I'm not the one to have this discussion with you, but I would love to listen in. You need to round up some more participants. I wonder if people think consciousness discussions have been beaten to death recently on this forum.

On a recent thread, StreetLightX recommended books by neuro-scientist Antonio Damasio. I'm currently reading "The Feeling of What Happens." Sorry I can't be of more help.

I'm sympathetic to T Clark's comments.
The OP concerns a topic I'm familiar with, but I also have plenty on my reading plate. Instead of making others take the time to digest the Velmans papers, it might encourage them to make that effort if you could address the contents from your own perspective (i.e., indicate what you agree/disagree with, provide some questions and/or propositions to jumpstart discussion). Otherwise, for all I know, I could just be doing your homework for you.

I'm not the one to have this discussion with you, but I would love to listen in. You need to round up some more participants. I wonder if people think consciousness discussions have been beaten to death recently on this forum. — T Clark

It covers similar territory to the Hoffman thread, so that may have exhausted discussion for the time being. However this covers it from a specific philosophical perspective (neutral monism). Although the writer is a psychologist they are philosophical papers. A big difference between this view and Hoffman is that he reviews empirical claims (Sperry's emergentism and Global workspace) and makes the argument that they are all reductive and lead to elimininativism.

The OP concerns a topic I'm familiar with, but I also have plenty on my reading plate. Instead of making others take the time to digest the Velmans papers, it might encourage them to make that effort if you could address the contents from your own perspective (i.e., indicate what you agree/disagree with, provide some questions and/or propositions to jumpstart discussion). Otherwise, for all I know, I could just be doing your homework for you. — Galuchat

I included a wiki article which is three short paragraphs. I'm not sure of any philosophy of mind course that would set something distinct as homework considering the author is not listed even on Double-aspect theory wiki page (I just checked), but okay. Part of the reason I made the thread was when I searched Reflexive monism there were no threads. And the paper was only once brought up on a suggested reading list a couple of years ago. I gave a brief overview of the paper which I feel captured its main points.

Anyway, usually I agree or disagree in the discussion feed itself. I prefer OP's set out like Mongrel's unconscious thread where questions are posed and the OP appears unbiased. Point taken though, I'll make the questions more apparent.

To answer one question posed, I think his claim about reduction leading to eliminiativism is a correct one. Most modern (reductive) attempts at defining consciousness (like Baar's and Dehaene's global (neuronal) workspace) are ontologically eliminativist because consciousness is never presented as such.
I'm not as familiar with neutral monist theories as others here so I can't answer why physics appears to give more exact answers than phenomenal perception (which within the context of the paper included the biological sciences) does, which is why I thought it worth discussing. I believe there needs to be greater justification than QM (wave-particle duality).

A new way of thinking about consciousness...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXndYEpQhs

A new way of thinking about consciousness... — Sam26

Hi Sam, thanks for the bump and video. I enjoyed your Wittgenstein and NDE threads.

That's an interesting video. I've read Koch's confessions of a romantic reductionist (who also worked on IIT) which is a very good read. I don't know much about IIT but looking over that video it seems close to the global workspace stuff (abstract functional relationship described as mathematical architecture) highlighted above. If you notice towards the end of the interview, Tononi admits that consciousness is still specific mechanisms located in a specific place in time. Koch and Tononi flirt with a limited version of panpsychism which I think is problematic.

Thanks Jupiter, I stopped posting in the Wittgenstein threads because I wasn't getting any responses, although that shouldn't really stop me, since most of this is already written.

Ya, the video does get into panpsychism, and I'm skeptical of trying to fit any view of consciousness into some existing view of reality, or some religious view. I think it's going to take thinking outside the box, but that takes courage.

Do you feel dual-aspect monism is justifiable? — JupiterJess

Yes. It is precisely what we all experience. Our mind/body acting as a unity of itself and of the universe. Waves within an ocean. The macro manifests within the micro and vice-versa. I am often incredulous if minds denying itself, but I understand it is a game.

In regards to defining consciousness, we can try but all attempts will fail as being inadequate. Consciousness is felt.