On the one hand, I agree with Poznansky that "Feeling" refers to experiences (the second proposed meaning). The capacity of feeling is called "Sentience" by some authors, including myself.

On the other hand, I disagree with Poznansky on his usual combination of words: "physical feelings" and "experiential materialism". The capacity of feeling (Sentience) involves material and informational structures composing "dynamic patterns" (Scott Kelso), but when the feeling is felt the resulting conscious experience involves another fundamental component of reality: the temporal unfolding of primal Energy, the so-called "psychic energy" (Freud, Jung), which is usually analyzed in terms of amplitude, frequency and phase of waves, in neuroscience, and as music, in human experiences.

Hi Alfredo Pereira Junior That is a reasonable definition of sentience; here is a distinction I draw: "Sentience" is a word that particularly suggests a feeler of some kind to which feeling then happens. In my work I emphasize that feeling comes first, as a fundamental, and then from this, feelers can be made, then we have sentience. The distinction is both subtle and important.

It also leads to prerequisites somewhat resembling yours.

Perhaps "concept" would have been a more satisfying choice in my opening sentence than "capacity?" As opposed to an instance, happening. As with running, eating, etc.

In my view, the phenomenological experience is already happening at the fundamental behavior. (This most directly destroys the homunculus, and without some spooky emergence.)

My feeling is that Poznansky has no substance to his model but likes to criticize anyone else's ideas, and if not the ideas then he bites into people's character, ability to use language etc.

Poznansky, please share with us your clear understanding of a model that points to the way it is, rather than knocking other's approaches.

I will make this even simpler.

"Thus, the basic tools seemed to be more or less to hand, for the description of all the known particles [electron, proton, photon] of Nature, together with their most manifest interactions. Yet most physicists of the day were not so foolish as to think that this could shortly lead to a 'theory of everything.' For they were aware that neither the forces needed to hold the nucleus together- which we now call the strong forces- nor the mechanisms responsible for radioactive decay- now called the weak forces- could be accommodated without further major advances... There is also the shadowy Higgs particle- still unobserved at the time of writing"

-Roger Penrose

Are we unable to learn from the experience of others, shall we suffer a majestic failure of the imagination? Feeling is natural, feeling is real, feeling is ontologically unique and reveals an explanatory problem of the highest order, feeling has no representation in existing Physics.

Karl Sipfle

what about an orchestral crescendo?

we know what that is in physics and can measure any and all parts of sound waves at each musician's seat; we can appreciate how the architecture reflects the waves back into the sound chamber of the hall; and we can observe and measure and feel the excitement of the individuals in the crowd.

this is physics - and it is the epitome of feelings imagined, scored and recorded on musical paper, interpreted and played by and orchestra led by a conductor, and delivered to the audience and felt with every nerve and fiber of their bodies and minds, why is it not physical?

JW we remain at the same point. As long as you see feeling makeable from things that do not feel and are not even in any intrinsic way elements of feeling, there is nothing further I can (or need to) say beyond what I've said and written already, nothing that adds. This is a fundamental step leading to just a few more that produce much.

From here the discussions to break through come from philosophy, which underlies all science. Philosophy btw is not hand-waving, it is the bedrock of all Western thought, and scientific errors, especially regarding subjects such as consciousness and physics, are often errors in the thinking process, that is, philosophy (or mechanical errors). Evading philosophy is hand-waving. Empiricism is an extremely limited path for this problem in this day; we have been here before on earlier now-solved problems. Not facing up to reality and using the techniques appropriate to the situation typically traces to cowardice or misplaced confidence. Until rather recently, seriously approaching consciousness as a scientific puzzle was eschewed!

Metaphysics, ontology are what to explore next on the sticking point. That doesn't guarantee conversion, but at least you'll be in the right building. A really good idea would be to read about varieties of panpsychism and the advocates' rationales. This step cannot be done with purely physics or purely math. Even more so in service of plausibility. An internally tight theory with no reason to feel it is actually onto something about the real world has little value, just uses up time and ink. If you wait for too much proof on an approach you will be late to the party and just regurgitating the ideas of others for the 10,000th time.

I think you are proscribing that I regurgitate someone else's Ideas because you do not like mine, or think that mine are not in accord or alignment with the question at hand; but I do not want you to regurgitate anything, just tell me what it feels like when you see this in action, https://jerrywaese.github.io/perception/ , and then consider that for feeling to take place, more than one sense is activated and happening together, and when they do happen they evoke memories of similar feelings which is analogous to the orchestra scenario I was talking about.

I.e. do not try to think like those in the past who failed to put it together, but do look at what is real and put as much of that together yourself.

We do not have to talk about it any further.

Dear Karl, you wrote:

"In my work I emphasize that feeling comes first, as a fundamental, and then from this, feelers can be made, then we have sentience. The distinction is both subtle and important."

Alfredo: In my metaphysical framework, Energy comes first, and Matter, Information and Feeling derive from it. Where and when these 3 aspects are integrated, there is conscious experience. The experience is projective, leading to the concepts of Self and World. Therefore, the Self and the World are not two substances, but two sides of the same process, like Husserl´s Noetic-Noematic polarity.

"It also leads to prerequisites somewhat resembling yours.

Perhaps "concept" would have been a more satisfying choice in my opening sentence than "capacity?" As opposed to an instance, happening. As with running, eating, etc."

Alfredo. Sorry, but this change destroys the framework, which is based on Aristotle´s distinction and of Potency and Act, and Whitehead´s view of reality as a process. Concepts are static entities like Plato's Ideas.

"In my view, the phenomenological experience is already happening at the fundamental behavior. (This most directly destroys the homunculus, and without some spooky emergence.)

Alfredo - Sorry again, but experiences are what happen to us, not what we choose them to be. The so-called fundamental level is an explanation of experience that we construct using scientific and philosophical methods. The confusion between both types of reality leads to Frankenstein proposals as "Experiential Materialism". Materialism is an attempt to explain experience on the basis of material factors, it is not an experience.

valences by other definition

Hi Alfredo Pereira Junior

I meant "first" as in before a feeler. Feeling takes energy, as any physical happening.

Matter is packaged energy (radiation is energy, too).

Information technically is a different beast, being only patterns of something else, the something else being made of energy. These somethings else (matter, energy, feeling) are what emerge from the energy and form their patterns.

"Matter, Information and Feeling derive from it. Where and when these 3 aspects are integrated, there is conscious experience."

You're defining consciousness as necessary containing more than feeling. OK, our elaborate experiences incorporate information along with feeling, so that is OK. Matter is just a carrier, of information or feeling. In a brain matter will be the carrier of at least the information so it will be present. Most pure would be to say your consciousness requires feeling + matter, or requires feeling + information (I use the latter); stating all three introduces a redundancy.

"The experience is projective, leading to the concepts of Self and World."

Basic self and world have identities not too far up the stack; a conscious recognition of those things is very far up and not involved with the beginning bootstrap at all.

"Therefore, the Self and the World are not two substances"

Agree.

"In my view, the phenomenological experience is already happening at the fundamental behavior. (This most directly destroys the homunculus, and without some spooky emergence.)

"Sorry again, but experiences are what happen to us,"

Experiences are what happen.

"The so-called fundamental level is an explanation of experience that we construct using scientific and philosophical methods."

No, the explanation is what we construct. As with all other natural things, fundamental feeling is what it is, just as electrostatic force is what it is.

'The confusion between both types of reality leads to Frankenstein proposals as "Experiential Materialism". Materialism is an attempt to explain

experience on the basis of material factors, it is not an experience.'

Sure, it is an ism. Experientialism is also an explanation, of experience. Material is what it is and experience (feeling) is what it is.

Cheers

Karl