This is an attempt to explore new territory instead of repeating old debates. I will ignore all posts which challenge the starting assumptions instead of accepting them and debating how we might move forwards.

Premise 1: The hard problem is unsolvable. Materialism/physicalism are false, because they have no coherent means of accounting for consciousness. It does NOT follow that any other specific position is true.

Premise 2: Consciousness needs brains or something like them. There's a ton of evidence for this (brain damage causes mind damage, evolution tells us bigger brain means greater intelligence etc...). Nobody treats rocks, trees or fungi as if they are conscious and most

If we set aside the long-running philosophical debates about what consciousness is, and simply look at what it does in everyday life, a few things become immediately clear. Consciousness is where the world is presented to us, where we imagine possible futures, and where we assess their value. Whether we’re deciding to move a hand, make a phone call, or wish for rain, the conscious process is the same: we hold alternative possibilities in mind, attach meaning and value to them, and then commit attention and action toward one outcome over others. Even in moments that feel “passive”, such as appreciating a view, listening to music, or enjoying a conversation, consciousness is actively susta

“The Meaning of Loretta”

INT. STONE AMPHITHEATRE – DAY

A ragtag group of revolutionaries sit in a circle, arguing about the nature of existence. STAN (now LORETTA) looks dreamy-eyed, while REG, FRANCIS, and JUDITH look increasingly exasperated.

REG Right. So, what’s this then, Loretta? You want to participate in reality now?

LORETTA Yes. I want to be an active participant in the unfolding of reality.

FRANCIS What does that even mean?

LORETTA It means I want to co-create meaning. I want to shape the narrative. I want to be more than just a passive observer of atoms bumping into each other.

REG But you are a passive observer of atoms bumping into each other

I accept that the hard problem of consciousness is unsolvable. This demonstrates that brains are not sufficient for consciousness -- that something else is required for a complete explanation. The thing which is missing, however, it is not consciousness itself. It is the "internal observer" of brain activity -- a "view from somewhere". So we have established that even if we accept that the hard problem of consciousness has no materialistic solution (that materialism is false or incoherent), it is not justification for believing consciousness can exist without brains. An "internal observer of brain activity" cannot observe anything if there aren't any brains. So please don't respond wit

The Just-Right Universe: A Beginner’s Guide to How Everything Happened Exactly as It Had To

(From the Department of Utter Certainty, University of Inevitability)

Chapter 1 – Nothing, and Then Something (Perfectly Something)

Before time began, there was no time. Before space, no space. And naturally, before matter, no matter. From this calm and empty prelude, the universe appeared. Its initial conditions were ideal. The energy was exactly sufficient to make the cosmos expand forever without rushing apart too quickly or falling back in too soon. Its shape was perfectly flat (not the flattish kind, but perfectly flat, as if measured with the world’s most patient ruler). Its temperature

I posted this yesterday on r/consciousness: [Why brains are necessary but insufficient for consciousness : r/consciousness](https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/1mpdvff/why_brains_are_necessary_but_insufficient_for/)

I find it astonishing how few people are willing to accept this as a starting position for further discussion, given how well supported both parts of it are.

Why are brains necessary for consciousness? Because there is a vast amount of evidence, spanning both science and direct experience, which tells us that brain damage causes corresponding mind damage. What on earth do people think brains are for if it isn't for producing the content of consciousness, or at lea

[Why brains are necessary but insufficient for consciousness : r/consciousness](https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/1mpdvff/why_brains_are_necessary_but_insufficient_for/)

I find it astonishing how few people are willing to accept this as a starting position for further discussion, given how well supported both parts of it are.

Why are brains necessary for consciousness? Because there is a vast amount of evidence, spanning both science and direct experience, which tells us that brain damage causes corresponding mind damage. What on earth do people think brains are for if it isn't for producing the content of consciousness, or at least most of it?

Why are they insufficient?

I find it astonishing how few people are willing to accept this as a starting position for further discussion, given how well supported both parts of it are.

Why are brains necessary for consciousness? Because there is a vast amount of evidence, spanning both science and direct experience, which tells us that brain damage causes corresponding mind damage. What on earth do people think brains are for if it isn't for producing the content of consciousness, or at least most of it?

Why are they insufficient? Because of the Hard Problem. Materialism doesn't even make any sense – it logically implies that we should all be zombies. And no, I do not want to go over that again. It's boring.

Ther

The Just-Right Universe: A Beginner’s Guide to How Everything Happened Exactly as It Had To

(From the Department of Utter Certainty, University of Inevitability)

Chapter 1 – Nothing, and Then Something (Perfectly Something)

Before time began, there was no time. Before space, no space. And naturally, before matter, no matter. From this calm and empty prelude, the universe appeared. Its initial conditions were ideal. The energy was exactly sufficient to make the cosmos expand forever without rushing apart too quickly or falling back in too soon. Its shape was perfectly flat (not the flattish kind, but perfectly flat, as if measured with the world’s most patient ruler). Its temperature

The Just-Right Universe: A Beginner’s Guide to How Everything Happened Exactly as It Had To

(From the Department of Utter Certainty, University of Inevitability)

Chapter 1 – Nothing, and Then Something (Perfectly Something)

Before time began, there was no time. Before space, no space. And naturally, before matter, no matter. From this calm and empty prelude, the universe appeared. Its initial conditions were ideal. The energy was exactly sufficient to make the cosmos expand forever without rushing apart too quickly or falling back in too soon. Its shape was perfectly flat (not the flattish kind, but perfectly flat, as if measured with the world’s most patient ruler). Its temperature

The Just-Right Universe: A Beginner’s Guide to How Everything Happened Exactly as It Had To

(From the Department of Utter Certainty, University of Inevitability)

Chapter 1 – Nothing, and Then Something (Perfectly Something)

Before time began, there was no time. Before space, no space. And naturally, before matter, no matter. From this calm and empty prelude, the universe appeared. Its initial conditions were ideal. The energy was exactly sufficient to make the cosmos expand forever without rushing apart too quickly or falling back in too soon. Its shape was perfectly flat (not the flattish kind, but perfectly flat, as if measured with the world’s most patient ruler). Its temperature

The Just-Right Universe: A Beginner’s Guide to How Everything Happened Exactly as It Had To

(From the Department of Utter Certainty, University of Inevitability)

Chapter 1 – Nothing, and Then Something (Perfectly Something)

Before time began, there was no time. Before space, no space. And naturally, before matter, no matter. From this calm and empty prelude, the universe appeared. Its initial conditions were ideal. The energy was exactly sufficient to make the cosmos expand forever without rushing apart too quickly or falling back in too soon. Its shape was perfectly flat (not the flattish kind, but perfectly flat, as if measured with the world’s most patient ruler). Its temperature

In May of this year I ran into an individual called Stephane L’Heureux-Blouin, who was sharing a series of papers containing an LLM-generated theory of how everything in physics emerges. Here is the abstract from the first one:

We present a complete mathematical formalization of the Zero Point Hypersphere Framework- a fundamentally new approach to quantum gravity where spacetime emerges from the interaction of pre geometric void elements. The theory posits that reality arises from an infinite network of dimensionless hypersphere nodes (Di) whose activated degrees manifest as physical dimensions. Without invoking inflation or dark matter, we demonstrate how this framework: • Naturally re

I am planning a book about ecospirituality. A central theme is value judgements, and their importance with respect to consciousness. This is natural territory for any kind of spirituality, and especially ecospirituality. But there is also a deep "tension" in ecospirituality between two different components of spirituality/religion: truth and love. The problem is that the scientific truth is very difficult to accept, and has major implications regarding possible actions. For example, if you accept collapse is inevitable and that climate change is politically unstoppable (which is realism -- truth) then how can you also have unconditional love for the whole of humanity, including the three qua