[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.