I don't think they've got agendas. I think their brains simply look for alternatives, it's natural. Maybe they're right and we're wrong. Maybe we're biased, who knows?

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

Emotions (reasoned in to feelings)are the basis of our conscious state (Mark Solmes- Theory of consciousness). A stimulus caused by a particle (odorants) triggers our brain to interpret the meaning and implications of that external cue (our brains have evolved as predictions machines elevating our chances of survival /Anil Seth).
The interpretation of the stimulus is achieved through the introduction of additional properties of mind (pattern recognition, memory, symbolic language, emotion) in our conscious state. Brain function is responsible for the content of our state. I don't know what you mean by the statement "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?"

I don't know what you mean by the statement "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?" — Nickolasgaspar

It's not a statement, it's two questions. I'm trying to get clear in my head what you think the relationship is between the experience of smelling a rose and what happens in the brain. Is the experience the same thing as events in the brain, which we simply call smelling a rose? Or is it a product of events in the brain? Or something else?

I'll use an analogy which I hope will help. Is digestion the product of action of the gut? Or is it just the name we give to an action of the gut?

Is consciousness a product of brain function? or is it just the name we give to some kinds of brain function?

The the experience of smelling a rose produced, or caused by brain function? Or is it just the name we give to a particular brain function? Or what?

Do you see what I'm asking?

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? — bert1

The study of consciousness is an Interdisciplinary case. You can observe consciousness like any other property in nature (conductivity, combustion, liquidity, rigidity etc etc). We are able to quantify the phenomenon(Anil Seth) and we even have the technology to decode complex conscious thoughts by just reading brain scans.
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news-stories/2017/june/brain-decoding-complex-thoughts.html

I'm trying to get clear in my head what you think the relationship is between the experience of smelling a rose and what happens in the brain. Is the experience the same thing as events in the brain, which we simply call smelling a rose? Or is it a product of events in the brain? Or something else? — bert1

I don't really understand your question so I think an Academic Mooc on consciousness is the best way to find your answer.
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/what-is-a-mind
Maybe a definition of the word "experience" would help the discussion.

Kicking a football causes the window to smash.

But kicking a football is not the same thing as the window smashing.

On the other hand, the action of the gut doesn't cause digestion.

The action of the gut is digestion.

So what should we say with consciousness?

Does some brain activity cause consciousness?

Or is some brain activity the same thing as consciousness?

I'm not sure how else to ask the question. There may be a language barrier issue perhaps. Can anyone else help?

-" From a philosophical point of view, they kind of realize one cannot defend materialism."
-Materialism , Idealism, Occasionalism, Solipsism,Bananism etc are all indefensible Metaphysical Worldviews. All unfalsifiable views on Ontology are nothing more than Pseudo Philosophy.

they deflect the topic into the scientific realm — Eugen

-Actually the study of a biological phenomenon is by definition a job for science. After all Science (Natural Philosophy) is nothing more than Philosophy with a empirical methodology on naturalistic principles.(Methodological Naturalism)

science is all-powerful — Eugen

-Strawman. Science is, currently the most credible way we have to produce and to verify the quality of our knowledge.

c. science hasn't proven yet that consciousness is fundamental, therefore we shouldn't believe that — Eugen

-Shifting the burden and poisoning the well fallacy...plus its the statement is contradictive.
"To be conscious is to be aware (of something.) One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent."

therefore, materialism must be true — Eugen

-Therefore Methodological Naturalism...meaning that you accept a claim AFTER it has been verified to be true without making up invisible realms and agents.

Like Nickolasgaspar keeps mentioning magic as if I've been pushing it when I've never actually mentioned it. — bert1

-So you are suggesting something that resembles magic ...but you have issues with the label used ?

↪bert1
I don't think they've got agendas. I think their brains simply look for alternatives, it's natural. Maybe they're right and we're wrong. Maybe we're biased, who knows? — Eugen

Whether we are right or wrong is irrelevant or better...meaningless. What we should all value is whether our positions are in agreement with current available facts and the basic Rules of Logic.
Is our position in conflict with the Null Hypothesis, is it based on a fallacy, do we reproduce unnecessary entities , is our epistemology out of date?
If any of the above are true then our position is irrational (not necessary wrong).

So you are suggesting something that resembles magic ...but you have issues with the label used ? — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not suggesting any magic as far as I am aware. But it seems you think I am.

You literally stated that particles molecules and chemicals are conscious...that isn't magical for you?
Can you explain the Ontology of Consciousness?
Can you point out the differences between a conscious and unconscious entity and how they can be distinguished?

You literally stated that particles molecules and chemicals are conscious...that isn't magical for you? Can you explain the Ontology of Consciousness? — Nickolasgaspar

No more magical than saying particles have mass or charge. It's just another property of matter.

No more magical than saying particles have mass or charge. It's just another property of matter. — bert1

lol why they are magical when those properties are quantifiable. You need to do better man.... Can you offer us a method by which you can demonstrate and quantify the conscious states of a rock similar to the methods we use to quantify the mass and charge of a particle?

ol why they are magical when those properties are quantifiable. — Nickolasgaspar

I don't think they are magical.

Can you offer us a method by which you can demonstrate and quantify the conscious states of a rock similar to the methods we use to quantify the mass and charge of a particle? — Nickolasgaspar

No, consciousness is not quantifiable. It does not admit of degree. X is either conscious or not, there is no middle.

I don't think they are magical. — bert1

ok thats good to know. So your point was that consciousness is a property of particles. How can you demonstrate that?

No, consciousness is not quantifiable. It does not admit of degree. X is either conscious or not, there is no middle. — bert1

Well in science we have ways to quantify our conscious states. Anil Seth explains the metrics of the quantification processs.
The minimum requirement for a conscious state is the arousal of the Ascending Reticular Activating System.
Different stages of sleep allow different qualities of consciousness.
A waking up state is limited compared to a fully alert state or a tired brain or an intoxicated brain.
All these different statements can be quantified by studying specific characteristics of brain function.

we are not just neurons Bert! An organism is an organism... Smelling a rose is the total happening of an organism reacting to its environment...

Also if matter, elementary matter, is a little bit conscious, is it also a little bit intelligent, a little bit emotional, a little bit curious,...

Don't you get a much simpler and better explanation by just understanding it as matter evolving in complexity...

Zygote, to newborn, to baby, to toddler , to kid, to adult to senior... We can see consciousness develop and change over a lifetime

We can also see it fade in and out during sleep, deep sleep, anesthesia, drugs...

Consciousness isn't a thing, it's not a quality, it's a developed biological capacity...

But magical thinking is part of human nature and we have a huge history of superstition and legends... So people will try to continue to push the idea of the sacred or the transcendent or something supernatural... And people have gravitated to consciousness because it's quite nebulous because it's the convergence of billions of cells with trillions upon trillions of connections...

Zygote, to newborn, to baby, to toddler , to kid, to adult to senior... We can see consciousness develop and change over a lifetime — Metamorphosis

What is experiened changes. That experience happens at all doesn't change. If a system has an experience at all, no matter what it is an experience of, then it is conscious. The presence or absence of experience, of whatever content, is a binary. There isn't anything in between consciousness and non-consciousness, in the same way that there isn't anything in between 7 and less-than-7.

We can also see it fade in and out during sleep, deep sleep, anesthesia, drugs... — Metamorphosis

Again, it doesn't matter how dim the experience gets, it's still experience.

How can you demonstrate that? — Nickolasgaspar

By showing the alternatives are worse. Panpsychism is the worst theory of consciousness apart from all the others.

Well in science we have ways to quantify our conscious states. — Nickolasgaspar

The examples you give are of differing content of consciousness, from unfocused and fuzzy, to sharp, or something like that. They are all conscious states.

The minimum requirement for a conscious state is the arousal of the Ascending Reticular Activating System. — Nickolasgaspar

OK, how do you know that?

Don't you get a much simpler and better explanation by just understanding it as matter evolving in complexity... — Metamorphosis

I don't think so, no. You just get more problems. Why do some complexities result in or instantiate consciousness, while others don't?

By showing the alternatives are worse. — bert1

-You are talking about a claim saying that particles posses a specific High level feature. That needs to be demonstrated independently from the aesthetics of other claims. You need to demonstrate it by explaining how a world would look where particles do not posses that ability and then point to a methodology capable to falsify your claim. Can you really do that?
Well a claim should rise and fall on its own merits.
The way you suggest has no credit.

The examples you give are of differing content of consciousness, from unfocused and fuzzy, to sharp, or something like that. They are all conscious states. — bert1

Yes they are conscious states with different qualities (intensities) We can quantify them by measuring specific metrics in brain function. By doing that we can introduce our theories in the real world, produce Meaningful Predictions, Accurate Predictions and Technical Applications resulting to the improvement of different conditions.
This is the difference between a new age theology and an actual Theoretical Model of Science.

OK, how do you know that? — bert1

I study Neuroscience....

Guys, I admire your passion for debate, I really do. But the topic of this OP is different.

If one of you has heard or seen Penrose or Hameroff defining proto-consciousness, or if one of you has enough developed skills to deduce with certainty what proto-consciousness is in Penrose and Hameroff's views, then you're welcome to post your thoughts.

Materialism vs non-materialism is another topic guys.

But the topic of this OP is different. — Eugen

Sorry, I'll stop!

I am a Methodological Naturalists. That means I would never argue in favor Materialism or non materialism or any other pseudo philosophical worldview. So I am curious on why accusing me for doing so?
Bert believes that proto consciousness is located in particles(at least this is what I understood from his arguments). I challenged his belief by demanding the same evidence I would ask from a claim for gods or dragons or hobbits or smurfs. The only way we can be off topic is if Bert doesn't talk about proto consciousness.

Now Penrose and Hameroff 's proto-consciousness is an old artifact found in a 30years old failed "theory" that has never been supported...or even mentioned by the wealth of findings and publications in cognitive science.
Why do you thing this idea can make us wiser on the topic? After all this is what Philosophy is all about, to produce wisdom!
What is the epistemology that in your opinion justifies a philosophical discussion on a made up substance/entity/agent? 30 years ago two false authorities made this existential claim...is it enough to accept it on face value? Aren't we suppose to evaluate our epistemology before using it as a foundational stone in an inquiry?
I am not saying you shouldn't , I am only trying to understand your standards.

I am a Methodological Naturalists. — Nickolasgaspar

Blah blah blah... I don't even bother reading the rest. This OP has a clear formulated question. Answer it or leave the OP. I'm not interested in your theories, views on reality, opinions, etc.

why are you condescending?
You accused me for arguing in favor of Materialism and I had to inform you about my position(MN) and how it conflicts with all Metaphysical Worldviews.
I explained to you how my conversation with Bert was on topic since I was asking him to demonstrate his belief in proto consciousness being a property of particles.

Now you attempt to force specific rules in this platform by limiting all post to the questions in the OP ?
I thought we were done with your questions when I addressed them and your final answer was , I quote:"In principle, I cannot disagree with your answer, i.e. Penrose is actually referring to matter. Thank you! "
After all, asking Bert about the ontology of the mental properties of particles is relevant to your question : 1. What is proto-consciousness?

If you are not interested in other peoples' theories, views on reality and opinions then why are you posting comments in a public forum where people share views and opinions?
What is your goal? Did you expect an echo chamber for comforting messages to bump around? This is not what philosophy is all about. As I stated before, its an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness.
Let me know if you are willing to challenge your beliefs in a civilized discussion.

Even if your discussion is civilised, it is not relevant to the topic. You're here to make propaganda. I have nothing against you personally, but you're troll8ng my OPs. I was civilised, but you didn't stop.

From my perspective, this OP is closed.
I don't have a clear view on what Penrose and Hameroff mean when they mention proto-consciousness.
Thank you for sharing your opinions!

You need to provide evidence for your accusations. Declaring them to be "propaganda" and trolling is not enough and its not civilized behavior.
In one of your threads I illustrated your errors in your philosophy by pointing academics with their names who share similar concerns.
Without wasting more time on that I proceeded to some basic questions which you are not willing to answer. In my conversation with Bert I was asking question on why he believes in proto consciousness when its an unfalsifiable "artifact".

From my perspective, this OP is closed.
I don't have a clear view on what Penrose and Hameroff mean when they mention proto-consciousness.
Thank you for sharing your opinions! — Eugen

From a scientific perspective the concept of proto-consciousness is also closed not because we don't understand it but because Logic (Parsimony, Null Hypothesis, Burden of Proof, Demarcation etc) and current data render the idea..."not even wrong"(Wolfgang Pauli).
I wish for a better future interaction.

Dude, I don't bother reading your messages :lol:

Have a nice day Philosopher!