• Intuitions About Time
    1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
    2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion

    There is a glass of water on my table, what about it do you call "flux"? The glass was full few days ago, now it's half empty, what about that change you call "illusion"? Flux is change, why is your second statement contradicting the first one?

    Reality is fundamentally flux

    Flux means flow / motion. What is flowing? What are you trying to say, do you even know?
  • Do professional philosophers take Tegmark's MUH seriously?

    I think you said material objects are made of material substance, while physical objects are bundles of their properties. And you are not even joking. Can you give an example of one material and one physical object, please?
  • Do professional philosophers take Tegmark's MUH seriously?
    There is nothing to redefine here, because there aren't any commonly established definitions for physicalism or materialism.

    Physical is the same thing as material, it means measurable / observable. To redefine words is to speak gibberish, just like not knowing what words mean.
  • Do professional philosophers take Tegmark's MUH seriously?
    On this, he and Chalmers do agree. For Dennett we're conscious in the functional sense, which can cause a cognitive illusion that we experience more than that.

    How is functional-consciousness and qualia-illusion supposed to be different from actual-consciousness and actual-qualia?
  • Do professional philosophers take Tegmark's MUH seriously?
    Yeah, physicalism isn't the same thing as materialism.

    What's the difference?
  • Randomness, Preferences and Free Will
    So, we must, in order to be free, be able to reject every want we have but if you'll notice this situation arises because we want to be free and that want - to be free - is programmed into us, without our consent as it were.

    You are not talking about volition, but identity / personality. Instead of asking for independence and autonomy from what is not you, you want to be free from yourself.
  • Facing up to the Problem of Illusionism
    One leads to a hard problem and one doesn't.

    How? What exactly is the difference between the two?
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    Also, 'Mary's Room' thought experiment demonstrates the existence of qualia almost perfectly. The thought experiment is described in the entry. So I do recommend reading it

    Instead of definition you gave description. In any case, qualia is just one more thing panpsychism can not address. The brain itself is an obstacle for panpsychism.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    If we stick to its principles, we are forced to conclude that everything has some sort of experience caused by interaction with environment.

    Define "experience".
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    Do you have a point you want to make using the case of such reflex action?

    It was originally answer to someone's question, not related to panpyschism.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    I thought it was settled that not all experience comes with some sorta delay. Most are caused by mental states or a combination of mental states. Only in certain primitive reflex responses, where the brain is not involved in decision making, does the experience come later.

    I'm only talking about response / reaction, any reaction, as opposed to contemplation / imagination.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    I realize that these claims will sound utterly outlandish to most people. But the reason I believe them is that I find this to be the simplest explanation for what we know and observe.

    It “explains” why my socks and bubblegum are conscious, even though no one thought they were, but it doesn’t explain why the human brain is conscious the way the human brain is conscious, which is what we actually want to know. To put it mildly, panpsychism is irrelevant and pointless.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?

    Strange twist? Experience comes with a time delay, that’s all.
  • The Reality of Time
    The goal is to describe how things are in reality, not to produce mutually exclusive categories.

    This is not physics, it’s ontology and metaphysics. So the first goal is to establish logical categories or else you end up contradicting yourself.

    Do you agree or not?

    Nothing gets cut, nothing gets divided, it’s a matter of speech and it can be expressed in different context with different terms, as I already explained, but you keep making the same mistake of being strangely literal about a hypothetical abstract concept.

    It’s not a matter of opinion. Divisible is the opposite to indivisible, continuous is the opposite to discrete, and analog is the opposite to digital. That’s all.
  • Thought vs Matter/Energy

    At the end of the experiment there are two streams of zeros and ones on two tapes and first you have to pair them to calculate the result or “correlation”, but you can’t be sure which numbers are actual pairs because sometimes numbers on one tape don’t have corresponding pair, or have more than one pair on the other tape. So this “matching” process is a whole new kind of science on its own, or magic rather, depending on what you do here entirely determines the result and conclusion.

    It’s a joke, a farce. Having seen this kind of nonsense, how it’s reinterpreted and “hidden” from common knowledge, how most people don’t know about it, I not only have no confidence in any peer-review system, to me it looks like some kind of conspiracy.
  • Mind cannot be reduced to brain
    I disagree that there’s no ghost in the machine and the mind is only a virtual machine program.

    Most people even today would consider software to be "immaterial” rather than virtual, and “ghost” was actually a pretty good description of software just until several decades ago, in a sense that, at the time of execution, you can not see software, you can not quite point where it is, nor what it is, and yet it makes the machine do things.

    I have no objection to call my program, that is my self, a ghost, especially since I plan on uploading myself out of this body into Earth’s magnetic field, to walk around naked and transparent, go through walls, scare little children, scream at night and engage in other ghostly entertainment activities.
  • The Reality of Time
    Do you agree, that if you divide that line at C, it then consists of the parts AC, CB, and is therefore not a continuous line from A to B?

    That’s why I insist it should be referred to as “infinite divisibility” rather than “continuity”, it is far more specific and avoids this kind of misinterpretation.

    Your logic is not wrong, just inadequate because you don’t get two logically opposite and mutually exclusive categories: continuous / divisible vs. discrete / indivisible.

    So no, we divide a line and we do not get two parts, we get two lines, and if we supposed lines are continuous, then obviously we get two continuities. Think of it as analog vs. digital.

    You keep insisting to put it in some literal or actual terms as if something really gets cut and divided. It’s all just a thought experiment, so instead of thinking about division as “cutting", think of it as how fine movement and precision you could theoretically achieve with an analog needle sliding over some gauge - then infinite divisibility, i.e. "continuous" is simply a claim there is always unique point C between any two points A and B, while "discrete" is naturally then the opposite claim of that.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"[10][11]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious. Libet noted that everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is because the final 20 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex, and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator must also be considered).

    This doesn't support the "bear" example the way you like but it does point towards determinism or scientific determinism. The latter i would agree with.

    Again, you say you disagree, but you never say what is it you disagree with. Are you a robot?
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    The problem is you have drawn conclusions that cannot be drawn from the Libet experiment. Humans may not have a say in their future decisions based on billiards table effect of the universe, but your interpretation of the "bear" example is not found in the Libet experiment.

    What do you think I said? What exactly are you arguing against?
  • The Reality of Time
    However, it cannot actually be divided anywhere or else it is not continuous.

    Continuous does not mean indivisible, it means “composed of no parts”, i.e infinitely divisible. Indivisible is what discrete means, it’s the opposite.

    We draw a line from A to B. That line is either continuous in space / time or not, but we can divide it in either case by placing point C somewhere in between.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    what keywords do i google?

    You said “it’s not complex enough”. It was about time delay, not complexity. Almost every neuroscientist and philosopher will tell you there is no free will based on -> Libet experiment <- and similar.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    Do you have an article?

    Yes, many, because what I said is not controversial at all. Google it!
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    Nope. Try again. Perhaps you are misinterpreting WebMD or is that your own philosophy? That doesn't line up with reality

    You try again, you forgot to say what exactly do you believe doesn't line up with reality. In the meantime I will repeat what I sad. Experience is a synthetic virtual representation of the physical state of the body. This simulation processing takes time, so it is only natural that physical reaction comes first and mental re-imagination of it second.
  • Randomness, Preferences and Free Will
    The above quote encapsulates an argument against free will for if we didn't chose our preferences (likes and dislikes) and all our actions are determined by our preferences then it follows that we're not free; we are automatons, each with its own preprogrammed set of dispositions that will ultimately determine every course of action that we'll ever choose in the course of our lives.

    You say that as if it could be some other way that unfortunately just didn’t turn out to be the case. You say “freedom”, but you describe a multiple personality disorder.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    Also, I never said I believe in panpyschism. But it is worth considering.

    Sorry, I thought I was talking to Pfhorrest.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    However, what happens when you see a sad movie. You obviously don't start crying before processing its content and experiencing the mental state of 'sadness'.

    Yes, interaction goes both ways, but the mind is secondary in many respects. For example, some people get brain seizure while driving or playing an instrument and they continue their activity totally unconscious as if nothing happened. In fact they fail to react to novel or unusual stimuli, so there, that’s what the mind is for.
  • Thought vs Matter/Energy

    Bell theorem / hidden variable - is a mix of misinterpretations about the theory, what experiments are measuring, and how to read and interpret results.

    It’s not easy to find what the actual experiment looks like, everyone is theorising from their armchair, relying on a story which itself relies on a few experimental reports from fifty or more years ago. What is really going on in the experiment, what is the data readout, and how it has to be sorted, adjusted, and interpreted in a certain way... that's apparently not the kind of stuff that goes into Wikipedia.
  • Mind cannot be reduced to brain
    To answer the first point, I say that the mind is the ego; the I as it meant in the original Latin. Cogito ergo sum as Rene Descartes said.

    That is true, in a way, but is just a play with words, substituting one phrase with another having equally no any grounding. By “grounding” I mean empirical connection, a kind of information that actually matters in some way.

    Ego, soul, self, ghost, integrated information, quantum collapse, illusion, hallucination… as is described by the most prominent thinkers of today. It’s all over the place, children would have come up with more coherent “consensus”, and yet all those words point to what the mind is, in some way, allegorically, but none are really describing it. More or less those are just empty labels, too vague and ambiguous to carry any useful meaning.
  • Mind cannot be reduced to brain
    Given that there is enough evidence from the medical literature that the mind can still act and perceive in states without any brain activity; it’s a foregone conclusion to me that the mind cannot be reduced down to the brain.

    There is a guy who was sceptic about near death experience and decided to debunk it. However, while investigating he became less sceptic and eventually organised an investigation to be conducted across many hospitals by placing signs or pictures on top of furniture, so if a dying patient indeed gets to float out of the body near the ceiling they would be able to see and later describe what it was.

    I think this was in the UK around 5 years ago, but I can’t find any follow up on that story, possibly because the result was negative. But even if it was positive the debate would remain with all the questions still open - what does it mean, why and how it works.

    What is the mind?
    What is being measured in brain scans like MRIs?

    The most specific and pragmatic categorisation in the scope of our current understanding is that mind is a program, a virtual reality simulation within the nervous system, a kind of virtual machine. No ghost, just another machine in the machine, but it is software or virtual machine.

    Brain scans measure flow of signals, indirectly, just like we could measure flow of signals between the logic gates and other circuits inside a computer by placing ampere / volt meters around the motherboard, but raw signals are themselves only indirect representation of which program is running and what program is doing within itself, i.e. inside virtual reality simulation.

    So, a mind needs a brain like a program needs a computer, but that does not necessarily mean a mind can not exist in some other kind of “brain”, it means that is actually a likely possibility.
  • The Reality of Time

    The present is not distinct from the past and the future, it is an indefinite moment such that we directly perceive the continuous flow of time.

    You can not argue with “indefinite”. It means you are unable to say anything specific about it, and using ignorance to claim knowledge is the funniest paradox here, so far.
  • The Reality of Time
    Right, an "instant" is not a real part of time, and that is why time cannot be continuous. There is something which breaks the continuity, which is called the "instant".

    You can not resolve the issue by not addressing the issue, so until you start talking about continuity in terms of infinite divisibility there is no distinction what is it you two are really talking about.
  • The Reality of Time
    Indeed, and if time is not composed of instants, then it must be continuous.

    True, which means "infinitely divisible", hence the paradox.
  • The Reality of Time
    Time is a real law that governs existents

    Can you translate that into English? What is "real law", how is it different than "not-real law", and how is it different from conteporary understanding of time?
  • The Reality of Time
    Are you familiar with Zeno's paradoxes. The substance of his paradoxes is that what is described in theory does not occur in practise. In theory Achilles cannot reach the tortoise in the race, in practise this is not so. The paradox is resolved by realizing that the theory is based in faulty premises, the infinite divisibility of space and time.

    Explain that to Aletheist. That's where his confusion is, and anything else you two are talking about is beside that essential point.
  • The Reality of Time
    I get my information from studying philosophy, where continuity is the feature of an undivided existence. So when mathematicians look at the divisibility of the undivided, it produces the paradox I described. The paradox is maybe easier to understand in Zeno's terms.

    We agree about Zeno and divisibility in that sense. The problem was you then started talk about divisibility in terms of past, present, and future - where did you get that, some reference?
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    I can promise you even people who stay and don't run from the bear are still scared, its not that simple.

    Experience is a synthetic virtual representation of the physical state of the body. This simulation processing takes time, so it is only natural that physical reaction comes first and mental re-imagination of it second.
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    If you go by panpyschism or functionalist panpyschism, then all of those are conscious.

    I see, a tree is conscious even if all of its parts are already conscious on their own. So I am conscious and my brain is conscious, but so is my elbow and my nose, my eyelash, my pimple, my socks, and my bubblegum. How cute, and is there any actual reason, any reason at all, that makes you believe that?
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    Sure, anything that can reasonably be considered an object can also be considered a subject of experience.

    There is nothing reasonable in what you are saying, so I'm asking you for the fifth time to explicitly name it. Leaf, branch, tree, forest.. what is conscious?
  • Can Consciousness really go all the way down to level of bacterias and virus?
    The functionality of things is what groups them. The way information flows through systems, the causal connectedness or isolation of them.

    Can those words produce some examples? Leaf, branch, tree, forest... each grain of sand or the whole beach - what is conscious?