Understanding Consciousness - take two

Thinking about how science is unraveling philosophy’s eccentric Hard Problem. With a little help from Professor Nick Lane

David Chalmers leads philosophers who claim scientists, (that is people dedicated to studying physical reality), will never figure out how biological processes can produce subjective experience.

Then they go on to talk about studying “consciousness” by focusing on neurons and the brain. While the body gets lost like some kind of externality, an irrelevance to minimize and avoid.

Now please consider for a moment, your brain is intimately connected down to every cubic millimeter of your body. Your living body is about a nonstop exchange of information and resources between itself and the outside world. (Same as all other animals, down to single celled creatures.

It is your body that experiences the bike ride, it is your mouth, nose, fingers, etc. who are experiencing the food being eaten, same with the child or lover being touched - it is not your brain.

Everything your brain has to work with must be processed and communicated via our individual living body, (with its unique perceptual filters - product of nature via nurture.)

Professor Lane sees our body’s biology and organs, as a full orchestra of instruments, the physical biology scientists have been studying. Nick suggests it’s time to listen to the music they make, the best way to understand consciousness A creature’s life is all about the music those biological instruments can perform.

The brain? That’s the conductor, and the music that’s the thoughts and feeling surging through our bodies. At the end of this article I’ve added a 266 word quote from the professor.

Scientists have learned that besides neurons there are hormones, neurotransmitters, with their dancing chemical gradients. Also layers of bioelectrical production, with its myriad of discrete bioelectrical potentials, coursing through our body as it navigates our days.

Recent surprises, a missing connection uncovered. Kevin Lee, PhD Neuroscientist says: “There has never been a lymphatic system for the (brain &) central nervous system, and it was very clear from that first singular observation that it will fundamentally change the way people look at the central nervous system’s relationship with the immune system.”

UVA researchers have discovered the brain and immune system are connected by vessels long thought not to exist. It’s the brain-immune system missing link.

Another surprise, for centuries we didn’t give “connective tissue” a second thought. With modern imagining and other technical magic, scientists have learned that fascia and interstitium are key to helping our brain map and track what our body is doing in time and space and circumstance, while helping keep muscles healthy. Makes absolute sense, but who would have thought it?

To think, humble “connective tissue” separating muscle groups, are a vast fluid-filled network that connects the entire body and redefines human anatomy.

All this hints at even deeper layers of inter body, awareness, communication, in short levels of consciousness. There is no reason to believe the body is not capable of creating mind. Why should we?

Consider, a crystal, a few wires and a diaphragm, can catch voices and music out of the air. A magnet and bit of wire set in motion, can unleash the magical power of electricity. Then die just as fast, soon as the motion ends.

Why on earth shouldn’t our bodies be able to create coordinated thought signals, and eventually even gods, all on their own? It did take over 600 million years worth of generations to get here.

Bottom line — it is scientifically, physically, neurologically silly to search for “consciousness” within our neurons and brain exclusively. No matter how heady the words and concepts.

As for the brain and neurons. We should be clear that neurons and complex brains are about complex thinking and language, and processing streams of incoming information in a nonstop interaction with the physical unforgiving world, as it flys past our physical being.

Brain is for thinking, central processing, the conductor of the symphony that is our body. Neurons are information highways. And consciousness is to be found way deeper, permeating all of it.

“Consciousness” itself was one of life’s very earliest hurdles before biology could evolve into complexity and creatures.

Consciousness needed to be figured out before complex molecules could successfully evolve into creatures possessing differentiated organelles and other components. All successfully working together to negotiate the “barrier” between “me” on the inside and everything else out there.

There was never a successful dumb creature on this planet, it could not have survived long enough to make babies.

This isn’t me fantasizing, it is what the scientists have been discovering and laying out these past decades. There for anyone to learn about, all it needs is the curiosity and sticktoitiveness to do the homework.

Check out: “Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC)”

Reber’s 2018, Institut des sciences cognitives - UQAM .

—————————————————

Nick Lane - Epilogue, Self, to the book “Transformer”, p.212

Nick writes:

“… the key point is that the electrical fields generated by neurons do have motive force. They are not too weak to change things physically, as long assumed.

This kind of statement might have pushed the boundaries of respectable science until recently, but the extraordinary work of the developmental biologist Michael Levin and others shows that electric fields can control the development of small animals such as the flat worms known as planarians.

I suspect that twenty-first-century biology will be the biology of (electrical) fields. So, let’s take it to be possible that the electrical fields generated by mitochondria do have motive force.

What can that tell us about consciousness?

Well, for a start, it might tell us why the brain is so hooked on glucose as a fuel. If you recall, calcium influx into the mitochondria from their associated membranes (MAMs) activates the enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase, ramping up Krebs-cycle flux and ATP synthesis nearly exponentially.

Plainly that powers work, but it also gives scope to the full dynamic range of mitochondrial membrane potential. To the full range of electrical fields. To the full music of the orchestra.

Until now, biology has tended to study the materials that make up the instruments. The time has come to close our eyes and listen to the music.

I want to suggest to you that this music is the stuff of feeling, of emotion. Electrical fields are the unifying force that binds the disparate flowing molecules of a cell together to make a self with moods and feelings. Alzheimer’s disease is the fading of that music as the fields fragment. …”

From Nick Lane’s Transformer epilogue “Self,” p.215

Can you feel it?

Understanding the “Self” and our place on this Earth, isn’t near as convoluted as profiteers would have us believe. Still, if it matters to you, you have to do your own homework. Struggle with it until knowledge transitions into understanding. Seek and ye shall receive.

Starts with deeply learning about, that divide between what you are thinking right now and the physical body and world you are restrained within.

I believe, better appreciating evolution as something more than merely a notion about things changing over time, is important.

So many facts to learn, but it’s just trivial until we connect the dots and the knowing becomes understanding about the pageant of evolution and how your body evolved over time.

At least I’ve found a life time of wonder, ever widening understanding, and some resolutions via this passion for understanding the Evolutionary Pageant that brought us to this point.

Now if only I could find some people interested in discussing, sharing and growing, and all that fun stuff I remember from the ‘70s and ’80 traveling and meeting people. Now it seems it’s all about projecting, provoke and monetize. Not so much discussing, and introspection and building upon the evidence at hand. It’s heartbreaking watching the general disintegration.


Take the evolutionary grand tour, start with, Hazen, Lane, Levin, Reber, Sloan-Wilson, Solms, Damasio, Sapolski, and others are first rate scientists and great communicators. The story is there for those who care to learn about it.

You will probably argue with my points made about the language used here, rather than address what I’m actually saying. But the words chosen are important. You are making an argument based on something I can’t find, is not in the link, and ignores work done, much of it cited throughout this forum.

Who is Chalmers “leading”? There is no consensus on the hard problem. Even those who agree it is hard don’t agree on exactly what it is. What do scientists study other than “physical reality”? Saying we will “never” figure it out is different from saying we might not be able to. Who are “they” that focus on the brain? - okay, I could answer that one, but it’s you who ignores all the others who include the body. Or you don’t, since at the end of this post, you link a bunch of them.

So I can’t figure out what your point is. You want us to “do our own research”, pointing us to names, but no actual research. We’ve discussed some of them and it’s been interesting but it’s rarely a scientific discussion. Scientific discussions are about the probability of something being true, about discoveries of what causes what, about what a commonly used phrase like “being like a bat” actually means. It seems like maybe the Brain-immune system and intersittium articles are what inspired this post, but instead of discussing that, you use it as a springboard to talk about Chalmers.

A whole chorus of folks, do a little googling on the topic, see who lots and lots of folks point at, as the inventor and authority on the “Hard Problem”.

Right and Chalmers is a thinker, talker, a philosopher. Many philosophers act as though God were a real thing out there beyond our physical reality.

You are playing a game here.
Philosophers vs. Scientists - there is a distinction, let’s recognize it.

Please show me where a philosopher drills down to the bedrock observation of the “Human Mind ~ Physical Reality (includes biology), divide” and explicitly discusses the implication of that.

Does Heidegger do it? Please show me where, I’d certainly read it.

Heck please share a scientist who’s done it, I’d love to read up on it.

Then you say stuff like that.
This is why it feels like you don’t pay much attention to what I write, you simply reject and hammer.

Haven’t you notice that for many years now I make a major distinction between doing your homework, what we regular mortals are relegated to - and doing research - which requires trained and skilled professionals?

Seriously?

(6.01) Dr. Mark Solms demystifies Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of Consciousness.

(6.02) The Other Side of Mark Solms PhD, farmer, vintner, humanitarian.

(6.03) Students’ Resource: A representative cross-section of Dr. Mark Solms’ scientific publications.

(1.01) The Prelude, Prof Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-Gravity

(1.02) Chapter 10a, Community: Network of Conscious Agents (1/3)

(1.03) Chapter 10b, Community: Network of Conscious Agents (2/3)

(1.04) Chapter 10c, Community: Network of Hoffmanian Conscious Agents (3/3)

(1.05) Chapter 1, Mystery: The Scalpel That Split Consciousness

(1.06) Chapter 2, Beauty: Siren of the Gene

(1.07) Chapter 3, Reality: Capers of the Unseen Sun

(1.08) Chapter 4, Sensory: Fitness beats Truth

(1.09) Chapter 5, Illusory: The Bluff of the Desktop

(1.10) Chapter 6, Gravity: Spacetime is Doomed

(1.11) Chapter 7, Virtuality: Inflating a Holoworld

(1.12) Chapter 8, Polychromy: Mutations of an Interface

(1.13) Chapter 9, Scrutiny: You Get What You Need, in Both Life and Business

(1.14) Appendix, Precisely: The Right to Be (Foolish)

Student Resources - Background info:

(4.01) Rainer Mausfeld : ‘Truth’ has no role in explanatory accounts of perception.

(4.02) Paul Mealing : considers Hoffman’s "Objects of Consciousness.”

(4.03) The Case For Reality : Because Apparently Someone Needs to Make One

(4.04) Sabine Hossenfelder : in Defense of Scientific Realism and Physical Reality

(4.05) “Emergence” - A Handy Summary and Resources

(4.06) Physical Origins of Mind: Dr. Siegel, Allen Institute >Brain Science, Tononi, Koch.

(4.07) Can you trust Frontiers in Psychology research papers? Student Resource

(4.08) Critical Thinking Skills - In Defense of Reality - A Student Resource

(4.09) Philo+Sophia - Love of Wisdom - A Student Resource

Well that assumption would be mistaken.

Brain-immune system and interstittium are simply another couple building blocks to the edifice that is revealing how our body/brain/interacting with life, produces our thoughts.

And why is that important?
Because it proves that we create our own Gods.
That would be a huge lesson to learn.

That terribly few seem the least bit interested in discussing it, doesn’t make it any less real - or relevant to understanding ourselves, and the jeopardy we’ve placed humanity and Earth’s biosphere itself into.

But that you don’t want to discuss.

Question:
Does David Chalmers claim the Hard Problem will never be solved

AI Overview

No, David Chalmers, he doesn’t claim the Hard Problem is unsolvable; rather, he argues it’s not solvable through standard physicalist/reductive explanations because consciousness (qualia) involves facts beyond mere function and structure, requiring new principles, perhaps related to panpsychism or property dualism, suggesting a breakthrough or new physics/ontology is needed, not that it’s forever beyond human grasp. He believes we should keep trying, exploring alternatives to materialism, and developing new conceptual tools, not give up.

Okay, so he doesn’t claim it’s impossible - only that science needs to adapt WOO to get there.

I rest my case.

I don’t have time for all of these, but here, note that this is telling me to “do my own research”, but later you give me a knee-jerk reaction when I say that you do that.

It’s Sapolsky main theme, when he does that thing about how we react to any given situation based on what just happened an hour ago, a week ago, when we were born, something our ancestors did, etc.

Yes, in the thread I’m responding to, and a few others, you have pasted in the same list of names and told us to go read their stuff. I follow up by saying we have had interesting discussions about specific ideas and studies they have done, but that’s not what you are doing here. You are listing links. Something I think the forum guidelines specifically discourage.

Wow. You work hard to miss the point. I pointed to the Brain-immue and interstitium articles as potentially interesting and then noted that instead of discussing them, you start out talking about Chalmers again. And now you leap from those to how we think up Gods. I’ve believed that since I read it on the notes of Jethro Tull’s Aqualung album cover. In other words, a lot of people think it and have talked about for as long as I’ve been alive.

No it isn’t !!!
Come on, does anyone seriously consider Goggle a “research tool”. It is a map, directory and introduction for the curious and the student.

It is.
Though it is wrapped up within tons of words focused on exploring various details, and he doesn’t actually spell it out as simply and directly as he could during his introduction. A little orientation before starting in on the glorious details.

Please notice Sapolsky is on my list of top shelf scientific resources for this evolutionary thread of learning.
Also note Sapolsky is not a philosopher !
It’s not the scientists who are dropping the ball (they continue doing great work within the limits of scientific standards), our philosophers are dropping the ball!

The bedrock observation worth raising up the flag pole is:
“Human Mind ~ Physical Reality (includes biology), divide”
Because it helps recognize and clarify the boundary between our imagination and the Earthly reality that created us. And frankly everything works out from there.

Why never focus on that?

How about reinterpreting that a little - that list of names is where you can find the supporting learning to the claims I make. While basically you are tell me repeating that my claims are nonsense, an irritant, and that I should stop.

And I’m insisting they are not nonsense and the evidence is to be found, so I am forced to repeat those names because they are some of the best sources for the learning that supports my position.

Think what? - can you summarize? Because I’m not hearing what you hear. But I have seen folks like Hoffman and Chalmers become rock stars, because they are provocative, rather than having something solid to add to our understanding, they’ve stupefied impressionable people.

I’ve been witness to the horror unfolding in this country - the proof is in the sociological transition American has undergone the past decades.
What haven’t you noticed that “Honesty” and “Scientific Fidelity” have been crippled in this country and when the MAGA brown shirts are done terrorizing people, they may fully succeed in destroying what’s left of our rule of law Constitution, democracy and respect for honesty and facts.

And I hear you telling me, there is nothing to complain about when it comes to the state of our philosophy and our general gnawing disregard for physical reality and sober science. While we are telling ourselves we can ignore Earth’s realities because we have become masters of the universe and can do anything we dream.

Yes I know. That is the entire problem. You don’t hear that people have been aware of these issues you raise for a long time. You don’t hear that people agree with you. So you keep complaining and say the problem is with other people.

The quote, "if God didn’t exist, man would invent him” is attributed to Voltaire. It’s importance and significance is without question. The world has changed because of this. Organizations have formed around spreading these words. It was easy and safe for me to be an atheist, as opposed to how people were persecuted in Voltaire’s time.

But you say

“And why is that important?

Because it proves that we create our own Gods.

That would be a huge lesson to learn.

That terribly few seem the least bit interested in discussing it, doesn’t make it any less real.”

So please show me some examples.

Because as I recall from those philosophy features you start threads with, they consistently feature the oversights I’m railing against.

And that was some three centuries ago. Vague and airy, if oh so true.

Today we understand the biological physical mechanisms that make this factually true - so why the pride in the achievements of a seer from the 18th century - when today’s philosophers are arguing over whether science needs to adopt WOO in order to make sense of the fact that our body/brain is doing the sensing and interpreting, resulting in all we know.

  • Perhaps not 100%, but they know where to look for the final slivers of physical evidence. Sort of like climate science, when push comes to shove, there’s only 97% scientific certainty - so the fantasists insist AWG is all a hoax - and that they have God Almighty in their back pockets.

It wasn’t pride, it was pointing out how long the idea has been around. I’m not going to do a history of it, but we’ve been building on it. What would accept as evidence?

A more sober public understanding discuss.

People actually discussing it - that nonsense like Hoffman’s “Conscious Agent” be tossed into the trash, rather then coddled and building grand talks and symposiums around. Openly recognizing it’s just a new God they are trying to conjure.
Problem is delusional thinking - and the acceptance of provocative over honesty has become a national right it seems.


As for the actual factual nitty gritty,

Hearing a general recognition of and appreciation for Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide. And coming to terms with the realistic limits that puts on what we can know and do.

Get aware, be proud, and get loud, and explicit about the fact we are a product of Earth’s evolutionary biological processes. Kin to all other living creatures of this planet.

Realizing that all our awareness and thoughts comes through our body interacting with physical reality and our mental landscape.

Becoming aware that a Personal God is a pure figment of our imagination. Which is okay, it is the pretending one has the “God of Light, Time, Matter, Life and Love” in their back pockets, that’s basically a mental illness.

Oh and if God there be, it would be light years beyond our petty self-absorbed, self-serving, nature. Meaning if one must have a God Notion, which I can understand, (I simply call mine, The Universe, for lack of a better term).

Accept that other ancient wisdom that God is beyond our Understanding.

Oh and let’s not forget processing all of this, also helps one recognize and come to terms with our collective and individual self-absorbed and self-serving nature. Providing a clearer perspective on one’s own follies and heartbreaks, thus providing opportunities to evolve beyond that.

What’s in it for me. A way more sober understanding of my self, my weaknesses, emotions and impulses - thereby also providing solid strategies for gaining more control over impulse behavior and better dealing with traumatic experiences, and existential threats.

All the while the negative self-loathing so many carry with them has a way of dissipating. - That’s not out of some book, that is out of my actual experience.

Oh and for extra fun, somewhere in all that I discovered Jesus’s real story and the source of his eternal appeal and staying power. He presents the essence of humanity, and the long arch of our complicated lives.
Jesus is about teaching us to take responsibility for our selves and dealing with guilt and loss. His example of dying on the cross of his own making and then resurrecting, is analogous to what humans must go through psychologically - burning on the cross of our own sins. Do that faithfully, sincerely, and one comes out the other end as a changed person, a rebirth into a more constructive mindset, that makes for a much saner satisfying day by day.

The idea of Jesus also makes a great mental companion who’s always there, if we call him. Jesus isn’t about “God”, the notion is about people learning better ways of dealing with life.

Jesus is no God, but I bet we’d have been friends had I met him on the tramping trail.

But before any of that becomes possible one must get real about their “self” and their body, as a product of Earth’s processes and their mind as a product of our body’s processes.

Not vague poetic philosphical hints, rather explicit and loud.

I’ve been to conferences where they do this.

Those are your words. I think people do discuss that but I’ve tried to get clarity from you and and not sure I have it. I think I hear similar concepts, but you don’t seem to like them.

They are taught in public school, public television, and much more.

Same as above, conferences, entire organizations, famous celebrities and authors.

A topic in itself, but you’re not going get traction with believers if you start there.

Do you want a list? How are you missing this?

And that’s interesting and valuable.

Why would you think I’m trying to get traction with believers?

This is for people who already believe in the scientific method, but haven’t had a chance to think it through yet. That’s why I’m making “student resources” blog posts at my site.

So you tell me.
And I’ll be damned if I can find anyone to discuss it with constructive, as opposed to adversarially, even at the college philosophy club. I’ve been gently, carefully, poking at them for some four-five years now, I’m treated like an irrelevant idiot - while half the meetings are dedicated to trivialities. Students going through the paces to get through the class. So I listen, watch and bide my time, while keeping at it, as I can steal the time.

I love the way I was able to focus all of a couple days my two Reber study guides, Nick Lane’s “Self” has been more of a challenge, Still it’s getting closer.

I’m sure you can find conversations in these archives on this forum about belief in gods being a mental illness. I don’t know why you would want to convince more non-believers of that.

Tell you what? The”it” you said is not discussed is that humans invented gods. I said I’ve been to entire conferences that discuss that. Just up look up the speakers at Mythicist Milwaukee or anything similar for a list of people having that discussion. Some of them even say it’s a mental illness.

Your point?
Please do not overlook the key nuance here. It’s not about “belief in God” -
The insanity part comes in when believing that “God Almighty” has a personal relationship and interest in oneself."

Belief in an unknowable god is an entirely different reality.
In the day I really loved the “Shadow Play” analogy and I imagine it still holds true.
I think it’s a rational place holder to help make peace with the grand Mysteries of existence.

You are not accurately representing what I’ve actually written.
It is not about an intellectual idea that we invented gods.

It’s about starting out with developing a deep understanding and appreciation for one’s own body via an evolutionary biological story. We need a fact-based myth that shows complete fidelity to scientific understanding.

First base: Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide.

The consequences, are a clear understanding that the cells in my body are the product of some four billion years of evolutionary development. Learning that the source of awareness~consciousness is to be found within the origins of our single cells.

Eukaryotic cells would have been impossible without awareness. It took single cells over three billion years, plus Earth radically evolving her composition and the availability of the building blocks for cells to explode into creatures. Right down here at the beginning is where the “source of consciousness” is to be found.

Human’s highly developed body/brain that enables incredibly, unbelievably, complex information streams to be processed into thoughts and memories, transformed into decisions and actions. Memory with storage and retrievable. All that belongs to “Introspective Self-Consciousness”. Why is that rarely mentioned?

“We invent our Gods.” doesn’t have a fraction of the usable information that
appreciating our body and brain creates ALL of our thoughts does.
By necessity that includes our imaginings about any higher power, or God.

A deep Evolutionary understanding gives me a bedrock appreciation for the ephemeral nature of my thoughts being the product of myself and this moment - and that the physical reality I interact with, is something else all together.

On a more personal level appreciating that my physical biological body is the latest incarnation of over half a billion years worth of unbroken successful generations, makes it self-evident that my body works by its own agenda, with knowledge and strategies totally beyond my self-conscious awareness.

This has created a fascinating mental dynamic for me, in that my mind has developed a relationship a partnership sorts with my body. That naturally makes me more attentive to its changes. The captain of my ship. And just like sailing captains, the better I understand, appreciate, and treat my ship, the easier my voyages will be.

The constant default that I’m just an evolved and animal doing the best I can, is a life saver.

I am a filament in the pageant of evolution, isn’t simply the string of empty words you seem to read, they resonates with depth and calming awareness for me.

Becoming aware of the long tendrils of reality and time that course through my living body, puts me in a position to do better with that body. Riding the waves of life with eyes and mind open, soaking in the moments, as they unfold.

Are you trying to make my point for me?

Look at the name, that is all about wallowing in our myths. Rather than sobering up and figuring out what to do with all the knowledge evolutionary biology and science in general is offering us these days.

I did a google search:

Matt Dillahunty: I will not be returning to the Mythicist Milwaukee conference until there is a change in leadership

Mythicist Milwaukee is the former name of a nonprofit atheist secular organization founded in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, … Several years after its founding, it changed its name to “Mythinformed Milwaukee” and changed its goal to "promoting viewpoint diversity in the social and political landscape."

A little more trawling and all I see is an ego driven group, with personalities doing battle with each other. They are driven by a different agenda, than mine.

I read their words and know it’s about keeping the provocative alive, rather than getting to grips with our biological origins within this planet Earth cornucopia of life.
Let alone our responsibility to this planet that created us.

They are all about celebrate the Myth - and our ever fertile minds.

Whereas I want to celebrate Earth’s evolutionary process and how that lead to us and our mind eventually, based on sober science, respecting physical reality for what it is.

Google Origins of Consciousness

I’d love for you to show me some really constructive presentations based on physical science, as opposed to philosophizing and then biased back-engineering ( a la Hammerhof, Koch, etc.) - who never stop to touch on the fact that awareness/consciousness is a prerequisite for any complex creature to survive. That is playing basketball in zero gravity.

(Okay there is, The Source of Consciousness - with Mark Solms) it’s a start, - might be others, I missed, but the ratio is embarrassingly huge. That is why I’d be happy to make another discovery or two like Reber, etc.

I’m going to trace this one, and that will show how you keep pulling this conversation in so many directions that it’s impossible to accomplish anything.

You asked, “why would you think I’m trying to get traction with believers?”

Which was something I said in response to my comment, “Becoming aware that a Personal God is a pure figment of our imagination. Which is okay, it is the pretending one has the “God of Light, Time, Matter, Life and Love” in their back pockets, that’s basically a mental illness.”

I don’t really know who you are trying to get “get traction” with. You brought up the mental illness thing, you tell me what your point is. I asked you what you would accept as evidence. I was commenting on how long the idea of gods being invented by our thoughts has been around. I asked what you would accept as evidence for that. I was trying to do that by looking at history and you twisted that into this “pride” thing. I was trying to discuss your comment that “terribly few” want to discuss it.

Then you do something you do often, claim there is a “key nuance”, that the topic we were on is not important.

I have too much football and attending my cats to do today. I’ll respond to a lot of things, but chasing a thread backwards to explain that I was trying to answer your questions and understand your thesis is not something I feel up to.

If one believes they have a personal relation “God”- and that God is telling them what he thinks - and that they know “God’s Will”. That indicates a mental disturbance. Look up Religious Psychosis.

That consciousness is a quality that exists on a spectrum and that All living creatures possess a level of awareness, or they couldn’t survive.

Key nuance, like acknowledging that you are an evolved creature, housed in a biological body that has an evolutionary heritage going back over half billion years and that to understand oneself, requires an appreciation for that evolutionary journey that your body require to get to where it is this generation.

That it is your Body + Brain + Interaction (interior & exterior) = Awareness, consciousness.
That human thanks to our biological complexity has developed an extreme developed form introspective, self-consciousness.

Not important? Or repeatedly missing and ignoring the important points?

Oh I’d be happy if you simply shared some examples, that actually discuss our evolutionary connections in detail, rather than merely making some obligatory acknowledgement - only to then climbing right back into our own minds. Never acknowledging, let alone, examining the divide between the two

Or where the nuances of creature consciousness are explored.

Or about how our body produces its many levels of biological self-awareness.

Or that delves into how our body produces the consciousness and thoughts we experience.

I do that. I don’t know why you think I’m don’t. When I talk about how people can be easily fooled, how their fear reactions lead to irrational behavior, how a rational choice to take comfort in group conformity can be irrational when it conflicts with all of the other groups and worldviews. That’s evolution at work. Pretty often, I’ll say we “evolved to…”.

I didn’t ask you to explain those words. I was showing you how you bounce around and stray far from the questions that I ask and responses I make. I know there is such a thing as “religious psychosis”, but that doesn’t mean I ascribe to the idea, or believe it is a good overriding view of religion. I certainly don’t believe it’s a good way to approach an individual unless perhaps they are in some sort of danger.

Did you just try to take what I said about you and make it about me? I said you are the one who changes the topic in the middle of it. It’s one thing to follow a thought, to add to a conversation, but you frequently stray and detract.

I would disagree.
Although, of course, what falls under the purview of Physical Reality ~ Our Mind’s Reality, does cover a lot of ground. Don’t you think?

The point is, there are key nuances constantly being ignored by most of the philosophers out there (including thinkers you have posted) discussing human consciousness as though it were god’s gift to us, (along with this Earth itself, all for us to consume till we suck her dry), without the slightest regard for anything beyond self-interest.

Take a look at the rewritten opening discourse, - pick that apart if you like.
I’ve also included an important quote by Nick Lane - maybe something in there will ring a bell.

I am striving to make this clearer, but it takes two to dance.

Straying or is it being forced into trying to approaching it differently.
Or having left-field zingers thrown at me, that have me scrambling to defend myself, rather than simply focusing on the specific wording I’m using.

I did that in post #2, now you’re saying I should do that again? I showed how you distracted and strayed from those comments, and your answer is, “do it again.” Another classic move of yours.

I’ll remove the narrative and get to specifics from my first response:

Chalmers gets 60% agreement that there is a hard problem, which is only from the sample of people who know what it is and care to comment. Not much of a following.

I was referring to the recent list of names with links that go to their main pages, their overviews. I’m aware that you also go into specifics. What I don’t see is an overall thesis, a combination of the things you reference that builds to a conclusion. More often, you put in links, like “see Solms”, but we discussed him, you had a debate/discussion where he presented how he saw the body and brain creating consciousness, and I didn’t think he won that. So he’s not a very good reference.

A good reference starts like this:

I’ve already covered the question of how we know the external world is real and all that jazz, and that our consciousness is communicating information to us and not just making everything up (see my discussion of Cartesian Demons for a start). And most people get that distinction, how consciousness can be a construct yet still be communicating information about reality apart from it. But the question seems to be now that experts are claiming that even the construct doesn’t exist, that “consciousness its very self” doesn’t exist. An example of a work going around leading people to think that this is what’s being said is Daniel Dennett’s “Illusionism as the Obvious Default Theory of Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 23 (2016). Dennett himself never uses any language like “consciousness doesn’t exist.” That is usually formulated by people opposing his point, because they fail to get his point. But in common English saying “consciousness is an illusion” is saying “consciousness doesn’t exist.” And this failure to appreciate everyday semantics is an all-too-common error in academic philosophy today. I’m here to correct that mistake.

What Does It Mean to Call Consciousness an Illusion? • Richard Carrier Blogs

The Nick Lane book also sounds excellent and intriguing. I never said it wasn’t.

No but ignoring my response at #3 isn’t helping.

Wiki? Does Chalmers say scientist will never understand the self?

No, philosopher David Chalmers does not say that scientists will never understand the self or consciousness

. He argues that consciousness is a fundamental natural phenomenon that requires a new kind of scientific explanation, not that it is beyond human understanding.

Key points about Chalmers’ view:

He is not a “mysterian”:* {Or so he claims - but others disagree with his self assessment}
Chalmers actively rejects the idea that consciousness is a permanent mystery that humans are incapable of understanding.

  • The “Hard Problem” requires new laws: He introduced the famous distinction between the “easy problems” of consciousness (explaining brain mechanisms and functions) and the “hard problem” (explaining subjective experience, or “qualia”). He believes the hard problem cannot be solved by current physical laws alone and suggests that consciousness may be a fundamental property of the universe, on par with space, time, and mass.
  • A new science is needed: Rather than being an intractable mystery, he proposes that the solution will involve discovering new fundamental laws of nature that govern how physical processes give rise to conscious experience. {THAT I INTERPRET AS A DEMAND FOR SCIENCE TO ADOPTION SOME WOO.}

But you don’t.

Philosophers and professional talkers

Consensus is sort of scientific thing, isn’t it.
Philosophy is all about asking endless questions, and reinterpreting with new questions, and then building grand maypoles but upon deep thoughts about reality.

Philosophers and professional talkers

Why must you insist on ignoring the distinction I make between philosophers and scientists?

Here you twist again, which I tried clarifying in the next comment - but apparently it was too insignificant for you to note.

But never that the question is utterly inappropriate within our physical biological physical reality. It works within the pipe dreams our mind produced. Heck you are even sloppy about the distinction between brain and mind. And refuse to acknowledge the foundational reality of “Body + Brain + Interaction (interior + exterior) = awareness, consciousness, mind” even though that is something scientists are demonstrating. Where are the philosophers discussing the reality? Instead, they alway theological by returning to ancient thinkers who were trying to still make sense out of God, and fundamentally oblivious to our biological evolutionary heritage (reality).

Instead you seem to insist all it takes is acknowledging that evolution happened, then we can get back to the great thinkers and there great thoughts.

but you aren’t interested in learning you are absolutely wrong about my intentions, and in fact post was all about my effort at writing an introduction to my next blogpost which will be a Student’s Resource, where I quote most of the Nick Lane’ epilogue to Transformer, titled “Self” (p.211) that has so enchanted me.

It feels to me like you spend most of your time picking on me. That’s fine, feedback, is feedback and I work with whatever I get, no matter how distasteful.

I’m not out to piss you off, but for whatever reason, you still grossly misunderstand what I’m struggling to discuss, to the point it hurts. I mean you refuse to even acknowledge, let alone appreciate, my distinction between scientist’s work and philosopher’s talk.

Or the fact I know I’m not talking about uncovering cosmic secrets, I’m asking why the heck isn’t everyone noticing what science has actually learning in regard to understanding the self that permeates our bodies,

But people rather talk religion, then comes woo and magical thinking and professional talkers for fun and profit.