, not assumed. — bert1

-You have a misconception on what Philosophy is. Philosophy is our intellectual endeavors to produce wise claims from the best epistemology available to us. By saying "we can not accept the description provided by science" you render your Philosophy Pseudo philosophy!

OK, that's no problem. Your theory contradicts Dfpolis'. — bert1

When a philosophical Speculation is in direct conflict with a Scientific Description that renders the speculation pseudo philosophical by definition. (Aristotle's 6 main steps of Philosophy)

OK, more work need to be done than just tell us we're out of date. We're unlikely to slap our foreheads and say "Whoops! Thanks Nikolasgaspar for correcting us. No more philosophy of mind. Problem solved." — bert1

-Its your duty to be aware of the latest epistemology...not mine. No more Philosophy of mine on arbitrary epistemology and presumptions . That's the correct way to do meaningful Philosophy.

Not at all, no. Once we have agreed on the subject matter we are talking about (consciousness) then the disagreement about the nature of it can begin. — bert1

- The problem is that you haven't provided a definition on the subject matter.
If you adopt the definition of the OP, then you are using a fallacy from ignorance to point to a magical entity/substance.

Something like "Consciousness is that by which X can have experiences" or something like that. — bert1

-:"is that by which"??? ....seriously!? you are still doing philosophy by using definition that start "that by which"?????
What is this...that? You do understand by calling the phenomenon in question "that" you offer nothing to the discussion...

Why do you say that?
The first part of my definition is descriptive. If he disagrees then he either refers to a different phenomenon or a specific sub characteristic of it.

From what I understand he is proposing a different ontology for the same phenomenon.(Consciousness). My attempt was to point to our current scientific ontological framework.

If he promotes a different ontological framework then his philosophy is problematic at best because a. his epistemology is not up to date and b. his Auxiliary philosophical principles governing his interpretarions are not Naturalistic(Methodological).

Is your objection about our different ontological frameworks when you say "That's not the definition he's using!"?
If yes then ..I already know that and this is the reason why I posted my objection in his thread...This is how conversations work...people projecting their critique on other people's opinions.
IF not then tell me what is your objection. What is his definition that I missed?

I recently published an article with the above title (https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/1042/1035). Here is the abstract: — Dfpolis

I will try to break down every single claim in the OP(and some in your article) and ultimately try to explain why most of those "memes" in philosophy are either epistemically outdated or in direct conflict with our latest scientific understanding of the phenomenon.

Before starting the deconstruction I always find helpful to include the most popular general Definition of Consciousness in Cognitive Science so we can all be on the same page:

"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex (Daube, 1986; Paus, 2000; Zeman, 2001; Gosseries et al., 2011). "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/

With the above description in mind and the tones of Neuroscientific publications found in the huge online data base (https://neurosciencenews.com/?s=how+the+brain), the conclusion that brain function is responsible for human behavior and thought processes is way more than an assumption.
Its an established epistemology, part of our Academic curriculum for more than 35 years.

Yet, in the years since David Chalmers distinguished the Hard Problem of Consciousness from the easy problems of neuroscience, no progress has been made toward a physical reduction of consciousness. — D. F. Polis

-That is only true for the advances in Philosophy. Almost all the breakthroughs made by relevant Scientific disciplines never make it in Neurophilosophy mainly because Philosophical frameworks that are based on the latest epistemology are part of Cognitive Science.

Now, Chalmers's attempt to identify the Hard problem of Consciousness had nothing to do with the actual Hard problems faced by the field. In fact, the set of questions where pseudo philosophical "why" questions.
I quote:

"The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia).
1.Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
2.And why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does
3.why an experience of red rather than green, for example? "
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Searching meaning in natural processes is a pseudo philosophical attempt to project Intention and purpose in nature (Agency) and create unsolvable questions. Proper questions capable to understand consciousness should begin with "how" and "what" , not why. (how some emerges, what is responsible for it etc).
For those who are interested in the real Hard Problems of Neuroscience, Anil Seth a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience explains in extensive detail why Chalmers "why" questions fail to grasp the real difficulties of the puzzle and identifies the real hard problems he and his colleagues are facing mainly due to the complex of the systems they are dealing with.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-one
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/consciousness-deep-dive/202110/the-real-problem-consciousness

This, together with collateral shortcomings Chalmers missed, show that the SM is inadequate to experience. — D. F. Polis

- I will make some points now that include some ideas in your article. TO keep it short it will be presented in bullets and feel free to demand additional info.
1. Chalmers (as I already explained), failed to identify the real hard problems by misleading people in a conversation on purpose and intention which is fallacious when dealing with Nature.

2. The current Working Hypothesis (SM) is more than adequate to explain the phenomenon. It even allow us to make predictions and produce Technical Applications that can directly affect, alter or terminate the phenomenon. It establishes Strong Correlations between lower level system(brain function) and high level systems(Mental states and properties).

3. the Hard Problem doesn't reflect a failure of the reductive paradigm because this paradigm (tool of science)is not that RELEVANT to the methods we use to study Mental properties. Complexity Science and Scientific Emergence are the proper tools for the job.

4."Epistemological emergence occurs when the consequences of known principles cannot be
deduced. We often assume, but cannot prove, that system behavior is the result of isolated com-
ponent behavior"
-Thats not quite true. There is a general misconception about Strong Emergence in philosophy. First of all in science we don't "prove" frameworks, we falsify them and we accept them for their Descriptive and Predictive power. Strong Emergence is an observer relative term. Its describes a causal mechanism with unknown parameters that affect a system plus it accepts the properties of a phenomenon without asking "Why" they exist the way they do. All the Philosophical Hard Problem does is ask "why" this mechanism gives rise to that qualities. That is not a scientific or a Philosophical question.
(here is a great video that explains the different types of Emergence : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66p9qlpnzzY&t=)
In my opinion the whole "Hard Problem" objection is nothing more than an Argument from Ignorance and in many cases, from Personal Incredulity Fallacies.

I could go in depth challenging the rest of the claims in the paper but It seems like it tries to draw its validity from Chalmers' bad philosophy.
What I constantly see in philosophical discussion is the lack of references to the latest epistemology of the respected scientific fields.
The Ascending Reticular Activating System, the Central Lateral Thalamus and the latest Theories of Consciousness on Emotions as the driving force (Mark Solmes, founder of Neuropsychoanalysis) leave no room for a competing non naturalistic theory in Methodological Naturalism and in Philosophy in general. Those attempts to use Quantum Physics(metaphysics in essence) in an effort to debunk the natural ontology of a Biological Phenomenon are just wrong.
We might use the same tools (Complexity Science) to understand Consciousness and QM but that doesn't mean that our current Hypotheses on Quantum physics apply to a biological system.

The honest answer on things we currently can't explain is "We don't know yet". We shouldn't "lets suggest the existence of advanced entity/substance/agent" just because we either ignore the latest epistemology of science or because we can not answer a "why" question.

The current and most successful Scientific Paradigm doesn't accept made up entities as "carries" of the phenomenon in question. This is intellectual laziness. IT takes us back in bed with Aristotle. Are we going to resurrect Gods, Phlogiston, Miasma, Panacea, Orgone Energy all over again???
Of course not because this practice offers zero Epistemic Connectedness, Instrumental Value, Predictive power etc( all 9 aspects of the systematic nature of science listed by Paul Hoyningen - Systematicity, the Nature of Science ).

We don't have the evidence (yet) to use Supernatural Philosophy (reject the current Scientific paradigm of Methodological Naturalism) in our explanations just because we miss pieces from our puzzle. We can not go back assuming the existence of Advanced properties independent of low level mechanisms. This is what kept our epistemology from growing for centuries.

So are you making an ontological question on the manifestation of reality? Does your argument(or better question) challenges the external source of the content of our Cataleptic Impressions?

4% Philosophers voted in favor of Idealism. That is alarming especially when those who don't believe in an external world are the "authors" of a poll result where the main competing thesis has much higher percentage.

I really don't see how blind people's experiences with sight can be helpful to this question ( whether seeing completely subjective). The answer in my opinion is obvious. Seeing is not completely subjective or better its only subjective from an aesthetic aspect. If it was completely subjective then we wouldn't be able to drive cars safely, we wouldn't have color scales to pick a bucket of paint for our homes and our scale units would be useless. Do you agree?

Started watching your 1st video.
Again, right in the beginning there is a huge error.
You define your goals, but in your third point you are committing an error that ALL philosophers and scientists SHOULD avoid at any cost.
You state: "To leave people with a sense of hope that there is something more , something beyond this life."
Long story short you SHOULD NEVER include in your goals the position you are trying to prove !!!! That's a red flag.
That should only follow from the evidence and should only be in your conclusion sir!!!!!! Of course you are going to steer everything to point at your goal.
Your first two goals are neutral....your last goal should be too.
Your logic and philosophy is really bad Sam!

Just started watching your video(part2 I think)...and right at the beginning you start with wrong premises.
You are promoting a strawman that science explains testimonials for NDEs as shared hallucinations. That is wrong. Science's explanation is based on the fact of a malfunctioning brain deprived of oxygen enabling an experience where the individual interprets its based on its cultural background. This is why Christians tend to see their mythological heroes while other religious people agree with their iconography and doctrines.

So all 3 premises on your first arguments go out of the window.
Are the res of your arguments of similar quality????
Btw we do have documented mass hallucinations or better mass hysteria where member of crowds adopt the narrative of their leader.

I never said that I figured you out...and I don't need to be a genius to figured you out. I only have to look in the Philosophical Principles (supernatural) by which you make your interpretations. Those by definition render your Philosophy pseudo.
You are bailing out the moment I pointed out the method by which you can demonstrate the academic validity or your claims....why is that?

Mark Solmes corrected Descartes's deepity by pointing out "I feel - therefore I am". In his latest Theory on Consciousness he explains how our conscious state are realized by our emotions and how the rest of our mental properties(reasoning, symbolic language, pattern recognition, memory intelligence etc) introduce content in them.

So your way of doing Philosophy is by putting up videos containing either pseudo scientific material or pseudo philosophical interpretations on the topic???
There is a really easy way to convince people of your beliefs being scientific.
There is a huge online Data Base of Neuroscience's publications called:
https://neurosciencenews.com/
You can go there and find a publication which verifies your claims....just one paper verifying your ontology will do!
I guess good luck with that?

You are off topic. You sound ignorant on the use of Definitions in science and philosophy and you are ignorant on what "theory" means in science.
I do not see a meaningful conversation happening with you bert...

I will try to introduce some meaning to this discussion.

You are making claims and arriving at conclusions based on Testimonies WITHOUT first providing a functioning definition of what "Consciousness" means to you.
A definition should include a description of the Property(Phenomenon in question) plus the ontology (mechanisms, type of substance,process) of it.
Do you have one?

I will present the current scientific Definition and Description of science about the Property of consciousness and we can go from there. We can compare them and see whose framework introduces unnecessary entities and whose has an additional instrumental value.


Definition.
"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
So this the biological process that enables our ability to be conscious of stimuli(internal or external).

Lets now take a look at the brain mechanisms responsible for the content of our conscious states.
The Central lateral thalamus allows different parts of the brain responsible for Symbolic language/Meaning, Memory, Pattern Recognition, Intelligence,feelings, Previous Experiences, Problem solving etc to communicate and introduce content in our conscious state and process any new stimuli.
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-brain-area-could-enable-consciousness
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/neurobiology-of-consciousness-study-explained
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full
IT goes without saying, physical damages (injury, intoxication etc) in the above areas affect our conscious states or even terminate those states is the damage is serious and extensive.