What would you choose as your label for this phenomena, and all it's demonstrable variations?

What would you choose as your label for this phenomena, and all it's demonstrable variations? — universeness

Bodily behaviour?

It depends what "consciousness" means to you. Through those studies we verify that conscious states responsible for our experiences are enabled by specific areas and functions of a biological brain.By affecting them we affect their quality or we can even terminate them. Consciousness in science is our mental ability to reflect on environmental or organic stimuli in relation to the "self" and introduce meaningful content through the aid of different mental properties (Memory/previous experiences, Symbolic language,reasoning, pattern recognition etc).

In science labels are NOT existential claims. We address processes.,we don't assume invisible entities(as long as there aren't any evidence for them) . We learned a lot since the era of Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone Energy etc.
I will take a guess and say that for you consciousness is like an invisible reel/film, an entity that's is only compatible with the observer's apparatus. This is why science's inability to direct observe this movie is a deal breaker for you....Am I right? I am not trying to straw-man you, only to understand your claim.

Again " prima facie evidence of consciousness. " is not something that science has to provide, because an observable process is the evidence. A subjective aspect of it isn't enough to justify a witch hunt.

I am not trying to straw-man you, only to understand your claim. — Nickolasgaspar

My claim is exactly what I've said: if the subjective aspect of consciousness is inaccessible to science then ipso facto the subjective aspect of consciousness isn't identical to brain activity, and so nothing could be evidence that the subjective aspect of consciousness is identical to brain activity.

I have already analyzed the issues in that huge leap. Science use forensic reasoning and methods. Not having direct access to the end product of a process doesn't mean that we can not objectively study the phenomenon and verify its causal mechanisms.
Aspirin and dosage recommendations exist because we have ways to understand and study the subjective aspect of a conscious state.

It seems like (maybe I am wrong) that Philosophy is using the same practices with those used by religion and spiritual ideologies in an attempt protect their claims from science.

I have already analyzed the issues in that huge leap. Science use forensic reasoning and methods. Not having direct access to the end product of a process doesn't mean that we can not objectively study the phenomenon and verify its causal mechanisms.
Aspirin and dosage recommendations exist because we have ways to understand and study the subjective aspect of a conscious state.

It seems like (maybe I am wrong) that Philosophy is using the same practices with those used by religion and spiritual ideologies in an attempt protect their claims from science. — Nickolasgaspar

There is no huge leap.

If A is inaccessible and B is accessible then A isn't B. It's very straightforward logic.

If subjective experience is inaccessible and brain activity is accessible then subjective experience isn't brain activity.

Bodily behaviour? — Michael

So no brain activity involved?

So no brain activity involved? — universeness

The brain is part of the body, so it's involved.

We don't really need to watch the conscious content of an individual in real time in order to understand the content of a conscious state.
We can show pictures of people to a subject and easily find out whether he hates, loves, respects or he is in a romantic relationship by just watching his brain patterns.
We can analyze his blood profile and learn whether he is a risk taker, bulimic or in love.
We can observe his physical reactions and understand his physiological state under a stress stimulous.

If A is inaccessible and B is accessible then A isn't B. It's very straightforward logic. — Michael

It's very straightforward logic...and its susceptible to the GIGO effect. When we feed garbage dataa we receive garbage results.
Please do not go to abstract language where the specifics information of the subject are lost in vague generalizations. They are not helpful and its a plague for Philosophy!
We are talking about specific processes and phenomena with specific characteristics.

If subjective experience is inaccessible and brain activity is accessible then subjective experience isn't brain activity. — Michael

i.e. A(consciousness) is not an entity and it isn't inaccessible.Only a specific aspect of it isn't accessible in real time. We have the tools to investigate the impact of an experience, compare it to other people's experience and understand it the causal relations to the responsible mechanisms.

It seems like (maybe I am wrong) that Philosophy is using the same practices with those used by religion and spiritual ideologies in an attempt protect their claims from science. — Nickolasgaspar

I suspect that you are NOT wrong here but I would probably type 'some who philosophise,' in place of 'Philosophy.'

I totally with that label.... but I try to avoid hurting people feelings by putting labels on their beliefs...because I can understand how the subjective experience of "hurting" feels, even if I can not observe their specific conscious state in real time with them = )!

Only a specific aspect of it isn't accessible in real time. — Nickolasgaspar

And so that specific aspect of it isn't identical with brain activity, which is accessible in real time.

The brain is part of the body, so it's involved. — Michael

So, if you agree the brain is 'involved' then what do you find objectionable, when I claim that it's therefore valid and appropriate to use the label 'human consciousness,' to label the phenomena you exemplified?

the subjective aspect of consciousness isn't brain activity — Michael

But you just agreed that in your exemplar, the brain was involved. Was that a subjective opinion?
Your above quote, seems to be invoking a high personal credence level that you hold towards the above quote, but you have not provided much evidence to support it.
Do you think that's wise?

So, if you agree the brain is 'involved' then what do you find objectionable, when I claim that it's therefore valid and appropriate to use the label 'human consciousness,' to label the phenomena you exemplified? — universeness

Because there might be more to consciousness than just that brain activity.

But you just agreed that in your exemplar, the brain was involved. Was that a subjective opinion?
Your above quote, seems to be invoking a high personal credence level that you hold towards the above quote, but you have not provided much evidence to support it.
Do you think that's wise? — universeness

I don't understand your question. That the brain is involved isn't that only the brain is involved.

And so that specific aspect of it isn't identical with brain activity, which is accessible in real time. — Michael

First of all I don't know what you mean by the term "identical". Brain activity enables conscious experience and previous experiences with different biological setup enable the subjective quality of them.
Arguments from ignorance isn't the best way to understand something. We only know that the we can not share our mental experience on real time. That doesn't imply that brain activity is not responsible for it when we have already demonstrated its Necessary and Sufficient role

First of all I don't know what you mean by the term "identical". Brain activity enables conscious experience and previous experiences with different biological setup enable the subjective quality of them.
Arguments from ignorance isn't the best way to understand something. We only know that the we can not share our mental experience on real time. That doesn't imply that brain activity is not responsible for it when we have already demonstrated its Necessary and Sufficient role — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not saying that brain activity isn't responsible for it. I'm only saying that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there can be no physical evidence of this non-physical aspect.

I would have thought this a quite obvious truism.

I don't understand your question. That the brain is involved isn't that only the brain is involved. — Michael

Ok, that's fine, so we now need very strong evidence, that more than the brain is involved. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What is the current proposal, that you personally, assign your highest credence level to, as 'vital,' to what we observe as the effects and affects of human consciousness? Do you, for example, assign a high credence level to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance and morphic fields?

Ok, that's fine, so we now need very strong evidence, that more than the brain is involved. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What is the current proposal, that you personally, assign your highest credence level as 'vital,' to what we observe as the effects and affects of human consciousness. Do you for example, assign a high credence level to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance and morphic fields? — universeness

I'm not arguing that something else involved. I'm only arguing that if something else is involved then we can't have scientific evidence of it (or against it).

I'm only argued that if something else is involved then we can't have scientific evidence of it. — Michael

Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist. and he claims to have scientific evidence of 'telepathy' in humans and animals via morphic resonance and morphic fields. In what way are you suggesting his evidence is not scientific? Morphic resonance would be an example of something other than brain activity being involved in the AFFECTS of human consciousness.

I'm not saying that brain activity isn't responsible for it. I'm only saying that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there can be no physical evidence of this non-physical aspect. — Michael

Sure, but "ifs" need to be demonstrated not assumed.

From your statement I see that you accept the Necessity of brain activity but not the Sufficiency to describe the phenomenon.
Do you have facts that support your claim?

The moment to argue for an if claim is only after our current descriptions are proven Unnecessary and Insufficient while having observations pointing to mechanisms that can be also be evaluated for their necessity and sufficiency.

What we currently can say is that we don't know everything so we need to exhaust our available resources. Lets keep the blame on us for now before opening the gates to additional dimensions and ontologies that we are unable not investigate, test or verify!
We did the same mistake in the past allowing gods, substances and agents in general to pollute our epistemology. Only after imposing Methodological Naturalism, we were able to experience a run away success in knowledge and in real life applications....because we can not make predictions by assuming the act of an invisible agent.


Methodological Naturalism doesn't claim that non natural causes do not exist. What it does is to exclude them from being used in our explanations because we don't have ways (methods) to verify or falsify , to quantify and or make predictions. They don't offer any answers since they are nothing more than saying "magic did it". The Statement "we don't know" with "something non natural is the cause" are identical epistemically wise.

In what way are you suggesting his evidence is not scientific? — universeness

I'm not suggesting anything about him or his theory.

I'm not arguing that something else involved. I'm only argued that if something else is involved then we can't have scientific evidence of it. — Michael

-Only if that "something else" is ''designed" to leave no traces for our scientific methods to find. In that case that untraceable "something else" is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist! So why even talking about it?

what is the need, to avoid admitting "we don't know"?

Sure, but "ifs" need to be demonstrated not assumed. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not assuming anything. My argument is only that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there cannot be any physical evidence that this non-physical aspect doesn't exist.

I'm not arguing that there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness.

In that case that untraceable "something else" is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist! — Nickolasgaspar

It doesn't then follow that it doesn't exist.

If it does exist then any explanation of consciousness that doesn't include this thing doesn't (exhaustively) explain consciousness at all.

If you are not willing to offer useful answers, to my main questions then there is nowhere to take this exchange between us. Thanks for the small insight you did offer me, into your thought processes.

I'm not assuming anything. My argument is only that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there cannot be any physical evidence that this non-physical aspect doesn't exist. — Michael

Sure, but I don't see the Philosophical usefulness in that statement, meaning that you introduce an additional bigger mystery(non physical-whatever that is) in an attempt provide an answer to a "begging the question fallacy" (if there is a non physical aspect).
What makes you talk about that if? And what indications you have for non physical aspects existing in our cosmos.

If you are not willing to offer useful answers, to my main questions then there is nowhere to take this exchange between us. — universeness

You accused of something I didn't do. I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect from me.

What makes you talk about that if? — Nickolasgaspar

Because of Isaac's question to bert1. I understood it to be asking what would count as evidence that consciousness is entirely physical. I think his question is problematic, because if consciousness isn't entirely physical then nothing would count as evidence that it is entirely physical.

And what indications you have for non physical aspects existing in our cosmos. — Nickolasgaspar

It could be that I don't find any purely physical explanation of my first-person consciousness convincing. And if there is some non-physical aspect to my first-person consciousness then it isn't surprising that I'm unconvinced by a purely physical explanation.

It doesn't then follow that it doesn't exist.
If it does exist then any explanation of consciousness that does not include this thing doesn't (exhaustively) explain consciousness at all. — Michael

-Ok, it took me some time but I think get what your goal is.
You are not looking for statements that will allow you to understand the phenomenon. What you are doing is entertaining 'ifs' and you justify their "possibility" by pointing to things we currently don't know or lacking the means to observer directly?
Am I right?

You accused of something I didn't do. I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect from me. — Michael

I'm not suggesting anything about him or his theory. — Michael

If you are not willing to comment on 'theories,' that may evidence aspects of consciousness that exist outside of the physical borderlines of the human being/other lifeforms, then you come across as 'reluctant' to defend your own side of the debate. You come across as if you only want to throw stuff at my side of the debate, ineffectually, from a 'safe distance. That very quickly, becomes quite boring.

-Ok, it took me some time but I think get what your goal is.
You are not looking for statements that will allow you to understand the phenomenon. What you are doing is entertaining 'ifs' and you justify their "possibility" by pointing to things we currently don't know or lacking the means to observer directly?
Am I right? — Nickolasgaspar

I'm just pointing out the problem with Isaac's question (as I understood it).

It's like asking "what evidence would prove that a non-interventionist creator deity doesn't exist?" Well, nothing would.

And so by the same token, if consciousness is non-physical then no evidence can prove that consciousness is physical.