All matter is a cognitive ‘hallucination,’ even the brain itself

Nope, I didn't say Experience arises/emerges from mathematical abstractions.

I said that Experience emerges from some hidden architecture. And that mathematics only describes the shared relationships of the architecture. And also that Maths is not the architecture.

I would never be so stupid to replace the word Experience, with the word consciousness. Neither would I be so stupid as to claim Experience is formed out of Maths.

Since experience itself is closely related to and is a fundamental property of consciousness, you can't have one without the other and it is correct to interchange the word Experience with the word Consciousness. Experience requires a conscious experiencer.

More powerfully even, all the properties or aspects of consciousness including thought, knowing, perceiving (observing), emotions, qualia, and agency,  need consciousness to exist. In fact, consciousness is what they fundamentally are, it is what each one of these properties or aspects of consciousness really is. Each of these aspects of consciousness implies some level of internal perception of what's going on outside or inside, some awareness of the phenomenal experience - they are consciousness. For example, knowing requires a conscious knower, and emotion requires a conscious emoter responding to internal or external factors.

Since Experience can be seen as a fundamental aspect of consciousness, then my point remains that to say that Experience emerges from "hidden architecture" (which is an abstraction) runs into the immovable Hard Problem of consciousness.

Since experience itself is closely related to and is a fundamental property of consciousness, you can't have one without the other and it is correct to interchange the word Experience with the word Consciousness. Experience requires a conscious experiencer.

Doesn't this mean Experience and Consciousness are related yet different?

As such I don't think you can interchange the terms, any more than one can interchange "Experience" and "Experiencer"?

We are talking about what the "external world" might be. My only point is that is not (a) something maintained by my consciousness; nor (b) something maintained by my memory. The point of including my going away and coming back is that an event occurs while I am away that is not explained by my consciousness nor by my memory. Of course, my consciousness and memory are involved in the overall experience of the event, but they do not explain the change in the tree.

~~ Paul

What is it is the tree that is conscious of itself? There are innumerable biological organisms that exist in the soil, which may all have conscious awareness of what their senses give them? What if the world is maintained by a transcendent, impersonal existence that has only the purpose of making sure that physicality is stable?

The stability of the sensed world is an ongoing debate, after all... no-one can agree on why the world retains identity and doesn't just fall apart at a moment's notice. No ontology has superiority in this regard.

Since experience itself is closely related to and is a fundamental property of consciousness, you can't have one without the other and it is correct to interchange the word Experience with the word Consciousness. Experience requires a conscious experiencer.

More powerfully even, all the properties or aspects of consciousness including thought, knowing, perceiving (observing), emotions, qualia, and agency,  need consciousness to exist. In fact, consciousness is what they fundamentally are, it is what each one of these properties or aspects of consciousness really is. Each of these aspects of consciousness implies some level of internal perception of what's going on outside or inside, some awareness of the phenomenal experience - they are consciousness. For example, knowing requires a conscious knower, and emotion requires a conscious emoter responding to internal or external factors.

Since Experience can be seen as a fundamental aspect of consciousness, then my point remains that to say that Experience emerges from "hidden architecture" (which is an abstraction) runs into the immovable Hard Problem of consciousness.

I'm not using the word Experience in the way that you define it.

What is it is the tree that is conscious of itself? There are innumerable biological organisms that exist in the soil, which may all have conscious awareness of what their senses give them? What if the world is maintained by a transcendent, impersonal existence that has only the purpose of making sure that physicality is stable?

The stability of the sensed world is an ongoing debate, after all... no-one can agree on why the world retains identity and doesn't just fall apart at a moment's notice. No ontology has superiority in this regard.

Yes, some sort of global consciousness is a fine idea. My only point is that it's not my consciousness nor my memory, so it must be an "external world."

~~ Paul

IIRC Seth is a Materialist (or rather leans that way), Hoffman is an Idealist (though he says he is a Consciousness Realist). Both are making arguments that related to the OP. Also might be of interest to @Max_B as Hoffman mentions the "Space Time is Doomed" stuff as informing his views ->

Prof. Donald Hoffman is Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, and the author of over 100 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence, and The Case Against Reality.

Prof. Anil Seth is Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, where he is also Director of the Sussex Centre for Consciousness Science. His new book: Being You has won several awards and was a Sunday Times Bestseller.

This conversation explores parallels in their theories of consciousness but also the areas where their thinking diverges.

The topics covered include:

— How the reality we experience every day is an illusion
— Whether or not artificial intelligence will ever become conscious
— Mathematical proof that the space-time paradigm is doomed and the early research investigating what might be underneath.
— The practical implications of Donald’s and Anil’s theories - both for society and for every day life.

And more.

Timestamps:

00:00 - Intro
00:33 - Understanding Consciousness
08:57 - Prof. Seth on Consciousness
17:07 - Exploring Consciousness
21:08 - Theories on Consciousness
27:19 - Beyond Space-time Perspectives
31:41 - Emergence and Scientific Explanation
37:58 - Consciousness in AI
51:30 - Death in a Conscious Universe
58:16 - Consciousness and Existential Perspectives

---

Interview Links:

— Prof Hoffman’s profile: http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff
— Prof Hoffman’s book: https://bit.ly/3SCwTTA

— Prof Seth’s website: http://www.anilseth.com/
— Prof Seth’s book: https://bit.ly/3Sw0Ogp

Yes, some sort of global consciousness is a fine idea. My only point is that it's not my consciousness nor my memory, so it must be an "external world."

~~ Paul

Yes, however, we have never once observed this external world is distinct from our subjective phenomenal awareness of it. If you're not at the tree for a while, it has disappeared from your subjective awareness ~ it doesn't exist in your awareness except as a memory.

The question is why is the external world so stable? Why does matter and physics have such consistency, unlike the thoughts and whims in our mind? The answer that you think is that it is because the world must be like how our senses show us. But how can we know that without something to contrast it against? It's easy to believe that something is a certain way when you have only experienced one perspective.

Also might be of interest to @Max_B as Hoffman mentions the "Space Time is Doomed" stuff as informing his views

Yes, but it all sounds very muddled up to me... Seth's perspective wraps some fraction of experience up, and labels it with the c word - making it a thing, and then makes this thing arise in complete isolation within brains. Hoffman says the c word exists before spacetime (whatever that means, because there is zero evidence for it), and he's said before that there is no shared space. It just sounds a mess...

I'm not using the word Experience in the way that you define it.

Can you give us your definition of Experience?

Can you give us your definition of Experience?

any affect to I/me/myself