An alternate look at Naturalism

Also there's mention of the question about particles of consciousness:

"The biggest problem caused by panpsychism is known as the “combination problem”: Precisely how do small particles of consciousness collectively form more complex consciousness? Consciousness may exist in all particles, but that doesn’t answer the question of how these tiny fragments of physical consciousness come together to create the more complex experience of human consciousness."

And we also have this from Chalmers:

"Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as non-determinism and non-locality. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is entirely unanswered."


~~ Paul

"Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as non-determinism and non-locality. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is entirely unanswered."

Interesting.

If Consciousness is primary in Reality, then Quantum processes would not give rise to experience on their own.

Interesting.

If Consciousness is primary in Reality, then Quantum processes would not give rise to experience on their own.

What is the fundamental unit of consciousness actually conscious of?

This will need some serious theorizing, along with testable hypotheses. I'm concerned that it will be:

undefined fundamental consciousness --poof!--> human consciousness

~~ Paul

What is the fundamental unit of consciousness actually conscious of?

Right, so we are not only constrained by materialism, we must have reductionism too?

If something exists, it has to be reducible to particles? And those particles must be physical so that we can measure them with our physical equipment. And, I'm guessing that the hypothesis would have to involve a mechanism too? A physical mechanism, of course. And that mechanism would be the brain of course - what else?

I never really understand how or when to use the term "begging the question" but wouldn't this be an example of it?

Just a thought, and maybe stephenw has more to say on this: what is the fundamental unit of information and what would it be informing about?

Right, so we are not only constrained by materialism, we must have reductionism too?

If something exists, it has to be reducible to particles? And those particles must be physical so that we can measure them with our physical equipment. And, I'm guessing that the hypothesis would have to involve a mechanism too? A physical mechanism, of course. And that mechanism would be the brain of course - what else?

I never really understand how or when to use the term "begging the question" but wouldn't this be an example of it?

Just a thought, and maybe stephenw has more to say on this: what is the fundamental unit of information and what would it be informing about?

If not then faith.

"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle." 

If not then faith.

Just so I'm following: You are asserting the materialist, reductionist worldview as "faith", correct?

Just so I'm following: You are asserting the materialist, reductionist worldview as "faith", correct?

The immaterial perspective is faith based.

The immaterial perspective is faith based.

Amusingly, the reductionist physicalist perspective requires blind faith itself, despite accusing its declared opponents as having such, and which requires indeed a mountain of blind faith in the magical thinking that consciousness can somehow spring from completely unconscious matter through complex-enough combinations alone, despite matter never having been proven to show a single shred of consciousness whatsoever, despite all of neuroscience's efforts. Not even panpsychism can save physicalism... despite it being a somewhat decent effort.

Despite this dogmatic belief in the epiphenomenalistic emergence of consciousness never having been ever scientifically-proven, the reductionist physicalists cling to it most rigidly and shallow, narrow and close-mindedly. Somehow, we're to blindly trust that the dogma will be proven as scientific fact... "someday". Despite centuries of the dogma never having been proven once as scientific, the religious, magical thinking stays strong.

It's pitiful, if not scornful, that reductionist physicalism has almost, if not completely, monopolized the word "scientific" as a loanword for their ideology, not to mention the usurpation of "natural" and the like.

The immaterial perspective is faith based.

How would you describe your belief that consciousness will ultimately be explained in materialist/reductionist terms?

Amusingly, the reductionist physicalist perspective requires blind faith itself, despite accusing its declared opponents as having such, and which requires indeed a mountain of blind faith in the magical thinking that consciousness can somehow spring from completely unconscious matter through complex-enough combinations alone, despite matter never having been proven to show a single shred of consciousness whatsoever, despite all of neuroscience's efforts. Not even panpsychism can save physicalism... despite it being a somewhat decent effort.

Despite this dogmatic belief in the epiphenomenalistic emergence of consciousness never having been ever scientifically-proven, the reductionist physicalists cling to it most rigidly and shallow, narrow and close-mindedly. Somehow, we're to blindly trust that the dogma will be proven as scientific fact... "someday". Despite centuries of the dogma never having been proven once as scientific, the religious, magical thinking stays strong.

It's pitiful, if not scornful, that reductionist physicalism has almost, if not completely, monopolized the word "scientific" as a loanword for their ideology, not to mention the usurpation of "natural" and the like.

Answer these two questions. Do you or anyone know the nature of the things you except to be true?  Do you or anyone know that these things you except as proof are what you believe them to be? 

Ease up pointing the dogma finger.