I would recommend Being You by Anil Seth. The best book I have read in this area.

The logical positivists have trodden this path and metaphysics has survived that onslaught. If the op questions the place of metaphysics in the house of philosophy then an investigation into Object Oriented Ontology would provoke seizure! Even worse Triple O privileges aesthetics. Have enjoyed the discussion.

Perhaps located in a grey zone where we are not sure which laws of physics, befween the large and thd very small pertain?

It is much more problematic trying to explain consciousness without reference to physical processes At the very least if conciousnsss is software it needs hardware.

Thanks for these interesting observations. An area I find particularly fascinating in this general context is the clash between Calvinists and Anti Calvinists in early 17th century England. Here you have two branches of Christianity holding completely different views on free will; anti calvinists like Roman Catholics holding belief in the free will to "work out" with the aid of the church, ones salvation and calvinists holding to predestination or perhaps double predestination. In the latter case ones " free will " consists of looking for signs that one is already a member of the elect. So two responses to the idea of free will framed in the context of the same God?

Thanks for all the interesting responses.

You may find the link above interesting. Consciousness continues to perplex. I still find Ryle's category mistake idea challenging and the sense in which consciousness can seem trapped in a loop of self verification

Penrose and Hamerof see conciousness as emerging from quantum activity of micro tubules in the brain.

This flag was waved most vigorously by Freddie Ayer in Language Truth and Logic with a large nod in the direction of the Logical Positivists. I think one of the most interesting contemporary respo ses lies in the area of Speculative Realism and more specifically the work of Graham Harman and his ideas of Object Oriented Ontology.

Great discussion. Interested in something being "more or less objective" doesn't work with absolutes but I can live with shifting relativity to a fixed point which doesn't need to be absolute ..

http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

An extract from the above article which I think summarises the Penrose Hameroff collaboration well.
As I understand it the effect of quantum coherence ( see below) is not the same as computability.

"Penrose’s theory promises a deeper level of explanation. He starts with the premise that consciousness is not computational, and it’s beyond anything that neuroscience, biology, or physics can now explain. “We need a major revolution in our understanding of the physical world in order to accommodate consciousness,” Penrose told me in a recent interview. “The most likely place, if we’re not going to go outside physics altogether, is in this big unknown—namely, making sense of quantum mechanics.” He draws on the basic properties of quantum computing, in which bits (qubits) of information can be in multiple states—for instance, in the “on” or “off” position—at the same time. These quantum states exist simultaneously—the “superposition”—before coalescing into a single, almost instantaneous, calculation. Quantum coherence occurs when a huge number of things—say, a whole system of electrons—act together in one quantum state."

I know something of Penrose in this context better seen in conjunction with Stuart Hameroff. Penrose does seek a "third way" between the macro and microscopic world. I think you need to understand his vision across the disciplines. His closest related view is of the gravity induced collapse of the wave function. Happy to elucidate. Hope this helps?

Historians like ranke believed there was a truth to be discovered...post modernists like jenkins believe there is not. Richard Evans seeks a middle ground I look to quanrum mechanics where some say the observer finds schrodingers cat alive or dead penrose believes in the gravitational induced collapse of the wave function and others seek a middle way. I have a concept of relatiive objectivity which i would be happy to elucidate.

Hume is interested in the fallacy of induction that is to say that innumerable instances of b following a does not prove any causal link between the two. In that se nse he is perhaps sceptical about the possibilities of empiricism.

The role of the observer is crucial here and though perhaps not helpful to the original post there is no easy answer. In the quantum world the observer determines the state of the cat ( shrodinger) or in the penrose diosi view gravity determines the collapse of the wave function not any observer...in historical theory postmodernists cannot disentangle the subject from the object either linguistically or in epistemological terms or as an individual actor incapable of indpendent access to the "past" it is far from clear on what foundations any truth might stand...

Though far from universally accepted you may find the work of Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose interesting. Penrose sees consciousness as non computational and in a form of quantum de coherence sees it as emerging from micro tubules in the brain. This I think links to his views about the influence of gravity on the collapse of wave function. An old episode of bbc in our time has sir roger discussing conscious ess. Hope this is of interest.

Berkeley is worth considering here..esse est percipi I am interested in the role of the observer whether Divine as with Berkeley or otherwise. In terms of QM Roger Penrose has posited the idea of a gravitational cause for the collapse of the wave function independent of the observer so maybe shrodingers cats box is opened or not opened by others...

The problem is that Anselms proof though elegant only proves the existence of God as originally defined, something than which there is nothing greater;the unwarranted leap is to see this proof as being for God as otherwise defined. Whether something that exists in reality as well as in the mind is in someway "greater " presents to my mind a series of other difficulties, not least whether the virtual and real existence can in any meaningful way be coupled or add in any way to either's strength/credibility. Dare we even step into the area of immaterialism in this context. Enjoying the discussion.

The problem is also of the determination of existance...in history the conflict of the objective past that is there to be discovered in which the discoverer is an independent agent and the past as creation of the discoverer. Something may "exist" indepndently of any efforts to describe it. I have always felt that the ontogical argument proves the existance of God as defined something than which...but doesn't say much about the nature or qualities of that God. It is not a neat back up for faith which arguably transcends rational proof. Similarly berkeleys God as sustainer of existance pacs knox will fail to satisfy sceptic and believer alike.

The Free will debate has historically been captured in many differing contexts, I am particularly interested in 17th century British history where it underpinned many of the religious/political/economic issues involved in the build up to the English ( British ) civil War. The Church of England under Queen Elizabeth had steered a middle ground, the essential British compromise, avoiding the perceived extremes of Catholicism and Puritanism. Elizabeth's desire not to make a window into men's ( sic )souls was helpful in this context. Her successor the Scot James 1 began as a moderate Calvinist theologically but structurally was wedded to the role of Bishops "No bishop no king" he famously said, as he felt the church hierarchy usefully bolstered that of the state. At this time, early 17th century the rise of Arminianism offered a differing theological perspective moving away from the Calvinist view of pre destination towards one of Free Will. Under James' son Charles notions of Free Will became married with the practical visions of order and hierarchy promulgated by Archbishop William Laud whose quest was for the "beauty of holiness" What became a struggle over church architecture, position of altars, pulpits et. had behind an arguably much more significant debate about Free Will vs Predestination. For extreme adherents of the latter, ones ultimate destination was already decided, one did not choose salvation one had to discover if one was one of the elect. Arguably much of the contrasting religious practice of those at the Laudian end of the church reflected this division in the sense that the Free Will adherents place much more emphasis on having church structures which facilitated the active choices of the believer, if one never knows if one is saved then regular active confession etc becomes more significant. In philosophical terms all this relates to the perception of the Divine they had and notions of the active or passive will of God; does predestination permit free will/ the illusion of free will and how does judgement relate to ideas of free will? As Locke might have said at the end of the century, if society shapes the individual what right has society to punish the individual it has created?

From a historical perspective metanarratives have been a fertile source of debate and discussion and one of the tenets of postmodernism as applied to historical study is to challenge meta narratives. The kind of sweeping all encompassing big picture theories of the past have been criticized and led to a lot of historical focus being very narrow. Allied to this post modernist skepticism about the possibilities of objectivity and the questionable nature of any knowledge claims about the past have led to a kind of relativist wilderness. EH Carr's What is history began a road to the likes of Keith Jenkins Rethinking History and the repost from Evan In Defence of History. All kinds of meta narratives have been challenged, Marxist interpretations, Evolution, the rise of western liberal democracy and so on. For me the interest lies in the "construction" / "discovery" of the meta narrative; it might be these are constructs created by the human mind to provide some sort of interpretational framework but for some there might be pre existant eternal narratives, especially in the area of religion which exist independently of us, perhaps like Kantian idealism?

God in the Quad by Ronald Knox ( Balliol Oxford)

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

This is the version I am familiar with. The sentiment is the same and Knox captures well Berkeley's concern, unsurprising as a theologian to have a role for God in the sustaining of the Universe. An earlier contributor is quite right to bring in quantum mechanics where the issue of non measurement comes to the fore as having an influence on events.

It might be helpful to think of the dialectic in Marxist terms as a driving or motor for change. The implications behind this are several, as a materialist, mentioned above Marx sees the engine of change as social factors, particularly the relationship of different social groups to the means of production. For him class is not an attitude, way of thinking, construct it is practically determined ( a source of much criticism of Marxist interpretations of events such as the French Revolution..( I could say more) ) Marx is also a determinist, along with several other mid 19th thinkers in other fields such as Darwin, Macaulay, he sees some governing meta narrative, for Darwin evolution, Macaulay the rise of liberal parliamentary democracy. This of course reduces the role of the individual who is not so much a decisive actor as something carried by the grand tide ( Iron Laws as Marx would say) of history. In dialectical terms collision is the motor for change, the idea ( Hegel) generates its opposite and out of this clash emerges the new idea( thesis) For Marx this collision is class conflict and the new idea is the new set of material relations eg feudalism gives way to capitalism and the dominance of those controlling the means of production, banks, farms, mills etc. However for Marx change is not endless, the proletarian revolution involves the overthrow of the capitalist system and the destruction of its supportive state apparatus, once all is held in common there is no us and them, thesis and antithesis , socialism becomes the end state ( condition). hope this helps.

Kants thoughts might be helpful here; he talks at some length about the issue of intentionality when considering the categorical imperative and this would seem to imply a degree of subjecitivity in the process? The unintended consequences possibly injurious of the well intentioned act suggest the possibility of a relatavistic judgement?
Edmu d

Sir Roger Penrose has suggested in discussions about the measurement problem that we might need a whole new approach to physics to deal with the quantum newtonian interface and that be cause it seems challenging or overly radical is not a reason to reject the possibility. Many truths are overthrown. Edmund

Wayfarer
Just read the article on quantum mysticism that you directed me to...excellent. my linking berkeley and schrodinger was not to claim the influence of the former on the latter but rather as an example of the fermat solution issue which it seems involves aspects of geometry inaccessible to fermat so in a sense is another solution to his alluded to in his marginal note. I am fascinated by how early thinkers often prefigure/frame debates furthered later in contexts alien to them but which arguably subjectify their initial thoughts. The quantum article suggests the shift of thinking research to an anglo american context demystified it. I read all the contributions in this thread with great interest. Thanks all.

Dare I join the debate having also sensed the danger of treading in the philosophical waters of the physics forum....I am interested in observation and see a bridge between the view of something has to be this or that rather than potentially something..esse est percipe arguably bishop berkeley unintentionally anticipates shrodinger in his views about observation being the determining factor..potential dead cats collapse of wave function and as knox said "that is why the tree continues to be since observed by yours faithfully God. " As a historian the issue of any reality indepe dent of the observer is always on my mind. Thank you if you have taken the time to read this.
Ed