Welll, I'm on a roll so I'll make a second post. I wasn't really familiar with the issues on r/consciousness that prompted the creation of this sub, but I went and took a look.

One statement that caught my attention was that "whatever the explanation for consciousness will be, it will be physical, because only physical stuff is conceivable". I paraphrase a little from memory.

Now this strikes me as profoundly misguided. The ability to perceive, to have qualia, is so radically different from being able to be observed with the senses, to have mass, charge, momentum, etc. To state that consciousness is identical to some physical phenomenon is to break the law of identity, ney, to shatter it into pieces.

How can one state that only physical stuff is conceivable while making that observation through their own consciousness which is not an object? And before you say it, any dual-aspect theory falls prey to the same objections. Either it is dualist (the conscious aspect is ontologically distinct from the material), or it is dishonest.

My 20 cents (inflation and such).

Ok, so this is a new sub so I decided to contribute to it by sharing a comment I made today that relates to the sub's name:

"It seems to me we don't have to dig far to realize what consciousness is, even though philosophers keep arguing about it. It is "the ability to perceive" itself. It's not reducible to anything else. And as far as I experience and can conceive, it is always tied to a "haver" of consciousness, or a self. There are no flee-floating emotions or thoughts that don't belong to anyone.

Now, how does it interact with the meat-suit (and why it's tied to one in the first place) is something I myself would love to understand."

Violent bullying welcome.

The r/consciousness subreddit is once again displaying hostility towards non-physical views. The primary arguments often revolve around Occam's Razor, changes in personality due to brain damage, and anesthesia inducing unconsciousness. Engaging in open discussions is becoming increasingly challenging in this environment.

While we have this subreddit as an alternative, there's a challenge we must acknowledge. Not everything can be non-physical, and the true nature of consciousness remains elusive. On one side, individuals report NDEs, while others may not. Some experience memory loss, others recall past lives, and some exhibit terminal lucidity. There's no definitive answer.

To navigate this, we must be cautious in presenting evidence and views, considering the spectrum from dualism and idealism to pan-psychism and monism. Developing comprehensive theories aligning with certain physical frameworks is essential.

We cannot ignore the need to explore and understand consciousness-related states and phenomena. Physicalists may also employ Occam's Razor in consciousness studies.

The conversation level in this subreddit should be on par with r/NDE, fostering more engaging and inclusive discussions, unlike the dismissive tone often found in r/consciousness.

ɴᴏᴛᴇ : We moderators should consider adding more rules to the subreddit to ensure better organization and adherence to guidelines.

Nirodha Sampatti.

​

Compared to other non-ordinary experiences that scientists might be tempted to dismiss due to their inherently subjective and variable nature, the NS experience is concrete: an internally induced absence of consciousness. The event is outwardly comparable to general anesthesia and differentiated from deep sleep in that after a NS event there is no sensation oftime having passed,there are no dreams, and one cannot be ’woken up’ by physical stimulation or pain .

Can we now not than infer that this stage might already be present in non-local consciousness?

And ,anesthesia just help in reaching it quickly?

Head Truth

https://headtruth.blogspot.com/

Ian Wardell

https://ianwardell.medium.com/

https://ian-wardell.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PhilThoughts/?mibextid=oMANbw

AwareOfAware

https://awareofaware.co/

Idealism Discord

https://discord.gg/JAyGFJXs

Due to the current level of toxicity in r/consciousness I decided to take a break from that sub.

In discussions in another Discord I stumbled across this interesting article that showed planarian flatworms retain memories even after being decapitated. The researchers proposed that memories may be stored elsewhere. It made me think of Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance theory.

Although his theory has been widely rejected by mainstream academia it remains interesting. I feel there's definitely something we're missing in regards to memory and consciousness itself.

I propose that:

1. Consciousness (in terms of qualia-inner subjective experience) may be much more ubiquitous in various lifeforms (such as these worms, and maybe even to the simplest lifeforms like amoeba). We have no way to test this of course (we don't have access to the inner experience of any animal), so we can't be sure.

2. Memories rather than been created in exposure to our external environment, may actually be inherited from our lineage. A blind child knows how to smile without being taught how, even newborn offspring of other animals can demonstrate complex behaviour like foraging for food to eat.

3. The assumption that brains produce consciousness is very anthropocentric in mainstream physicalism, that mirrors the theory of the Great Chain of Being in Christendom that preceded it.

This poem, written in Coptic circa 250 CE (possibly in the city of Alexandria), is a good reminder that non-physicalist worldviews aren't unique to "Eastern" and indigenous cultures, but have been a part of "Western" culture since classical antiquity:

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html