How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[2PhiloVoid]

Your reading ability is what doesn't.

What did I misconstrue, Estrid?

 

[Astrid]

What did I misconstrue, Estrid?

Religion OR woo woo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religion OR woo woo.

I'll pick religion.

Woo woo draws flies, and that draws Beelzebub.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Religion OR woo woo.

No, you originally said "...religion, or woo woo."

But whatever the case is, forgive me. I guess the comma kind of threw me for a semantic loop; OR maybe I've just been watching too many sarcastic Skeptic/Atheist videos lately and I falsely attributed their attitude to your own.

 

[Astrid]

No, you originally said "...religion, or woo woo."

But whatever the case is, forgive me. I guess the comma kind of threw me for a semantic loop; OR maybe I've just been watching too many sarcastic Skeptic/Atheist videos lately and I falsely attributed their attitude to your own.

No prob. I often miss subtleties of English grammar.

 

[stevevw]

It's more than you've got.

Is it really. As correlations cannot explain the nature of conscious experience its not even in the ball park of a theory of consciousness. Its like trying to use engineering to measure beauty.Whatever the explanation is going to be it has to explain not correlate subject conscious experience.

Artificially induce the same reactions in the brain and see if the same experience occurs.

Oh, wait, that's been done and it works. A Successful Artificial Memory Has Been Created

This doesn't find or explain the actual experience (its nature) but rather describes the mechanisms associated with conscious experience. Two different things. You conflating a description of how brain process work with explaining the actual experience itself.

I am sure in the future we will gradually get closer to building a human like robot that can do everything a human can do mechanistically and we would be hard pressed to tell the difference. But that still wouldn't create consciousness. David Chalmers covered this with his Zombie thought experiment.
Zombies and the Explanatory Gap
https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil375/Chalmers1.pdf

No, you are providing nothing more than claims.
Repeating the claim does not prove the claim.

Its not my claim. These are claims from those in the know including those who think consciousness is a material phenomena.

Its not a claim but logically self-evidence. You can't measure something of quality (qualia) with something quantitative (methodological naturalism). Even Galileo the pioneer of the science method realized that you cannot measure subjective conscious experience through the science method.

A key moment in the scientific revolution was Galileo’s declaration that mathematics was to be the language of the new science, that the new science was to have a purely quantitative vocabulary. But Galileo realized that you can’t capture consciousness in these terms, as consciousness is an essentially quality-involving phenomenon. So Galileo decided that we have to put consciousness outside of the domain of science; after we’d done that, everything else could be captured in mathematics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/

Again, you are just repeating your claims and pretending it is proof. It is not.

As mentioned, I am not trying to prove anything and as you know there is no such thing as scientific proof. I am saying that because subjective conscious experience is a qualitative phenomena then whatever the explanation it has to include the qualitative aspects of reality IE subjects experiences.

As conscious experience is first and foremost and all we have we have it makes sense to make it fundamental to reality because its the basis or maybe the filter for understanding the world. So ideas along the lines of Mind or Information being fundamental seem to have a good fit to include the qualitative and conceptual aspects of reality.

This conclusion that nature is fundamentally mind-like is hardly new. But it arises here not from some deep philosophical analysis, or religious insight, but directly from an examination of the causal structure of our basic scientific theory.
The Consciousness of Reality

That mind may in some way extend beyond the brain and body – connecting personal conscious awareness with more extended sources of information in the world – is a powerful and compelling hypothesis that could account for many currently inexplicable phenomena. It is also a hypothesis that can be subjected to rigorous scientific investigation, both empirical and theoretical.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf

Max Planck the originator of quantum theory “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.”

The fact that damage to the brain produces changes in personality and brain function is evidence for that.

But personality and brain function are not consciousness. These are associated with biology and enviromental factors such as upbringing.

If consciousness is fundamental and beyond the brain then the brain may act like a receiver/transmitter or filter for consciousness. Just like a radio box and its wiring is a filter to receive and transmit radio waves.

So if the brain gets damaged just like if the radio box gets damaged it will change or stop the radio signal being received so the brain when damaged will effect consciousness being received and transmitted.

Your alternative would require us to believe in something extra for which there is no evidence.

Its not believing in something extra as its simply taking what we experience at face value which is the only 'evidence' we have and actually know is real and making that fundamental and first before all else.

As David Chalmers and many others have said Mind/consciousness is not something extra dangling outside of reality, its right there at the center.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

Whereas scientific materialism makes claims about something extra beyond our minds something called 'Matter' which cannot be verified because, well we cannot get outside our minds to test it. So if anything lacks evidence its the idea of matter beyond the Mind.

Materialism is unparsimonious because, in addition to or instead of mentality—which is all we ultimately know—it posits another category of ‘substance’ or ‘existent’ fundamentally beyond direct empirical verification: namely, matter. Under materialism, matter is literally transcendent, more inaccessible than any ostensive spiritual world posited by the world’s religions.

Materialism conflates the need to posit something outside our personal minds with having to posit something outside mind as a category. All three observations can be made sense of if we postulate a" field of mentation beyond our personal psyches.

As such, there is indeed a world out there, beyond us, which we all inhabit; but this world is mental, just as we are intrinsically mental agents. Seeing things this way completely circumvents the ‘hard problem of consciousness,’ as we no longer need to bridge the impassable gap between mind and non-mind, quality and quantity: everything is now mental.

Finally, materialism is arguably incoherent. As we have seen, matter is a theoretical abstraction in and of mind. So when materialists try to reduce mind to matter, they are effectively trying to reduce mind to one of mind’s own conceptual creations.
https://iai.tv/articles/why-materialism-is-a-dead-end-bernardo-kastrup-auid-1271

Occam's razor would tell us to discard your alternative.

Actually it wouldn't as its more simplistic than the materialist view as it only poses Mind as fundamental which unifies everything and solves the problems that materialism faces like the Hard problem and the quantum measurement problem as well as a lot of other problems in evolution, psychology, etc.

We know that some material entities – brains – have an intrinsically consciousness-involving nature. We have no clue as to the intrinsic nature of any other material entities. And so the most simple, elegant, parsimonious hypothesis, is that the nature of the stuff outside of brains is continuous with that of brains, in also being consciousness-involving.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/The_Case_For_Panpsychism

Given the deep problems that plague both dualism and materialism, panpsychism looks to me to be the best solution to the mind-body problem.
https://theconversation.com/consciousness-how-can-i-experience-things-that-arent-real-139600

Henry Stapp argues: “From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…”(H. P. Stapp,
https://christopher-germann.de/the-kochen-specker-theorem-and-the-role-of-the-observer-in-quantum-physics/

Perhaps, if you can provide evidence that only your position can explain, it will be worth paying more attention to it, but for right now, you have a fantasy that consciousness exists beyond the brain and absolutely nothing with which to back that claim up.

Ironically I think claiming there is 'matter' beyond the mind is more a fantasy because at least we can be assured that all we have is 'Mind and Consciousness' as we have direct access and 1st person knowledge. But we don't with matter as its beyond our mind for which we can never have direct or fist person knowledge.

In short, evidence or get out.

Like I said I am not saying that any of these ideas are correct but that something along these lines is required I think to include the subject back into our understanding of reality. We are not passive players when it comes to understanding reality. We are right there in the middle and everywhere else.

physical science has ignored the 'subject' — the scientist — even though their subjective experience constitutes their only link with the external world.
https://www.nature.com/articles/507421

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

It is in this sense that the unfinished business of quantum mechanics levels the playing field. The high ground of materialism deflates when followed to its quantum mechanical roots, because it then demands the acceptance of metaphysical possibilities that seem no more ‘reasonable’ than other alternatives.
Materialism alone cannot explain the riddle of consciousness | Aeon Essays

 

[stevevw]

What's really clear about this conversation, is that the logic being argued, leads nowhere of any practical use that I can see. That's the classic problem with pure logic propositions .. they're always seeking 'truths', when no one has any idea of what those 'truths' are. That's where science kicks in and disrupts such never ending philosophical musings ..

Scientific effort (including fringe science) has moved on towards investigating how firing neurons might generate conscious experience. Amongst several of his fringe science proposals, Stuart Hameroff was investigating microtubules within neuronal axons. Others have also researched the electrical properties of idealised theoretical circuit components called 'memristors', of which biology's microtubules appear to align, (at least from a circuit theoretical viewpoint), and quantum happenings inside microtubules are likely.

The name of the game is to figure out the mechanisms behind consciousness in normal brain based neural activity, in which QM properties are almost inevitable.

A nice readable article, recapping the history including the ins and outs of Hammeroff/Penrose (and others') proposals, is here (if interested):
Can Quantum Physics Explain Consciousness? One Scientist Thinks It Might

I've read about this and though I don't understand the detail of the theory I agree its one of a number of ideas to try and find how brain firing at the quantum level creates consciousness in a physical sense.

Though it makes sense to look for the emergence of consciousness at the quantum level it seems as articles I've read that trying to find the physical mechanisms especially at the quantum level is impossible. As far as I understand there is no physical correlates at the quantum level.

Plus this still involves the problem of trying to account for qualitative consciousness by a quantitative measure. Just like we cannot find the experience of joy or a sunset in neurons we cannot find it in a sub atomic particle. But then there are no particles so maybe we can.

I mean what would we even look for, a spark, some sort of signal where a love heart pops in and out of existence. The only way we can know about what's the nature of consciousness and thus reality is to ask the subject.

 

[stevevw]

"Mind" is very clearly the product of brains.
Brains run on neuron-neuron connections.
Neuron interactions run on neurotransmitters.
Neurotransmitters function through chemistry.
Chemistry is built on molecular bonds.
Molecular bonds are the product of quantum mechanical Interations between electrons and protons.
Protons are composite particles made of quarks and gluons.
Electrons, quarks, and gluons are quantized excitations of fundamental fields. As is all matter.

Minds are material in origin.

Actually at the most fundamental level Electrons, quarks, and gluons etc are not matter. That is a false idea that scientific materialism has promoted. Everything is energy and we just don't know what that is.

The idea of matter is a concept of the mind. We cannot get outside our minds to measure matter. All we know is Mind. So it makes sense that at the very bottom there is Mind. A so called electron is Mind. Mind is consciousness and consciousness is mind, the universe is mind and everything is Mind.

Max Planck’s position: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.” (Emphasis added.)

 

[stevevw]

Minds are very capable of generating physical force and changing whatever you mean by the word 'reality' there .. Not bad for something that is supposedly 'a non physical force' (.. whatever that means .. more word salad there methinks .. ie: any without meaning?).

I am not sure what you mean by minds can generate physical force. Do you mean 'energy'.

This is the problem that no one really knows the line between natural and supernatural. Some things like God are simple to work out as supernatural but there are a lot of things that we are not sure about like transcendental things such as truth, beauty, etc.

 

[stevevw]

"what is the physical mechanism or force by which the brain is altered?"

I think what Hans Blaster is getting at is...

A radio is altered by 'immaterial' signals sent through the air. Although the signals are invisible, we can detect the changes being made in the radio. Electrical impulses and currents. Seemingly coming out of nowhere. Currents not caused by the battery, but some external influence.

Of course we understand these are consequences of the force of electromagnetism.

In the case of the brain, what is getting tickled or jiggled or excited by this external influence?
What force causes the jiggling?

We understand (to some extent) in the brain that this neuron started firing more rapidly because these other 3 neurons that connect to it started firing more rapidly. A physical cause begets a physical response. You seem to be suggesting that some sort of physical response occurs in the brain without any physical cause. What do these causeless physical responses look like? By what process are they physically or nonphysically caused?

That's the big question and problem that's plaguing science. The problem is what you have described does not explain conscious experience. Just like being able to measure radio waves and electromagnetism doesn't explain what they are.

Any theory of consciousness needs to go beyond mere correlations and descriptions of brain behavior. It needs to explain how the joy of music or the awe of a sunset or night sky is created. Why is it created, and how this fits in our intuition that our experience of the world seems real, more real than anything else.

 

[Astrid]

Is it really. As correlations cannot explain the nature of conscious experience its not even in the ball park of a theory of consciousness. Its like trying to use engineering to measure beauty.Whatever the explanation is going to be it has to explain not correlate subject conscious experience.

This doesn't find or explain the actual experience (its nature) but rather describes the mechanisms associated with conscious experience. Two different things. You conflating a description of how brain process work with explaining the actual experience itself.

I am sure in the future we will gradually get closer to building a human like robot that can do everything a human can do mechanistically and we would be hard pressed to tell the difference. But that still wouldn't create consciousness. David Chalmers covered this with his Zombie thought experiment.
Zombies and the Explanatory Gap
https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil375/Chalmers1.pdf
Its not my claim. These are claims from those in the know including those who think consciousness is a material phenomena.

Its not a claim but logically self-evidence. You can't measure something of quality (qualia) with something quantitative (methodological naturalism). Even Galileo the pioneer of the science method realized that you cannot measure subjective conscious experience through the science method.

A key moment in the scientific revolution was Galileo’s declaration that mathematics was to be the language of the new science, that the new science was to have a purely quantitative vocabulary. But Galileo realized that you can’t capture consciousness in these terms, as consciousness is an essentially quality-involving phenomenon. So Galileo decided that we have to put consciousness outside of the domain of science; after we’d done that, everything else could be captured in mathematics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/

As mentioned, I am not trying to prove anything and as you know there is no such thing as scientific proof. I am saying that because subjective conscious experience is a qualitative phenomena then whatever the explanation it has to include the qualitative aspects of reality IE subjects experiences.

As conscious experience is first and foremost and all we have we have it makes sense to make it fundamental to reality because its the basis or maybe the filter for understanding the world. So ideas along the lines of Mind or Information being fundamental seem to have a good fit to include the qualitative and conceptual aspects of reality.

This conclusion that nature is fundamentally mind-like is hardly new. But it arises here not from some deep philosophical analysis, or religious insight, but directly from an examination of the causal structure of our basic scientific theory.
The Consciousness of Reality

That mind may in some way extend beyond the brain and body – connecting personal conscious awareness with more extended sources of information in the world – is a powerful and compelling hypothesis that could account for many currently inexplicable phenomena. It is also a hypothesis that can be subjected to rigorous scientific investigation, both empirical and theoretical.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf

Max Planck the originator of quantum theory “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.”

But personality and brain function are not consciousness. These are associated with biology and enviromental factors such as upbringing.

If consciousness is fundamental and beyond the brain then the brain may act like a receiver/transmitter or filter for consciousness. Just like a radio box and its wiring is a filter to receive and transmit radio waves.

So if the brain gets damaged just like if the radio box gets damaged it will change or stop the radio signal being received so the brain when damaged will effect consciousness being received and transmitted. Its not believing in something extra as its simply taking what we experience at face value which is the only 'evidence' we have and actually know is real and making that fundamental and first before all else.

As David Chalmers and many others have said Mind/consciousness is not something extra dangling outside of reality, its right there at the center.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

Whereas scientific materialism makes claims about something extra beyond our minds something called 'Matter' which cannot be verified because, well we cannot get outside our minds to test it. So if anything lacks evidence its the idea of matter beyond the Mind.

Materialism is unparsimonious because, in addition to or instead of mentality—which is all we ultimately know—it posits another category of ‘substance’ or ‘existent’ fundamentally beyond direct empirical verification: namely, matter. Under materialism, matter is literally transcendent, more inaccessible than any ostensive spiritual world posited by the world’s religions.

Materialism conflates the need to posit something outside our personal minds with having to posit something outside mind as a category. All three observations can be made sense of if we postulate a" field of mentation beyond our personal psyches.

As such, there is indeed a world out there, beyond us, which we all inhabit; but this world is mental, just as we are intrinsically mental agents. Seeing things this way completely circumvents the ‘hard problem of consciousness,’ as we no longer need to bridge the impassable gap between mind and non-mind, quality and quantity: everything is now mental.

Finally, materialism is arguably incoherent. As we have seen, matter is a theoretical abstraction in and of mind. So when materialists try to reduce mind to matter, they are effectively trying to reduce mind to one of mind’s own conceptual creations.
https://iai.tv/articles/why-materialism-is-a-dead-end-bernardo-kastrup-auid-1271

Actually it wouldn't as its more simplistic than the materialist view as it only poses Mind as fundamental which unifies everything and solves the problems that materialism faces like the Hard problem and the quantum measurement problem as well as a lot of other problems in evolution, psychology, etc.

We know that some material entities – brains – have an intrinsically consciousness-involving nature. We have no clue as to the intrinsic nature of any other material entities. And so the most simple, elegant, parsimonious hypothesis, is that the nature of the stuff outside of brains is continuous with that of brains, in also being consciousness-involving.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/The_Case_For_Panpsychism

Given the deep problems that plague both dualism and materialism, panpsychism looks to me to be the best solution to the mind-body problem.
https://theconversation.com/consciousness-how-can-i-experience-things-that-arent-real-139600

Henry Stapp argues: “From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…”(H. P. Stapp,
https://christopher-germann.de/the-kochen-specker-theorem-and-the-role-of-the-observer-in-quantum-physics/

Ironically I think claiming there is 'matter' beyond the mind is more a fantasy because at least we can be assured that all we have is 'Mind and Consciousness' as we have direct access and 1st person knowledge. But we don't with matter as its beyond our mind for which we can never have direct or fist person knowledge.

Like I said I am not saying that any of these ideas are correct but that something along these lines is required I think to include the subject back into our understanding of reality. We are not passive players when it comes to understanding reality. We are right there in the middle and everywhere else.

physical science has ignored the 'subject' — the scientist — even though their subjective experience constitutes their only link with the external world.
https://www.nature.com/articles/507421

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

It is in this sense that the unfinished business of quantum mechanics levels the playing field. The high ground of materialism deflates when followed to its quantum mechanical roots, because it then demands the acceptance of metaphysical possibilities that seem no more ‘reasonable’ than other alternatives.
Materialism alone cannot explain the riddle of consciousness | Aeon Essays

It wasnt more words than you have but it
looks like more substance.
You are saying how you happen to feel.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually at the most fundamental level Electrons, quarks, and gluons etc are not matter. That is a false idea that scientific materialism has promoted. Everything is energy and we just don't know what that is.

Whether you want to call the quanta of the fundamental fields "matter" or not is irrelevant. I can state my position thusly:

Nothing has demonstrated that the "mind" is anything other than a manifestation of the fundamental quark, gluon, electron, and electromagnetic fields in the form we know as "neural tissue."

 

[stevevw]

Let me see I can summarize what you have written before in premises and then re-ask my question:

P1: The body is controlled by the brain and the brain is a physical object.

P2: There is "spirit" and spirit is non-physical.

P3: The spirit controls the brain or interacts with the brain.

Q: How does the spirit interact with the brain per premise 3?

What is the mode of action? What forces or fields are involved? etc.

I would not have written premise 1 or at least I disagree with it. The body and certainly the brain are physical mechanisms. But I think the Mind at least as far as the thought to move your body is not a physical thing. You could say the Mind is in the drivers seat pushing our body around.

Like a remote controlled car there is a Mind that controls the car in what it does.

Just on premise 2. Though there is spirit, Mind, consciousness that may be immaterial in nature doesn't mean they cannot have a physical effect on the world.

On premise 3. I am not sure how consciousness works with the brain. That is the problem that faces both materialists and non-materialist.All we know is consciousness (qualia) cannot be reduced to the physical brain and yet it has an effect on the physical world.

 

[stevevw]

It wasnt more words than you have but it
looks like more substance.
You are saying how you happen to feel.

No I am explaining some facts about consciousness that have been mentioned by those who study this field.

 

[Kylie]

Is it really. As correlations cannot explain the nature of conscious experience its not even in the ball park of a theory of consciousness. Its like trying to use engineering to measure beauty.Whatever the explanation is going to be it has to explain not correlate subject conscious experience.

The concept of beauty is entirely subjective. There are objective markers as to whether someone is conscious or not.

This doesn't find or explain the actual experience (its nature) but rather describes the mechanisms associated with conscious experience. Two different things. You conflating a description of how brain process work with explaining the actual experience itself.

I am sure in the future we will gradually get closer to building a human like robot that can do everything a human can do mechanistically and we would be hard pressed to tell the difference. But that still wouldn't create consciousness. David Chalmers covered this with his Zombie thought experiment.
Zombies and the Explanatory Gap
https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil375/Chalmers1.pdf

Are you demanding objective facts about a subjective experience?

But personality and brain function are not consciousness. These are associated with biology and enviromental factors such as upbringing.

"Brain function is not consciousness," says the guy who wants to show that consciousness is a separate thing to brain function.

You are assume as a premise the very thing you wish to conclude. That is called circular reasoning, and it's a logical fallacy.

If consciousness is fundamental and beyond the brain then the brain may act like a receiver/transmitter or filter for consciousness. Just like a radio box and its wiring is a filter to receive and transmit radio waves.

So if the brain gets damaged just like if the radio box gets damaged it will change or stop the radio signal being received so the brain when damaged will effect consciousness being received and transmitted. Its not believing in something extra as its simply taking what we experience at face value which is the only 'evidence' we have and actually know is real and making that fundamental and first before all else.

First of all,. that's a mighty big IF there.

Secondly, the radio signal that your car radio picks up is transmitted from somewhere. Where is the consciousness signal sent from?

Thirdly, a radio can be retuned. Can I retune my brain to pick up my husband's consciousness? Why don't two people ever have their brains tuned to the same frequency?

Fourthly, can you provide any evidence of this consciousness transmission? Show us a detector that picks up consciousness waves travelling through the universe.

Fifthly, why don't we see any delays caused by the speed limit of the universe? That suggests that whatever the source is, it is very close by. If there are aliens in another star system, do they have to wait years for the consciousness signal to reach them, or do they have their own transmitter? Or are you suggesting that consciousness transmissions can exceed the speed of light? If so, how do they do that?

As David Chalmers and many others have said Mind/consciousness is not something extra dangling outside of reality, its right there at the center.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

Oh, a BLOG (not a scientific paper) about a PHILOSOPHER who doesn't understand evolution.

Colour me unimpressed.

Whereas scientific materialism makes claims about something extra beyond our minds something called 'Matter' which cannot be verified because, well we cannot get outside our minds to test it. So if anything lacks evidence its the idea of matter beyond the Mind.

You really need to decide on a point of view. You've gone all over the place on this. Here you are saying that matter doesn't exist (apparently you've never stubbed your toe), and earlier you were saying that matter is formed from quantum fields. Make up your mind, please.

Actually it wouldn't as its more simplistic than the materialist view as it only poses Mind as fundamental which unifies everything and solves the problems that materialism faces like the Hard problem and the quantum measurement problem as well as a lot of other problems in evolution, psychology, etc.

We know that some material entities – brains – have an intrinsically consciousness-involving nature. We have no clue as to the intrinsic nature of any other material entities. And so the most simple, elegant, parsimonious hypothesis, is that the nature of the stuff outside of brains is continuous with that of brains, in also being consciousness-involving.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/The_Case_For_Panpsychism

Given the deep problems that plague both dualism and materialism, panpsychism looks to me to be the best solution to the mind-body problem.
https://theconversation.com/consciousness-how-can-i-experience-things-that-arent-real-139600

Henry Stapp argues: “From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…”(H. P. Stapp,
https://christopher-germann.de/the-kochen-specker-theorem-and-the-role-of-the-observer-in-quantum-physics/

And again you change your position! You just told me that matter can't be verified, and yet you now you claim that brains are material entities! How can they be made of matter when you claim matter can't be verified?

Ironically I think claiming there is 'matter' beyond the mind is more a fantasy because at least we can be assured that all we have is 'Mind and Consciousness' as we have direct access and 1st person knowledge. But we don't with matter as its beyond our mind for which we can never have direct or fist person knowledge.

That's getting into brain-in-a-jar territory.

Like I said I am not saying that any of these ideas are correct but that something along these lines is required I think to include the subject back into our understanding of reality. We are not passive players when it comes to understanding reality. We are right there in the middle and everywhere else.

Your ideas would render reality fundamentally unknowable.

And in support of my position, Steven Novella, who is a medical doctor and a neurosurgeon (so he definitely knows what he's talking about when it comes to this topic) says that the materialist position explains everything.

"The materialist hypothesis – that the brain causes consciousness – has made a number of predictions, and every single prediction has been validated. Every single question that can be answered scientifically – with observation and evidence – that takes the form: “If the brain causes the mind then…” has been resolved in favor of that hypothesis." SOURCE

Would you care to show me any predictions that your position has made that have been validated, and that contradict the materialist position?

 

[Kylie]

No I am explaining some facts about consciousness that have been mentioned by those who study this field.

Then you should have no problem providing the scientific studies that were done to establish those facts.

 

[Astrid]

No I am explaining some facts about consciousness that have been mentioned by those who study this field.

Your feelings are not an explanation of facts

 

[stevevw]

Whether you want to call the quanta of the fundamental fields "matter" or not is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant. If its understood as matter then its a materialist view which is completely different to immaterial basis. This is fundamental to the debate over consciousness.

I can state my position thusly:
Nothing has demonstrated that the "mind" is anything other than a manifestation of the fundamental quark, gluon, electron, and electromagnetic fields in the form we know as "neural tissue."

If quark, gluon, electron are the basis for "neural tissue" then fundamentally "neural tissue" is not really a material thing, its 99.9999% empty space.

We could say that nothing has demonstrated that "neural tissue" is the basis for consciousness because correlating with the physical mechanisms of the brain is not a theory of consciousness. It doesn't explain how that "neural tissue" a quantitative measure can produce a qualitative phenomena as consciousness. Two different things.

The idea of matter is a Mind concept about something called matter that exists beyond the Mind. But science cannot verify this because we cannot get outside our Mind to test it. Proposing some mystical thing as 'matter' out there beyond our Mind is no different to what materialists claim about religious people claiming some mystical thing as spirit out there beyond Mind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If quark, gluon, electron are the basis for "neural tissue" then fundamentally "neural tissue" is not really a material thing, its 99.9999% empty space.

No. That is literally what we mean by matter in physics. If you have a problem with quarks, gluons, and electrons being called "matter", it's your problem, not ours. If you're going to use non-standard definitions of "matter" than I'm not sure any conversation about what is or is not matter have any value whatsoever.

 

[stevevw]

Your feelings are not an explanation of facts

Ok lets simplify. I said that the nature of consciousness (qualia) cannot be measured by the scientific method because it only deals in quantitative terms. This conclusion is not a feeling I have. This is based on what even the original developer Galileo of the science method said.

A key moment in the scientific revolution was Galileo’s declaration that mathematics was to be the language of the new science, that the new science was to have a purely quantitative vocabulary. But Galileo realized that you can’t capture consciousness in these terms, as consciousness is an essentially quality-involving phenomenon. So Galileo decided that we have to put consciousness outside of the domain of science; after we’d done that, everything else could be captured in mathematics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/