If qualia is real, why does it have to be paranormal

I think, it's obvious that we are conscious. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am".

We can't prove somebody else is conscious but we certainly can see that they look like us,
we can theoretecially alter our consciousness or theirs by poking areas of the brain.

So, apparently, I'm a biological robot. So, what of it? Are you lesser of an entity because of that?

Is the world less bizarre?

The existence of medical placebo arises from the observation that our mind can harm/heal the rest of our bodies.

We experience so much.

This thread focuses on this? Material consciousness. How is it different from any other kind?

I am not sure how you are using the term "paranormal" here?

There is an argument, I think most prominently made by Galen Strawson, that qualia are physical and so physicalism = panpsychism.

Goff is also wrong to identify materialism, the ancient and overwhelmingly plausible view that everything in the universe including consciousness is wholly material, with the obviously false and hyperscientistic view that everything in the universe, including feelings of pain, sexual joy, experiences of colour, and so on, can be “exhaustively described” (ie described in such a way that its nature is fully conveyed) in the language of the physical sciences. I don’t know any materialists who think this, and it’s certainly not true of Thomas Hobbes in 1651, or the electrifying materialist panpsychist Margaret Cavendish in 1666, or Joseph Priestley in 1777, and thousands of others since. Panpsychism is a wholly materialist view in almost all its versions, and Goff himself recommends the materialist panpsychist view that “consciousness is located in the intrinsic nature of the physical world”.

There are, to be sure, people who think materialism requires them to deny the existence of consciousness, “illusionists” who are adamant that our brains are machines and there is really no feeling, no pain, no joy, no sensory experience. They are, however, a recent and wildly anomalous group among materialists, and this is unsurprising, because illusionism is the silliest view about reality that has ever been held by any human being. (No one has ever really suffered in any way!) The illusionists sail off the edge of the world in the great Ship of Fools, crewed by Flat Earthers, under the command of Rear Admiral Daniel Dennett, and we must let them go. I don’t know why Goff calls their view a “beautiful, elegant solution to the problem of consciousness”, because you can’t solve the problem of consciousness by denying its existence – and he himself says that illusionism is certainly false. This is one of a number of wobbles in an otherwise admirable book.

I am not sure how you are using the term "paranormal" here?

There is an argument, I think most prominently made by Galen Strawson, that qualia are physical and so physicalism = panpsychism.

I don't think I am understanding your article.
 
It doesn't seem explain the inference that if 
ANY matter has qualia, it all does?

Certainly pagans feel this.  It's a cool idea but
the tricky thing about qualia is our inability to
measure it. This presents us with a massive dilemma
that we have something that exists without being 
able to measure it.
.

I don't think I am understanding your article.
 
It doesn't seem explain the inference that if 
ANY matter has qualia, it all does?

Certainly pagans feel this.  It's a cool idea but
the tricky thing about qualia is our inability to
measure it. This presents us with a massive dilemma
that we have something that exists without being 
able to measure it.
.

So you're saying only some matter has qualia? Does that mean you think brain matter is different from, say, rock matter?

I thought the article was aligning with what you were saying. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "material consciousness"?

So you're saying only some matter has qualia? Does that mean you think brain matter is different from, say, rock matter?

I thought the article was aligning with what you were saying. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "material consciousness"? 

Better question would be to ask me about cows
and squids

Squid brains evolved independently but i suspect
snswer there yes but no for rocks

Can't test it

I'm coming into this discussion cold, without having followed the material covered in other threads or posts.

@entangled_cat I'm struggling to understand the words you use, since I don't know how they are defined in your own understanding and usage. In particular, what are the boundaries of materialism? And what are the boundaries of the paranormal? In your own understanding and the way you intend us to understand you, I mean. And what about consciousness, where does that fit in? Is consciousness paranormal?

In general though, the impression I've got from skimming quickly through some of your posts is that you may be a little bit light on data - that is there may be areas of research and study which are unfamiliar to you in whole or in part. That's not a criticism, just a matter of where and how your life has led you so far, and what your interests and experiences have been. That will be different for all of us of course, so we all have areas which are familiar and other areas which are less so.

I'm coming into this discussion cold, without having followed the material covered in other threads or posts.

@entangled_cat I'm struggling to understand the words you use, since I don't know how they are defined in your own understanding and usage. In particular, what are the boundaries of materialism? And what are the boundaries of the paranormal? In your own understanding and the way you intend us to understand you, I mean. And what about consciousness, where does that fit in? Is consciousness paranormal?

In general though, the impression I've got from skimming quickly through some of your posts is that you may be a little bit light on data - that is there may be areas of research and study which are unfamiliar to you in whole or in part. That's not a criticism, just a matter of where and how your life has led you so far, and what your interests and experiences have been. That will be different for all of us of course, so we all have areas which are familiar and other areas which are less 

[/quote]
 I am suggesting the concept of paranormal, supernatural is
inherently undefined. That is, no definition can actually exist. The data I am alluding to
is available to everybody because we are essentially looking at methodology. Quantum
mechanics is weird. It inherently non-deterministic in
certain ways and yet we feel is natural.

Is consciousness material? I am saying, yes, yes it is. This claim is better defined. We agree things produced by things we all agree are material are material. We all think the brain is material. For this, data
actually can exist. We all know on a high level about many experiments on
brains. A probe can make you experience the sensation of burned toast. Most
of us have experienced drunkenness or sleep deprivation or illness that affected 
our perception.    We cannot strictly define consciousness either because we 
can't perceive what others perceive. But we know it's real by Descartes argument that i think 
therefore I am.  You experience your own consciousness.   We can only guess
other people's consciousness when we communicate with them. We can observe 
brain activity when they tell us they perceive something. We can infer certain
brain activity is related to consciousness.

Thanks for the helpful reply. That does clarify things a great deal. There are areas where we will be in disagreement, but that's ok.

I am suggesting the concept of paranormal, supernatural is
inherently undefined. That is, no definition can actually exist. The data I am alluding to
is available to everybody because we are essentially looking at methodology. Quantum
mechanics is weird. It inherently non-deterministic in
certain ways and yet we feel is natural.

Is consciousness material? I am saying, yes, yes it is. This claim is better defined. We agree things produced by things we all agree are material are material. We all think the brain is material. For this, data
actually can exist. We all know on a high level about many experiments on
brains. A probe can make you experience the sensation of burned toast. Most
of us have experienced drunkenness or sleep deprivation or illness that affected 
our perception.    We cannot strictly define consciousness either because we 
can't perceive what others perceive. But we know it's real by Descartes argument that i think 
therefore I am.  You experience your own consciousness.   We can only guess
other people's consciousness when we communicate with them. We can observe 
brain activity when they tell us they perceive something. We can infer certain
brain activity is related to consciousness.

 Should you stay long enough you will discern members steadfastly assert consciousness must be immaterial. The majority of the skeptical members have left the forum. This skeptical member only on occasion remarks.

 Should you stay long enough you will discern members steadfastly assert consciousness must be immaterial. The majority of the skeptical members have left the forum. This skeptical member only on occasion remarks.

Sorry about that, Steve. If you think consciousness is material and thoughts are material, maybe you could lay out the chemical and electrical composition of your thoughts with regard to your post above, including the formula for the feeling of exasperation which is clearly circulating around your synapses.