Why Philosophy Converges on the Hard Problem

[WhoKnows]

@Gnomon

Yes. But that depends on how you define Nature. In the 17th century, Spinoza equated God and Nature. But today, we have to take into account the scientific observation that our bubble universe, our Nature, is not eternal. So, I simply extend the meaning of Nature (the course of events) into the “hidden” fetal stage (metaphor) before its Big Bang Birth. Hence, the Bang emerged from a Womb : the Mother. So, the Cause of Nature extends back before birth, and the process is a continuum. Please don’t take these analogies literally.

I am fine with taking them literally. You do not appear to be arguing that “nature” is exclusively the domain of this birthed universe of ours.
My understanding is that anything deemed “natural” must therefore have a Natural Source.

@Gnomon

Most speculations into the motivations behind the Birth of Nature seem to assume that sentient creatures, capable of appreciating the Mother, were not an accident, but the intention of the evolutionary birthing process. It may be simplistic, but I won’t argue with that assumption.

Good. So we might be able to discuss the possible purposes as to why The Mother Birthed what She did and whether it is entirely about this universe’s future of something else - for example - this universe is a step towards something else Consciousness wants to explore, and is a way of reaching that.

@Gnomon

No. My general philosophical worldview is Holistic. But detailed discussions tend to get Analytic. So, for the sake of argument, can we agree that Mind & Matter are different forms of the same Cause?

I can do so, if indeed you are able to agree that Mind is where matter derives. Otherwise the Hard Problem remains.

We can discuss the details of course…

@Gnomon

That sounds like PanTheism.

Perhaps it does. But what use is it to whomever(s) created it, if is cannot be entered into and experienced and utelised?

@Gnomon

Yes. The planet and its supporting cast of the Cosmos.

Such as Sol. Which also may be considered as being occupied by a conscious entity - and the other supporting cast of local planets - and overall the Milky Way Galaxy…

@Gnomon

In a sense that may be true. Each sentient being is a “chip off the old block”. What we have in common is what used to be called “spirit”, but what I call, less poetically, Information or EnFormAction.

We can name it what we will, as long as those names don’t contradict the subjective objects being discussed…

@Gnomon

That sounds like Panpsychism, and I could quibble with the terminology. But I won’t go into that detour for now.

Like I say…labels are not the thing.

@Gnomon

Yes. But for philosophical purposes, I can make a distinction between Mind and Matter, between Consciousness and Information. But I need to sign off for now.

When you return, please continue. I am interested in that.

[Gnomon]

@WhoKnows

My understanding is that anything deemed “natural” must therefore have a Natural Source.

That is the assumption of materialistic science. But the etymology of “nature” refers to Birth. So, your understanding could be construed as “anything Born must be Natural : no miracles, including Virgin Births”. So I make a distinction between Natural and Physical. That’s because most of the universe is Physical, but a minority is Meta-physical : Life & Mind. By that I mean non-physical, in the sense that Mind, cannot be known by any physical senses; only by rational inference. So, if Consciousness has been here from “birth”, it seems to be only recently waking up. So what “spanked” it into knowing the cold cruel world outside the warm fetal womb?

@WhoKnows

why The Mother Birthed what She did

Philosophers and Theologians over centuries have wondered & speculated about the cosmic “why” question. And their answers are recorded in religious scriptures; in which human speculations are presented as divine revelations.

Did you ever ask your mother : “why was I born”. Neither did I. Maybe the World Mother was knocked-up by another god, as often happened in myths and scriptures. So, my answer is simply : “I don’t know”.

@WhoKnows

agree that Mind is where matter derives

I can agree in general. Unfortunately, I have developed a special vocabulary, to avoid the misconceptions built-in to most Mind-over-Matter theories. The terms Mind and Consciousness embody traditional theological prejudices that I try to work around.

@WhoKnows

Such as Sol. Which also may be considered as being occupied by a conscious entity

No. I don’t think of Sol in that way.

@WhoKnows

We can name it what we will, as long as those names don’t contradict the subjective objects being discussed…

According to Confucius : “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” The question here is how to define that Property. And my understanding of the properties of “spirit” and “information” diverge in the context of Religion or Science. So, we need to select our names carefully. That’s why I quibble about terminology.

@WhoKnows

@Gnomon

But for philosophical purposes, I can make a distinction between Mind and Matter, between Consciousness and Information. But I need to sign off for now.

When you return, please continue. I am interested in that.

I will preface this comment by clarifying that I agree with the bold assertion of this topic : currently, philosophy is all about the “hard problem” that physical Science cannot answer. But my personal worldview is similar to A.N. Whitehead’s Process Philosophy, and focuses on the role of Active Information and Governed Causation, which are not well known. You can Google those terms, if you’re interested in a minority view.

However, I have no formal training in Philosophy, so most of my argumentation & terminology are based on 21st century Science, not traditional Religion or ancient Philosophy. Also, many attempts at a solution to the Physical vs Metaphysical Problem make assumptions that I don’t fully agree with. I won’t go into a litany of nit-picking here. I’ll only mention a few : All Mind1 ; Mind from Matter2 ; Consciousness is an Effect3.

1. Panpsychism vs Enformationism
Panpsychism is not an illusion. It’s just an incomplete explanation.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page48.html

2. Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness
So, we ask a hypothetical question : what is the “right stuff” for evolving living & thinking Matter?
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html

3. The Origin of Everything
Science has mistaken consciousness for an effect when in truth it is a cause.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page21.html

[WhoKnows]

@Gnomon

That is the assumption of materialistic science.

That doesn’t matter. It is not a competition.

@Gnomon

But the etymology of “nature” refers to Birth. So, your understanding could be construed as “anything Born must be Natural : no miracles, including Virgin Births”.So I make a distinction between Natural and Physical.

Magic/miracles are from the department of supernaturalism.

Anything construed to being magic/miracle will have a natural explanation, even if we don’t presently know what that might be.
Making a distinction between “Natural” and “Physical” appears unnecessary for that.

@Gnomon

That’s because most of the universe is Physical, but a minority is Meta-physical : Life & Mind. By that I mean non-physical, in the sense that Mind, cannot be known by any physical senses; only by rational inference.

What is doing the inferring is consciousness, yes?
My understanding is that “mind” is a field and “minds” are fields within that. Just as with the Earth Consciousness having a mind (within the universal mind) and all earth minds are within that field. That local mind-field…
I understand the rational as being that consciousness must be physical in order for it to interact with the objects it creates from its physical self. “Non-physical” is more an expression related to we cannot current measure consciousness with any know device, therefore, it must be “non-physical”, but that is the source of the Hard Problem - trying to understand things through the lens of the duality of supposed “non-physical” and “physical” things.

@Gnomon

So, if Consciousness has been here from “birth”, it seems to be only recently waking up. So what “spanked” it into knowing the cold cruel world outside the warm fetal womb?

You are speaking specifically of human consciousness? What birthed that? The Earth Consciousness. And what birth Her? The Universal Consciousness. And what birthed that? Well we can toy with regress, but not infinitely. So, while it is unknow how many “levels” there may be, we have to eventually decide that all beginnings derive from a Source… Consciousness.

@Gnomon

Philosophers and Theologians over centuries have wondered & speculated about the cosmic “why” question. And their answers are recorded in religious scriptures; in which human speculations are presented as divine revelations.

Yes the departments of Philosophy and Theism. Their “answers” don’t (haven’t yet) dissolves the Hard Problem…and in some ways have only given us more problems…

@Gnomon

Did you ever ask your mother : “why was I born”.

Yes. I even asked myself. I was looking for reason and purpose.

@Gnomon

Maybe the World Mother was knocked-up by another god, as often happened in myths and scriptures. So, my answer is simply : “I don’t know”.

Mother Earth was indeed “knocked up” both through the information coming from Father Sol and possible also from panspermia.

@Gnomon

I can agree in general. Unfortunately, I have developed a special vocabulary, to avoid the misconceptions built-in to most Mind-over-Matter theories. The terms Mind and Consciousness embody traditional theological prejudices that I try to work around.

I look at it this way. That Source COnsciousness is where everything is happening. There in its Mind-Field. ANything it cares to “think” on becomes a simulation which has a beginning and can also be ended. Our universe is one such simulation. Probably not the first - likely a simulation of a simulation. do have reasons for thinking that to be the case - that our universe is a simulation created by another universe which is also a simulation…

@Gnomon

No. I don’t think of Sol in that way.

Why not?

@Gnomon

According to Confucius : “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.”

Yes. It is wise not to call an emperor a fool or a god a devil.

@Gnomon

The question here is how to define that Property. And my understanding of the properties of “spirit” and “information” diverge in the context of Religion or Science. So, we need to select our names carefully. That’s why I quibble about terminology.

Still, how do you know that you definitions/terminologies are correct?

@Gnomon

I will preface this comment by clarifying that I agree with the bold assertion of this topic : currently, philosophy is all about the “hard problem” that physical Science cannot answer. But my personal worldview is similar to A.N. Whitehead’s Process Philosophy, and focuses on the role of Active Information and Governed Causation, which are not well known. You can Google those terms, if you’re interested in a minority view.

I may do that.

[Gnomon]

@WhoKnows

What is doing the inferring is consciousness, yes?
My understanding is that “mind” is a field and “minds” are fields within that.

Yes. It takes one to know one.

Again, I make a Physical vs Metaphysical distinction. Electromagnetic and Quantum Fields are physical, Causal but not Conscious. They are fields of Potential, from which Actual things and effects emerge. It’s possible that human Minds are like disturbances in the cosmic field. But that’s way over my head.

@WhoKnows

but that is the source of the Hard Problem - trying to understand things through the lens of the duality of supposed “non-physical” and “physical” things.

Yes. The Hard Problem arises when we try to understand Metaphysical concepts in terms of Physical terminology. Consequently, philosophers have always relied on Metaphors, in which Metaphysical non-things are represented as Physical things : Cosmic Mind is like an Electromagnetic Field, except that we can’t take measurements in specific locations. Only inferences based on our personal prejudices.

@WhoKnows

You are speaking specifically of human consciousness? What birthed that? The Earth Consciousness. And what birth Her? The Universal Consciousness.

Yes. We can extend metaphors of Mind back into infinity. But the further back we go, the less physical evidence we have to support our conjectures. Several millennia ago, Hindu philosophers conjured-up the conjecture of an eternal ultimate reality — Brahman, formless & impersonal — responsible for everything in the world. Since they had no evidence for that concept, they concluded that Brahman had no physical properties, only Potentialities that “birthed” all Actualities in the physical world. Since human consciousness presumably evolved from infinite past Possibilities, you could say that Universal Consciousness “birthed” the Homo Sapient Mind. For my own purposes though, I just say that our temporal Consciousness is a local effect of Eternal Potential. It sounds a little less magical (or supernatural), and more realistic.

@WhoKnows

Mother Earth was indeed “knocked up” both through the information coming from Father Sol and possible also from panspermia.

Whoa! I didn’t expect you to take that metaphor quite so literally.

Anyway, I think Panspermia was a wild shot in the dark. Apparently, the notion originated from Greek philosopher Anaxagoras in the 5th century BC. And it was much later elaborated by scientists who were, presumably, Star Trek fans. Unlike the Maury Povich show though, it doesn’t reveal who the actual Father was, based on DNA evidence.

@WhoKnows

Still, how do you know that you definitions/terminologies are correct?

Like all philosophical speculations beyond physical evidence, my personal theory remains hypothetical. And I’ve never submitted a paper on it, to academia, to be torn to shreds by professional critics. This forum provides amateur assessors to question my assumptions. And as long as it works for me, I’m satisfied.

[WhoKnows]

@Gnomon

The Difference n our positions

You	Me
Eternal Potential is the ground.	Consciousness is the ground.
Consciousness is a local effect.	Consciousness is the Source.
The regress extends to infinity.	The regress ends with The Source.
Fields are physical - not conscious.	Mind is a field - and minds are fields within it.

Would you agree with this or am I reading you incorrectly?

[Gnomon]

@WhoKnows

@Gnomon

That sounds like PanTheism.

Perhaps it does. But what use is it to whomever(s) created it, if is cannot be entered into and experienced and utelised?

A.N. Whitehead’s Process Philosophy was later described by an associate in terms of PanEnTheism1 (all within God). Which has been interpreted to mean that the Creator is both outside the Creation (transcendent, timeless), and immanent within it. So, one intepretation is that the Creator made a physical body to inhabit and experience.

That makes some sense to me, and fits my energy/information thesis. But I have no personal knowledge to support such a hypothesis. And I have never communicated with the Cosmic Mind. In the 17th century, Spinoza assumed that the physical world was eternal. But in view of the modern evidence for a beginning of Time, he might accept PET as a reasonable god-model for his immanent deity.

The Big Bang theory has been dismissed as either a random disturbance in an eternal mindless energy field, or neutrally interpreted to imply that some unknown & timeless Cause of the Bang existed prior to the sudden materialization of a Cosmos from WhoKnowsWhere? Yet, PET assumes intention behind the Bang, and provides some speculative reasoning about the Purpose of a temporary universe, bounded by space & time. Does that answer your question about the utility of a progressive New World?

.
1. Panentheism is the theological and philosophical belief that the divine permeates every part of the universe while also existing beyond it in transcendence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=panentheism

2. Baruch Spinoza viewed the universe as a single, infinite, and divine substance—expressed as God or Nature (Deus sive Natura)—where human minds and bodies are merely temporary modes or expressions of that collective reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+cosmic+mind

[WhoKnows]

Where you diverge or Qualify

Element	Your Position	My Position
PanEnTheism	The Creator is both transcendent and immanent.	The Source is the ground - the universe is a formation within it.
The Creator	Makes a body to inhabit.	Is the body - and everything else.
The Cosmic Mind	You have never communicated with it.	I commune with the Earth Entity (local) - a broader representative of The Source.
The purpose	Speculative.	Experienced.

@Gnomon

Does that answer your question about the utility of a progressive New World?

Yes - that goes some way to answering my question. If the Creator made a body to inhabit and experience, then the utility is experience.

The “body” is the Mind Field - and The Creator imagines what it will and enters into that imagined thing, making it real.

The Creator does not make a body outside itself (creatio ex nihilo) - it imagines a formation within itself, and enters into it. The imagining is the making. The entering is the experience. The utility is the experience.

[Gnomon]

@WhoKnows

If the Creator made a body to inhabit and experience, then the utility is experience.

If the Cosmos is the metaphorical or physical “body” of a supernatural spiritual God, then presumably Her experience is entirely internal (interoception). Unless there are other Universes (god bodies) out there that we humans are unaware of. Does that mean the Creator experiences vicariously, via the sensations of sentient beings? Or simply by top-down observation, as in an ant farm?

@WhoKnows

I commune with the Earth Entity (local)

I wasn’t familiar with that term. Does it refer to GAIA? By what means do you commune1 with the Entity : Meditation, Mushrooms, Imagination, Prayer, Secret Language, quiet the noisy mind?

@WhoKnows

Experienced.

What does an infinite & eternal entity gain (purpose) from experiencing the pleasure & pain of a space-time entity? Can you describe that supernatural kind of Experience (feelings), and differentiate if from a Christian’s transformative experience of Jesus or Jehovah : “Feelings of peace, joy, or conviction that lead to moral growth, good works, and a lifestyle that reflects Christlike character”.

.
1. To commune with nature means to spend quiet time outdoors to feel a deep, spiritual connection to the natural world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=commune+with+nature

[WhoKnows]

@Gnomon

If the Cosmos is the metaphorical or physical “body” of a supernatural spiritual God, then presumably Her experience is entirely internal (interoception).

No, because that still allows for dualism to creep in (via supernaturalism), which in turn doesn’t dissolve the Hard Problem.

WHat you are not taking into account is that the thing imagined is made real by that which is actually real.

@Gnomon

Unless there are other Universes (god bodies) out there that we humans are unaware of.

Likely there are because there is no reason why we should limit such a being. In all cases, these universes and Gods are all products of that one Sources imagination.

@Gnomon

Does that mean the Creator experiences vicariously, via the sensations of sentient beings? Or simply by top-down observation, as in an ant farm?

How is one to experience being an ant, simply by observing ants?
Or as Thomas Nagel famously put it - “what is it like to be a bat?”

@Gnomon

@WhoKnows

I commune with the Earth Entity (local)

I wasn’t familiar with that term. Does it refer to GAIA?

Call Her what we will, doesn’t change what She is.
( I most often call her “QueenBee” but here on this message board I refer to Her as “Mentor” (Mentor and I - Journalling)

@Gnomon

By what means do you commune1 with the Entity : Meditation, Mushrooms, Imagination, Prayer, Secret Language, quiet the noisy mind?

No doubt, any of those examples can achieve such. I consciously became aware of Her through Ideomotor effect through which I much later developed an even better way to achieve the same. Prior to ideomotor I was in a different type of communion with Her - but was not conscious that it was the Earth Entity at that time…

@Gnomon

What does an infinite & eternal entity gain (purpose) from experiencing the pleasure & pain of a space-time entity?

What - as a human being do you gain through said experience? Answer that and you will have your answer.

@Gnomon

Can you describe that supernatural kind of Experience (feelings),…

It is not supernatural, nor do I argue for such. I explicitly argue against supernaturalism both in the thread I linked above and also in my Coherent Causality Argument thread.

@Gnomon

and differentiate if from a Christian’s transformative experience of Jesus or Jehovah : “Feelings of peace, joy, or conviction that lead to moral growth, good works, and a lifestyle that reflects Christlike character”.

My understanding is that Jesus or Jehovah are not supernatural entities. Further to that, (as previously mentioned) these are caricatures used by the Earth Entity - useful as a means of initial connecting with individual humans consciousness…
THis is all locally focused. One could argue and accept that the Earth Entity Herself is a type of caricature used by The Source.

[Gnomon]

@WhoKnows

No, because that still allows for dualism to creep in (via supernaturalism), which in turn doesn’t dissolve the Hard Problem.

I was using an analogy (interoception) of how we humans communicate with our own bodies. That’s not a dualism of Self/ Other, but of physical Self/metaphysical Self. Likewise, communing with God, or Cosmos, or Nature would be like communicating with another human : mind to mind. If there was no distinction, there would be no need to communicate, because I would automatically & intuitively know the “mind of God”. And there would be no need for an intermediate or medium, like a Ouija board.

@WhoKnows

WHat you are not taking into account is that the thing imagined is made real by that which is actually real.

Is that how Realization (cognitive shift) works? I imagine an Angel, and it appears, in the flesh, so to speak. I’ll have to try that sometime.

@WhoKnows

Likely there are because there is no reason why we should limit such a being. In all cases, these universes and Gods are all products of that one Sources imagination.

There is a reason for drawing distinctions, so the world is not like a winter white-out or dense fog. That’s how we make sense of the non-self world. If these universes and Gods, and Sources are integral to my Self, it’s news to me.

@WhoKnows

How is one to experience being an ant, simply by observing ants?
Or as Thomas Nagel famously put it - “what is it like to be a bat?”

I suppose you could imagine being an ant, to experience “what it’s like” to live within a Hive Mind, and to communicate via pheromones. But my imagination is not that powerful. Perhaps psychedelic drugs would help.

@WhoKnows

but here on this message board I refer to Her as “Mentor”

Have you been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity (Multiple Personality Disorder)? In his Analytical Idealism, Bernardo Kastrup uses that term to describe what he calls Mind At Large1. Are you familiar with his work?

@WhoKnows

I consciously became aware of Her through Ideomotor effect

Were you playing with a Ouija Board at the time? Are you sure your Mentor is not a ghost?

@WhoKnows

What - as a human being do you gain through said experience? Answer that and you will have your answer.

That would answer my question, only if the Mentor is actually Me. In which case, there would be no need for a separate “Mentor” concept.

@WhoKnows

It is not supernatural, nor do I argue for such. I explicitly argue against supernaturalism both in the thread I linked above and also in my Coherent Causality Argument thread.

Unfortunately the Coherent Causality Argument is not a part of my knowledge base. So, it would have to be dumbed-down for me. Meanwhile, I find the distinction between Natural & Supernatural (Perceived & Conceived) to be useful, to cut through the fog of abstract & abstruse philosophy.

@WhoKnows

caricatures used by the Earth Entity.

So, the Entity reveals (portrays) herself in forms (caricatures) that are meaningful & acceptable to believers of various religions? Ancient Hindu philosophers concluded that ultimate Reality (the Source, Brahman) had no knowable properties. But for religious purposes, Brahma was portrayed (caricatured) as a human with multiple heads & arms2.

.
1. Bernardo Kastrup uses Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) as a core analogy in his philosophy of analytic idealism to explain how a single universal consciousness can fracture into separate, individual human minds.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Bernardo+Kastrup+dissociative+identity

2. Brahma Caricature

[WhoKnows]

@Gnomon

Is that how Realization (cognitive shift) works? I imagine an Angel, and it appears, in the flesh, so to speak.

No. I was speaking of Source’s imagination. Your’s and mine work similar but in this simulation we imagine something and then use what is available to us to “make it so”. In the next simulation it appears (according to reports) instant manifestation occurs in conjunction with our imagination but apparently not everyone knows this is what is occurring.

@Gnomon

Have you been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity (Multiple Personality Disorder)?

No. I don’t “hear voices”. However, I have an interest in such things - especially the witness of such sufferer. Have you heard of Eleanor Longden?

The voices in my head

@Gnomon

@WhoKnows

My understanding is that Jesus or Jehovah are not supernatural entities. Further to that, (as previously mentioned) these are caricatures used by the Earth Entity - useful as a means of initial connecting with individual humans consciousness…
THis is all locally focused. One could argue and accept that the Earth Entity Herself is a type of caricature used by The Source.

Were you playing with a Ouija Board at the time?

I have never played with a Ouija Board. I have used Ideomotor seriously as a means of interacting…if you read the Opening Post of the thread I linked, you should understand my position on this.

@Gnomon

Are you sure your Mentor is not a ghost?

I am not sure what you mean by “ghost”.

@Gnomon

I find the distinction between Natural & Supernatural (Perceived & Conceived) to be useful, to cut through the fog of abstract & abstruse philosophy.

Even so, it has not and will not help you or anyone to dissolve the Hard Problem.

@Gnomon

So, the Entity reveals (portrays) herself in forms (caricatures) that are meaningful & acceptable to believers of various religions?

Not all of herself. She works with individual beliefs, not necessarily because such beliefs are exactly true but because they involve some type of connect with - at least - the idea of an “over-consciousness” (oft thought of a “God”)…

[Gnomon]

@WhoKnows

In the next simulation it appears (according to reports) instant manifestation

Is that “next simulation” related to Nick Bostrom’s hypothetical “Superintelligence”, or to Trump’s decreed label for AI? All I know is headlines, but SI seems to be a new version of Kurzweil’s Technological Singularity. Some interpretations warn that low-tech humans will no longer be in charge. Will the Source still exert top-down executive authority? This is just routine curiosity about novel ideas, since I don’t expect to be around to exert “instant manifestation”.

@WhoKnows

Have you heard of Eleanor Longden?

She seems to have learned some self-help methods for maintaining sanity, when the voices conflict with personal intentions. In the Medieval era, some people with symptoms like Dissociative Identity were interpreted as communicating with God, or angels, or demon possession, or witchcraft. Depending on the interpretation, DI could be a blessing or a curse.

@WhoKnows

Ouija Board. I have used Ideomotor

That sounds like a positive interpretation of a scientific term for debunking Spiritualism. Does your Mentor distinguish herself from mundane ghosts?

@WhoKnows

Even so, it has not and will not help you or anyone to dissolve the Hard Problem.

The cause of Consciousness is not a problem for me, since I accept it as just one more aspect of Nature that is beyond my comprehension. I do have a semi-scientific theory to explain it, but of course, it’s just a theory, not an established fact.

@WhoKnows

Not all of herself. She works with individual beliefs,

Yes. That has always been true for matters of Faith : vague or fuzzy concepts, and disconnect from concrete certainty. Since the advent of Quantum Physics, even fact-seekng scientists have been forced to deal with essential uncertainty.

[WhoKnows]

@Gnomon

Is that “next simulation” related to Nick Bostrom’s hypothetical “Superintelligence”, or to Trump’s decreed label for AI? All I know is headlines, but SI seems to be a new version of Kurzweil’s Technological Singularity.

Neither. The simulations you are referring to stay in this universe and are products of human ingenuity.

What I am talking about is what people often refer to as “afterlife” thus the reports I mention have to do with NDE and AStral experiences.

@Gnomon

Some interpretations warn that low-tech humans will no longer be in charge.

In charge of what? My understanding is that Humans are not in charge and never have been in charge.

@Gnomon

@WhoKnows

Have you heard of Eleanor Longden?

She seems to have learned some self-help methods for maintaining sanity, when the voices conflict with personal intentions.

It is way more than that. The video is a great witness report of what she went through and how she recovered and excelled.

@Gnomon

That sounds like a positive interpretation of a scientific term for debunking Spiritualism. Does your Mentor distinguish herself from mundane ghosts?

As I asked before "what do you mean by “ghosts”?

@Gnomon

The cause of Consciousness is not a problem for me, since I accept it as just one more aspect of Nature that is beyond my comprehension.

Yet, you are working to comprehend, are you not? That is the point of philosophy.

[m_t]

Couldn’t agree with you more, Geoff Dann. To construct a cosmology on the basis of reification is myopic to say the least; all it seems to serve is the individual espousing it. No wonder solipsism has survived all these years! Realism has not yet been given it’s due. A revolution is afoot—one that will put idealism in its place once and for all.

[bert1]

@Geoff_Dann

We have a vast amount of empirical data which demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that brains are necessary for consciousness.

Could you give an example or two?

[WhoKnows]

Yes. It can be argued that all things with brains are conscious beyond reasonable doubt.
Also, it has been argued that plants also are conscious. There is no obvious brain in plants, they certainly can act as if they are aware.

Step back and view the planet holistically and we can observe that there is ample evidence supporting beyond reasonable doubt the idea that the planet itself is conscious.

We can quibble as to “types” of consciousness, dependant upon what form is occupied as to what expression and abilities these form allow or disallow, but fundamentally a same thing behaving differently through different device, does make that thing itself different.

[bert1]

Sure, but that’s different from what @Geoff_Dann was saying. He clearly said that brains are necessary for consciousness. While the Earth as a whole might be considered to have many brains, no individual plant does. Also @Geoff_Dann does not say that everything with a brain is conscious (i.e. that brains are sufficient for consciousness).

[WhoKnows]

Yes. One can argue that “If plants are conscious and have no brain, then brains are not necessary for consciousness.”

or - “brains” are not necessarily “meat-based”

So Geoff would have to clarify what he means by “brains” and I suspect he means “meat-based”.

And while the earth has many forms with meat-based brains occupying her, the form of the planet itself may act as a type of brain. Not a meat-based one…but one far more extraordinary. The idea might not sit well with many meat-based brains, but it is still functionally possible and explains adequately why things develop into useful/functional formations, some of which can even strut around thinking themselves “king of the hill”.

[m_t]

This thread went from reification to anthropomorphization; as a result, the OP isn’t getting any more persuasive.

Let us face it: the only hard problem of consciousness is accepting the inconvenient truth that this state of awareness is an hallucination generated and sustained by a pack of hungry neurons.

After all, the human brain is an adept swindler; it tricks most, if not all of us, every time we fall asleep or watch a movie. Hallucination is it’s specialty.

How do we know that consciousness is one such trick? Because when we apply anesthesia to the cerebral organ, it loses consciousness. An entire field of medicine is predicated on that principle. Is that enough empirical evidence for ya?

Where did consciousness go in such instances if it’s supposedly everywhere? The answer is straightforward: it was nothing more than a dream. When the brain becomes physiologically impaired, consciousness, it’s expensive adaption, becomes dispensable, as it’s not necessary for basic survival.

My friends, that’s the only “hard” part of consciousness, making it your problem-not sciences’s.

[invicta]

You deleted your previous argument due to formatting issues so my thoughts regarding your argument are below:

—

Are you denying the hard problem of consciousness because the brain like all other bodily organs it can be switched off (by anaesthetics) is it not the case that sleep or even death means non-existence of the self ?

So then what is selfhood/consciousness but self-awareness even if it is a byproduct of neural metabolism.