Consciousness: Dennett says it is an illusion (General)

by dhw, Sunday, November 03, 2019, 11:10 (1845 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So if plasma is not pure energy, what is its relevance to your belief that both God and consciousness are immaterial? And I still don’t understand how this belief squares with your statement that “everything is material at the basis of the universe” - which can only mean that among other things consciousness must have a material basis.

DAVID: You've misinterpreted. I believe God is pure energy, as is his consciousness. Plasma is closest thing I know to pure energy, is all I have said. I know we live in a material world which energy creates under God's guidance.

According to the article, quantum mechanics represents the materialist view of consciousness, and is therefore an inadequate explanation. You wrote that consciousness “may have a quantum basis”, which = the materialist view, but then wrote:”I’m thinking of quantum pure energy particles. Everything is material at the basis of the universe.” The second sentence can only mean that the basis of consciousness is material, and as regards the first, I asked if there was any such thing as “pure energy particles”. Your response to both points was “An early phase of the universe was plasma made up only of charged particles”. Since plasma is matter, no matter how “close” it is to pure energy, neither my question nor my comment has been answered! May I suggest possible answers? 1) We do not know any form of “pure energy”, but you think that is what your God and consciousness are made of. 2) You reject the idea that everything at the basis of the universe is material, because you believe in an immaterial God and immaterial consciousness. If these answers are correct, wouldn’t they mean that since quantum mechanics can only relate to the material world, it is irrelevant to a discussion of God’s existence and the nature of consciousness? (This a genuine question, because I find your statements confusing.)

DAVID: But billions of designers do not explain the coordination required to create what is reality. By your thinking a box of puzzle parts miraculously came together, no thought involved.

dhw: It is not my thinking, any more than a sourceless, inexplicable, unknown, eternal expanse of conscious divine plasma is my thinking. I keep telling you that I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe in. I admit that one of them must be closer to the truth, but I cannot take the leap of faith in either direction. That is why I am an agnostic.

DAVID: Does 'closer to the truth' mean there might be a third answer, or one of them is the answer?

dhw: The third answer is some form of panpsychism in which all matter has some form of consciousness, but this is such a flexible concept that in my view it can be used to support theism or atheism.

DAVID: You've simply come back to my theory that our universe is a creation of God's consciousness.

I don’t know how you can reach that conclusion when I have explicitly stated that this third option can be used to support either theism or atheism. Your theory is bolded above.