One cannot say that all models are equal, I understand that you did not specifically say this, but this would seem to be a possible implication of your statement. — JerseyFlight

Maybe it would have been better to draw your implications from what l did say rather than what I didn’t?

Even if I had been favouring transcendence over immanence, the implication would have to be that I had reason to find one model better than another.

You agree that some models are so divorced from the premises of reality that they offer no value to reality? — JerseyFlight

I’m a pragmatist. So theories are free constructions. What matters is they are definite enough to be tested.

That is an obvious problem with a theistic theory that says whatever happens, it was god’s will. The worst kind of theory is one that isn’t even wrong.

But any theory that is posed with counterfactual force is then fine as it can be found wrong. It can fail.

So it is not that the premises have to be “real”. That smacks of naive realism. And all models rely on abstraction - some kind of construct that allows acts of measurement.

Thus my initial comment. A materialist conception of reality is a social construct. Harrison’s account of the history of science clearly illustrates that.

Could it be that you claim to be a supporter of immanent metaphysics, but are using as your prime bit of evidence a physicalism that is in fact based on a transcendent notion of mathematical law? That would be ironic, wouldn’t. So how do you answer?

So it is not that the premises have to be “real”. — apokrisis

If by this you mean for theoretical purposes then I can understand it. I do not believe I am equivocating here but it seems you are going back and forth between concretion and abstraction. Of course a model would rely on abstraction, I am not attacking this claim, I was distinctly addressing your use of the term, "just modeling." My point, which it is clear we agree on, is that theistic models are not definite enough to be tested.

A materialist conception of reality is a social construct. — apokrisis

I have no problem with this, it's hard to see how it could be anything else. However, as long as one does not conclude from this that reality is a construct, mere abstraction, there is no tension between us. We do in fact shape our view of reality through reality, but I think you will agree, this is very different from equating a materialist conception with a theistic conception. While both are social constructs this does not make them equal. Why do I bring this up, simply to clarify that you are not making false room here?

What matters is they are definite enough to be tested. — apokrisis

I assuredly agree.

Could it be that you claim to be a supporter of immanent metaphysics, but are using as your prime bit of evidence a physicalism that is in fact based on a transcendent notion of mathematical law? That would be ironic, wouldn’t. So how do you answer? — apokrisis

I am neither a pragmatist nor an idealist. I am a supporter of thought making comprehension gains by observing reality through the medium of a dialectical awareness (and here dialectic is not a reference to the error of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis).

by observing reality through the medium of a dialectical awareness — JerseyFlight

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

I’m always arguing that metaphysics relies on dialectics. So we could be on a similar tack here. Especially if it is not the standard misrepresentation of Hegelianism you mention.

There is thinking - of a desultory and ruminative kind - even in deep sleep as it happens. It is just unremembered and disconnected. — apokrisis

What about general anesthetic? I admit I haven't researched it but it appears to be a complete utter blank in that case.
I recall Hameroff was particularly interested in it the other year because he believed it worked at the microtubule level or there had been some evidence of this. That was just a youtube recommended video though :D

It depends on the level and type of anaesthesia. But as the following shows, the safe goal is aiming to reduce brain activity to 60% to 40%, not to zero.

And awareness with paralysis can happen. Awareness with just forgetting is what light anaesthesia is about by design.

Recent advances have led to the manufacture of monitors of awareness. Typically these monitor the EEG, which represents the electrical activity of the cerebral cortex, which is active when awake but quiescent when anesthetized (or in natural sleep). The monitors usually process the EEG signal down to a single number, where 100 corresponds to a patient who is fully alert, and zero corresponds to electrical silence. General anesthesia is usually signified by a number between 60 and 40 (this varies with the specific system used).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness

100 corresponds to a patient who is fully alert, and zero corresponds to electrical silence. General anesthesia is usually signified by a number between 60 and 40

Interesting, makes me wonder what the usual number is for deep sleep.

I have believed for some time that moving forward with the hard-problem involves understanding if and how consciousness/qualia effect the matter in the brain.