Could consciousness all come down to the way things vibrate?

Why some people find it difficult to acknowledge the way matter is arranged and it's functioning within brains makes it not possible brains can do what they do?

Is this supposed to have a "not"?

Because individuals “experience” colours differently due to understood variations in the physical structure of their central nervous systems, I’ve found the appeal to qualia unconvincing.

A reminder on colour: There are no colours in the outside world (should such a place exist), only wavelengths of light. The fact that different wavelengths interact with a range of different, specific receceptor cells gives the impression that we are surrounded by colour. The ‘illusion’ is almost irresistible. 

Any animal nervous system has evolved (whether guided or otherwise is for another thread) to most efficiently interact with the environment it is in. To do this it is constantly constructing the reality it delivers. It may be that another construction is the ‘illusion’ that there is an entity seperate and distinct from the processes that constructed it. Again, an illusion so strong that it is almost irresistible. An illusion so strong that any worded explanation of it will feel insufficient and unsatisfying.

Because individuals “experience” colours differently due to understood variations in the physical structure of their central nervous systems, I’ve found the appeal to qualia unconvincing.

A reminder on colour: There are no colours in the outside world (should such a place exist), only wavelengths of light. The fact that different wavelengths interact with a range of different, specific receceptor cells gives the impression that we are surrounded by colour. The ‘illusion’ is almost irresistible. 

Any animal nervous system has evolved (whether guided or otherwise is for another thread) to most efficiently interact with the environment it is in. To do this it is constantly constructing the reality it delivers. It may be that another construction is the ‘illusion’ that there is an entity seperate and distinct from the processes that constructed it. Again, an illusion so strong that it is almost irresistible. An illusion so strong that any worded explanation of it will feel insufficient and unsatisfying.

But qualia aren't just sensory reports of the outside world, they include the feeling of confidence that a memory of a past event is the correct one and the feeling of running late.

Beyond that the "illusion" explanation is deeply unsatisfying precisely b/c an illusion itself is defined as an experience. If I thought I saw a bat that was actually a leaf, it doesn't change that I saw *something*. Perhaps you mean illusion in some other sense, but this runs up against the second problem with illusions - someone has to be fooled. If there are just processes, who is the illusion fooling? If there is a someone who is fooled, then there is something it like to be fooled....which gets us back into the issue of qualia...

But qualia aren't just sensory reports of the outside world, they include the feeling of confidence that a memory of a past event is the correct one and the feeling of running late.

Beyond that the "illusion" explanation is deeply unsatisfying precisely b/c an illusion itself is defined as an experience. If I thought I saw a bat that was actually a leaf, it doesn't change that I saw *something*. Perhaps you mean illusion in some other sense, but this runs up against the second problem with illusions - someone has to be fooled. If there are just processes, who is the illusion fooling? If there is a someone who is fooled, then there is something it like to be fooled....which gets us back into the issue of qualia...

Like I said the ‘illusion’ (or ‘construct’ if you prefer) is irresistible. You’ve nicely reinforced that point.

Like I said the ‘illusion’ (or ‘construct’ if you prefer) is irresistible. You’ve nicely reinforced that point.

So....do you actually have a counterpoint to my arguments?

Because saying that disagreeing with you is proof of your position....not convincing...

I think that Bernado Kastrup has pretty much demolished panpsychism's arguments that consciousness is somehow just another form of matter.

Seems interesting at first, until you bring NDEs and reincarnation into the picture, nevermind spiritual experiences of telepathically sensing disemboded consciousnesses.

Aside from this (a massive amount of empirical evidence), Hunt's idea in no way addresses Chalmers' "hard problem". It's just another little follow the card attempt at misdirection, restating the basic materialist thesis in a little different manner, but still the same fallacy.  

"We suggest that resonance – another word for synchronized vibrations – is at the heart of not only human consciousness but also animal consciousness and of physical reality" 

There is absolutely nothing on how the properties of vibrations and resonances - frequency, amplitude, phase, Q (quality factor), time constant, and whatnot - are supposed to relate to and basically constitute the inner experience essence of consciousness. Oh well, it at least fulfills the "publish or perish" requirement in academia. 

Aside from this (a massive amount of empirical evidence), Hunt's idea in no way addresses Chalmers' "hard problem". It's just another little follow the card attempt at misdirection, restating the basic materialist thesis in a little different manner, but still the same fallacy.  

"We suggest that resonance – another word for synchronized vibrations – is at the heart of not only human consciousness but also animal consciousness and of physical reality" 

There is absolutely nothing on how the properties of vibrations and resonances - frequency, amplitude, phase, Q (quality factor), time constant, and whatnot - are supposed to relate to and basically constitute the inner experience essence of consciousness. Oh well, it at least fulfills the "publish or perish" requirement in academia. 

I agree the theory is inadequate and does seem to try and bind consciousness to a limited place.

OTOH it could get us closer to unity between Consciousness and Matter so in that it's not as bad as the kind of poorly conceived theories claiming consciousness is an illusion. After all, as the saying goes, "If the conscious self is an illusion – who is it that's being fooled?"

In a way, I think the concept of the Hard Problem is sacred. It is the absolute distillation of the biggest problem with materialism.

Agreed to an extent - I think Chalmers weakens the issue or at least unintentionally narrows the disputation w/ materialism.

For one, EJ Lowe's There are No Easy Problems of Consciousness.

So....do you actually have a counterpoint to my arguments?

Because saying that disagreeing with you is proof of your position....not convincing...

Heh. I wasn't presenting a proof, and I specifically said it was likely to feel insufficient and unsatisfying. However, if we can start being a bit more imaginative in our thinking, it may solve a few problems, and would be consistent with other observations of conscious awareness, including its unique presence in evolved biological systems. 

To ask, "If the conscious self is an illusion, who is being fooled?" may demonstrate: 

a. That the illusion is irresistible and/or

b. An inability to grasp the subtle elegance of such an illusion.

Heh. I wasn't presenting a proof, and I specifically said it was likely to feel insufficient and unsatisfying. However, if we can start being a bit more imaginative in our thinking, it may solve a few problems, and would be consistent with other observations of conscious awareness, including its unique presence in evolved biological systems. 

To ask, "If the conscious self is an illusion, who is being fooled?" may demonstrate: 

a. That the illusion is irresistible and/or

b. An inability to grasp the subtle elegance of such an illusion.

I don't think it's a matter of imagination, so much as it is whether a theory can get past some basic questions.

As such, there should be some clarity on processes that are providing sensory reports and how this creates an "illusion". What is being processed prior to the sense of qualia? Is what is processed quantitative, is it Physical or Informational? If the latter, what is Information?

And perhaps most important, reporting implies a relation between data and the Reader of data -- So who is in the system receiving the report?

This isn't to say that Consciousness as Fundamental must entail  a soul that survives a body, nor a Self completely divorced from sensory organs + nervous system of the body. If anything I think the materialist is better off abandoning the physicalist, suggesting the world consists of qualitative properties and intrinsic beings & neither of those things are captured by the quantitative relations that make [up] physics.