I'm not sure "subjective experience" works as a definition, mostly because this uproots what "experience" means: you sometimes express sympathy for "felt experience", then you say that a rock "experiences being a rock," but also that rock has no feelings. There's a muddle here that's nearly impossible to deal with if your intuition is foreign to the concept. — Dawnstorm

Legitimate criticism. I don't claim to have every answer or to have thought of every aspect. And I might not always word things clearly. I started this thread because I wanted help examining the topic. So I thank you for this.

Yes, I like "felt experience." Because when it involves some kind of things, it gives feeling. Sometimes feeling in the way we usually mean it. It's not just damage to my skin, it hurts. There's also emotional feeling, like what love feels like. Can I say there's a feeling of seeing blue? Some people say this or that brand of whiskey is smooth.

And I think it feels like something to be me. That feeling is a combination of all the other feelings of every type that I have.

So I think "feel" covers a lot of ground. And that's how I mean it for "felt experience." But I'm not married to it. "Subjective experience" works fine, and is more commonly accepted. Either way, everything experiences it's own existence. You experience many things, and kinds of things, that a rock does not. A rock experiences simple existence. The experience is not of much of anything. But you experience more sensory input, information processing, and feedback loops, all working together so that the unit can affect its environment, and its self, in order to ensure its continuation.

As far as what experience is for a rock, here are some quotes... In this article, Philip Goff writes:

Panpsychism is sometimes caricatured as the view that fundamental physical entities such as electrons have thoughts; that electrons are, say, driven by existential angst. However, panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts.

Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, thoughts and sensory experiences. But there seems nothing incoherent with the idea that consciousness might exist in some extremely basic forms. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences a horse has are much less complex than those of a human being, and the experiences a chicken has are much less complex than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no subjective experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities – perhaps electrons and quarks – possessing extremely rudimentary forms of consciousness, which reflects their extremely simple nature.

In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says:

Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.

In Panpsychism in the West, Skrbina writes:

Minds of atoms may conceivably be, for example, a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.

I don't like Skrbina's use of "mind" in this way. I think there needs to be thinking to have a mind. Even if only the very beginnings of thinking, as described in Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.

Accordingly, every mind requires a minimum of two thinking elements:
•​A sensor that responds to its environment
•​A doer that acts upon its environmen — Ogas and Gaddam

I'll respond to more of your post.

How does "everything experiences" happen? A rock, a tree, a comatose person – what's the mechanism by which each of them "experiences" at all? — 180 Proof

I don't know the answer to what I think you are asking. I don't know that it could ever be known. After all, Brian Greene wrote, "I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do." If we don't know what those things are, which are in the purview of our sciences, and are measured with incredible precision, how much harder would it be to find this answer?

Also, if "the brain" doesn't produce "consciousness", as you say, Patterner, then what accounts for (e.g.) every amputee's phenomenon of phanthom pain? — 180 Proof

I don't know any detail about what is happening in the brain in these cases. I assume signals are being manufactured in the brain that mimic signals associated with pain that the brain received when the limb was there?

How then, do you define Consciousness? — Gnomon

Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence.

Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. — Gnomon

I certainly was not. I'll look at your link. Sounds like an amazing topic.

Yes. :rofl: I am trying to respond to as many as I can at the end of a long day, working on 5 hours of sleep, and my alarm is going off again in 6 hours. You are correct. I misinterpreted you.

So you are looking at the univserse as a clockwork machine without the input of consciousness? — I like sushi

No, that is not my view. A clockwork machine would not have made skyscrapers, computers, nuclear bombs, or the Hoover Dam. It would not have written Shakespeare's works, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Bible, or Gilgamesh. It would not contain the works of Bach, The Beatles, or Steely Dan. I'm saying the universe is not a clockwork machine because consciousness is a part of it.

I am mostly of the mind that the very term consciousness is far too nebulous for current purposes. — I like sushi

I believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced.

Is there some right answer to what you should identify with? — frank

I wouldn't think so. But I don't know what you're getting at.

But I'm not saying everything is consciousness. I'm saying everything is consciousness.
— Patterner

Typing mistake here, I assume? Or else you're getting super woo-woo. :smile: — J

Yes. Typo. :grin: I literally never use anything but my cell phone, usually swiping. I do try to proofread, but don't always do the best job.

You say that 'consciousness is fundamental'. In order to have a meaningful discussion it's also IMO important to clarify what we mean by 'consciousness' and provide a clear model for it. Do you think that, for instance, there is one fundamental consciousness or that there are many distinct consciousnesses? Do you think that any composite object has its own consciousness or only some composites have consciousness? — boundless

I'm not sure if you're asking two different questions, or if you are asking the same question in two different ways. My answer to the second, and possibly both, is that everything experiences. When I step on the nail, my foot experiences with the damage. But I, as a whole, also experience it. My foot takes the actual damage, but it is not what feels the pain. It is not what remembered a similar injury from years ago. It is not what worries about tetanus.

Sorry for the many questions, but I'd like to understand more your view. — boundless

No problem! I would also like to understand my view more. :grin:

Let's concede that, indeed, in some sense there is consciousness in both cases. My question is: is the 'consciousness' of a 'dead person' the same entity of the 'consciousness' of the 'living person' before she died? Is the 'consciouesness' of the 'anesthetized person' the very same entity of the 'consciousness' of the person when she was in a normal, waking state? Do the 'dead person' and 'anesthetized person' have a unitary, private experience? — boundless

There is a vast difference between the experience of a human whose brain/body is functioning typically and the same human brain/body that is either dead or anesthetized. The dead and anesthetized do not have mental processes, thinking, information processing, feedback loops... The anesthetized does have some of these things to some degree, because the autonomic systems process information and give feedback, and I suppose other things. But there are no mental processes, no thinking.

Notice that the 'privateness' of our experience, of our 'consciousness' is something to be addressed even in a panpsychist model. If all my constituents have their own 'consciousness', how does that explain the arising of 'my' consciousness, which seems separate from 'theirs'? — boundless

A human being is a unit. The leg is separate from the head, both are separate from the lungs, all are separate from the finger, etc. However, they are a unit. And that unit experiences as a unit. Various processes taking place in the brain are experienced as awareness and self-awareness. But stepping on a nail is also part of our consciousness.

Let me suggest that physical material, the physical universe (that we know, I’ll call it X) is an artificial construct. That the real world Y is immaterial, there are things, beings, space, time, things happen, just like in X, but there is no physical material. In Y there is an equivalent to material, because there are forms and there is extension in time and space. But this material is composed of ideas, concepts, axioms, consciousness and experiences. Things that we typically (here in X) see as mental states and processes. — Punshhh

Why is X constructed? If the equivalent of everything we know in X is already present in Y, then why do we need X?

I thank you for your words. I'm grateful you think I expressed my idea well.

But what if consciousness is not something static, like a property or essence, but a dynamic process that manifests itself only in systems that can actively interact with the world? — Astorre

That's certainly a possibility. I'm suggesting something different.

If consciousness is a process associated with dynamics (for example, perception, feedback or choice), then a stone whose existence is static and determined by external physical laws may not need consciousness. — Astorre

I am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things.

Even if we assume that he has some kind of "experience," it does not affect his being - unlike, say, a person or animal, where consciousness is associated with adaptive processes. — Astorre

I think the adaptive processes are what is being experienced. They would take place without any subjective experience, if reality did not have an experiential property.

I don't know what can be said about consciousness in regards to any hypothesis. They are either right or wrong. No?
— Patterner

Yes, but other hypotheses allow a basis for discussion about how you'd tell. — J

Unfortunately, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. Each hypothesis has its own camp. There's no way of proving anything. There are some widely diverse beliefs on what consciousness is just here at this site. Things look the same, no matter which possible solution we consider.

That aside, someone posted in another thread just the other day that they think consciousness is fundamental. There's not a reason in the world that person and I cannot discuss this idea.

Moreover, if everything is consciousness, we can't talk about what it might be like if some thing(s) were not. — J

But we would no longer have to try to figure out exactly where - on the evolutionary ladder or in the development of a human from conception - consciousness enters the picture. It's always there. It's just a matter of what is being experienced. What sensory input? What information processing? What feedback loops?

But what can now be said about it? It's either true or it isn't, and we don't have any way of evaluating which. Moreover, if everything is consciousness, we can't talk about what it might be like if some thing(s) were not. The position prevents us from being able to specify an alternative. — J

I don't know what can be said about consciousness in regards to any hypothesis. They are either right or wrong. No?

But I'm not saying everything is consciousness. I'm saying everything is consciousness.

There is something to be said for this, but hard to do so without entering realms you wish to steer clear of. — I like sushi

Aside from having the same old debate that everyone has had so many times, I'm not to much of anything.

In some sense we can frame those that say consciousness is emergent as being onboard with the idea of universal consciousness as the 'property' of consciousness exists by some means it is just that they cannot elaborate on the how or why to any significant extent. — I like sushi

Yes. many say it just happens, that it emerges from the physical,but don't suggest how. Eagleman and Hoffman say we don't even nlknow where to start. I'm suggesting there is a property that explains that it doesn't just happen, it doesn't emerge. It is there all along.

However, all things, living and non, experience.
— Patterner

This is going to be problematic in expressing your thoughts I feel. The word we have for this is 'exist' not 'experience'. I think if you expressed your thoughts more along the lines of reestablishing what we mean by 'exist' it would get your view point across more clearly. — I like sushi

Yes, it is problematic, because I'm suggesting something very different from what isbso commonly assumed. i'm saying that, without consciousness being there from the beginning, things would simply exist. And, even beings with our mental abilities would not be conscious. We would be automatons.

I think you may also need to address some problems of reductionism here when expressing these ideas. What I mean is we are all, as is everything, made up of parts and these parts are all 'experiencing'/'existing' items. The problem herein is that you say 'rock' or 'person,' but are we then to say that this or that molecule, wavefunction or organ is 'experiencing'/'existing' separate from or entangled with the experiencing of a mental subject? — I like sushi

Yes, that is, indeed, what I am saying. There is no conflict between the molecule experiencing itself and the large group of molecules with many different information processing systems and feedback loops that is me experiencing myself. There doesn't seem to be any conflict even in the famous split brain cases, where two different systems with separate mental abilities share some sub-systems.

It could be that consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe that can morph from one form to another. We know this is the case with Energy and Matter so I see no reason to assume that there are no other key elements that make up all we know of given our limited scope of the entire existence of the universe. — I like sushi

Can you elaborate on this idea of consciousness morphing?

This is certainly an interesting and rich landscape to explore but due to this it is also prone to blind speculation - a large reason I stay clear of discussions on consciousness. — I like sushi

You are wise. B:grin: Yes, every hypothesis or theory is speculation and assumption.

What have you read on this subject? I have just started reading Ian McGilchrist's 'The Matter With Things' and feel you may find some useful discussions in this. If short of time I recommend watching an interview or two with him or reading Philosophy Now Issue 164 (which focuses on him and other sin this area; although I confess I have not read the articles in this issue yet). — I like sushi

I have many books. But I can't find any that answer the question of how it happens. It just does. People like Tse, Damasio, and Gazzaniga even begin their books by saying we do not know. I particularly like Damasio, though. I'll look at McGilchrist. Thank you.

according to you, what is consciousness? — 180 Proof

Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence.

I wonder, then, why you want to say this. It pretty much forecloses discussion. — J

It doesn't foreclose discussion about the idea that consciousness is fundamental, and that it is simple, undifferentiated experience. It means a different way of viewing consciousness. But such things are not unheard of. People do thought experiments all the time, taking something as given, and seeing where it leads. Was Mary's skin tone pure white? Did she never scrape herself and see red blood? Preposterous. But we don't say that. We say, "Ok, we have someone who, despite having perfectly normal eyes, optic nerves, visual areas in the brain, etc., Has never seen anything but black and white."

Interestingly, I have usually read that 'consciousness' is a specific kind of 'mind'. So, for instance, a bacterium has a very rudimentary 'mind' but it isn't 'conscious'. — boundless

I know what you mean. And it seems easy to say no for bacteria and yes for humans. But those kinds of things that I've read never say how consciousness comes into the picture. As David Eagleman says in this video,

Your other question is, why does it feel like something? That we don't know. and the weird situation we're in in modern neuroscience, of course, is that, not only do we not have a theory of that, but we don't know what such a theory would even look like. Because nothing in our modern mathematics days, "Ok, well, do a triple interval and carry the 2, and then *click* here's the taste of feta cheese. — David Eagleman

and Donald Hoffman says in this video,

It's not just that we don't have scientific theories. We don't have remotely plausible ideas about how to do it. — Donald Hoffman

we have no idea.

I'm interested in another idea. I don't know where it could lead. I don't know if it can lead anywhere. There are many theories about consciousness. Many internally consistent, but unprovable. But I don't see discussions about this idea. Debates between adherents of different theories giving pros and cons of each, but not discussion about a given theory. I think it could be interesting.

Define (non-sapient, non-sentient, non-mental) "consciousness" with an example that contrasts "consciousness" with non-consciousness. — 180 Proof

The idea is that there is no non-consciousness. Everything is experiencing. Some things experience sapience, sentience, mental. I don't know what percentage of living things experience each of those things. I don't suspect many non-living things experience any of them.

However, all things, living and non, experience.

I think the mistake we have made is equating consciousness with things like sapience, sentience, and mental. Which is understandable, because those are things we experience. I would say those are the defining characteristics of the species; the things that are unique, sometimes in degree and sometimes in kind, to humans.

But it lead us wrong. It made us think this is what consciousness is, yet has not even lead to a definition that all can agree on. What is consciousness. What is human consciousness? My position is that there is no such thing as "human consciousness". There is only the consciousness of each human. Human X experiences being biologically male, 6 feet tall, having perfect pitch, having sickle cell anemia, being great with the ladies, on and on. Human Y experiences being biologically female, having an eidetic memory, having arachnophobia, and loving pecan pie. Human Z experiences being biologically female, has no measurable IQ, has been wheelchair bound since birth, and has the brightest smile when you talk to her.

OK, sorry I missed your response to sushi. — J

No worries. I'm hoping to see half the posts here. :grin:

How could we tell the difference between being causal, and simply identifying with something causal? — frank

Sorry. I'm not sure I understand your question, so my response might be a non sequitur. is this something along the lines of, as I said above, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?

in order to avoid the absurdity of referring to atoms as sapient or sentient. — Gnomon

I agree that that is absurd. But I do not equate consciousness with sapience or sentience. I can say atoms are conscious without meaning they are sapient or sentient.

The idea is that consciousness is always present. In everything, everywhere, at all times
— Patterner

You haven’t presented any reason for why you would think that. — Wayfarer

Not in this thread. I've given my reasons often, though. I don't take part in many other kinds of discussions here. But I am hoping to have discussions with the starting point, even if only for the sake of argument, that consciousness is fundamental. I don't want to present the reasons why I think it is, have someone say why those reasons are wrong, back-and-forth back-and-forth. That's what the discussions are usually about.

Also, some would argue that when one is in general anesthesia consciousness temporarily ceases (I believe that those who experienced general anesthesia report a different 'feeling' when they 'wake up' than the feeling they have when they wake up from sleep. Also, even in deep sleep it seems to be that there is a level of attentiveness which is absent in that state). So, if consciousness can temporarily cease, when it 'restarts' is it the same consciousness or not? — boundless

I am saying consciousness does not cease when one is in general anesthesia. The experience is of an anesthetized person. Which is very different from the experience of a person whose brain is working normally, sensory input going where it normally goes, stored input from the past being triggered, information processing systems and feedback loops working, etc. It is not the consciousness that is different between the anesthetized and awake person. it is the level of functioning of the person's brain that is different. The key is is that the functioning of the person's brain does not create consciousness.

If matter is fundamental and moves according to the laws of nature, and consciousness is an emergent property from matter. Consciousness, therefore, cannot be caus — MoK

I do not believe consciousness is an emergent property of matter. That is the very point of this thread. Consciousness is fundamental, not emergent.

Does a dead human experience being a dead human? Can you sketch what that would mean? — J

I did, in my response to sushi:

When I die, there will still be consciousness. But there will no longer be any mental activity to experience. Just the physical body. No more interesting than a rock's consciousness. At least in my opinion. Others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's. In there timeframes of human life, there is certainly nore going on in a dead body than there is in a rock. A typical body will decompose much faster than a typical rock will erode. Both will experience their deconstruction, but neither will have any thoughts or feelings about, or awareness of, it. — Patterner

To which I will add that, while others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's, neither the dead body nor the rock do.

I don’t know if you’ve paid much attention to any of my posts. If you had you would find I am obsessed with metaphysics and the difference between metaphysics and everyday knowledge of the world, including science. As I understand it, what you are talking about is exactly that - metaphysics. And for me, metaphysics is not about what’s true or false, it’s about what is a useful way to think about things.

It doesn’t seem to me that kind of a discussion is really what you’re looking for in this thread. — T Clark

I've read many of your posts. I often don't know what you're talking about. I'm not well versed in most of the stuff discussed here. I sometimes join in, commenting when I think I sufficiently understand the gist of the conversation. I don't know how what I am talking about is metaphysics.

The kind of conversation I'm looking for is what I just said to Sophisticat. A long time ago, people might have had a conversation that began with, "Ok, fine, let's just say the earth and planets revolve around the sun. What does that imply? Where does that lead us?" Einstein came up with some entirely uniques ideas. When people began discussing them as if they were true, they produced some pretty amazing results. I didn't come up with the idea that consciousness is fundamental. I just want to see if it can be discussed for itself, rather than debating whether or not it is the answer.

What are you expecting from this discussion? The position that you outlined is pretty much orthodox contemporary panpsychism. You could have just written: "Panpsychism: discuss (but do not debate)." — SophistiCat

I don't want to debate whether or not panpsychism is fact. I want to discuss things from the starting point that it is fact. A long time ago, people might have had a conversation that began with, "Ok, fine, let's just say the earth and planets revolve around the sun. What does that imply? Where does that lead us?"

I have a sneaky feeling though, that you are describing something which is identical to what we understand as Matter(as in physics). While saying it is something quite different, like something that plays a role in human awareness. — Punshhh

I'm not sure how you mean this. Let me try to clarify.

I do not think the physical properties we are familiar with can explain consciousness. The explanation I'm proposing is that consciousness is fundamental.

One hypothetical explanation for consciousness in the "consciousness is fundamental" category is proto-consciousness. I wrote about about this in my Property Dualism thread. All particles, in addition to physical properties like mass and electrical charge, have an experiential property. So every particle experiences itself. And particles functioning as a unit experience as a unit.

Another hypothetical explanation is that consciousness is a field that exists everywhere. Kind of the way the cosmic microwave background radiation exists everywhere. Everything is, shall we say, steeped in consciousness. So everything experiences itself.

If either proto-consciousness or a field of consciousness is the explanation, then it's easy to imagine the universe without it. All the things we know of from our sciences would still be here. There would still be living organisms, with photons hitting retinas, signals going up the optic nerve to the brain, etc etc. But there would be no consciousness. Any living things would be empty automotons.

I can see how any living organism can be conscious, which I subscribe to. But as for matter, I don’t have a line of thought that takes me there. — Punshhh

It's important to disassociate consciousness with anything mental. I believe we have been confusing the two things all along.

I am having real trouble here in distinguishing what you are trying to say and exactly how it is different from panpsychism? I cannot seem to find a way to divide the two. — I like sushi

I think this is panpsychism. Just one idea that fits under the umbrella.

I believe how you are trying to define 'experience' and 'feeling' on different terms here might lead me to understand this better perhaps? — I like sushi

I believe there phrase "subjective experience" is more commonly used. I just think "felt experience" says it more clearly. I'm not sure "subjective" must mean "felt". But I might be wrong. Really, I'm good with either word. I just prefer "felt".

I like your thread a lot. My biggest gripe when it comes to discussions about consciousness is that people never get around to defining what they really mean. It pleases me that you’ve been so careful to do that. — T Clark

Thank you. I agree that it's often not defined well. I think the lack of clarity and consensus means the best we can do is this bare minimum. And this bare minimum also works for this overall idea of consciousness being fundamental.

I especially like this. It’s not that I agree with it. It’s just the clarity you’ve put into saying what you mean. You’ve made me feel a little bit of what it might feel like to be rock. — T Clark

Again, thank you. I do try very hard on these things. It takes me a long time, writing, rewriting, take a break for a couple days...

Since I can’t really buy into your premise, I won’t be participating anymore. But I did want you to know how much I appreciate what you’ve put into this. — T Clark

If you're ever bored :rofl: perhaps you would be interested in "playing along" with it. "For the sake of argument, let's say you're right..." I don't know how to finish that idea. What would it imply?

For what I can elucidate subjective experience does not break the chain of physical causality ( neither adds information) — Danileo

I believe otherwise. I think consciousness is casual. However, it seems to me what I'm talking about here would apply either way.

"I think that the cat is on the mat" — Michael

I might think the cat is on the mat. But I might speak that sentence, even though I don't actually think the cat is on the mat. I only thought of the words to say.

None of which has anything to do with whether or not the cat actually is on the mat, or whether there even is a cat or mat.

But I’m interested in the idea that the beginning of life is also the most basic form of intentional (or purposive) behaviour - not *consciously* intentional, of course, but different to what is found in the inorganic realm. — Wayfarer

Yes. All living things have DNA. DNA and it's cohorts may not be aware of what they're doing, but there is a goal, which is achieved. Information is processed, and, in this case, the processing is identical with the action of achieving the goal. (Unlike when I read a book. Information is processed, but nothing need happen in regards to it. I can learn how to build a log cabin, yet never build one.). Life is information processing, even though not all information processing is life.

How so? I find this analogy strange as a rock is not actually a rock to anything other than that which consciously adheres to it as an object. To an ant, assuming some minimal form of consciousness, the rock is likely nothing more than a surface. A rock cannot 'be' it is the 'beings' that frame a rock as a rock. — I like sushi

Sure. And I'm sure Donald Hoffman is in full agreement. I'm not defining "rock". I'm just talking about whatever it is that we call a rock.

To an ant, assuming some minimal form of consciousness... — I like sushi

I am, indeed.

I would like to know in more detail - where possible - what you mean by consciousness being "fundamental" please. — I like sushi

I mean it does not emerge from, isn't produced by, anything else. We don't think, for example, mass or electrical charge emerge from anything else. The idea is that it's always there, and everything is always experiencing itself.

Okay. But you then talk about a 'rock' as conscious? Or was that merely an analogy of an analogy. — I like sushi

No, I don't mean it as any kind of analogy. I mean it literally. It's important to disassociate any kind of mental activity from the definition of consciousness. A rock has no mental activity. So when I talk about a rock's consciousness, I'm not talking about anything mental. It cannot experience what it does not have.

Humans experience quite a bit more than rocks do. We have a lot of information processing going on within us, and a lot of feedback loops. That's in addition to all of our physical characteristics. Unlike rocks, which have no mental content, our physical characteristics are part of our mental content. We have senses that send signals from (as in the case of nerves in the skin) and about (as in the case of eyes perceiving an arm) all parts of our physical bodies to our brains, where are the information is processed in various ways.

Ehen I die, there will still be consciousness. But there will no longer be any mental activity to experience. Just the physical body. No more interesting than a rock's consciousness. At least in my opinion. Others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's. In there timeframes of human life, there is certainly nore going on in a dead body than there is in a rock. A typical body will decompose much faster than a typical rock will erode. Both will experience their deconstruction, but neither will have any thoughts or feelings about, or awareness of, it.

I once had a lucid dream where I inhabited a plant, briefly. It was like my consciousness, disembodied, was moving around a landscape. At one point, I moved into a plant and could feel being the shape of the plant and the energies coursing through the xylem tubes. There were intense colours across a spectrum, it was very thrilling. Then I moved out of the plant and across the landscape again and remember looking back at the plant and wanting to be that plant again. It was like I experienced what it was like to be a plant. — Punshhh

That's an interesting dream! :grin:

↪Manuel He doesn’t want it to become a discussion about materialism versus idealism. That’s all. — Punshhh

Yes. Thank you.

Although that may not be possible on. This forum. — Punshhh

indeed. Heh. I take part in those discussions often enough. But I'd like to have a different discussion at the moment.

That's sounds right.

fantastic post! I wish I had anything useful to add.

So we only need to ask whether your experience falls under the aesthetic, or something closer to the heart. — J

And we need to determine how different the two are.

Would the tutoring have had a bearing, do you think? — J

I don't know that it couldn't for others. I only know it didn't for me. My first exposure to Bach was like the proverbial piano falling on me. I didn't know anything about music theory or counterpoint. I didn't even know what those things meant, much less any detail of them.

Do you mean that the physical thing, the paper and crayon, just happened to be the vehicle chosen to deliver the "origin story" which is one of sentiment, innocence, and personal connection? (or something like that, pardon me if my words are clumsy) — J

Yes, that's the idea. It didn't have to be paper and crayons. I guess a 2 year old is limited in what she can work with. But if she had made a pile of pebbles, with the same patience and focus, complete unto herself, the resulting pile would be the vehicle, and I would feel the same looking at it as I do the crayon spots on paper.