Do you think that the 'multiverse speculation' (that there are potentially infinitely many 'other' universes) can be or ought to be similarly constrained? — Wayfarer

Absolutely. If anyone is extrapolating some aspect of reality to infinity, it has to be wrong. Just because dichotomies are what rule metaphysical logic. The infinite is impossible if symmetry-breaking is by definition the finitude of arising within complementary limits.

Agree. I think an awful lot of specious reasoning is associated with multiverse ideas. (Not that it isn't fertile ground for science fication.)

Right - so what you're saying is that 'cosmic mind' is analogous to the 'noumenal'. Agree they might be rationally inferred, but as such cannot be empirically validated. — Wayfarer

Yes. If noumenal Mind could be empirically validated, we wouldn't be discussing it on a philosophy forum. But, since the 20th century, scientific validation has become more Mathematical (rational) than Empirical (sensory), more inferential than observational. For example, the scientific theory of an ethereal Quantum Field*2*3 as the fundamental essence of reality has led some thinkers to equate it with a Cosmic Mind*4. The theoretical "points" that define the field are mathematical entities that do not occupy space or exhibit mass. Hence, the foundation (substance??) of our material world is postulated to be immaterial*3 : more like a mental definition than a material object*5.

Since it is contrary to my current understanding, in order to make sense of the Brain-as-receiver-of-cosmic-signals notion featured in Dan Brown's fiction (OP), I've been motivated to venture into such speculative (fictional?) Physics/Philosophy. But I'd still like to see some empirical evidence (pro or con) that the human brain could conceivably be a passive receptacle for meaning, instead of an active generator of ideas. Until then, I'll continue to assume that my thoughts are my own. And that the Cosmos is not an eternal deity (Spinoza), but a temporary physical/mental system born of uncertain parentage. :smile:



*1. Noumenal Science :
The statement "quantum is noumenal" is not a standard scientific or philosophical claim, but a specific idea within certain interpretations of quantum mechanics and philosophy. It suggests that the reality that physics describes (the "phenomenal") is different from the true, underlying reality (the "noumenal"), which is the case in Emmanuel Kant's philosophy. Some physicists propose that "noumenal" descriptions of quantum systems, which are local and complete, are what quantum mechanics is truly about, rather than the observer-dependent phenomena we observe. 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+is+noumenal

*2. In Universal Quantum Field theory (QFT),the universe's fundamental building blocks are not particles, but universal quantum fields*3 that permeate all of space and time. Particles like electrons and photons are considered to be excitations or "ripples" in these underlying fields. This framework views fields as the fundamental entities and is the basis for particle physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field+fundamental
Note --- Most particles, except Photons & Gravitons, possess measurable rest mass. But quantum Fields are supposed to be composed of statistical relationships between dimensionless points.

*3. A universal massless quantum field is a theoretical concept that posits a field permeating the universe with zero mass, with implications for topics like dark energy and dark matter.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field+massless

*4. Quantum Field = Cosmic Mind :
The "quantum field - cosmic mind" is a concept from speculative physics and philosophy that suggests the quantum field is a fundamental, universal consciousness connecting all things, including individuals. This idea, which overlaps with spiritual and mystic traditions, posits that our minds are not isolated but are expressions of this larger, non-local field, leading to the conclusion that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe itself, not just an emergent property of the brain. It's important to note that this is not a universally accepted scientific theory, but rather a group of hypotheses and philosophical interpretations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+cosmic+mind
Note --- I prefer to say that Information (energy), not Consciousness (mind), is the essence of physical & mental reality.

*5. What is Matter? "
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

:eyes: :rofl:

Nope. I was making the point that a hallmark of “consciousness” is that it is embodied and agential. — apokrisis

You didn't make it well.

It feels like an alien hand is now in control. Sensations are thrusting at us. Thoughts and ideas are being imposed. — apokrisis

Which is specifically not what the receiver theory entails, or imagines. It jettisons this entirely to even get moving. Given this context, I understand what you've said and why. But then it's simply ignorance of what's posited in this theory (and again, I've already acknowledged its weak and we have no good reason to take it on).

And then we have this other nonsense about the brain being an antenna tuned into a cosmic psychic frequency. — apokrisis

This is a strawman like no other. Turns out, I was right in my charge.

Being embodied and agential seems so effortless that yes, maybe it could be just a broadcast picked up off the airwaves.

But then nope. The neurobiology to get the job done is what we should reserve our amazement for. — apokrisis

This says nothing. It says that maybe the receiver theory is correct (in some way). And then just says no, lets be in awe of something else.

Everything you said can be true, and the basis of consciousness can still be a signal from without. I don't care to go further.

I wouldn't expect empirical support for a theoretical philosophical conjecture, that postulates a Cosmic Mind of which our little limited logic-parsers are fragments. But what do you think of his Mind as "foundation of Reality" and Idealism as "ultimate Realism" theory? — Gnomon

I've watched about 14 hours of Kastrup. He strikes me as someone I would consistently love to talk to, and would consistently laugh at through the course of our conversations. He has a great mind, imo, and some good ideas. But there are some extremely fundamentally concerning issues with his theories.

If 'mind' is the foundation of reality, he still has a massive job getting the sensation of the physical in. And he's never adequately done that, in my watching. I think the bold is interesting, and exactly hte reason responses like akroposis' up there is unwarranted. We couldn't seek empirical evidence, and we can't rest on incomplete descriptions via biology. Its is/ought all over again and I prefer to just entertain all comers while resisting magical thinking.

Everything you said can be true, and the basis of consciousness can still be a signal from without. I don't care to go further. — AmadeusD

You are being histrionic. This is a simple case of humans using their latest technology to explain the mind. The marvel of radio broadcast - the BBC world service as a message bounced off the ionosphere - offers a striking analogy. And more than a few people have built their own pet theories of mind around it. More than a few scientists indeed.

In Universal Quantum Field theory (QFT),the universe's fundamental building blocks are not particles, but universal quantum fields*3 that permeate all of space and time. Particles like electrons and photons are considered to be excitations or "ripples" in these underlying fields. This framework views fields as the fundamental entities and is the basis for particle physics. — Gnomon

here I take a more radical view: space and time don’t exist at all. Like “observers”, they are convenient labels – bookkeeping devices – but there are no physical entities corresponding to them. Therefore, quantising gravity doesn’t mean quantising space-time, it means quantising the gravitational field (upgrading Einstein’s c-numbers into q-numbers) in the same way that other fields are quantised.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKCP5k1RTmM&t=13s

:up: :up:

here I take a more radical view: space and time don’t exist at all. Like “observers”, they are convenient labels – bookkeeping devices – but there are no physical entities corresponding to them. Therefore, quantising gravity doesn’t mean quantising space-time, it means quantising the gravitational field (upgrading Einstein’s c-numbers into q-numbers) in the same way that other fields are quantised. — PoeticUniverse

I would disagree. What emerges as fundamental are the invariances. The constraints of symmetry and then the degrees of freedom that result.

And the relativity vs quantum issue is about how the real number constraints captured in special relativity as it’s Poincare group structure, then turn out to have their gauge complex number symmetries as the local degrees of freedom.

So SR wants to constrain a 4D metric to a collection of spacetime points. But those points then gain the possibility of having an intrinsic spin structure. The realm of QFT organised particles or excitations arise as being that which the global Poincare invariance can’t suppress and now a further internalised level of symmetry and its breaking.

Everyone comes at relativity and QFT seeking to make one the master of the other. But a systems view says that never works. What works is complementarity. Relativity and QFT must somehow be a unity of opposites. Each is what constructs the other as that which it is.

So SR embodies the SO(3) spin invariance of a spacetime point. But that is also what makes possible the SU(2) gauge freedom that produces chiral particles with intrinsic spin organisation. The points of spacetime can turn out to have an internal fibre bundle structure where they become a thermalising network trafficking in the broken symmetry of their “twists”.

The metric can grow and its points can cool. It is that relation which is the fundamental reason why there can be anything at all.

So the big question is can gravity be assimilated to QFT as gravitons. And Lineweaver for example makes a good case for how gravitational dof are not really quantum but emergent at the level of the particle vectorisation that takes place at the reheating moment when inflation ends.

Vectorisation begins the Standard Model era by producing QFT particles doing their thermalising thing. The next step is the particles picking up a significant mass term with the Higgs symmetry breaking. And so you now have a sub-c story of vectors and spinors that are individuated. The points of spacetime have developed an inner spin structure that carries some momentum and position state that is individually distinctive and so now is mixing as a statistical ensemble - a thermal gas, that soon enough condenses into a matter dust.

So we arrive at massive particles as gravitational degrees of freedom - the matter dust wanting to clump into cosmic structure. But also a matter dust - a dust of protons and electrons - also organised under U(1) electromagnetic charge.

We can see right there how the complementarity principle is so fundamental it is organising everything at the start and still organising it at the end.

We have gravity as the mass of a Poincare-constrained real number point. And we have EM as the energy of a QFT complex number structured charge polarity. Two kinds of local dof. And the cosmic web is the comoving pattern of planets, stars, galaxies and filaments that results as electric charge largely neutralises itself as atomic structure, allowing the relatively weakness of gravity to show through as the complementary organiser of what exists. The extrinsic spin story of the turbulent and swirling heavens, dissipating angular momentum on the way to collapsing into black holes where it can.

This is the paradigm shift. Expecting a dichotomous logic whenever things get fundamental. Nature exists as a dynamical balance. And Nature may evolve in terms of its topological organisation - turn from a relativistic plasma to a comoving matter dust. But the same general principle of arriving at a mutual balance must always apply.

Which is why we shouldn’t try to dissolve one side of anything into what seems its other side. Both gravitational dof and electric charge dof rise to the surface in time as the Cosmos is thermally shaken down into its simplest possible invariant states. And one is the distillation of Poincare invariance, the other of gauge invariance.

You have massive and electrically neutral atoms doing their gravitating and radiating dance in an empty void. Or at least effectively empty as the quantum vacuum is now as cold in its energy density content as it is flat in its SR extent.

What emerges as fundamental are the invariances. The constraints of symmetry and then the degrees of freedom that result. — apokrisis

:chin:

If 'mind' is the foundation of reality, he still has a massive job getting the sensation of the physical in. — AmadeusD

Good point! Deriving Physical sensations from Metaphysical fundamentals, seems to be the inverse of the usual philosophical Hard Problem : Mental ideas from Physical substrate ; Ideality from Reality. That's why I put my money on the recent evidence of an Energy/Information interrelationship. Everything in the universe boils down to creative (change-causing) Energy. And tracks back to a logically necessary First Cause.

What we call Energy is not a material object but a causal process. And that process has evolved complex forms of matter such as the human brain*1. But so far, no clear explanation for why complexity of physical interconnections (wiring) could produce metaphysical Meaning and immaterial imagery.

Information is a pattern of dichotomies & oppositions --- black/white, one/many, certainty/uncertainty, etc. Such dual relationships are perceived as comparative ratios : mathematical values that can be written as strings of numbers. For example : the ratio of 3 to 7 is 0.428571428 ; which is not the way we perceive, but how we calculate, rationally.

The Energy/Information*2 relation is similar to the inverse Certainty/Uncertainty ratio of Quantum Physics. And Randomness vs Organization is also the focus of Complexity Science. But how do we convert those physical ratios and mathematical dichotomies into perceptual distinctions, and thence into mental experiences?

These comments may not make sense of the relation between Ideality & Reality (sense & sensation) until put into a larger context*3. Deriving Mind from Cosmos. :nerd:



*1. Yes, the human brain is widely considered to be the most complex object in the known universe due to its intricate network of approximately 86 billion neurons and over 100 trillion connections. This complexity allows for higher-level functions like consciousness, thought, and emotion, which are the basis of human experience, but also makes the brain extremely difficult to fully understand.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+the+human+brain+the+most+complex+thing

*2. The "mass-energy-information equivalence principle" suggests that information has a physical mass per bit.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+information+relation
Note --- Einstein equated causal Energy with measurable Mass and ultimately with tangible Matter. But when you add meaningful Information to the equation the result may be Conscious Mind. Hence, a possible path to a solution to the philosophical Hard Problem. It remains for physicists and information scientists to work-out the details.

*3. Active Information :
To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note --- "Form" in this context can be both material Shape and mental Meaning.

You are being histrionic. — apokrisis

I am being exactly the opposite. I've explicitly said everything you're pointing out can be true, and consciousness can still arise from an external signal.

There's nothing ... at all.. histrionic about this. In any way, whatsoever.

Humans have not explained the mind.

Humans have not explained the mind. — AmadeusD

And you have studied the relevant science or merely offer an opinion?

I've both studied the relevant science (to the degree a non-scientist) and (more importantly, for this discussion) the metaphysical philosophy. There is no mechanism identified for the emergence of consciousness by either crew (well, i say identified - I should be saying pinned-down. Several have been posited). To the degree this is an opinion, sure. But it is derived from quite a bit of uncomfortable reading. My position has had to change, for instance, upon that reading. I was initially an 'it must be entirely physical and contained within the structures of hte brain, even if hidden' person.

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, I'm sure it would be quite easy to explain (and honestly, I'd love to know. It's quite annoying feeling logically obligated to entertain divine command lmao). Please do (there is absolutely no sarcasm here, whatsoever. I am under the impression I'm under, and if it's wrong please set me right).

I am really not trying to be antagonistic. I felt you were being that way..

If you have some enthusiasm for the “brain as an antenna” hypothesis, have you pursued the literature on it?

It was going the rounds in the 1990s. I chatted to quite a few of those pushing versions of it. Like Karl Pribram, Susan Pockett. Johnjoe McFadden, Benjamin Libet, Stuart Hameroff, Jack Tuszynski and others.

There is the more plausible version of the story which involves EM fields or quantum coherence being somehow part of how neurons get organised and so do their job within the brain. And then the plainly crackpot idea of there being a mind field or plane of consciousness which brain biology “tunes” into and so “lights up with” that magically subjective phenomenonal state.

So conversations about just this kind of sideshow controversy have shaped my own opinions about where the correct mind science is at. And I feel the proper way to think about all this is to seek the right structuralist theory of life and mind in general. An explanation broad enough to include everything from biology to sociology.

We don’t need to explain “consciousness” as if it is some magically emergent non-material stuff produced by nervous systems.

We need to have a structural understanding of cognition at its most generic evolutionary level - the central “trick” that we would call semiosis or the modelling relation.

This paper was cited earlier in the thread. And Pattee was about the single most rigorous thinker I encountered on the issue. But you have to plough through all the ways people get the issues confused before you can see why this kind of high level argument makes so much sense.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279737928_Cell_Phenomenology_The_First_Phenomenon

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, — AmadeusD

I defend biosemiosis as the mechanism behind life and mind.

I was initially an 'it must be entirely physical and contained within the structures of hte brain, even if hidden' person. — AmadeusD

And this is the mistake of searching for a particular causal explanation of consciousness rather than establishing first a general ground for such an account.

It we understand the semiotic modelling relation that gives us life and mind, we can then start to analyse “consciousness” as the stack of modelling relations that an embodied and socially cocooned organism can weave around its being.

We don’t need to explain “consciousness” as if it is some magically emergent non-material stuff produced by nervous systems. — apokrisis

This sounds like a straw man. It is a view, but not one that anyone I can think of holds.

It we understand the semiotic modelling relation that gives us life and mind, we can then start to analyse “consciousness” as the stack of modelling relations that an embodied and socially cocooned organism can weave around its being. — apokrisis

We need a lot more detail of course, but at first glance it is not clear what prevents this being accomplished by a zombie.

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, I'm sure it would be quite easy to explain — AmadeusD

One would have thought so.

here I take a more radical view: space and time don’t exist at all. Like “observers”, they are convenient labels – bookkeeping devices – but there are no physical entities corresponding to them. Therefore, quantising gravity doesn’t mean quantising space-time, it means quantising the gravitational field (upgrading Einstein’s c-numbers into q-numbers) in the same way that other fields are quantised. — PoeticUniverse

Are these your words, or those of Vedral?

I'm vaguely familiar with Vlatko Vedral from his association with the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity and Systems (Holism). Einstein forced us to accept that space & time are conventional concepts, not physical objects, that we use to convey notions of extension and change. But q-numbers and c-numbers are way over my little layman head. And, since I'm not a mathematician, I don't see them as beautiful or poetic.

So, if you don't mind, I'll continue to think of Space as a ocean that we can swim around in, and Time as-if a road that we can conceptually move forward & backward on. Even Einstein portrayed space-time as the fabled fabric of reality. And I suppose the theory of a universal quantum Field is an attempt to metaphorically express the philosophical notion of an interwoven warp & woof of abstract time & space. Besides, metaphors do exist, in some poetic sense, as ideas in human minds. But we shouldn't take those metaphysical analogies literally, as physical facts.

Such scientific figures of speech are merely updates on Plato's metaphors of Ideal Forms and Aristotle's theory of Reality in terms of Substance & Essence. Likewise, today some of us still imagine the real universe as-if it's a rational (enformed) Cosmos born of an negentropic Chaos*2. So, it's not too far-fetched to imagine our Real Cosmos as the metaphorical offspring of an Ideal (omnipotential) Source*3, beyond space-time, upon which our world depends for all necessities (matter & energy) of Life & Mind. :wink:


*1. Reality Is Not What It Seems : and there is no space or time. Instead, for Vedral, quantum numbers, also known as Q numbers, are the true essence of reality, and it's a much more beautiful and useful way to understand the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKCP5k1RTmM&t=13s

*2. Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics. It focuses on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

*3. " Omnipotential Chaos" describes the idea of the ultimate power of chaos, often found in mythological, fictional, or philosophical contexts, where chaos is not just disorder but a source of all possible potential.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=chaos+omnipotential
Note --- The Multiverse theory may be a 21st century version of Plato's Cosmos from Chaos myth.

When facts meet ignorance, opinions always win.

You are not exactly a guy for the details, even if you continually demand them. :grin:

You are not exactly a guy for the details, even if you continually demand them. — apokrisis

Regarding my own views, I don't have a great many details. There are large areas of uncertainty and doubt for me.

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, — AmadeusD
I defend biosemiosis as the mechanism behind life and mind. — apokrisis

Since I am only superficially familiar with the theory of Biosemiosis*1, can you briefly summarize the steps or stages in the evolutionary mechanism of A> Big Bang . . . . . X> Life . . . . Z> Mind? It seems to follow an evolutionary track similar to my own Enformationism thesis. But as far as I can see, neither can connect all the dots. For example, the transformation of Matter into Life, and Biology into Symbols, and Symbols into Consciousness. The only common factor that I see is Energy/Causation. :smile:

*1. Biosemiosis is the study of how life and meaning are interconnected, arguing that meaning-making (semiosis) is an inherent and fundamental feature of all life, not just humans. Biosemiotics connects the biological world to the mental by exploring how organisms use signs to interpret and interact with their environment, suggesting that the mind is not a separate entity but emerges from these complex biological and social relationships. This field considers communication and meaning-making at all levels, from cellular to social, and offers insights into the origins of life and consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiosis+life+mind
Note --- Meaning, Symbols, Signs are forms of generic Information, which is ultimately related to causal Energy.

It we understand the semiotic modelling relation that gives us life and mind, we can then start to analyse “consciousness” as the stack of modelling relations that an embodied and socially cocooned organism can weave around its being — apokrisis

This may come across antagonistic - but it is unintended: I think you're looking at leaves and missing the trees they sprout from.

I respect that you take there be a, more or less, full answer to the problem of consciousness but to me, none of what you've put forward (which I highly appreciate) even attempts to answer it. I actually thikn what you're talking about is highly important, and you're dealing with it well. It just seems utterly wrong to think it answers something like the Hard Problem. I don't take hand-waving very well..

This sounds like a straw man. It is a view, but not one that anyone I can think of holds. — bert1

It is an incredibly strawman, but its one people like Dennett tended to embrace, conceptually. I think its just a stand-in for "I dunno *shrug* lets look at something else".

Consciousness is a discreet sensation. We need it explained (well, no. We want it explained). We currently have no explanation for its emergence, or origin. All we have are postulates - none of which have held thus far.

I actually thikn what you're talking about is highly important, and you're dealing with it well. It just seems utterly wrong to think it answers something like the Hard Problem. — AmadeusD

It might be repurposed as a theory of identity (or what makes a system an agent in some sense) rather than a theory of consciousness, perhaps.

I had a similar thought with Tononi's IIT model of consciousness. It might work better as a theory of individuation: the more information a system integrates, the richer its experience, and the more it has a sense of identity, perhaps.

That works for me, in an extremely cursory way. I'm not doing technical reading right now lol. Seems reasonable to integration is what's interesting to explain, but emergence is going to be the actual breakthrough.

That said, serious people (as apokrosis notes) do consider that consciousness is not its 'own thing' to be explained. I guess that makes no sense to me and smacks of how I described it above. I just could be dead wrong.

It just seems utterly wrong to think it answers something like the Hard Problem. I don't take hand-waving very well.. — AmadeusD

Well I was in the audience when Chalmers first raised his hard problem argument. I had lunch with him after to see if he was actually serious and had much email debate with him in the year after that.

But of course, your unexamined opinions must prevail here too.

Be reassured, you seem marvellous at the hand-waving. A duck to water. :up:

“brain as an antenna” hypothesis . . . . It was going the rounds in the 1990s. I chatted to quite a few of those pushing versions of it. Like Karl Pribram, Susan Pockett. Johnjoe McFadden, Benjamin Libet, Stuart Hameroff, Jack Tuszynski and others. — apokrisis

I Googled McFadden*1, since I had heard of him, to see how he would explain "how the brain becomes aware". He seems confident that this philosophical & scientific "mystery" has been solved. But, like so many other postulated solutions, his explanation is a tautology, not a mechanism : "consciousness is experience". Yet, Biosemiology basically defines Consciousness as "meaning-making" by manipulating symbols*2b.

From what little I know of Biosemiotics*2a, it seems functionally similar to my own information-based theorizing. And I think it may be on the right track. But I'm not sure it has connected the dots of a physical mechanism of Mind. Instead, the ellipsis of the tautology may be filled-in with metaphysical "hand-waving", as my theory is often criticized. But I don't claim to have solved the Hard Problem. I'm merely proposing a different kind of mechanism. Which is similar to A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy*3.

Unfortunately, for a Materialistic forum, his Process fills the gaps in the evolutionary mechanism with an immaterial "Force", which I equate with mundane Energy & Causation (relations, not things). Both of which have been historically interpreted as Spiritual Forces*4. In order to forestall accusations of promoting woo, I try to avoid using spiritualist terminology. But it's not easy, because Modern Science, since Quantum theory, has been struggling with similar spooky concepts : entanglement, superposition, action-at-a-distance, non-locality, contextuality, relativity, and the observer effect. And gaps in Quantum non-Mechanics*5 are often filled with hand-waving notions. So, what's an amateur philosopher to do, when trying to resolve the "mystery" of Mind? :chin:


*1. "Johnjoe McFadden, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Director of the Quantum Biology Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Surrey, said: "How brain matter becomes aware and manages to think is a mystery that has been pondered by philosophers, theologians, mystics and ordinary people for millennia. I believe this mystery has now been solved, and that consciousness is the experience of nerves plugging into the brain's self-generated electromagnetic field to drive what we call 'free will' and our voluntary actions."
https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/jet93h/johnjoe_mcfadden_genetic_scientist_claims_to_have/

*2a. Biosemiotics explains consciousness as a meaning-making and interpretation process inherent to all living systems, moving beyond a purely brain-centric view. It proposes that consciousness is an emergent property of a non-human organism's unique "sense-making" interface with its environment, shaped by its biology and communication at a cellular level. Rather than a fixed, individual phenomenon, consciousness is seen as decentralized and formed through the dynamic interplay and interpretation of signs from the organism and its environment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiology+explain+consciousness
*2b. From a biosemiotic perspective, consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon rooted in the meaning-making, communication, and interpretation processes of all living systems, not just humans.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiology+consciousness+is

*3. A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy posits that reality is fundamentally a dynamic, creative process rather than a collection of static substances. It views the universe as a constantly evolving "becoming" and emphasizes concepts like actual entities (the fundamental building blocks of reality) and prehensions (the way these entities interact and relate to each other). This philosophy integrates scientific findings with moral and spiritual intuitions, offering a view of reality as a vast, interdependent web of processes and relationships.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=A.N.+Whitehead%27s+Process+Philosophy

*4. Yes, "energy" is considered a spiritual concept in many traditions, where it's viewed as a vital, invisible force that animates all living things and connects the physical, mental, and spiritual self. Spiritual energy is different from scientific energy; it's often described as a life force (like prana or chi) that can be influenced by thoughts and emotions and is believed to be affected by practices like meditation and mindfulness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+spiritual
Note --- Bergson's Elan Vital is a causal process, not a material substance. Causing Change, not "throwing Chi".

*5. Quantum mechanics is often described as strange or "weird" compared to classical mechanics because its principles, like superposition (existing in multiple states at once) and wave-particle duality (acting as both a wave and a particle), are counter-intuitive at a macroscopic level.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+not+mechanical

Throwing Chi looks good in anime, but not in realite

But of course, your unexamined opinions must prevail here too.

Be reassured, you seem marvellous at the hand-waving. A duck to water. :up: — apokrisis

I'm am completely unsure why you're being antagonistic. The idea that my opinions are "unexamined" after this exchange is risible.

Why not just actually have a decent exchange, rather than descending into ad hominem? I gave you your flowers. I don't take kindly to impolite, antagonistic interlocutors either.

"consciousness is [the] experience of". — Gnomon

Yes, that certainly seems blatantly question-begging. I don't know if the context helps at all.

EDIT: I haven't read the whole McFadden article, but the opener in the abstract isn't question-begging:

"Abstract: In the April 2002 edition of JCS I outlined the conscious electromagnetic information field (cemi field) theory, claiming that consciousness is that component of the brain’s electromagnetic field that is downloaded to motor neurons and is thereby capable of communicating its informational content to the outside world. In this paper I demonstrate that the theory is robust to criticisms" — McFadden

I also think consciousness is field-like, as he says in the opening sentence of the main article. That might be an interesting read.

…the plainly crackpot idea of there being a mind field or plane of consciousness which brain biology “tunes” into and so “lights up with” that magically subjective phenomenonal state. — apokrisis

What if the whole of evolutionary history is that process? That the emergence of life just is the manifestation of the subjective? And furthermore, that the reason this won’t be considered scientific, is because this field is something you’re never outside of, and so cannot objectify.

Doesn’t this dovetail with Peirce’s ‘feeling’ as fundamental? Matter as effete mind? The embodiment of Firstness?

That;'s definitely hte approach taken by philosophers who have taken psychedelics. That says whatever it says for different people, but for my part, it shows that there are ineffable experiences. These cannot be 'scienced'. Consciousness, being hte basis of all experience, is a prime candidate for never getting past the shrug response.