I agree that that is absurd. But I do not equate consciousness with sapience or sentience. I can say atoms are conscious without meaning they are sapient or sentient. — Patterner

How then, do you define Consciousness? Sentience*1 applies to most living creatures, but Consciousness*2, in the sense of self-awareness, seems limited only to humans and a few of the most highly evolved animals.

Therefore, I'm guessing that your notion of fundamental Consciousness may be similar to my own post-Shannon concept of Information --- the essence of Consciousness --- as fundamental. I avoid using the more general C word, because of its "absurd" implications. Yet Information*4 is fundamental in the same way that Mathematics*5 is. And it is Causal in the form of Negentropy : Energy.

Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. Based on that cutting edge science, I have concluded that Cosmic Information*6 is the Cause of physical Energy and metaphysical Mind. As the power to transform, it is also the essence of everything in the world, both Matter and Mind. It's a difficult concept to conceive, but it explains many of the mysteries of physics & metaphysics. :nerd:


*1. Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations. It may not necessarily imply higher cognitive functions such as awareness, reasoning, . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

*2. Consciousness : the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. {and one's self}
___ Oxford dictionary

*3. Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

*4. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio {rational} of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*5. Is Mathematics Fundamental? :
Yes, mathematics is often considered fundamental due to its role in logic, reasoning, and understanding the world around us.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+mathematics+fundamental

*6. What is Information ? :
The power to transform, to create, to cause change, to make logical distinctions, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

when you say *6 is the cause of metaphysical mind, why distinction is metaphysical ?

Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence. — Patterner

How does "everything experiences" happen? A rock, a tree, a comatose person – what's the mechanism by which each of them "experiences" at all?

Also, if "the brain" doesn't produce "consciousness", as you say, Patterner, then what accounts for (e.g.) every amputee's phenomenon of phanthom pain?

↪Gnomon
when you say *6 is the cause of metaphysical mind, why distinction is metaphysical ? — Danileo

The "distinction" is between the physical Brain and its meta-physical function : Minding is what a Brain does. When I refer to Mind as "Meta-Physical" --- note the hyphen --- I'm using the term in its literal sense of non-physical.

The blog post, https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page17.html , has a link to a glossary entry entitled : What is Meta-Physics? https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html , which also links to a Philosophy Forum thread, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/352174

The definition below*1 includes Consciousness among the topics & concepts that lie "beyond the physical realm". However for the Materialists on this forum, the term "metaphysical" is often construed as religious or mystical or unscientific woo-woo. The study of Meta-physics is indeed un-scientific, in that the Philosophical exploration goes beyond the empirical limits of physical Science.

As to the Cause of Mind --- or Causality in general --- that is another complex & unconventional topic in the Thesis and Blog. I've mentioned it several times in this thread. But a detailed explication could cause the thread to go off-topic. :smile:


*1. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and being. It delves into concepts beyond the physical realm, such as the nature of time, space, consciousness, and causality. It seeks to understand the underlying principles and structures that govern the universe and our experience of it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+metaphysical

I don't know what can be said about consciousness in regards to any hypothesis. They are either right or wrong. No?
— Patterner

Yes, but other hypotheses allow a basis for discussion about how you'd tell. — J

Unfortunately, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. Each hypothesis has its own camp. There's no way of proving anything. There are some widely diverse beliefs on what consciousness is just here at this site. Things look the same, no matter which possible solution we consider.

That aside, someone posted in another thread just the other day that they think consciousness is fundamental. There's not a reason in the world that person and I cannot discuss this idea.

Moreover, if everything is consciousness, we can't talk about what it might be like if some thing(s) were not. — J

But we would no longer have to try to figure out exactly where - on the evolutionary ladder or in the development of a human from conception - consciousness enters the picture. It's always there. It's just a matter of what is being experienced. What sensory input? What information processing? What feedback loops?

I thank you for your words. I'm grateful you think I expressed my idea well.

But what if consciousness is not something static, like a property or essence, but a dynamic process that manifests itself only in systems that can actively interact with the world? — Astorre

That's certainly a possibility. I'm suggesting something different.

If consciousness is a process associated with dynamics (for example, perception, feedback or choice), then a stone whose existence is static and determined by external physical laws may not need consciousness. — Astorre

I am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things.

Even if we assume that he has some kind of "experience," it does not affect his being - unlike, say, a person or animal, where consciousness is associated with adaptive processes. — Astorre

I think the adaptive processes are what is being experienced. They would take place without any subjective experience, if reality did not have an experiential property.

Let me suggest that physical material, the physical universe (that we know, I’ll call it X) is an artificial construct. That the real world Y is immaterial, there are things, beings, space, time, things happen, just like in X, but there is no physical material. In Y there is an equivalent to material, because there are forms and there is extension in time and space. But this material is composed of ideas, concepts, axioms, consciousness and experiences. Things that we typically (here in X) see as mental states and processes. — Punshhh

Why is X constructed? If the equivalent of everything we know in X is already present in Y, then why do we need X?

Let's concede that, indeed, in some sense there is consciousness in both cases. My question is: is the 'consciousness' of a 'dead person' the same entity of the 'consciousness' of the 'living person' before she died? Is the 'consciouesness' of the 'anesthetized person' the very same entity of the 'consciousness' of the person when she was in a normal, waking state? Do the 'dead person' and 'anesthetized person' have a unitary, private experience? — boundless

There is a vast difference between the experience of a human whose brain/body is functioning typically and the same human brain/body that is either dead or anesthetized. The dead and anesthetized do not have mental processes, thinking, information processing, feedback loops... The anesthetized does have some of these things to some degree, because the autonomic systems process information and give feedback, and I suppose other things. But there are no mental processes, no thinking.

Notice that the 'privateness' of our experience, of our 'consciousness' is something to be addressed even in a panpsychist model. If all my constituents have their own 'consciousness', how does that explain the arising of 'my' consciousness, which seems separate from 'theirs'? — boundless

A human being is a unit. The leg is separate from the head, both are separate from the lungs, all are separate from the finger, etc. However, they are a unit. And that unit experiences as a unit. Various processes taking place in the brain are experienced as awareness and self-awareness. But stepping on a nail is also part of our consciousness.

You say that 'consciousness is fundamental'. In order to have a meaningful discussion it's also IMO important to clarify what we mean by 'consciousness' and provide a clear model for it. Do you think that, for instance, there is one fundamental consciousness or that there are many distinct consciousnesses? Do you think that any composite object has its own consciousness or only some composites have consciousness? — boundless

I'm not sure if you're asking two different questions, or if you are asking the same question in two different ways. My answer to the second, and possibly both, is that everything experiences. When I step on the nail, my foot experiences with the damage. But I, as a whole, also experience it. My foot takes the actual damage, but it is not what feels the pain. It is not what remembered a similar injury from years ago. It is not what worries about tetanus.

Sorry for the many questions, but I'd like to understand more your view. — boundless

No problem! I would also like to understand my view more. :grin:

But I'm not saying everything is consciousness. I'm saying everything is consciousness.
— Patterner

Typing mistake here, I assume? Or else you're getting super woo-woo. :smile: — J

Yes. Typo. :grin: I literally never use anything but my cell phone, usually swiping. I do try to proofread, but don't always do the best job.

Is there some right answer to what you should identify with? — frank

I wouldn't think so. But I don't know what you're getting at.

So you are looking at the univserse as a clockwork machine without the input of consciousness? — I like sushi

No, that is not my view. A clockwork machine would not have made skyscrapers, computers, nuclear bombs, or the Hoover Dam. It would not have written Shakespeare's works, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Bible, or Gilgamesh. It would not contain the works of Bach, The Beatles, or Steely Dan. I'm saying the universe is not a clockwork machine because consciousness is a part of it.

I am mostly of the mind that the very term consciousness is far too nebulous for current purposes. — I like sushi

I believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced.

No, that is not my view. A clockwork machine would not have made skyscrapers, computers, nuclear bombs, or the Hoover Dam. It would not have written Shakespeare's works, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Bible, or Gilgamesh. It would not contain the works of Bach, The Beatles, or Steely Dan. I'm saying the universe is not a clockwork machine because consciousness is a part of it. — Patterner

I think you mean yes. Without consciousness the universe is a clockwork machine.

I believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced. — Patterner

So panpsychism with the belief that every mirco and macro item is experiencing on some level.

Yes. :rofl: I am trying to respond to as many as I can at the end of a long day, working on 5 hours of sleep, and my alarm is going off again in 6 hours. You are correct. I misinterpreted you.

The "distinction" is between the physical Brain and its meta-physical function: Minding is what a Brain does. When I refer to Mind as "Meta-Physical" --- note the hyphen --- I'm using the term in its literal sense of non-physical. — Gnomon

So by "non-physical" you mean abstract (i.e. non-causal, time-less & space-less)? For instance, walking is what legs do & digesting is what intestines do, ergo walking & digesting are merely abstract?! :eyes:

[T]he term "metaphysical" is often construed as religious or mystical or unscientific woo-woo. The study of Meta-physics is indeed un-scientific, in that the Philosophical exploration goes beyond the empirical limits of physical Science.

A typical cognitive confusion aka "transcendental illusion" – edify yourself, Gnomon, by at least reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason ...

NB: Btw, the term "metaphysics" literally means 'the book after the books on physics' or 'after physics' (Andronicus of Rhodes, first century BC), and NOT before / beyond "the physical" or NOT before / beyond "reason". :roll:

... consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner

How do you – can we – know this is the case?

Why is X constructed? If the equivalent of everything we know in X is already present in Y, then why do we need X?

It’s a thought experiment. It shows a way in which a world of rigid material, where consciousness is so inevident, could have originated from a reality which is not rigid, but ethereal and consciousness plays much more of a role.
One reason could be that the ethereal beings wanted to try out something more concrete, more solid, more complex. After all what they’ve created here is so unimaginably complex. It could be that complexity they are interested in. And then they thought how could we then inhabit this amazing world we’ve just created. The result being the biosphere and humanity. In humanity they might see something more like home, with a conscious sentient, highly intelligent being.

I occasionally imagine that every atom, molecule, every movement. Is held in place, orchestrated by a team of ethereal beings. Some holding the atom in place, others providing energy, others moving things around, orchestrating time and cause and effect. Working alongside millions of others in the atoms around them. To create the artificial world we inhabit. Indeed, at the heart of each one of us might be one of these beings experiencing life through a physical body, in this world.

I am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner

I just wanted to tell you that even if consciousness is fundamental to all bodies, then the statement and recognition of this fact has no practical benefit. Since it does not matter what the object "thinks" that cannot affect anything (neither his own body nor other bodies)

If, for example, to know what a stone thinks about and then somehow influence its thought in the interests of a person, then this would absolutely not change anything, since the stone is not capable of an independent act.

If you manage to somehow control a fly or other organisms, then this will primarily be used in the struggle for power of some over others. And even if we assume this hypothetical scenario is real, it will not bring to good.

I will like to know why logic distinctions are non-physical. If you don't want to go off-topic, you can direct message me.

There is a vast difference between the experience of a human whose brain/body is functioning typically and the same human brain/body that is either dead or anesthetized. The dead and anesthetized do not have mental processes, thinking, information processing, feedback loops... The anesthetized does have some of these things to some degree, because the autonomic systems process information and give feedback, and I suppose other things. But there are no mental processes, no thinking. — Patterner

Ok, thanks. Do you think that there is an active unitary consciousness there? If so, is it the same consciousness that has undergone some changes?

A human being is a unit. The leg is separate from the head, both are separate from the lungs, all are separate from the finger, etc. However, they are a unit. And that unit experiences as a unit. Various processes taking place in the brain are experienced as awareness and self-awareness. But stepping on a nail is also part of our consciousness. — Patterner

I agree with this. I also would say that the 'unit' is a whole that can't be reduced to its parts. This is reflected in our conscious experience, which is unitary after all. (Some might argue that the 'unitariness' is just an illusion, but, again, it seems to me an undeniable phenomenological aspect of our experience)

I'm not sure if you're asking two different questions, or if you are asking the same question in two different ways. My answer to the second, and possibly both, is that everything experiences. When I step on the nail, my foot experiences with the damage. But I, as a whole, also experience it. My foot takes the actual damage, but it is not what feels the pain. It is not what remembered a similar injury from years ago. It is not what worries about tetanus. — Patterner

Yes, I think you answered to the second question. It seems to me that, for you, all composites have some kind of consciousness, with different degrees of complexity. Both the foot (which is a composite) and the whole human being have consciousness but the consciousness of the whole human being is far more complex that the one of the foot and it's a different entity from it.

I guess that a problem with this view is that composites can be arbitrary in some cases. For instance, the 'foot' is difficult to define in a non-conventional way. Let's say that one asks to you if the 'foot minus the ankle' has consciousness. It's still a well-defined part of our body. Does the 'foot minus the anke' have a different consciousness than the 'foot with the ankle', or not?
IMO, all living beings have their own consciousness (here I am using the word in the way you use it) but non-living composite do not. If non-living composite had consciousness, we would have an explosion of the number of 'consciousnesses' due to the fact that, in the case of non-living things, we can carve the world arbitrarily.

Regarding the first question, I had in mind something like Advaita Vedanta, if you are familiar with it. In that view, there is only one consciousness and plurality is illusory. In a more qualified form, you might say that there is only one consciousness but it's complex and each 'part' of that consciousness is in some way conscious. It seems to me that you don't subscribe to that view. Rather, it seems to me you posit a plurality of different consciousnesses.

No problem! I would also like to understand my view more. :grin: — Patterner

:up: same goes for me! And discussions are helpful in this regard.

How then, do you define Consciousness? — Gnomon

Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence.

Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. — Gnomon

I certainly was not. I'll look at your link. Sounds like an amazing topic.

How does "everything experiences" happen? A rock, a tree, a comatose person – what's the mechanism by which each of them "experiences" at all? — 180 Proof

I don't know the answer to what I think you are asking. I don't know that it could ever be known. After all, Brian Greene wrote, "I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do." If we don't know what those things are, which are in the purview of our sciences, and are measured with incredible precision, how much harder would it be to find this answer?

Also, if "the brain" doesn't produce "consciousness", as you say, Patterner, then what accounts for (e.g.) every amputee's phenomenon of phanthom pain? — 180 Proof

I don't know any detail about what is happening in the brain in these cases. I assume signals are being manufactured in the brain that mimic signals associated with pain that the brain received when the limb was there?

↪Gnomon
I will like to know why logic distinctions are non-physical. If you don't want to go off-topic, you can direct message me. — Danileo

I assume you are talking about the difference between a material Brain (noun) and its mental Functions (verb). Actions have consequences, but no physical properties. Objects have physical properties, but Ideas about*1 objects have qualia.

The brain is a gelatinous object with physical & chemical properties, that can be directly observed. The invisible Mind's properties*2, or functions or qualities, must be inferred indirectly from observation of whole-body behavior. You know your own Mind by using its functions. But you only know your neighbor's Mind by rational inference. The logical distinction*3 is between Objective & Subjective knowledge.

Ironically, when someone tries to picture a Mind or a Thought, they typically envision the brain. For vague non-philosophical purposes, that's OK. But philosophers need to be more precise. For example, a physicist can interpret Aristotle's writings on Meta-physics*4 to mean merely "after" the volume on Physics. But a philosopher would notice the "logical distinctions" between the first volume (Scientist's observations of Nature) and its sequel (philosopher's ideas & opinions about Nature) . :smile:


*1. In philosophy, aboutness (or intentionality) refers to the characteristic of mental states and linguistic expressions to be directed towards, or to represent, something beyond themselves. It's the idea that thoughts, beliefs, and utterances are "about" or "of" something. This concept is central to understanding the relationship between the mind and the world, and it's a key topic in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and logic
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aboutness+meaning+in+philosophy

*2. The mind exhibits several key properties, including subjectivity, consciousness, intentionality, and agency.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=properties+of+mind

*3. Logical distinctions refer to differences that are made through reasoning and thought, rather than being inherent differences in the things themselves.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logical+distinctions

*4. In ancient Greek, "meta" (μετά) primarily means "after," "behind," or "beyond". It can also signify "with," "among," or "in the midst of". In modern usage, particularly in English, "meta" often implies a more comprehensive, self-referential, or higher-level perspective on something
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=greek+meta+meaning

How then, do you define Consciousness? — Gnomon
Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence. — Patterner

For my philosophical purposes, I further define Consciousness as human subjective experience. That's the only type of awareness we forum posters have experienced first hand. I am skeptical that "everything", including atoms, consciously experience their existence. In any case, I don't presume to know what it's like to be a bat. :wink:

Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. — Gnomon
I certainly was not. I'll look at your link. Sounds like an amazing topic. — Patterner

The concept of Information originally referred to the contents of a human mind*1. Later, Einstein equated invisible intangible Energy with abstract mathematical Mass, which we experience concretely as Matter. Then, Shannon defined his Information in terms of Uncertainty, and blamed it on Entropy, which is the opposite of causal Energy. Now, physicists and information researchers are doing experiments that convert Information to Energy and vice-versa*2.

Exploring the philosophical implications of the Energy/Life/Mind interrelationships has become my retirement hobby*3. It's a complex and counter-intuitive topic. So my interpretation of an Information Theoretic worldview*4 annoys those who view Matter as fundamental. Moreover, I consider Cosmic Information (EnFormAction) to be more fundamental than causal Energy and emergent Sapiens Consciousness. :nerd:



*1. Information/Mind relationship :
Information plays a crucial role in the mind, influencing perception, memory, thought, and behavior. The mind can be seen as an information processor, taking in sensory input, filtering and processing it, and using it to guide actions. Working memory, a key aspect of cognition, allows us to hold and manipulate information to solve problems and plan.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+relation+to+mind

*2. This is just a taste of the Energy/Information relationship :
Information can be converted into energy, though it's not a simple direct conversion like converting mass to energy via E=mc². Instead, it involves manipulating systems to extract usable energy based on information about their state. This concept is related to the thought experiment known as "Maxwell's demon" and is experimentally demonstrated by harnessing information about a particle's motion to guide its movement and extract energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+to+energy+conversion

*3. Information is :
# Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
# For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
# When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*4. An information-theoretic worldview is a perspective that interprets the world, especially physical phenomena like quantum mechanics, through the lens of information. It suggests that the fundamental nature of reality can be understood by examining how information is processed, stored, and transmitted. This approach often involves using concepts from information theory, such as entropy and mutual information, to analyze and model physical systems
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+theoretic+worldview

Okay, so from what I can gather from what you're saying, you're using a term "consciousness" without knowing what it means or refers to, which renders your statements using the term uninformative (i.e. "consciousness is fundamental" is indistinguishable from "gk&sbrx%y is fundamental").

I'm not sure "subjective experience" works as a definition, mostly because this uproots what "experience" means: you sometimes express sympathy for "felt experience", then you say that a rock "experiences being a rock," but also that rock has no feelings. There's a muddle here that's nearly impossible to deal with if your intuition is foreign to the concept.

I'm actually sypmapthetic towards the concept of panpsychism, but I've never been able to make it work. I think if consciousness is fundamental but not mental, then it would have to do more with... perspectivity? It's an organising principle. For example:

A human being is a unit. — Patterner

If consicousness is emrgent than we would say that a human being being a unit is a necessary precondition for it to be conscious; but if we posit that consciousness is fundamental then we might examine the idea that a human being is a unit, because it is conscious. Consciousness organises the world flow into units. The difference between a human being with mental events and a rock without mental events might be that human beings don't only form themselves as units, but also other things around them, while rocks only form themselves as units (if rocks have consciousness, and their being a unit isn't just an artifact of human consciousness).

Basically, what would count as a rock's consciousness would be independent from human category-making. For example, a human breaks a rock. What now? Two consciousnesses where previously there was one? One consciousness as broken rock? Both? Is the world flow constantly splintering off and merging consciousnesses? Does really everything have a concsiousness (regardless of whether it's comprehensible as a unit to a human mind)?

Quite long ago now, I've come up with a thought experience. Imagine you come across a butterfly sitting on a flower. To you there's a butterfly, a flower, stuff around that that's neiter... all that is intuitive and comprehensible. Now imagine an invisible globe, such that part of the butterfly and flower is in the globe, and part of it is outside of it. That is less intuitive, but due to maths we can imagine it. Now imagine the butterfly taking off and flying away. And now find some sort of mathmatics that allows to recalculate the entire universe such that whatever was within the imagined invisible globe stays a unit. I think that's impossible (from a human perspective), but if we imagine it possible, surely the result would be entirely incomprehensible. However, if the contents of the globe were conscious than there would be an experience that would make this cohere, however incomprehensible this would be to us. And yet it would be the very same world flow that contains our consciousnesses, too.

I never got far with this thought experiment, to be honest. But to me, if consciousness is fundamental, then - in this way - either we cannot tell what counts as a unit with regards to consciousness, or we need to accept that there a plenty of incomprehensible units as consciousness, or we would have to find a way to transcend human consciousness while at the same time retaining enough to be able to compare.

It's a muddle I can't resolve, which keeps me from buying into panpsychism (and also keeps me from ruling it out).

I'm not sure "subjective experience" works as a definition, mostly because this uproots what "experience" means: you sometimes express sympathy for "felt experience", then you say that a rock "experiences being a rock," but also that rock has no feelings. There's a muddle here that's nearly impossible to deal with if your intuition is foreign to the concept. — Dawnstorm

Legitimate criticism. I don't claim to have every answer or to have thought of every aspect. And I might not always word things clearly. I started this thread because I wanted help examining the topic. So I thank you for this.

Yes, I like "felt experience." Because when it involves some kind of things, it gives feeling. Sometimes feeling in the way we usually mean it. It's not just damage to my skin, it hurts. There's also emotional feeling, like what love feels like. Can I say there's a feeling of seeing blue? Some people say this or that brand of whiskey is smooth.

And I think it feels like something to be me. That feeling is a combination of all the other feelings of every type that I have.

So I think "feel" covers a lot of ground. And that's how I mean it for "felt experience." But I'm not married to it. "Subjective experience" works fine, and is more commonly accepted. Either way, everything experiences it's own existence. You experience many things, and kinds of things, that a rock does not. A rock experiences simple existence. The experience is not of much of anything. But you experience more sensory input, information processing, and feedback loops, all working together so that the unit can affect its environment, and its self, in order to ensure its continuation.

As far as what experience is for a rock, here are some quotes... In this article, Philip Goff writes:

Panpsychism is sometimes caricatured as the view that fundamental physical entities such as electrons have thoughts; that electrons are, say, driven by existential angst. However, panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts.

Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, thoughts and sensory experiences. But there seems nothing incoherent with the idea that consciousness might exist in some extremely basic forms. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences a horse has are much less complex than those of a human being, and the experiences a chicken has are much less complex than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no subjective experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities – perhaps electrons and quarks – possessing extremely rudimentary forms of consciousness, which reflects their extremely simple nature.

In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says:

Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.

In Panpsychism in the West, Skrbina writes:

Minds of atoms may conceivably be, for example, a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.

I don't like Skrbina's use of "mind" in this way. I think there needs to be thinking to have a mind. Even if only the very beginnings of thinking, as described in Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.

Accordingly, every mind requires a minimum of two thinking elements:
•​A sensor that responds to its environment
•​A doer that acts upon its environmen — Ogas and Gaddam

I'll respond to more of your post.

but why ideas can not have physical properties. Are not physical properties just laws, I think mental creativity can follow those laws.

I also consider qualia as the let's say plastic material.
With these material physical laws can be created but also non physical.

You mentioned that logic inference was non-physical and I am unsure about that claim. I think that a pure inference is not achieved to know.

↪Gnomon
but why ideas can not have physical properties. Are not physical properties just laws, I think mental creativity can follow those laws. — Danileo

I can see why you might think that. But Properties*1 are not Laws. Laws are limitations on change. And they are known only by rational inference from observation of Processes. But Properties are qualities of material objects that are known by our physical senses. You can't see Newton's first law of Motion, but you can see the color of the object that is moving. And, yes, "mental creativity can follow the laws", by imagination, not observation. :cool:


*1. Physical properties are characteristics of a substance that can be observed or measured without changing its chemical identity. These properties include color, density, hardness, melting point, boiling point, and electrical conductivity. Essentially, they are the qualities you can note using your senses or measure without transforming the substance into something entirely new
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physical+properties

You mentioned that logic inference*2 was non-physical and I am unsure about that claim. I think that a pure inference is not achieved to know. — Danileo

You seem to be influenced by the outdated belief system of Materialism, in which there is nothing non-physical. That common-sense worldview was a reaction to the Spiritualism of the Catholic Church, back in the 17th century. And it guided the explorations of Science, until the 20th century, when some basic assumptions of science were challenged by Quantum Physics. I won't go into that paradigm shift*3 here. But you can follow-up on that new worldview if you are interested in the philosophy of science. :nerd:

*2. Inference is not a physical entity; it is a cognitive process of drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. It's a mental act, not a tangible object or substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=inference+is+not+physical

*3. In the 20th century, science experienced several paradigm shifts, fundamentally altering how scientists understood the world. Key examples include the development of quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, and the emergence of plate tectonics, each overturning established viewpoints and opening new avenues of research, according to Thomas Kuhn's theory*4.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+paradigm+shift+20th+century

*4. Thomas Kuhn's theory, primarily presented in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes the evolution of scientific knowledge as a series of paradigm shifts, rather than a linear progression of accumulated facts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=thomas+kuhn+theory

Basically, what would count as a rock's consciousness would be independent from human category-making. For example, a human breaks a rock. What now? Two consciousnesses where previously there was one? One consciousness as broken rock? Both? Is the world flow constantly splintering off and merging consciousnesses? Does really everything have a concsiousness (regardless of whether it's comprehensible as a unit to a human mind)? — Dawnstorm

I'm suggesting that nothing, not humans or anything else "has a consciousness". Said that way, consciousness is a thing. Rather, everything "is conscious". But yes, i'm saying everything is conscious. However, I've been very unclear shirt something. To get more into the unit idea, I don't really suspect a rock is a conscious unit. I know I've been using it as an example, but I guess to try to get the point across that consciousness isn't a mental thing. Rather, consciousness of people means consciousness of mental things. (And I could be wrong. I could be wrong about the entire thing, after all, so certainly about this. Maybe rocks are consciousness as a unity. But I doubt it.) To be a conscious unity, as opposed to just an object with trillions+ of individually conscious particles, Simple physical proximity isn't enough. A rock is only a unit to a human mind. It is not a unit to itself, or any of its particles. it's just a conglomerate of individual, individually conscious, particles.

For any unit to be conscious as a unit, it must be a unit processing energy. Arrangements of particles must mean something other than the arrangements of particles that they are, and they must be processing that information. So DNA, the beginning of life, is also the beginning of groups of particles that are conscious as a unit.

Quite long ago now, I've come up with a thought experience. Imagine you come across a butterfly sitting on a flower. To you there's a butterfly, a flower, stuff around that that's neiter... all that is intuitive and comprehensible. Now imagine an invisible globe, such that part of the butterfly and flower is in the globe, and part of it is outside of it. That is less intuitive, but due to maths we can imagine it. Now imagine the butterfly taking off and flying away. And now find some sort of mathmatics that allows to recalculate the entire universe such that whatever was within the imagined invisible globe stays a unit. I think that's impossible (from a human perspective), but if we imagine it possible, surely the result would be entirely incomprehensible. However, if the contents of the globe were conscious than there would be an experience that would make this cohere, however incomprehensible this would be to us. And yet it would be the very same world flow that contains our consciousnesses, too. — Dawnstorm

Sorry, I just don't understand your idea.