A photo-receptor cell is 'conscious' of light. A cochlear hair cells is 'conscious' of sound...etc

Seems pretty simple to me. If “redness” is the state of being red, “fitness” is the state of being fit, why shouldn’t consciousness be the state of being conscious?

But so dichotomizing doesn't so far make sense to me. This because I do not deem actual, concrete experience to be the same as physicality. It almost seems that you believe in experience's equivalence to physicality. Can you better explain this, or how this is a mistaken interpretation of your view? My bad if I've missed this explanation somewhere in the thread.

You seem to be confusing subjective concepts with physical objects. In the typical bar magnet illustration of a magnetic fleld, you never sense the field itself, only its effect on iron filings.

In what sense can Qualia be physical?

What does "not directly physical" mean?

Qualia, (as Dennett described it) is basically non-physical/Metaphysical abstract phenomenon.

There is really nothing else it could be... . The common examples include any type of human sentience, love, will, intuition, and so on.

Firstly, physicality is itself an abstraction.

Again, you can't compare quarks to hunger, but both are equally real.

I'm pretty sure all emergent properties are equally real, including subjective ones.

We accept the simple abstract pixelated icon as-if it is the complex concrete mechanism inside the black box computer. And that acceptance is a useful belief for our non-technical purposes. What we see is 2D pixels, constructed by 4D computer processes, to represent some aspect of reality outside the box. Hence, Hoffmane asserts : "we see the theories we believe". You and I act as-if our senses are reporting reality, when actually all they see is the symbols. In other words, we see reality in the form of as-if ideas, not as-is matter & energy.

That's why I make a pragmatic distinction between Reality (sensory) and Ideality (mental).

As suggested by Zelebg, consciousness is in the "bricks", the basic components of material reality.

As I like to describe that process, everything in the world begins as a form of Information : the clay that composes the bricks, from which our reality is constructed.

...how did self-awareness evolve from the universe?

Oh fercrissakes, no I do not. I don’t give a crap how existence should be defined, in order to show the concept “existence” as it is already defined, or at least understood, adds nothing to the conception “experience”, in a synthetic a priori logical judgement.

This represents a long-standing principle of basic epistemological metaphysics, at least since Aristotle.

You: Existence of experience is what defines the difference between conscious and unconscious human
Me: Experience is what defines the difference between conscious and unconscious human

And the point is: Nope, no way...not on even a good day in hell...can a category be used to underwrite a cognition not originated in sensibility.

I’m assuming the comment I was responding to implied that experience has some kind of existence.

We can think whatever we want about “experience”; we just don’t gain anything by saying it exists.

There’s no profit in thinking experience is something that exists.

There are limits to what science can explain.

Yeah Zelebg that’s not really a tone befitting the forum.

I guess I'm not normal, or perhaps I'm just unconventional

In my previous post, I noted that the whole point of Shannon's Information Theory and its application to computers is precisely because it minimizes uncertainty.

My question remains; how can consciousness be logically possible (?).

No. I'm using a broader definition of "Information" as both noun and verb.

For an Amazonian tribesman, the coded information may be completely meaningless

To that end, I also go back to what you said in an earlier thread that there is much value to analogizing existing phenomena and to make appropriate inferences accordingly...

Similarly; qualia, sentience, and 1st person experience goes beyond Subjectivity (subjective truth's) in trying to understand their nature. Other than relegating them to metaphysical phenomena, we have nothing to describe them.

And so I am thinking that leaves the door open for all sorts of odd or absurd notions existing in another reality.

Why do you ask?

That depends on how many alternative interpretations are possible.

As a computer algorithm, the Gaussian uncertainty is small.

Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty.

10 print "hello world!"
20 goto 10

Metaphysical abstracts are alive and well!

Think of a simple item of information: 'The cat sits on the mat'. I can write that in any one of a number of languages, all of which consist of arrangements of different symbols in a different order. I can write it in pencil on a piece of paper, or I could send it by morse code, or even flags or smoke signals. In all cases, the information remains the same, but the physical form is completely different.

Therefore, the information is different to the physical form.

Now, what arranged that matter to convey that meaning?

Think of it as though the entire universe is a computer program, but there is no hardware running the program, the software is the primary level of reality. Every object in reality is a little "program", a function of some kind.

The concrete universe is an abstract object, a Platonic form if you like to think of it that way, a mathematical thing, just like a computer program is (software is made of math and logic).