I'm probably not particularly qualified to weigh in on debates about the nature of consciousness, but panpsychism is a bit confusing to me because all components of conscious experience seemingly stem from the brain and nervous system. In my mind, conscious experience consists of things like sensory inputs (sight, smell, etc), emotions, thoughts, and memories. All these things happen in the brain. Brain damage can remove your ability to sense things (e.g. blindness), feel emotions, remember past events, and even have thoughts. Simple anaesthetic drugs can completely eliminate conscious experience without damaging the fundamental matter that composes your body. So it seems that everything that I consciously experience stems from my nervous system. If my brain and nervous system were destroyed, thus removing my ability to sense, feel, think, and remember things, what would be left to experience? There would no subjective experience left, and therefore no consciousness. How, then," are things that lack a nervous system (or something analagous to one) conscious? <br><br><br>I also don't totally buy Philip's argument around <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCdV6BMMpOo&amp;t=1h08m00s"">1:08:00</a> that purely quantitative descriptions cannot capture the rich qualities we experience. There are plenty of examples of incredibly rich", complex systems that seem, at first glance, impossible to describe quantitatively," but ultimately turn out to be the emergent results of simple quantitative components.<br><br><br>I'm open to other perspectives on this stuff though. Cool interview.",(reply>), @kyjo m8,  you appear to take a comment sourced from levity and then expected a proof of conviction to a physical/material system all the while blowing by the fact that to have that EXPERIENCE of having consciousness sourced from outside your body can be performed with out the use of psychotropic drugs,  as well as ignore the whole idea of what it is like to "experience" yourself outside of yourself.    This is a nearly universal experience from anybody that has performed deep meditation and/or taken heroic doses of psychedelics.  <br><br>You are really narrowly focused on this "use of drugs"  in your comment and really missed the point.  I bet you are fun at parties!    <br><br>The drugs are just a technology short-cut to the same mountain peak/state of experience.   They have no more control over your CNS than the words in this text.  Yet you still have a unique experience that is seperate from the words in this tomb. <br><br>it is ALMOST like you are "subjectively having a experience"  lol  lighten up my dude.   I am not making an argument for anything other than to chill out and laugh.  <br><br>All the best!,(reply>), @JD Phillips "You are about one heroic dose of LSD, DMT or deep meditation away of knowing what it is like to subjectlivy have the experience of consciousness that does not stem from the central nervous system!"<br><br>So your argument is to use psychotropic drug that directly affects the function of CNS to support a claim that consciousness doesn't depend on CNS? In other words you change the state of consciousness by using a physical/material substance on an physical/material system to prove that state of consciounsess doesn't depend on said system?<br><br>Doesn't that imply the exact opposite of what you claim? :),(reply>)," @Tube Surfer<br><br>This ontological debate literally just came out!<br>Hope you listen.<br> <a href=""https://youtu.be/bhSlYfVtgww"">https://youtu.be/bhSlYfVtgww</a><br><br><br>At <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCdV6BMMpOo&amp;t=11m00s"">11:00</a> Donald Hoffman explains why", exactly opposite to what you stated, the theory of evolution assumes that physicalism is not fundamental.,(reply>), @Tube Surfer <br>As I said, I agree that matter is ontologically fundamental, I also think that mind is necessarily ontologically fundamental and the two need each other. <br>I agree with your statement that something needs to be in focus. I am just acknowledging that "in focus" (observer) is a part of that sentence.<br><br>But it sounds like you're done.<br><br>But I hope you keep caring or searching. If I could recommend one book it would be a new book called "the matter with things" by Iain Mcgilchrist. You can find great interviews of him online as well. I think he will be one of the philosophers most remembered from this age.,(reply>), @Tube Surfer ok we can keep it to text no problem i may be very brief.<br><br>totally understand what you're saying. But nearly every point relies on a materialist ontology. <br>We are debating ontology here. I think that both mind and matter are necessarily fundamental and that mind can not be reduced to matter.<br><br>I "buy" the theory of evolution, but I don't think there's a justification for differentiating between "us" and the world ontologically.. They're both necessary. <br>I wouldn't say that one came first, there is no "first" without both. <br>Where would it be without awareness of space? When would it be without awareness of time? And what would be without awareness of matter? <br><br>In your example of destroying sentience you used our present consciousness as a starting point proving Einsteins point on GR.<br>I am saying that without awareness, there would be no "earth" or "spinning" or "around" or "the sun".<br>I have a lot of resources if you're interested but Curt's channel is a great intro.<br><br><br>----<br>Introduction for courtesy sake, now that we have been speaking a while. Skip if you don't care but I don't like talking to strangers when I know there's an infinitely interesting and valuable soul behind the empty texts.<br><br>My names Matthew. I have a podcast called adopt responsibility. I am a 27 year old father and husband. I have done some horrible and evil things in my life but I have been raised out of hell in large part by exploring ideas. <br>My goal in life is to reduce as much suffering as I can and promote positive conscious existence. I do this a tiny bit through my podcast but mainly I do this by adopting kids. My wife and I have now adopted 4 kids in the past 4 years. In fact we just met our 4th child today, so since you and I have been speaking. <br>I live on an acreage and I practise jiu jitsu.<br><br>-Matthew