well I studied science at the graduate level and have a good idea of what life is and what consciousness is

Like I said consciousness is a word that people use and like any word it can mean different things in different situations

What's your level of scientific study? What do you have your PhD in? Bottom line is people are imaginative inventive creatures that like to just make stuff up, like to talk, and like to just say creative stuff

But we have incredibly sophisticated body of knowledge that tells us what life is, life is complex chemistry that evolved over billions of years

Like I said, consciousness is a word and like any word it can mean different things in different contexts. But whatever it is, it is an evolved ability of certain organisms. And therefore it relies on chemical arrangements of atoms and molecules

When a person gets Alzheimer's and begins to lose their ability to be conscious, it is because their brain is deteriorating. The same thing if someone has a stroke or someone has an injury

The ability that any organism has to move around and act in the world is based on chemistry. And when the chemistry is damaged functioning is also damaged

Bottom line is if you think you have a better definition or a better understanding why don't you present it and also present some evidence to back it up. Because is kinda obvious if you deprive a brain of oxygen it will die and begin decaying and will no longer be conscious. This is what all the science says. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I think a lot of people like to just live in fantasyland and throw out religious like mumbo jumbo because it makes them feel good and it makes them feel special and it is the history of human happenings

But there is no evidence to support any of that. Like I asked the other guy what is your definition of life? How do you explain it? How do you explain the fact that certain organisms seem to be self-aware and seem to be able to communicate in complex ways with regard to self and environment?

It is obvious that it is evolved chemistry to anyone that holds degrees in biology or neuroscience... but of course the philosophers want to go on and on and want to make a living off the gullible just like religious people want to tell their stories to the gullible...

Show me some explanations and evidence?

And specifically, as you respond to this, what evidence do you have that you're anything more than complex chemistry?

As you sit there and type on your computer give me one shred of credible evidence that you are anything more than complex chemistry?

You guys are hypnotizing yourself with pedantic nonsense!

@Nickolasgaspar @Metamorphosis

You two should be friends.

Actually, I don't think I'm anything more than organic chemistry, except maybe space as well. But as a panpsychist I think all chemistry is conscious. My evidence for this is that I am conscious.

I don't think you've quite grasped the point about non vagueness. Your brain farts and such are experiences and therefore do not constitute states that are indeterminate as to whether or not they are conscious.

You two should be friends. — bert1

I will read his comments and if his reasoning is based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism then he will be appreciated.

Actually, I don't think I'm anything more than organic chemistry, except maybe space as well. — bert1

-I don't understand your point because you are saying that you aren't anything more than two abstract concepts (Chemisty or space).
Chemical processes are a basic condition necessary for our physical existence. Depending from the scale we choose to observe this phenomenon our description also changes. From a molecular to the scale of biological systems and behavior we can identify many different processes responsible for our existence.

But as a panpsychist I think all chemistry is conscious. — bert1

-You are committing a logical error. Your position SHOULD be induced by your premises. Its shouldn't be your conclusion product of a tautology.

My evidence for this is that I am conscious. — bert1

Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious.
Arguing from the general to the specific is a fallacy and its in direct conflict the the most successful Scientific paradigm.
Our practice to remove Agency from nature was the single most important thing we ever did to enable the run away success of our epistemology.

Advanced high level features are contingent to specific Low Level Mechanisms. We learned about this rule ages ago when many philosophers and scientists derailed our epistemic advances by assuming Advanced high level features existing in nature. i.e. Phlogiston, gods, life, ghosts, Miasma etc.
Science has verified that such advanced features are enabled by Structure and Function (process). This is true for Combustion,Wetness, life, consciousness etc.
In order to overturn this Paradigm you will have to offer far more convincing evidence than "your self being conscious".

I don't think you've quite grasped the point about non vagueness. Your brain farts and such are experiences and therefore do not constitute states that are indeterminate as to whether or not they are conscious. — bert1

-I can not find any earlier comments of mine in this thread so I don't think your comment is relevant to my thesis on the subject..at least I don't understand your point. If not, please elaborate.

I guess you just want to scream and shout and accuse others of X and Y when they do not even say that.

As for evidence … you want ‘evidence’ of what sort from a theoretical physicist exactly? Logical proofs? Exactly why do you think Penrose is some kind of woo woo wizard or something. Are you trying to embarrass yourself or just flying off the handle for no reason.

Either way, if that is your cool calm and collected response (that had a good deal of charity in it) then go bother everyone else but me with weird rants.

This is why I barely look on this site anymore … too many reactionary comments and responses.

Bye bye

I can not find any earlier comments of mine in this thread so I don't think your comment is relevant to my thesis on the subject..at least I don't understand your point. If not, please elaborate. — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry, that was directed at Metamorphosis.

You must suffer from some kind of masochism. Otherwise, I can't explain why you're torturing yourself trying to refute non-arguments presented by persons/bots like .

You could address my critique.

Actually, I don't think I'm anything more than organic chemistry, except maybe space as well. — bert1

-I don't understand your point because you are saying that you aren't anything more than two abstract concepts (Chemisty or space).
Chemical processes are a basic condition necessary for our physical existence. Depending from the scale we choose to observe this phenomenon our description also changes. From a molecular to the scale of biological systems and behavior we can identify many different processes responsible for our existence.

But as a panpsychist I think all chemistry is conscious. — bert1

-You are committing a logical error. Your position SHOULD be induced by your premises. Its shouldn't be your conclusion product of a tautology.

My evidence for this is that I am conscious. — bert1

Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious.
Arguing from the general to the specific is a fallacy and its in direct conflict the the most successful Scientific paradigm.
Our practice to remove Agency from nature was the single most important thing we ever did to enable the run away success of our epistemology.

Advanced high level features are contingent to specific Low Level Mechanisms. We learned about this rule ages ago when many philosophers and scientists derailed our epistemic advances by assuming Advanced high level features existing in nature. i.e. Phlogiston, gods, life, ghosts, Miasma etc.
Science has verified that such advanced features are enabled by Structure and Function (process). This is true for Combustion,Wetness, life, consciousness etc.
In order to overturn this Paradigm you will have to offer far more convincing evidence than "your self being conscious".

well the side making the magical claim has the burden to provide the evidence for the premises of his arguments.
Demanding an argument against a universal negative is irrational at best.

I would never listen to a biologist's take on QM so I don't know why people listen to Penrose's take on a biological phenomenon....weird and a logical fallacy(from false authority).
After all Penrose openly disagrees with Hameroff 's woo woo interpretations not to mention the unscientific practice to place a High Level Feature in a fundamental role independent of a lower level mechanism in nature. . We are back in the ring....fighting vs Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone energy .
That is pseudo philosophy founded on pseudo Scientific conclusions.

Penrose always says the Universe is not conscious, but that proto-consciousness is a fundamental property of it. Now I'm a bit confused.

1. What is proto-consciousness?
2. How is proto-consciousness differentiated from matter?
3. What is the difference between consciousness and proto-consciousness? — Eugen

Let me explain some basic things.
Consciousness is a high level feature produced by the function of specific biological systems...so its biology.
Penrose is a Physicist. Physics do not study the Necessary and Sufficient conditions under which the phenomenon occurs and can be tested, affected and manipulated.
Looking for answers about consciousness in Physics is like asking Biologists to weigh in on which quantum interpretation is correct. That is not reasonable.

1.Proto-consciousness is the label of an interdisciplinary attempt to identify necessary brain mechanisms in the smallest of scales(quantum).
2. It isn't,Identifying computational phenomena in a quantum scale can only describe the role of matter in the overarching phenomenon of Consciousness.
2. Proto-consciousness refers to quantum processes that may play role in the ability of the brain to produce conscious states.(like photosynthesis in plants,bird navigation etc) You wont find that word in real Neuroscientific Publications because conscious states are an emergent result of all those processes together so identifying every specific function of a small part is not helpful.

Why don't he call it matter?

"matter"? Are you suggesting that it is useful to call all high level features of matter and their individual mechanisms "matter''?( Digestion, Mitosis, Photosynthesis, Conductivity, Disease,Liquidity etc etc).
Where is the instrumental value in that practice?
Any modern author trusts that his audience won't "creating" entities from a label/name tag.
In the medieval era people used to make up substances like Phlogiston,Panacea,Élan vital etc in order to explain the qualities of an observed phenomenon. Thanks to Science we now know better not to come up with magical agents/substances and we describe phenomenon through the functions of observable processes.

-I don't understand your point because you are saying that you aren't anything more than two abstract concepts (Chemisty or space).
Chemical processes are a basic condition necessary for our physical existence. Depending from the scale we choose to observe this phenomenon our description also changes. From a molecular to the scale of biological systems and behavior we can identify many different processes responsible for our existence. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure, I was responding casually to @Metamorphosis who accused me of thinking I was made of magic spirit or something instead of plain ol' chemistry. And I was reassuring him that I do think I'm made of chemistry, with the caveat that all chemistry is conscious.

-You are committing a logical error. Your position SHOULD be induced by your premises. Its shouldn't be your conclusion product of a tautology. — Nickolasgaspar

My panpsychism is the conclusion to a bunch of premises. I just haven't given them here. I have done so at length in the past on this forum, and everyone is bored of me doing so, apart from you, so maybe I'll do it again just to annoy everyone. No right now though I don't have time.

Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious. — Nickolasgaspar

No, that's wrong.

Arguing from the general to the specific is a fallacy and its in direct conflict the the most successful Scientific paradigm. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm arguing from the specific (me) to the general (everything). That's a different fallacy, no doubt, I'm sure someone will point it out in a minute. 3....2....1....

Our practice to remove Agency from nature was the single most important thing we ever did to enable the run away success of our epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar

Luckily for nature it's agency is still there regardless of what we think about it. Yay for realism.

Advanced high level features are contingent to specific Low Level Mechanisms. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure, in many many ways. Just not with regard to consciousness.

In order to overturn this Paradigm you will have to offer far more convincing evidence than "your self being conscious". — Nickolasgaspar

I won't accomplish anything, I'm too puny and my dick is too small. But there is plenty of support for panpsychism across fields, including neuroscience. But if you're interested here is one short argument:

1) 'Consciousness' is not vague
2) The structure and function of systems generally thought to realise/cause/be (pick your verb) consciousness are sufficiently complex to be highly vague.
3) Therefore there is unlikely to be non-arbitrary way to decide at what point in the development of these systems consciousness emerges.
4) It is far more likely that consciousness does not emerge
5) Nevertheless consciousness exists (I know it does in me, that's the datum of evidence)
6) Therefore panpsychism

Another one:
There are three possibilities: eliminativism, emergence or panpsychism
All of these are problematic.
Eliminativism is false because I am conscious.
Emergentism is false for a number of reasons depending on the version of it. E.g. functionalism is false because it has no answer to 'Why can't that happen in that dark?'
Panpsychism is the least problematic and is the only theory standing, even though that has problems too (the combination problems most famously).
Therefore, provisionally, panpsychism

That's a very quick and dirty overview from my perspective.

You must suffer from some kind of masochism. Otherwise, I can't explain why you're torturing yourself trying to refute non-arguments presented by persons/bots like — Eugen

I'm hoping to bring him into the fold a little. If he carries on like that he'll be banned eventually, but we all have to start somewhere.

EDIT: no doubt I'll be banned someday. I'll get so enraged I'll commit suicide by mods.

My panpsychism is the conclusion to a bunch of premises. I just haven't given them here. I have done so at length in the past on this forum, and everyone is bored of me doing so, apart from you, so maybe I'll do it again just to annoy everyone. No right now though I don't have time. — bert1

I would appreciate that and I would ask for forgiveness from everyone else...= )

Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious. — Nickolasgaspar
No, that's wrong. — bert1

Of course it's not wrong. If you generalize a quality just because of your condition its a text book fallacy.
You should be able to demonstrate that extraordinary claim, not assume it.
Your ability to collect stimuli through your sensory system, to be fed in parts of your brain and being processed while the quality of your conscious states are being affected by your previous experiences point to specific physical mechanisms and processes and not to some kind of a "Phlogiston" type of philosophical artifact.

-"

I'm arguing from the specific (me) to the general (everything). That's a different fallacy, no doubt, I'm sure someone will point it out in a minute. 3....2....1.... — bert1

"
-Yes that's also a fallacy of composition.

Luckily for nature it's agency is still there regardless of what we think about it. Yay for realism. — bert1

Agency needs to be demonstrated not assumed. Your premises need to arrive to the conclusion...not to start from it.

Sure, in many many ways. Just not with regard to consciousness. — bert1

Special pleading is a fallacy....how about digestion...why don't you argue about that, after all we find neurons in our guts...

I won't accomplish anything, I'm too puny and my dick is too small. But there is plenty of support for panpsychism across fields, including neuroscience. — bert1

-No you won't find Panpsychism as a conclusion in a since publication of neuroscience. Try
https://neurosciencenews.com/?s=panpsychism

1) 'Consciousness' is not vague — bert1

It depends from your definition of "Consciousness".

2) The structure and function of systems generally thought to realise/cause/be (pick your verb) consciousness are sufficiently complex to be highly vague. — bert1

-Again you will need to define consciousness and what vagueness has to do with the phenomenon.

3) Therefore there is unlikely to be non-arbitrary way to decide at what point in the development of these systems consciousness emerges. — bert1

-I am not sure that you use the word "consciousness" in a meaningful scientific way....but to be sure, I will have to listen to your definition.

4) It is far more likely that consciousness does not emerge — bert1

-Its a fact that conscious states emerge from the function of the ARAS and the ability of the Central Lateral thalamus to introduce content to any stimuli that has met the threshold of attention, by connecting to areas of the brain responsible for Logic, memory, symbolic language, emotions,pattern recognition, prediction etc.
So I don't know how you arrive to a statistical possibility (more likely).
What is your science behind that statement?

5) Nevertheless consciousness exists (I know it does in me, that's the datum of evidence) — bert1

-Consciousness is a state, its real but it doesn't exist as an entity on its own. It;s the emerging result of an on going process like life, digestion, combustion. When the conditions are right they just manifest in reality.
This is why a dead individual or a rock can't avoid cars or rolling down a hill or develop a mental state of worrying or suffering while experiencing the event.

-"6) Therefore panpsychism"
-this conclusion isn't implied from your previous statement.

I would like to listen to your definition of Consciousness and why "vagueness" is or isn't a meaningful quality for the phenomenon.

There are three possibilities: eliminativism, emergence or panpsychism
All of these are problematic.
Eliminativism is false because I am conscious.
Emergentism is false for a number of reasons depending on the version of it. E.g. functionalism is false because it has no answer to 'Why can't that happen in that dark?'
Panpsychism is the least problematic and is the only theory standing, even though that has problems too (the combination problems most famously).
Therefore, provisionally, panpsychism — bert1

-I am not interested in Philosophical worldviews.
I am interested in descriptions.
Emergence is an observable phenomenon by science. Complexity in function and structure produce new high level features. By altering the system we either alter the quality of the feature or we end its emergence.

Introducing a magical agent/substance that suspiciously enough has the same properties with the phenomenon we are trying to understand is intellectually lazy, medieval pseudo philosophy and epistemically useless.
That isn't new. You are suggesting an unfalsifiable Magical Agent to be the cause....like God, Miasma, Phlogiston etc were used to explain physical phenomena. You are using a bigger mystery to explain a smaller one and you fail because can't demonstrate, describe, explain or offer predictions.
This is Pseudo Philosophy at best.

You need to understand that every process in the universe demands specific conditions in order to emerge. From a structure to its properties, these conditions are the catalyst for its existence, quality, duration, nature of interactions etc.
We don't have(or observe) Advanced features wondering around the world...waiting when to jump on process and enjoy a ride. At least Logic and the Null Hypothesis advises us to reject that claim until evidence can falsify our initial rejection/Default Position. And no comparing Pseudo philosophical worldvies (like eliminativism, emergence or panpsychism) doesn't change the Default Position on the subject.

At least we got rid off this theology and this is what enabled the growth of our epistemology.. This is the reason why our Philosophy became instrumentally valuable and was finally able to serve its goal. (to produce wise claims about our world).
Saying that everything is conscious...is a useless pseudo philosophical claim. We can not use it, to understand why i.e. a rock won't avoid my kick or why a blind fish will end in the mouth of his predator. Its USELESS and unfalsifiable, it can not offer wisdom that can inform our thoughts or actions in this world. The only serving purpose is its role as a comforting Death Denying Ideology.
You just render an aspect of your self immortal.

Philosophy is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness and comfort.

And no comparing Pseudo philosophical worldvies (like eliminativism, emergence or panpsychism) doesn't change the Default Position on the subject. — Nickolasgaspar

But you're an emergentist! And a functionalist as far as I can tell. These are philosophical positions. You haven't escaped into science.

In principle, I cannot disagree with your answer, i.e. Penrose is actually referring to matter. Thank you!

I'm hoping to bring him into the fold a little. If he carries on like that he'll be banned eventually, but we all have to start somewhere. — bert1

Stop hoping! :lol:

But you're an emergentist! And a functionalist as far as I can tell. These are philosophical positions. You haven't escaped into science. — bert1

:lol: :lol: :lol: You guys spent tons of virtual paint only to argue if that's philosophy or science? Judging by the quantity, I thought you guys have solved the hard problem together. You didn't even start :lol:

bert1, I've recently had this type of debate and I think this is a trend. From a philosophical point of view, they kind of realize one cannot defend materialism. So here's what they do: they deflect the topic into the scientific realm, falsely implying:
a. that this is science, not philosophy
b. science is all-powerful
c. science hasn't proven yet that consciousness is fundamental, therefore we shouldn't believe that
Then, they come back to philosophy and say:
d. therefore, materialism must be true

Emergentist?(whatever that means). No I am a human being that follows and respect the methodical and systematic findings of Science and the rules of Logic.
I don't reject claims because I assume them to be false. I only reject them as irrational since they are not objectively verify.

Emerge is observable in our world. i.e. a previously excited electron allows the emergence of a particle (photon). I can not deny this ability of Nature to produce phenomena just because I don't understand "why" . I just need all existential claims to meet the same high standards(like that of a photon) before I accept it.

These are philosophical positions. You haven't escaped into science. — bert1

-I am a Methodological Naturalist. Methodological Naturalism(MN) is not a Philosophical Worldview but an Epistemic Acknowledgement. My claims end where my ability to observe and verify ends. My current accepted Scientific knowledge is Tentative and based on what we can currently observe and falsify. That limits me within this realm forcing me to reject any indemonstrable realms or agents.
The time to discard MN is when our Epistemic Acknowledgement includes new realms and alternative scientific paradigms that include the supernatural.
Emergence in Science is nothing more than a Classification label of phenomena with observable differences between their mechanisms and their properties....nothing magical there.

You are also avoiding the main point he makes. Which is that conscious thought is non-computational. The problem is then about figuring out what could possibly be an answer to this - hence his original thought in Emperor’s Mind suggesting Quantum Mechanics.

If you do not like this idea that is your choice. Not liking something should not really be a singular guiding principle when tackling any complex problem.

methodical and systematic findings of Science and the rules of Logic. — Nickolasgaspar

Then why are you disregarding both on your reply to me about Penrose? His thought is based PURELY on logic and known physical mechanisms.

(also?) I am not avoiding anything. I am ignoring unfalsifiable speculations of a physicist on a biological phenomenon. Using QM to describe biological phenomena is not wise or sufficient. We've already identified mechanisms that allow the brain to be aware and able to introduce content in a conscious state. Sure, a Quantum mechanism can have a role in the process (like in Photosynthesis or Navigation of Birds) but it would be ignorant and irrational to assume that quantum elements can be carriers of High Level features in an emergent biological phenomenon. All "spooky" actions in QM act on the Kinetic characteristics of particles....so I don't know how one can justify that leap.

If you do not like this idea that is your choice. Not liking something should not really be a singular guiding principle when tackling any complex problem. — I like sushi

-It doesn't have to do with personal preference. It has to do with the need to Demarcate Philosophy and Science from pseudo philosophy and nonsense.....that's all.
Hiding magic in QM and then pointing to it as if it is the answer to a problem...well that's not a solution.
Studying the relevant discipline that studies the phenomenon is the only way.

Then why are you disregarding both on your reply to me about Penrose? His thought is based PURELY on logic and known physical mechanisms. — I like sushi

Because a philosophical speculation of a physicist on a biological problem is not SCIENCE.
Yes his speculation is based purely on logic and knowledge of physical mechanisms but it isn't based on Neuroscience.
Theoretical Physicists keep polluting all discipline around them with unfalsifiable speculations and crackpots like Hameroff keep making money by selling books to the ignorant and gullible.
As I wrote above, a quantum mechanism (or more) may play a role in our ability to consciously attend organic /environmental stimuli but it can never be the sole answer for this emergent property of a complex biological structure.

Emergence in Science is nothing more than a Classification label of phenomena with observable differences between their mechanisms and their properties....nothing magical there. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure, and if you think consciousness has emerged from the structure and function of brains, then you are an emergentist with regard to consciousness, as I said. Just like digestion is nothing other that a function of guts. Is that right?

its not a matter of what you "think" but what you can observe and verify.
ITs a matter of reasoning, and to reject an existential claim until you are in a position to falsify your rejection. Its Logic 101(Null Hypothesis).
Areas and functions of the brain are Necessary and Sufficient in explaining our conscious states. The time to assume something different is only after the identification a different source as necessary and sufficient.
If you come with objective evidence I will happily shift my current tentative position.

I see, so you have observed the emergence of consciousness. Is that right? Consciousness is nothing other than certain functions of the brain, and if you observe these functions working, you observe consciousness. Do I understand you?

It depends from your definition. Basic conscious states are enabled by the Ascending Reticular Activating System. A damaged ARAS is the end for your conscious existence.
Now Consciousness thoughts are the result of the Central Lateral Thalamus's function. The ability of this areas to bring together previous experiences(memories), reason emotions to feelings, apply symbolic value, reasoning , pattern recognition, intelligence etc etc etc from different areas of the brain is how the content emerges in our states. Different stimuli trigger different connections resulting to the formation of our conscious content.
This is what we observe and verify and we don't really need a magical source for the phenomenon.

OK, the words 'result,' 'enabled by,' 'formation,' suggest something other than an identity with function. Could you clarify? Is the feeling we get when we smell a rose the result of a neural function? Or is it the same thing as a neural function?

bert1, I've recently had this type of debate and I think this is a trend. From a philosophical point of view, they kind of realize one cannot defend materialism. So here's what they do: they deflect the topic into the scientific realm, falsely implying:
a. that this is science, not philosophy
b. science is all-powerful
c. science hasn't proven yet that consciousness is fundamental, therefore we shouldn't believe that
Then, they come back to philosophy and say:
d. therefore, materialism must be true — Eugen

Maybe, I don't know! I try to assume good faith where I can. If people start guessing at agendas in discussions they stop actually responding to what people actually say. Like @Nickolasgaspar keeps mentioning magic as if I've been pushing it when I've never actually mentioned it. A bit like a court's job is not to ascertain the will of Parliament, but to work out what the words of parliament mean (or something, I may have misquoted that).