This, in no way is an accurate representation of how a scientist philosophizes. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Wll there is a way for accurately representing how someone should philosophize or reason whether he is a scientist or not. This is what it means to systematize a field of study by !

The method of philosophy is not the same as the method of science, so when a scientist philosophizes, that scientist may or may not have some training in philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

First of all there isn't such a thing as "A" scientific method. Science have many methods but that is a different topic.
Now if you noticed I identified the method of philosophy I was talking about (Aristotle).
The fundamental steps are the following.
1. Epistemology
2. Physika (Science)
3. Metaphysics
4. Ethics
5. Aesthetics
6. Politics
and back to epistemology for additional knowledge.
So if a scientist or anyone decides to skip those first two basic steps he is placing his inquiry on a really shaky ground.

so when a scientist philosophizes, that scientist may or may not have some training in philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

A Scientist can escape the first 3 steps of Philosophy. So its more probable for a philosopher to be bad in philosophy than a scientist. But still dudes like Hoffman show that when our auxiliary assumptions are polluted we are capable for really bad philosophy and interpretation of facts in general.

And if the scientist has some training in philosophy, the degree of training will vary from one scientist to another. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you are confusing Chronicling with the ability of a scientist to contract metaphysical frameworks based on the available facts. The ONLY training one needs to do philosophy is to reason correctly, obey the steps of the philosophical method and challenge his preconceptions.
You do understand that Natural Philosophy (science) is Philosophy on Naturalistic principles and far better data. The common ingredient in all Philosophical categories is nothing more than Logic and a shared System of inquiry.

"Pseudo science" on the other hand is the inversion of this, when someone without proper scientific training makes an attempt at science, without applying the appropriate scientific method. — Metaphysician Undercover

-No this is not what pseudo science is. Theoretical frameworks that ignore the principles of Methodological Naturalism while using obscure language and questionable data. This is what pseudo science is and like in the case of Pseudo philosophy their advocates won't correct their claims even when they are exposed.

That you confuse these two is evident from the fact that you switch from pseudo science to pseudo philosophy in the course of your post. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover

-Its obvious that I am not the confused one here. Hoffman promotes a Death denying ideology as "science" and the only argument he has is "I got a mathematical model".
Maths are complementary in any Scientific Theory. One needs hard evidence to back up his math.
i.e. Peter Higgs won the Nobel Prize ONLY after his math were verified by CERN....not the year he wrote down those equations....some 60years ago.
Unfortunately for Hoffman science doesn't accept unfalsifiable supernatural claims as Theories just because someone has some Math on a paper.

Have a nice day Philosopher!

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.

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.

I haven't made any claims on the topic yet , so how can you say that I am right about "everything"???
I only raised some red flags on the quality of assumptions behind the philosophical models and I swiftly proceeded in asking some basic questions. If forfeiting is your final choice, I can't do anything about it.
So, take care and enjoy the echo chamber of your preference...I guess.

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.

No he isn't. He is a Methodological Naturalist (Scientist) and I don't know what "reality is mind" means. I mean I know the meaning of the words reality and mind but together in a sentence doesn't really make sense.

I am done with my critic of your OP and the "philosophical practices" from my previous comment.
I moved on and asked you a simple question. What do you mean by the term "Consciousness is fundamental"? Fundamental in what sense? What does that mean for us.

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....

Its a critique on the topic and how people approach it.

Mark himself, although he provides an interesting epistemology, believes consciousness is fundamental. — Eugen

-Fundamental for survival? Sure, but not fundamental in a mystical way(ontology of reality). Maybe you can explain what you mean by the term " conscious is fundamental". That would allow a good conversation.

There aren't any good ontological arguments. In fact all Major General Advances in Philosophy are against all idealistic principles.
i.e.
Naturalism (in the domain of metaphysics) vs. Supernaturalism
Evidentialism (in the domain of epistemology) vs. mysticism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, a priori facts, faith.
Consequentialism(in the domain of ethics) vs. authoritarianism / absolutism
Aesthetic Relativism(In the domain of aesthetics) vs. cosmic aesthetics / aesthetics as morality.

Major Specific Advances also ignore idealism all together.
• Set Theory
• Symbolic Logic
• Reduction of Mathematics to Axioms & Logic (Russell)
• Transfinite Mathematics (Cantor)
• Game Theory
• Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems / Dan Willard's Solutions
• Modal Logic
• Bayesian Epistemology
So there is really no place for idealism in Philosophy except from Chronicling.
Idealism doesn't assist our Philosophical goals (the production of wise claims about our world and the expansion of our understanding).

Well the Huge big grey elephant in the room is to have a "scientist" argue against an indefensible metaphysical worldview and promote another.
As a Scientist he is limited by Methodological Naturalism's principles to keep his work within a specific demonstrable realm, not because of a ideological bias but due to Pragmatic Necessity.(Its where our methodologies and evaluations function).
So by definition his interpretations and conclusions are pseudo scientific.
Now Donald main argument is his "mathematics" and his "mathematical models" but he always fails to demonstrat how those "models" do the work he claims they do.
His main approach sounds like "This can't be wacky because I keep on mentioning mathematics", as if Maths isn't a language of logic acceptable to the GIGO effect.
When you feed garbage in your premises you will receive garbage in your conclusions and this is what we get from Donald.
Hoffman ticks all the boxes of Pseudo Philosophy, he claims that those things he believes are true because of some mathematical models he came up with.
Its really said to see people waste time and resources in Magical ideas .

I check all these threads on Consciousness and Mind and they all seem to ignore or to be in direct conflict with the latest epistemology from all relative Scientific Disciplines that study the Phenomenon. Why is that?..I wonder.
Instead, obscure language and fringe theories are used as Segways for known Death Denying Ideologies and comforting beliefs about reality.
According to the Philosopher responsible for the systematization of the field(Aristotle),in order for an inquire to be Philosophical, specific steps should be followed.
The first step is Επιστημολογία (epistemology) and the second is Φυσικά (Physika...Empirical evaluation of our Epistemology). Only then we are good to proceed to our Μεταφυσικά (Metaphysics). So by avoiding the evaluation of what we currently know and how we know it and by not including the most credible, systematical and methodical body of knowledge, one is guilty of pseudo philosophizing.

Richard Carrier defines Pseudo Philosophy as:
"Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion, and/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises. And isn't corrected when discovered."
Unfortunately most positions and discussions in this thread tick all the above. Most auxiliary assumptions are fallacious (unverified or unfalsifiable premises) but accepted as true while ignoring data that render them wrong. Even when they are exposed for their non epistemic value, most "philosophers" keep repeating them in the next thread.

Mario Binge's Ten Criticisms of contemporary Academic (or everyday) Philosophy identify the tactics responsible for allowing pseudo philosophy to coexist with actual Philosophy.(Wise Statement about the world).

• Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions

• Confusion between Philosophizing & Chronicling

• Insular Obscurity / Inaccessibility (to outsiders)

• Obsession with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems

• Idealism vs. Realism and Reductionism

• Too Many Miniproblems & Fashionable Academic Games

• Poor Enforcement of Validity / Methodology

• Unsystematic (vs. System Building & Ensuring Findings are Worldview Coherent)

• Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization (science, technology, and real-world ideologies that affect mass human thought and action)

• Ivory Tower Syndrome (not talking to experts in other departments and getting knowledge and questions to explore from them or helping them)

Especially the last two criticisms and that of Chronicling instead of Philosophize (who said what) are the main reasons why Philosophical Discussions get derailed and become "theological declarations". This is why Philosophy of Nature (Science) has enjoyed a long run away success in epistemology while Academic Philosophy struggles with a weak peer reviewing system where pseudo philosophy and real Philosophy are published side by side.

Mark Solms,the founder of Neuropsychoanalysis and the author of the most important paper on Dreams, explains his theory on consciousness in the book "The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness ".
He explains how the need to control our emotions (need for survival) provides answers to the "why" questions of Chalmer's "Hard problem of consciousness".

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.

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?

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?

↪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).

-" 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 ?

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.

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

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?"

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.

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.

(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.

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 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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

I don't see how to make sense of this.

If we decide that something is true on the basis of some observation, and subsequent observations show that it is not true, then we were wrong.
Our observations do not generally change what is true, but what is believed. — Banno

-Your last statement helps me understand why you can not make sense of my thesis.
You are committing a fallacy of Ambiguity. You are using "truth" as an ideal (absolute) while
I am only referring to truth as our every day practical evaluations of our claims/statements in relation to current available facts/observations.
So you are talking about Absolute/Ultimate truth and I am talking about Practical Truth.
The first is only useful as an ideal goal but useless in the evaluation of our real life truth statements. The second has an instrumental value(evaluates claims in relation to facts) while acknowledges our inability to have absolute truth statements about reality.

So our observations can not change the (Ultimate) unknown truth....and its NOT their job after all.
Our methods and observations are limited and our Ideals can only direct us to a goal but they can never affect our evaluation methods(Logic does that). Whether a true statement can be absolutely true, that can be possible when a statement is descriptive of a simple observation which isn't affected by an underlying, unknown ontology. i.e. The statement "you can't run through a brick wall" is true independent of the actual ontology of reality.That statement is verified every single time we test it.

So Truth as an ideal value and Truth as an evaluation unit are two different things.
This is a great example on how abstract ideals derail Philosophical conversations.

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.

We totally agree on that. After all the ideal state of a concept is an observer's creation which in practice he/she strives towards it. (truth, knowledge etc).

Your definition is meaningful! The instrumental value (instrumentality-practical purpose) is what introduces the value of "knowledge" in a claim.

Knowledge is just an evaluation term we use on claims/statements. Claims that are in agreement with current facts and have an instrumental value (can be used to produce further information) are identified as knowledge.
The value of Truth is not absolute because new facts can and have changed the truth value of previous claims. So a true belief can be proven not true...while an instrumentally valuable statement can always be used as knowledge.
My point is that truth and knowledge are observer relative evaluations, limited by our current observations. Something that is (probably) not true (i.e. Relativity) can be used as a knowledge claim to produce further knowledge.

This thread demonstrates how useless philosophical conversations can become without a credible epistemic foundation. Made up pseudo philosophical problems like the "hard problem of consciousness" are as good as begging the question fallacious arguments.

Emergent property dualism — bert1

meaningless made up concepts

Well, hello again Mr Gaspar! I hope any exchange between us, can be more fruitful than it has been in the past. — universeness

-I am sure it was not my fault = ).

The part I have underlined, confirms for me, that after the big bang, we moved from a situation of disorder, everywhere in the universe, and due to the homogeneous nature of the universe at that scale, that disorder, 'evolved' into the 'relative' 'order' of the galaxy clusters we observe today. — universeness

In your opinion, do you think disorder favors high entropy? Does High complexity implies high entropy?