Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

[AgnosticBoy]

Critics of scientific realism ask how the inner perception of mental images actually occurs. This is sometimes called the "homunculus problem" (see also the mind's eye). The problem is similar to asking how the images you see on a computer screen exist in the memory of the computer. To scientific materialism, mental images and the perception of them must be brain-states. According to critics, scientific realists cannot explain where the images and their perceiver exist in the brain. To use the analogy of the computer screen, these critics argue that cognitive science and psychology have been unsuccessful in identifying either the component in the brain (i.e., "hardware") or the mental processes that store these images (i.e. "software").

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image

I presented this argument a few months ago on this forum. I will play more of an information-seeking role here because I was left unsatisfied in the last thread. So again, I pose this challenge to materialists to use empirically-verifiable evidence to explain how or why mental images are physical when we DO NOT perceive them with our senses (hallucinations, dreams, etc).

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

I want scientifically verifiable peer-reviewed evidence-based answers to my questions. If you don't know, then just admit it. Don't simply tell me that scientists will figure it out - that's FAITH ... not scientific EVIDENCE.

[Clownboat]

At this time, it seems to me that consciousness requires nothing but a functioning brain in order to emerge, come about, or whatever word you want to use that wont get you hung up. I assume you agree.

At this time if it seems to you that consciousness requires nothing but a functioning brain in order to emerge,...

Correct (I literally just said that though and you quoted it) and I assumed you agreed, but you failed to confirm. Why is that?

then whatever word you want to use is all that matters because your assumption that I agree is based on whatever word YOU want to use, not me.

Incorrect, for example, I could not use the words vanish, fade or disappear if the meaning I'm trying to convey is to emerge.
Should I continue to assume that you feel a functioning brain is all that is needed to explain consciousness or will you ever get around to supplying your position or why you find mine 'wanting'?

What I can do is assist you with fair use of the beloved dictionary - and the word you are currently using "emerge" and you can tell me if that is what you are trying to describe re this notion.

HERE, we are clearly discussing consciousness and if a functioning brain is enough to explain where consciousness emerges/comes from.

Are you actually lost when I talk about consciousness emerging from a functioning brain?
I must assume you are... so to clarify, I'll go to a dictionary and not allude to my minds eye:
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/? ... q=emergent
Emergent: Figurative. That is in the process of rising into notice.

It seems to me that a functioning brain is all that is required in order for the process of our ability to become aware of our surroundings (conscious) to rise into notice (emerge).
I wonder if William has anything that is debate worthy that has to do with this being accurate or insufficient as an explanation for how we become conscious.

Oxford Languages: “Move out of or away from something and become visible.” / “Become apparent, important, or prominent.”

Merriam-Webster: “To become manifest: become known.” / “To rise from or as if from an enveloping fluid.” / “To come into being through evolution.”

Cambridge: “To appear by coming out of something or out from behind something.” / “To become known, especially as a result of examining something or asking questions about it.”

Move out of and rise from is common in all three. How confused about what emergent means are you? Perhaps English isn't your first language and I need to be more understanding?

Let me know if these definitions clearly explain what you think of as "to emerge from"

And that is the beauty of supplying definitions. Definitions mean what they mean, not what I think they mean nor what your minds eye thinks they mean.

If you can think of anything that might suggest that consciousness is external from our functioning brains, that might be interesting and something worthy to debate.
(Why do you continue quote mine this out of all your replies to me?)

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #161]

At this time, it seems to me that consciousness requires nothing but a functioning brain in order to emerge, come about, or whatever word you want to use that wont get you hung up. I assume you agree.

At this time if it seems to you that consciousness requires nothing but a functioning brain in order to emerge,...

Correct (I literally just said that though and you quoted it) and I assumed you agreed, but you failed to confirm. Why is that?

Because your assumptions haven't been fully mapped so I have no where to go with this until you explain why you assume I should agree with you - I do not agree until you have explained what YOU mean by "Emerge"...once you do that, I can tell you whether I agree or not.

then whatever word you want to use is all that matters because your assumption that I agree is based on whatever word YOU want to use, not me.

Incorrect, for example, I could not use the words vanish, fade or disappear if the meaning I'm trying to convey is to emerge.

These as dictionary defined are the reverse of emerge, so no.
The issue isn’t whether “emerge” has opposites in a dictionary. Of course it does. The issue is that you are relying on that term to carry the whole weight of your claim about consciousness, but you haven’t explained what it means in your framework. Is it purely physical causation? A novel property? A supervenience relation? Unless you clarify that, I can’t evaluate whether I agree with you - because right now you’re just asking me to nod along to your undefined term.

Should I continue to assume that you feel a functioning brain is all that is needed to explain consciousness or will you ever get around to supplying your position or why you find mine 'wanting'?

No. This presumes that the hard problem of consciousness is simply explained by the existence of brains. The existence of brains does not explain consciousness - what it is, how the brain supplies whatever it is that consciousness is, et al.
Indeed, produce a paper on your claim and show the world that you have explained what consciousness is and go for that Nobel Prize if you are so certain. But until then, assuming I agree with you on this is premature as you have shown nothing of consequence in your telling of it so far which I can reasonable agree with.

But if you do the work and bring the results back to me, then I having something to work with in answering your presumption.

What I can do is assist you with fair use of the beloved dictionary - and the word you are currently using "emerge" and you can tell me if that is what you are trying to describe re this notion.

... to clarify, I'll go to a dictionary and not allude to my minds eye:
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/? ... q=emergent
Emergent: Figurative. That is in the process of rising into notice.

It seems to me that a functioning brain is all that is required in order for the process of our ability to become aware of our surroundings (conscious) to rise into notice (emerge).

Good. Now we have a sense of what you are trying to convey re your perception.

It's not so much that "something apparently material is emerging from the brain" - rather it is something hard to define. What can be defined is the effect that happens - that "rising into notice" and what is noticed is the surrounds and while we might assume at this stage that the surrounds are not doing the noticing we still need to acknowledge that whatever IS doing the noticing has to be what is "rising into notice" itself.

Oxford Languages: “Move out of or away from something and become visible.” / “Become apparent, important, or prominent.”

Merriam-Webster: “To become manifest: become known.” / “To rise from or as if from an enveloping fluid.” / “To come into being through evolution.”

Cambridge: “To appear by coming out of something or out from behind something.” / “To become known, especially as a result of examining something or asking questions about it.”

Move out of and rise from is common in all three.

Good, then if we accept that consciousness is moving out and rising from "the brain", we can say that this is an example of consciousness being external to said brain.

(Or, if we don't like what that implies, we can search for another word other than "emerge".)

Either way, we are no closer to explaining what it is that has "arisen"...so your claim can be said to be without merit and I can say "no, you should not presume I agree with you about this".

Let me know if these definitions clearly explain what you think of as "to emerge from"

And that is the beauty of supplying definitions. Definitions mean what they mean, not what I think they mean nor what your minds eye thinks they mean.

There we do agree, even though presently we don't agree on the implications...

If you can think of anything that might suggest that consciousness is external from our functioning brains, that might be interesting and something worthy to debate.

See above. If we agree that consciousness emerges/rises from the brain, then we can say that is is external from said brains.
I don't agree, because I think both provide a function and we cannot say with any certain that this emerging/arising isn't something which comes through the brain...or uses the brain for the temporal experience of being human....or that after the brain is deceased, that the consciousness which used it for the human experience, doesn't go on to some other ride...which of course spirals us back to the Thread Subject - nicely.

So yes, I can think of something other than what you think explains consciousness...and while doing so doesn't itself explain consciousness, it does not seek to presume consciousness as strictly an "emergent property" of brain functionality, because if it did, someone would have already collected the Nobel for showing evidence to support that notion...and since no one has, the question remains open and explorable.

If you can think of anything that might suggest that consciousness is external from our functioning brains, that might be interesting and something worthy to debate.
(Why do you continue quote mine this out of all your replies to me?)

Because clearly it is speculation with a ruleset uniquely tailored to your own reductionist perceptions, which by there very existence, won't accept anything other than itself as being "interesting and something worthy to debate".
What I have always argued is the opened middle ground - rather than pinning ourselves to “external” vs “internal” arguments. The through-the-brain perspective: consciousness might use the brain as interface, vessel, or filter. That keeps the field open while refusing any reductionist closure based upon unreasonable expectations involving what is or isn't "interesting and something worthy to debate".

[Clownboat]

Because your assumptions haven't been fully mapped

I assume that you agree with me that a functioning brain is all that is required in order to explain consciousness. This position was and continues to be fully mapped. I acknowledge that you didn't and possibly still don't understand the idea that brain is all that seems to be necessary, but I post for the readers and if my opponents are struggling to follow along my main goal is still accomplished.

so I have no where to go with this until you explain why you assume I should agree with you

I assume you do.

I do not agree until you have explained what YOU mean by "Emerge"...once you do that, I can tell you whether I agree or not.

I don't need you to tell me. Clearly, from the start, I have assumed that you agree that a brain is all that is required in order to explain consciousness. I still assume this and await correction if you don't agree with this statement. The amount of hand holding that you require is unreasonable though, but again, I believe our readers are not having an issue following along.

The issue is that you are relying on that term to carry the whole weight of your claim about consciousness,

Let's test this heavy lifting claim for accuracy shall we?
A brain is all that seems to be required in order to explain our consciousness. I assume you agree. Your claim was and is false as my position doesn't even require the use of the word emerge, but using such a word offers clarity to most. For some reason, this word that supplies additional meaning has 'locked you up'. I acknowledge this and believe our readers do not share your confusion.

but you haven’t explained what it means in your framework. Is it purely physical causation? A novel property? A supervenience relation? Unless you clarify that, I can’t evaluate whether I agree with you - because right now you’re just asking me to nod along to your undefined term.

Holy Monkeys!
Our brains seem to be the only thing required in order to explain our consciousness. I assume you agree.
Copy/paste from post 154: "Here is where you might offer something up that might challenge this statement, but so far, upon each request I get met with questions only."

Your continual failure to challenge my simple statement is what continues to inform me that you likely agree that brains are enough (which still leaves open other possibilities mind you).

Should I continue to assume that you feel a functioning brain is all that is needed to explain consciousness or will you ever get around to supplying your position or why you find mine 'wanting'?

No.

No? Why is a functioning brain not enough? Again, admitting that a brain is enough would not mean something more is in fact at play.

This presumes that the hard problem of consciousness is simply explained by the existence of brains.

Your emotions are getting in the way it seems.
My position only presumes that brains are enough to explain our consciousness.
If you are interested in the science:
Scientists have landed on two leading theories to explain how consciousness emerges: integrated information theory, or IIT, and global neuronal workspace theory, or GNWT.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... d-to-head/

The existence of brains does not explain consciousness

Clearly they can, but theories are not proof and can be falsified of course.

Indeed, produce a paper on your claim

Not my claim, but two have been provided. Do with them what you want.

and show the world that you have explained what consciousness

I acknowledge that you have somehow missed the many, many times I have done this in this thread. I trust our readers saw it.
con·scious·ness
/ˈkänSHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
(Look familiar?)

But if you do the work and bring the results back to me, then I having something to work with in answering your presumption.

See the theories I provided if you actually do care. What I continue to ask you that you continue to quote mine out of your replies has been:
"If you are able to think of anything that might suggest that consciousness is external (from our brains), let us know. Perhaps that will give us something to discuss."

It seems to me that a functioning brain is all that is required in order for the process of our ability to become aware of our surroundings (conscious) to rise into notice (emerge).

Good. Now we have a sense of what you are trying to convey re your perception.

Now?!!!! William, it has never been a hard thing to understand. I really fail to see why you struggle, but do acknowledge it.

It's not so much that "something apparently material is emerging from the brain" - rather it is something hard to define. What can be defined is the effect that happens - that "rising into notice" and what is noticed is the surrounds and while we might assume at this stage that the surrounds are not doing the noticing we still need to acknowledge that whatever IS doing the noticing has to be what is "rising into notice" itself.

My brain notices (detects) my surroundings. What does the noticing for you? Please be succinct because I want to understand this thing that isn't our brain.

Good, then if we accept that consciousness is moving out and rising from "the brain", we can say that this is an example of consciousness being external to said brain.

Say that only if your goal is to stifle debate. Our brains seem to be all that is required in order to explain our consciousness. You don't agree, so I ask what else is required?

Either way, we are no closer to explaining what it is that has "arisen"...so your claim can be said to be without merit and I can say "no, you should not presume I agree with you about this".

You don't agree with my claim that our brains seem to be all that is required in order to explain our consciousness, which is why I now ask you what more is required.

If you can think of anything that might suggest that consciousness is external from our functioning brains, that might be interesting and something worthy to debate.

If we agree that consciousness emerges/rises from the brain, then we can say that is is external from said brains.

Let's test this shall we? Please identify what external thing you have imagined.
All you seem to be doing is playing word games (we can 'say'). Please prove me wrong by supplying the evidence that consciousness is actually external from our brains.

I don't agree, because I think both provide a function and we cannot say with any certain that this emerging/arising isn't something which comes through the brain...or uses the brain for the temporal experience of being human....or that after the brain is deceased, that the consciousness which used it for the human experience, doesn't go on to some other ride...which of course spirals us back to the Thread Subject - nicely.

I don't say any of this. Please follow along.... Our brains seem to be all that is required in order to explain our consciousness. I think it is time that you admit that you cannot deal with my actual claim. You just disagree with it. I acknowledge your disagreement and your continued lack of criticism of my view enforces its reliability.

So yes, I can think of something other than what you think explains consciousness...and while doing so doesn't itself explain consciousness,

I acknowledge your imagination and take no issue with this.

it does not seek to presume consciousness as strictly an "emergent property" of brain functionality,

Wait?! Is this what you think my position is? That consciousness is strictly emergent from our brains?
All this disagreement from you over poor reading comprehension! I only acknowledge that our brains seem to be enough, not that more could not be in play. Please amend your thinking on my position.

because if it did, someone would have already collected the Nobel for showing evidence to support that notion...

Ya, a notion that no one here is putting forth.

consciousness might use the brain as interface

Our brains are most certainly involved. The only thing involved as far as I can detect. Can you think of anything else that is at play, or do you acknowledge that a brain could be enough? Don't get emotional now, I'm saying 'could' be enough, not that it 'is' enough an no other options should be considered. If I thought that, I wouldn't continue to be asking you if you are able to think of anything that might suggest that consciousness is external from our brains, but I do ask you just that in just about every post (you quote mine it out of your replies, but the ask is still there).

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "Nothing has been presented that would suggest that consciousness is external form our functioning brains or that anything else would even be necessary. I'm open to being shown such a thing if you can manage to make an argument. Can you?"

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #163]

A brain is all that seems to be required in order to explain our consciousness.

You’ve shifted from ‘is required and explains’ to ‘seems to be required.’ Those are not the same. One is a solved explanation, the other is a hypothesis. Which is it? You can’t keep both.

So which are you arguing for - your original claim that the brain explains consciousness OR brain is all that seems to be required in order to explain our consciousness?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #163]

A brain is all that seems to be required in order to explain our consciousness.

You’ve shifted from ‘is required and explains’ to ‘seems to be required.’ Those are not the same. One is a solved explanation, the other is a hypothesis. Which is it? You can’t keep both.

So which are you arguing for - your original claim that the brain explains consciousness OR brain is all that seems to be required in order to explain our consciousness?

Let's test your claim for honesty and accuracy:

Post 110: Why? Because it is possible that consciousness is an emergent property of the brains of animals.
Post 110: I am open to consciousness being independent of our brains, but so far it is not necessary IMO to explain how animals on this planet become aware of their surroundings.
Post 114: You are also wrong that I claim that the brain is therefore responsible for all experiences as my actual claim is to observe that a functioning brain seems to be all that is necessary which leave open other possibilities.
Post 121: Do you acknowledge that in humans, our brains are enough to explain how we become aware of our surroundings? You can answer this honestly because it wouldn't mean that consciousness cannot also be independent of our brains.
Post 126: I would like to know this reason as I also desire our consciousness to be external (I just don't see that as necessary yet).
Post 126: Again, again, again, again, I'm open to consciousness being external...
Post 136: I also desire for consciousness to be external. I just don't yet see a need for that to explain anything.
Post 142: Especially since I have been very clear with you as to how I like the idea that there might be something external, but acknowledge that I don't see it as being required to explain anything.
Post 152: Seems internal to me and only a functioning brain (something with the ability to think about our thinking which could then supply this idea of 'self') seems to be required.
Post 154: As far as our ability to be aware of our surroundings (the definition for consciousness that I have supplied many times now), that does seem to take place only in our brains.
Post 159: At this time, it seems to me that consciousness requires nothing but a functioning brain in order to emerge, come about, or whatever word you want to use that wont get you hung up.
Post 161: HERE, we are clearly discussing consciousness and if a functioning brain is enough to explain where consciousness emerges/comes from.
Post 161: It seems to me that a functioning brain is all that is required in order for the process of our ability to become aware of our surroundings (conscious) to rise into notice (emerge).
Post 163: I acknowledge that you didn't and possibly still don't understand the idea that brain is all that seems to be necessary
Post 163: A brain is all that seems to be required in order to explain our consciousness.
Post 163: Our brains seem to be the only thing required in order to explain our consciousness.
Post 163: Again, admitting that a brain is enough would not mean something more is in fact at play.
Post 163: Your emotions are getting in the way it seems. My position only presumes that brains are enough to explain our consciousness.
Post 163: Our brains seem to be all that is required in order to explain our consciousness. You don't agree, so I ask what else is required? (No answer was provided).
Post 163: You don't agree with my claim that our brains seem to be all that is required in order to explain our consciousness, which is why I now ask you what more is required.
Post 163 I don't say any of this. Please follow along.... Our brains seem to be all that is required in order to explain our consciousness.
Post 163: Wait?! Is this what you think my position is? That consciousness is strictly emergent from our brains?
All this disagreement from you over poor reading comprehension! I only acknowledge that our brains seem to be enough, not that more could not be in play. Please amend your thinking on my position.

Your claim is found to be dishonest and not accurate. Like I said before, I think your emotions have gotten in your way (I say one thing and you read it and feel I said something else).

William, no matter how I have phrased or attempted to clarify my position here in this thread with you, you have refuse to understand it or address it each and every time.
I fear I could try to explain it to you in 10 different ways and each will only be met with more questions and obfuscation, because my position has been, and remains clear. At this point I can only acknowledge that you have failed to understand it and will likely continue to do so. It's time to look inward William.

If you can think of anything that that might suggest that consciousness is..... you know what.... forget it....

[William]

The way I see it, consciousness has not been explained.

What I mean by this is...that all current models - whether materialist, dualist, or panpsychist - leave a gap between description and lived presence.

There’s no overall account yet that shows how the fact of being aware arises, rather than just describing correlations, functions, or behaviors.

When I say that in trying to understand the nature of consciousness concepts like external and internal become blurred is because...the very act of awareness seems to erase the boundary. What feels “inside” is only known through what is “outside,” and what we call “outside” only exists as it is registered “inside.”

"Where" in relation to the individual brain is consciousness positioned is problematic because...any attempt to locate it assumes a spatial container, yet consciousness presents itself as the very field in which space, brain, and body are already appearing.

What I mean by this is...consciousness isn’t found in the brain like an object in a box, but rather the brain shows up within the experiencing that consciousness doing.

As an example, brains do not experience pain, yet bodies do, and so to does consciousness. This means that...the brain processes signals, but the felt quality - the what it is like - belongs to consciousness itself, not to the neural machinery.

This bodes well with the idea that brains are not conscious in the same we who experience are. Brains do not feel a stubbed toe - but the toe does feel the pain and consciousness experiences what that is like. The toe itself reacts to the pain but is not itself conscious. Said another way...consciousness is the medium through which bodily events are felt, while neither the brain nor the toe has awareness on its own - they are participants, not experiencers.

The toe is stubbed..the signal goes to the brain which then signals back to the toe and the toe reacts to that signal. Consciousness being that which experiences the pain along with the toe suggests that Consciousness is not just situated only "in the brain". This means that...consciousness cannot be reduced to neural activity alone; it appears as a field that encompasses both the signaling brain and the reacting body, unifying them in lived experience.

Supporting evidence for this notion is in the fact that blanking consciousness from that system, the body still reacts to pain, even that there is no consciousness to experience it. In other words...the reflex arc operates mechanically, but without consciousness there is no felt pain - only reaction. The experience itself is what marks the difference between reaction and awareness.

This is also an accepted theory on why sunflowers always face the sun...it is reactive rather than conscious. To expand on that...the sunflower turns by biochemical signaling and growth patterns, not by awareness. Its movement shows responsiveness, but no inner dimension of what it is like - a clear contrast with conscious experience, and is useful to example the brain/body reactions without consciousness being involved.

This also means that we cannot just assume that consciousness is limited to being in the brain as it may be that case that is is in the whole body and the reason we assume it is situated only in the brain is because our heads are the main medium where interactions between inside/outside are occurring simultaneously, showing...that the brain may act more as a hub or translator than as the sole seat of consciousness, while the lived sense of awareness extends through the whole body as one continuous field.

This also means that because there are other human consciousnesses, which we think of as "outside" of the consciousness I am/we are, outputs from one become inputs to the other and when we study concepts like synchronicity and serendipity where what goes on "outside" aligns with what is going on "inside" we can equate that with intelligence visible only through those physical activities/actions, which is to say...that consciousness may not be isolated units but interlinked fields, where inner and outer mirror each other, and intelligence shows itself through the very patterns of coincidence and shared meaning.

This pattern recognition is an ancient human trait which explains why Theism not only exists, but why it is prevalent, enduring and resistant to non-theistic platforms. Simply put...humans are wired to see alignment and agency in patterns, so theism persists because it speaks directly to this deep tendency to connect inner experience with outer intelligent events.

I will leave that there. There are other evidences which dovetail into the observation above, but for now...it’s enough to note that the persistence of theism reflects not just belief, but the structural way consciousness engages reality through meaning.

[Clownboat]

The way I see it, consciousness has not been explained.

What I mean by this is...that all current models - whether materialist, dualist, or panpsychist - leave a gap between description and lived presence.

There’s no overall account yet that shows how the fact of being aware arises, rather than just describing correlations, functions, or behaviors.

When I say that in trying to understand the nature of consciousness concepts like external and internal become blurred is because...the very act of awareness seems to erase the boundary. What feels “inside” is only known through what is “outside,” and what we call “outside” only exists as it is registered “inside.”

"Where" in relation to the individual brain is consciousness positioned is problematic because...any attempt to locate it assumes a spatial container, yet consciousness presents itself as the very field in which space, brain, and body are already appearing.

What I mean by this is...consciousness isn’t found in the brain like an object in a box, but rather the brain shows up within the experiencing that consciousness doing.

As an example, brains do not experience pain, yet bodies do, and so to does consciousness. This means that...the brain processes signals, but the felt quality - the what it is like - belongs to consciousness itself, not to the neural machinery.

This bodes well with the idea that brains are not conscious in the same we who experience are. Brains do not feel a stubbed toe - but the toe does feel the pain and consciousness experiences what that is like. The toe itself reacts to the pain but is not itself conscious. Said another way...consciousness is the medium through which bodily events are felt, while neither the brain nor the toe has awareness on its own - they are participants, not experiencers.

The toe is stubbed..the signal goes to the brain which then signals back to the toe and the toe reacts to that signal. Consciousness being that which experiences the pain along with the toe suggests that Consciousness is not just situated only "in the brain". This means that...consciousness cannot be reduced to neural activity alone; it appears as a field that encompasses both the signaling brain and the reacting body, unifying them in lived experience.

Supporting evidence for this notion is in the fact that blanking consciousness from that system, the body still reacts to pain, even that there is no consciousness to experience it. In other words...the reflex arc operates mechanically, but without consciousness there is no felt pain - only reaction. The experience itself is what marks the difference between reaction and awareness.

This is also an accepted theory on why sunflowers always face the sun...it is reactive rather than conscious. To expand on that...the sunflower turns by biochemical signaling and growth patterns, not by awareness. Its movement shows responsiveness, but no inner dimension of what it is like - a clear contrast with conscious experience, and is useful to example the brain/body reactions without consciousness being involved.

This also means that we cannot just assume that consciousness is limited to being in the brain as it may be that case that is is in the whole body and the reason we assume it is situated only in the brain is because our heads are the main medium where interactions between inside/outside are occurring simultaneously, showing...that the brain may act more as a hub or translator than as the sole seat of consciousness, while the lived sense of awareness extends through the whole body as one continuous field.

This also means that because there are other human consciousnesses, which we think of as "outside" of the consciousness I am/we are, outputs from one become inputs to the other and when we study concepts like synchronicity and serendipity where what goes on "outside" aligns with what is going on "inside" we can equate that with intelligence visible only through those physical activities/actions, which is to say...that consciousness may not be isolated units but interlinked fields, where inner and outer mirror each other, and intelligence shows itself through the very patterns of coincidence and shared meaning.

This pattern recognition is an ancient human trait which explains why Theism not only exists, but why it is prevalent, enduring and resistant to non-theistic platforms. Simply put...humans are wired to see alignment and agency in patterns, so theism persists because it speaks directly to this deep tendency to connect inner experience with outer intelligent events.

I will leave that there. There are other evidences which dovetail into the observation above, but for now...it’s enough to note that the persistence of theism reflects not just belief, but the structural way consciousness engages reality through meaning.

What post was this a reply to?

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #167]

What post was this a reply to?

The Thread subject and content.

Feel free to debate or withdraw.