The topic of restructuring the top level of this camp is great, but a tangent to this "Welcome new Endogenous Light Nexus Camp" thread. We've created a new dedicated thread for this topic here: [http://canonizer.com/thread.asp/88/1/12 Top, metaphysical, level reorganization of structure] From now on, please move all discussion on that particular topic to that now more appropriate dedicated to that topic thread. Thanks, Brent Allsop

Brent, others The suggestion that major new camps be formed to cover all the different belief categories, as below, seems almost right to me. 1) Consciousness can be explained entirely by presently known physics. 2) Consciousness can be explained by some combination of presently known physics and presently unknown physics. 3) Consciousness must involve the intervention of magical/supernatural forces or other consciousnesses forever beyond any technological understanding. However, since I do not think there is any purpose in combining religious or superstitious beliefs with scientifically philosophical concepts under one camp heading, and since there is another school of thought as to the fundamental nature of Consciousness that I subscribe to which is neither religious nor supernatural I would like to suggest that a camp should be established, that either replaces (3) or becomes added as a fourth major camp as follows: 4) Consciousness is a natural first person subjective experience that is neither an observable property or epiphenomena of objective spacetime/matter/energy amenable to scientific investigation, nor is it due to magical/supernatural forces outside of total space. Further, I think that all sub camps should be placed under the major camp that represents their particular theory of consciousness and/or mind, and that all sub camps and sub-sub camps should be accompanied with an adequate explanation of their thesis consistent with the statement of the major camp and/or sub camp. Additionally, I don't think than any faith based, religious or mystical/magical ideas or beliefs belong in this canonizer topic. Although, I have no objection to such ideas being in a sub camp under the major camp (3) provided such submissions are accompanied with logical argument justifying their claims. However, I think that any sub' camp title that makes such claims unaccompanied by rational argument should be disallowed or, if already in place, removed.

This goes quite deep, and I'm too busy with end-of-semester coursework to pursue it properly at the moment, but I'll make just a couple of quick points. I (rjf) previously wrote: I don't think [consciousness is] a "natural kind": its ontological status is subjective and/or intersubjective, not objective. slehar replied: If the ontological status of conscious experience is subjective, not objective, then so is ALL of science, because every single scrap of scientific knowledge, from the readings on a scientific meter, to data in published papers, comes to us THROUGH conscious experience. rjf: In the absolute sense, because it merely seeks to describe reality rather than BEING that reality, yes, science is subjective. Of course, it's RELATIVELY objective, compared to other "ways of knowing". slehar: Those of us who are committed to a *scientific* study of conscious experience must begin with the assumption that the object of our study, conscious experience, is objective real, and really exists as part of the objective world known to science. rjf: To be conscious is, essentially, to be the SUBJECT of experience. It is a fundamental error to assume that what is essentially subjective can also be objective. slehar: Those who would push experience into a subjective realm that is somehow *beyond* objective reality, or who believe that consciousness can never in principle be explained in scientific terms, are not among those who are committed to a *scientific* examination of conscious experience. Thats a WHOLE DIFFERENT camp. rjf: That's what I was thinking when I put up the previous objection, but, as I said before, I now think it's reasonable to say that the understanding of consciousness can be APPROACHED by science. But ultimately, using any third-person methodology, you will find nothing but mechanical interaction. (Using "mechanical" in the broad sense, obviously.) This really is going quite deep, and I think I have to say that I won't be able to take any further part in this discussion, at least for a week or so. Meanwhile, I just put my new research proposal up on the web, if anyone is interested. It's on what meditation can tell us about consciousness. http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Yes, I think that that approach is more reasonable than the binary approach, I note that the "Consciousness cannot be explained by current physics but might be explained by a future physics" or equivalent type statement, implies a "Real" base assumption rather than a supernatural base assumption even if the community that is doing the philosophy tends to get caught in the uncontrolled regression fallacies that dominate the Supernatural camps. Place the Real but illusary camp under the "Can be explained by current physics" camp please.

I am with Dzyanmaster who says "wouldn't it be a good idea to define exactly what "supernatural" refers to?". Existing definitions of "supernatural" may be good starting points for us but are not sufficiently tightly defined: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) Today we routinely apply physics that would seem purely magical or "supernatural" to people living just a few centuries ago like electric power, air travel, antibiotics, MRI, and the computers we read this text on, among many possible examples. I am reminded of Arthur Clark's Laws of Prediction of which his Third Law states that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Consequently if we were to define "supernatural" to mean "outside the present understanding of physics" which seems to be the present poorly-defined case then supporters of the "Consciousness Has Nothing To Do With The Supernatural" camp would essentially be saying that they believe consciousness can be completely understood in terms of known physics. Those opposed would however actually fall into at least two camps, first that consciousness may involve presently unknown physics (definition 2a above which is closest to my position) or secondly that our consciousness is something purely magical and "supernatural" under the influence of some other kind of consciousness forever beyond any technological understanding (definitions 1 or 2b neither of which would I subscribe to). Therefore I would like to propose three options instead of the present either/or "Consciousness Has Nothing To Do With The Supernatural" camp: 1) Consciousness can be explained entirely by presently known physics. 2) Consciousness can be explained by some combination of presently known physics and presently unknown physics. 3) Consciousness must involve the intervention of magical/supernatural forces or other consciousnesses forever beyond any technological understanding.

>>>> I don't think [consciousness is] a "natural kind": its ontological status is subjective and/or intersubjective, not objective. <<<< If the ontological status of conscious experience is subjective, not objective, then so is ALL of science, because every single scrap of scientific knowledge, from the readings on a scientific meter, to data in published papers, comes to us THROUGH conscious experience. Declaring experience to be in the subjective ontological status is equivalent to *solipsism*, calling into question the existence of an external world because we cannot be sure it isn't a dream or hallucination. While solipsism cannot be logically refuted, nor can the subjective status of experience, *reasonable* people understand that this is a failure of our system of logic, not of reality itself, and accept the existence of an objective external world, and our indirect access to it through our experience. Science *assumes* the existence of that objective world, because that world is the object of science, the thing that science sets out to study, and by the same token, science *assumes* that at least *some* of our experiences give us reliable access to that world, otherwise there would be no point taking meter readings or reading data in published papers, or doing any other kind of scientific observation or analysis, just because it could possibly all be a dream. Those of us who are committed to a *scientific* study of conscious experience must begin with the assumption that the object of our study, conscious experience, is objective real, and really exists as part of the objective world known to science. Those who would push experience into a subjective realm that is somehow *beyond* objective reality, or who believe that consciousness can never in principle be explained in scientific terms, are not among those who are committed to a *scientific* examination of conscious experience. Thats a WHOLE DIFFERENT camp. (The above argument was first made by Wolfgang Koehler)

Brent said "But at least one member objected..." I believe that was me, not because I think consciousness inherently mysterious, but I don't think it's a "natural kind": its ontological status is subjective and/or intersubjective, not objective. If I'm the only one getting in the way of this development, though, I'd be willing to drop my objection. I'm currently studying for an MSc in philosophy of mind and my views have changed, to some extent. In particular, I have no great objection to saying that an understanding of consciousness "can be approached" via science. I'm still not happy with all the mushy stuff in that quote, though! :)

Dzyanmaster and Grey, This all sounds great to me. I completely agree that things could be greatly improved at this level as far as accurately capturing what everyone does and does not believe on this kind of fundamental metaphysical level. Perhaps we need several distinct branches or super camps? I once attempted to tighten up the definition of the camp by attempting to add this paragraph to the statement: "The pragmatic implications of this are that we believe consciousness to be approachable via the scientific method. We believe that scientific research will not only eventually result in a real understanding of what everything in the mind is and how it works, but also eventually allow us to artificially engineer, fix, and improve everything to do with consciousness and the mind. We also believe that such an achievement will turn out to be the greatest and world changing scientific discovery of all time." But at least one member objected resulting in [http://canonizer.com/thread.asp/88/2/1 this camp thread] discussing the issue. And I never got around to moving beyond this to improve things. So whatever changes we make, we must make sure all beliefs are accurately represented and everyone has a camp they feel comfortable with. Dzyanmaster, your have a very broad understanding of all this, much more than I have. Perhaps you or anyone can propose a set of multiple super camps or something to capture in general what everyone might believe on this issue? Then we can restructure this survey and move all the sub camps into the appropriate metaphysical branch super camps. Brent Allsop

The problem of what is supernatural or not, is only slightly informed by things like dark matter and dark energy. dark matter and dark energy are theories about what might exist based on observable astronomic properties at the macro scale. In other words, the observation makes the effect that is being described natural, but the theories are yet to be proven. What both dark energy and dark matter offer is mathematical models that suggest that the world does not work on the galactic scale the way we observe it to work on the stellar scale. The theories suggest that the differences in the shape of galaxies that we observe to what might be expected to be calculated with the classic model, might be related to either a new force that is not included in our current theories, which is called dark energy (Why a force is called energy, I leave to your imagination) or 75 % of interstellar mass, is not visible using a telescope, why it would not be visible to a telescope is again an exercise for your imagination. In order to develop these theories to the point where a stellar observation can observe them, a lot of theoretical work needs to be done, that will isolate a case where if the theory is correct an observation on the merely stellar scale will confirm the Galactic scale observations. In the meantime, a lot of cranks are going to blame everything in the supernatural on one or the other, in the hopes that supernatural explanations will come back into vogue and we will forget all this pesky science stuff that pokes holes in classic religion and superstition. Quite simply Supernatural means not yet observed. Dark energy and Dark matter are not supernatural, they are simply unproven theories of a natural effect, that is not well explained by the current science, but is observable. If you can observe dark energy on a stellar scale, let us know until then, expect to wait for galactic travel to become possible before the science is fully mature. Consider if you will that some scientists are doing work on dark energy, and they want to make it fit Einsteins relativity. However the first thing that is required they are told, is to explain what is a positive energy in terms of a negative force. The minute they change the polarity of the force, they destroy its applicability to the dark energy paradigm but they can prove that it can fit Einsteins law. So does the new model constitute science? yes, but one questions whether it constitutes dark energy, or could be used to predict the nature of the observed phenomena. Science is made up of lots of these little errors, that get proven by someone else to have missed the mark. Until an observation is made at the stellar level that supports one theory over another, we simply do not know if either dark energy or dark matter could even exist. If I had to vote I would vote for dark energy over dark matter, simply because I favor a model of cosmology based on something very like dark energy that has a positive force component, and achieves relativity because it doesn't involve a particle. However don't ask me to do the math, I simply don't have the aptitude to keep my calculations straight.

With all his talk about the camp heading "Consciousness Has Nothing To Do With The Supernatural" — wouldn't it be a good idea to define exactly what "supernatural" refers to? If "natural" refers only to the physical world that can be observed and measured — what if consciousness is related to higher order fields of energy that cannot be observed or measured, or is a subjective quality of what science calls "dark matter" or "dark energy"? Wouldn't such immeasurable and unobservable fields or forms of matter be considered as part of the total natural reality? Wouldn't this total nature also include subjective consciousness (awareness-will-qualia) — no matter where or from what it originates? If supernatural is equated with metaphysical or hyperspatial, and such fields or invisible forms of matter-energy actually exist — how can we separate them from what science calls physical mass-energy or space-time? Why wouldn't those aspects of 'total space' also be considered natural? And, if so, shouldn't that still hold true if consciousness was a fundamental quality of the underlying primal or absolute space located at the zero-point source of the sub quantum ZPE fields in the Planck vacuum? Isn't that inseparable zero-point-instant space — which is located everywhere at the source of ALL radiant fields throughout the cosmos — also a part of the total "natural" world? Therefore, isn't it obvious that such a camp title, without clarification of the meaning of the word "supernatural" is ambiguously prejudicial and biased right from the start? Obviously, anyone who believes that consciousness may be part of the total natural world, but not necessarily measurable or observable, nor is a function of ponderable materiel substance nor is an epiphenomena of measurable physical/material processes — is automatically excluded from this camp and any of its sub camps. So, I suggest that this camp either credibly defines exactly what it considers supernatural, and what is natural, or it stands as an invalid measure of the consensus of all those who subscribe to it and any of its sub camps... Especially, in contrast to all other camps that consider higher orders of energy fields, whether inside or outside the Planck false vacuum, including the ZPE source of all such fields — to be perfectly natural... Even though they might also consider such static zero-points of subjective consciousness to be outside of objective metric space and time altogether — but still a part of total timeless and dimensionless primal space.