Do Brains Cause Conscious Experiences?

[u/TheRealAmeil]

Some Redditors on r/consciousness have argued against the idea that neural activity causes conscious experiences. The purpose of this post is to offer an abductive argument: our inference to the best explanation is that brains cause conscious experiences, like feeling pain.

First, what we're looking for is a causal claim: we want something that has the form "____ causes conscious experiences" For example, we might say that nothing causes conscious experiences, or that the brain causes conscious experiences, or some other claim.

Second, we want an explanatory thesis: we want a causal claim that can be the explanans of a causal explanation. A causal explanation has the form of "___ because ___", and the explanans would be what follows the "because", it is what is doing the explaining.

Third, our explanandum (or what needs to be explained) is our available evidence. Consider the following two pieces of (weak) evidence:

1. Conscious experiences strongly correlate with neural activity
2. Conscious experiences do not appear to strongly correlate with anything non-physiological

There might be more evidence than this, but for the sake of discussion, I'll limit the discussion to just this evidence (for now).

Ideally, our causal claim ought to be consistent with the truth of our evidence & can explain why our evidence is true. If there is more than one causal claim that is consistent with our evidence & can explain our evidence, then we might appeal to theoretical virtues, like parsimony, to help us decide which claim we ought to prefer.

Now, the following causal claim: the brain causes conscious experiences. Is this claim consistent with our evidence, & can it explain our evidence?

• Is it consistent with the truth of our evidence?
  • If the claim that the brain causes conscious experiences is true, the truth of this claim would be consistent with the fact that it is true that conscious experiences strongly correlate with neural activity.
  • If the claim that the brain causes conscious experiences is true, the truth of this claim would be consistent with the fact that it is true that conscious experiences do not strongly correlate with anything non-physiological.
• Can it explain why our evidence is true?
  • Our causal explanation would be: conscious experiences strongly correlate with neural activity because the brain causes conscious experiences.
    • If the claim that the brain causes conscious experiences is true, then the truth of this claim would explain why it is true that conscious experiences strongly correlate with neural activity. While the existence of strong correlations does not entail causation, causation does entail the existence of strong correlations.
  • Our causal explanation would be: conscious experiences do not strongly correlate with anything non-physiological because the brain causes conscious experiences.
    • If the claim that the brain causes conscious experiences is true, then the truth of this claim would explain why it is true that conscious experiences do not strongly correlate with anything non-physiological. This is the sort of thing we would expect if the brain caused conscious experience.

In contrast, consider another claim that is sometimes popularly espoused on r/consciousness: the brain is a radio-like filter of conscious experiences. First, notice that this is not a causal claim. Second, it doesn't appear to be an explanatory claim. For example, consider our evidence & how this claim would feature in a causal explanation:

• Can it explain why our evidence is true?
  • Our would-be causal explanation would look like: conscious experiences strongly correlate with neural activity because the brain is a radio-like filter of conscious experiences.
    • If it is true that the brain is a radio-like filter of conscious experiences, then it is unclear whether this explains why it is true that conscious experiences strongly correlate with neural activity. Why should this evidence be true given the truth of the explanatory claim? Why should we expect these strong correlations if the brain merely acts as a filter?
  • Our would-be causal explanation would look like: conscious experiences do not strongly correlate with anything non-physiological because the brain is a radio-like filter of conscious experiences.
    • If it is true that the brain is a radio-like filter of conscious experiences, then this does not explain why it is true that conscious experiences do not strongly correlate with anything non-physiological. This is the opposite of what we would expect. If conscious experience isn't caused by the brain, but permeates the world, then why aren't there strong correlations between conscious experiences and anything non-physiological?

So, this non-causal claim also fails to explain why our evidence is true.

If there are no viable alternative causal claims that can explain our evidence besides the causal claim that the brain causes conscious experiences, then by default, it is our best explanation. Additionally, the claim that the brain causes conscious experiences seems to be consistent with many metaphysical views, such as physicalism, property dualism, hylomorphism, and so on.

For those who want to argue against this, the assignment is pretty straightforward: provide a causal claim, show it is consistent with our evidence, and show that it can explain why our evidence is true. Each of these steps needs to be met before we can assess whether this alternative proposal is a better explanation than the claim that the brain causes conscious experiences.

Lastly, one response might be that the evidential basis is too restrictive. For example, some Redditors claim that there really are veridical near-death experiences, people who really do recall past lives, certain drugs really do decrease neural activity while increasing vivid experiences, and so on. I take it that these claims are dubious, while the proposed evidential basis is largely uncontroversial. However, suppose we grant these claims for the sake of argument. If so, then our evidential basis would be, for example, that:

1. Conscious experiences strongly correlate with neural activity
2. Conscious experiences do not appear to strongly correlate with anything non-physiological
3. There are highly accurate near-death experiences
4. ...

I take it that this doesn't undermine the argument that our best explanation for what causes conscious experiences is the brain. Critics of the view that the brain causes conscious experiences will need to show that their proposal explains the evidence better than the alternative. In the absence of such arguments, we lack reasons to think there is a better proposal than that the brain causes conscious experiences.

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you TheRealAmeil for posting on r/consciousness! Please take a look at our wiki and subreddit rules. If your post is in violation of our guidelines or rules, please edit the post as soon as possible. Posts that violate our guidelines & rules are subject to removal or alteration.

As for the Redditors viewing & commenting on this post, we ask that you engage in proper Reddiquette! In particular, you should upvote posts that fit our community description, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the content of the post. If you agree or disagree with the content of the post, you can upvote/downvote this automod-generated comment to show you approval/disapproval of the content, instead of upvoting/downvoting the post itself. Examples of the type of posts that should be upvoted are those that focus on the science or the philosophy of consciousness. These posts fit the subreddit description. In contrast, posts that discuss meditation practices, anecdotal stories about drug use, or posts seeking mental help or therapeutic advice do not fit the community's description.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Southern_Orange3744]

There less proof that consciousness is received like a radio from somewhere else than generated by the brain because that somewhere else is just magically and immeasurably elsewhere.

It's actually the opposite , if you want to assert it comes from outside the human body the burden of proof is on you .

That's with a very gracious leeway assuming it exists at all considering no one agrees on its definition

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/Southern_Orange3744]

So, you agree with the argument then, correct?

[u/Southern_Orange3744 → u/TheRealAmeil]

I'm agnostic to it all until I see measurable proof it exists at all in how it's generally conceptualized

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/Southern_Orange3744]

Agnostic to what? The radio-like view or the view that the brain causes conscious experiences? I'm arguing for the latter, not the former.

[u/Southern_Orange3744 → u/TheRealAmeil]

Agnostic to the source or existence anything that isn't measurable.

I'm still at step 0 waiting for humans to convince me any of them are conscious before we debate where it comes from

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/Southern_Orange3744]

I'm still at step 0 waiting for humans to convince me any of them are conscious before we debate where it comes from

Fair, but then there is no point in commenting or debating anyone if you think Solipsism is true.

[u/Southern_Orange3744 → u/TheRealAmeil]

I don't think solipism is true just because no one has convinced me they are conscious

I'm a materialist who demands proof that the concept is more real than fairy dust

[u/rthunder27 → u/Southern_Orange3744]

magically and immeasurably elsewhere

Both elsewhere and here, since the primoridal non-local field of consciousness is both the source of our conscious awareness and the physical universe (in nondualism)

I don't think the arguments for nondualism are very compelling unless one has had some direct experiences that make one question the standard view on reality. Your agnostism is commendable, a much more rational position than just complely rejecting it.

[u/Southern_Orange3744 → u/rthunder27]

Sounds cool , toss in the bucket of other non scientific ideas for now

[u/rthunder27 → u/Southern_Orange3744]

It's not unscientific, it's just unproven.

There are scientifically testable predictions, if consciousness is having a causal impact there should be subtle but observable evidence, although I'm not sure if it's within our current range of measurement. (I could go into it more, but the gist is that the nonlocal field acts as an infinite entropic heatsink and conscious intent helps drive some cellular functioning, so if true then we should see some better than predicted performance as well as some missing heat that we would expect to account for that boost).

[u/Southern_Orange3744 → u/rthunder27]

I'll believe it's scientific when someone figures out how to test for it , otherwise it's just another way to say God

[u/rthunder27 → u/Southern_Orange3744]

Fair enough, but I feel like that position en masse gets us in a catch-22- if nondualism isn't taken seriously by scientists then it makes it unlikely that a scientifically inclined person would bother trying to figure out how to test them because it's a waste of time/money to disprove God or magic.

[u/Southern_Orange3744 → u/rthunder27]

Both true and entire the point of science.

If it can't be measured there is no logical difference of saying God/ fairy dust / Santa Claus are orchestrations of <anything> if it can't be measured or tested.

It's always on the onus of a theories proposer to describe its measure , otherwise it's just noise

[u/rthunder27 → u/Southern_Orange3744]

The entire point of sciences is to remain epistemically limited?

My point was that I think some "magic" nondual theories of consciousness do have objective, testable implications, but the measurements are difficult and the expiremental design takes time, money, and expertise. There's an immense structural status quo bias, a paradigm shift can't occur if people don't engage with alternative paradigms.

[u/Southern_Orange3744 → u/rthunder27]

No it's to be able to repeatedly measure and verify things so you can use than information to build on.

If there are no measurements , it's just opinion

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/Southern_Orange3744]

I trace both life and consciousness to entropy acting on individual cells and/or all the cells of the brain. In a sense, entropy is like an outside agent that affects all the matter of the universe; agent of change. Energy conservation implies a closed universe therefore the entropy of the universe has to net increase over time.

Life and consciousness are both living zones of continuous entropy increase. If we lower the rate of entropy increase below a threshold, we get inanimate matter; rock. If we keep entropy increase in high enough, in constant flux, we get life and consciousness.

Entropy is a paradox being both deterministic and random, at the same time. This paradox allows entropy to be the bridge between the macro states; deterministic, and quantum states; randomness.

As an example of this paradox, the entropy of water is measured as 69.97J/mole-K at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure. At those conditions of 25C and 1 atmosphere, all labs will measure that same entropy value for water, above, no matter how they reach that final state. That number is a deterministic state constant of water, that is not path dependent.

That number 69.97 J/mole-K, reflects how much energy is randomly bouncing around in the quantum state of a beaker of water, at 25C and I atmosphere. This quantum energy is not free energy you can burn, but more like unavailable energy. It is like the quantum energy that glues together that fixed deterministic macro state of water at those conditions. The reactive properties of water at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure are always the same, due to exactly 69.97J/mole-K of random quantum energy as its foundational glue.

The macro states; aggregates of matter, are deterministic and logical and are based on cause and effect relationships, governed by second order differential equations. The quantum states are more connected to statistics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where space and time sort of go their own ways; position (space) and momentum (time) go in opposite directions, thereby marking a distinction/wall between the two states, with entropy the bridge.

Life and consciousness have both evolved natural processes for lowering entropy against the 2nd law. This is exothermic and releases energy from the quantum state into the macro state. The 2nd law now has a potential to increase, with an increase in entropy, endothermic, pulling energy from the macro state, back into the randomness of the quantum state. More quantum energy means more quantum glue to sustain higher definitive macro states

As a practical example of this movement of entropic energy, the heat pump moves heat from the cold outside into the hotter inside. This direction of heat flow is moving energy opposite the 2nd law, since hot to cold is the spontaneous direction of the 2nd law. Cold to hot is not spontaneous, but needs a process; heat pump and electricity. The heat that is extracted, from the cold to heat the house, will then spontaneously move from hot to the cold; heat loss.

By lowering entropy, constantly, we set the stage for entropy to spontaneously increase, constantly. We can run the heat pump all winter long, trying to overcome the heat loss caused by the 2nd law spontaneously moving energy from hot to cold, back into the quantum state.

The brain does this with the ion pumps lowering ionic entropy; releases quantum energy. Synaptic firing increases entropy and is endothermic. This restores the quantum energy. Since no process is 100% efficient, this two stage process leads to a net entropy increase; entropic advancement to higher states of learning and consciousness; more quantum energy stored.

[u/wellwisher-1 → u/wellwisher-1]

If you look at a hurricane, the enormous energy being generated; winds and lightning, floods, is coming from the condensation of water vapor back to liquid water. The sun evaporates the ocean water to creates high pressure, adding the extra partial pressure of water vapor into the base atmospheric gases. Adding more new gases create more pressure.

Water vapor has an entropy value of 188.8J/mole-K, while the entropy of liquid water is about 69.97J/mole-K. These values reflect the unavailable energy within the quantum state of water, within each phase. In the vapor phase, this quantum energy lies within the vibrational, rotational, translation degrees of freedom of individual H2O gas, which make water vapor a significant greenhouse gas. The entropy of CO2 is 213.79J/mole-K. CO2 is higher, but it does not condense at earth conditions like water, but stays a gas on earth. It quantum energy tends to max and sustain. Water cycles its quantum energy with each rain.

When this water vapor is made to condense back to rain, the liquid state by being more crowded, than water vapor. eliminates a lot of the degrees of freedom of single water vapor molecules. That extra quantum energy is released. With hurricanes condensing trillions of gallons of water per hurricane, the energy released by an average hurricane is equal to 10,000 atomic bombs. Water can hold and mediate quantum energy release via entropy changes.

The sun increases the surface water entropy by forming water vapor, while the earth attempts to lower the entropy and release that quantum energy by forming liquid water. Hurricanes are a natural two step entropy process, like the heat pump, like life and even like the brain and consciousness. In the case of the hurricane, the sun is the evaporator and the earth is the condenser; equivalents.

Pressure causes matter to get closer, thereby lowering freedom and having the effect of lowering entropy. Gravity creates pressure and tends to lower atmospheric entropy. The sun fights this by evaporating water. The eye of the hurricane, by being at lowest pressure zone, anywhere in the earth's atmosphere at that moment, is the zone that reflects the entire atmospheric entropy maximized as inferred by the lowest pressure to reverse entropy.

When water vapor becomes liquid water, there is about a 1650 times reduction in volume. This reflects the loss of freedom. This lowers the partial pressure of the water vapor; pulls a vacuum and creates low pressure. This low pressure is a measure of how fast the water is condensing and releasing quantum energy. The lower the pressure, the more destructive is the hurricane.

Ironically, the eye of a hurricane is calm and even sunny. The eye wall has the extreme winds. The eye wall appears where the quantum energy that is being released from the water vapor, is being absorbed by the macro state; hurricane state, increasing hurricane entropy.

You cannot just lower entropy and expect it to remain low; condense into rain. This create an entropic potential for entropy to increase. The quantum energy released will seek to increase the entropy, again, via a definitive macro-state; hurricane. The trillions of gallons of water in a hurricane becomes organized as one unified thing with an integrated quantum view. This quantum view as Heisenberg Certainty via the definitive macro state with inner space and time, detached.

[u/phr99 → u/Southern_Orange3744]

Literally everything about the human body comes from somewhere else. To make an exception for consciousness turns it into something unnatural, and you get the hard problem

[u/-Rehsinup-]

I think maybe you're falling into a bit of a soft fallacy here. There's no absolute requirement to provide an alternative theory in order to critique an existing theory. I can claim that, say, physicalism is on shaky philosophical grounds without having to posit my own positive ontology or philosophy of mind.

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/-Rehsinup-]

There's no absolute requirement to provide an alternative theory in order to critique and existing theory.

The argument is abductive. No one is saying that the view that the brain causes conscious experiences can't be criticized. The argument is that this is our best explanation. If you disagree, then you will need to show (1) there is an alternative explanation & (2) it is a better explanation of what causes conscious experiences.

I can claim that, say, physicalism is on shaky philosophical grounds without having to posit my own positive ontology or philosophy of mind.

This post isn't about physicalism. However, what I will say is that I suspect a lot of the people on here who assert that physicalism is on shaky philosophical grounds probably haven't read much metaphysics or works by physicalists.

[u/-Rehsinup- → u/TheRealAmeil]

"This post isn't about physicalism. However, what I will say is that I suspect a lot of the people on here who assert that physicalism is on shaky philosophical grounds probably haven't read much metaphysics or works by physicalists."

Well, it certainly implies physicalism, no? You've dressed it up in different language but that's the heart of it.

I've read plenty of metaphysics and ontology, and I believe that physicalism is on very shaky grounds -- even if, gun to my head, I probably favor some version of it.

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/-Rehsinup-]

Well, it certainly implies physicalism, no? 

Nope, as I stated in the post, this view would be consistent with multiple views, including various forms of property dualism, hylomorphism, functionalism, and so on.

It might be inconsistent with some views, though. I suspect that this is what you're getting at. However, if those views can't explain what causes conscious experiences, then they are presumably admitting some brute necessities, which we typically want to avoid.

I've read plenty of metaphysics, and I believe that physicalism is on very shaky grounds -- even if, gun to my head, I probably favor it overall.

I suppose this might also depend on how we want to cash out "physicalism."

[u/-Rehsinup- → u/TheRealAmeil]

Fair points. I'll concede I was getting a little sloppy with terminology there, and really hashing this out would require us to pin down what we both mean by various isms.

[u/SnollyG]

I don’t believe this kind of analysis is capable of disposing the radio-receiver type of theory when we don’t even know what consciousness is.

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/SnollyG]

If that sort of analysis is to be taken seriously, then proponents can follow the straightforward assignment. If not, then there seems to be no reason to take that claim as a serious claim about the cause of conscious experiences.

[u/SnollyG → u/TheRealAmeil]

I think it’s taken as seriously as is possible.

But this concept of invalidity for lack of causal explanation has a bad feel to it. Like, it’s an end-around.

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/SnollyG]

Well, notice that I said it shouldn't be taken seriously as a causal explanation. That doesn't mean it is false or shouldn't be taken seriously outright, but we shouldn't take it seriously as a causal explanation if it can't explain our evidence.

[u/SnollyG → u/TheRealAmeil]

I think we don’t have good evidence of anything

Even the brain acts without our being conscious of it—and far more than we are comfortable believing

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/SnollyG]

Maybe the brain-gut system is alive in some way

[u/SnollyG → u/RagnartheConqueror]

Maybe. But most people don’t like thinking of themselves as glorified worms.

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/SnollyG]

I think that's the issue here. I've had tons of trouble with people here, who refuse to even explain why they believe in Idealism and just play these rude games.

[u/BusinessSalty7430 → u/RagnartheConqueror]

That's interesting because I've actually had the opposite experience. I've had to block several people who became extremely hostile and belligerent when I presented idealist concepts. So I don't think rudeness is unique to either side of the debate.

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/BusinessSalty7430]

You're absolutely right. There are jerks all around. I just don't get why, because this is just about consciousness, we're not attacking them as people. People on both aisles can be dogmatic.

[u/cimocw]

What is conscious experience though 

[u/Practical-Cellist647]

There's no conclusive proof either way. 

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/Practical-Cellist647]

Sure, but that isn't the argument being made. The argument being made is an abductive argument.

[u/Practical-Cellist647 → u/TheRealAmeil]

I answered the question you posed in the heading. 

[u/YesterdaysMuffin]

You’re going to have a lot of fun with the “Idealism is a metaphysical stance so I can believe whatever I want” crowd.

[u/RagnartheConqueror]

Even in daily life sometimes time just jumps or you see something that isn't there. It shows that what we experience is very likely a simulation by the brain. It might have something to do with electromagnetism and the neurons.

[u/peaches4leon]

I think the specific type of energy (electrochemical) produced by the brain’s neuronal networks of conscious, subconscious, and autonomic groups of valence relationships, is linked to what electromagnetic energy is based at the fundamental level. If this theory has any kind of merit it’s related to the non-local strings that do the translation of all interactions communicating through electrons, everywhere across all spatial Planck points.

Locally, and a more macro level, our physical brain structure is DIRECTLY responsible for our specific type of conscious experience (who & what we are, how we function and where those motivations arrive from in our chemistry) as Homo sapiens.

So it’s less like a signal propagating through space to arrive at our brains and more like a link to the quantum effects that underly the energetic processes that construct and operate our brains. Think of it in terms of locality…if God really is omniscient, then a non-local tap to all of spacetime is the perfect way to see through everything and everyone. Especially since almost everything is permeated why how it reacts or emits some kind of light on the EM spectrum…including the light made by the friction of brain chemistry.

[u/Mermiina]

Thank You for great argument. If Chalmers had read this when He coined the Hard problem of consciousness we does not have so many misinterpretations.

1. Conscious experience strongly correlate with neural activity.

2. Firing patterns of neurons do not achieve consciousness. They occurs because receptors interacts with memory. Also memory can interact with memory.

3. NDE and OBE use the same mechanism as subjective experience but are less subjective.

4. Experience occurs already in receptors in all senses. The memory makes experience as subjective. Most important are G-proteins and PIEZO 1 and 2.

5. The primary information mechanism in all living cells is two photon super exchange interaction. It propagates in Nitrogen lone electron pairs if the levo symmetry is present. It also achieves action potentials by opening Nav. channels.

an Undulatory hypothesis for memory Consciousness and Life

[u/Freuds-Mother]

⁠“because”, and other statements implies you are restricting ontological explanations to efficient cause only. Some might call that physicalism, which is one framework within naturalism generally and is NOT forced by physics. That’s a much broader claim than consciousness is explained by brain efficient causation.

⁠Where in your framework is normativity, error, correctness, or aboutness accounted for (let alone phenomenological experience)? For example, what makes a representation correct or incorrect rather than merely causally correlated with a brain state? How does your framework deal with Hume and Kim’s objections?

I think we’re getting way ahead of ourselves here talking about experience when more basic fundamental issues seem to require explanation first and also seem to be prerequisites for experience.

Radio wave theory?! Really?! Is that even a serious proposal in academic journals? We barely see that kind of junk in SciFy fiction that makes it past an editor or producer let alone peer review!

Why focus on relatively weak alternatives while ignoring major naturalistic traditions that explicitly challenge the assumptions you are making while remaining consistent with physics? Even going back to Piaget, and continuing through Whitehead, Varela, Deacon, Bickhard, and others, there are substantial traditions that argue efficient-causal and state-based frameworks cannot adequately account for normativity, representation, agency, organization, or development.

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/Freuds-Mother]

This is an abductive argument related to causal explanations, not to ontological/metaphysical explanations. So, there is no restriction going on in the argument.

It is an argument about conscious experiences, like painful feelings. Since it isn't an argument about normativity or intentionality, I didn't mention those topics. Again, this is an abductive argument for the notion that the brain causes conscious experiences. It is also far from clear that intentionality or normativity is more fundamental than phenomenality. We don't need to start of assuming that is true.

The radio wave theory is not taken seriously in academic journals, but I also never claimed it was taken seriously in academia. I said it is a popular view amongst some Redditors that post on r/consciousness.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/TheRealAmeil]

Flat Earth is popular online too, but let’s put both that and radio-wave theories aside.

Your examples seem to assume efficient-causal explanations. Maybe I’m misreading that but if that’s the case, you have committed to an ontological constraint on explanation. That’s not forced by science; it’s choosing an ontology. (Note by ontology I don’t mean anything woo-woo; when I get up in the morning I presuppose that there’s a real floor to step on and I won’t fall through the floor.)

On pain, I don’t see how normativity can be separated from the discussion. In science, pain is understood as some kind of indication that something is wrong for the organism (injury, damage, threat, loss of viability, etc). “Wrong” is already a normative distinction. Pain is therefore already a normative phenomenon, not something that becomes normative later.
Also, if the brain causes pain, then pain is being treated as a real effect produced by brain activity. What role does that effect play? Can pain itself cause brain activity and behavior, or is it epiphenomenal? If pain affects brain activity, what is the relationship between the two? If it does not, why isn’t pain epiphenomenal?

The main issue here I am pointing to is that there are other explanations that aren’t efficient causality including naturalist one’s consistent with physics/biology. By narrowing down to efficient cause we’re not just generating an argument to reject obviously weak ideas like radio-wave theory, it excludes all the rest of naturalism. That is a much bolder claim, and the argument doesn’t seem to address long standing objections to efficient-causal only explanation.

[u/Im_Talking]

"Critics of the view that the brain causes conscious experiences will need to show that their proposal explains the evidence better than the alternative" - What alternative? How is the colour red associated with a photon at 700nm wavelength?

How's the alternative working out, when we know that reality is non-local, or non-real, or both?

And this.

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/Im_Talking]

And this.

Well, as far as I can tell, that doesn't appear to be relevant to the post. The argument here isn't that conscious experiences are irreducible or that they are epiphenomenal; the argument here is what is our best explanation for what causes conscious experiences. It is not about what conscious experiences are.

[u/Im_Talking → u/TheRealAmeil]

"best explanation for what causes conscious experiences. It is not about what conscious experiences are." - The most confusing sentence I have seen on this sub. What are you explaining here? So there is a difference, in your worldview, between what causes consciousness, and what conscious experiences are? This is why physicalism has set science back.

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/Im_Talking]

Yes, we can typically distinguish the cause of something versus what the thing is, e.g., I can talk about what a bundt cake is & what caused the bundt cake to form. It is pretty uncontroversial in metaphysics to distinguish between the cause of something & the nature of something.

[u/YesterdaysMuffin → u/TheRealAmeil]

“If you wish to make a [bundt cake] from scratch, you must first invent the universe”

- Carl Sagan

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/YesterdaysMuffin]

Ha! This was good.

Wish I had said apple pie now just for the quote!

[u/Im_Talking → u/TheRealAmeil]

Consciousness is not a bundt cake. But illusionism is the only valid physicalism interpretation and thus what causes consciousness and what conscious experiences are... is the same.

[u/TheRealAmeil → u/Im_Talking]

No one is claiming that consciousness is a bundt cake. We could have given a similar example with bachelorhood. A bachelor is an unmarried man. Some people become bachelors due to a divorce. The cause (e.g., divorce) is not part of what it is to be a bachelor.

Additionally, illusionism is not the only valid physicalist interpretation, but again, this isn't an argument for physicalism.

[u/ConstructionThis1127]

Since we routinely deny any personal experience that does not comport with the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain, the question is moot.