Is the mind an emergent phenomenon of matter? Or is matter a narrative imposed upon the world by the mind? Is gravity some mechanical force? Or merely invisible gremlins pulling you down because they don't wanna see you fly high?? The western scientific mind has essentially become mechanical. We, as in our conscious minds are merely byproducts of rote, predictable natural laws. Our emotions and entire experience explained away as biochemical processes. Ultimately deterministic. Modifiable through pills and chemistry. Psychological distress treated akin to a malfunctioning car engine. Love... merely serotonin and something about a guy named Darwin. Even within its own scientific framework it self-contradicts. Assuming that consciousness == brain; the complexity of the brain is such that nothing can really be inferred about it. The complexity of interactions increases exponentially, making any inference of cause and effect computationally impossible. Who does the inference? Who observes the matter? No inference device, supposedly our brain, can reliably predict anything about the universe invluding itself. Ie. assuming "we live in our brains" we'd never be able to predict brains. Everything we observe is through that lens. We can never step beyond it. Thus even if we think we may know everything about a brain, we cannot prove that we do so, as we ourselves.. are trapped in that brain. Even if we grant that existence is a brain somehow.. projecting upon itself.. how can we then proove that we are indeed ever seeing "objective reality"? A system cannot ever fully explain itself. The subject/object split is merely a linguistic construct? Like perhaps most science and logic?? We made it up man... Or as the good old hippie Alan Watts put it: > The intellect cuts the world into pieces and proudly exclaims; "look the world is made of pieces!". We make up the boxes and stick things into it - then we feel smart about it. Given my profession and the fact that I like cars a lot, I have the greatest of respect for science. But not as a religion, set of values or world explanation. But as a useful tool. And as any tool, it has its uses and misuses - you don't brush your teeth with a belt sander. There's always an explanation for the explanation, always another atom to split. Just the mere word "atom" - the entity which is indivisible. It seems every other decade we've managed to find another atom?? An explanation for the explanation. Keep asking why, see how you'll enjoy life :-) It's like trying to look yourself in the eyes (without a mirror, which in any case, would never give you a "true" reflection). Consciousness trying to explain consciousness through reductionist neuroscience is like trying to see your own eyes without a mirror. The tool can't fully grasp itself. Molecules → atoms → particles → quantum thingies → strings (whatever those are). The world explanation, the theory to explain all theories, always right around the corner. I suppose this is why I enjoy red teaming.... You get paid to poke holes in logic. At one point you realize there's no sense in proposing anything anymore? All of maths and physics is basically descriptions of behaviours exhibited by so called "objects", but objects require discrete identity, a concept that may only exist in linguistics. Consider a wave... where does it start and end? What about an event? When did the event start? At plankto second xx? Or femtosecond yy? Which resolution? Are you separate from the environment around you? Does air not permeate your lungs, your skin, what would you be without it? Is it not so that everything depends on... everything else? The "atoms" composing "you" are interchangable, they are not permanently yours. So... what are "you"? Any programmer knows how hard it can be to define "objects" and how arbitrary it may feel. Consciousness isn't a bug to patch. It's the system itself. And the system can't debug itself. > Reality is not a problem to be solved, but a thing to be experienced > - Dune(?) -\ Cockroach Systems - we break your code and your metaphysics. --- ## unfinished A rebuttal: "But the dream is internally generated by the brain." This already assumes a particular ontology. Because then you can ask: > **How do you know there is a brain?** You experience the neuroscientist's paper, the microscope, the MRI image, the brain tissue, the scientific explanation, etc. Those are also experiences occurring within whatever system produces your experience. The argument becomes recursive. Have you ever had.. recursive dreams?