The idea of panpsychism seems rather strange to me, not to mention that the truth of this idea cannot be verified or falsified.

Our having reasons to do things causes things to happen in the world. Rational causation is a form of downward causation — Pierre-Normand

In my view there is only one real form of causation: physical causation. All other forms are metaphorical or attributional.

This touches upon a point I've been debating ever since joining forums - of reason understood as 'the relations of ideas'. The tendency of reductionism is to conflate the two kinds of causation, physical and logical: which is what we do when we say that 'the brain' acts in a particular way, and so 'produces' thought, because of physical causation. The 'because' of reasons - the 'space of reasons', it has been called - can't be explained in those terms, because it belongs to a different level of explanation. — Wayfarer

As we know from brain research, an idea is not caused by other ideas but by brain activities. These activities remain unknown to us for the majority, because only about ten percent of them are heaved into the consciousness. Let me explain: an idea cannot be a cause already because an idea is a representation, an imagination or a fiction. The sentence "I have an idea." is a symbolic narrative to which no real content corresponds. Neither is there an "I", nor can this "I" "possess" anything, such as an idea, all is just fiction.

This sentence is similar to another one, "I drag the file to the trash." Neither there is a recycle bin on the monitor, nor a file, nor is anything dragged, all just symbols. In reality, we operate the mouse and this triggers actions in the processor, on the hard disk and on the monitor. Similarly, if we say "The red knight has killed the black knight" in a computer game: it's all just symbols and representations.

Much of the linking of brains and consciousness seems to me to be assumed on the basis of alterations in brain function altering what we experience. But why can't the alterations in a rock's functioning alter the rock's experience? I'm not quite sure why it's considered reasonable to focus on brains particularly when looking for consciousness in nature. — bert1

Aha, you're a panpsychist, right? My assumption was a different one: That all functions of our brain would also be possible without any personal experience.

"That's all fab, but why can't that happen in the dark? Why does any of this constitute or necessitate subjective awareness. or consciousness, or the capacity to experience?" — bert1

I have often asked myself this question, albeit in a different variant: "Couldn't the human brain perform its functions even without consciousness?" and I said to myself: Orientation can also be done by an unconscious computer in an autonomous vehicle, memory, experience and learning can also be done by AI systems and a lot of other functions of the human brain like creativity, analysis, face recognition, predictions, language ... etc.

Thus, I had the idea that maybe all of the brain functions, even those which imply consciousness could be done without consciousness as well. I realize that this is a tentative and superficial conclusion that some would say is pure heresy, but this is what has been bothering me for decades.

Maybe it will be like the science of human origins. It draws from a variety of sciences to answer one question. — frank

A variety of sciences? I thought it was just biology alone.

... there is a great deal of interesting science around identifying the neural correlates of particular experiences, which is great, but that doesn't say much about how consciousness comes about in the first place. — bert1

More precisely, until now they are unable to say anything at all about how consciousness comes about.

Neuroscience has nothing to say about phenomenal consciousness. — bert1

I would like to confirm you by quoting the German neuroscientist Gerhard Roth, who said: "As about consciousness, it is a great mystery even for neuroscientists."

I learned that there is a moral system for any type of behavior. For the selfish there is Ayn Rand's "Objectivism", for the religious there is Christian morality, for Moslems the sharia, for atheists humanism, for animal lovers there is PETA ... a.s.o. Even the mafia has its moral rules.

Agree. In my opinion morality is the last big illusion of mankind, after the flat earth, the geocentric view, and freewill.