Criticism

[Eugene I]

You are only beginning to see the inconstancies that run throughout his metaphysics.

Oh, that has nothing to do with energy, it is based on Kastrup's hypothesis that only metabolizing organisms can become the appearances of a dissociated alter of Mind at Large, which by the way by itself is quite problematic hypothesis and was disputed before on this forum. He never said that this happens because the organisms utilize energy. By the way, if it would be just energy giving rise to consciousness, then computers should also be conscious because they also consume and utilize energy.

[JeffreyW]

What we do know is that if you unplug the energy the consciousness goes out.

How is that not also speculation, based on speculation that consciousness is an emergent property? I can just as well speculate that the energy state returning to entropy is indicative of a locus of consciousness no longer being associated with corporeality.

Because we observe it. Brains burn glucose which is supplied by the blood. In the brain, the glucose binds with ATP for distribution. If we put somebody in a sleeper hold the blood supply to the brain is cut along with the glucose. Guess what then goes out. That isn’t speculation.

[JeffreyW]

You are only beginning to see the inconstancies that run throughout his metaphysics.

Oh, that has nothing to do with energy, it is based on Kastrup's hypothesis that only metabolizing organisms can become the appearances of a dissociated alter of Mind at Large, which by the way by itself is quite problematic hypothesis and was disputed before on this forum. He never said that this happens because the organisms utilize energy. By the way, if it would be just energy giving rise to consciousness, then computers should also be conscious because they also consume and utilize energy.

You can’t possibly be this dense. He explicitly predicated consciousness on the burning of ATP. Actually, it is glucose that burns, ATP just distributes it, but Kastrup still made his point based on energy.

[Eugene I]

Because we observe it. Brains burn glucose which is supplied by the blood. In the brain, the glucose binds with ATP for distribution. If we put somebody in a sleeper hold the blood supply to the brain is cut along with the glucose. Guess what then goes out. That isn’t speculation.

There are thousands of recorded evidences of near-death experiences reporting having conscious experiences during periods of clinical death and the absence of observable brain activity.

[Eugene I]

You can’t possibly be this dense. He explicitly predicated consciousness on the burning of ATP. Actually, it is glucose that burns, ATP just distributes it, but Kastrup still made his point based on energy.

Show me where he used the word "energy". In his books he explicitly stated that he predicates energy on the presence of metabolizing chemistry, but unfortunately never explained why. Burning ATP is part of the metabolism, that is why he mentioned that.

[JeffreyW]

Yes, metaphysics and physics implies there is a physical world we perceive. You accept that implication every time you respond here on your computer. Nobody really refuses that implication in practice - it’s ist a pose. It is also false that we only know the world through abstraction. Our representations are abstractions, but not our esthetic experience, which is unmediated by reductive objectification.

As I said before, physics only describes or models the patterns of observable phenomena (and the only observable phenomena we ever know are the phenomena of our conscious experience) and has no say about what those phenomena pertain to, it describes what the nature does, not what the nature is. Assigning reality to the abstractions of physical math models is a very naive form of metaphysics.

I already told you that I have no concept of the external physical world, including any physical computer, I'm only manipulating the phenomena of my direct conscious experience (that visually look as the computer) in order to communicate with other instances of consciousness through our common entanglement through sense perceptions.

Then, our esthetic experiences are just that - experiences (conscious experiences of course, because there is no such thing as non-conscious experiences). They still arise in our consciousness with respect to acts of our internal esthetic creativity, or with respect to our sense perceptions. In case if our sense perceptions are the result of communication with the Divine or other instances of consciousness (as opposed to the contact with the "physical world"), these esthetic experiences bear the sense of beauty that the Divine or other conscious beings are communicating to us. However, the physical world, being unconscious, has no sense of beauty whatsoever and no reason to be beautiful, and so our esthetic experiences inspired from our contact with such world can not in principle have anything to do with the physical world, and so they are entirely the products of our minds.

Most importantly, you still evade the essential difference of abstracting from direct experience and inexperienced transcendental conjecture.

There is definitely a possibility of the inexperienced transcendental conjecture. This is often at the basis of many spiritual and religious traditions and peoples' spiritual and religious beliefs. If you accept the conjecture of the existence of physical world based on the inexperienced transcendental conjecture, how can you deny the legitimacy of the inexperienced transcendental conjecture of the existence of the Divine?

After last night, I don’t know why I’m even bothering to respond to you, but experience of the world is not conjecture. It is that direct experience that distinguishes it from metaphysics. Seriously, you’re hopeless.

[JeffreyW]

Because we observe it. Brains burn glucose which is supplied by the blood. In the brain, the glucose binds with ATP for distribution. If we put somebody in a sleeper hold the blood supply to the brain is cut along with the glucose. Guess what then goes out. That isn’t speculation.

There are thousands of recorded evidences of near-death experiences reporting having conscious experiences during periods of clinical death and the absence of observable brain activity.

But none that credibly show an afterlife.

[JeffreyW]

You can’t possibly be this dense. He explicitly predicated consciousness on the burning of ATP. Actually, it is glucose that burns, ATP just distributes it, but Kastrup still made his point based on energy.

Show me where he used the word "energy".

What would you suggest he meant by “burn ATP”?

[JeffreyW]

The most that can be said with any certainty is that there is a correlation between conscious agency and certain kinds of energetic states, allowing that correlation does not necessarily equate with causation. Surely you're not saying that you've experienced that consciousness is an emergent property of such states. That too is just speculation, with no definitive demonstration of how that must be the case. So presumably you're equally dismissive of that speculation, as you are about speculating that it may not be an emergent property. If not, why not?

Entirely irrelevant. Causation isn’t the issue. What we do know is that if you unplug the energy the consciousness goes out. That puts energy prior to consciousness as a necessary condition. What some of you continue to evade is that this is Kastrup’s argument against consciousness in computers and the implication.

What you are saying about necessary conditions not equaling causative element is true. But let me just reiterate something here in a slightly different way:

The bold is what is concluded when we arbitarily stop reasoning through the concrete experience of energy and consciousness. What we actually know is that it appears there is no consciousness when we "unplug the energy", i.e. physical death. Just as it appears we did not experience anything when we are in dreamless sleep (or dreaming sleep if we cannot remember any of it). In the latter case, we know for certain that is simply an artifact of our own cognitive limitations - if we had capacity to retain consciousness during sleep we would be aware of many more experiences we have gone through. So the question is, could the same apply to physical birth and death, when all brain activity appears to cease (or never appeared to exist in the case of birth)? Only careful reasoning through our experience of the world content can say, one way or the other. It is a continuation of the careful reasoning you have used to determine energy is a necessary condition of [apparent] consciousness.

I suppose you may already know all of what I am writing above and you are simply trying to highlight the inherent meaningless in abstract metaphysics which says "consciousness must be at the bottom of everything including energy" from the outset, in which case I agree with you.

There is nothing in experience to suggest there is as there is nothing to suggest that consciousness exists without a living brain. I once underwent general anesthetic and had no consciousness of anything during that time. Our observations support the understanding that consciousness only exists within living brains. I have no valid reason to assume anything beyond that.

[Soul_of_Shu]

If we put somebody in a sleeper hold the blood supply to the brain is cut along with the glucose. Guess what then goes out. That isn’t speculation.

I've experienced that, and subjectively there was no time at all. So when was it out?