Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[Randall]

I say: beer!

we'll get through it - I'll sit down here and work through this and see what we can come up with . . . we'll not let the Trickster get the best of us . . .

You know I really can't tell you how refreshing that attitude is. I feel a long overdue sense of optimism . Let's take it in small bites again if you don't mind. Try grabbing a specific quote that pinpoints an issue you think is relevant, and explain why it seems to have a problem in your view, and we'll look at that rather than creating a whole list of things right away that lead us back around in a circle again.

 

[smcder]

Yes, I get all that, and it still doesn't change how it all breaks down into:

1. The hard problem is not solvable because it's incoherent. or
2. The hard problem appears to be solvable as shown in the video. or
3. The hard problem is not solvable because it's formulated in such a way that no solution is possible.

or 4. the hard problem is not solved within the confines of physicalism

if mind is irreducible, there is no "hard problem"

. . . (don't hold me to that because of the vodka in my system . . . ) more to come, but maybe tomorrow -

 

[smcder]

You know I really can't tell you how refreshing that attitude is. I feel a long overdue sense of optimism . Let's take it in small bites again if you don't mind. Try grabbing a specific quote that pinpoints an issue you think is relevant, and explain why it seems to have a problem in your view, and we'll look at that rather than creating a whole list of things right away that lead us back around in a circle again.

ok . . . let's just let the vodka get out of the system first . . . ;-)

 

[Constance]

ufology, you've become hung up on a misunderstanding of the significance of Nagel's question 'what is it like to be bat'? That question was posed in an attempt to foreground for readers the issue that there is something it's like to be a bat -- i.e., to live in and engage with the environment, to experience being in the world, as a bat -- which we cannot know. {note that it exceeds understanding the mechanisms of the bat's senses} The issue that a bat experiences qualia in ways different from the way we do was meant to point to the reality of qualia as part of existence for both the bat and the human. If you can admit that a bat experiences more than perception, we're halfway there. If the bat's lived reality seems too alien to your own, think rather in terms of the lived reality of your beloved dog or cat or horse.

You wrote: "Specifically, explaining what something "is" doesn't require that we explain what it's "like". It only requires that we explain what it "is"."

Do we know in entirety what a bat is? The ding an sich of the bat? {let alone the ding an sich of a particular bat with a particular life history, perhaps a sub-par bat who is always the last one out of the cave and gets to eat only the last of the stragglers in the available swarm of food?} We can't know what it's like be a bat, whether in general or in individual terms. Our species thinks it understands machines, though (and much prefers machines and machine metaphors), so we have tended to reduce other species of life {and even ourselves} to machines: systems we can understand and think we can interpret wholly in terms of being objects with moving parts. A bat is not a machine any more than your dog, cat, or horse is, or you yourself are. Dogs, cats, and horses cannot be wholly known either, even if we think we have groked their physiology, neurology, physical capabilities, habits, etc. Nor can a human being be wholly known except by itself in the course of its experiences.

 

[Randall]

The great irony is that qm brought about the recognition of the role of the observer in exerimentation, and yet physicists in general have shrunk from confronting it.

I certainly haven't "shrunk from confronting it" ( the role of the observer in quantum mechanics ). In fact I've explained to people more than once how their view of quantum mechanics is flawed along with their view of the role of the observer. The role of the observer is merely a convenience phrase hijacked by quantum mystics to make their woo seem credible. In actual fact, observation on a conscious level ( via subjective visual perception ) has nothing to do with the so-called observer effect. Rather it's the act of measuring that brings about the effect. A completely non-conscious device is used in these experiments that has nothing to do with conscious real-time observation, and it's the introduction of the measuring device into the experiment and the resulting interaction between the device and what is being measured that causes the effect ( not consciousness or observation in any subjective sense ).

 

[Constance]

"The role of the observer is merely a convenience phrase hijacked by quantum mystics to make their woo seem credible."

Nay, it goes deeper and farther back than that in the history of qm. I realize that observation/measurement is implemented by machines, but observation is the issue nevertheless. There's more being reflected upon and written about this issue lately, but I don't have an available link to provide for you.

 

[Constance]

It's explained over the course of several posts in this thread and elsewhere, so the best way to follow it is to go back and sift through them and ask questions that don't seem to get answered in the exchanges. Probably the best place to start is here: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 5 | The Paracast Community Forums

Sorry, that does sound like a dodge. "It's explained over the course of several posts in this thread and elsewhere." And elsewhere yet? I've read this entire thread attentively, both before and after I joined it around page 17, and I haven't seen your explanation of how or why the hard problem as expressed by Chalmers, Nagel et al constitutes a meaningless question or a non-question. Maybe you could just quote one of the posts in which you provided that explanation in this thread?

I think (hope) I've clarified the relationship of Nagel's key paper to Chalmers' and other philosophers' extensive explorations of the hard problem, so there should be no further confusion over the words 'like' and 'is' (which has been at issue over a number of pages here).

You also make this claim in a recent post: "The circular argument is that if all the relevant functions of subjective experience ( consciousness ) are explained then there is no reason to think that it ( consciousness ) hasn't been explained."

Have all the "relevant functions of subjective experience (consciousness)" been explained by neuroscience? When and where? I'd love to read the list. Also, what do you or the neuroscientists you read mean by 'functions' of subjective experience? The term 'functions' sounds very Skinnerian/Behaviorist to me (I mean very reductive).

You also wrote just a few posts up: "The above logical incoherency of the so-called hard problem as formulated by Chalmers and illustrated in Nagel's paper is only one facet of the larger problem, which is the general concept of duality. For that problem we've also provided a theoretical resolution to the issue of material versus non-material as it relates to the idea of physical versus non-physical."

'Duality' is a big term, widely used by New Age thinkers. How do cognitive neuroscientists use the term; what do they mean by it? You say that you've "also provided a theoretical resolution to the issue of material versus non-material as it relates to the idea of physical versus non-physical." Could you please link to that post or thread?

 

[Tyger]

Hi Tyger. Good to see you and to read you. You bring a whole other side to this discussion -- i.e., those 'things' that we perceive when they are suddenly introduced into our consciousnesses from elsewhere. Last time we talked you were interested in a book I mentioned (Irreducible Mind); have you had time yet to read it in part or whole? I've still only read sections of it since it's such a tome and 'there's ... so ... little ...time', as Steve {smcder} noted. Such an important book for this thread's discussion too. I wish we could all have it downloaded into our consciousnesses overnight.

Nope - but I will at some point. I am off in a totally different direction these days. I am currently immersed in refining my astrology skills (a tad rusty through inattention) via a very old Arabic text on predicting the hour of death - something I would never normally even aspire to do, but it has relevance for the next incarnation.

Hey! It's fun stuff! [Though 'forbidden'.] Am I being incorrigible?

 

[Constance]

Incorrigible?!? Not at all. We need as much information as we can get. Do you think reincarnation is always requiered? I've read in several sources (mainly in past and interlife regression accounts) that it's voluntary.

 

[Randall]

It's nice to see you weigh in on this problem. Maybe with your assistance something will crack and we'll get past this obstacle in our path.

ufology, you've become hung up on a misunderstanding of the significance of Nagel's question 'what is it like to be bat'? That question was posed in an attempt to foreground for readers the issue that there is something it's like to be bat -- i.e., to live in and engage with the environment, to experience being in the world, as a bat -- which we cannot know. {note that it exceeds understanding the mechanisms of the bat's senses} The issue that a bat experiences qualia in ways different from the way we do was meant to point to the reality of qualia as part of existence for both the bat and the human. If you can admit that a bat experiences more than perception, we're halfway there.

I think the last sentence above is good place to add some clarification. First off, we don't know that a bat experiences anything more than perception because we aren't bats. Therefore anyone who claims to have any idea what a bat experiences beyond it's perceptions would be lying. Therefore you won't be hearing me "admit that a bat experiences more than perception" any time soon. However what we can say with as much certainty as anything else we can be certain about, is that bats experience perception, and that perception is a substantial part of what it is "like" to be something, at least something that is capable of perceiving things.

So even though we don't know what else a bat experiences ( if anything ), if we can create something via our scientific explorations that demonstrates to us what the perceptions of a bat are "like" ( similar to ), we have evidence that physical science is able to "account for" a substantial part of consciousness. I'll grant that this isn't perfect and doesn't necessarily explain everything, but like I said in our discussion with SMcDer, I think it's a good indication that we're onto something.

The other issue that when you make the claim Nagel's paper equates what it's "like" to be a bat with what it "is" to be a bat, you are identifying another one of the main issues. I contend that the two ideas are entire entirely separate issues because the word "like" conveys some extent of similarity, while the word "is" conveys a sense of what it is to "be something", and although actually being something is no doubt also what it's "like" to be that something, that "likeness" isn't restricted to the state of being that something. For example a photograph of a dolphin is a lot what a dolphin looks "like", but it obviously isn't what a dolphin "is"

You wrote: "Specifically, explaining what something "is" doesn't require that we explain what it's "like". It only requires that we explain what it 'is'."

Do we know in entirety what a bat is? The ding an sich of the bat? {let alone the ding an sich of a particular bat with a particular life history, perhaps a sub-par bat who is always the last one out of the cave and gets to eat only the last of the stragglers in the available swarm of food?} We can't know what it's like be a bat, whether in general or in individual terms. Our species thinks it understands machines, though (and much prefers machines and machine metaphors), so we have tended to reduce other species of life {and even ourselves} to machines: systems we can understand and think we can interpret wholly in terms of being objects with moving parts. A bat is not a machine any more than your dog, cat, or horse is, or you yourself are. Dogs, cats, and horses cannot be wholly known either, even if we think we have groked their physiology, neurology, physical capabilities, habits, etc. Nor can a human being be wholly known except by itself in the course of its experiences.

There's a mix of issues above, but the first is that, it doesn't matter if we know what some thing is, to know that whatever it "is" and whatever it's "like" are two separate concepts. Tortoise A is a lot "like" Tortoise B, but we cannot say Tortoise A is Tortoise B.

On the issue of whether or not we're machines. I posit that if we consider machines to be a collection of parts that when combined work together to accomplish a specific goal ( or set of goals ), then the only differences between what we consider a typical machine and human beings is the size, number, composition, design, organization, and purpose of the various parts. Our cells are machines made up of even smaller nano-machines:

Inner Life of the Cell

This award winning piece was the first topic in a series of animations XVIVO
is creating for Harvard's educational website BioVisions at Harvard.​

 

[Randall]

"
The role of the observer is merely a convenience phrase hijacked by quantum mystics to make their woo seem credible."

Nay, it goes deeper and farther back than that in the history of qm. I realize that observation/measurement is implemented by machines, but observation is the issue nevertheless. There's more being reflected upon and written about this issue lately, but I don't have an available link to provide for you.

Not "Nay" Constance. That's just pure denial. If you want to take whatever concept you're talking about and apply it to a topic other than quantum mechanics, that's OK. However you specifically mentioned quantum mechanics and the observer effect, and contrary to quantum mystical woo "observation" by some conscious entity has zero impact on the experiment. It is the consequence of measurement and nothing more. Trust me. I've even checked out the machines used to do the experiments and most ( except for some homemade units ) are sealed units. You can't see what's happening inside where the so-called observer effect takes place.

Plus even if you could see inside, you can't make yourself go down to the level of individual photons and watch as they speed past. That is simply not possible and it's ludicrous to think you could. But lastly, even in more crude experiments where the device is left open and the paths of the light beams are plainly visible, when the unit is switched on, observing it does nothing to change the pattern. The only thing that changes the pattern is the physical insertion of something, usually a completely unconscious piece of material over one of the slits. In fact, the whole thing could be setup to happen without any observer at all and recorded and watched later and you still get the same results.

Maybe the reason so little is being written about it now is because the purveyors of quantum mystical woo have realized that we've caught on, or that they're theories around their mistaken understanding of the phenomenon are nonsense.

 

[Tyger]

Incorrigible?!? Not at all. We need as much information as we can get. Do you think reincarnation is always required? I've read in several sources (mainly in past and interlife regression accounts) that it's voluntary.

Not a simple answer. Probably need another thread to devote to this if you wanted to really explore the many facets of this topic. The history of this idea is long and storied, and ranges from the simple to very sophisticated. Simple answer: it depends - but one must also identify the 'who' that is making the voluntary decision.

Broadly, some of the answer is nested in the concept of karma - or action/reaction - and the force of desire. As long as karma and desire operate - then the 'choice' to return is heartfelt and experienced as voluntary. There is a genuine wish to return - to experience earthly existence yet again and to right wrongs, etc.. If one no longer has karma, no desire, a decision to return is momentous and would have great significance for human evolution. Incarnations of this calibre have occurred - and will occur - but it means that such an individuality has been given a choice that is truly free (no karma or desire involved) and chose to return for exceptional reasons.

The story goes that most human souls cannot maintain consciousness 'at the Midnight Hour' in the long journey of the soul after death - and High Beings [in certain streams called the Lords of Karma, in another stream a very high and singular entity is identified] take over the 'sleeping soul' at this critical juncture and are charged with the task of turning the soul back on the path towards incarnation. It's at the Midnight Hour that the decision is made. Mostly karma 'makes the decision' for the soul (in a sense) - but if the soul has reached the point where consciousness is maintained as far as the Midnight Hour, then the decision to return is made in full awareness. If there is still karma the decision is self-evident and the process of return commences. However, if the state of the consciousness is sufficiently liberated from earthly connections - other choices open up, which may or may not be chosen.

[I hesitate - for very obvious reasons - to ever appear to 'advocate' for any particular Occult book - for this area is fraught with deception pro and con - and also on-going exploration - but a very significant dispensation is the one by Alice A. Bailey. All of her books are worthwhile primers, but 'A Treatise on Cosmic Fire' is an interesting 'take' on this whole area. (I read it decades ago and have only a passing memory of it and all of her books - but I do recall them being as cogent as Sanskrit texts on the matters in question - and potentially far beyond their time when written - a sort of quantum physics of the spiritual realm. You'll be hard-pressed to find a more precise rendering from out of the work of Helena Blavatsky's 'The Secret Doctrine' and 'Isis Unveiled'). If you ever venture forth into those - or similar - waters - keep always in mind the caveat that nothing should ever be believed. Such treatises serve as suggestions - and if true in whole or part will resonate appropriately - but nothing ever supersedes direct experience. Use such works as like a koan - a point of meditation that gets dropped in contemplation. All spoken representations - like drawn representations - are mere approximations, at best. Never believe - seek knowledge through direct experience.]

Certain seers have postulated - based on experiences - that the time between an earthly death and a reappearance in an earthly life - is spent in lives on other planets, for some. This idea has a long lineage - but it's exact 'placement' in the ascent to the Midnight Hour is not clear (does such an incarnation happen before or after the Midnight Hour) - or is the whole idea a misidentification of a level of ascent after death, which might be (mis)identified as a 'planetary' existence. Is this a matter of the same experience called by different names, etc.

BTW - not related to the above [exactly] - it just popped into my head [stream-of-consciousness] because of the title - there is a very famous Occult book called 'A Dweller on Two Planets' by Phylos the Thibetan (Frederick S Oliver) 1894. LINK: A Dweller on Two Planets Index

It's worth noting the blurb on it here - please note the bolded text -

"A Dweller on Two Planets is one of the most important texts of the 19th Century Atlantis canon. The book was 'channeled' by Frederick S. Oliver. Oliver was born in Washington D.C. in 1866 and came to Yreka, California, with his parents when he was two years old. Yreka is just north of Mount Shasta, a huge dormant volcanic peak in Northern California.

"Oliver started to write this book at the age of eighteen, in 1883-4, while surveying the boundaries of his family's mining claim. He found himself writing uncontrollably in his notebook. He ran home in terror, where he sat down and let his hand write. These automatic writing spells continued for several years; he would write a few pages at a time. He completed writing this book in 1886, and died at the age of 33 in 1899.

"A Dweller on Two Planets was finally published in 1905, by his mother Mary Elizabeth Manley-Oliver. There are two editions which are substantially the same, except for a different set of typographical errors and hyphens (although curiously the page numbering in both is identical). The first edition, published in 1905, was reprinted in 1974 by Rudolf Steiner Books; the second, published in 1920 by the Poseid Publishing Company, Los Angeles, CA, was reprinted in 1964 by Health Research. The 1920 version was used as the basis for this etext, as it was printed more legibly.

"A Dweller on Two Planets would be a tour de force for a teenager from rural California in the post-Gold Rush period. Although as a literary work it is weak in many ways, the details of the narrative reveal a well-read and highly intelligent, if inexperienced, author. The plot and pacing is irregular; the characterizations are poorly conceived, and there are far too many melodramatic turns and plot elements left dangling. However, since this is a novel of ideas, these shortcoming should not detract from the enjoyment of the book.

"The real brilliance of this book is as a work of speculative fiction, particularly in the depiction of the high technology of Atlantis, and the afterlife. The book goes into great detail about antigravity, mass transit, the employment of 'dark-side' energy (which today would be called 'zero point energy'), and devices such as voice-operated typewriters. The cigar-shaped, highly maneuverable Atlantean flying machines, or vailx, have an eerie resemblance to 20th Century UFO reports. The personalized heavens, almost like virtual realities, are unforgettable and very compelling.

"This book is openly acknowledged as source material for many new age belief systems, including the once-popular "I AM" movement (whose founder, Guy Ballard, plagiarizedextensively from this book), the Lemurian Fellowship, and Elizabeth Claire Prophet. According to Shirley MacLaine, A Dweller on Two Planets jumped out of a bookshelf into her hands in a New Age bookstore in Hong Kong (and obviously had an big influence on her subsequently). This book is the source of the idea that there is a hidden sanctuary of ascended Lemurian masters under Mount Shasta. This book was also probably the first to propose the concept of of 'America as the modern Atlantis', which was later adopted by writers such as Manly P. Hall."

 

[Tyger]

Ah, I need to amend: Regarding the cricket singing audio clip - a friend just e-mailed me this interesting article. A bit disappointing but still amazing - especially the opera singer's professional assessment of what she heard -

LINK: Weekend Diversion: Is this an amazing chorus of slowed-down crickets? – Starts With A Bang

Allegedly, this is just a two-track recording of crickets: one at normal speed, and one slowed-down, with the pitch also dropped.

It sounds amazing and beautiful, like a heavenly choir of opera singers. But is this merely a recording of crickets? As much as you’d like to believe that nature is exactly this beautiful to our own ears, that’s not quite the case. Here’s what really happened, as told by opera singer Bonnie Jo Hunt:

"I had these messages saying that Robbie Robertson said to get in touch with me. So we went in studio. He said, `I want you to do whatever you feel like. And, now, these are crickets.’ So I thought, oh, my goodness. I’m to accompany crickets, see?

"And when I heard them, I was so ashamed of myself, I was so humbled, because I had not given them enough respect. Jim Wilson recorded crickets in his back yard, and he brought it into the studio and went ahead and lowered the pitch and lowered the pitch and lowered the pitch. And they sound exactly like a well-trained church choir to me. And not only that, but it sounded to me like they were singing in the eight-tone scale. And so what–they started low, and then there was something like I would call, in musical terms, an interlude; and then another chorus part; and then an interval and another chorus. They kept going higher and higher.

"They were saying cricket words. I kept thinking, `Oh, I almost can understand them. It’s a nice, mellow tone. And they never went off pitch until one of the interludes, where they went real crazy and they got back on again to where they were. And I know that people do not know that they’re listening to crickets unless they’re told that that’s what that is."

So yes, you are listening to two cricket tracks: crickets at normal speed (in Jim Wilson’s backyard), crickets slowed down with the pitch dropped (by Wilson and possibly Robbie Robertson), but it’s also accompanied by Bonnie Jo Hunt‘s beautiful, human singing. Still beautiful, still fascinating, but not just crickets alone!

 

[Constance]

ufology, I'll have to reread my post(s) to see where I gave the impression that I think that what it is 'like' to be something is the same thing as what it is to 'be' something. I didn't intend to make that claim.

Re the observer/measurement effect in qm, the point seems to be that at the level of qm (where we cannot directly 'see' but only indirectly 'measure' quantum activity), the measurement itself apparently makes a difference in what happens in the quantum-level activity being indirectly 'observed'.

 

[Tyger]

BTW - referencing the book 'A Dweller on Two Planets' (1894): "The real brilliance of this book is as a work of speculative fiction, particularly in the depiction of the high technology of Atlantis, and the afterlife. The book goes into great detail about antigravity, mass transit, the employment of 'dark-side' energy (which today would be called 'zero point energy'), and devices such as voice-operated typewriters. The cigar-shaped, highly maneuverable Atlantean flying machines, or vailx, have an eerie resemblance to 20th Century UFO reports. The personalized heavens, almost like virtual realities, are unforgettable and very compelling."

Zero Point Energy - LINK: Zero-point energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state. All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy.

"The concept of zero-point energy was developed in Germany by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913, as a corrective term added to a zero-grounded formula developed by Max Planck in 1900.[1][2] The term zero-point energy originates from the GermanNullpunktsenergie.[1][2] An alternative form of the German term is Nullpunktenergie (without the "s").

"Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, othergauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.[4]"

 

[Randall]

ufology, I'll have to reread my post(s) to see where I gave the impression that I think that what it is 'like' to be something is the same thing as what it is to 'be' something. I didn't intend to make that claim.

It's easy with this subject for the nuances in the language to cause certain aspects of the discussion to create confusion. So I understand if the two were equated someplace along the way unintentionally.

Re the observer/measurement effect in qm, the point seems to be that at the level of qm (where we cannot directly 'see' but only indirectly 'measure' quantum activity), the measurement itself apparently makes a difference in what happens in the quantum-level activity being indirectly 'observed'.

That's much better. Now you won't come across as someone who's been misled by the purveyors of New Age Quantum Mystical nonsense .

 

[Constance]

Re cells as machines (and subcellular components as 'nanomachines') we might want to explore the 'awareness' that Maturana and Varela postulated at the cellular level. Maybe their work and resulting concept of 'autopoesis' have been discussed in a Paracast thread?

Also, since 'Physicalism' plays a significant role in some of our discussions here, it might help to read the entries on that school of thought in wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

 

[Constance]

It's easy with this subject for the nuances in the language to cause certain aspects of the discussion to create confusion. So I understand if the two were equated someplace along the way unintentionally.

That's much better. Now you won't come across as someone who's been misled by the purveyors of New Age Quantum Mystical nonsense .

I suppose that would be a good thing since 'woo' and 'New Age Quantum Mystical nonsense' are not terms one enjoys being labeled with. But how I 'come across' is not that important to me. Before we accept 'mystical' as a pejorative term, though, I think we need to read the work of physicists working in the field of quantum consciousness and understand the reasons why some of them have been led to explore mysticism and Eastern philosophy in general. Schrodinger and Bohm are two major quantum physicists who were led in that direction by their quantum research in the past, and others apparently follow in our time.

 

[Constance]

Steve (smcder), I think it was you who posted the paper by Colin McGinn at the link. I've just read it and it is excellent and ramifying for this discussion.

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ConsciousnessSpace.html

 

[Randall]

Re cells as machines (and subcellular components as 'nanomachines') we might want to explore the 'awareness' that Maturana and Varela postulated at the cellular level. Maybe their work and resulting concept of 'autopoesis' have been discussed in a Paracast thread?

The Mind Life Institute right? It looks like there's really good stuff there, but its affiliation with the Dali Lama pings my skeptometer.

Also, since 'Physicalism' plays a significant role in some of our discussions here, it might help to read the entries on that school of thought in wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If I don't know something then I ask for clarification and consult reference material and do some cross checking on the fly. I'm not invested in memorizing gobs of text beforehand. That's for people who are in school and need to pass their next exam by having a memory full of trivia. Regarding Physicalism, the most relevant thing to be clear on is exactly what we mean by that, and so far as I'm concerned it's just another label that hems us into some particular framework or another. I don't work like that for the same reason I don't belong to any religion.

For future reference when I use the word "physical" I mean something empirical, at least to the extent that can be observed or measured or detected by objective means and described "physically", and not simply something material ( a solid, liquid, gas, plasma, state of matter ). For example the substance that a permanent magnet is made of is material and physical, but it's magnetic field is non-material and physical. With respect to consciousness, I propose that what we're dealing with is something like a magnetic field ( non-material but physical ), and therefore not in the land of woo and the supernatural or in logical contradiction with how consciousness appears to work.