If the brain is necessary to have a vision

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean just like if someone does not have a radio box they cannot tune in to the radio signals out there in the universe. Not in the radio box.

Why cannot it be that the physical brain is some kind of reciever that allows consciousness. But that consciousness prevades the universe. So its not necessarily confined in peoples heads. The brain is the reciever and just like a radio reciever if it iis damages the signal gets distorted. If its completely gone the signal is lost.

But it seems from the direct experiences of many who have these visions beyond normal everyday visions or consciousness beyond the physical brain. That like radio signals consciousness prevades the universe outside the physical brain as well. For people to be able to experience such out of normal body senses.

It then becomes a case of whether one believes such things. The experiencer swears black and blue it was real and not a dream or imagination. Just as much as they would swear that there in a physical sun in the sky.

Material science and skeptics will say its imagination and delusion. So what then. What sort of test can we use to find the truth either way.

Because you cannot show that the brain is akin to a radio for an outside source. Simple as.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

After you show the objective science that there is only matter lol.

Don't need to. You're the one arguing for a paradigm shifting argument, you put in the work to show your claim is worth accepting as science.

 

[stevevw]

To dispel Hans logical fallacy that somehow alternative ideas like Panpsychism must be psuedoscience because one article I linked was connected to the Discovery Institute is false I have included the exact same idea from different domains across science and philosophy.

They are certainly not religious sources and come from mainstream consensus. Seems its a pretty braod and common idea that is growing in support. Or at least a consideration.

The Case For Panpsychism

The Case For Panpsychism | Issue 121 | Philosophy Now

Philip Goff thinks that everything has some degree of consciousness.

philosophynow.org

The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility
Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility

Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

qz.com

Panpsychism is crazy, but it’s also most probably true

Panpsychism is crazy, but it’s also most probably true | Aeon Ideas

On the inner life of molecules and electrons: or why panpsychism is highly likely to be true, even if it sounds crazy

aeon.co

Why Can't Science Explain Consciousness?

Why Can't Science Explain Consciousness?

It's the greatest scientific challenge of our time.

www.livescience.com

Heres what Ai had to say

While modern science remains primarily rooted in physicalism, there has been a notable shift toward taking Panpsychism—the idea that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world—as a serious research framework.
This "thaw" in scientific attitude is driven by several key factors as of 2025:

• The Hard Problem of Consciousness: Traditional physicalist models struggle to explain how subjective experience emerges from non-conscious matter. Panpsychism bypasses this by postulating that consciousness is an intrinsic property of all matter, much like mass or charge.
• Integrated Information Theory (IIT): One of today’s leading scientific theories of consciousness, IIT, has clear panpsychist roots. Developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi and supported by others like Christof Koch, it suggests that any system with certain mathematical properties of "integrated information" possesses some level of consciousness.
• A "Middle Way": Panpsychism is increasingly viewed as an attractive alternative to both dualism (which separates mind and matter entirely) and reductive physicalism (which some argue fails to account for the reality of experience).
• The Intrinsic Nature Argument: Philosophers like Philip Goff argue that physics only describes matter "from the outside" (its behavior and interactions) but remains silent on what matter is "from the inside". Panpsychism fills this gap by suggesting its intrinsic nature is consciousness.

So we have support from across mainstream science and philosophy. Theres no connection to religion. Just straight out unbiased opinion according to the evidence.

Which supports my point that more and more people including within science are becoming open to such ideas. Because they provide a better fit to the data. Not because theres some psuedoscience or conspiracy going on.

 

[stevevw]

Because you cannot show that the brain is akin to a radio for an outside source. Simple as.

Why. If consciousness prevades the universe like radio waves then just like a radio reciever it can tune into that consciousness. Quite simple really.

The problem is for materialism or physicalism is that no one can get outside their own minds to check if there is only physical brains involved.

We definitely know that the kind of phenomena that consciousness produces cannot be produced by physical stuff. You can't build a computer that has consciousness. A bunch of wires and electrical signals does not make an intelligent mind capable of agency. Its impossible. Its like a genie in a bottle magic.

So consciousness is some other phenomena that cannot be reduced to the physical. It transcends the physical and the evidence is as simple as asking yourself or anyone else if they have free will or agency in the world. That their own minds can make a difference over the physical world.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why. If consciousness prevades the universe like radio waves then just like a radio reciever it can tune into that consciousness. Quite simple really.

Show that it does.

The problem is for materialism or physicalism is that no one can get outside their own minds to check if there is only physical brains involved.

That's a claim.

We definitely know that the kind of phenomena that consciousness produces cannot be produced by physical stuff. You can't build a computer that has consciousness. A bunch of wires and electrical signals does not make an intelligent mind capable of agency. Its impossible. Its like a genie in a bottle magic.

That's a computer. A computer is not the same as a human being and still does nothing to show that consciousness comes from an outside source.

So consciousness is some other phenomena that cannot be reduced to the physical. It transcends the physical and the evidence is as simple as asking yourself or anyone else if they have free will or agency in the world. That their own minds can make a difference over the physical world.

That's a claim.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Why. If consciousness prevades the universe like radio waves then just like a radio reciever it can tune into that consciousness. Quite simple really.

The problem is for materialism or physicalism is that no one can get outside their own minds to check if there is only physical brains involved.

We definitely know that the kind of phenomena that consciousness produces cannot be produced by physical stuff. You can't build a computer that has consciousness. A bunch of wires and electrical signals does not make an intelligent mind capable of agency. Its impossible. Its like a genie in a bottle magic.

Why, some believe it possible in principle. Look up functionalism in the context of theory of mind. So you just saying it is impossible is not enough to make it true.

So consciousness is some other phenomena that cannot be reduced to the physical. It transcends the physical and the evidence is as simple as asking yourself or anyone else if they have free will or agency in the world. That their own minds can make a difference over the physical world.

If there is only physical, people could still feel like they have free will and agency, it would just be an effect of the physical implementation.

 

[stevevw]

Why, some believe it possible in principle. Look up functionalism in the context of theory of mind. So you just saying it is impossible is not enough to make it true.

It does in a way. We know consciousness is real. Thats a fact. We know the physical cannot produce such phenomena. Thats a fact. So at the very least we have a situation where there is a large chunk of reality that is unaccounted for.

So it is definitely real and definitely part of reality. Yet its not reducible to the physical. You can make out of this what you want. But it certyainly justifies all the ideas that are coming out in an effort to account for it as material science offers nothing at all. Its hit a brick wall and has not explanation except to relegate it as unreal.

If there is only physical, people could still feel like they have free will and agency, it would just be an effect of the physical implementation.

Yes which makes any sense of self or agency useless. It is not real or has any real influence according to deterministic materialism. We have to dumb ourselves down when we know that is not the case. That we are real entities in the world and can influence reality.

The same logic can be used to say that just like people feel they have free will and agency. That they actually feel like there is a physical world and that free will and agency is all there really is.

Both scenarios can apply equally. In fact I think the "self, agency and Mind' being fundemental makes a lot more sense if we are going to reduce it down to one fundemental that can produce all.

 

[stevevw]

Don't need to. You're the one arguing for a paradigm shifting argument, you put in the work to show your claim is worth accepting as science.

The point was if you looked up whether material science has shown that 'Matter' is fundemental and the only ontology. You would have also got my answer.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It does in a way. We know consciousness is real. Thats a fact. We know the physical cannot produce such phenomena. Thats a fact.

It is not a fact. Show that the physical cannot produce such a phenomenon.

So at the very least we have a situation where there is a large chunk of reality that is unaccounted for.

So it is definitely real and definitely part of reality. Yet its not reducible to the physical.

You're just reiterating your position. Show that it isn't reducible to the physical if your argument hinges on it. All the extra commentary is superfluous until then.

You can make out of this what you want. But it certyainly justifies all the ideas that are coming out in an effort to account for it as material science offers nothing at all. Its hit a brick wall and has not explanation except to relegate it as unreal.

Yes which makes any sense of self or agency useless. It is not real or has any real influence according to deterministic materialism. We have to dumb ourselves down when we know that is not the case. That we are real entities in the world and can influence reality.

The same logic can be used to say that just like people feel they have free will and agency. That they actually feel like there is a physical world and that free will and agency is all there really is.

Both scenarios can apply equally. In fact I think the "self, agency and Mind' being fundemental makes a lot more sense if we are going to reduce it down to one fundemental that can produce all.

 

[stevevw]

It is not a fact. Show that the physical cannot produce such a phenomenon.

I think this is the point. Its that we cannot in any way possible explain this phenomena in empiricle terms and never will be able to whicvh is the problem.

I cannot, you cannot and no one can show how the physical can possibly cause consciousness. Not because there is missing evidence yet to be found. But that categorically its a completely different paradigm.

It would be the same to say show that the physical cannot produce God. As far as I know science will never be able to prove this. Thus we are left with two options. Either conscious experiences and phenomena are reasl and not reducible to the physical thus showing evidence that there is such a realm of reality.

Or that this is all unreal and is the by produce such as an epiphenomena that comes out of the physical. Thus a byproduct and seconary. All phenomenal experiences and beliefs are geared towards biological survival, natural selection and mutations. The conscious being has no agency and control over their world and reality.

You're just reiterating your position. Show that it isn't reducible to the physical if your argument hinges on it. All the extra commentary is superfluous until then.

I don't think you are understanding how this is self evident categorically. It would be like saying maths can explain the experience of awe. Or using a car mechanics tool kit to fix a relationship lol.

Its because conscious experiences lie within the qualititative realm (quality, subjective experiences). While physical sciences lie in the quantifying measures. You can't use a quantifying measure to determining or explain a subjective quality such as experiences.

Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?

Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness? | Oliver Burkeman

The long read: Philosophers and scientists have been at war for decades over the question of what makes human beings more than complex robots

www.theguardian.com

What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models

Frontiers | What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models

The nature of consciousness is considered one of science’s most perplexing and persistent mysteries. We all know the subjective experience of consciousness, ...

www.frontiersin.org

Science that materialism fails to explain

Science that materialism fails to explain

Goal of this article is not to make you believe in some sort of God or religion but to give you a broader picture and to show that materialistic philosophy is not fully consistent in some questions and scientific evidence cannot always be fully explained from a materialistic standpoint.

nwet.online

 

[sjastro]

To dispel Hans logical fallacy that somehow alternative ideas like Panpsychism must be psuedoscience because one article I linked was connected to the Discovery Institute is false I have included the exact same idea from different domains across science and philosophy.

They are certainly not religious sources and come from mainstream consensus. Seems its a pretty braod and common idea that is growing in support. Or at least a consideration.

The Case For Panpsychism

The Case For Panpsychism | Issue 121 | Philosophy Now

Philip Goff thinks that everything has some degree of consciousness.

philosophynow.org

The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility
Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility

Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

qz.com

Panpsychism is crazy, but it’s also most probably true

Panpsychism is crazy, but it’s also most probably true | Aeon Ideas

On the inner life of molecules and electrons: or why panpsychism is highly likely to be true, even if it sounds crazy

aeon.co

Why Can't Science Explain Consciousness?

Why Can't Science Explain Consciousness?

It's the greatest scientific challenge of our time.

www.livescience.com

Heres what Ai had to say

While modern science remains primarily rooted in physicalism, there has been a notable shift toward taking Panpsychism—the idea that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world—as a serious research framework.
This "thaw" in scientific attitude is driven by several key factors as of 2025:

• The Hard Problem of Consciousness: Traditional physicalist models struggle to explain how subjective experience emerges from non-conscious matter. Panpsychism bypasses this by postulating that consciousness is an intrinsic property of all matter, much like mass or charge.
• Integrated Information Theory (IIT): One of today’s leading scientific theories of consciousness, IIT, has clear panpsychist roots. Developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi and supported by others like Christof Koch, it suggests that any system with certain mathematical properties of "integrated information" possesses some level of consciousness.
• A "Middle Way": Panpsychism is increasingly viewed as an attractive alternative to both dualism (which separates mind and matter entirely) and reductive physicalism (which some argue fails to account for the reality of experience).
• The Intrinsic Nature Argument: Philosophers like Philip Goff argue that physics only describes matter "from the outside" (its behavior and interactions) but remains silent on what matter is "from the inside". Panpsychism fills this gap by suggesting its intrinsic nature is consciousness.

So we have support from across mainstream science and philosophy. Theres no connection to religion. Just straight out unbiased opinion according to the evidence.

Which supports my point that more and more people including within science are becoming open to such ideas. Because they provide a better fit to the data. Not because theres some psuedoscience or conspiracy going on.

I'm responding for two reasons.

(1) To see if I can now download stuff on this site (it now works).
(2) For you to tell me if the wavefunction psi described by the following mathematics for the superimposed spin state of an electron is a property of consciousness or not.

If you want to make ridiculous assertions panpsychism has support from mainstream science then should be able to answer the question.
The fact is however panpsychism is unfalsifiable as the question is unanswerable, so it has zero support from mainstream science.
Panpsychism is a metaphysical position, not a scientific theory.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I think this is the point. Its that we cannot in any way possible explain this phenomena in empiricle terms and never will be able to whicvh is the problem.

I cannot, you cannot and no one can show how the physical can possibly cause consciousness. Not because there is missing evidence yet to be found. But that categorically its a completely different paradigm.

Show it, don't just claim it.

It would be the same to say show that the physical cannot produce God.

Show that consciousness is akin to god in terms of provability then. Then you can prove god is not provable.

As far as I know science will never be able to prove this.

You started with a claim. Whether a god is provable or not would depend on the god's characteristics, would be my guess. But please start with proving that the physical cannot give rise to consciousness, a quick googling of it shows that at least some think so.

Thus we are left with two options. Either conscious experiences and phenomena are reasl and not reducible to the physical thus showing evidence that there is such a realm of reality.

Or that this is all unreal and is the by produce such as an epiphenomena that comes out of the physical. Thus a byproduct and seconary. All phenomenal experiences and beliefs are geared towards biological survival, natural selection and mutations. The conscious being has no agency and control over their world and reality.

I don't think you are understanding how this is self evident categorically.

If it is self-evident then it should be easy for you to argue your point.

It would be like saying maths can explain the experience of awe. Or using a car mechanics tool kit to fix a relationship lol.

Instead of bringing up analogies, argue the point.

Its because conscious experiences lie within the qualititative realm (quality, subjective experiences). While physical sciences lie in the quantifying measures. You can't use a quantifying measure to determining or explain a subjective quality such as experiences.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point was if you looked up whether material science has shown that 'Matter' is fundemental and the only ontology. You would have also got my answer.

I'm taking that as a tacit admittance that you can't show there is more than matter.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No its much more than that.

Afterall what is it that we are talking about. Fundemental reality. Know one knows and so all the arguements and reasons for why Mind is a better fit for the observations are just as valif as any thought that matter is fundemental.

Otherwise show me the objective science that shows matter is the only reality.

Its popular because it provides a good fit and basis. Thats why its become popular. Did you ever consider that.

Again, you fail to answer my actual question:

Show that these ideas are popular or growing quantitatively. So far I have seen nothing but anecdote -- a few scientists pushing some notion of dualism/fundamental consciousness or an interpretation of QM. (There are hundreds of those, and none are useful.)

I see no reason to argue about an idea that is fringe, while you claim that it is not. Unlike you I spend time with physicsts regularly and this stuff never comes up. Never. My experiences are only just anecdote as well which is why I want concrete (survey) data about how wide spread this is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They mimick what happens in the quantum world and thats why there is a growth in such ideas. But this was recognised from the start but dismissed. Pioneers of QM recognised the connection between conscious observers and the influence of the world. How even at the very bottom the electron displayed Mind like behaviour.

These pioneers of QM having opinions are just anecdotes, not data. (As for electrons, QED is a very successful theory of electrons and their interactions and can be written down as equations and solve. The mind cannot.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To dispel Hans logical fallacy that somehow alternative ideas like Panpsychism must be psuedoscience because one article I linked was connected to the Discovery Institute is false I have included the exact same idea from different domains across science and philosophy.

No logical fallacy here. I did not use the DI article to demonstrate dualism was false. I used the DI article to laugh at your poor "online research skills". I'm not asking for proof of panpschoticism, I want evidence that it is becoming common or accepted scientifically. That claim doesn't require us to debate all of this "material/non-material" nonsense.

 

[stevevw]

Again, you fail to answer my actual question:

Show that these ideas are popular or growing quantitatively. So far I have seen nothing but anecdote -- a few scientists pushing some notion of dualism/fundamental consciousness or an interpretation of QM. (There are hundreds of those, and none are useful.)

What do you mean like a survey or stats or a graph showing the increase.

I see no reason to argue about an idea that is fringe, while you claim that it is not. Unlike you I spend time with physicsts regularly and this stuff never comes up. Never. My experiences are only just anecdote as well which is why I want concrete (survey) data about how wide spread this is.

So are you saying that there is no vision beyond everyday vision that may come with conscious experiences beyond brain. Thats the issue is settled. There is only the physical brain and physical reality and nothing else worth investigating.

All the ideas and research into these ideas is just psuedoscience and not worth worrying about. Is that correct.

 

[stevevw]

These pioneers of QM having opinions are just anecdotes, not data. (As for electrons, QED is a very successful theory of electrons and their interactions and can be written down as equations and solve. The mind cannot.

And where did this theory come from. A mind did it not lol. Without a mind there would be no such theory. In 100 years there may be a completely different theory just as there is now compared to 100 years ago. The one comon denominator in all this is the mind itself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And where did this theory come from. A mind did it not lol. Without a mind there would be no such theory. In 100 years there may be a completely different theory just as there is now compared to 100 years ago. The one comon denominator in all this is the mind itself.

If that's logic, then I am a pineapple.

 

[stevevw]

No logical fallacy here. I did not use the DI article to demonstrate dualism was false. I used the DI article to laugh at your poor "online research skills".

But if the DI article was saying the same thing as the non DI articles then where is the poor research. Its actually good science to have repeated findings by more than one independent source for which the DI article aligned with other independent sources.

I'm not asking for proof of panpschoticism, I want evidence that it is becoming common or accepted scientifically. That claim doesn't require us to debate all of this "material/non-material" nonsense.

Lol here the problem though. Why should I bother to even provide any evidence when you just admitted that its all nonsense. If you already think its all nonsense then me prividing such evidence will make no difference. As you have already decided.

Anyway, I already did provide this evidence and it seems that you have already dismissed this as well by assuming that there was no such evidence in the articles I linked. For example from the articles

The “panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

Interest in panpsychism has grown in part thanks to the increased academic focus on consciousness itself following on from Chalmers’ “hard problem” paper. Philosophers at NYU, home to one of the leading philosophy-of-mind departments, have made panpsychism a feature of serious study. There have been several credible academic books on the subject in recent years, and popular articles taking panpsychism seriously.

The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility

Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

qz.com

The other sources say similar. So is this not clearly stating that these ideas have become more and more popular. New departments in universities dedicated to the study of consciousness.

As mentioned that since Chambers seminal paper on 'The Hard Problem of Consciousness' interest has been increasing. Especially with ideas that try to account for the gap in explanation between the physical and non physical. Which by its very nature has to expand beyond deterministic and material explanations.

So really its a natural evolution of science. That the physical paradigm is lacking so exploration is happening beyond this in different ways. Some very spectulative and others attempting to develop scientific theories.

Heres some more. I mean there are dozens I would say from across all domains. I don't think such ideas were so mainstream 20 years ago. Anyway its certainly seems widespread enough to be more than just a fad or psuedoscience. People are taking it seriously at the academic level.

Scientists Are Finally Taking Altered States of Consciousness Seriously
Times are changing. The very fact that in the past few decades the theme of consciousness itself has become a central topic for psychologists and neuroscientists signals a transformation in the scientific landscape.

For example, it is said among distinguished brain researchers that just 30 years ago they dared not disclose that their actual research topic was consciousness.

Scientists Are Finally Taking Altered States of Consciousness Seriously

If we want to understand our consciousness, we must not be afraid to break new ground.

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

I mean I can keep getting more and more mainstream links from universities and credible academic sources which all say that consciousness and all these different ideas are being looked at more and more in the last 20 or 30 years.

Do you actually want stats or credible sources stating this fact.