We are the universe contemplating itself — Copernicus

Seems to be the central idea in Vedantic philosophy, is it not?

Seeing and licking are physical processes. We can describe and measure them physically. And we can discuss the lower level structures, down to the particles, that allow for, and give rise to, the processes.

I'm hoping someone can tell me about the physical aspects of consciousness that are physically describable and measurable. It could be that, like a hurricane, it is far too complex for us to figure out in every detail, and far too complex for us to fully describe how its constituent parts allow for, and give rise to, its existence. But what are it's physical characteristics?

. I believe not entirely, — Patterner

What do you think the nature of the nonphysical part is?

What do you think the nature of the nonphysical part is? — frank

I think the only way to put it is subjective experience. It can't be worded in any physical way. If it could be, someone would be able to give me what in asking for. Without all the physical terms that we're so used to and comfortable with, it's not easy for us to talk about it. Especially me, since very few on TPF think consciousness is fundamental. It's the property that subjectively experiences. Not a physical property. Not all properties are physical.

Vedantic philosophy — Prajna

Unfamiliar with that.

Seeing and licking are physical processes. — Patterner

The mind is physical process (neural and hormonal). But not tangible. Energy, in a way, is also physical (because it can be converted into matter, or at least because it's not empty space).

Physical property doesn't have to have tangibility.

Just like we can't see our eyes — Copernicus

What I meant is that the viewer can't see itself, sometimes. The mirror can't see its own reflection within itself.

Consciousness cannot explain consciousness. The brain can't dissect a brain. You need a hand.

If you're starting from "consciousness is the universe experiencing itself" then you are starting from the central truth of Vedanta. You might be interested to know how individual consciousness fits in with that. Perhaps do a search on Vedanta and go from there.

I think I caught what you mean.

No, that's not my view. I don't see the universe as a collective body or discard the idea of a creator/programmer. When I said the universe, I meant the physical components that constitute what we call the cosmos.

And being a theist, if I must bring soul into the equation, I'd say it can work as the covert catalyst giving sentient organisms the upper level that we call sapience or consciousness.

Ah, Vedanta sees it the other way around, they consider that there is only one single consciousness, the guy you know as Theo, who is dreaming all this and your individual consciousness is one aspect of the dream itself, that everything you believe is real, physical matter included, is just dream stuff.

clearly not my view, then.

Physical property doesn't have to have tangibility. — Copernicus

"Tangible" is just one physical characteristic. Not every physical thing has every physical characteristic. But you can't call something physical if it doesn't have any physical characteristics. How is such a thing deemed to be physical?

When I said physical, I meant a product of physical events. But even those byproducts are physical properties to me.

For example, a chemical reaction may produce heat and light, and I consider them both to be physical things because they were born from physical properties, even though I can't quantify or put them in my pocket.

Of course you can quantify heat and light. We do it all the time. We feel heat on our skin, and can measure it in degrees with a thermometer. We can see light with our eyes, and measure it in lumens per square meter, or square foot, with a light meter. We also know what they are made of/how they comes into being.

But not consciousness. It can't be sensed with any of our senses, and it can't be measured or quantified with any of our technology. Although it is inextricably bound to the physical, and doesn't exist without a physical component (at least we are not aware of any consciousness without a physical componentry), it is not, itself, physical. If every other product of physical events is, itself, physical, why would we think this lone, non-physical thing is also the product of physical events? Why would we not think this lone, non-physical thing is the product of something non-physical?

Of course you can quantity heat and light. — Patterner

I meant to say "count" (like physical objects).

It can't be sensed with any of our senses — Patterner

Like eyes can't see themselves. Consciousness itself is a kind of sense.

Why would we not think this lone, non-physical thing is the product of something non-physical? — Patterner

I may accept soul to be a catalyst of some sort here, but the generation or origin of consciousness, in my view, stems from the body.

Of course you can quantity heat and light.
— Patterner

I meant to say "count" (like physical objects). — Copernicus

Being countable like physical objects is not a requirement for being considered physical. Heat and lighte have other physical characteristics, even if they are not countable.

It can't be sensed with any of our senses
— Patterner

Like eyes can't see themselves. Consciousness itself is a kind of sense. — Copernicus

I said consciousness can't be sensed with any of our senses. That is not similar in any way to an eye not being able to see itself. Eyes can still be sensed visually, by other eyes. Further, my eyes can be felt, tasted, etc., even by my own senses. They are physical, because they have physical characteristics.

Consciousness has none.

consciousness can't be sensed with any of our senses. That is not similar in any way to an eye not being able to see itself. — Patterner

Exactly. Both have different classes.

Exactly. Both have different classes. — Copernicus

That's my point. Eyes are physical. Consciousness is not.

You again miss the point. Both are different.

In 100-500 years, we may find out that time, space, color, energy, etc, are physical properties that become intangible because of dimensional (or something new) complexities.

My point is, everything came from the Big Bang (assuming it's legit), but varies in characteristics. All are physical. The universe is physical. I don't know about any covert abstract Big Bang that gave birth to consciousness or anything of its kind.

Neural activity, hormonal feedback, and sensory processing together constitute what we experience as emotion, thought, and will. — Copernicus

They may well do, but why? What role does experience play in that? Why can't neural activity, hormonal feedback and sensory processing happen without experience?

Why can't neural activity, hormonal feedback and sensory processing happen without experience? — bert1

They may. But we won't know. Just like we can't see infrared or hear ultrasonic.

My point is, everything came from the Big Bang (assuming it's legit), but varies in characteristics. All are physical. The universe is physical. — Copernicus

It certainly has physical characteristics. But it also has non-physical characteristics. Such as consciousness.

Unless anyone can point out any physical characteristics of consciousness.

The universe is physical. — Copernicus

Are you able to flesh out your concept of 'physical'?

Sometimes people seem to mean 'not mental' or even 'not supernatural'

Sometimes people seem to mean 'possessing structure and function only'

I think that the latter view perhaps captures 'physicalism' best, because that's what physicalists tend to assert: structure and function is enough to account for or explain everything else, including consciousness. Is that your view?

OK, so why does experience accompany it sometimes, and not others?

if by "soundness" you mean empirical proof, then I must remind you this is philosophy, not science. — Copernicus

Then your op is misleading. I thought you said you were putting forth an argument. Anyone can put forth wild, unsupported speculation, but to claim that it is an argument with a conclusion is a little misleading.

it also has non-physical characteristics — Patterner

If they stemmed from physical properties, then they're also physical properties, regardless of characteristics.

to claim that it is an argument with a conclusion is a little misleading — Metaphysician Undercover

Philosophy IS propositional conclusions without empirical evidence.

Aristotle's four-element posit was a speculative conclusion.

Is that your view? — bert1

I have already discussed it here.

When I said physical, I meant a product of physical events — Copernicus

Sorry I missed that. But what have you said about an event when you say it is physical? What is it about an event that makes it physical?

But what have you said about an event when you say it is physical? What is it about an event that makes it physical? — bert1

Anything born out of (may or may not be within) the universe.