Because, if it were a purely physical process, then intentionality would have no impact on it. In those experiments where a conscious mental activity causes changes to the brain structure, then the changes are brought about by a conscous act, not by a physical cause. If I tell you something that has physical consequences, that is different to my hitting you or giving you a physical substance. Intentionality is not a physical thing. — Wayfarer

I don't see your conclusion being rational. You're assuming that consciousness is not a physical process, therefore consciousness cannot be a physical process. The brain can communicate amongst its cells, and produce different outcomes through a physical process. You have shown nowhere where this is not the case.

I think what you might be missing is the idea of input and output, versus the processing in the brain itself. The brain changes based on internal processing, input, and output. Your sensory receivers of sight and sound are inputs. Your brain takes those inputs and molds them into something it can interpret. But sight and sound don't affect the brain directly, its the interpretation of that light and sound. The brain needs that physical light and sound to touch its physical nerves, which travel up the physical pathways to touch the physical neurons. A person can lose an input like sight or sound, but still the brain processes up there.

I'm sensing your view of neuroscience is outdated considering who you are citing. The philosophy of mind is an aside to modern day neuroscience. The idea of something apart from the physical brain is based on ignorance or superstition at this point. I'm also sensing you're focusing too much on humans. Think of a dog sitting around and scheming how to get the food off the table. A spider constructing a complex web. These are all physical beings that we attribute no extra essence to. It is the reality we live in.

I think you also misunderstand the placebo affect. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

"Placebos won't lower your cholesterol or shrink a tumor. Instead, placebos work on symptoms modulated by the brain, like the perception of pain. "Placebos may make you feel better, but they will not cure you," says Kaptchuk. "They have been shown to be most effective for conditions like pain management, stress-related insomnia, and cancer treatment side effects like fatigue and nausea."

This is often attributed to the idea that pain and fatigue are indicators that you need to rest or take care of yourself. If you can fool the brain into thinking its being taken care of, its wasteful to keep sending these signals out. But it doesn't actually cure you. This is still a physical process. "How placebos work is still not quite understood, but it involves a complex neurobiological reaction that includes everything from increases in feel-good neurotransmitters, like endorphins and dopamine, to greater activity in certain brain regions linked to moods, emotional reactions, and self-awareness."

It (Self-repair) is never observed in non-living matter. — Wayfarer

Ah, this is a simple misunderstanding between life and non-life. We're both made up of matter and energy. Life is a serious of complex chemical reactions that seeks to sustain its chemical reactions. A sun does not seek more hydrogen as it burns out. Therefore it is non-life. Anything which seeks to sustain its own reaction by seeking out a replacement for what it is burned, is called life. But its all the same matter underneath.

Go back to this post about the 'neural binding problem'. — Wayfarer

There is a paragraph in the first Chalmer's paper you linked me. "A nonreductive theory of consciousness will consist in a number of psychophysical principles, principles connecting the properties of physical processes to the properties of experience. We can think of these principles as encapsulating the way in which experience arises from the physical. Ultimately, these principles should tell us what sort of physical systems will have associated experiences, and for the systems that do, they should tell us what sort of physical properties are relevant to the emergence of experience, and just what sort of experience we should expect any given physical system to yield. This is a tall order, but there is no reason why we should not get started."

Even Chalmers is not claiming that consciousness is not separate from the physical. He understands that consciousness rises out of physical processes.

The Neural binding problem is only mentioning that we have not found the process by which the brain takes all of the visual information for example, and processes it into what we "see". It is merely noting that it is difficult to do so, and is in its infancy. The neural binding problem is not a claim there was an alternative to consciousness coming from the brain. It is merely identifying the difficulties of figuring out the exact process, and the challenges that it entails.

Everything points to consciousness being the physical process of the brain. We're trying to figure out exactly how that works right now, but there are no theories in science which are studying the consciousness as if it is somehow separate and not formed from the brain. Feel free to show me some if you know of them.

The rest of your statements are just a lack of understanding. Neuroplasticity is a very physical action that has limits on what it can do. Laws are a recognition of reality, and logic is a fundamental understanding of reality. 3 is greater than 2 because my brain can process the language of the numbers, represent the objects, and understands how to compare. Even a dog can observe the concept of greater and lesser.

Just because you don't understand neuronal activity, does not mean that it does not produce the things we all experience in reality. I do not understand your viewpoint. Concepts are physical results of your brain, within the brain itself. Maybe a comparison can help. Basic computer code is 1's and 0's. We can limit the expression of these 1's and 0's to 8 bits, and read the order of those 8 bits to represent different things. The computer represents its internal processing reality to these bits. It takes a TV to display those bits into something we understand. Will we ever understand the personal experience of a computer that is programmed to monitor itself? No, that experience can only be done with 1's and 0's, which we don't process in. But we do know those 1's and 0's build the computer program we are using and seeing. There is nothing magical or fantastical going on, its all just a physical process.

HippyHead, why are you posting this in the forums? You can personal message any of the moderators and state your opinion. This smacks of unnecessary drama, and a personal grudge.

All good Darkneos. I'm glad its working out for you! There is no shame in feeling a certain way and searching for answers. There are plenty of things we've all thought that are silly on hind sight, and I'm sure many today that will be silly in the future. =D

It is now known that neuroplasticity enables the brain to regain from a lot of damage by re-purposing. In those cases, the mind changes the brain - it's top-down causation. If physicalism were the case, this ought not to happen. — Wayfarer

Neuroplasticity has been known for decades. It is a physical process. If the "mind" repaired itself with no change to the brain, then you would have evidence of something apart from the brain. This "repairing" is also a remapping of neuron signals, not the growth of new brain cells. The plasticity of cells, and their ability to regulate in a community are well known. Why do you think your skin doesn't just continue growing and taking over? When you get a cut, its not your brain that tells your skin cells to divide. Its the activity of the cells themselves. You say "mind" as if it is something apart from the brain. That doesn't make any sense based on cellular biology. What evidence do you have that there is something separate from the brain?

There have been experiments where subjects have shown changes in brain matter simply by conducting thought experiments, such as imagining they're learning to play the piano (with no actual piano). So in those cases, and there are many, the mind shapes the brain. They are an example of top-down causation, which physicalism can't accomodate — Wayfarer

This example actually disproves physicalism. If a person was able to learn or do something WITHOUT a change in brain matter, then you would have something. The change in the brain means its obviously a physical change. Drawing any other conclusion is pulling something in we have no evidence of. Don't even include learning. When you do something, the brain fires away. We know we need it to actually do things. We know we have nerves that send information to the brain. The brain reacts and physically responds to outside stimulous. But there is no "mind" apart from the brains functioning here.

Ever heard of Wilder Penfield? — Wayfarer

No, I looked him up. First his conclusions are 60+ years old. That is a terrible reference when we've discovered so much today. Second, this was his opinion with clear falsification that was not tested. I found his reasons explored here: https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/why-pioneer-neurosurgeon-wilder-penfield-said-the-mind-is-more-than-the-brain/

So this post doesn't blow apart, the commonality between all three reasons is that he was unable to simulate rational thinking or agency. Which of course he wasn't. Rational thinking and agency are formed by several neurons being simulated and communicating with one another. A light electric shock on the surface of the brain is not accessing the entire complexity of the brain. His conclusion makes sense with the knowledge of the 50's, but does not make sense today.

Eccles is another person who proposed opinions in the 60's that he could also not confirm. Neuroscience from the 60's is an entire generation ago. To to examine him:

https://dana.org/article/neuroscience-and-the-soul/#:~:text=Eccles%20hypothesized%20that%20the%20liaison,was%20a%20kind%20of%20consciousness.
"To justify his hypotheses, it was necessary for Eccles to assume that contemporary physics could not detect, measure, or predict the supposed mental forces. In his Nature essay, he suggested that, while waiting for physics to improve, we should take note of “well-controlled experiments that give evidence that there is a two-way traffic between mind and the matter-energy system,” and went on to assert that “psychokinetic experiments leave little doubt that very slight changes can be produced by some minds on moving physical objects such as dice.” To support his hypothesis of nonphysical causation, Eccles also added the claims of extrasensory perception (ESP).3 In retrospect, these arguments seem weak; well-controlled experiments with ESP have repeatedly failed to support the claims of its exponents."

Finally,

What about, for instance, meaning. You can't get from 'the laws which govern molecules and energy' (i.e. physics, organic chemistry, etc) to 'the laws which govern semantics'. — Wayfarer

Yes you can. We know that there are certain parts of the brain that allow a person to grasp language. Animals and insects which lack these aspects of the brain are unable to communicate using language.
https://www.headway.org.uk/about-brain-injury/individuals/effects-of-brain-injury/communication-problems/language-impairment-aphasia/

Aphasia is the term for when a person has brain damage that limits their ability to communicate.

Whew! Long post. I can address the point about the hard problem later, but this is enough for now. I find the points you provided do not rationally lead to the idea of a mind existing outside of the brain. Feel free to cite more if you have it.

I don’t see the apparent contradiction. Can you elaborate? — Pfhorrest

Sure, you seemed to imply that any belief was justified, but then came and marked out "justified belief". Your explanation of Popper falsification cleared up the issue.

I’m basically applying the same standard of justification to belief as we usually do to action, at least in the modern free world: any action is by default justified, until it can be shown somehow wrong. We’re not obligated to do nothing at all except those things that we can prove from the ground up that we must do. We would normally consider than an absurd standard for justifying our actions, but it’s all too common to apply that standard to justifying our beliefs. — Pfhorrest

Hm. I think you've just put forward beliefs which haven't been disproven yet. Lets say I believe my friend Joe dated a woman yesterday. I ask him, "How did your date go last night?" supremely confident that he would date someone, just because I believe he would. No evidence, nothing. Joe replies, "It went great!"

Are we to say that I knew Joe dated a woman last night before I confirmed it? Popperian justification requires that we apply our beliefs, that they must be able to be falsified, and we must try to do so. Otherwise you're saying even induction is knowledge. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent at this point, so feel free to correct me if I am.

You really should read this review. — Wayfarer

The article I referenced was from 2019 and from 60 minutes, which is not a slouch in its reporting. I did read the published article that cast doubt on fmri studies, and its follow up corrections which pulled back much of its accusations.

But if fmri's aren't enough for you, here's another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_achromatopsia#:~:text=Cerebral%20achromatopsia%20is%20a%20type,the%20disorders%20are%20completely%20distinct.

Basically this is color blindness caused through brain damage. There's an interesting note about an artist who gained this later in life.

"Mr. I. could hardly bear the changed appearances of people ("like animated gray statues") any more than he could bear his own changed appearance in the mirror: he shunned social intercourse and found sexual intercourse impossible. He saw people's flesh, his wife's flesh, his own flesh, as an abhorrent gray; "flesh-colored" now appeared "rat-colored" to him.This was so even when he closed his eyes, for his preternaturally vivid ("eidetic") visual imagery was preserved but now without color, and forced on him images, forced him to "see" but see internally with the wrongness of his achromatopsia. He found foods disgusting in their grayish, dead appearance and had to close his eyes to eat. But this did not help very much, for the mental image of a tomato was as black as its appearance."

There's also the famous case of Gineus Phage, who's entire personality changed after having a rod blow through his brain and actually living through it.

Not to mention the countless medical studies in fixing mental illnesses like depression and others. Your brain is what shapes you. Just like a dogs brain shapes it. A monkeys brain shapes it. There is no underlying non-physical process causing dogs, monkeys, and humans to think. Damage the brain, you damage the mind. Feel free to post alternatives.

However...what about the much-talked-about concept of qualia in re consciousness that seems to be last remaining stronghold of dualism? Do you think the redness of a strawberries changes with age? :chin: — TheMadFool

If the parts of the brain that process "redness" decay, break, or lose functionality, then yes. I see this in my parents. My mother's taste in colors have changed over the years. From liking bright colors she now desires dark and muted ones. The only conclusion I can draw is that these colors give her a different feeling now, or "qualia" (experience?).

In the more extreme cases, there is documentation of Cerebral achromatopsia, or color blindness through brain damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_achromatopsia#The_case_of_the_colorblind_painter
"Cerebral achromatopsia is a type of color-blindness caused by damage to the cerebral cortex of the brain, rather than abnormalities in the cells of the eye's retina. It is often confused with congenital achromatopsia[1] but underlying physiological deficits of the disorders are completely distinct. A similar, but distinct, deficit called color agnosia exists in which a person has intact color perception (as measured by a matching task) but has deficits in color recognition, such as knowing which color they are looking at."

Of particular note, a painter became color blind through brain damage and the following snippet is cited.

"Mr. I. could hardly bear the changed appearances of people ("like animated gray statues") any more than he could bear his own changed appearance in the mirror: he shunned social intercourse and found sexual intercourse impossible. He saw people's flesh, his wife's flesh, his own flesh, as an abhorrent gray; "flesh-colored" now appeared "rat-colored" to him. This was so even when he closed his eyes, for his preternaturally vivid ("eidetic") visual imagery was preserved but now without color] and forced on him images, forced him to "see" but see internally with the wrongness of his achromatopsia. He found foods disgusting in their grayish, dead appearance and had to close his eyes to eat. But this did not help very much, for the mental image of a tomato was as black as its appearance.

So from this it does appear that his ability to experience the qualia of colors was also gone.

This leads to an infinite regress. You never end up getting at any fundamental understanding if it is always a step lower than your present understanding. Fundamental understanding would be fleeting and unattainable. This leaves us with simply understanding, and some understanding is only useful in a particular domain. Any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental understanding is incoherent. — Harry Hindu

Yep, we're just talking semantics. In trying to craft systems you oftentimes limit how far you go. Think of meter stick only recording millimeters. Millimeters are all you need for your purposes, so the fundamental measurement of a meterstick is millimeters. Same thing when we're talking about consciousness versus the brains function that creates consciousness. We can see consciousness as the meter stick, and the brains functions as the fundamental measurement of that consciousness.

Don't overcomplicate it. Water is a group of H20 molecules. The fundamentals of water when speaking on the atomic level are the interactions of atoms. Or whatever particular base you wish to speak about. Fundamental is a word that we used based on our context, nothing more.

What exactly do you mean by "arises from the brain"?
What exactly do you mean by "caused by their interaction?

Is it a temporal or spatial change that you are talking about? In other words, does the change occur over time, or over space? — Harry Hindu

All changes are over space, and space is temporal. You cannot have a change without space or time. An meaningful interaction is when one or more states interact to create a new state. So if a group of neurons fire to produce the conscious experience of feeling happy using dopamine and other technical brain processes, your consciousness feels happy.

Brains and their neurons are what are seen, so what would it mean for the sight of a brain to be in the brain? — Harry Hindu

How you see sight in your brain, is how you see sight in your brain. When the neurons fire as a group passing messages to one another, that entire process within you is what is letting you be conscious. This is internal to the system.

So I code for a living, so let me give you an example from here. Everything in your computer is 1 and 0. If I open up the hard drive, I don't see the game I've saved to my desktop. When I attack an enemy on screen, I can look at the internals of the computer and just see a lot of 1's and zero's all going through logic gates. This then emits into other parts of the system which is interpreted to create new things like the controller input, or the visual on your TV.

The only reason we see a visual representation is because we interpreted the 1's and 0's with something that emits a visual picture. Your brain is not emitting a visual picture. There is no light that emerges for us to "see". Your brain processes and creates your existence within the medium of the brain. Your "picture" is internal to this system.

Now, if we want to see a visual of what we are thinking, we would have to learn what the internal mechanism is doing, then translate it into a medium of sight. Researchers have already begun to do this with reading people's minds when they think of objects. Here is an example. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/functional-magnetic-resonance-imaging-computer-analysis-read-thoughts-60-minutes-2019-11-24/

Above, they were able to locate the place in the brain that lit up when people thought the word, "Screwdriver". This is reading the 1's and 0's. There is a further experiment that found out what numbers people were thinking by reading the brain, then hooked those results up to an audio device that "spoke" the number.

But 1's and 0's are not light emittance. I can't see the visual of what's going on. I can look at the process and see what results in the system. Your "sight" in your brain is not "light". Its not emitting a picture. There's no sound in your brain either. Its the interpretation of sound into a meaningful experience within your brain. If you want it expressed as sound, it has to be emitted as a particular vibration of air.

So, the brain does not emit light or sound. It processes external stimulous like light and vibrating air waves to construct a meaningful picture within itself, or consciousness. From my background, this is readily easy to understand, but if you are not familiar with processes like this, perhaps it is not easy to comprehend. This is not a slight on yourself, I'm just hoping this is a meaningful way of communicating what is going on.

Then what does it mean to be "physical"? If everything were "physical" then "physical" seems like a useless term. — Harry Hindu

Space is not physical. Where there is no matter or energy, we have "emptiness". So the term physical is very useful. If you wish to introduce a different term, feel free, as long as there is evidence for it.

While there are some people who are asking questions just to ask questions, there are plenty of people looking for answers to. You find them all over the board. =) Sometimes questions are repeated because new people have not found the answer yet. But I think you can find plenty of people are finding their own answers here and there.

Knowledge is merely justified belief, where justification itself implies a reason to think it is true; — Pfhorrest

any belief is justified (including contrary ones) until there is support to the contrary — Pfhorrest

Ok, I just wanted to make sure this was what you really believed, as on its face, it seemed contradictory.

I'm surprised you've never visited my thread here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1

I essentially start with the same Popper premise, but flesh out what justification entails. You might like it. And if you don't read it, that's fine to, just an invitation.

The "parts" and "wholes" are comparisons of views, or a comparison of measuring scales, like comparing millimeters to light-years and nano-seconds to centuries. Each of these measurements "make up" the larger scales, but those smaller measurements just aren't useful on such large scales, and vice versa. So I would reject your use of "fundamental" and instead say that there are certain scales that are useful, depending on what purpose we are trying to achieve. — Harry Hindu

We may be in agreement here, and differ only in semantics. Atomic theory is fundamental to the understanding of molecules. Quantum theory is fundamental to the study of atoms. What is fundamental is what is the directly prior set of rules and causality that arise to the current focus of study. What is fundamental to consciousness is the functioning of the brain.

I think you misunderstood. Brains are not molecular-sized objects. Neurons are. And neurons are made up of atoms, which are made up of quarks. A brain is a part of an organism. Organisms are part of a social group or species, etc. Between which layer does consciousness lie, and how do you explain the causal relationship between the upper and lower (underpinning) layers? — Harry Hindu

I hope the prior explanation answers this as well. Consciousness arises from the brain. No where else. You do not need to be around other people to be conscious. The causal explanation is also the same as you mentioned. Atoms cause molecules by their interaction. Molecules cause neuronal cells by their interaction. Neuronal cells cause a brain. And certain parts of the brain cause consciousness. This is straight forward science.

You said before that I am my brain, but now you say that I am merely one part of my brain. — Harry Hindu

Yes, so prior I was speaking in general terms. As in, mind/brain. The brain is composed of several different functioning sections that serve the body in different way. Sight is located in a different area then sound for example. Higher level thought is in the Neo Cortex, while the most primitive of bodily functions are handled by the brain stem. That is why a person can still breath even though they are in a coma.

Technically, consciousness would be the same. Certain areas of the brain create consciousness, while others do not.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaat7603
Here is a study on human consciousness in which we are mapping the locations of the brain.

Unfortunately, I don't see the contradiction. — Harry Hindu

You seem to be equating a mind as something different from the physical brain. It is not. No mind can exist without a brain. I was pointing out that you noted whether we examine something from a distance or close, its functionally the same thing. Thus brain and mind are the same.

Are choices "physical"? — Harry Hindu

Absolutely. Everything is physical Harry. What is there that is not physical? Do you think that when an ant makes a choice, it is not physical? When a cell chooses to eat another that there is some extra universal essence at play? A dog has a consciousness right? Mice, lizards, etc. We are made up of cells, which are molecules, and atoms. So is every living creature. Its all matter and energy.

Finally, your consciousness is physical. You can prove it right now. Stand up and walk somewhere. Look back. Is your consciousness where you just were? Or is it where you are now? It resides up there with you. You have to feed it and take care of it, or it grows weak, becomes confused, and dies. Make sure to use it well before its expiration date.

I'm extremely worried that it might be read as a theory in itself, whereas it's meant more as an illustration that on-going, high-profile research in a field that is itself a tad loosey-goosey shows that there is a lot of obvious potential for massive paradigm shifts in some pretty fundamental areas. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, you start off with the implication that you're going to discuss determinism, and by the end all I got were several different theories of big bang cosmology. =D

The idea that black holes sucked up the universe, then exploded into a big bang again has been around for decades at least. I suppose what is exciting is the actual science to back up the theories? What is the major cosmology shift you see in all of this?

Hi Baden, I guess I don't rhyme well with people in here, with my unorthodox thoughts. — Konkai

Konkai, I don't believe you have offended anyone. When you come to a philosophy forum, expect to have your ideas and beliefs challenged. We come to challenge, and be challenged by others. It can be painful to learn that our ideas are not widely accepted by others, and also painful to realize that others may be right.

But if you want to be a successful, intelligent, and rational person, such experiences are necessary for growth. You're young, and your feelings are completely understandable. Take it from us old timers who have been exactly where you are right now. You are not being judged or hated. You are being challenged so you will think about your beliefs in a more fully examined way.

But you are not a troll, your words are not worthless, and you are perfectly welcome and encouraged to stay.

Sadly, the brain does decay with time over aging. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596698/

"The effects of ageing on the brain and cognition are widespread and have multiple aetiologies. Ageing has its effects on the molecules, cells, vasculature, gross morphology, and cognition. As we age our brains shrink in volume, particularly in the frontal cortex. As our vasculature ages and our blood pressure rises the possibility of stroke and ischaemia increases and our white matter develops lesions. Memory decline also occurs with ageing and brain activation becomes more bilateral for memory tasks. This may be an attempt to compensate and recruit additional networks or because specific areas are no longer easily accessed."

Your brain will age and decay like your skin, your muscles, and every other part of you. Wisdom is not the only reason older people act the way they do. You will become dumber, slower, and make poorer conclusions and connections. New things will bother you more as your inability to quickly grasp them will frustrate you.

It is a terrifying prospect that every single one of us will face. Of course, due to your cognitive decline, you may very well be unaware of your lower level of intelligence. There is a reason 70 year old people are not often on the forefront of new discoveries and creativity.

I can't fool myself and say that one of these two scenarios can be suitable to my nature.
How do I know this?
I simply can't relate, speaking logically, the set of the various action/reaction rules that defines my nature/being... with such scenarios :( — KerimF

There is nothing wrong with this. Every one of us has our own path to walk, and outlook on life. At the end of the day, it is about whether our outlooks make us be better or worse people in life. You seem to be a fantastic individual KerimF, so it seems to work for you.

But our own personal views for what works for us do not necessarily work for others. I think you realize that too. It has been great to converse with you. =)

My response to this problem is similar to that of Robert Nozick: I say that knowledge is believing something because it is true, such that not only does one believe it, and it is true, but if it weren't true one wouldn't believe it. — Pfhorrest

Lets go over why this doesn't work.

1. People believe in things that aren't true all the time, but believe they are true.
2. People believe in things that aren't true, and ALSO do not have any contradictions to their conclusion that is true, based on a lack of evidence or critical thought.
3. The only way to know that what they believe isn't true, is to have an "outside observer" who knows the actual truth.
4. But if 1 and 2 are the case, then how can we trust the outside observer? Couldn't they also have the issue of 2? How do we know they aren't the same as 2? Meaning we haven't really discovered knowledge, because our current proposal has a giant hole it cannot fix.

The issue is trying to state that knowledge is a 100% grasp of the truth. Knowledge is a tool of rationality. It is our best approach to claiming the truth, much better than mere inductive beliefs. Basically, knowledge is a rational conclusion from the limited evidence and thought capability that we have. But it must always have the caveat that it is a conclusion that might lack the whole picture. While the only thing we can rationally conclude within the picture is likely the best course of action, we must always be open to the fact that we do not have the entire picture.

The "small component parts" would still be part of the "illusion", so Dennett can't ever escape his own visual illusion - even when talking about "fundamental" parts of a whole. His and your explanation sound visual to me. You can only hypothesize about the components by observing the "illusion" — Harry Hindu

I agree 100%. I am merely trying to break down what Dennet is saying. It doesn't mean I agree with him. I would define things as "Identities for particular purposes". Dennet isn't interested in studying the identity of consciousness as a personal experience, because he's not a psychologist. He's trying to get to the mechanical underpinnings that lead directly to consciousness. Of course, the mechanical underpinnings of the mind have further underpinnings like chemistry and physics. Even the atoms break down into quarks and electrons. Now Dennet may need fundamental chemistry to understand the mechanical processes, but he generally doesn't need that to observe how the mechanical processes work.

Of course, a psychologist or sociologist might be more interested in how consciousnesses work together. At that point, you don't necessarily need to understand the underlying physical workings of consciousness, just its expression. The identification becomes important depending on what you're trying to find out. In Dennets case, he's trying to find the underpinnings behind the personal consciousness we experience. So of course the result is not his concern, but the cause.

In

But what if consciousness doesn't operate at the molecular level? — Harry Hindu

That would need to be proven. So far, all every bit of scientific evidence points to consciousness being a physical process of the mind. You can zap a brain with electricity and change what a person is sensing and feeling. Check out videos and records when people have to have open brain surgery. Look up Phineus Gage https://www.verywellmind.com/phineas-gage-2795244

You are your brain. There is zero evidence that there is something separate from molecules and energy. Beyond Dennet, there is no, "what if" about this. Now if you wish to believe there is a soul or something separate, that's fine. Personally believe what you want to get you through your day and be a good person. But that is a personal belief, and has no basis in fact or reality. This is indisputable at this point in our scientific understanding. Any objection to this has no grounds in reality.

Observing a process from far away vs close up changes the way the process appears, but it is still the same process. The difference is not based the observed process being different from different vantage points, but our sensory systems' relationship with the process being different from different vantage points. — Harry Hindu

It's not other brains out there (naive realism), it's other minds, and brains are how some consciousness measures other minds (indirect realism). — Harry Hindu

Do you see the contradiction you made? You made the same mistake you just warned me about. There is no separation between mind and brain. When we observe it at a particular level, we see a brain. When we measure our personal experience, we observe a mind. But they're really just the same thing, looked at in a different way.

Of course to get TECHNICAL, we could say that the mind is merely one part of the brain. After all, there's a lot going on there that we don't really have any say or control over. So far I haven't been able to control my digestion or fat storage production. That's all regulated by the brain, but not the mind part of my brain.

But the mind part of the brain is a physical real thing. If we understand the mechanics behind it, we could understand how we work a lot better.

Ok, after reading your reply, I think I understand your real issue.

Your issue isn't Solipsism. Your issue is epistemology.

I want to pose to you a question. How do you know anything? What is the difference between belief and rational conclusions?

You are applying this question right now to "solipsism", but neglecting to apply it to everything else. Unless you first answer the question, "How do I know anything", then the you cannot know that solipsism is correct, or incorrect. At best right now, solipsism is a belief, and the idea that other people exist is also a belief.

But how do you know the food you eat will not kill you? How do you know the apple you eat tomorrow is still good?

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism.

No, the default here is that our interpretation of reality all exists in our mind. We are very constrained in reality, and need "something" to connect with. We see because light bounces off of objects, and this is provable. Try moving your mind outside of your head. Can't do it can you? There are serious rules and restrictions that require "something else" for us to interact with.

Fortunately we also have science to help us there. I highly suggest googling neuroscience. You should see all of the advancements scientists are making in understanding the brain. Why is this important? Because you'll realize that you and everyone else have a brain. That reactions from people are repeatable. That people need to eat, or they die. You learn that you were born of another person, like everyone else. It turns out that there are things beyond our sensations. That we can LACK a sensation, but still be affected by things in the outside world.

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists.

You can do a very simple experiment. Chat with another person. If they understand you, then you know that they at least think like you in terms of language. You can come across other people who speak in a different language than yourself. You can then learn that language, and find there has been a consistency all along. You could even test this yourself. Record people speaking spainish, learn spainish, then come back later and see that they were speaking something meaningful all along.

Solipsism is mostly the idea that you are the progenitor of the world. That is clearly false. The idea that we interpret the world through our own lens? That's just normal thinking. We all do that. But still, you might be saying, "Yeah, but how do I KNOW?!" And the answer to that is, "How do you know anything?" What separates the link from belief to knowledge? We're back again to epistemology, which is the core of the issue.

In my ramble, I just want to clarify the points.

1. The fact that our minds interpret the world does not mean our minds create the world. We need some "thing" to interpret.

2. The fact that we all interpret the world though our minds, but do not understand other things as they are in themselves, is not solipsism. That's merely a given in how we function.

3. The question of what separates our interpretation of the world as "beliefs" vs. "knowledge" is the question of epistemology. "How do we know other people exist?" is really just one of the many questions of "knowledge". Just like, "How do I know I exist", "This apple exists?" etc.

Conclusion: Start studying epistemology and neuroscience. Then you will be able to answer the real question, "How do I know anything?", which will lead you to the rest of your answers.

Ha ha! I'm glad you didn't take that the wrong way. Really, you've done a magnificent job with what you have.

Now, for what it's worth, I do think that there is a thread within the model that makes it stable across time and context (which is related to logic) — TVCL

I agree with you on a personal and intuitive level. You have a solid foundation which I feel is going to be very difficult for people to find a loose brick in.

Yes, I agree with problem 1. Epistemology is bogged down with a lack of clarity. I believe your proposal is a fantastic solution to problem 1.

Problem 2 is interesting. Back when I started epistemology, I actually began the investigation to know the idea of a God, and prove ethics. The problem was I couldn't prove any of those until I knew what knowledge was!

I believe I understand what you mean though. You are answering the problem, "Why should we seek knowledge?" Because you've realized we don't HAVE to seek knowledge. It is a choice. Please continue, I am interested to read where you want to take this!

But aren't our foresight and thought also the fruit (the result) of some electrochemical reactions :) — KerimF

Yes! Fantastic! I did not want to add such details until I find people are willing to think on them. Some find such details "annoying", but philosophers enjoy them.

Yes, we are no different from the atoms around us, we ARE the atoms around us. Our brains are the result of these chemical reactions. So why are brains special? Because a brain is essentially "life". Look at the universe and watch any chemical reaction. It does not regulate itself, it simply burns out eventually. Life however seeks to renew its own chemical reaction. When it is running out of energy, it actively seeks to obtain more.

This is the beginning of sentience. An awareness of the world beyond your own personal chemical combination. Humans have the evolutionary height of this awareness. We can recognize far more then food vs not food like basic life does. We can see how chemical processes happen, and manipulate them for our use.

I guess you mean... we, humans, are given the ability to discover what are still unknown to us of its rules (of ‘The Existence’), so that we can add new forms of existence, inert and/or living things. — KerimF

Yes, exactly.

It may well be that consciousness itself is a functional process. Ever thought of that? — Olivier5

You might not understand what a functional process is. Think of water. Water is made up of H20. It is the combination of these atoms and molecules that we see in mass as "water". If you get down to the fundamentals, you see that "water" doesn't exist, only molecules of H20. It is the emergent of functional process of all of those molecules gathered together that our brain processes as "water".

Consciousness is just like water according to Dennet. Our brain is the underlying mechanical process that functioning as a whole, produces consciousness. So when you talk of consciousness as a functional process, do you mean it is the result of the functioning of the brain, or something else?

But how did you come to understand the underlying "mechanical" processes if not by some kind of observation? It sounds to me that you are simply talking about different views of the same thing. A view from the micro is no more "fundamental" than a view from the macro. To label one as "fundamental" and the other as "illusory" is simply projecting value on a particular view of the same thing. You are ascribing to another form of dualism - the fundamental vs the illusory. You haven't rejected dualism. You ended up embracing it. — Harry Hindu

Dennet isn't saying that we can't use observation. We have to observe the underlying mechanical process after all. What he means by "fundamental" is "its small component parts that make up the whole." Its like H2O are elementary (fundamental) parts of water. You can't do science with "water", but you can do science with H20. Water is the "illusion" (Dennet's poor word choice that I personally wouldn't use) and H20 are the fundamental building blocks. Same with your brain and consciousness. I think everyone can accept that.

The "illusion" of the entire process has causal power. It isn't the underlying mechanical processes of pixels displaying colors based on 1's and 0's that then drives my behavior to respond. It is the words that I read that drives my behavior. — Harry Hindu

Sure, Dennet isn't denying this either. I swim in water, I don't swim in H20. The idea of H20 for my day to day purposes isn't going to matter. But if I'm a scientist, the fundamentals of why I'm able to swim in water deal with the molecular chemistry and forces involved. Dennet is trying to understand how consciousness, "the illusion" functions on a molecular chemistry level so he can understand it at a scientific level. And thank goodness. Can you imagine if we had people denying the idea of chemistry for water? We would never figure it out!

Now does that mean that the "illusion" is useless to study? Not at all. For my purposes, water is great to drink. Its just useless for Dennet's purposes, which is to discover the underlying fundamentals that produce the result.

Any person who has the character to admit to a mistake becomes a giant in my eyes. You have my utmost respect and forgiveness! It is water under the bridge.

Truth be said, and you are free to call me whatever you like :), I see exactly the inverse. — KerimF

I will call you a thinker and a good person! =D I would rather hear true disagreement then false agreement.

It is me who perceive 'The Existence'. And without this perception I would be just an inert piece of matter — KerimF

With my outlook on existence, it does show that humans are very special. We are one of the few pieces of existence that has obtained sentience. As such, we get to see the universe, or ourselves, for what it is. As such, we can shape it into something with foresight and thought, instead of the blunt result of chemical forces.

With intelligence, we can create more "existence" then what is merely here. Would a computer build itself? Not likely. Will a rock ponder the meaning of existence? Not so far anyway. We are a concentration of actual and potential existence like none other in the universe. We just must not forget that we are a part of this universe, and respect the rest of existence around us as well.

It has been a nice chat. Regardless of your conclusions, enjoy the day!

If consciousness cannot be understood by our perception of it, then what does that say about our other perceptions of the world? — Harry Hindu

To clarify, he is not saying we cannot understand consciousness from observation. Its there, it exists. We observe it, and we have our own opinions on it. But it doesn't explain what it is FUNDAMENTALLY.

Check my fire example for one. Another example is the screen you are observing right now. Does the light of this forum post explain the fundamental mechanical process that is letting you observe it right now? No. That is all Dennet is saying. Underlying the screen is a series of small pixels that are being turned into RBGY colors based on 1's and 0's on your machine. We don't see that. We see, "the illusion" of the entire process constructed into something more manageable and meaningful for us.

Perhaps Dennet's word of "illusion" is a poor choice. He doesn't mean the screen you're seeing isn't real. He's just saying that the underlying fundamentals are not the screen you "see". Without those underlying fundamentals, you would not be able to "see" the screen. But the "seeing" of the screen is not what's actually creating the screen.

And that's all I believe Dennet is saying about consciousness. The thing that we "see" is the result of the mechanical processes of the brain. But the end construction itself is NOT a fundamental, it is the result of the entire process. But I think we both understand this, we're just having a symantix disagreement.

The ultimate question that needs to be answered is how is it that evidence for my consciousness from my perspective is different than evidence for my consciousness from your perspective. — Harry Hindu

I don't think that's what Dennet is trying to address here.

what I am trying to establish is not just one model to be chosen from many, but the truth.
— TVCL

Do you agree with this? — TVCL

No, I don't agree it is the truth. What I can agree from your model, is that your model is something that can be known. It can be applied in this instance between the two of us, and it seems to have consistency. But will that be the case when another person is introduced? Will it be the case 5 years from now if humanity makes some new discovery about knowledge we had never considered?

The real question to be asked is, "Does the knowledge model apply to itself?" Because if it does, then we have created a model that, according to us, will give us a more rational method of claiming things that are not contradicted by reality. But we can never claim that such knowledge is "the truth" with certainty, but that is "the truth" with rationality.

Further, this is a model that represents concepts in a way that are usable and digestible to certain people. There will be some that this model is not enough, and for others, that this model is too much. There are almost certainly other ways of expressing the concepts detailed here in greater or lesser detail, with different words, different languages, and different outcomes. At the end of the day it is a tool that fits a certain person and size of problem. Is this tool effective at solving the problem for a good number of people? That is a question that can only be answered by putting it in the hands of several people, and seeing what they do.

There is my technical answer. =) For what its worth, I believe that any model that wants to have a hope of being epistemologically useful is going to have some expression of the elements of consistency, applicability, and context. And for what that is worth, I believe there is a truth to that.

It's good to know that you have concluded that I have created a model that we have apparently ironed all of the kinks out of — TVCL

Ha ha! I wish. =D Lets call it, "major deal breakers" instead of "kinks". I don't mean this negatively either. Creating an epistemology without any major deal breakers is huge! Something without major deal breakers is a base upon which you can start, and begin refinement. There is no tool, especially one as new as this, that will not still have a kink or two left. You'll run into people that will point them out. You'll probably find some yourself as you use it and refine it. That is not a knock against it, that is the natural course of all things that we use. There may be parts you throw away or tweak in the future, but I believe you have a solid base.

So, a fine job! Feel free to continue, I'm happy to see where you wish to take this from here!

By the way, I wonder if the following question is philosophical:
What could be the meaning of life on earth if the human race is removed completely? — KerimF

Yes, this is very much a philosophical question. First, what do we mean by, "meaning"? For me, meaning is the act of existence. I'll explain.

Many of us ask the question, "What should I do in my life? How should I act"? with the idea that there is a greater purpose past this than merely ourselves. But there is an even greater question. Why should there be humans? Plants, animals? Why should there be anything at all?

Scientists found that at the big bang's inception, there was more in matter in the universe than there is today. They theorize much of the matter was cancelled out by anti-matter. The rest has persisted for billions of years to this very moment today. The one thing it has done, has existed. We are made up of that matter which has existed for billions of years without ending. Within each and every one of us, is the will of a universe that doesn't quit after billions of years.

So what is our purpose? To exist. And to foster the existence around us. To let people express their greatest selves. To let animals and plants live as they should. To persist and create new existences out of the combination of matter, as it has done for billions of years.

So would there be meaning if humans ceased to existence? Yes, the universe would still exist. Would it be a diminished place without us? Yes, it would be a tragedy to lose such a unique intelligence. While I feel we are an important and valuable part of the entirety of existence, we are not the only thing. That is my take anyway. =)

I wonder now, to how far I am disturbing, without my knowledge, the studies discussed by the philosophers around here and their students.

Don't you think, after you know me, that it is better for the forum not to have someone like me in it? I don't like be an intruder in any way. — KerimF

I think a person like yourself who is polite, listens, and wants to ask questions is always welcome! You have caused no harm, and it has been nice chatting with you.

I believe you should be checking with prehistoric anthropologists, not us philosophers.

Synesthesias materialized in the human brain which integrated modules responsible for syntax with those involved in dimensional perception. Abstraction was less and less differentiated into two types of cognitive imaginativeness, symbolic sequentiality and object dimensionality, but converted towards a type of introspection that hybridized properties of both. — Enrique

A claim like this should have a citation of some kind. How did you conclude this?

What we identify as full-blown symbolic art was probably seeded by narrational expression, — Enrique

Again, what do anthropologists say on this matter? If you are making claims to history, you need to cite people who have studied this history.

Dimensionality was no longer constrained to its role in assembling objects, and syntax to its role in formulating expressions, but began to fuse as open-ended proportionality, with reflection and vocalization having an underlying mentality which performs deductions upon entities that are instantiated as concept and yet transcend the delimitations inherent in all palpable phenomena, an infinitely permutable, disembodied, pure form. — Enrique

That is one sentence. This is a massive run on that can be broken down into simple and clearer parts. And its one of many massive run on sentences in your paper. For example, your first paragraph is only two massive run on sentences. This is a writing no-no.

This work is overloaded with SAT level words to lend the appearance of authority, but lacks any actual reference to authority. This narrative style implies lofty imagery, poetry, and a heavy use of a Thesaurus and Dictionary, not a clear set of premises with a conclusion.

Persuasive arguments use very simple, straight forward, and easy to understand points. They use advanced terms like "colloquial" if it helps simplify the sentence, clearly conveys the idea, and there is no better colloquial term to use. Complexity of your sentence structure does not convey to the discerning reader that you have a complex idea. It is not the cleverness or use of advanced words that convince us that you have the authority to know what you are talking about, but clearly organized and easily followed logic.

My apologies if this seems harsh, but I believe this is a seriously flawed paper if your intention is to convince us that this is the way humanity evolved.

I read the article. All Dennet is saying is that consciousness cannot be fundamentally understood by our own perception of it. In other words, the act of experiencing one's own qualia is not a fundamental or mechanical explanation as to what is going on.

This is further backed by the quote Strawson gives on Dennet from his 1993 expert, "“The idea that there is something like a ‘phenomenal field’ of ‘phenomenal properties’ in addition to the informational/functional properties accommodated by my theory” of consciousness “is shown to be a multi-faceted illusion, an artifact of bad theorizing,”"

Basically Dennet is shooting down the idea that you can have consciousness apart from the mechanical processes of the brain. Dennet believes consciousness is a result of informational and functional properties. There is no "consciousness" that is independent of this. It is not that Dennet doesn't think we call things pain, pleasure, etc,. What he's saying is these are the results of functional processes.

The way I view it is like a fire. A fire is the result of chemical processes combining with the wood and oxygen. There is no independent "fire" without these processes. Dennet is not denying fire exists, he's just saying that fire alone does not explain the fundamental cause of the flame, or the underlying process that we look at as a whole and abstractly call, "fire".

There are several variations of solipsism within the wikipedia article you linked. Which one is giving you difficulty?

As for your links, it would be much more helpful if you would give the general premises you're having trouble with. No one is going to look through other forum posts to see the issue that is giving you trouble.

This is the one that maintained solipsism as the default and that realism is the one that needs to meet the burden of proof. — Darkneos

Ha ha! Of course solipsism isn't the default. Otherwise we would all be sitting around going, "What if reality isn't only just in my mind? What if...things outside of my mind exist as well!?"

Relax. You know other things besides yourself exist. What you're having right now is your assumptions challenged. Yes you know these things exist...but why? And that is philosophy. Questioning the obvious in front of us to see if we can analyze it rationally.

One approach is proof by contradiction. Basically, try to contradict the idea that there is something outside of your mind. Then look for contradictions. I gave you an example earlier of not being able to control particular things. Go further than this. If there is only you, what are you made up of? Why can you be injured? Why do you need to eat, drink, and breath? Holding your breath is probably the easiest one to test. See what happens.

If everything was only your perception, what is doing the perceiving? If we are perceiving something, what is that thing if it is us? Is it really perception at that point? Then why is it limited? Etc. Anytime you come to absurdity or a contradiction, then you know you've run into an issue. And trust me, if its only you that exists, you'll run into all kinds of absurdities and contradictions.

"We cannot create a model for seeking knowledge which is not sought." — TVCL

Yes, I think I understand this. Sounds good!

But not only this, but to ensure that one's goals were also in accordance with reality to the best possible extent. — TVCL

If goals are also subject to the analysis of application and consistency, then I don't think there is a problem.

I think this is a good theory to assist a person in the day to day use of knowledge, and works to avoid the minutiae that epistemological analysis can devolve to. Well done! I had thought to introduce a few epistemological puzzles in here, but I find they are unneeded. This theory is about effective practicality, not games or large societal constructs.

Did you wish to take this theory anywhere else? Were there more advanced concepts you were considering? A pleasure as always to read and discuss, this has certainly been a treat!

I don't need to read it to know I don't endorse it. — FrancisRay

Congrats on a completely worthless contribution to the thread then. For anyone looking to have a worthwhile conversation, please post on the topic of the forum, which is the paper itself. I'm sure most people don't need to be told this obvious statement, but we get a few on here who don't understand basic logic.

Not a worry! There is one grain of truth we can get out of solipsism, and its that the only way we know the world is through our own perception. But that's really it. It doesn't mean we cannot relate to others, or that nothing exists that is not within our perception.

One way to think on this is your ability to create a perception that "reality" doesn't want you to have. Try jumping in the air and resisting gravity. Can't do it can you? It turns out you are perceiving things you have no control over. At best what solipsism can claim is "you" are the thing that you have control over. While things that you have no control over aren't "you".

So other people? We don't really have control over them do we? If we don't have control over them, they aren't "you". And what should we call others? Maybe..."things"? We realize that we perceive these things, and can react to it to an extent. But they can do things to us that we have no control over, so we realize logically that they do not only exist within us, but outside of us as well.

Which thoughts? — KerimF

The thoughts that you linked me.

Its logic (The Logic)?! This reminds me when a theist talks about the absolute truth or truths.
I mean an idea has to be examined by a person.
And a serious person examines it based on 'his' logic, not of anyone else (like saying this idea is true because it was approved by... ).
But I am also aware of the fact that a typical person likely sees in his logic, the absolute one that all others have to follow (much like how a theist sees his Truth). — KerimF

No, it is not my logic, but logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction. Deduction where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Because philosophy is exploring new venues that have not been determined yet, this is our true tool in deciding whether our exploration is worthwhile versus merely our opinion.

You remind me when I talk in a forum of theology about what I discovered concerning my being and the real world, many try to tell me that I am talking philosophy — KerimF

Ha ha! Yes, I understand. Some people believe philosophy means people spouting off personal opinions on things. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, or a desire to know and understand how reality works. One way I like to describe it is thus: Science likes to test hypotheses, philosophy comes up with reasonable hypotheses to test.

Once philosophy comes up with a reasonable hypothesis that is tested and found to be useful, it becomes science. So if you use philosophy in regards to a philosophical God, you want to construct something that could be provable within a person's life. For example, if someone could philosophically prove that a God must exist, this would open up a new branch of study where we try to learn about that God. If we philosophically proved epistemology, that would become its own branch of science.

But this takes logic and reason to do so. There is a lot of speculation, but the speculation that is found worthwhile to pursue is that which is rational. Irrational or completely inductive ideas which can gain no solid grounds are ideas that are not seen as worthwhile.

Again, do not take it as a criticism against your own ideas of faith and the afterlife. If they serve you in being a better person in life, who is anyone to take that away from you? But if it is to be examined philosophically, it must rise to a higher standard.

I believe what you are describing is called "the technological singularity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

There are a few theories on it, one of course being the end of the human race. Because ANY good theory of the future has to have our apocalyptic end.

Have you ever considered that you've never experienced love?

As for "unconditional", if you're getting technical, there is the condition that you be what you are, if what you are is loved. So technically, there is no unconditional love.

When people say, "Unconditional love", they mean, "There is nothing another can do that is natural to their person that will stop me from loving them". So for example, if a person gets laid off, which is something outside of their control, you don't stop loving them.

Love, not romantic love btw, is the understanding of a person's good, a person's bad, and still accepting them and wanting them to be their best regardless. So yeah, when you love a person with a bad temper, and they lose it that day, you still love them. You of course want them to get better, but you'll love them even if they don't.

Romantic love involves attraction and friendship, which complicates the issue. Attraction and friendship often have certain expectations. But love, which you can have for anyone, does not require such things.

If these thoughts give you comfort and help you live your life better, more power to you. I'm not advocating against that. But if you're interested in having a philosophical discussion about such things, it will be examined for its logic. If its an emotional or artistic presentation of personal experience and opinion, these things are more theological than philosophical.

For example, anyone can say "God exists" but how he knows his God is a totally different point. This explains how billions in the world could be called theist while many different images of God (if not gods/goddesses) are offered on the world's table to choose from :) Yes, and these God's images have different God's Laws to be observed by the believers. — KerimF

Certainly. The idea of a conscious being that created humanity is the heart of the philosophical God. There is no assumptions at this point of it being good, evil, Christian, Muslim, etc. It is merely the philosophical starting point of, "I believe there is a being beyond humanity that created humanity".

I'm just letting you know you can start there. =) You don't need to call it IT, as you're just using the philosophical God. So lets look at your premises to see if they are logical.

{A} Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence. — KerimF

A "Will" assumes a conscious being. We have clear evidence of conscious beings being your parents. Yet you're claiming there's something beyond. The only thing we can conclude at this point is that there is something beyond humanity that created human beings that has a "Will" or consciousness. Thus the philosophical God.

The problem is this isn't necessarily true. It may be that life formed through chemical processes without consciousness. There is a scientific branch that studies this possibility called abiogenesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

{I} This ‘Will’ is perfect and allowed me to exist in this world just to offer me something special/personal. — KerimF

So, lets just say for fun that there is a conscious existence that created life, you want to claim it is perfect, and desires us to be special. Again, this is a huge assumption that cannot be logically drawn.

What you want to discuss is a perfect conscious being with a will that made us specifically for us to obtain something special. Again, this is just another philosophical God, with the same problems and issues that all other philosophical Gods have. Now if you personally have faith and believe in this, that's fine. But its faith, and not sound philosophy.

Psychology and neuroscience are your best bets for answers. Philosophy can speculate on questions that those two have not answered, but it is best for you to look at the answers before you start examining the questions.