Hi, Philosophim,

that's exactly what I meant: you donate because it's better for you. — Jacques

No, I mean I do it because its the right thing to do. I have the money, and its for a good cause. I decide to. Its not for personal benefit like going to the movies or something. Trust me, I can find far more ways to enjoy the money and I wouldn't feel a twinge of guilt. Not everything is about personal benefit.

I generally think practice or doing is more important than theory, but I hear you. — Tom Storm

I previously noted that I feel a goal of philosophy is to construct definitions that are useful. Theory is interesting, but practice is useful.

A useful definition I have gone by is a transgender person is someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. That's a standard definition. — Tom Storm

Yes, I am aware of this standard definition, and it doesn't make sense to me. If gender is a social construct, how can you have one that doesn't fit your body? It would make more sense that you don't have a social construct that fits your social setting, not your body.

I do not abide by insulting people for their sexual or gender preferences. I care about clear communication, and requests of people that make logical sense. Being afraid of being called a bigot or some other horrible word for wanting to explore this comes with the territory of philosophy. I understand your implications and your fears Tom. Such fears can be diminished however if the attitude going in ensures that the focus is on the logic, and not derision or insults. I appreciate your points and understand why you are bowing out.

Bear in mind definitions are tricky - we can't really define religion as Karen Armstrong and our own Wayfarer point out. — Tom Storm

In my view setting up definitions that can then be taken and applied to the world in meaningful ways is one of the major goals of philosophy. Its not that we can't define things, it is that it is difficult and many people are content with using what gets them through life without having to think too hard about it.

In your day to day interactions, I'm sure there's no issue with transgendered individuals. That is not what this discussion is about. There is an active portion of that community that is insisting, not merely requesting, that people call them particular pronouns or that they be able to play cross sex sports. That to deny this is transphobic. That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Focusing on the vocabulary allows me to start a discussion for those who are interested in exploring the concept. If you are not, that's fine, but its not an impossible topic to think about.

My understanding is it's gender, which is separate to biological sex. But I'm not one for debating this minefield of a subject, I'm no expert and people understand it in different ways. I'm happy to support trans-people and I've never experienced any problems associated with the issue in the years I have known and/or worked with trans or gender diverse people. — Tom Storm

No one is disparaging you or hopefully taking this conversation as a measure of whether you support trans people. This is about exploring the terminology and trying to make a clear distinction of what is appropriate and right in regards to the use of gender vs sex. When I see the word "transgender" in popular culture it is currently unclear and confusing. I see certain requests being made that do not make sense to me if transgender is defined as I've seen it. To me, this asks for a discussion about how we as a society should interact with trans people's requests, like wanting to cross sports for example.

I don’t use the word “gender” anymore unless it refers to grammar. Better to abandon the term, I say, and stick to “sex”. It basically clears up any confusion. — NOS4A2

It is a useful word however if it accurately describes a cultural expectation for a sex to act or present in society.

What tradition? The sex/gender distinction doesn't have enough history to have a tradition. Pronouns were and are applied to a conglomerate of what we now consider sex and gender. — hypericin

I disagree with this. In cultures across the world there have always been cross dressers or people who took on cultural expressions of the other sex, but were always still seen as their sex. There are male and female cross dressers, but no one thought a cross dresser became the opposite sex of what they are. Please give me an example in which one a person's enactment of the opposite sex erased their actual sex in the culture.

They don't think their body matches their sense of self. — Tom Storm

Is this in the sense of gender, or sex though? If its sex, I think that has some actual merit. This would be a transsexual, which is different then being transgender.

There are some who argue that gender is pulley a social
construct, but I dont think you’ll find that to be a majority view within the gay community. My own view is that the biological and the social are inextricably, and for many who believe they were born with their particular gender already put in place, the idea that gender is strictly socially constructed is ludicrous — Joshs

If you believe that gender is not a social construct, then please feel free to offer the alternative, and how it is separate from sex. As for the definition of gender above, what if we have different gender viewpoints of how a man and woman should act? What if I believe wearing a dress is what women do, but then I go to Japan and see males wear kimonos or go to Scotland and see males wearing kilts?

The way the situation is usually presented is that the transgender community believes that transgender people who are biologically male should be legally and socially treated and named as women with the reverse being true for those who are biologically female. Is that not correct? — T Clark

It was my terms of gender and sex. Its difficult to address all members of the transgender community as different factions have different wants. I simply started with the terms "gender and sex" as to my knowledge, is generally agreed upon by the majority of the community. If some in the community with what you've asked above, my point is that this does not line up with the terms they've offered.

A lot of us do things that don't benefit ourselves because we believe in living more than an emotional life. This is not to brag, this is to inform, but I've donated to water.org for years. This helps bring fresh water and to places that don't have it in the world. I don't get a tax break from it. I don't tell anyone I do it (except you) and I will never meet anyone who benefitted from it or gain anything more than a slight emotional satisfaction from it.

My temptation is to stop donating. But I know I have the money and I know it goes toward some good somewhere else in the world. It is better for me to donate, so I do. Don't be so quick to paint all of humanity in a particular way. There are a lot of varied people out there.

Perhaps you could share with us some of the things that have set you off. You have a lot of well versed people on here, as well as those who would give great thought to your issues. One of the cures to any form of depression is to avoid isolation. Of course, you need to be with people that you feel comfortable sharing and enjoying life with. You might find a few here.

That's the supposed paradox. Switching doesn't increase our expected return, but the reasoning given suggests that it does. So we need to make sense of this contradiction. — Michael

Yeah, I don't see that as a paradox, just a misunderstanding of what the math is representing. The average represents the outcomes if you select one of the outcomes. It doesn't apply in any way to whether you should switch your decision before you see the reveal.

This can be easily seen by simply swapping money with a card that say 1, and then 2. Over the course of several selections, the average result will be X. But that's irrelevant to if we want a particular outcome. Lets say we start with wanting "2" to be selected. The calculated average of outcomes is the same. Now lets say that another person wants "1" to be selected. The calculated average of outcomes is the same.

The average of outcomes is irrelevant then to what we want to pick. It tells us no information regarding whether we should switch our choice or not. The addition of money does not change this, it only changes that everyone wants one of the 50% chance outcomes. But wanting a particular outcome has nothing to do with whether we should switch our choice before the reveal. Its always 50/50 no matter if there is money or a simply cards with numbers in them.

Finally, you have to calculate the average using the idea that each is 1/2, or a 50% chance of being selected. Meaning its hard set that its only a 50% chance. It is impossible to go from having a 50% chance, to then telling someone they have a greater chance of winning what they want if they switch their initial choice. Its still 50/50.

Thanks Michael.

Ok, I think I see a little clearer what this is trying to do, but it still doesn't quite line up.

So it makes sense to use an average here in our decision whether to play. But it doesn't say anything about us switching between heads and tails repeatedly as our guess before we see the coin, which is the situation with the envelope.

All the average return on the envelope tells us is that if we keep playing over the long term, its going to average a return greater than one. But we actually have to play. It doesn't tell us anything about our indecision or which choice we should finally land on.

Then you should read this and this. — Michael

Thank you, I missed your link in the original OP as well.

I still don't understand how they apply their math to this situation.
The 5/4 is an expected value, which is an average. But the situation doesn't call for an average because its either or. You either get A, or 2A.

Numbers and their outcomes need to match the representative realities they are equating. Applying an average to a situation in which an average is not in consideration is not a rational application of math. Its like saying people have an average of 1.5 kids and then betting that you'll have half of a kid born. It doesn't make any sense.

You've clearly done your math wrong. I'm not sure how you're getting the equation that you are, not only in what you've done, but by what the equation stands for.

The amount of money in the envelope is irrelevant, so I'm not sure why that's part of your equation. You have two envelopes, and one is an intended outcome. If you pick randomly, its a 50% chance that you get the intended outcome. If you switch, its the same odds. Your x's, y's, and z's are irrelevant to this outcome.

To fix violence we need a culture of empowerment. Hate makes you feel powerful. A gun in your hands murdering people that you despise makes you feel GOOD. But if you already have success, power, and basic respect from the people around you, it doesn't. Hate is the easy go to for the person starved of empowerment. When there are less starving people to sell it to, it doesn't take hold as easily.

I am claiming that there is a reason he is imagining a “subjective experience”, the evidence being that he says it. That he wants it to be “explained” by a “mechanism” is not me “reading intentions”, it is the implications of his getting to his reason from those means. — Antony Nickles

Having written several complex and complicated papers that examine every angle before coming to a conclusion, I have some background to note that this is actually terrible writing. Writing should narrow in on a point so the reader has clarity. After the point is written, let the reader expand from there.

He is right to use the terms and points he is so that even a reader not well versed in philosophy can understand his point. That's fantastic writing. His reference is to sight blindness, and he's attempting to use medical and scientific terminology to explore a concept. Nothing wrong with that. His lack of exploring Locke is not an intention we can fairly make.

He has a problem. He has certain knowledge and vocabulary. From there he constructs an idea that is simple, relatable, powerful, and succinct. That's fantastic philosophy. Critique his main conclusions, the idea of solving the hard problem. If he chooses to sprinkle meaning behind it, why is that relevant to his main point at all? It sounds like you're more upset with where you think this can go than with his immediate idea.

I feel your reading intentions into the article that are not being insinuated. I would re-read it once more. This is proposing a mechanism to explain how the subjective experience occurs within the brain. That's the crux and really nothing more.

Yes, the properties of matter are not adequate to produce or explain subjective experience. — Eugen

This is entirely incorrect. Currently not understanding exactly how matter and energy interact to create a subjective experience does not negate the observed fact that matter and energy can interact to make a subjective experience.

Fantastic article! This is where philosophy gets exciting.

Its not a supreme being, but a supreme identity. We could call it the summation of all sub identities. Thus talking about a multiverse still boils down to the summation of all multiverses being the supreme universe.

Monism is essentially foundationalism. You're trying to find a foundation that has no prior identity, and it is not a sub identity of anything else. Ice = water = H20 = molecules = existence. Existence is the final identity that basically describes everything that all entities can simplify down to.

Because we are the one's who essentially create identities, creating an identity that is supreme is not only possible, but logically inevitable.

Is there any reason using that logic we cannot group all the universe's entities together and call the grouping the one supreme entity? — Art48

That is exactly what I am stating. Identities are mental constructs that we as humans can create. There is no limit to what we can identify. As such, it a logical allowance to do so.

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48

Because logically identities boil down to that. Lets say there were two realities. We can now group them together into the one supreme reality that exists. Monism per your definition does not exclude breaking that monad into parts, it simply observes that everything can eventually be grouped into a fundamental identity.

The careful difference is that the statement, "A triangle is a three sided shape" does not mean such a thing actually exists apart from our own definitions or imaginations. It is a blueprint and nothing more. Many of the mistakes in epistemology come from thinking that because we can define a word, it somehow makes it real apart from the definition we created.

Another thing to consider is why would God care if you believe in him? If God is an all powerful knowing being, what does it matter to him? And if it DID matter to him, why would he not just show everyone? The idea that you have to believe in God despite there being a massive lack of evidence for God sounds like a cruel game from a divine being.

What determined the beard as masculine rather than feminine? — Benj96

Just a fun discovery they found recently. It turns out that a beard absorbs impact from blows from fists or other blunt attacks. Since men fight more, those with beards had a slight advantage in fights. You could also conjecture that since they took less damage to their faces, they remained more attractive than those without beards.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context

My answer here.

In sum, we create identities through our experiences of the world, then try to match those identities either deductively or inductively to later experiences. When you can deductively match that identity to an experience, you know it. When you inductively do so, you believe it. However, different ways of inducing can result in beliefs that are more logical to believe in than others.

Meaningless to whom" because 'whom' is the object of the preposition. 'Who' is subjective. In the vast meaningless mess of the cosmos, grammar rules abide. — BC

Grammar evolves. 'Whom' is largely outdated at this point when speaking colloquially. If you're going to be dumb and nitpick someone's grammar instead of the content of their post, at least be smart about it.

Edit: Saw you edit in a compliment to the post after I mentioned this, thanks.

Because in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. Everything that we do, all that we do, just seems so minuscule & insignificant, when seen from the bigger picture of everything. — niki wonoto

I want to ask you a very simple question. "Meaningless to who?" You see, there's an implicit undercurrent in your statement. You're looking to some sentience that will clarify meaning for you. Lets say your mother tells you she had you so you can mow the lawn. So you get up everyday and mow the lawn, knowing that is your purpose in life. But that's your purpose in life to your mother, not to yourself.

So the question is, why do you feel you need to have a purpose for someone other than yourself? Barring that, there are people in your life who see purpose in you by associating with you. Why do you feel that that's not meaningful? When you save an insect in your house by putting it outside instead of stomping it, you've created meaning to that insect. Same as if you terrify and stomp it.

Lets say something told you your meaning was something that you hated and seemed purposeless to your personally. For example, mow your mother's lawn. Would you feel satisfied? Likely not. Perhaps because what you really aren't looking for is meaning, but a feeling that you've somehow associated with the word "meaning".

Perhaps what you're looking for is finding a feeling for yourself that gives you a feeling of satisfaction when you accomplish something. Let me tell you, its out there. Maybe its your job, your family, or even questioning the meaning of life on a philosophy board. The feeling of being satisfied for accomplishing something is rarely going to be handed out by someone else, but must be found from within. Explore your interests. Take risks. Take chances on things you've wanted to do if you can. Your every attempt won't always find it, but keep at it and you'll find success.

Its sad. I find older people who have lived their lives in luxury tend to fear things that they do not understand and react with cowardice. As a white man I lived five years in inner city minority neighborhoods. Two apartments I've lived in I was the only white person. I also taught high school math for five years where my students were almost entirely black and hispanic.

Beyond minor cultural differences, there was no difference then with living in majority white neighborhoods. And for those who I know have an internal double take, I'll re-emphasize. There was none. Certain aspects of society play up the negative components of minority culture unfortunately, and I know what its like to be a white person from a white community first going into minority neighborhoods. I wanted to learn. I get having that initial fear and bias. Its normal. Its the same as any person who decides to venture outside of their culture. The problem is when people make judgements based on that bias and fear alone instead of trying to understand first.

You may not be aware of how much information and discovery computers have opened up, but neuroscience back then really is the stone age comparatively.
— Philosophim

Find me a citation that shows that Wilder Penfield's experimental verification that subjects were aware that their own volitional actions were separate from those caused by the surgeon has been overturned. — Wayfarer

No, I agree with that fact. It was his conclusion that there must be some type of dualism that I'm contending has no basis today.

You can't have it both ways. First you acknowledge that life seeks to extend the scope of 'ordinary' chemical reactions, and then as soon as that is pointed out, you say 'well, actually it doesn't, regular chemical reactions are doing that. — Wayfarer

No, I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that life = group of chemical reactions that seek to self-sustain. You seem to put some attribute beyond the physical to it. I don't. That's just one aspect of physical reality.

Can you extend your consciousness outside of your physical body? No.
— Philosophim

You don't know that, it's simply an assumption because in the normal state of being we naturally associate with the body. — Wayfarer

We both know that because we cannot do it. Its like saying I don't know that a unicorn that you cannot sense doesn't exist. No, I know such a thing does not exist. To know that we can do something is to have actually done it at least once.

Thank you for your engagement Wayfarer, its always a good discussion. However, I don't want to derail the OP's thread. Feel free to have the last word, or create a new thread and I'll join you there if you want further discussion.

Analogous to what?
— Philosophim
"Analogous" is a logical classification of meaning. It means that a term is predicated in a way that is partly the same and partly different. — Dfpolis

Again, "consciousness" is an analogous term.
— Dfpolis

Yes, we all know what analogous means. You described consciousness as analogous. That means it is partly the same and partly different to what? Its like if you said, "Consciousness is a very term". Very what?

I am noting your position was that it was logically impossible to link consciousness to a physical basis
— Philosophim
I made no such claim. You continue to waste my time. — Dfpolis

I believe the exact quote was here: "I shall argue that it is logically impossible to reduce consciousness, and the intentional realities flowing out of it, to a physical basis." Part 3 page 100. But hey, if you didn't write that, ok then.

Congrats on publishing your article! *Pats you on the back*

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

It was almost 70 years ago Wayfarer. You may not be aware of how much information and discovery computers have opened up, but neuroscience back then really is the stone age comparatively. You really shouldn't be looking into neuroscience beyond the last 20-30 years honestly.

However on second reading, you’re differentiating life from chemistry, by saying that ‘life seeks to sustain and extend….’ So you’ve introduced the element of intentionality which I agree is necessary and which I don’t believe has any analogy in materialism. — Wayfarer

Sure, if you want to use intentionality to describe chemical reactions that attempt to keep the chemical reactions going, that's fine by me. I just think that's an aspect of the physical world, and not anything else.

I mean, at its basic Wayfarer, why is your consciousness stuck in your head?
— Philosophim

Don’t accept that it is. Conscious thought is an activity of the brain, but consciousness does indeed extend throughout your body and permeates all living things to one degree or another. — Wayfarer

That's perfectly fair. I had wondered if that was how you view consciousness, as its a bit of a subjective term. But once again the point I made remains. Can you extend your consciousness outside of your physical body? No.

The fact that we're going back and forth on what consciousness is after I've read your paper should reveal to you that you didn't make a clear case of what it meant to you to your reader.
— Philosophim
No, it only illustrates the difficulty humans have in letting go of preconceptions. — Dfpolis

No, it really means you don't have a clear definition of consciousness that a reader can understand. Instead of simply retyping or pointing out the clear case to refute my point, you've huffed yourself up and just blamed me for not simply being open to considering how amazingly right you are. Not a good counter.

Can drugs alter our consciousness, yes, or no? If yes, then we can reduce consciousness to a physical basis.
— Philosophim
Non sequitur. It only shows that there is a dependence (which I affirm), not that the particular dependence explains all the known operations. — Dfpolis

That's not a non sequitur at all. If consciousness depends on a physical basis, then it is up to you to demonstrate aspects of consciousness that do not depend on a physical basis. I already mentioned that we do not have to know every little thing in how a physical process works to know it is still a physical process, so your point is moot here.

A very simple definition of what consciousness means to you could help here.
— Philosophim
Asked and answered. — Dfpolis

Again, "consciousness" is an analogous term. — Dfpolis

Analogous to what? That is neither a clear nor simple definition. This answers nothing.

The only organisms we know to experience awareness of intelligibility are humans. — Dfpolis

No, I just gave you an example of dog expressing intelligibility. I even gave you the opportunity to note that intelligibility only convers to spoken or written language, which you have neither confirmed nor denied. The fact you just make claims instead of explaining why your claims are correct persuades no one.

If anything, that would be odd to limit consciousness to only the human physical form while simultaneously denying it is linked to neurons, or any other physical basis.
— Philosophim
You persist in misrepresenting my position. That is not a sign of good faith. I have said repeatedly that conscious thought depends on neural representation and processing. — Dfpolis

No, your position is unclear. Your assumption that I am misrepresenting your position after a reader has told you your work seems unclear, is not a sign of good faith. Its your job when someone misunderstands your work to clearly and politely point out where they've misunderstood the position. If they've misrepresented it, explain the misrepresentation and move on. I am not intentionally trying to misrepresent your position. You have spent days of your life constructing and thinking on it. I have spent an hour. Point me to lines of your work that clarify the issue. See how I'm referencing your words in your paper, then saying why I think they're incorrect? Show me other words of your paper that clarify what you mean.

You are also misunderstanding my meaning. Reread the context of what I am saying again. I am noting your position was that it was logically impossible to link consciousness to a physical basis. By consequence, that means you are claiming it is impossible to link consciousness to neurons. The way I understand it is you view neurons as creating the sensory "picture" that our consciousness intends to.

Two quotes from you:

"Aristotle’s bridging dynamic is the agent intellect (νοῦς ποιητικóς). Sensible objects engender a
physical ‘image’ he calls a phantasm (φάντασμα). We would call it a neural representation. Since
the phantasm’s intelligibility cannot make itself known, something else, capable of intentional
effects, must do so. This is the agent intellect."

"Since neural processing cannot effect awareness, an extra element is required, as Aristotle
argued and Chalmers seconds."

So here you seem to be implying that consciousness is separate from neurons, or the physical. As if it is some other thing apart from neuronal activity that analyses and intends to what those neurons provide. And if that is the case, then I believe my point has merit. If consciousness only has intentional effects on what neurons provide, but does not come from them, why would consciousness be only tied to intention upon neurons? Why not plants or dogs?

How is my experiencing the color red a particular way not my subjective awareness?
— Philosophim
I did not say it was not an instance of subjective awareness. Still, experiencing qualia is just one kind of such awareness. Knowing that pi is an irrational number is another, and it does not have a quale. — Dfpolis

Then don't tell me I'm ignoring subjective awareness.

If you want me to address other aspects of your work, you'll need to address the points I feel unclear or problamatic first.
— Philosophim
I have. I am growing impatient with going over the same ground with you, as it wastes my time. — Dfpolis

No, you have often been unclear in your answers, or dismissive by mentioning you've published a paper and have a book. You have not clearly pointed out areas in your work which would refute or clarify the issues you are trying to make. I am your reader. I am not wasting your time. When a person has spent days writing and no one responds, be it positive or negative, that is a waste of your time. You have a reader who is willing to engage with you. Someone to sell your idea to, to show the passion and outcome of your hard work to. It is very much worth your time. Why write anything if that is your attitude?

You may have wanted to devote more time to it then. At least to the point where you would have understood my reference was not claiming to be a fact or evidence, and a perfectly reasonable thing to mention.
— Philosophim
I suggest you read the section of my paper addressing information in computers. — Dfpolis

I did. It addressed a very cursory look at primitive computation and not the modern day analysis of advanced AI.

Never imply to your reader that they should just accept that you are right because you've published an article or written a book. Don't simply be dismissive of a reader's points, counter them with clarity and citation. Maybe you will have an audience larger than a forum one day. That will be your chance to make a name for yourself, don't screw it up by behaving like you are here. Publishing does not mean you've made it or that you've changed minds. You'll need to hear from others and be able to defend your work. So far, you have not done a great job at it. Be better.

Penfield interpreted that to mean that their own awareness was separate to the reactions he was able to elicit by manipulation. That is why he tended towards a dualist view late in his career. — Wayfarer

I understood. But his beliefs as to "why" the experience happened is like a blind man feeling around in the dark compared to the lights we have today. In fact, we're still feeling around in the dark in many aspects, and we need to be careful that our opinions are not equated to anything more meaningful than our own personal satisfaction in holding them.

The 'placebo effect' and many other aspects of psychosomatic medicine show a 'downward causative' effect from states of mind and beliefs to actual physiology. According to the 'bottom-up' ontology of materialism, this ought never to happen. (Hence the hackneyed saying 'mind over matter'.) — Wayfarer

First, if you remember I don't ascribe to "materialism", or "physicalism" or really most "isms". They are often times isolated theories for a simple understanding of issues that break down when you really need to think about their subjects.

If you think about the statement, "States of mind and beliefs should never cause changes in physiology," its very quickly disproved. With concentration or distraction I can overcome hunger. Being happy and experiencing pleasant social interactions can improve your health. And if the mind is physical, then it can interact with the physical world. To say the state of one's mind couldn't impact the physical world, when it clearly is in the physical world, is the statement that is less believable.

Thank you for linking the article, but I could not read it as I do not have a subscription. I did note that article was from 2016, and found another study in 2019 that confirmed the original assessment. https://qz.com/1569158/neuroscientists-read-unconscious-brain-activity-to-predict-decisions

The problem that is always going to undermine physicalism or materialism is that being has a dimension that no physical process has. A first-person experience has a dimension of feeling that can never be replicated in a third-person or objective description. It's a very hard point to articulate, as it is more an implicit reality than an objective phenomenon. That is what the argument about 'the hard problem of consciousness' seeks to illuminate, and from your analysis of it, I'm not persuaded you see the point. — Wayfarer

I may not have been as clear as I liked then. I agree with this sentence entirely. "A first-person experience has a dimension of feeling that can never be replicated in a third-person or objective description". This is the hard problem essentially. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a physical process underlying it. It also doesn't mean that we can't affect consciousness physically, or understand that though we do not know the exact mechanism, it is fundamentally a physical process.

I mean, at its basic Wayfarer, why is your consciousness stuck in your head? Why can't it float out or even extend out to your feet? Try thinking locally within your foot. Try thinking outside of your physical self. Try getting drunk and have it not affect your consciousness. Even though we can't objectively know what its like to be someone else, that doesn't deny all the very obvious facts that demonstrate consciousness is a physical thing.

The acceptance of a paper does not mean it cannot be written better.
— Philosophim
I agree, but quick acceptance is a sign that the reviewers found merit in it. — Dfpolis

And yet you posted here for analysis and critique. The argument, "Well it was published" does not negate my point. Feel free to disagree with my analysis, but I did not hear you tie in why you needed to cover everyone you did to make your point. The fact that we're going back and forth on what consciousness is after I've read your paper should reveal to you that you didn't make a clear case of what it meant to you to your reader.

This does not militate against anything I said. Since the brain process the contents we are aware of, modifying how the brain operates by drugs, trauma or in any other way can modify the contents we are aware of. Aquinas knew this in the 13th c. — Dfpolis

Yet you stated a main goal of this paper on consciousness was: "I shall argue that it is logically impossible to reduce consciousness, and the intentional realities flowing out of it, to a physical basis."

You'll need to clarify for me. Can drugs alter our consciousness, yes, or no? If yes, then we can reduce consciousness to a physical basis. If the answer is yes, and we cannot, then please explain why. A very simple definition of what consciousness means to you could help here.

The problem again though, is that your information would not be able to be objectively compared to any other person's subjective experience because you cannot experience it.
— Philosophim
This misunderstands the nature of scientific observation. Generally, it does not matter if one person or a whole group witnesses a phenomenon. What is important is the ability of others to replicate the same type of phenomena -- and that is just as possible with 1st person observations as it is with 3rd person observations. Of course, I cannot know if my quale of red is your quale of red, but we can and do know that humans have such qualia. So that is a scientific fact. So also is our awareness of intelligibility. — Dfpolis

Then you are misunderstanding me and I will attempt to be clearer. We are agreeing here. We can know that each sees red through things like the color spectrum. But yes, we cannot know what its like for you to experience red. I know what its like for myself to experience red, but no one else can.

You are free to write an article with your preferred definition. I said what I mean by the term, which is all that clear communication requires. — Dfpolis

Hm. If you want me to pat you on your back and say, "Good job!" because you published an article, I can do that. If you want to have a discussion, then I'll stay. You should consider there are plenty of people here who have also published articles and books, but know better than to think that affords them any special consideration in a critique of their work.

Natural science has never found a soul, so it is not a problem to solve.
— Philosophim
Then, why did you raise it? — Dfpolis

I did not, you did in the original quote. I'm getting the feeling you're not really considering my points, or you are and are unable to answer them.

I am not sure what point, if any, you are making. In my paper, I am not discussing plant, but human experience. We know other humans are conscious because they are analogous to us, and they verbally confirm that they are self-aware. We do not know this about other beings, but we do know that we can explain all of our observations of them without assuming that they are aware of intelligibility. — Dfpolis

Your paper addresses consciousness. Consciousness is something attributed to beings besides human beings. Dogs for example. You can train a dog to listen to commands, and a dog can non-verbally communicate with you. Now if you mean intelligibility only terms of the written or spoken language, or intelligibility and consciousness purely in human terms, then I did not glean that from your paper. I would call this an omission in your consideration, especially if you are attempting to show that consciousness cannot be logically reduced to a physical basis. If anything, that would be odd to limit consciousness to only the the human physical form while simultaneously denying it is linked to neurons, or any other physical basis.

If you believe that consciousness is only defined as, "Having a subjective experience," you are not using a reductive definition of consciousness, which is what you are supposedly railing against.
— Philosophim
I think that "consciousness" is an analogous term that can be defined in many ways. I never claimed to be using "a reductive definition of consciousness." I am not railing against anything, but offering some arguments against the physical reduction of subjective awareness, none of which you have commented upon. — Dfpolis

And yet you said I was conflating consciousness earlier. How could I conflate if it can be defined many ways? How can you argue your points about consciousness using the word "impossibility" if it can be defined many ways? I am commenting on things you have mentioned within your paper on your way to making your goal. If you want me to address other aspects of your work, you'll need to address the points I feel unclear or problamatic first.

I have been mentioning subjective awareness repeatedly. How is my experiencing the color red a particular way not my subjective awareness? I look at red, I see red. "That's red" I think. You need to more clearly define your terms, as either I do not understand what you are trying to say, or you do not understand yourself and are answering vaguely in the hopes that I won't notice.

And I never claimed it to be a fact or evidence. I would think you would have looked into the debate of consciousness in AI and this would not be a strange thing to mention.
— Philosophim
I have concluded that it is not worth more time than I have already devoted to it in my book. — Dfpolis

You may have wanted to devote more time to it then. At least to the point where you would have understood my reference was not claiming to be a fact or evidence, and a perfectly reasonable thing to mention.

There was a Canadian neurosurgeon, Wilder Penfield, who was famous for conducting such tests, which he did over many years. He started out a convinced physicalist, but in the end he subscribed to a form of dualism. He noted that patients were always aware that the sensation, memory, etc., evoked by brain stimulation was done to them, but not by them. Penfield found that patients retained a “third person” perspective on mental events evoked by brain stimulation. This lead him to conclude that the patient's mind operated independently of cortical stimulation: — Wayfarer

Dr. Penfield was practicing until 1960. That's before we had computers. Modern neuroscience has come leaps and bounds along. I would be very careful of citing someone from so long ago. Check this for example:

"Using fMRI brain scans, these researchers were able to predict participants’ decisions as many as seven seconds before the subjects had consciously made the decisions. As the researchers concluded in Nature Neuroscience, “Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions, we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings.” "
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unconscious-branding/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it

If the unconscious has already made a decision seconds before the brain is stimulated to think something else, it is not a mystery for portions of the brain to realize it is affected. If I'm swinging my arm and unable to, I'm going to assume something else is stopping it because I'm not getting the expected feedback. So we know the brain can anticipate when its neuronal messages are interrupted or not completed correctly.

2. *One person* steals $0.50 from one million different business, totaling $500,000 profit, but no one single business receives costs anymore than $0.50, making the overall impact minimal. — jasonm

I think the problem comes from your scenarios not being comparatively equal. If we do this instead:

1. A person steals 500,000 from one business that sees the loss as a relative equivalence of 50 cents off of its entire profit.

We now have a more comparative outcome in the fact that the theft overall caused very little damage to the businesses they stole from. This eliminates unnecessary variables and keeps the comparison focused now on the question of whether one type of theft in isolation of all other consequences seems more or less moral than another.

Thank you. I wanted to connect all the points I made because they build one upon another. The reviewers had no problem with that, accepting the paper in 12 days. — Dfpolis

This is irrelevant. The acceptance of a paper does not mean it cannot be written better. You have proper citations, it fits the topic you are looking for, and it addresses a currently popular topic. But it is still a mess that loses its focus. I am quite certain you do not need many of these references to have gotten to your point.

There is more than enough evidence that consciousness results from a physical basis.
— Philosophim
There is no such evidence. There is lots of evidence that the contents of awareness depend on physical processing, but contents are not our awareness of contents (which is what subjective, not medical, consciousness is).

This is just wrong. https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/5-2-altering-consciousness-with-psychoactive-drugs/ At a very basic level humanity has been using drugs for centuries to alter our state of consciousness. Drugs are a physical thing. We can measure how the physical introduction of drugs changes the brain.

Read this about open brain surgery. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/awake-brain-surgery/about/pac-20384913#:~:text=Surgery%20while%20you're%20awake,control%20speech%20and%20other%20skills.&text=Awake%20brain%20surgery%2C%20also%20called,you%20are%20awake%20and%20alert.

Generally surgeons will keep you awake and map your experiences when they stimulate certain areas of the brain. They literally alter your conscious subjective experience.

You do not understand what the Hard Problem is. Chalmers said, "The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect." This is not a problem about the experience of others, but of subjectivity per se. To be a subject is to be one pole in the subject-object relation we call "knowing" -- the pole that is aware of the object's intelligibility. — Dfpolis

I mentioned "others" specifically to avoid the problem your claim runs into. The issue in monitoring other subjective experiences objectively is the fact that we don't know what the user is personally experiencing. If however you were to monitor your own brain state and record your subjective experience, you would be able to correlate the physical changes in your brain to your subjective experience. The problem again though, is that your information would not be able to be objectively compared to any other person's subjective experience because you cannot experience it.

This is not what emergence means.
— Philosophim
The point that contextualizes my definition is that "emergence" is ill-defined. You quote one definition, but there are others. I say what I mean by "emergence" to avoid confusion in what follows. We are all allowed to define our technical terms as we wish. — Dfpolis

Redefining words must be done with care as you then use a common word with a different meaning. No, we do not get to redefine as we wish if we want to be clear and ethical in our communication. If you do, generally it should be a tweak and not a completely new definition. Otherwise, It is a good way to hide points and sneak conflations in that would otherwise be more apparent to readers if you used a new word. I think that emergent is a common enough word that you should have attempted to cobble together a meaning that fit in with currently accepted definitions. Your definition as it is "the impossibility of deducing a phenomenon from fundamental principles, especially those of physics.", is not good. There are plenty of commonly known emergent properties that are not impossible to deduce from fundamental principles. This is too large of a divergence from the original intent of the word.

This is a different problem -- that of "immortality of the soul." It is one that natural science does not have the means to resolve — Dfpolis

Natural science has never found a soul, so it is not a problem to solve. It is like saying the "existence of unicorns" is a different problem. When you are making claims that consciousness is independent of the physical, you need to give evidence. So far all the evidence points to consciousness needing some type of physical medium to exist, and your paper has not shown otherwise.

And yet we find plants react to the world in a way that we consider to be conscious.
— Philosophim
This is equivocating on "consciousness". There is medical consciousness, which is a state of responsiveness, and this is seen, in an analogous way, in plants. That kind of consciousness need not entail subjectivity -- the awareness of the stimuli to which we are responding. You made the point earlier. We cannot know what it is like to be a bat or a plant, or even if it s "like" anything, instead of something purely mechanical -- devoid of an experiential aspect. — Dfpolis

Its not equivocation at all. You also now understand the hard problem. We can know that a being has all of the mechanical aspects of what we would identify with a conscious being. However, we can't know what that actual personal experience of being a conscious plant is. So of course the definition of a reductive consciousness cannot describe the personal subjective experience of the plant. It doesn't even try to.

If you believe that consciousness is only defined as, "Having a subjective experience," you are not using a reductive definition of consciousness, which is what you are supposedly railing against. Your denial that the plant might be "conscious", in the idea that we don't know if it has a subjective experience, is an agreement with my point. Its the hard problem. What we can do at this point is ascribe certain physical processes and responses of "beings" to what we would classify as "conscious". It does not require neurons, and it does not require that we know what the personal subjective experience of the being is.

Almost certainly AI will inevitably, if not somewhere already, be labeled as conscious.
— Philosophim
This non-fact is non-evidence. — Dfpolis

And I never claimed it to be a fact or evidence. I would think you would have looked into the debate of
consciousness in AI and this would not be a strange thing to mention.

Good question MikeB. Lets say we go with the idea that there are forces and objects beyond our control that aren't our body. Does that still prove that others exist? No. But, if you say, "I am a thinker," then if other people thought and could think that they were the thinker, then there would be other "I"s in the world.

Now would you specifically be able to know if they were thinkers? If your definition of "I" never expanded from, "the thinker that knows its thinking", then you could not. And Descartes wasn't leaving it at that either. His goal was simply to start with a foundation to build other knowledge from.

So, we could try a few ideas ourselves. We can't see in other people's heads to know if there is an I there right? Typically though we expand the definition of I to include other aspects of ourself. If a thing matches enough of those, we say, "That's a thinker too." Basing off of Descartes initial line of thinking, where would you go from there to prove that I exist for example?