It's a sound option.

I think the most pressing alternatives here are idealism/materialism/neutral monism vs. eliminitavism. That's substantive, but easy to decide on, I think.

The differences between idealism vs materialism vs anything else is mostly terminological.

I will reduce the question of consciousness (C) to its basic form without the use of obscure jargon.

Questions:

(1) How do we know that the brain produces C?

When the body is infused with certain chemicals (which are material and tangible) unconscious (un-C) results. Blunt impact to the head can cause un-C. If a surgeon damages a certain part of the brain a predictable effect can be un-C or else the elimination of certain kinds of conscious experiences. C is part of the physical world, because, when we walk about, we do not leave our C behind. If C were a different order of existence from the physical, it could not attach itself to a physical object.

(2) How does the brain, a physical object, produce C, something that is experienced as purely intangible?

This is the “hard problem” of C. No one has thus far given a convincing answer to this question. I might add that it is a problem for science and not philosophy.

Some Features of Consciousness

(1) C cannot exist independently of a human or animal brain.

(2) Free will cannot exist without C; for, to act freely, one must be aware of what he is doing. However, one can consciously experience a reflex action while, at the same time, being aware that the action was not the product of his will.

(3) No conscious experience can have a duration of nil. Indeed, any experience without some duration, however brief, is no experience at all. Events outside the body similarly must have some duration, else they would not exist.

(4) Accordingly, every perception must be spread over time in order to provide an experience of external reality. If it were otherwise, one would “forget” the beginning of an event before he got to the end. The faculty that allows the extension of an experience over time is called memory.

(5) A bit of reflection will reveal that C is itself a special kind of memory.

(6) Conscious experiences, like all of reality, are temporally continuous in the ontological sense. That is, there are no temporal points in either reality or the perception of it and consequently no perfect intervals; for time is not a series. [McTaggart
notwithstanding]

(7) The contents of C are subjective in the sense that they are more or less limited to the spatial extent of the brain and can really only be known by a subject who experiences them. This makes the contents of C private, in that they are not directly accessible by others.

(8) However, we have every reason to believe that C is experienced the same by all humans. C is not empirical, because it does not necessarily require the intercession of the senses. When one uses the expression, ”conscious,” everyone knows what it means. Indeed, one cannot communicate with another unless both are conscious. In this sense, C may be called objective.

(9) C was naturally selected because it is necessary for the will, and the will has great value in the struggle for existence, for it allows deliberation and planning.

(10) One cannot be conscious without being conscious of something, whether it be a current perception, a more distant memory, a feeling such as pain or joy, a language, a mathematical formula, a plan, a musical composition, and so forth.

(11) One can properly say that a perception does not correspond to some external reality [whatever that may be] but one cannot properly say that C itself is illusory, for an illusion presumes a conscious subject who experiences the illusion—just as a deception requires someone who is deceived. In other words, a deception or an illusion cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.

I believe in the trinity theory of consciousness.

Can anyone explain the crucial difference between panpsychism and neutral monism?

Can anyone explain the crucial difference between panpsychism and neutral monism? — SolarWind

Panpsychisms says all is psyche, soul. Neutral monism says creation and creation are the same, being neutral about mind and matter.

I do not understand. Both say there is a neutral substance in living beings and both say a stone has no consciousness.