The (almost) infinite complexity of the neurobiological systems within the brain is an indicator that probably theories revolving around neurobiological systems (such as neural networks, brain waves, neuroglial cells, etc) have a great chance to be correct.

But I don't rule out other theories, or even a combination of them.

We should depart from lived experiences. What are the fundamentals of lived experiences? I claim that they are three:

a) The material body, containing operative neural (neuronal and glial) systems:;

2) The informational exchanges inside the body and with the external physical and social environment, and

3) The feelings we experience (in the personal perspective).

The next step is to ask how the unity of the three aspects is possible. The answer should be a primitive being, from which the three aspects derive. Religions say it is God. I proposed the concept of Energy, which is close to some philosophical approaches to Buddhism. At this point, we enter a metaphysical discussion in which each discussant chooses the explanation that is more convenient for him/her.

Vahid Rakhshan Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree to start there. As the study proceeds, it appears necessary to consider the physics in which the neurons participate.

Alfredo Pereira Junior Thanks, the first half especially is well-thought and well-written.

I think the next step is to ask what those three things are. The unification is an important problem but invoking it too quickly could lead to erroneous conclusions. I prefer to be primed to recognize how unity could be a natural consequence of mechanisms introduced earlier.

I agree energy is at the bottom in that feeling is a physics energy transaction and ultimately information must be carried in patterns of real things and all real things are made of energy.

I do not condone convenience as a source of knowledge, but traditions can spark thinking, and even the limited and careful reuse of a few widely known concepts, especially since the findings bear on how to live.

Karl Sipfle You are very welcome. Thank you for your good question. Sure, physics is fundamental to anything including the very "neurobiology systems" I mentioned. There are even pumps in cell membranes that work 100% by quantum mechanic laws, and some of such can have computational roles too. So everything neurobiological is already physics. But I was saying that perhaps the firing of neurons, the brain waves, neuroglial cells, and such might play a much more important role compared to, say, quantum entanglement or theories like that. And again, I don't really rule out any theories or any combination of theories.

• Alfredo Pereira Junior : "The next step is to ask how the unity of the three aspects is possible."
• "I proposed the concept of Energy, which is close to some philosophical approaches to Buddhism."

Can you elaborate: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_the_brain_process_information_from_the_different_sensory_organs_and_integrate_them_into_a_coherent_perception

Vahid Rakhshan

Short paper dealing with that: Preprint The Location of Consciousness in the Brain

Began to read Karl Sipfle thanks.

I guess I found some proof. Sort of. See this: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_imaginations_or_memories_dont_seem_as_vivid_as_first-hand_experience_Can_this_help_us_understand_phenomenal_consciousness_and_qualia_better

Vahid, at this moment I do not want to enter the discussion, but you can find an updated summary of my position here: Chapter Conscious Experience in Triple-Aspect Monism and Philosophy ...

“What indicators or clues lead you to suspect that your favored theory (or a few) of consciousness is correct or nearly so?”

The fundamentally important and utmost universal condition/ “clue” for any theory of consciousness would be “correct or nearly so” only if the author understands – what are all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

- which really are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including, say, neurosciences,

- so in every case, when some mainstream authors develop some fundamental theory, the result completely obligatorily logicallyis nothing else than some transcendent fantastic mental constructions;

- and so all/every existent in the mainstream “theories of consciousness” are for sure nothing else than such constructions.

All these phenomena/notions can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

Including both – Matter and any consciousness in the Set, including the “consciousness on Earth” version, including “homo sapiens sapiens consciousness” version of this consciousness, are fundamentally absolutely nothing else than some informational systems/elements of the Set, and so are made from the only one stuff – “Information”,

- nonetheless Matter and any consciousness on Earth are fundamentally different systems, and so fundamentally for sure any purely material structure cannot be some “consciousness”.

Etc., the really scientific general explanation of what are concrete informational systems “ Matter” and “Consciousness”, including so of what is “Life” on Earth, are given on first dozen of pages in the link above.

More concretely the SS&VT functional model of “consciousness on Earth” is described in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness

So, say, that

“…The (almost) infinite complexity of the neurobiological systems within the brain is an indicator that probably theories revolving around neurobiological systems (such as neural networks, brain waves, neuroglial cells, etc) have a great chance to be correct…”

- really is fundamentally incorrect. Any consciousness is fundamentally non-material system, while the neurobiological systems within the brain, etc., are, first of all, some compositions of purely material atoms and molecules, so all these systems can be – and really are – only some auxiliary components of indeed very complex – and, again, fundamentally non-material, system “consciousness”.

Correspondingly that

.

“…But I don't rule out other theories, or even a combination of them.…..”

- in the mainstream is indeed fundamentally so,

– since in every case there can be principally only one scientifically correct theory of anything, including of consciousness, and arbitrary, if infinite, number of erroneous theories; just that now exists in the mainstream,

- where the “theories” of consciousness are numerous, and, since only scientific theory can be scientifically grounded and so it is possible scientifically either to confirm or to reject such theory,

- while if the “theories” are quite equally only some transcendent mental constructions it is principally impossible to know scientifically – which of transcendent fairy tales is true; and so yeah, all, again, rather numerous, mainstream “theories” are completely equally “true” and completely equally legitimate – only in the mainstream, of course.

More see the links above.

Cheers

Recent SS comment to a mainstream paper “Design of a minimal di-nickel hydrogenase peptide”. Science Advances journal, March 10, 2023, in

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/64244a27806fe2503df29024

- is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers