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. — universeness

I don't understand what his theory is, or what "morphic resonances" are. Are they a physical thing? Then it has nothing to do with what I am saying. Are they a non-physical thing? Then I wonder in what sense he can be said to have scientific evidence of it.

If you want me to address it then you're going to have to explain his theory in detail.

Sure. And some aspects of other biological organs are also quite puzzling, baffling even.

So, we have this thing in our head that produces thoughts, it has many neuronal connections and many connecting regions which cohere in very subtle and complex manners that lead to our experience.

But then we also have "the gut brain", which has hundreds of millions of neurons and can apparently suffer from Alzheimer among other diseases. Why aren't we conscious of it the overwhelming majority of the time? Why isn't it conscious itself?

https://academic.oup.com/acn/article-abstract/37/3/595/6535686?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Could nature have found a more efficient way for organisms to get rid of waste that did not include going to the bathroom, as it were?

So, one can be confused at these too, but, as you say, certain very curious psychological mechanisms apparently determine what we find baffling, and what we don't. There is only so much we can focus on at a given time, so I guess it makes some sense.

If you want me to address it then you're going to have to explain his theory in detail. — Michael

Why not say that you are not familiar with Sheldrakes work, in your first response to me after I mentioned it? Would have saved some time. If you want to and you can find the time, then watch:


2,5 hours, but worth the time investment. If you don't have the time to invest, then I am happy to drop Dr Sheldrake's evidence in support of panpsychism.

Why not say that you are not familiar with Sheldrakes work, in your first response to me after I mentioned it? — universeness

My response was fine. You accused me of saying something about his work. Given that I never mentioned him or his work, your accusation was wrong, which was my response.

And no, I'm not going to watch a 2.5 hour video on a pseudoscientist.

I'm just pointing out the problem with Isaac's question — Michael

if you are making the same statement used by supernaturalists then your argument is over and Isaac's question is correct.
The goal of philosophy is not to find "safe spaces" for ideas with a huge baggage.
I can understand you intention to entertain metaphysical ifs but to use an unfalsifiable claim (that also lacks any epistemic or philosophical value), as ''tool'' capable to finds problems in Isaac's question, that is alarming!
IT shows that you down really respect the basic rules of logic (Parsimony, Demarcation,Burden, Null Hypothesis, logical fallacies).
Your "if" hiding in a safe space while wearing a falsifiability proof vest is already in trouble with zero philosophical value.

Your "if" hiding in a safe space while wearing a falsifiability proof vest is already in trouble with zero philosophical value. — Nickolasgaspar

It has philosophical value if it's true.

My response was fine. You accused me of saying something about his work. Given that I never mentioned him or his work, your accusation was wrong, which was my response. — Michael

No, your response was one of stealth, and I stand by my accusation. I am not surprised that you would respond with indignance however, as you have also accused a scientist who is well respected within the scientific community, of being a pseudo-scientist. His arguments in support of panpsychism are not considered any more fringe, than Roger Penrose's arguments regarding the source and mechanisms of human consciousness. Do you also consider Penrose a pseudo-scientist?

Sheldrake has worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University, Harvard scholar, researcher at the Royal Society, and plant physiologist for ICRISAT in India.

I am personally not convinced regarding morphic resonance or morphic fields as true existents but I certainly would not call Sheldrake a sophist.

as you have also accused a scientist who is well respected within the scientific community, of being a pseudo-scientist. — universeness

I'm just going by his Wikipedia article.

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance,[3][4] a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been criticized as pseudoscience.[5][6][7][8][9]

I'm just going by his Wikipedia article. — Michael

Yeah, you are often rather 'knee jerk!'

No, you are dealing with way to many ifs to make it even meaningful!
You need to make up an undetectable realm with a specific entity conveniently having the properties of the phenomenon we are trying to explain.
That entity needs....somehow to interact with our brain (since you accept brain activity as necessary) produce the phenomenon and somehow remain undetectable.(Magic)
Your ifs also have to ignore our current epistemology and to poison the well by constructing a mystical image of our personal experiences.
Lets say we see the same thing, we experience the same thing, but since my biology and previous experiences produce a personal take on it ...that's non physical?
That's not Philosophy.

No, you are dealing with way to many ifs to make it even meaningful! — Nickolasgaspar

There's just one if, and that is: if consciousness is non-physical then nothing is evidence that consciousness is physical.

It has philosophical value if it's true. — Michael

It will have epistemic value if its proven to be true , but currently its a product of pseudo philosophy. (the statement ignores all our epistemology, Basic logic(unparsimonious,unfalsifiable, Argument from ignorance fallacy, poisoning the well) and has the role of a Trojan horse for supernaturalism.

Again to many assumptions, you need to assume that the phenomenon is non physical, that non physical phenomena CAN exist, and its interaction with the physical world shouldn't leave any traces....way to many.

When you say non-physical, are you also invoking 'immaterial?' and if so, do you associate the word immaterial, with science or pseudo-science?
If your use of 'non-physical' means a phenomena, undetectable by any current or future scientific endeavour, then is that not your own personal appeal to pseudo-science?

Again to many assumptions, you need to assume that the phenomenon is non physical, that non physical phenomena CAN exist, and its interaction with the physical world shouldn't leave any traces....way to many. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not assuming that it's non-physical. I'm saying that if it is non-physical then...

If your use of non-physical means a phenomena undetectable by any current or future scientific endeavour then is that not your own personal appeal to pseudo-science? — universeness

It's not pseudo-science because it doesn't claim to be scientific at all. It's just not-science.

Again too many ifs and assumptions. There is not any reason to assume that conscious states are non physical, we don't know if non physical things are possible, we don't know if non physical things can interact with physical structures and we don't know if they can do it without leaving any traces.
To many to have any philosophical value.

So does that not mean that your proposal is not EVEN at the level of pseudo-science?
You have hand-waved away Dr Rupert Sheldrakes efforts, at what you have accepted, via a sentence on wikipedia, as pseudo-science, yet you seek consideration for a proposal, which is lower than even that limited standard for evidence? Really? Again I ask, is that wise?

Again too many ifs and assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar

One if, no assumptions.

Again too many ifs and assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar


One if, no assumptions. — Michael

Again too many ifs and assumptions. There is not any reason to assume that conscious states are non physical, we don't know if non physical things are possible, we don't know if non physical things can interact with physical structures and we don't know if they can do it without leaving any traces.
To many to have any philosophical value.

Again too many ifs and assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar

You can keep repeating this, but it's still wrong. I haven't made any assumptions, and there's only one use of the term "if" in my claim.

If consciousness is non-physical then there is no evidence that consciousness is physical.

If consciousness is not-physical then there is no evidence that consciousness is physical. — Michael

Do you consider dark energy, physical? Or, immaterial?
Dark energy is just a 'rushed' probably poorly conceived, placeholder label, but it's existence is very strongly 'implied.' Do you agree?

of course you have.
You state: " if an aspect of consciousness is non physical"
A.You assume that non physical things exist and b. that consciousness can be a non physical due to a category error.
you state:"science can not detect conscious experience because its non physical".
So you have to assume that non physical things can interact with physical structures (brains) and those interactions don't leave traces.(which is in direct conflict with Nobelist Frank Wilczek's Core theory).

The issue here is not how many times I will need to repeat these facts but how many times you are going to refuse correcting it ( that is also an indication of pseudo philosophy).

You state: " if an aspect of consciousness is non physical"
A.You assume that non physical things exist — Nickolasgaspar

No I don't.

you state:"science can not detect conscious experience because its non physical".

No I don't.

b. that consciousness can be a non physical

Given that I'm not begging the question, as you seem to be, and assuming from the start that consciousness cannot be non-physical, that is correct.

Although strictly speaking, my actual claim doesn't assume this.

No I don't. — Michael

This isn't difficult Michael..You are suggesting an ontology. This ontology needs to be assumed by definition. The same is true of its qualities.
You can not escape from those underlying assumptions!

This isn't difficult Michael..You are suggesting an ontology. This ontology needs to be assumed by definition. The same is true of its qualities.
You can not escape from those underlying assumptions! — Nickolasgaspar

If you give me £1,000,000 then I will quit my job.

Am I assuming that you have given me £1,000,000? No. Am I assuming that you can give me £1,000,000? No. Am I assuming that someone has given or can give me £1,000,000? No (although, incidentally, there are people who can).

If consciousness is non-physical then there is no evidence that consciousness is physical.

Am I assuming that consciousness is non-physical? No. Am I assuming that consciousness can be non-physical? No. Am I assuming that something is or can be non-physical? No.

Do you just not understand what "if" means?

Micheal focus! You say "if consciousness is non physical....". That statement can only be meaningful if non physical is considered to be an available option for the ontology of consciousness. Obviously you are suggesting an option without even knowing if it is possible.
ITs the Alchemists and chemical transmutation all over again.

If you are not suggesting this specific options then you are just offering useless tautologies like the following. We don't need Philosophy to arrive to tautologies.

If consciousness is non-physical then there is no evidence that consciousness is physical. — Michael

You say "if consciousness is non physical....". That statement can only be meaningful if non physical is considered to be an available option for the ontology of consciousness — Nickolasgaspar

No it doesn't.

If God is real then...
If ghosts are real then...
If magic is real then...
If parallel worlds are real then...

I'm not assuming anything about what's possible.

Obviously you are suggesting an option without even knowing if it is possible. — Nickolasgaspar

Correct.

I don't know if it's possible. I also don't know if it's impossible. Unlike you I'm not going to beg the question and assume that materialism is the case – that everything, including consciousness, is physical.

Maybe consciousness is physical. Maybe it's non-physical. And if it is non-physical then...

No it doesn't.

If God is real then...
If parallel worlds are real then...
If magic is real then...

I'm not assuming anything about what's possible. — Michael

-So you are recycling hot air?? You are defining conditions in scenarios without knowing the real properties of the interacting concepts!
This is the problem with this type of "Philosophy". Brain power and time wasted for tautologies and made up dichotomies. Its an empty logical equation parading as philosophy.

I don't know if it's possible. I also don't know if it's impossible. Unlike you I'm not going to beg the question and assume that materialism is the case – that everything, including consciousness, is physical. — Michael

-So why are you doing this? There are far more meaningful scenarios to apply your '' ifs''on. Why insisting in its "philosophical value" when your statements demand way to many ifs to be proven true first before your statement finally acquires its philosophical validity..?

-So why are you doing this? — Nickolasgaspar

Because the purpose of this discussion is to assess the evidence either for or against the neuroscientist's claim that consciousness can be exhaustively explained by brain activity (or other physical phenomena). It is perfectly correct not to beg the question and assume either materialism or dualism from the start.

You really do sound like some kind of evangelist. It seems @bert1 was right about you in the OP.