Okay, so (as far as you/we know) our 'theories' are incomplete and data insufficient – but no "magic" involved or assumed as you've suggested. We learn from We don't know yet and not from appeals to ignorance just-so stories like "panpsychism" & other metaphysical fairytales. :sparkle:

How do you know that "how matter becomes conscious ... just is" and cannot be explained (even, if only, in principle)? Describe which laws of nature both allow "matter to become conscious" and yet prohibits us from explaining "how matter becomes conscious."

Welcome to TPF!

You might find my contrarian view useful – from a 2022 thread Question regarding panpsychism ...

... "panpsychism" is a reductionist yet anti-emergence mystery-of-the-gaps which only compounds 'the mystery of consciousness' with a proposal to substitute a (lower level) harder problem for "the" (higher level) "hard problem". A question begged, not answered. — 180 Proof

IMO, 'panpsychism' is metaphysically indistinguishable from Stone Age
animism¹ and therefore its so-called "combination problem" is solved by magic (e.g. Leibniz's "pre-established harmony"²).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism ¹

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/preestablished_harmony#English ²

Natural beings cannot be separated from nature.

Nature.

How do you see the idea of intentionality as an aspect of psychology and philosophy? — Jack Cummins

For me, in psychology "intentionality" corresponds to attention¹ and in philosophy corresponds to aboutness².

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention ¹

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboutness ²

Is 'natural' defined as that which we have discovered [uncovered] with our senses and sciences? — Patterner

More than that: nature is that aspect (i.e. causal nexus) of encompassing reality, or being, from which human beings are fundamentally inseparable.

The question as to whether 'mind' is 'natural' or 'supernatural' may be of significance but the division between natural and supernatural may not be clear. — Jack Cummins

So then decide whether 'mind is either natural or supernatural' and consistently follow the implications of that decision as far as it goes.

Biology, physics, and chemistry, to name a few, are not theories. — Patterner

We produce 'testable empirical theories' (i.e. explanations of how transformations of specified states-of-affairs happen) using sciences, not philosophy which, lacking any empirical means, only clarifies and re/interprets what we think we know (or mean) but frequently do not such as 'theories' (and their constitutive elements e.g. assumptions, principles, methods, formalisms, etc).

I wonder what are the essentials for making 'good' arguments in relation to understanding the nature of 'mind'. — Jack Cummins

IMO, begin by deciding whether "the nature of mind" is 'natural or supernatural' and thereby following lines of philosophical inquiry and argument consistent with either the best available scientific research or the most venerable esoteric traditions. Without this decision, all one can do is confuse many issues (e.g. compare apples & onions) and generate the very "ambiguity" one's own indecisiveness generates and then blames for being "too complex". And if the initial decision (i.e. either natural or supernatural) does not cash out in the end, one has learned at least that and might start over pursuing the alternative course of reflection and inquiry; however, if both paths are cul de sacs, then one is nonetheless in good company of countless seekers who at least understand how to live within (their) cul de sacs. So what if we "fail" (S. Beckett)? Why are you seemingly so intellectually afraid to fail, Jack? To decide is, after all, the thrust of Kant's motto (borrowed from the poet Horace): Sapere Aude. :fire:

I am not disputing valid inferences and terms — Jack Cummins

Maybe not, you just don't bother with making – pinning yourself down with – "good arguments".

What is the basis of good argument — Jack Cummins

Valid inferences, contextual relevance, clearly defined / precisely used terms, etc.

understanding of 'mind' and consciousness'

... such as Socratically provoked by this post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/891620

 Likewise, Philosophy is a soft science... — Gnomon

:sweat:

As Witty says (and many others back to antiquity point out): "Philosophy is not a theory but an activity." –TLP, 4.112 (i.e. NOT SCIENCE)

In a later post, you replied to ↪180 Proof : "what do you expect from me?". As a survivor of many of his Either/Or broadside attacks, I will presume to guess what he wants:

Instead of "I will presume to guess" (i.e. making sh*t up), Gnomon, just read what I actually wrote in reply to @Jack Cummins ...

Same as every other member of TPF, Jack, I expect from you what I expect from myself: good reasoning and valid arguments rather than unwarranted opinions or superstitions ... — 180 Proof

Speaking of which:

... somewhere in the middle of that Idealism---Realism range ... — Gnomon

Clarify, if you can, why you believe "Idealism and Realism" are disparate conceptual positions on a continuum which are different by degrees rather than different in kind.

No doubt.

We're blind to our blindness. We have very little idea of how little we know. We're not designed to know how little we know. — Daniel Kahneman, d. 2024

If we look straight and deep into a chimpanzee's eyes, an intelligent self-assured personality looks back at us. If they are animals, what must we be? — Frans de Waal, d. 2024

Have you also read A Deepness in the Sky? — Pierre-Normand

Yes. I usually reread only the first book (or, alternately, just one other book) in a series. I'll probably reread Peace War too. Overall Vinge's novels are quite good, especially his more speculative ideas.

Only a Singularity can save us? :eyes:

I wonder if it would be possible to effect a fundamental break from outmoded traditional political categories in aid of an agenda of enlightened universal inclusion? — Pantagruel

Globally, we are roughly ten millennia on from living as hunter-gatherers outside of scarcity-driven/reproducing economies 'irregulated' by dominance hierarchies (e.g. theocracies; monarchies-aristocracies; autocracies-oligarchies; (potemkin) democracies; plutocracies-corporatocracies; ... hegemonies). In small numbers and living in uncrowded commons we tend to prefer 'egalitarian freedom over inegalitarian security'; currently, the global population exceeds 8 billion humans with over 90% of us crowded into cities of millions (or tens-to-hundreds of thousands) and towns of thousands of non-familial strangers such that material scarcities are exacerbated by cultural-status scarcities driving all kinds of tribal (i.e. populist) movements which seek 'inegalitarian security "in the name of" egalitarian freedom' (such as e.g. "enlightened universal inclusion"). IMHO, 'global civilization' is a millennia-old, (mostly) viciously circular, scarcity-trap that "traditional politics" seems needed in order to (barely) keep it going without collapsing into a catastrophic state from which it (we) might not be able to recover (... maybe, however, until now: anthropogenic climate change).

There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — Franz Kafka

[P]hilosophy is tasked with finding the questions that need to be answered, and in putting some constraints on the possible answers, and that science is tasked with finding the answers that can be empirically justified. — Malcolm Lett

Works for me. :up:

Taking a scientific viewpoint, I have a strong theory that explains consciousness in purely reductionist mechanistic principles, and I can argue that it explains phenomenal consciousness. But any arguments I present will not be accepted because the explanations are too far from our intuitions.

In science, this quality is a feature not a bug and therefore piques my philosophical interest. :cool:

I've been trying to read Chalmer's The Conscious Mind, and, while Chalmer's was the one who got me interested in consciousness in the first place and I have tremendous respect for him, I am frustrated by the oblique assumptions that riddle his arguments -- assumptions that I don't agree with.

:up:

If you've read Being No One (or its less technical summary The Ego Tunnel) by Thomas Metzinger, I wonder what you think of his phenomenal self model (PSM) of consciousness. If you're not familiar with his work, Malcoim, I highly recommend it given your self-described interest in the philosophy of mind. (Also, this ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755060)

[T]here would be no empirical way of knowing whether the entity was conscious or faking. — Wayfarer

Same with us, no? There also is "no empirical way of knowing" (yet / ever) whether any person is "conscious or faking". Which seems more reasonable, or likely, to you, Wayfarer (or anyone): (A) every human is a zombie with a(n involuntary) 'theory of mind'? or (B) every entity is a 'conscious' monad necessarily inaccessible / inexplicable to one another's 'subjectivity'? or (C) mind is a 'mystery' too intractable for science, even in principle, to explain? or (D) mind is a near-intractably complex phenomenon that science (or AGI) has yet to explain? :chin:

How about Freddy's eternal return – an "afterlife" of This Life lived over again and again and again ... ad infinitum:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/137/Eternal_Recurrence_Revisited

Today in Trumpenfreude:

The old fat orange f*cker's latest grift – launched during Holy Week no less – is a $60 "Trump Bible" for gullible, faux-Christian, "Trump sneakers"-wearing MAGA cultists. You can't make this stooopid stuff up. :lol:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-god-bless-usa-bible-greenwood-2713fda3efdfa297d0f024efb1ca3003

*Biden-Harris 2024* :cool:

What do you expect from me as I am a psychonaut, so I see myself and others as being spirit. — Jack Cummins

Same as every other member of TPF, Jack, I expect from you what I expect from myself: good reasoning and valid arguments rather than unwarranted opinions or superstitions which are more suited for social media gossip than rational discussions. So you're just a "psychonaut" :sparkle: and not a (non-academic) philosopher?

Maybe this will interest you, Jack; maybe not ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/891620

:lol:

... somewhere in the middle of that Idealism---Realism range ... — Gnomon

Clarify, if you can, why you believe "Idealism and Realism" are disparate conceptual positions on a continuum which are different by degrees rather than different in kind.

:up:

However, there does appear to be an essential lifeforce, like the spark of consciousness or animation. — Jack Cummins

"Appear" to whom? Like aether, phlogiston, qi ... elan vital has been debunked as a "force" or "energy", so are you speaking metaphorically? The philosophical significance of "essential lifeforce" is lost on an Epicurean/Spinozist like me.

As for FOX News and MAGA, I'm not American, I don't live in the US. — boethius

And you are entitled to your conspicuously uninformed, spectator's opinion, sir/mam. :victory:

The only "commonalities" I can discern in the many prevailing "afterlife" scenarios is that they are completely unwarranted substance dualities and anthropic idealized immortality schemes – wishful thinking (i.e. too good to be true)! And, in the main, belief in "the hereafter" tends to devalue here & now both morally (e.g. theodicy, martyrdom) and politically (e.g. "evangelical" climate change denialism).

Fortunately, Loser-1 won't win the 2024 election. Already an adjudicated rapist, he'll be a convicted felon, effectively broke & out-of-business by this fall with five more civil laws suits for "January 6th" pending (maybe 1-2 will be underway) and 2-3 criminal trials to follow in 2025 (not counting more 2020 Election Interference indictments to drop in Arizona & Michigan). :clap: :party:

I don't believe that 'mind' can be reduced to psychology, because it is at the core of human existence. — Jack Cummins

I agree but for a contrary reason: I think body is "at the core of human existence" and that "mind" is a description, in part, for what our bodies – brains – mostly involuntarily do (i.e. our 'subjective' way of talking about ourselves and others). Just as 'existence precedes essence' in existentialism, body enables-constrains mind is the basis of embodied philosophy (but given your more 'esoteric' preferences, you"ve ignored for years the links and lists I've offered, Jack, so I won't bother referring to them again) that deflates or eliminates reliance on 'folk psychology' (i.e. dis-embodied subject (soul) ... and the prevailing apologia e.g. psychoanalysis, psychotherapy ... Husserlian phenomenology, Kantian/Hegelian idealism, Cartesian dualism, Platonism). I suppose my stubborn anti-supernaturalist bias is why I can't grok subjectivist (or spiritualist) conceptions of "mind". :sparkle: :eyes:

update:

From a 2023 thread Consciousness question ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/756241

If determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to whomever we think is "actually" morally culpable. There cannot be a vantage point for us outside of this causal nexus to differentiate right or wrong about assigning "actual moral culpability". That distinction has no meaning if determinism is the case.

If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable — Truth Seeker

On the contrary: if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone (i.e. beings like ourselves at least).

I read it. You make statements but not a valid argument for your assertion that

we should expect an afterlife that plays closer to our ideals than the aforementioned bottomless pit of fire - or an arbitrary eternity in heaven. — ToothyMaw

As far as I can tell, there's no more reason "we should expect" this than e.g. my 'reliving ancestral lives' scenario. I thought I was responding to your speculative fantasy with my own. I'd replied previously (here ) to @Tom Storm's more philosophically interesting questions about the "afterlife" which maybe you've missed.

Btw, I have two arguments for the "afterlife" – one based on N. Bostrom's "Simulation Hypothesis" and another based on pandeism – but I'll be offline for next few hours so, if you're interested, I'll post them both later.

You want an argument for the proposition 'there is an afterlife?'

Why is it not relevant? Your OP is speculating on fantasy, isn't it? Not sarcasm either.

It seems more reasonable to me than the inverse that mathematics was/is invented and that applications for it were/are discovered.

Death sends one back to relive one's father's life or mother's life until he or she dies sending one back again to father's or mother's father or mother (one's grandfather or grandmother) reliving again and dying again ... back and back through hundreds and thousands of generations ... to witness those 'inner lives' like lucid dreams yet unable to change anything ... perhaps eventually (mercifully?) losing oneself in the torrential flood of ancestral memories ... finally(?) reliving the life of one's species' common ancestor and then having to choose (for that primordial creature) whether to breed offspring and die or not to breed offspring and live forever.

update – For coherence sake, maybe this "afterlife" only happens to those who have outlived at least one parent and have died childless.

Clarify what are you asking about – I don't see the relevance.

[N]umbers are real but not material... — Wayfarer

... except whenever they are instantiated.

What do you imagine were some of the attributes of this deity? — Tom Storm

I think pandeus is unimaginable.

Did it have anything approaching a 'personality'?

No (à la: Spinoza's substance or Epicurus' void or Laozi's dao).

Or is it more of a metaphoric entity?

A metaphysical entity.

:up:

"Fantasy" is what we make out of the "reality" we find, no?

:100:

Don't sulk ...

Cite a 'supernatural-Y' that (testably) explains some natural-X. — 180 Proof

Speculatively, as a pandeist ...

What would it mean to be without being? — Tom Storm

I suppose it means "to be without being" a being.

What would we do without all the physicalisms that make up human identity?

I suppose one wouldn"t be "human" any longer ... like a butterfly is no longer a caterpillar after chrysalis.

How would our consciousness, with is shaped by being embodied, adjust to a new nonphysical realm, I wonder?

I suppose "our consciousness" is merely a drop in the ocean of being.

Is the afterlife non-physical or is it just physical somewhere else?

I suppose "afterlife" might be a physical phase-state (of higher dimensions?) that physical scientists have not discovered yet. :smirk:

:lol: I'm not even a "liberal" (or member of the Democratic Party). Pro tip: stop disinforming yourself with FOX Noise (or other MAGA media).

Again, here's an undisputable Conservative, ex-GOP campaign consultant/operative you (& @NOSA2) can learn something from (other than "alternative facts") ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890305