What is consciousness as it relates to Being? I'd have to write you a book or something. To give a circular definition, consciousness is the experience that we have of being sentient. I don't think that I could give you a proper ontological definition of consciousness. Sartre attempted to do so in Being and Nothingness. I plan on reading that in the near future, and, so, maybe I'll have a better answer then.

I don't think that the idea of nonphysical things is coherent. — Terrapin Station

Yes, the 'nonphysical' isn't coherent because 'it' would communicate with the physical in physical terms, using energy and material whatnot, making it not to be a distinct realm. It's OK for now that the brain's internal symbols can't be gotten at because they are first person private.

What is consciousness as it relates to Being? — thewonder

You'd probably have to write me a book to explain what "as it relates to Being" adds to the question. :-)

There are too many books to be written!

There are too many books to be written! — thewonder

They're all there, complete, in the Library of Bable:

You seem to have a lot of spare time on your hands. Do you write all of these stream of conscious?

You seem to have a lot of spare time on your hands. Do you write all of these stream of conscious? — thewonder

I've been retired since 2000; first I write them (they don't just stream in but for sometimes. imagining I'm in the action), then I do most of the art for them (except for what I get free or pay a little for). Borges, the librarian named in the story, had the original idea.

I like Borges. Have you ever played the game Myst? This isn't terribly like Myst at all, but I had just thought of that for some reason.

I like Borges. Have you ever played the game Myst? This isn't terribly like Myst at all, but I had just thought of that for some reason. — thewonder

Played it over 25 years ago; it has a book in it at the start.

I watched a playthrough of that game because I had developed a really strange theory about it. It somehow revolved around the music piece that you play in the middle of the game. I can't really remember what it was as it was something that I had developed during sort of an episode. That game is pretty out there, though.

Mind is identical to a subset of brain functions. So the "particles of mind" are the same as the particles of brains. — Terrapin Station

Feelings aren't made of particles. The mind is made of qualia, which are the most fundamental parts of mind. Particles don't even exist. What we refer to as "particles" are actually relationships between other particles, all the way down. We never get at particles. We can only get at relationships. The idea of "particles" is incoherent.

Feelings aren't made of particles — Harry Hindu

It's particles in dynamic relations (as are qualia and everything else).

Particles don't even exist. — Harry Hindu

Oy vey.

Particles don't even exist — Harry Hindu

The current understanding is that particles are perturbations of the quantum field. In that understanding they are not "objects", like microscopic billiard balls, but intensities that interact in lawlike ways.

The current understanding is that particles are perturbations of the quantum field. In that understanding they are not "objects", like microscopic billiard balls, but intensities that interact in lawlike ways. — Janus

Which might be true (that it's a currently popular view), but it's incoherent, and stems from what's essentially platonist-oriented math worship.

It's particles in dynamic relations (as are qualia and everything else). — Terrapin Station

No, its just dynamic relations. Every "particle" you point at is a relationship.

The current understanding is that particles are perturbations of the quantum field. In that understanding they are not "objects", like microscopic billiard balls, but intensities that interact in lawlike ways. — Janus

The current understanding is that all particles are made up relationships between smaller particles. The particle that is your body is made up of a relationship between organs. Your organs are the relationship between molecules. Your molecules are the relationship between atoms and your atoms are the relationship between protons and electrons and a neutrons, Etc.

No, its just dynamic relations. Every "particle" you point at is a relationship. — Harry Hindu

It has to be dynamic relationships of something. It can't be dynamic relationships of nothing.

I never said it was relationships of nothing. Pay attention. I said its relationships made up of other relationships. Particles and objects is your mind digitizing an analog signal. It is how your mind categorizes those relationships. The objects/particles are those mental categories of the those relationships.

I never said it was relationships of nothing. Pay attention. I said its relationships made up of other relationships — Harry Hindu

You said "Just dynamic relations." But it can't be relations(hips) of relations(hips) because there needs to be something to have any relation(ship) in the first place.

For example, take "x is to the left of y from reference point a." "Is to the left of" is a relation(ship), but we can't have that without having two somethings to be situated in the specified way with respect to each other.

Adding relationships doesn't help. "To the left of to the right of" or "To the left of the parent of" or whatever relationships don't make any sense sans things to be related however they are.

You said "Just dynamic relations." But it can't be relations(hips) of relations(hips) because there needs to be something to have any relation(ship) in the first place.

For example, take "x is to the left of y from reference point a." "Is to the left of" is a relation(ship), but we can't have that without having two somethings to be situated in the specified way with respect to each other.

Adding relationships doesn't help. "To the left of to the right of" or "To the left of the parent of" or whatever relationships don't make any sense sans things to be related however they are. — Terrapin Station

And those two somethings are other relationships. How is that any different than saying that there are two particles that make up another particle? There are two somethings. You call those two somethings, "particles". I call them relationships. Both particles and relationships are made up of other particles or relationships. The only difference is that you never get at any particles if particles are actually relationships between other particles that are themselves relationships.

You don't have any particles without relationships. You might say that I don't have relationships without particles. I disagree. I can have relationships with other relationships. You, however, can't do without relationships to define particles. I just need other relationships to define other relationships.

You call those two somethings, "particles". I call them relationships. — Harry Hindu

Again, relationships are such as "to the left of," "is the parent of," "is similar to" etc.

So give an example of a relationship that is just to another relationship.

Again, relationships are such as "to the left of," "is the parent of," "is similar to" etc. — Terrapin Station

Your car, which a relationship between a combustion engine, wheels, tires, drive train, etc. is to the left (another a relationship) of your body, which I already said is a relationship between your various organs.

Now your turn, explain what a particular particle is without using relationships.

Your car, which a relationship between a combustion engine, wheels, tires, drive train, etc. is to the left (another a relationship) of your body, which I already said is a relationship between your various organs. — Harry Hindu

But you're specifying things that aren't relationships--combustion engines, etc. You could describe them in terms of relationships, but it can't be just relationships. It has to be a relationship of something to something else.

Particles are things like quarks--matter with no substructure/not composed of other particles.

I doubt the current physical theory posits particles "all the way down". The planck length is understood to be an absolute limit; you could not have particles smaller than that.

In any case particles are not understood to be determinately discrete bounded objects, but different kinds of energetic perturbations of the quantum field.