[crazygringo]

Nobody said consciousness is best described at the subatomic level next to bosons. It may be, it may not be. Currently there is no evidence in either direction. Gravity certainly proves that the standard model is quite incomplete so far, and we currently don't have the slightest idea how.

But I earlier used fluid dynamics as an example of emergence. To make the point that fluid dynamics is still physics.

Philosophically, the fact that consciousness is going to be part of physics is self-evidently true. It's true by definition if you believe that consciousness interacts with the universe as described by physics -- for which the specific evidence is that we're having this conversation in the first place.

[soatok]

> Nobody said consciousness is best described at the subatomic level next to bosons.

Above:

> Conscious awareness appears to be a fundamental aspect of the universe -- as fundamental as the four known fundamental forces

If it's as fundamental as the four fundamental forces, then it belongs in the same level of abstraction. Fluid dynamics isn't as fundamental as quantum chromodynamics.

I found the statement that consciousness is as fundamental should be worthy of further examination. Hence, my inquiry.

> But philosophically, the fact that consciousness is going to be part of physics is self-evidently true. It's true by definition if you believe that consciousness interacts with the universe as described by physics -- for which the specific evidence is that we're having this conversation in the first place.

Okay, yes, but that's a very different notion than what was discussed above. Consciousness being purely physical is, I believe, the most likely explanation. It being as fundamental as neutrinos is not.

(My primary account is rate limited, so I'm posting my final comment in this thread from my alt.)

[crazygringo]

> If it's as fundamental as the four fundamental forces, then it belongs in the same level of abstraction.

I didn't say that it belongs at the same level of abstraction, and no that isn't necessarily implied. It might be even deeper, it might be something in parallel that then interacts at a higher level, we currently don't have the slightest idea.

And there certainly isn't any evidence that it isn't as deep as neutrinos, for example. You assert that there is a "most likely explanation", but there isn't. Nothing is most likely when there is no evidence at all in any direction.

But we know consciousness interacts with the physical universe, so we can say that it's part of physics. We're just trying to locate where. But nothing rules out the subatomic level prima facie. The root-level comment attempted to do something like that, and I am pushing back on that.

[soatok]

> I didn't say that it belongs at the same level of abstraction, and no that isn't necessarily implied.

The definition of fundamental is, in this context, best compared with this one from Merriam Webster: "of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts" -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamental

When you compare things using "as", you're stating equivalence.

The statement "Conscious awareness appears to be a fundamental aspect of the universe -- as fundamental as the four known fundamental forces" states that consciousness is as relative to the essential structure as the four fundamental known forces.

The most literal meaning of what you said above is: Consciousness is as relative to the essential structure, function, or facts as the four known fundamental forces.

If that's not what you intended, then you're free to acknowledge that you misspoke, and to correct your previous statement with a clearer, more precise meaning.

But to say "and no that isn't necessarily implied" is wrong.

[crazygringo]

> The most literal meaning of what you said above is: Consciousness is as relative to the essential structure, function, or facts as the four known fundamental forces.

Yes, that is absolutely what I meant.

That doesn't mean that it operates at the specific level of bosons or the force of gravity, which is what I read your comment as suggesting.

It's been a pleasure conversing -- I sadly no longer have time to continue, but these are exactly the kinds of debates philosophers of consciousness have -- there's a lot to clarify and figure out! It's a fascinating field.

[soatok]

> Yes, that is absolutely what I meant.

> That doesn't mean that it operates at the specific level of bosons or the force of gravity, which is what I read your comment as suggesting.

This is a contradiction.

If something is as fundamental as bosons, then it operates at the same level as bosons. Otherwise, it's not as fundamental as bosons. It could be more fundamental, it could be less.

I gave the examples of tensegrity and fluid dynamics above. That they're not as fundamental as quantum fields doesn't make them any less real. They're just not as fundamental.

So which is it?

> It's been a pleasure conversing -- I sadly no longer have time to continue, but these are exactly the kinds of debates philosophers of consciousness have -- there's a lot to clarify and figure out! It's a fascinating field.

I understand. I'm leaving my response for anyone else who agrees with you to pick up should they choose.