Nature of universe/matter

[Polymath257]

Intellect can easily grasp (if a materialistic philosophy is not imposed on it) that nothing that we know can be independent of consciousness, which is the very subject that knows. We cannot say "Look there is consciousness" since this looking involves first-person consciousness. Sai Baba spoke wisdom only.
...

Yes, if *I* know something, then *I* have to be there. Seems trivial and irrelevant.

 

[stvdv]

Intellect can easily grasp (if a materialistic philosophy is not imposed on it) that nothing that we know can be independent of consciousness

Intellect can grasp, but that's only bookish knowledge (below the mind). To really know it, you need meditation (above the mind)

 

[Koldo]

I do not know. Do you know for sure? There is evidence that 'Will' is not computational. Or it is also known that the subjective first-person consciousness cannot be converted to an algorithm.

What do you mean by 'cannot be converted to an algorithm'? I am not sure what exactly you mean by this. Would you say that colors, for instance, can be converted?

Anyway, what do you say about political forecasting? Why is it possible to predict how people are going to vote? Isn't because people are similar to others?

I do not understand your question. Can you please elaborate a bit more? Thanks.
...

I was asking you to elaborate on this: "The question is how do we ever come to know the intrinsic nature of singular/plural material, except in way of theory (although that still will not solve the Hard problem of consciousness)?"

You say as if knowing the intrinsic nature of material only through theory is a problem. Why?

 

[atanu]

Intellect can grasp, but that's only bookish knowledge (below the mind). To really know it, you need meditation (above the mind)

I agree. It is therefore said that intellect must introvert to its source.

 

[stvdv]

I agree. It is therefore said that intellect must introvert to its source.

First time I hear this one; nice and short; good reminder what and how to get there.

 

[Bird123]

Physicalism leads to Hard problem of consciousness. On the other hand, Panpsychism leads to combination problem.

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

The Combination Problem for Panpsychism - Bibliography - PhilPapers

But let us keep aside these two fatal problems and examine another key problem that many of us might not be aware of.

As per physicalism, the universe is not experiential. Brain-sensual apparatus together create an experiential model of universe for each of us. On this view, in my understanding, we can never know exactly what the universe is like. And it remains a mystery as to how different separated brain systems can have a common view.

Similarly, properties of matter are all dispositional. For example, mass does not say what a matter is. It simply is a relative measure of inertia. Properties, in other words are relational and never reveal the intrinsic nature of matter.

Suppose, physicalism proposes a kind of material monism — that the universe is ontologically constituted of a single material. Or physicalism may propose ontological plurality.

The question is how do we ever come to know the intrinsic nature of singular/plural material, except in way of theory (although that still will not solve the Hard problem of consciousness)?

Open for discussion/debate/mud slinging.
...

How can you ever Discover the answers if you narrow the view to only this physical universe? As in all cases, so much knowledge exists beyond the surface of things. The answers are within you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

How can you ever Discover the answers if you narrow the view to only this physical universe? As in all cases, so much knowledge exists beyond the surface of things. The answers are within you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

How can you ever discover the answers if you only look within? You are not the whole universe, so most of reality is outside of you. The answers are out there.

That's what I see. It is very clear!

 

[Bird123]

How can you ever discover the answers if you only look within? You are not the whole universe, so most of reality is outside of you. The answers are out there.

That's what I see. It is very clear!

Is not everything interfaced at some point?

 

[atanu]

How can you ever Discover the answers if you narrow the view to only this physical universe? As in all cases, so much knowledge exists beyond the surface of things. The answers are within you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I agree. ​

Physicalism is self contradictory. It says there is nothing beyond the physical. This very conclusion is neither physical nor empirical.

But science, imo, is not physicalism. Science does not constrain it’s enquiry by any presumption.

...

 

[gnostic]

Physicalism leads to Hard problem of consciousness. On the other hand, Panpsychism leads to combination problem.

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

The Combination Problem for Panpsychism - Bibliography - PhilPapers

But let us keep aside these two fatal problems and examine another key problem that many of us might not be aware of.

As per physicalism, the universe is not experiential. Brain-sensual apparatus together create an experiential model of universe for each of us. On this view, in my understanding, we can never know exactly what the universe is like. And it remains a mystery as to how different separated brain systems can have a common view.

Similarly, properties of matter are all dispositional. For example, mass does not say what a matter is. It simply is a relative measure of inertia. Properties, in other words are relational and never reveal the intrinsic nature of matter.

Suppose, physicalism proposes a kind of material monism — that the universe is ontologically constituted of a single material. Or physicalism may propose ontological plurality.

The question is how do we ever come to know the intrinsic nature of singular/plural material, except in way of theory (although that still will not solve the Hard problem of consciousness)?

I don’t see anything wrong at all with everything being “relational”, including those that are “intrinsic”.

What I don’t see is that “consciousness” being independent of the physical parts of nature.

Without matters, there can be no consciousness.

Personally, I think some people have the tendencies of over-complicating consciousness.

 

[gnostic]

How can you ever Discover the answers if you narrow the view to only this physical universe? As in all cases, so much knowledge exists beyond the surface of things. The answers are within you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

If you are seeking soul-searching, searching what make humans tick (eg behavior, emotions, intellect, etc), trying to find happiness, sadness, inner torments, self gratification, detachments and so on, then sure, that’s your prerogative.

But that’s only seeking knowledge about yourself and it has more to with each person’s ego, that they are “above it all”.

None of that have anything to do with seeking knowledge about the universe. There are more to the world, more to the universe, than feeding on people’s egos and their false sense of superiority.

 

[Bird123]

If you are seeking soul-searching, searching what make humans tick (eg behavior, emotions, intellect, etc), trying to find happiness, sadness, inner torments, self gratification, detachments and so on, then sure, that’s your prerogative.

But that’s only seeking knowledge about yourself and it has more to with each person’s ego, that they are “above it all”.

None of that have anything to do with seeking knowledge about the universe. There are more to the world, more to the universe, than feeding on people’s egos and their false sense of superiority.

Alright, I'll spell it out for you. We are all Spiritual Beings in our true natures. We are attached to a physical body simply because this traps us within the physical laws of this universe.

Why a physical universe? The time-based causal nature of this universe is Perfect for learning. That is the only reason this physical universe exists at all.

Life is the education of God's children. All those emotional things you talked about are included, however there are many intellectual things that are learned on the journey. You can't acquire true wisdom without it all.

Want to learn about this physical universe? All the secrets of the universe stare us all in the face. How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? Nothing is being hidden. On the other hand, much more information lives beyond the surface. Example: You can look at a person and see a person, yet be blind to DNA and all what really makes up a physical body. So often when one opens one door, it leads to more doors that can be opened. The journey continues.

Throughout history we find Brains win. Perhaps it's all a test of Intelligence. Who can see? What can one Discover?

EGO gets in the way of so much learning. For me, it has never been about EGO for we are all the same. I am merely a Hungry student. Don't Hungry students learn much quicker??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[atanu]

OK, but I would note that tje foundation of my assertions is that the fundamental particles are *defined* by how they interact. How something interacts with other things is what it is.

In many cases, yes. We can point to the physical processes in the brain that *are* the sensation of 'seeing yellow'.

Once again, I base my assertions on the actual evidence from brain studies.
\
I don't think it is an illusion, exactly. It is an epiphenomenon produced by the activity of the brain.

Actually, we can do something easy like this.

OK, I read it. Schrodinger was a brilliant man and that particular essay was very good. But it was written long before we even knew about DNA. We have learned a few things since then.

So, I have learned Schrodingers intuition about these things as he had it, when? Way before any detailed studies of the brain were done? Well before any type of imagine technology existed?

We *do* see differences in how the neurons people have process colors to give the slightly different color triangles. Furthermore, a good part of that happens well before consciousness.

And, again, I think that studies since then have negated his position.

I *strongly* disagree. Consciousness is intimately relational: it depends on processing of information from the senses, on processing internally stored information, on telling the muscles when and how to move, etc. We are not passive observers. Our minds (our brains) process the information, using expectations and other data to give us what we actually experience.

And I disagree. You can't discern it without changing your own mind state.


If you record the changes from the empty file, yes.

Only because in that axiomatic system, the other numbers are defined in terms of zero. it is equally easy to start with 1. or to give the axioms for the integers where there is no 'first'.
All this shows is that the processing of the color space cannot be perfectly (or even mostly) symmetrical. So?

Now it looks to me that you are repeating unfounded assumptions.

On the contrary, in your response, I find nothing but unfounded assertions. You often say "I strongly disagree". But I find no reasoning for your disagreement.

You cannot explain why you think that ‘Hard Problem of consciousness/Explanatory Gap’ is not a problem when you cannot explain how matter characterised by properties like mass, charge, and momentum give rise to phenomenal consciousness. You do not seem to even accept ‘Mental Causation’ (even while using your mind). The three main issues are repeated below.

To brush away the ‘Hard Problem of Consciousness’, you take the plea that consciousness is mere epiphenomenalism, even as steam is epiphenomena of the steam engine. Just as steam has no causal power over the engine, epiphenomenalism holds that consciousness/mind has no causal effect on the physical body whatsoever. This is absurd, outdated, and blatantly wrong. It cannot even accommodate the possibility of mental causation, which is the basis of our legal and moral systems. Epiphenomenalism is only logically consistent with the complete absence of mentality; mindless bodies would function in exactly the same way, as the mind has no capacity to generate any causal impact. Epiphenomenalism cannot account for the first party experiences that we all have.

Epiphenomenalism is self-refuting since, if the mind did not have any causal effect on the body, then there should not be any recognition of it. If epiphenomenalism holds true then rational considerations can have no causal influence on our beliefs and actions. Epiphenomenalism has been rejected by physicalist philosophers Daniel Dennet and Karl Popper on the ground of the evolutionary theory with the argument that if the mind was not causal then evolution would have got rid of the mind long ago. But mental causation is self-evident to everyone.

Then, you accuse Schrödinger’s views from ‘What is Life’, referred in my last post, to be dated. But have you addressed his thesis? Has the following conclusion of Schrödinger become false?

“…. Two general facts (a) that all scientific knowledge is based on sense perception, and (b) that none the less the scientific views of natural processes formed in this way lack all sensual qualities and therefore cannot account for the latter.”​

If Schrodinger is dated, I think Sam Harris is not so dated. Let us see what he says in his book: "Waking Up".

……In scientific terms, however, consciousness remains notoriously difficult to understand, or even to define.

……..whatever else consciousness may or may not entail in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is a matter of subjective experience.

……experience is one thing, and our growing scientific picture of reality is another. ……..And whether something seems conscious from the outside is never quite the point. ……..To say that consciousness may only seem to exist, from the inside, is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at all, that is consciousness.

…….We know, of course, that human minds are the product of human brains. There is simply no question that your ability to decode and understand this sentence depends upon neurophysiological events taking place inside your head at this moment. But most of this mental work occurs entirely in the dark, and it is a mystery why any part of the process should be attended by consciousness.

…….Nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence for it in the universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to.

……we have committed ourselves to this much: First there is a physical world, unconscious and seething with unperceived events; then, by virtue of some physical property or process, consciousness itself springs, or staggers, into being. This idea seems to me not merely strange but perfectly mysterious. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When we linger over the details, however, this notion of emergence seems merely a placeholder for a miracle.”

……This situation has been characterized as an “explanatory gap” and as the “hard problem of consciousness.

………Any attempt to understand consciousness in terms of brain activity merely correlates a person’s ability to report an experience (demonstrating that he was aware of it) with specific states of his brain. While such correlations can amount to fascinating neuroscience, they bring us no closer to explaining the emergence of consciousness itself.​

And more. You can yourselves read the rest of the book if you really are open to new knowledge.

To say that consciousness is relational is to equate consciousness with the infamous Ponzi scheme that is built on myth. If consciousness is merely relational, what is the validity of all your claims? On the other hand, we know that self-awareness is intrinsic to existence. All our knowledge is based on the premise that our aware self is intrinsic to all knowledge processes. Although, it is elementary that the continual changes of world states are discernible only because of an intrinsic competence to know, extreme commitment to physicalism will not let one accept this. But let us see what great Bertrand Russel had to say on this.

It was Bertrand Russel who held that science reveals the structure of the world but not its intrinsic nature. According to him, since structure requires something non-structural in order to make the transition from mere abstraction to concrete existence, “the core of subjectivity common to all consciousness”, could be postulated as the intrinsic ground of the structural features outlined by physical science. This has come to be known as Russellian Monism that holds that consciousness, in its most basic form of bare subjectivity, is the intrinsic nature which ‘grounds’ or makes concrete the system of relationally defined structure discerned by physics. By and large, we have no access to this level of reality except for a limited acquaintance with it in our own experience.
…

I reject all your arguments with adequate reasoning and with support from respected scientists and philosophers. However, I recognise that with a preexisting commitment to physicalism our views can never converge. This song depicts the situation.

...

 

[atanu]

If any reader wishes to examine the diverse views on the subject, the following video may be useful.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In many cases, yes. We can point to the physical processes in the brain that *are* the sensation of 'seeing yellow'.

The resolution levels of such studies is far, far, far beyond any ability we have. In almost all research we do to study the kinds of brain activities involved here we rely on things such as BOLD contrast signals. We can neither directly study nor can we come remotely close to modeling such physical processes. The exceptions are studies in which ROIs or neuronal structures from particular ROIs have already been identified by cognitive neuroimaging methods and we are looking at how particular neural assemblies or neurons "behave" during the same types of tasks.

Actually, we can do something easy like this.

I'm not entirely sure how this can possibly be true, but it could be that I am misunderstanding what you mean by "like this" above, what you mean by "easy", or both. We can readily identify large activity in various large cortical regions with cognitive processes like those described. It is highly nontrivial even to tease out which kinds of activities in which brain regions correspond to which classes of cognitive processing in tasks such as color and shape detection/identification. As a simple example, for some 30 years now newer theories of abstract cognitive processes which are lumped together under the name "embodied cognition" hold that what was previously believed to be purely amodel "symbolic" processing associated with the actual concepts such as "yellow" or "triangle" and the like are themselves intricately and integrally represented by neural activity/patterns in somatosensory brain regions. That is, even when it comes to the higher level conceptual processing of notions such as "shapes" or "colors" or "nouns" (like "triangle") and even more abstract notions we make use of brain regions and processes that are and have been traditionally associated with the actual bodies motor and sensory processing of stimuli. This view is still opposed (though much less so) by the "classical" view found in cognitive science and related fields (including neuroscience).
Neither camp, though, has been able to produce anything remotely close to a computational/neuronal model of the kind of neurophysiological processing we do in even the most basic conceptual processing. We aren't even that good at identifying biologically plausible mechanisms from machine learning that could underlie our own lower-level visual processing systems here.

 

[atanu]

..
You say as if knowing the intrinsic nature of material only through theory is a problem. Why?

I don’t see anything wrong at all with everything being “relational”, including those that are “intrinsic”.
...

I do not have a problem with this if you could clarify 'Relational to what?"

...

 

[gnostic]

We are all Spiritual Beings in our true natures. We are attached to a physical body simply because this traps us within the physical laws of this universe.

Actually you don’t know that at all.

It is simply WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE...nothing more, nothing less.

It is what I would call - “blind faith” and “wishful thinking”.

Throughout history we find Brains win. Perhaps it's all a test of Intelligence. Who can see? What can one Discover?

EGO gets in the way of so much learning. For me, it has never been about EGO for we are all the same.

Are you sure about that?

Because, below...

Why a physical universe? The time-based causal nature of this universe is Perfect for learning. That is the only reason this physical universe exists at all.

...I see exactly that...

Ego​

I am all for learning. I am all for learning about the world, and about the universe.

But to think the only reason for the universe to exist, because we are to learn the nature of the universe.

It is ego, to think that the universe were made for our desire.

And it is wishful thinking that looking from within will give you answer to the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

On the contrary, in your response, I find nothing but unfounded assertions. You often say "I strongly disagree". But I find no reasoning for your disagreement.

You cannot explain why you think that ‘Hard Problem of consciousness/Explanatory Gap’ is not a problem when you cannot explain how matter characterised by properties like mass, charge, and momentum give rise to phenomenal consciousness. You do not seem to even accept ‘Mental Causation’ (even while using your mind). The three main issues are repeated below.

Let me put it this way. Suppose we develop a technology that can correlate brain functions with subjective experiences and do so reliably. This technology scans your brain for a few seconds, say, and by analyzing that scan, it says precisely what the person experienced during those seconds. This is repeatable and those scanned agree that their subjective experiences are exactly what the processing of the scan determines.

Is that not enough to say that we understand consciousness? if that happens (and I agree we are not there, yet), is that not a solution to the 'hard problem' of consciousness? I would say that it is.

Furthermore, this is a matter of technology: our ability to scan and process that activities of the brain. And that is generally recognized as being the 'soft problem' of consciousness.

So, if this is the case, there *is* no hard problem: it is a (very difficult) soft problem. And that is ALL it is.

To brush away the ‘Hard Problem of Consciousness’, you take the plea that consciousness is mere epiphenomenalism, even as steam is epiphenomena of the steam engine. Just as steam has no causal power over the engine, epiphenomenalism holds that consciousness/mind has no causal effect on the physical body whatsoever.

Wrong in several ways. The external steam has no causal power in the engine but the *internal* steam most definitely does have such power.

I'll give a different notion of an epiphenomenon. Take pressure. No single atom or molecule has pressure. But pressure is something that arises by the activity of very large numbers of molecules hitting the sides of the container. The two descriptions, pressure and molecules hitting the sides, are equivalent descriptions, just at different levels of description. So, pressure, in spite of being an epiphenomenon, does, in fact have a causal aspect: the pressure is actually an important causal variable.

In the same way, consciousness is one description of a phenomenon that, at a lower level, is a pattern of neural activity. As such, it *does* have causal power because those lower level phenomena do. And those neural patterns are part of the physical body and so are causally connected to the physical body. Hence, consciousness is as well.

This is absurd, outdated, and blatantly wrong. It cannot even accommodate the possibility of mental causation, which is the basis of our legal and moral systems. Epiphenomenalism is only logically consistent with the complete absence of mentality; mindless bodies would function in exactly the same way, as the mind has no capacity to generate any causal impact. Epiphenomenalism cannot account for the first party experiences that we all have.

I would say that you have a very outdated notion of epiphenomena.

If Schrodinger is dated, I think Sam Harris is not so dated. Let us see what he says in his book: "Waking Up".

……In scientific terms, however, consciousness remains notoriously difficult to understand, or even to define.

……..whatever else consciousness may or may not entail in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is a matter of subjective experience.

……experience is one thing, and our growing scientific picture of reality is another. ……..And whether something seems conscious from the outside is never quite the point. ……..To say that consciousness may only seem to exist, from the inside, is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at all, that is consciousness.

…….We know, of course, that human minds are the product of human brains. There is simply no question that your ability to decode and understand this sentence depends upon neurophysiological events taking place inside your head at this moment. But most of this mental work occurs entirely in the dark, and it is a mystery why any part of the process should be attended by consciousness.

…….Nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence for it in the universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to.

……we have committed ourselves to this much: First there is a physical world, unconscious and seething with unperceived events; then, by virtue of some physical property or process, consciousness itself springs, or staggers, into being. This idea seems to me not merely strange but perfectly mysterious. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When we linger over the details, however, this notion of emergence seems merely a placeholder for a miracle.”

……This situation has been characterized as an “explanatory gap” and as the “hard problem of consciousness.

………Any attempt to understand consciousness in terms of brain activity merely correlates a person’s ability to report an experience (demonstrating that he was aware of it) with specific states of his brain. While such correlations can amount to fascinating neuroscience, they bring us no closer to explaining the emergence of consciousness itself.​

And more. You can yourselves read the rest of the book if you really are open to new knowledge.

See my comments above. Those correlations *are* the explanation. There is literally nothing left to explain if we have perfect correlation. And that means there is ONLY a soft problem of consciousness, not a hard one.

To say that consciousness is relational is to equate consciousness with the infamous Ponzi scheme that is built on myth. If consciousness is merely relational, what is the validity of all your claims? On the other hand, we know that self-awareness is intrinsic to existence.

First, what does that even mean? The only interpretation of can make of that sentence is clearly false. Self-awareness is clearly NOT intrinsic to existence: there are many, many things that exist but are not self-aware.

All our knowledge is based on the premise that our aware self is intrinsic to all knowledge processes. Although, it is elementary that the continual changes of world states are discernible only because of an intrinsic competence to know, extreme commitment to physicalism will not let one accept this. But let us see what great Bertrand Russel had to say on this.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The only interpretation I can see is clearly false. It is purely accidental that I have to learn about the universe through my senses and awareness. It is a triviality and is clearly NOT intrinsic to existence of knowledge.

It was Bertrand Russel

who held that science reveals the structure of the world but not its intrinsic nature. According to him, since structure requires something non-structural in order to make the transition from mere abstraction to concrete existence, “the core of subjectivity common to all consciousness”, could be postulated as the intrinsic ground of the structural features outlined by physical science. This has come to be known as Russellian Monism that holds that consciousness, in its most basic form of bare subjectivity, is the intrinsic nature which ‘grounds’ or makes concrete the system of relationally defined structure discerned by physics. By and large, we have no access to this level of reality except for a limited acquaintance with it in our own experience.

I think that searching for an 'intrinsic nature' is usually a mistake. It assumes that there is something more than the interactions between things.

Monism of the sort you describe seems to be trivially wrong to me. So few things are conscious, that it is clear that consciousness is no ground for reality at all. In fact, it seems to me to be a sort of egotism to think that consciousness, which is limited to a few species on one planet as far as we know, has anything to do with the reality of most of the universe.

I reject all your arguments with adequate reasoning and with support from respected scientists and philosophers. However, I recognise that with a preexisting commitment to physicalism our views can never converge. This song depicts the situation.

You seem to think I arbitrarily arrived at physicalism and adhere to it in spite of the evidence. In fact I have searched and found it the only reasonable description of the universe around us. I see consciousness as an interesting, but limited phenomenon that happens in a few species. But to give it grand status as the determiner of reality seems to be a HUGE claim with no basis whatsoever.

 

[Bird123]

Actually you don’t know that at all.

It is simply WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE...nothing more, nothing less.

It is what I would call - “blind faith” and “wishful thinking”.



Are you sure about that?

Because, below...



...I see exactly that...

Ego​

I am all for learning. I am all for learning about the world, and about the universe.

But to think the only reason for the universe to exist, because we are to learn the nature of the universe.

It is ego, to think that the universe were made for our desire.

And it is wishful thinking that looking from within will give you answer to the universe.

Did you even understand anything I said?? The universe was not created so we could learn about the universe. Widen that view. Isn't there more to learn??

We are Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this.

Looking within will not give you all the answers to the universe. The answers stare us all in the face. Do you see any answers staring at you? Are you even looking?? How long did people watch birds fly before they understood how? It was there all along, staring!!

How do you come to understand a person? You can discover more about a person by studying and understanding their actions.

Nothing is being hidden. One is limited by one's own view and thinking. Widen that view and thinking.

Perhaps you need to discover who you really are first. Find a dark quiet comfortable room. Close your eyes. block out all distractions and focus inward. Concentrate. Say: It's me. That is who you really are.

If you are still having trouble after this, find the very youngest of people. Some are still at the point when they can tell the difference between who they are and their physical bodies.

These children must be very young because this physical world supplies so much sensory input that it is not long before one is seduced into thinking this physical world is all there is.

Remember these youngest children have recently left God's arms, If one looks closely, one can see God's reflection. Really LOOK! Do you know what you are looking for or what you are looking at? Perhaps, you can discover something.


Finally, think. What is the very first thing you remember in your life? I know it was a very long time ago, but work on this. Your answers might be there.

Now you can jump up and down claiming EGO simply because the truth isn't an agreeable thing to you, however you must remember that throughout lifetime, truth will not always be an agreeable thing.

Our journey to Discovery is not a 10 minute journey. It spans lifetimes.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[tayla]

Physicalism leads to Hard problem of consciousness. On the other hand, Panpsychism leads to combination problem.

Yes, I agree that the questions of consciousness and mind are important and interesting.

One way people solve the problems you raise is to claim that all is Consciousness, and that the physical is a manifestation of this. I find this unsatisfying.

And taking physicalism as excluding consciousness means you have to tack consciousness on at the end as a sort of emergent property or process or something. This also is not satisfying.

I think the answer is that, whatever consciousness and mind are, the universe provides for these. But they are not properties that can be measured like energy and entropy can. So what are they?

Perhaps a conscious mind can never know the answer, about its true nature.

A similar question involves why the universe appears to be so mathematical and why the weirdness of mathematics exists at all. Just look at a table of integrals to see this at work.