Isaac,
OK, but doesn't neuroscience presume a physical explanation is possible? Before the Michelson-Morley experiment, it was presumed light traveled in the luminiferous aether. Physics texts of the time discussed the luminiferous aether as if it were a real thing and presumed the physics of the day could eventually explain its properties. The closest I've seen to a physical explanation is the quantum microtuble explanation but that explanation is still hypothesis and not universally accepted.

Art48
What more would you need to know though? If you can explain what every physical state means mentally, then you've answered all the important questions. — khaled

This is exactly what I disagree with. Look at the mouse trap thought experiment. The spring has 2 physical states which perfectly correspond to 2 mental states (1. excitement/anticipation and 2. release/relaxation). But such correspondence in no way explains how a mouse trap could be conscious.I'd say there are important questions unanswered.

Your claim was not merely that it has not been, but that it could not be, explained (likened to trying to reach the earth from the moon by car). — Isaac

Yea, I see how that could mislead. My bad.

I am NOT saying that consciousness positively cannot be explained in terms of physical processes. (I don't think anyone can say that with certainty.)

In my defense, in addition to the moon comic, I do write “If consciousness somehow emerges from the fundamental forces, we have yet to understand how” and “We SEEM to be in a similar situation: no understanding of physical processes, however complete, explains consciousness.”

Isaac,
I'm always eager to correct my beliefs so if consciousness has been explained, please post some links to relevant papers and/or tell me who has succeeded in explaining it in terms of physical processes.
That would be much appreciated.

Update: A YouTube clip that addresses the question.
Do Complex Numbers Exist? (Sabine Hossenfelder)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALc8CBYOfkw&t=615s

— Does quantum mechanics need imaginary numbers? - Physics Today https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4955 — Andrew M

Final paragraph of the article is:
Neither Pan’s nor Fan’s group has yet closed the loopholes in their experiments. Technically, therefore, the jury is still out on whether real or complex numbers are the better descriptors of the quantum world. Still, it seems likely that future students of quantum mechanics will have no choice but to continue to grapple with the mathematics of imaginary numbers.

Seems like it's still an open question (with evidence leaning towards that complex numbers are necessary).

The Avella paper is a great resource. Thanks everyone.

What you are proposing in the OP is . . . the physical world is exactly the world of forms. Some form of idealism. — Banno

I’m not sure idealism applies. I’d say our consciousness directly experiences its physical, emotional, and mental sensations, and so we can be certain the sensations exist. (Much like “I think therefore I am” although I’d replace “think” with “experience”.) What causes the sensations? Are we a brain in a vat? Or are we experiencing the world more or less as it is? Or is what we experience Platonic forms? Or is there a monist entity responsible for what we experience? I can make some intelligent hypotheses, but I just don’t know.

I'd submit that consciousness is the very processing you dismiss. Again, you are not sitting inside your head looking at the results of the processing, but rather you are the processing. — Banno

I think of consciousness as what is aware of the sensations. I think some philosophers view consciousness in the same way. Thus, the “hard problem of consciousness.” And, thus, the concept of philosophical zombies, which have all the sensations but no consciousness.

Neuroscience can explain (to a certain degree) our bodily, emotional and mental sensations but I don’t think it can yet explain consciousness (except for the view that it’s “what the brain does,”, i.e., consciousness has a physical basis).

Excuse my being blunt, but it is wrong on multiple levels. There are far more than five senses. — Banno

Being blunt (or frank) is virtue. We get a lot more accomplished that way. And it helps me clarify my own thinking.

You write “There are far more than five senses.” As I noted when I mentioned ESP, more senses aren’t a problem. Emotions and thoughts, like our physical sensations, are inputs to consciousness. If it’s not one-way, if our emotional or mental state impacts what we sense, that, too, is not a problem.

The basic picture is that we have transitory physical, emotional, and mental sensations. Sensations imply a sensor, an experiencer. A criticism I’ve seen of the homunculus idea is infinite regress: who sees what the homunculus senses? I don’t see the same problem with consciousness. In effect, the buck stops with consciousness.

I see consciousness fulfilling the role of experiencer. Of course, this assumes we have an enduring self. Hume just saw sensations, not the self. I think the answer was Hume’s self—in my view, his consciousness—was the self he couldn’t find, just as the eye can see everything but itself.

So, consciousness is one answer to the question of how personal identity persists through time. To me, it’s the best answer. Historical continuity, for example, gives a kind of personal identity, but it seems a somewhat superficial type of identity.

You write “actual input” is misleading and mention neural network processing. But I mean input to consciousness, after all processing has been done.

If trees are found in the world, who finds them? Can you explain the tree-sensing sense that allows us to sense trees? Is there such a sense? If so, what is the organ of our tree-sensing sense?

When I introspect, my consciousness experiences a stream on physical, emotional, and mental sensations. I feel my consciousness is “me” while the sensations, because they are transitory, are not me. So, my view is not merely mental. It describes more or less how I experience myself.

If the meaning of "two" is a private concept in my mind, — Banno

In my view, it is not a private concept. It's a pre-existent idea which we encounter in the "mindscape," just as we encounter a pre-existent tree in the landscape. In my view, ideas are pre-existent.

The chief difficulty with Platonism is that while proposing a distinct type of reality of mathematical entities, it must then explain how this reality interacts with everyday things. — Banno

Good question What do you think of the following explanation for explaining interaction?

Regard a human being as having four-parts: body, emotions, intellect, and consciousness. Consciousness receives input from seven sources: the five bodily senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. It also receives input in the form of emotions and thoughts. (If an eighth sense, like ESP, exists, that won’t impact the argument.) So, when we “see” a tree, we actually see only light. (It could not be otherwise because we lack a specific tree-sensing sense). The actual input is patches of green and brown. Based on that input, the idea “tree” arises in our mind. If we “touch” the tree, we experience a rough surface, which gives us confidence that the tree is not an hallucination. If we see multiple patches of green and brown, the idea of number arises: we “see” two trees. So, it appears that “tree” and “two” are on equal footing: they are ideas which arise in our mind which help makes sense of the seven inputs.

This view, I think, is somewhat similar to Kant’s view that all we experience are phenomena. It differs in that it limits the phenomena we experience to sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, emotion and thought.

In this view, mathematical entities are not a distinct type of reality. They are ideas, just like “tree.”

Yet it can refer to objective reality, to things which exists independently of us. (There's a tree in my yard.). An image of the tree exists in your mind. But no actual tree is to be found between your ears. Similarly, math is a language that refers to objective reality, for instance, the number 2. — Art48
↪Art48
, words can be used to talk about stuff, sure. Are you suggesting that what is being referred to is the image of the tree in your mind rather than the tree in your yard? — Banno

In responding to "math is a language", I pointed out that language can refer to objective reality. The word "two" refers to the objectively real number 2, just as "tree" refers to an objectively real tree. I meant to say the tree image (or concept) in our mind corresponds to an objectively real tree, and the concept of "two" refers to something objectively real.

What if instead of "one mind creating the concept of 2", it is a construct of our communal capacity to use language — Banno

I just don't believe the concept of "2" is created. Yes, we come to apprehend it. But when we come to apprehend a tree, we don't believe we created it. I believe intelligent aliens would have the same concept of "2" as us.

Notice that Sherlock is not restricted to the mind of Doyle - after all, Sherlock is still around whilst Doyle's mind is long gone. — Banno

If Sherlock is still around, where? Somewhere in spacetime? No, it seems to me concepts exists outside spacetime.

Mathematics is a language. — Alkis Piskas

English is a language. Yet it can refer to objective reality, to things which exists independently of us. (There's a tree in my yard.). An image of the tree exists in your mind. But no actual tree is to be found between your ears. Similarly, math is a language that refers to objective reality, for instance, the number 2.

OK, if the number 2 is in spacetime, where is it? And when? — Art48
It exists in the mind as a concept, and it exists when I think about it, — RussellA

Does your mind create the concept of 2? Does the concept of 2 cease to exists when you stop thinking about it? And if you create it, can you make it anything you wish? Can your 2 be an odd number? If it's your concept, why not? Why can't your 2 be greater than your 3? Because numbers have objective properties.

In contrast, Sherlock Holmes existed as a concept in the mind of Arthur Conan Doyle. Therefore, Doyle had the freedom to describe Holmes. He could have made Holmes short, tall, British, Scots, or even French.. But 2 is objectively real. That's why you cannot give your 2 any properties you wish. When we say "2+2=4" we are talking about objective reality, not any particular 2 in the mind of any individual person.

The implications of numbers existing outside space-time are certainly truly staggering. — RussellA

OK, if the number 2 is in spacetime, where is it? And when?

Was mathematics invented or discovered? :
Both discovered and invented — Gnomon
More or less, although most math people give this question little thought. In my case, I was introduced to a notion years ago in my PhD studies. — jgill

I got an MA and did 2 years towards a math PhD (a PhD dropout, in other words). To me, math objects just seem to be there, much like a tree is there. I feel I can see numbers, fractions, etc., much like I see a tree. Mathematical Platonism seems to describe my experience.I read about Formalism but it doesn't "click" with me. P.S. there's a math prof on YouTube who questions if real number "really" exist. His name is N J Wildberger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXdFGbuAoF0

How is two plus two equals four subsisting outside space-time different to two plus two equals four existing outside space-time ? — RussellA

I usually use "exist" for both cases. Another person brought up the exist/subsist distinction, so I used the word "subsist". Some philosophers (ex, Russell's "On Denoting" if I recall correctly) use the exist/subsist distinction where "exists" applies to things in spacetime, and "subsist" applies to abstract objects.

No. "Outside spacetime" is as incoherent as north of the North Pole. And to subsist is to be thought by minds which are, as I've pointed out already, embodied spatiotemporally; so the question remains doubly nonsensical to me. — 180 Proof

OK, I suppose that's one view of abstract objects. Another view is that they exist subsist outside spacetime. For instance, "two plus two equals four" subsisted and was true before the big bang.
In your view (if I understand it correctly) the thought "two plus two equals four" didn't exist immediately after the big bang because there were no minds to think it. Is that right?

We have quantum entanglement, which says that signals can travel faster than light. — Art48

No, quantum entanglement says measurements will be correlated - a very different thing. As physicist Asher Peres noted, "relativistic quantum field theory is manife — Andrew M

My understanding is that Einstein's famous "spooky action at a distance" concern was about something going faster than the speed of light. Here a quote from an article of Astronomy.com
- https://astronomy.com/news/2022/10/what-is-quantum-entanglement

"The strange part of quantum entanglement is that when you measure something about one particle in an entangled pair, you immediately know something about the other particle, even if they are millions of light years apart. This odd connection between the two particles is instantaneous, seemingly breaking a fundamental law of the universe. Albert Einstein famously called the phenomenon “spooky action at a distance.”

Does is make sense that mathematical functions exists outside spacetime?
Another incoherent question. Abstract objects subsist in minds and minds exist – are embodied – spatiotemporally. — 180 Proof

Good point. Some philosophers say that material objects exist but abstract objects subsist.
So, let's change the third question.

reality—that me, you, Earth, universe, etc.—is fundamentally some sort of abstract object SUBSISTING outside spacetime. — Art48

This makes no sense to me. — 180 Proof

Does it make sense to you that our deepest description of matter is the wavefunction?
Does it make sense that the wavefunction is a mathematical function?
Does is make sense that mathematical functions SUBSIST outside spacetime? — Art48

Does it make sense to you now?

reality—that me, you, Earth, universe, etc.—is fundamentally some sort of abstract object existing outside spacetime. — Art48
This makes no sense to me. — 180 Proof

Does it make sense to you that our deepest description of matter is the wavefunction?
Does it make sense that the wavefunction is a mathematical function?
Does is make sense that mathematical functions exists outside spacetime?

There is no such entity as "science" — Vera Mont

Similarly, there is no such entity as Vera Mont. Conversation over.

It fails to converge on a coherent picture of the spiritual universe. — Art48

Why would "it" even want to? Religion is not a single entity. It is legion. Why would you expect religions all to have the same world-view when political ideologies don't? The organized religious bodies are rivals, competing for hungry souls, each offering some version of what one man, or a committee, thinks the other people need. — Vera Mont

Science has found truth about the physical universe. There is no Christian chemistry, Islamic chemistry, and Buddhist chemistry. There is just chemistry

Religion has failed to find truth about the spiritual universe.That's why there is Christian dogma, Islamic dogma, and Buddhist dogma.

If religion doesn't want to find truth about the spiritual universe, then so much the worse for religion.

It doesn't fail. It doesn't want to converge on a coherent picture picture of the physical universe. — Vera Mont

It fails to converge on a coherent picture of the spiritual universe.

The disagreements are multiple. A short list:
Is faith alone sufficient for salvation, or are works needed too?
Is Jesus God. Christianity says yes, Judaism and Islam say no.
Do we go to heaven or hell when we die, or are we reincarnated?

The comments so far discuss many issues peripheral to my original post. I’m partly responsible, as my central concern wasn’t Christianity and India (that’s merely what prompted the post). My main point is that science converges to what seems to be objective truth, and religion fails to converge to any coherent picture of the universe. Christianity has several contradictory views about how to be saved. After death, do we reincarnate or not? Religion has contradictory answers.

Science offers truth; religion offers something else.

In any case, religion has not failed. It has always been and still is very successful. — Vera Mont

It has failed to find objective reality, as the OP makes clear. It's quite successful at several things, a few of which are actually beneficial to humanity.

They have different parts to play in human life. — Vera Mont

The parts being that science finds objective truth and religion offers comforting beliefs.

I take it you are a believer in New Theology? — Joshs

Yes. It's something I'm writing which I hope to publish someday.

Religion's epistemological method has failed to provide genuine knowledge as evidenced by the fact that different religions disagree about reality. Even Christian denominations cannot agree on how to be saved! — Art48

This is at least backwards.
The religious epistemological method is the method of revelation, it's top-down, not bottom-up. God, the divine, or some higher truth is revealed to people, people don't figure it out on their own and they aren't supposed to nor can they. — baker

The religious epistemological method is regarding writings (some having talking serpents) as a revelation from God. It includes several methods (out of context, the original languages, taken too literally, etc.) to make the bogus revelation say whatever is desired. Thus, for a few centuries, the Bible supported slavery and burning witches, but today does not.

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? — Art48
Why should anyone do that?? Can you explain? — baker

Religion's epistemological method has failed to provide genuine knowledge as evidenced by the fact that different religions disagree about reality. Even Christian denominations cannot agree on how to be saved!

Science works. It possesses genuine knowledge which is why just about all nations accept Western science but usually keep their own religion.

Applying a superior epistemological method to religious questions might produce some genuine knowledge.

What does a quest to find a deeper reality mean? — Tom Storm

The periodic table provides a deeper understanding of chemistry. Schrodinger's equation and the Standard Model provide a deeper understanding of chemistry.

This resembles a summary of philosopher Bernado Kastrup's idea of analytic idealism where all people are dissociated alters of mind at large (cosmic consciousness). — Tom Storm

I've listened to some Kastrup videos and I think you're right. It's also similar to non-dual Vedanta.

Also, I'd say taking consciousness as foundational and the world as derivative is similar to Descartes’ certainty about inner sensations (I think therefore I am) while admitting the world he perceived might be caused by some evil demon.

There's an observation (which I believe Aristotle made) that if all propositions are AT THIS MOMENT either true or false, then we lack free will

The reasoning is not hard to follow. If "I will have snails and beer for breakfast tomorrow" is true at this very moment, then I WILL have snails and beer for breakfast tomorrow even if the sight of a snail makes me sick and I'm a life-long teetotaler.

You are assuming that there are such things as propositions apart from human consciousness. — TheMadMan

I'd say the proposition "two plus two = four" exists apart from human consciousness.

Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else. — Art48
This doesn't follow from the rest of your reasoning. — Manuel

Which is why the sentence begins "Let's suppose".

"As a newborn, our sensations are incoherent"
This is actually quite a large assertion, requiring considerable argument. — alan1000

I fail to see how a newborn could make sense of sensory input but the point is not critical to the original post.

ALL experiences take place within the brain. — Present awareness

All experiences take place in consciousness. The relation between brain and consciousness is an open question. Google "the hard problem of consciousness."

Thanks for the comments.

Acting from within without intention or rational consideration. I think it would be reasonable to call that acting without ego. — T Clark

Reasonable point. But I think if there was any indication of danger, the ego would take over with the intention of survival.

Seems to me this probably isn't true, although I'm not self-aware enough to be sure. For me, awareness is just awareness. I'm aware of whatever is there to be aware of. — T Clark

Some Eastern traditions say that pure awareness is the goal of meditation. Usually, our awareness is filled with sensations. I'm trying to reach sustained episodes of pure awareness. Not there yet.

Bylaw: “I think it is very hard to separate perceiving - subjective experience - from interpretation.”

Agree. As optical illusions demonstrate, for instance, the Adelson's Checker-Shadow Illusion.

Bylaw: “So, what we are claiming is that there are these perceptions about what are outside us, and these can be fallible but what is inside us, our subjective experiencing, that we can be sure of. And we can be sure that we are not fallible introspectors, that we are not interpreting incorrectly our perceptions of our internal reactions and so on.”

I’d say we are fallible as to interpretation but infallible as to our input sensations: I may wrongly think I see water but if I am experiencing light then I am experiencing light. Even if I am hallucinating the light, I am still experiencing and can’t be wrong about the fact that I am experiencing. It’s like if I say my arm hurts (and I’m not lying) then I can’t be wrong about the fact that I am experiencing sensations of pain that seem to be originating in my arm. I’ve read that amputees sometimes have “phantom pain” in lost limbs. So I may be wrong that my ARM hurts (if, for example, I’ve lost that arm) but I can be wrong about the experience of pain I feel.

Bylaw: “Desirable to whom? How do you find it this way? What was your process for determining it is more desirable and cannot this process also be fallible?”

If it is agreed that changing our language more accurately represents the world (an idea you may reject), then changing language is desirable if we are concerned about accuracy. However, I don’t mean to claim that we become infallible if we change our language.

I can see how “pre-existent” is controversial but do you agree Macbeth is a sequence of thoughts and images? If not, then what is it? A sequence of sentences on paper? But Macbeth can be translated into French. Besides, if every paper copy of Macbeth were destroyed, the play would still exist? Agree? Then, still exist as what? A sequence of thoughts and images is the only answer I can find.

As to whether thoughts pre-exist, that’s the question posed in the original post.

Mathematical Platonism refers to the entities of mathematics: groups, ring, fields, vector spaces, topologies, p-adic numbers, etc., etc., not merely to quantities and ratios.

It is the phenomena that are discovered; the thoughts are responses by a human mind. — Vera Mont

No. For instance, non-Euclidean spaces were discovered decades before they were used in the general theory of relativity. And I'm aware of no phenomena corresponding to the fact that the square root of 2 is not equal to a fraction.

Then why do not all the people with similar reception equipment apprehend all these thoughts, the same as they would all feel heat or wetness? A fair percentage of the human population thinks no more about the square root of 2 than do sharks, and hardly any pluck Macbeth out of the ether. — Vera Mont

For the same reason, some people travel to Rome but many do not. The landscape and mindscape are vast; people only live in a small part of each.

In a nutshell, this view says just as the physical world is given, the mental and emotional worlds are given. We choose to go to places in the physical world (New York, Rome, etc.) and we can choose to go to places in the mental world (calculus, group theory, etc.). Einstein was like an explorer who first found his way to the part of the mental universe where the thoughts that constitute the theory of relativity reside. Now, graduate students routinely travel to the same place.

Vera Mont: If the notion that thoughts exist independently of minds is defensible, I have not seen or heard it credibly defended.
Most mathematicians subscribe to Mathematical Platonism, which says math is discovered, not invented. I’d say math consists of thoughts, thoughts such as there is no largest prime number, the square root of two cannot be expressed as a fraction, etc. For something to be discovered, it must pre-exist. So, arguments for Mathematical Platonism implicitly argue that math thoughts are pre-existent.

Vera Mont: What/who generated it?
Unknown. Just as what/who generated the big bang is unknown or what/who made it so that there is no largest prime number.

Vera Mont: What is it made of?
What is thought made of? I don’t know.

Vera Mont: How does it differ from sensory input and experience?
Under this view, thought (and emotion) is sensory input and experience.
The body processes physical sensation.
The mind processes mental sensation.
Another faculty (let’s call it “the heart”) processes emotional sensation.

I'd say our experience of a thought is transitory, as is our experience of a tree. But I think the view that the thought existed before it entered our mind and exists after it leaves our mind is defensible and may in fact be true.

Benj96,

I used Macbeth as an example of a thought (or rather a collection of related thoughts).
My question is really: does it make sense to regard thoughts a pre-existing? - just as we regard things in the landscape (rocks, trees, etc.) as pre-existing.