Or I'll even reduce it down another level. Consciousness IS the brain. Period.

Is it not this:

"materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them. Epicurus."

It’s funny how panpsychists always want proof for a materialist view of consciousness when there’s zero for panpsychism — GLEN willows

On the contrary the hard problem of consciousness lies between the two opinions as to what consciousness is. So the zero proof of the wholly panpsychic is the same zero proof of the wholly materialist. The hard problem. How to connect the two: consciousness and body.

And I proposed dualism. That the (pseudo) dichotomy is based on the set of conditions standardised (preassumed as constants).

In materialism collective, the presupposed constant is objective observation. "See it to believe it". But who's doing the seeing eh? And who's applying the ethics to scientific practices of objectification? The mind is. The immaterial. It's governing how science can prove things (through ethics). So if we are to apply science to consciousness: scientific method is unlikely to work, unless we do something unethical because you cannot objectify (reveal) the entirety of a person's mind, their consciousness- all their memories, experiences, traumas etc that go to make up their awareness.

It would be an invasion of privacy. Wouldnt it?

In the opposite schools of thought: the presupposed constant is "I believe it therefore I see it." - supposing that our previous assumptions (beliefs) dictate what we can consider (see).

For example in jumping to conclusions, misinterpreting peoples intentions or words, distrust/ skepticism.etc . All processes derived from the influence of our assumptions on interpretation of incoming communication.

If I for example assume the belief "nobody likes me I'm lonely" then I will only be able to consider "the empirical evidence/observations" that upholds that assumption - all those things that people did/do that proves I'm alone.

By doing that we are placing less weight/value or outright dismissing the observations that would suggest otherwise unless I were to reassess the belief I assumed in the first place.

So it seems neither materialism nor mentalism/psychism/immaterialism either have the upper hand. In combination however they seem more insightful.

Fully materialist views cannot explain ethics and yet are under its full control on how they are allowed to investigate materially.
Whilst mentalism/psychism is easily deluded if it sees what it wants to based on false beliefs.

A combination leads to someone who believes what they observe (current state of affairs) but wishes to observe what they believe (make a change). Whether that's ethical or not is another question.

I still don't know what you mean by this.

I’m not being snarky, but seriously: What part of all things are material don’t you understand? I gave you the dictionary definition, and how it applies in this discussion (consciousness is a part of the brain). Do you prefer physicalism? Same thing.

These are standard philosophical terms, no?

On the contrary the hard problem of consciousness lies between the two opinions as to what consciousness is. So the zero proof of the wholly panpsychic is the same zero proof of the wholly materialist. — Benj96

That’s exactly what I said.

Fully materialist views cannot explain ethics and yet are under its full control on how they are allowed to investigate materially. — Benj96

How does panpsychism explain ethics et al.?

Dictionary definitions are uninformative. If that's all you,'ve got, GLEN, then your phrase "materialist source of consciousness" is empty.

With all due respect, do you honestly not know what the word materialism means? Or physicalism? Or do you just disagree with the theory?

No. No. What "theory"?

From our PM exchange earler:

I don't accept that philosophers [propose] "theories", just interpretations of theories or thought-experiments in order to provoke conjectures about the world. A "materialist theory" makes no sense to me. Today we have eliminative materialists and physicalists: the latter denotes conceptual dependence of a physical (neurological) substrate and the former only a principle of filtering-out folk concepts from conjectures about "consciousness" or mind. Neither are "theories" as far as I can tell. — 180 Proof

You might find this post interesting:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/756516

I've already read that thread.

Ok you win. I'll change my belief that science will explain consciousness from a "theory" to a "conceptual dependence of a physical (neurological) substrate." And I'm actually an eliminative materialist (sorry for the M word), which is NOT just about folk psychology..

"Paul Churchland has come along and pretty much said, 'I don't think so!' Tossing aside the concept of dualism and the brain, Churchland adheres to materialism, the belief that nothing but matter exists. In other words, if it can't somehow be recognized by the senses then it's akin to a fairy tale."

It's from this essay. You might find it interesting: https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=senproj_s2015

Ok I'm done, we've beaten this to death, and can't even agree on basic terms. You're more than welcome to the last word. I'll stick with the Churchlands. They're also Canadian!

Thanks for the discussion. Cheers.