Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[smcder]

Hey, isn't this thread that's supposed to achieve discussion level "without resorting to New Age or Quantum Mysticism."?

As the thread turns...

Hey, isn't this thread that's supposed to achieve discussion level "without resorting to New Age or Quantum Mysticism."? Yet, I see we are back at just that. Something about that Quantum Mysticism seems to be hanging in there. Quantum consciousness is where it's at. I like Ufology's "virtual photons" idea.

whaaaat??? did we resort . . . ???? and what about my "conscioutons" idea . . . ???? come on, conscioutons sounds like the intellectual equivalent to croutons - cripsy food for thought! ;-) how about some love?? lol - yes, it's hard to get away from quantum stuff - I'll look up the Wargo . . . I do listen to Skeptiko, sometimes I have to get psyched up for it - but you can't fault Alex for not saying what he thinks or pulling any punches, I admire his integrity - you know where he stands!

 

[Jeff Davis]

With considerations as great, there can be no resorting, only traveling that inevitable path forward. No matter how much them darn western scientific empiricists want to abolish the notions of something so profound, the truth marches on! I wish you knew how hard I am laughing right now. Oh, the irony of it all...

Welcome smcder!

 

[smcder]

I can grok it baby . . .laugh, clown, laugh . . . remember, Nietzsche's aspiration was to write a philosophy of jokes! But instead he went insane interposing himself between a man and the horse he was beating . . . oh the irony, indeed!

 

[Randall]

As the thread turns...
Hey, isn't this thread that's supposed to achieve discussion level "without resorting to New Age or Quantum Mysticism."? Yet, I see we are back at just that. Something about that Quantum Mysticism seems to be hanging in there.

In this thread, I don't think we can avoid an overlap with QM, but the important thing is to filter out the nonsense from legitimate theory or discussion, and to avoid belief without sufficient evidence.

Quantum consciousness is where it's at. I like Ufology's "virtual photons" idea.

I can thank you for pointing us in the direction of virtual photons. I'm not sure we're seeing the idea of a consciousness field in the same way, but it was you who introduced me to the basic idea of a field, and from there I discovered this idea of virtual particles, and used a magnetic field as an example, which is a field composed of what they called "virtual photons". This seems to be one of those places where real science seems to step through the door into the mystical. Here's one video that gets this point across quite well. In it we see Marcus Reid, inventor of The Crystal Cell and the theory of asymmetric electric systems and quantum vacuum energy extraction explain the virtual particle and it's role in creating observable energy. I particularly like his comment, "Nobody knows actually from where they come".

Wikipedia on Virtual Particles​

 

[smcder]

I can thank you for pointing us in the direction of virtual photons. I'm not sure we're seeing the idea of a consciousness field in the same way, but it was you who introduced me to the basic idea of a field, and from there I discovered this idea of virtual particles, and used a magnetic field as an example, which is a field composed of what they called "virtual photons". This seems to be one of those places where real science seems to step through the door into the mystical. Here's one video that gets this point across quite well. In it we see Marcus Reid, inventor of The Crystal Cell and the theory of asymmetric electric systems and quantum vacuum energy extraction explain the virtual particle and it's role in creating observable energy. I particularly like his comment, "Nobody knows actually from where they come".

Wikipedia on Virtual Particles​

Last time I checked, we had been discussing the idea of consciousness as a field similar to a magnetic field, and I proposed that it might then involve what are called "virtual photons". These virtual photons would be responsible for purely subjective perception and therefore connected with the so-called hard problem of consciousness. It's sort of out there, but still rational.

This may have been asked and discussed in other threads/I will do a search as you suggest:

But basically, "Responsible for" means virtual photons are the basic unit of qualia/a single unit or instance of awareness? how is self-awareness built? and how does it get "into" the individual (hard not to use "embodied"/physical language metaphors (ala George Lakoff) is there some type type of lattice or organization of the photons - is there a basic unit of meaning or is it an emergent phenomena . . . ? how do we avoid the ideas of "emergence" and "epiphenomenalism"? or do we?

 

[smcder]

I

I can thank you for pointing us in the direction of virtual photons. I'm not sure we're seeing the idea of a consciousness field in the same way, but it was you who introduced me to the basic idea of a field, and from there I discovered this idea of virtual particles, and used a magnetic field as an example, which is a field composed of what they called "virtual photons".

Jeff Davis - how are you seeing the idea of a consciousness field? Again, if this belongs in another thread, please let me know!

 

[Randall]

This may have been asked and discussed in other threads/I will do a search as you suggest:

But basically, "Responsible for" means virtual photons are the basic unit of qualia/a single unit or instance of awareness? how is self-awareness built? and how does it get "into" the individual (hard not to use "embodied"/physical language metaphors (ala George Lakoff) is there some type type of lattice or organization of the photons - is there a basic unit of meaning or is it an emergent phenomena . . . ? how do we avoid the ideas of "emergence" and "epiphenomenalism"? or do we?

Actually, I think this is a better thread to discuss this issue on anyway. To elaborate a little on the idea of virtual photons and their connection to consciousness, the idea was connected to the example of an imaginary red Ferrari and what ( if anything ) such an image is made of. Obviously it's real, but it's not material, so it's not a substance ( as in substance dualism ), so how do we see this red Ferrari in our imagination ( active consciousness ).

Then Jeff brought the idea of a consciousness field into the discussion, and I took the approach that it's something generated by the brain like a magnet has a magnetic field. Following that I discovered that in magnetism, it's so-called virtual photons that are responsible for the magnetic field. So thinking back to the idea of eyesight and how a real red Ferrari reflects photons into our eyes, where they are converted to signals that our brain turns into the image we perceive, perhaps when we imagine a red Ferrari, what is happening is that we're seeing a "virtual Ferrari" composed of "virtual photons".

Do these virtual photons represent "quanta of awareness"? A very interesting question. Because it seems that we can also be aware of a blank space, if virtual photons can represent virtual objects, perhaps we can think of consciousness as the "virtual space" these perceptions can exist in?

 

[smcder]

Actually, I think this is a better thread to discuss this issue on anyway. To elaborate a little on the idea of virtual photons and their connection to consciousness, the idea was connected to the example of an imaginary red Ferrari and what ( if anything ) such an image is made of. Obviously it's real, but it's not material, so it's not a substance ( as in substance dualism ), so how do we see this red Ferrari in our imagination ( active consciousness ).

Then Jeff brought the idea of a consciousness field into the discussion, and I took the approach that it's something generated by the brain like a magnet has a magnetic field. Following that I discovered that in magnetism, it's so-called virtual photons that are responsible for the magnetic field. So thinking back to the idea of eyesight and how a real red Ferrari reflects photons into our eyes, where they are converted to signals that our brain turns into the image we perceive, perhaps when we imagine a red Ferrari, what is happening is that we're seeing a "virtual Ferrari" composed of "virtual photons".

Do these virtual photons represent "quanta of awareness"? A very interesting question. Because it seems that we can also be aware of a blank space, if virtual can photons represent virtual objects, perhaps we can think of consciousness as the "virtual space" these perceptions can exist in?

But this seems to be the description of a process and a mechanism and leaves the hard problem (what is subjectivity?) intact? Or what am I missing? . . . it seems to take subjectivity for granted to say the brain generates a field to perceive (subjectively) something we imagine . . . is this at all akin to the "radio receiver" theory? And if so, where is the signal the radio ("brain") is receiving, coming from and of what does it consist? and why does it need to be beamed to brains anyway? (I hope these questions make sense - I find it really hard to put these thoughts in words . . . I can "feel" what I want to say, though -)

I like the idea of consciousness as being a "space" or field or area where something can take place, where subjectivity lies - but that seems circular too - I am beginning to sound Buddhist!

 

[dyingsun]

No no. carry on, please.

 

[smcder]

No no. carry on, please.

I can't . . . I'm all out! ;-) I guess it just seems that this is another layer of description, not explanation - I might be able to manipulate consciousness in some way if I had the ability to manipulate these virtual photons, establishing a connection between them and consciousness but I've still not got at consciousness itself - and it's the same connection/correlation between brain states and consciousness - it's trivial, in some sense, to say you can activate a neuron and a person will have a certain memory (although I don't think it's the case to the say the person will have a certain "experience" see below) and this is correlation not causation, or if it's causation - it doesn't show how causation occurs, the mechanism or process, doesn't add any detail to that, I mean, if it's even correct to talk in these terms - it tells us nothing about how neurons give rise to what it is like to be me (or a bat for that matter! again if it is correct to say "give rise" in this case) - so if I have a machine and plug into your head and can read the contents of your mind, qualia and all - there is still an argument to be made that I won't know what it's like to be you (and even if I do, I can't know that I know it because there is some intuition (I think) that your subjectivity is still over there with you . . . to me, those are the even harder problems of consciousness!

Ok, so I had a little more! ;-)

 

[Randall]

But this seems to be the description of a process and a mechanism and leaves the hard problem (what is subjectivity?) intact?

Well sort of. I'm tempted to suggest that we've got it on the hook, but it's so large and at such a great depth, that reeling it in isn't going to be easy.

Or what am I missing? . . . it seems to take subjectivity for granted to say the brain generates a field to perceive (subjectively) something we imagine . . . is this at all akin to the "radio receiver" theory? And if so, where is the signal the radio ("brain") is receiving, coming from and of what does it consist? and why does it need to be beamed to brains anyway? (I hope these questions make sense - I find it really hard to put these thoughts in words . . . I can "feel" what I want to say, though -)

As mentioned previously, it's my position that it's the brain that generates the field, and therefore is intimately entwined with it. This isn't a case where there is some external field to the brain generated like a radio tower generates a signal that a radio taps into. Although I have proposed that hypothetically we might be able to tap into the fields produced by other brains, and that might explain some psychic phenomena.

I like the idea of consciousness as being a "space" or field or area where something can take place, where subjectivity lies - but that seems circular too - I am beginning to sound Buddhist!

In this model the process is circular in that it involves a feedback loop that starts in the brain material which through electrochemical processes generates a field composed of virtual photons ( unseen particles in the real world ) that interact with brain material where they evoke another electrochemical reaction which in turn causes the field to change. As the process iterates, the sequence becomes analogous to a video where each scene is wiped and replaced by the new one fast enough for us to perceive it as fluid motion. So our awareness ( consciousness ) is the sum of all these various fields being generated and interacting in concert with each other by virtue of our brain's design and operation.

 

[smcder]

Well sort of. I'm tempted to suggest that we've got it on the hook, but

As mentioned previously, it's my position that it's the brain that generates the field, and therefore is intimately entwined with it. This isn't a case where the re is some external field to the brain generated like a radio tower generates a signal that a radio taps into. Although I have proposed that hypothetically we might be able to tap into the fields produced by other brains, and that might explain some psychic phenomena.

In this model the process is circular in that it involves a feedback loop that starts in the brain material which through electrochemical processes generates a field composed of virtual photons ( unseen particles in the real world ) that interact with brain material where they evoke another electrochemical reaction which in turn causes the field to change. As the process iterates, the sequence becomes analogous to a video where each scene is wiped and replaced by the new one fast enough for us to perceive it as fluid motion. So our awareness ( consciousness ) is the sum of all these various fields being generated and interacting in concert with each other by virtue of our brain's design and operation.

Let me try this another way - it may be that I am creating a difficulty that isn't there - but I don't think so - it looks like your argument above describes a mechanism that assumes consciousness and subjectivity without making an account of them . . . so this still isn't the hard problem of consciousness . . . which is to make an account of subjectivity, which isn't consciousness itself - I think we can admit of consciousness without self-awareness or a full sense of subjectivity, we probably see it on a spectrum among animal minds - so subjectivity is one aspect of (some) consciousness or is present to some degree in all consciousness . . . (panpsychism is maybe the limit point of this position, that everything has consciousness and consciousness underlies everything) -

The "zombie problem" in philosophy proposes that it is conceivable to have a body that is indistinguishable from a person (on the outside, one that would pass the Turing test) - but there is "nobody home" (an interesting expression, by the way) - nothing is going on inside (wherever that is) - no consciousness - so we don't need consciousness to do what we do, indeed Daniel Dennett claims consciousness is constructed after the fact (so consciousness brings up free will, as well as issues of causation) - we see this scenario all the time in sci-fi robotics, where the protagonist cannot be sure the robot is actually conscious (legal issues of "personhood", anyone?) and this also gets into epiphenomenalism and all it's problems, so why bother with consciousness at all? Indeed, the eliminative materialists don't feel that they need to - . . . so it's that thing that we have that says somebody is home that we're trying to make an account of, not merely describe or provide a mechanism for. I can see a technology of consciousness from the virtual photon theory, a telepathy or other kinds of manipulation of fields of awareness . . . but that still leaves the problem of subjectivity, what it is like to be you, intact, right? Or am I muddled here?

 

[Jeff Davis]

It's like we've reached this point where science has to either dance right, or left. There's no between as one would expect to find in a natural progressive arrangement

In this thread, I don't think we can avoid an overlap with QM, but the important thing is to filter out the nonsense from legitimate theory or discussion, and to avoid belief without sufficient evidence.

I can thank you for pointing us in the direction of virtual photons. I'm not sure we're seeing the idea of a consciousness field in the same way, but it was you who introduced me to the basic idea of a field, and from there I discovered this idea of virtual particles, and used a magnetic field as an example, which is a field composed of what they called "virtual photons". This seems to be one of those places where real science seems to step through the door into the mystical. Here's one video that gets this point across quite well. In it we see Marcus Reid, inventor of The Crystal Cell and the theory of asymmetric electric systems and quantum vacuum energy extraction explain the virtual particle and it's role in creating observable energy. I particularly like his comment, "Nobody knows actually from where they come".

Wikipedia on Virtual Particles​

@ufology
Excellent video. The manner it was presented was easy to grasp and conveyed some seriously relevant concepts. Very visual in nature. A sincere THANKS well beyond a typical "like" goes out to you for this one!

@smcder
First off, thanks for rolling with the zany nature of my comments in the thread so far. I mean my expressed gratitude to you, for your alternate intelligent perspectives on consciousness and Fortean considerations here in the most emphatic sense. It's just that Ufology (our Ufology in this discussion/thread originator) and I have had a running science vs. mysticism debate over the last 3-6 months in terms of many a dynamic conversation as we wrestle with bettering our mutual favorite pet understandings hypothetically. Namely: UFOs.

In the end of each energetic exchange, at least in my mind, it's almost always a combination of both that wins out and seems to further a balanced perspective the most. I have never encountered an instance where in effect I didn't come away knowing something new, and sometimes completely re-evaluating concepts that I did not realize prior I had yet to fully grasp.

In terms of a "field" proper with respect to consciousness, I don't pretend to have a working mathematically represented model at this point in the slightest. I do have many a mental construct that can be personally deconstructed far quicker than the time typically required to hypothetically consider and fit such alternate cognitive adaptations to a composite progressive model that crudely represents the interactions of physicality and information. The latter most process being what I define essentially as consciousness.

The notion of consciousness equating to a field includes us achieving sentience by establishing reference within it at birth. Sentience initializes as a marker (point of reference) in the field of consciousness. As we development physically and mature in cognitive process as a result, our interpretation of that point of reference sophisticates and adapts according to environmental context.

In my best guestimation, consciousness doesn't create reality. It is however what provides the human environmental perception facility to conjoin parallel information contained in our environment, informational (virtual particles) with physicality (observable atomic structure) relative to the unity of our independent willful human experience. Consciousness exists as a comprehensive informational whole, prior to us achieving sentience at physical birth. It also continues post the termination of our signifying point of reference in the field of consciousness when we physically die.

Apologies ahead of time here for the limited time postings today. Wasn't able to be as attentive as was the case a day prior.

 

[Randall]

Let me try this another way - it may be that I am creating a difficulty that isn't there - but I don't think so - it looks like your argument above describes a mechanism that assumes consciousness and subjectivity without making an account of them . . . so this still isn't the hard problem of consciousness . . . which is to make an account of subjectivity, which isn't consciousness itself - I think we can admit of consciousness without self-awareness or a full sense of subjectivity, we probably see it on a spectrum among animal minds - so subjectivity is one aspect of (some) consciousness or is present to some degree in all consciousness . . . (panpsychism is maybe the limit point of this position, that everything has consciousness and consciousness underlies everything) -

It may be the case that we're getting bogged down in the issue of what the so-called hard problem is. I haven't been through every treatise on the issue, but if the introduction outlined in Wikipedia ( here ) is reasonably accurate, then I would still maintain that we've got it on the hook, albeit at some depth, and in rather dark water, and for all we know at this point, we might still reel in the equivalent of a gum boot filled with mud.

However, after having fished these waters for some time, I'm not entirely inexperienced and there seems to be some evidence that we've at least got something alive on the line. I say this because as the Wikipedia article mentions, the hard problem may not be an entirely valid problem in the first place. I tend to agree because defining something by its indefinability ( it exists, but if you can describe how it works, then it becomes a so-called easy problem, and is therefore wrong ), is logically incoherent with respect to any problem we set out to solve. The other reason is because we've stepped off the ledge of the so-called "easy problem". We're no longer dealing with brain matter, but with the realm of consciousness itself, the non-material. So if we're not dealing with the easy problem, then what exactly do we have hooked on our line?

The "zombie problem" in philosophy proposes that it is conceivable to have a body that is indistinguishable from a person (on the outside, one that would pass the Turing test) - but there is "nobody home" (an interesting expression, by the way) - nothing is going on inside (wherever that is) - no consciousness - so we don't need consciousness to do what we do, indeed Daniel Dennett claims consciousness is constructed after the fact (so consciousness brings up free will, as well as issues of causation) - we see this scenario all the time in sci-fi robotics, where the protagonist cannot be sure the robot is actually conscious (legal issues of "personhood", anyone?) and this also gets into epiphenomenalism and all it's problems, so why bother with consciousness at all? Indeed, the eliminative materialists don't feel that they need to - . . . so it's that thing that we have that says somebody is home that we're trying to make an account of, not merely describe or provide a mechanism for. I can see a technology of consciousness from the virtual photon theory, a telepathy or other kinds of manipulation of fields of awareness . . . but that still leaves the problem of subjectivity, what it is like to be you, intact, right? Or am I muddled here?

Are you muddled? I'm not sure you're any more or less muddled than all the rest who have tried to net this beast, but I can say that this time you're on a different fishing boat, and the catch may have betrayed its presence in this idea of a consciousness field. I don't buy Chalmers argument that, " the problem of experience will persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained". It's like saying the problem of flight will persist even when the performance of the relevant functions is explained. Where we get muddled is in the semantics. For example in our analogy, consciousness = flight, but the brain ≠ consciousness, and an airplane ≠ flight. Flight = the state of an object doing all the things required for flight. Consciousness = the state of our brain/body systems doing everything needed for consciousness. So the semantic problem is like saying we'll never figure the problem out because it's like saying that aerodynamics = flight. It's not. So what? It's also irrelevant to the problem.

 

[smcder]

Are you muddled? I'm not sure you're any more or less muddled than all the rest who have tried to net this beast, but I can say that this time you're on a different fishing boat, and the catch may have betrayed its presence in this idea of a consciousness field. I don't buy Chalmers argument that, " the problem of experience will persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained". It's like saying the problem of flight will persist even when the performance of the relevant functions is explained. Where we get muddled is in the semantics. For example in our analogy consciousness = flight, but the brain ≠ consciousness and an airplane ≠ flight. Flight = the state of an object doing all the things required for flight. Consciousness = the state of our brain/body systems doing everything needed for consciousness. So the semantic problem is like saying we'll never figure the problem out because it's like saying that aerodynamics = flight. It's not. So what? It's also irrelevant to the problem.

Can't let you off the hook on this one -

I don't buy Chalmers argument that, " the problem of experience will persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained"
This seems like one you either get or you don't . . . partly because it's the whole everything in which you get things - so other analogies break down - it's what you use to analogize, to get analogies . . . so you can explain it all and leave the hard problem intact. Not irrelevant, more to come.

But . . . wait, you might be right.

This is fun! ;-)

 

[smcder]

I say this because as the Wikipedia article mentions, the hard problem may not be an entirely valid problem in the first place. I tend to agree because defining something by its indefinability ( it exists, but if you can describe how it works, then it becomes a so-called easy problem, and is therefore wrong ), is logically incoherent with respect to any problem we set out to solve.

Who decides it isn't valid? Those who benefit from its not being valid . . . and the intervening language:

because defining something by its indefinability ( it exists, but if you can describe how it works, then it becomes a so-called easy problem, and is therefore wrong ), is logically incoherent with respect to any problem we set out to solve.

misses the point . . . hard problems exist, like Zen koans - they drive you crazy for a reason . . . can you really imagine convincing someone to leave the "hard" aspects of this problem alone? . . . . much less everyone . . . the space it creates is important.

and be careful with Wikipedia for reasons I have cited elsewhere . . . there may be different minds at work here.

 

[smcder]

The hard problem is clearly stated and it stands in the way, if nothing else, of completeness . . . it's a loose end that tidy minds won't leave alone. Again like a Zen koan. It's a limit point like the idea of God . . . you can never comfortably put it aside, can you?

. . . logically incoherent with respect to any problem we set out to solve. The other reason is because we've stepped off the ledge of the so-called "easy problem". We're no longer dealing with brain matter, but with the realm of consciousness itself, the non-material. So if we're not dealing with the easy problem, then what exactly do we have hooked on our line?
What indeed? . . . because I know you are not suggesting nothing . . . even Wittgenstein came back from the orderly boundaries of the Tractatus to pursue his Philospical Investigations and his carpet chewing madness . . .

 

[Randall]

I say this because as the Wikipedia article mentions, the hard problem may not be an entirely valid problem in the first place. I tend to agree because defining something by its indefinability ( it exists, but if you can describe how it works, then it becomes a so-called easy problem, and is therefore wrong ), is logically incoherent with respect to any problem we set out to solve.

Who decides it isn't valid? Those who benefit from its not being valid . . . and the intervening language:

Anyone can decide. The real question is whose position is better supported. Any person who can look at a claim and make a logical analysis can make a rational claim to having a supportable position. That means you or I or Dr. So and So, or Joe Blow.

because defining something by its indefinability ( it exists, but if you can describe how it works, then it becomes a so-called easy problem, and is therefore wrong ), is logically incoherent with respect to any problem we set out to solve.

misses the point . . . hard problems exist, like Zen koans - they drive you crazy for a reason . . . can you really imagine convincing someone to leave the "hard" aspects of this problem alone? . . . . much less everyone . . . the space it creates is important.

Ah. Zen Koans ( related link ). We discussed the first in the list in that link not long ago and I basically ripped it to shreds. But what is interesting is that I didn't know that it was part of this Zen Koan thing. Thank you for mentioning it. I'll have to look at a few more now .

Regarding the issue of my post missing the point. My reasoning directly addresses the related point in the Wikipedia article. So I would dispute that I've missed the point. However, perhaps I've missed another relevant point. So I'm listening."

and be careful with Wikipedia for reasons I have cited elsewhere . . . there may be different minds at work here.

I'm OK with you explaining why the Wikipedia article is in error, or what other relevant point(s) you think we should look at. Please elaborate. Maybe we can reel this in a few more millimeters. Oh, and just a caution to beware of Chrs' Trickster element. It swims in these waters and has been known to lure navigators onto the rocks .

 

[smcder]

Oh, and just a caution to beware of Chrs' Trickster element. It swims in these waters and has been known to lure navigators onto the rocks .

I'm aware of Chris' and Hansen's trickster and long ago tied myself to the mast . . . to torture a metaphor yet further . . .

been entertaining family tonight - so hadn't finished my post - but I was and am willing to go back to what we could tackle . . . as long as we'd established the limits - I think the hard problem draws a perimeter the way Godel's incompleteness theorem did (what the hell??) . . . beyond that lies dragons -

Ah. Zen Koans ( related link ). We discussed the first in the list in that link not long ago and I basically ripped it to shreds. But what is interesting is that I didn't know that it was part of this Zen Koan thing. Thank you for mentioning it. I'll have to look at a few more now .

OK, so you ripped the following to shreds:

1. A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

can you link me to where you do that or provide a summary?

I'm just using Zen koans as an analogy, the hard problem is koanesque (as opposed to Cohenesque) in so far as it's a tickling problem to the brain, but I'm not drawing an exact parallel. Until you can make me look at the hard problem of consciousness and provide me the tools/perspective to resolve it the way I do an "optical illusion" (cognitive illusion?) - so that I can see it either way and freely go back and forth between it, between the rabbit and the duck and fully explain how to do so to a third party - it's going to be hard for you to get me to leave it alone -

And so, I think it's still on you to show how your reasoning provides an accounting of how and why there is such a thing as what it is like to be you and exactly how that arises from material processes so that there is no sense of an explanatory "gap" there -

I'm OK with you explaining why the Wikipedia article is in error . . .

I don't have to because I don't say it is in error - the Wikipedia article doesn't come to a conclusion . . . does it? Does it give the answer to the hard problem?

If it does, why do you say:

"I say this because as the Wikipedia article mentions, the hard problem may not be an entirely valid problem in the first place."

If you say "may" you also have to mean "may not" . . .

The Wikipedia article seems to show argument and counter-argument in each section and does not provide closure on this issue. The hard problem of consciousness still stand in philosophy as best I can tell from the Wikipedia article . . . otherwise you could just say it's resolved and point me to the solution . . . can you do that?

 

[smcder]