Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SteveKlinko]

If understanding CE is not important to you, why are you even on this Forum. I guess it is just so you can Nag people with your Belief.

I'm on this forum to chat and to learn. CE is one of many topics discussed here. And if you think you're being nagged, then we're done. I'm not the only one who has challenged your views, but I shan't do so again. Fare well.

Sensitive, aren't you. If you think that Conscious Experience cannot ever be Explained that's fine. You have told me that in post, after post, after post. Repetition is Nagging. That's not Challenging. Bye to you.

[Belindi]

But in that case there would no incoming information from the senses, and the disconnected mind would be reduced to facing the future from memorised information.

Although qualia can be remembered absolute mind is not absolute at all unless experiences of physical space and the feeling of purpose towards the future are included.

Of course, nobody knows what happens after a Disconnection like in Death.

Your theory allows for continuation of experiences after the death of the body.

It was a surprise consequence of the theory. However, it is not a theory, but rather it is a Perspective. Physicalists believe that Conscious Experience is completely in the Neurons, but the Inter Mind Model provides the Perspective that Conscious Experience could be in some other abstract Conscious Space. Since Conscious Experience is in another place (not in Space) it might Exist after Death. I am calling the Perspective Connectism because the Conscious Mind (CM) is Connected to the Physical Mind (PM).

Connectism provides a new and refreshing Connection Perspective with respect to Conscious Experience. With proper usage you would say that you are a Connectist because of your Connectist views on Connectism. Connectism seems to be similar to Dualism, but it is different from Dualism because the Dualist does not emphasize the Connection aspect of the PM to the CM. The Inter Mind (IM) is the central connecting component within Connectism. The PM is Connected to the IM and the IM is Connected to the CM. So Connectism is actually a Triple Mind perspective, in contrast with the Double Mind perspective of Dualism. The IM looms large within Connectism but is completely absent in Dualism. Connectism is categorically not the same thing as Dualism.

Experiences are aspect 1. mental/subjective, and aspect 2. Physical/objective.

Do you suggest the "Inter Mind" is another aspect to experiencenature? Plenty of people have reported viewing nature subjectively and objectively but nobody to my knowledge has reported viewing nature from any other aspect.

[Sy Borg]

Do you think qualia is not real, that a sense of experience is only an illusion?

I do not think qualia are real. I think they are an artifact of very bad philosophical perspectives on consciousness which are incompatible with all known science.

That is different from believing that our "sense of experience" is an illusion. I think our "sense of experience" is real, but that people have a lot of misconceptions about it.

Having said that, the fact of the matter is that philosophers and scientists don't even agree with one another on what the term actually means. If someone were to define and use "qualia" in a manner that was consistent with cognitive neuroscience and didn't lead to magical thinking about the mind, I would have no problem acknowledging that this version of qualia existed and was a useful term. There are one or two people who post in this forum who seem to think of qualia in this way, but they are not the norm in philosophy of mind.

Qualia is experience. Experience is real. It is not the same as neurons firing in the same way as a movie is not LEDs firing. Most experts agree that the hard problem is valid, with your view being the outlier.

If we understood consciousness then we would have a model for creating consciousness from scratch. There is no viable model so far, despite decades of testing. Your above rationalisations don't account for that brute fact.

We do indeed have models of consciousness that have gained a wide consensus in the scientific community, the global neuronal workspace model being the most prominent. That is a brute fact for you.

Feel free to articulate what these models get wrong or where we should find them lacking, but to deny that they exist and are taken seriously just means you aren't engaging with the scientific literature. No wonder you harbor the illusion that everyone is just guessing.

Perhaps you could direct me to material that supports your claim that the global workspace model has solved the mystery of consciousness? If consciousness is understood, please provide examples of consciousnesses being created in the lab from scratch (without mating).

[SteveKlinko]

Of course, nobody knows what happens after a Disconnection like in Death.

Your theory allows for continuation of experiences after the death of the body.

It was a surprise consequence of the theory. However, it is not a theory, but rather it is a Perspective. Physicalists believe that Conscious Experience is completely in the Neurons, but the Inter Mind Model provides the Perspective that Conscious Experience could be in some other abstract Conscious Space. Since Conscious Experience is in another place (not in Space) it might Exist after Death. I am calling the Perspective Connectism because the Conscious Mind (CM) is Connected to the Physical Mind (PM).

Connectism provides a new and refreshing Connection Perspective with respect to Conscious Experience. With proper usage you would say that you are a Connectist because of your Connectist views on Connectism. Connectism seems to be similar to Dualism, but it is different from Dualism because the Dualist does not emphasize the Connection aspect of the PM to the CM. The Inter Mind (IM) is the central connecting component within Connectism. The PM is Connected to the IM and the IM is Connected to the CM. So Connectism is actually a Triple Mind perspective, in contrast with the Double Mind perspective of Dualism. The IM looms large within Connectism but is completely absent in Dualism. Connectism is categorically not the same thing as Dualism.

Experiences are aspect 1. mental/subjective, and aspect 2. Physical/objective.

Do you suggest the "Inter Mind" is another aspect to experiencenature? Plenty of people have reported viewing nature subjectively and objectively but nobody to my knowledge has reported viewing nature from any other aspect.

The Inter Mind is just a Logical conclusion when you try to learn how we See. There is a tremendous amount of further Processing that has to happen after the Neural Activity to produce that beautiful, High Def, Wide Screen, Multi Color, Visual Experience that we have embedded in the front of our faces.

Here is an argument for the Inter Mindbased on an analysis of what the Visual Areas of the Brain are actually doing. It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we Experience. Rather the Brain seems to deconstruct the image with the goal of detecting elementary properties of the image like lines, edges, motion, and color. There do not seem to be any downstream Visual Areas that are involved with reconstructing the CL Scene that we Experience from all the deconstructed properties that the Brain detects. The only place where there is a good undistorted image is on the Retina of the Eye. The other various stages of processing are highly warped and distorted maps of the retina. The highest stages don't really even map at all. The highest stages seem to be involved in image recognition and the lower stages seem to be for mechanical control of focus, eye convergence, and target tracking. But we find that there are artifacts from the processing stages that become visible in our CL Scene. For example there are some edge enhancement and shading effects that are generated in V1 that can be Experienced in the CL Scene. Also if there is a damaged area in V1 then an equivalent blacked out area will appear in the CL Scene. Similarly if there is damage to the Color areas then the Color Experience will be impaired or completely missing. So it seems that whatever is creating the CL Scene must use and be in contact with all the processing stages at the same time. The actual CL Scene is a kind of Overlay of all the Areas including possibly the Retina. It seems that the data available at these processing stages are hints as to what the CL Scene should look like. This data must be the input to the Conscious Mind (CM). It seems that there is a lot of missing processing that has to take place to Reconstruct all the Visual Area processing results into the seemingly perfect CL Scene that we Experience. There is a Processing Gap. We could just say that the CM monitors the Physical Mind (PM) Visual Areas and creates this Scene itself. I think it is more logical to propose that there must be a whole new aspect of the Mind, that consists of further processing stages, that monitors the PM and generates the CL Scene that the CM perceives. This of course is the Inter Mind. It should also be mentioned that this process of combining the processing results of the various areas of the Visual system to create the single CL Scene is called Binding. The fact that no one knows how this is accomplished is called the Binding Problem. I think that the Overlay and Reconstruction processing for Binding might eventually be found to be located in the Inter Mind.

The Inter Mind (IM) could be a part of the Physical Mind (PM)(Brain) or the Conscious Mind (CM) or it could stand alone as a separate Mind. Whatever the case may be there must be something somewhere that has the functionality of the IM. If the IM is found to be an aspect of the PM then that aspect should be called the IM aspect of the PM. Neural Activity does not turn into the Conscious Visual Experience all by itself. Even if everything is eventually found to be located in the PM, the functional stages of the diagram must still be true.

Philosophers will say the IM is just the Explanatory Gap. I would say that the IM is more specifically a Connection Gap and a Processing Gap rather than a more general Explanatory Gap.

[Sculptor1]

No one has fully explained why a physical explanation is not valid, except some idea that matter does not seem to otherwise exhibit such qualities that would be consinant with consciousness.
Yet we have a perfect example of where a specific organisation of matter and energy in neural matter exhibit a quality that its compenent parts cannot.
We ought to be used to the idea that matter in particular configurations shows secondary qualities.
FOr example. When iron is organised in certain ways it becomes magnetic. Are the detractors of a physicalist theory going to offer a "magnetic spirit" explanation here?
Or maybe the qualities of electornics and computer equipment needs a "magic" theory to explain it?
The fact is that we know that healthy brains are needed to produce consciousness, and that it the place to start where we can atempt of describe what is going on.

[Consul]

Laughingly? I am quite serious. There is no Evidence in Speculations. The Speculation must be proven and the Evidence must be found for any theory of Conscious Experience.

There is a difference between speculations (theoretical conjectures) which are totally undetermined by evidence and ones which are underdetermined by evidence.

[Sy Borg]

No one has fully explained why a physical explanation is not valid...

Probably because no one here has claimed that there a physical explanation does not exist. Our only claim is that none of the particular physical claims are conclusive.

I see competing hypotheses as being like a race, where you will have leading ideas and others trailing behind. The leading idea at this stage is global workspace. While not all guesses are equal, it is still a guess, a hypothesis. The weakness I see in GW is that, being related to key medical fields, it's been far more lavishly funded than the vast majority of disciplines (many of which survive on grants that amount to "starvation rations"). Yet no answer to how the phenomenon of consciousness exists and how prevalent it is. Lots of data on how consciousness can be manipulated and analysed via the brain, though.

To be fair, neuroscience research is funded to be a pragmatic medical discipline. So it doesn't much bother with the hard problem. Rather, it simply assumes that consciousness exists and it can be manipulated via the brain, and the field moves forward based on those assumptions. This is reminiscent of how physicists assume that the big bang happened and start calculating from that base. Until relatively recently, they didn't much bother with what preceded the big bang. As with consciousness, physicists routinely claimed that even asking what was before the big bang was invalid, saying there was 'no before". Now the hard question is being questioned.

As I have said before, if I'm betting my house on it, I'd go with consciousness being generated by the interaction between CNS and the metabolic organs, with the brain shaping these raw sensations into a type of consciousness that facilitates survival, mating and viable offspring. As per that guess, I think a "brain in a vat" would just be a processor without sensation, without qualia.

[Belindi]

Your theory allows for continuation of experiences after the death of the body.

It was a surprise consequence of the theory. However, it is not a theory, but rather it is a Perspective. Physicalists believe that Conscious Experience is completely in the Neurons, but the Inter Mind Model provides the Perspective that Conscious Experience could be in some other abstract Conscious Space. Since Conscious Experience is in another place (not in Space) it might Exist after Death. I am calling the Perspective Connectism because the Conscious Mind (CM) is Connected to the Physical Mind (PM).

Connectism provides a new and refreshing Connection Perspective with respect to Conscious Experience. With proper usage you would say that you are a Connectist because of your Connectist views on Connectism. Connectism seems to be similar to Dualism, but it is different from Dualism because the Dualist does not emphasize the Connection aspect of the PM to the CM. The Inter Mind (IM) is the central connecting component within Connectism. The PM is Connected to the IM and the IM is Connected to the CM. So Connectism is actually a Triple Mind perspective, in contrast with the Double Mind perspective of Dualism. The IM looms large within Connectism but is completely absent in Dualism. Connectism is categorically not the same thing as Dualism.

Experiences are aspect 1. mental/subjective, and aspect 2. Physical/objective.

Do you suggest the "Inter Mind" is another aspect to experiencenature? Plenty of people have reported viewing nature subjectively and objectively but nobody to my knowledge has reported viewing nature from any other aspect.

The Inter Mind is just a Logical conclusion when you try to learn how we See. There is a tremendous amount of further Processing that has to happen after the Neural Activity to produce that beautiful, High Def, Wide Screen, Multi Color, Visual Experience that we have embedded in the front of our faces.

Here is an argument for the Inter Mindbased on an analysis of what the Visual Areas of the Brain are actually doing. It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we Experience. Rather the Brain seems to deconstruct the image with the goal of detecting elementary properties of the image like lines, edges, motion, and color. There do not seem to be any downstream Visual Areas that are involved with reconstructing the CL Scene that we Experience from all the deconstructed properties that the Brain detects. The only place where there is a good undistorted image is on the Retina of the Eye. The other various stages of processing are highly warped and distorted maps of the retina. The highest stages don't really even map at all. The highest stages seem to be involved in image recognition and the lower stages seem to be for mechanical control of focus, eye convergence, and target tracking. But we find that there are artifacts from the processing stages that become visible in our CL Scene. For example there are some edge enhancement and shading effects that are generated in V1 that can be Experienced in the CL Scene. Also if there is a damaged area in V1 then an equivalent blacked out area will appear in the CL Scene. Similarly if there is damage to the Color areas then the Color Experience will be impaired or completely missing. So it seems that whatever is creating the CL Scene must use and be in contact with all the processing stages at the same time. The actual CL Scene is a kind of Overlay of all the Areas including possibly the Retina. It seems that the data available at these processing stages are hints as to what the CL Scene should look like. This data must be the input to the Conscious Mind (CM). It seems that there is a lot of missing processing that has to take place to Reconstruct all the Visual Area processing results into the seemingly perfect CL Scene that we Experience. There is a Processing Gap. We could just say that the CM monitors the Physical Mind (PM) Visual Areas and creates this Scene itself. I think it is more logical to propose that there must be a whole new aspect of the Mind, that consists of further processing stages, that monitors the PM and generates the CL Scene that the CM perceives. This of course is the Inter Mind. It should also be mentioned that this process of combining the processing results of the various areas of the Visual system to create the single CL Scene is called Binding. The fact that no one knows how this is accomplished is called the Binding Problem. I think that the Overlay and Reconstruction processing for Binding might eventually be found to be located in the Inter Mind.

The Inter Mind (IM) could be a part of the Physical Mind (PM)(Brain) or the Conscious Mind (CM) or it could stand alone as a separate Mind. Whatever the case may be there must be something somewhere that has the functionality of the IM. If the IM is found to be an aspect of the PM then that aspect should be called the IM aspect of the PM. Neural Activity does not turn into the Conscious Visual Experience all by itself. Even if everything is eventually found to be located in the PM, the functional stages of the diagram must still be true.

Philosophers will say the IM is just the Explanatory Gap. I would say that the IM is more specifically a Connection Gap and a Processing Gap rather than a more general Explanatory Gap.

"It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we Experience.

The glory of the gestalt vision is what you describe in the first paragraph of your reply to me. I agree with the quotation from you which I copy above in italics. The visual areas don't create the gestalt vision.

I query your choice of 'goal'. The goal that every living thing( that is not already moribund) has, is to look to its future. Creatures that can learn from experience do so by remembering, selecting,and creating. The gestalt (i.e. the creation) is a moving image that the creating individual changes, and changes all the more so when the individual is exposed to learning opportunities.

The aspects from subjectivity and from objectivity remain constant as aspects, but gestalt world views do change, and moreover gestalts can be both subjective and objective. This leaves no explanatory vacuum for an Inter Mind hyopothesis.

[SteveKlinko]

No one has fully explained why a physical explanation is not valid, except some idea that matter does not seem to otherwise exhibit such qualities that would be consinant with consciousness.
Yet we have a perfect example of where a specific organisation of matter and energy in neural matter exhibit a quality that its compenent parts cannot.
We ought to be used to the idea that matter in particular configurations shows secondary qualities.
FOr example. When iron is organised in certain ways it becomes magnetic. Are the detractors of a physicalist theory going to offer a "magnetic spirit" explanation here?
Or maybe the qualities of electornics and computer equipment needs a "magic" theory to explain it?
The fact is that we know that healthy brains are needed to produce consciousness, and that it the place to start where we can atempt of describe what is going on.

It is Incoherent to make comparisons and Analogies of Conscious Experience with Magnetics. In any case we would not be satisfies with some Magnetic Spirit explanation. We have a perfectly understandable Explanation for Magnetics. But with Conscious Experience we have no Explanation of any kind. The Conscious Experience just happens when certain Neural Activity happens. That is not an Explanation.

Your Electronics comparison is also Incoherent relative to Conscious Experience. We would not be happy with a Magic theory to Explain it. The point is that we are able to Explain Electronics. We are not able to Explain Conscious Experience at this point in time.

By the way there are no Magical Explanations of Conscious Experience. Any Magical Explanation is just a Speculation, and is not really an Explanation.

[SteveKlinko]

"It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we Experience.

The glory of the gestalt vision is what you describe in the first paragraph of your reply to me. I agree with the quotation from you which I copy above in italics. The visual areas don't create the gestalt vision.

I query your choice of 'goal'. The goal that every living thing( that is not already moribund) has, is to look to its future. Creatures that can learn from experience do so by remembering, selecting,and creating. The gestalt (i.e. the creation) is a moving image that the creating individual changes, and changes all the more so when the individual is exposed to learning opportunities.

The aspects from subjectivity and from objectivity remain constant as aspects, but gestalt world views do change, and moreover gestalts can be both subjective and objective. This leaves no explanatory vacuum for an Inter Mind hyopothesis.

The Visual Experience exists, so there needs to be some Mechanism or Process that has the Goal of producing it. Goal here not meaning some Intentional Desire, but rather it just means a Result or Output of the Mechanistic Process. Fact remains there does not seem to be any Process in the Brain that can do the Binding Processing to create the Visual Experience from the deconstructed parts. A further Processing stage is definitely needed. Maybe someone will find this in the Brain. It must be some Global aspect in the Brain. If that aspect is discovered it should be called the Inter Mind aspect because it will Connect the Physical Brain to the Conscious Mind.

[Belindi]

"It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we Experience.

The glory of the gestalt vision is what you describe in the first paragraph of your reply to me. I agree with the quotation from you which I copy above in italics. The visual areas don't create the gestalt vision.

I query your choice of 'goal'. The goal that every living thing( that is not already moribund) has, is to look to its future. Creatures that can learn from experience do so by remembering, selecting,and creating. The gestalt (i.e. the creation) is a moving image that the creating individual changes, and changes all the more so when the individual is exposed to learning opportunities.

The aspects from subjectivity and from objectivity remain constant as aspects, but gestalt world views do change, and moreover gestalts can be both subjective and objective. This leaves no explanatory vacuum for an Inter Mind hyopothesis.

The Visual Experience exists, so there needs to be some Mechanism or Process that has the Goal of producing it. Goal here not meaning some Intentional Desire, but rather it just means a Result or Output of the Mechanistic Process. Fact remains there does not seem to be any Process in the Brain that can do the Binding Processing to create the Visual Experience from the deconstructed parts. A further Processing stage is definitely needed. Maybe someone will find this in the Brain. It must be some Global aspect in the Brain. If that aspect is discovered it should be called the Inter Mind aspect because it will Connect the Physical Brain to the Conscious Mind.

As you describe it, the question will be answered by materialistic neuroscientists not by metaphysicians.

[SteveKlinko]

"It does not appear that the Visual Areas are processing the Light information with the goal of creating the integrated Conscious Light (CL) Scene that we Experience.

The glory of the gestalt vision is what you describe in the first paragraph of your reply to me. I agree with the quotation from you which I copy above in italics. The visual areas don't create the gestalt vision.

I query your choice of 'goal'. The goal that every living thing( that is not already moribund) has, is to look to its future. Creatures that can learn from experience do so by remembering, selecting,and creating. The gestalt (i.e. the creation) is a moving image that the creating individual changes, and changes all the more so when the individual is exposed to learning opportunities.

The aspects from subjectivity and from objectivity remain constant as aspects, but gestalt world views do change, and moreover gestalts can be both subjective and objective. This leaves no explanatory vacuum for an Inter Mind hyopothesis.

The Visual Experience exists, so there needs to be some Mechanism or Process that has the Goal of producing it. Goal here not meaning some Intentional Desire, but rather it just means a Result or Output of the Mechanistic Process. Fact remains there does not seem to be any Process in the Brain that can do the Binding Processing to create the Visual Experience from the deconstructed parts. A further Processing stage is definitely needed. Maybe someone will find this in the Brain. It must be some Global aspect in the Brain. If that aspect is discovered it should be called the Inter Mind aspect because it will Connect the Physical Brain to the Conscious Mind.

As you describe it, the question will be answered by materialistic neuroscientists not by metaphysicians.

I don't exclude anything or anybody from the ultimate discovery of what Conscious Experience is.

[Sculptor1]

No one has fully explained why a physical explanation is not valid, except some idea that matter does not seem to otherwise exhibit such qualities that would be consinant with consciousness.
Yet we have a perfect example of where a specific organisation of matter and energy in neural matter exhibit a quality that its compenent parts cannot.
We ought to be used to the idea that matter in particular configurations shows secondary qualities.
FOr example. When iron is organised in certain ways it becomes magnetic. Are the detractors of a physicalist theory going to offer a "magnetic spirit" explanation here?
Or maybe the qualities of electornics and computer equipment needs a "magic" theory to explain it?
The fact is that we know that healthy brains are needed to produce consciousness, and that it the place to start where we can atempt of describe what is going on.

It is Incoherent to make comparisons and Analogies of Conscious Experience with Magnetics.

No it is not. I was not saying that consciousness was maganetic
ALL science is comparison. It is a system which advances understanding by describing the unfamiliar with something that is familiar. It is a fact that qualities not apparent or present in some organisations of matter become apparent when matter is organised in speific ways.

In any case we would not be satisfies with some Magnetic Spirit explanation.

We used to be in the past. Just as many people are satified with the "soul" or incorpaoreal "mind" descriptions of consciousness.
But spirits only add another layer of confusion

We have a perfectly understandable Explanation for Magnetics.

No we do not. We have a description.

But with Conscious Experience we have no Explanation of any kind. The Conscious Experience just happens when certain Neural Activity happens. That is not an Explanation.

It is a description like all science.

Your Electronics comparison is also Incoherent relative to Conscious Experience. We would not be happy with a Magic theory to Explain it. The point is that we are able to Explain Electronics. We are not able to Explain Conscious Experience at this point in time.

By the way there are no Magical Explanations of Conscious Experience. Any Magical Explanation is just a Speculation, and is not really an Explanation.

I see a lot of denial, but nothing positive.

[Consul]

It is Incoherent to make comparisons and Analogies of Conscious Experience with Magnetics. In any case we would not be satisfies with some Magnetic Spirit explanation. We have a perfectly understandable Explanation for Magnetics. But with Conscious Experience we have no Explanation of any kind. The Conscious Experience just happens when certain Neural Activity happens. That is not an Explanation.

But we know where to look for an explanation, because we know that the brain is the organ, the seat and source of consciousness.

[SteveKlinko]

No one has fully explained why a physical explanation is not valid, except some idea that matter does not seem to otherwise exhibit such qualities that would be consinant with consciousness.
Yet we have a perfect example of where a specific organisation of matter and energy in neural matter exhibit a quality that its compenent parts cannot.
We ought to be used to the idea that matter in particular configurations shows secondary qualities.
FOr example. When iron is organised in certain ways it becomes magnetic. Are the detractors of a physicalist theory going to offer a "magnetic spirit" explanation here?
Or maybe the qualities of electornics and computer equipment needs a "magic" theory to explain it?
The fact is that we know that healthy brains are needed to produce consciousness, and that it the place to start where we can atempt of describe what is going on.

It is Incoherent to make comparisons and Analogies of Conscious Experience with Magnetics.

No it is not. I was not saying that consciousness was maganetic
ALL science is comparison. It is a system which advances understanding by describing the unfamiliar with something that is familiar. It is a fact that qualities not apparent or present in some organisations of matter become apparent when matter is organised in speific ways.

In any case we would not be satisfies with some Magnetic Spirit explanation.

We used to be in the past. Just as many people are satified with the "soul" or incorpaoreal "mind" descriptions of consciousness.
But spirits only add another layer of confusion

We have a perfectly understandable Explanation for Magnetics.

No we do not. We have a description.

But with Conscious Experience we have no Explanation of any kind. The Conscious Experience just happens when certain Neural Activity happens. That is not an Explanation.

It is a description like all science.

Your Electronics comparison is also Incoherent relative to Conscious Experience. We would not be happy with a Magic theory to Explain it. The point is that we are able to Explain Electronics. We are not able to Explain Conscious Experience at this point in time.

By the way there are no Magical Explanations of Conscious Experience. Any Magical Explanation is just a Speculation, and is not really an Explanation.

I see a lot of denial, but nothing positive.

We were talking about the Magnetic effects in Iron. Before Science knew anything about Magnetics, Magnets were probably quite Magical. Magnetics at the Deepest level is not understood. But Science can now Explain those properties of Iron using the Phenomenon of Magnetics. It is easy to imagine the individual Atomic Magnetic Dipoles creating the Macro Phenomenon of a Magnet. There is no such understanding of Conscious Experience. What Conscious Experience Dipole in the Neurons can Explain Conscious Experience? There is Nothing that Explains Conscious Experience in terms of any Neural Activity or Functioning.