A proposal for clarifying the real disagreement here

General
,
1

Certain threads have felt more contentious than generative lately, so I’d like to suggest we try a different strategy:

My current read is that we are not only disagreeing about consciousness, free will, the praeternatural, postmodernism, science, or metaphysical frameworks, and so on. We are also disagreeing about what kind of claims are being made, what burden of proof they bear, and what kind of response counts as serious engagement.

As I see it, most discussions of metaphysics have been stuck in a loop:

large claim → request for clarification or compression → this is read as refusal to engage → sharper accusation → defensive or mocking response → further confirmation that the forum is not truth-seeking.

I may be mapping this wrong. Treat this as a draft diagnosis, not a verdict.

One thing I think @GeoffDann is right about: if 2R is serious about a Second Renaissance, it cannot treat truth as merely a social negotiation. There has to be room for empirical constraint, contradiction, logic, and the possibility that some claims are simply false.

One thing I think Geoff’s critics are right about: perspective-coordination does not have to mean “truth is whatever the group negotiates.” It can mean that finite people with partial maps compare perspectives so that reality has more chances to correct them. I suppose Geoff would even agree with this.

So perhaps the real disagreement is not:

Truth vs perspectives

but:

What role should perspective-coordination play in a shared search for truth?

That seems like a much more productive question.

I’d like to propose a clarification exercise. Not to settle the metaphysics, but to separate the disputes.

For any major claim in these threads, could we specify which category it belongs to?

  1. Publicly testable empirical claim
    Example: a claim about neuroscience, cosmology, ecology, historical fact, or measurable prediction.
  2. Philosophical/metaphysical claim
    Example: physicalism is incoherent; consciousness cannot be reduced to matter; free will is real or impossible.
  3. Subjective experiential claim
    Example: “I have directly experienced synchronicity/praeternatural phenomena.”
  4. Interpretive or civilizational claim
    Example: 2R is too perspectivist; postmodernism corrupted truth-seeking; modern science hides metaphysical assumptions.
  5. Normative/forum-practice claim
    Example: people are obligated to engage; long posts deserve careful reading; AI-generated replies should or should not count.

Each category needs a different standard.

A subjective experience may be valid for the person who had it without becoming binding on people who did not.
A metaphysical theory may be coherent without yet being publicly established.
A public empirical claim needs public evidence.
A forum-practice claim needs mutual agreement about obligations.
A civilizational diagnosis needs examples, but also humility about alternative explanations.

So I’d like to ask some concrete questions.

For Geoff:

  1. Which parts of 2PC/NED do you think 2R must accept for 2R to remain viable, and which parts can remain open disagreement?
  2. What would count as serious engagement with your model short of accepting it?
  3. What would count as a legitimate reason for someone not to engage further, without that being evidence of postmodern avoidance, bad faith, or fear of truth?
  4. What specific empirical or logical finding would force a revision of 2PC?
  5. When you say 2R has a broken relationship with Truth, what behavior would show that this is changing?

For skeptics or critics:

  1. Are you rejecting Geoff’s conclusions, his tone, his burden of proof, his metaphysics, or the implied obligation to engage?
  2. Which of his claims do you think are actually false, rather than merely overstated or unsupported?
  3. What would count as a fair test of his strongest claim?
  4. Do you accept that subjective experience can be epistemically meaningful for the experiencer even when it is not publicly binding?
  5. How do we prevent “perspective-coordination” from becoming a way to avoid saying “this is false” when a claim really is false?

For everyone, including me:

  1. What is the difference between refusing to engage and setting a reasonable boundary around one’s time?
  2. What is the difference between a hard truth-claim and a domination move?
  3. What is the difference between skepticism and dismissal?
  4. What is the difference between seriousness and contempt?
  5. What kind of forum practice would let ambitious, heterodox theories be tested without requiring everyone to become a full-time reviewer?

I think there is a potentially important distinction here:

We cannot require people to believe what they have not experienced.
We also cannot require people to ignore someone’s experience merely because it is not publicly reproducible.
The question is how to hold both constraints at once.

That seems especially relevant to the praeternatural discussion. If a phenomenon is claimed to be knowable only through direct subjective experience, then skeptics should not mock the experience, but believers also should not treat nonbelief as moral or intellectual failure. The possible agreement is something like:

“This may be real; some people may know it directly; others are not obligated to believe it without the relevant experience; and public claims still need public standards.”

That might not solve the metaphysical dispute, but it could improve the discussion.

My suggested next step: let’s not try to settle everything at once. Pick one claim and classify it.

For example:

“Physicalism is incoherent.”

Is that being offered as a philosophical claim, an empirical claim, or both?
What is the strongest argument for it?
What would count against it?
Who here is actually defending physicalism, and who is merely asking for a clearer burden of proof?

Or:

“2R has a broken relationship with Truth.”

What observable forum behaviors support that?
What alternative explanations exist?
What behavior would disconfirm it?

If we can get clearer about the type of claim, the burden of proof, and the standard of engagement, we may be able to turn this from a status fight into a real inquiry.

I do not think the goal should be premature consensus. A better first goal would be better disagreement.

2 Likes
2

Yes, but this problem is not being caused by me.

As I see it, most discussions of metaphysics have been stuck in a loop:

large claim → request for clarification or compression → this is read as refusal to engage → sharper accusation → defensive or mocking response → further confirmation that the forum is not truth-seeking.
I may be mapping this wrong. Treat this as a draft diagnosis, not a verdict.

It is completely wrong. At no point have I refused clarification, and I only refuse compression where such compression will lose critical information. The real problem is persistent bad faith communication by you:

  • Lack of curiosity in opposing views
  • Refusing changes in position based on new information
  • Strawmanning the position of others
  • Avoidance or omission of careful clarifications and evidence
  • No attempts to find shared base realities and values
  • Emergence of stalemates, polarization, and simplifications

You have made no attempt whatsoever to understand my position. All you are interested in is finding ways to attack it, because you do not want to accept that your own worldview (idealism? Panpsychism? Note that you’ve not declared which one it is…) is inadequate. Either way, you believe in disembodied consciousness, regardless of mountains of empirical evidence to the contrary, and you have no intention whatsoever of changing that position. Until now, you had assumed that you would go to your grave still believing it, right? If so, it is not surprising that you are having problems responding to what I am posting, is it?

One thing I think @GeoffDann is right about: if 2R is serious about a Second Renaissance, it cannot treat truth as merely a social negotiation. There has to be room for empirical constraint, contradiction, logic, and the possibility that some claims are simply false.

Yes. And I appear to be the only person here who is serious about this.

One thing I think Geoff’s critics are right about: perspective-coordination does not have to mean “truth is whatever the group negotiates.” It can mean that finite people with partial maps compare perspectives so that reality has more chances to correct them. I suppose Geoff would even agree with this.

Currently, partial maps and incorrect maps are the only maps on offer, apart from the one I am offering you.

So perhaps the real disagreement is not:

Truth vs perspectives

but:

What role should perspective-coordination play in a shared search for truth?

That seems like a much more productive question.

I am quite happy to explore that question.

I’d like to propose a clarification exercise. Not to settle the metaphysics, but to separate the disputes.
For any major claim in these threads, could we specify which category it belongs to?

  1. Publicly testable empirical claim
    Example: a claim about neuroscience, cosmology, ecology, historical fact, or measurable prediction.
  2. Philosophical/metaphysical claim
    Example: physicalism is incoherent; consciousness cannot be reduced to matter; free will is real or impossible.
  3. Subjective experiential claim
    Example: “I have directly experienced synchronicity/praeternatural phenomena.”
  4. Interpretive or civilizational claim
    Example: 2R is too perspectivist; postmodernism corrupted truth-seeking; modern science hides metaphysical assumptions.
  5. Normative/forum-practice claim
    Example: people are obligated to engage; long posts deserve careful reading; AI-generated replies should or should not count.

Each category needs a different standard.

I already do this (not in this thread, but the whole point of the NED is distinguish between things in this way).

A metaphysical theory may be coherent without yet being publicly established.

This is why you should not let AI do your thinking for you. Obviously 2PC is not “publicly established”. I am trying to establish it. It is new, and I always knew it would face immense resistance. This is how paradigm shifts work, and this is the biggest shift since the Enlightenment.

  1. Which parts of 2PC/NED do you think 2R must accept for 2R to remain viable, and which parts can remain open disagreement?

The NED is more fundamental than 2PC. Without that or something like it, 2R will go nowhere. But I created the NED before I had finished 2PC and it ultimately if you accept the NED, you will end up having to accept 2PC or something very similar, because there is no other way to incorporate the claim that brains are both necessary and insufficient for consciousness. Nagel already set the conditions – the question – in Mind and Cosmos, and I believe 2PC is the only viable answer.

  1. What would count as serious engagement with your model short of accepting it?

Actually showing that you’ve made an effort to understand it, instead of just trying to find superficial ways to justify a refusal to accept it.

  1. What would count as a legitimate reason for someone not to engage further, without that being evidence of postmodern avoidance, bad faith, or fear of truth?

Nothing. There is no legitimate reason for anybody here to ignore a proposed cosmological-metaphysical model which claims to resolve the 30 biggest problems in science and philosophy. The only reason would be if you aren’t interested in philosophy and the current crisis Western civilisation faces, which might well apply to 95% of the general population, but nobody here has that excuse, especially when multiple AI analyses have said that 2PC is exactly what 2R needs, and entirely compatible with Storm’s metamodernism.

  1. What specific empirical or logical finding would force a revision of 2PC?

Many things might force a revision, but without forcing a rejection of the basic structure. The basic structure could only be taken down by three things:

(1) Dark matter proven to be something other than the bound state of Dirac monopoles.
(2) Confirmed evidence of alien life.
(3) A genuine rival – a completely different resolution of all 30 problems, with the same explanatory power.

Nothing else can touch it, because its power for resolving existing anomalies is enormous. It is a single structure (the two phases) and mechanism (the embodiment threshold or equivalent) which cleanly resolves the 30 biggest problems in science and philosophy. How could anything else compete with that?

If you had actually tried to understand how 2PC works then I wouldn’t need to keep explaining this to you. The real problem is that you are not remotely interested in making the effort to understand 2PC because it contradicts your existing belief system. There is no other credible explanation for the way you have reacted to it. What you are actually trying to do is to find a way to downgrade 2PC from what I am describing it as (in bold above) and “just another competing theory”. If you actually understood it, you wouldn’t even bother trying to do this.

The following analogy is very important:

What 2PC does is to take 30 puzzle pieces (the 30 biggest problems in science and philosophy, and currently treated as 30 different problems), and assembles them into a new model of reality whereby they stop being puzzles and make a coherent whole. However, this whole picture fundamentally contradicts your existing belief system, so instead of accepting that it is the correct solution, you are trying to argue that there are multiple competing proposals for a solution, and therefore it shouldn’t be accepted (yet). This only makes sense if you’ve made so little effort to understand that solution that you haven’t actually seen what the completed picture looks like. In reality, there is no other solution that successfully integrates even five of these puzzle pieces, let alone all 30. The moment you see that picture, you will not be able to unsee it. It is a gestalt shift

You can use AI to do this, but in order to do that honestly then you need to use the AI to help you understand 2PC and why it matters, instead of just using it to attempt to attack it. You have not done this. If you had, then we would not be having this discussion.

  1. When you say 2R has a broken relationship with Truth, what behavior would show that this is changing?

A collective attempt to understand 2PC: how it actually works, and why the alternatives on offer, including panpsychism and idealism, do not work. You need to understand all 30 problems – their specific shapes – and how each problem is solved by the same metaphysical architecture.

  1. What is the difference between refusing to engage and setting a reasonable boundary around one’s time?

I have plenty of time. I accept that many other people are not so lucky, but that cannot be a justification for refusing to try to understand what I am saying.

  1. What is the difference between a hard truth-claim and a domination move?

Hard truth claims are backed up with science and reason.

  1. What is the difference between skepticism and dismissal?

Skepticism requires a genuine understanding of what is being rejected. Creationists aren’t “evolution skeptics” and climate change deniers aren’t “climate change skeptics”. In both cases, the so-called “skeptics” have made no effort to understand what they are denying, and in both cases it is for the same reason: accepting evolution or climate change would force a complete rethink of their belief system, and they simply aren’t prepared to do that. And because we live in a postmodern, post-truth world, there is insufficient social pressure to force them to do it. They think they have every right to go on believing whatever rubbish they like. This is the Meaning Crisis.

  1. What is the difference between seriousness and contempt?

Same answer. If you are serious then you need to make the effort to understand the position you are trying to attack.

  1. What kind of forum practice would let ambitious, heterodox theories be tested without requiring everyone to become a full-time reviewer?

Good question! AI might help, but this has got to be done according to certain rules. We need to know the prompt, the context, and see the entire response. I have consistently tried to do this.

We cannot require people to believe what they have not experienced.
We also cannot require people to ignore someone’s experience merely because it is not publicly reproducible.
The question is how to hold both constraints at once.

We can ignore people’s experience all day long if it is not reproducible. That is exactly why I do not expect anybody to believe synchronicity is real based on somebody-else’s experiences. I didn’t believe it until it happened to me.

“This may be real; some people may know it directly; others are not obligated to believe it without the relevant experience; and public claims still need public standards.”

See Principle 6 of the NED.

My suggested next step: let’s not try to settle everything at once. Pick one claim and classify it.

We are already doing this. That is why Robert started a thread of each of the 8 principles (or the first 6 so far…)

Who here is actually defending physicalism, and who is merely asking for a clearer burden of proof?

JonahW is defending it, and his refusal to engage with a very detailed proof, and my unwillingness to accept that situation, was why I was suspended from this forum for a year.

What observable forum behaviors support that?

The collective defense of postmodern relativism, and collective unwillingness to approach truth. 2R operates by trying to find better ways to disagree with each other, when what is actually required is to collectively seek truth.

I do not think the goal should be premature consensus. A better first goal would be better disagreement.

And that, precisely, is the problem. You want to go on avoiding consensus ad infinitum, because you are not willing to accept that brains are necessary for minds, when in fact the only way forwards that can work is for you to admit that there is a very large body of neuroscientific evidence which demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that brains are indeed necessary. Idealism and panpsychism are solutions to the Hard Problem of Consciousness which do NOT work as coherent models of the whole of reality. The entire purpose of 2PC is to end this situation conclusively, forever, by finally providing a metaphysical model which works. A big step forwards would be for you to actually admit that this is what is actually going on.

The problem is really very simple: idealism and panpsychism are inadequate, because they deny neuroscience. They are only considered serious contenders because we have no better answers. The whole point in 2PC is that it is NOT like all those inadequate answers, because it actually resolves the 30 biggest problems in science and philosophy – cleanly, parsimoniously and unequivocally. The only way forwards is for you to understand enough about 2PC to either accept what I am saying, or provide a decent justification for not accepting it. This is actually how analytical philosophy has always worked, and I would very much like to find a forum like this where I could defend 2PC in that context. Unfortunately, no such forum exists. The only forums for philosophy are guarded by gatekeepers who will not let me in, because I am defending a theory which hasn’t been peer reviewed. And of course, the peer reviewers wouldn’t accept it either, because it is so radically inter-disciplinary. Same applies to cosmology forums. This is exactly what Kuhn says happens when paradigm shifts happen.

If you really want to make progress on this then the single most important thing we can do is closely examine a single claim supported by a great deal of empirical evidence: brains are necessary for consciousness. I promised Rufus I would not start any more threads, but you could start one. Or is this not the real “elephant in the room”?

3

Thanks, Geoff. This does clarify the disagreement.

I do not want to turn this into a dispute about my motives, my worldview, or whether I have made enough effort to understand 2PC. That loop will not help either of us.

The most useful thing in your reply, to me, is this:

I’m willing to start there.

To keep the discussion bounded, I suggest we separate three claims:

  1. Brains are necessary for ordinary human consciousness as we encounter it in embodied life.
  2. Changes or damage to brains can alter, impair, or extinguish reported conscious capacities.
  3. Therefore, consciousness cannot exist in any form without brains.

I suspect many people here would accept 1 and 2, while questioning whether 3 follows.

So the question I’d like to examine is:

What is the strongest empirical or logical argument that gets us from brain-dependence in ordinary embodied human life to brain-necessity in principle?

That seems like a clearer test case than trying to evaluate the whole of 2PC at once.

I also want to name one process condition, because otherwise this discussion will collapse back into the same pattern. For this to work, I think we need to distinguish between:

  • misunderstanding a claim,
  • understanding but rejecting a claim,
  • understanding but suspending judgment,
  • and declining to review an entire architecture.

If non-acceptance of 2PC is treated as proof that someone has not understood it, then the discussion becomes difficult to enter. But if we can focus on one claim at a time, with clear standards for what would count for or against it, then I think this could become productive.

So I’m happy to begin with:

Brains are necessary for consciousness.

My first clarifying question would be:

Are you claiming that neuroscience establishes brain-dependence for ordinary human consciousness, or that it establishes the stronger metaphysical claim that consciousness is impossible without brains in any form?

Those seem related, but not identical.

4

“Ordinary human consciousness” is the only form of consciousness we are familiar with. It is where the definition of that word comes from. Now…this definition is very important (that is already well understood), and the definition I use is extremely precise:

Consciousness | Two-Phase Cosmology

Consciousness is the only reason we know reality exists at all. It is the frame for our own subjective experience of reality. As such, the only way we can define it is in terms of subjectivity itself – we must, in effect, mentally point to our own experiences and associate the word with those experiences. The technical name for this is a “private ostensive definition”. This is not an orthodox definition, but it establishes what the word is supposed to mean. I must stress that Wittgenstein’s private language argument does not apply in this case, because I am not trying to define a private language; I am merely establishing the meaning of the word “consciousness” as used . We can take this a bit further, because it is necessary to ensure that we avoid solipsism (the belief that nothing exists outside our own mind). Within our own consciousness, we are aware of a large number of other beings which behave as if they too are conscious – not just other humans but also most animals, right down to the level of something like an insect or a worm (although precisely how and where we draw the line is very much an open question at this point). If we assume these other beings are actually conscious too, then solipsism can be dismissed.

If we accept Wittgenstein’s “private language argument”, then we cannot define consciousness in this way, but then we will go down the path of logical positivism and eliminative materialism. I don’t think we can do that.

If we reject W’s argument then we can establish what “consciousness” means, but we can only generalise it to other animals which appear to be conscious. Exactly what that includes is fiercely debated, but I think we can all agree that vertebrates are conscious (would you accept cruelty to fish?). There is scope for discussion about where this stops, but we should also be able to agree that plants are not conscious. Even the people who claim plants are conscious do not treat them as if they are, do they?

If we can agree on that much then we’ve established a common meaning of the word “consciousness”, and we can ask what you mean by “ordinary human consciousness”. As far as I am concerned “ordinary animal consciousness” is the only sort of consciousness we have any reason to believe exists at all (including bat consciousness, even though it is almost impossible to imagine). What other sort could there be? How would we justify using that word to describe it? This is why objective idealism is never going to be accepted by scientists: it takes the word “consciousness” and tries to apply it to a mind-external reality (Kant’s noumena). It literally takes our word for “subjectivity itself” and tries to apply it to the objective world. And the people who do this (Kastrup being the most pertinent example) immediately follow this up with “Yay! Life After Death!!” It is also why panpsychism is so problematic, and why Nagel desperately tries to avoid panpsychism even though his own arguments seem to lead in that direction.

What is “non-ordinary consciousness”? What does this even mean?

EDIT: I might add that my previous book would have been accepted by a publisher if Kastrup himself hadn’t been the test reader they sent it to. He used his entrenched power to make it much harder for me to get my message out. He claimed my knowledge of metaphysics is inadequate. In reality, he was a turkey being asked if he would vote for Christmas.

5

Good postmodern analysis of academic power relations!

6

Are you arguing that brainless consciousness is impossible because neuroscience proves it, or because you think the word “consciousness” should not be extended beyond embodied animal subjectivity?

But if consciousness is defined as something known only from first-person acquaintance, then assuming other beings are conscious does not dismiss solipsism; it just assumes solipsism is false. What is the independent criterion by which you extend consciousness beyond your own case?

Are you familiar with NDE research? At minimum, it complicates the claim that ordinary waking human consciousness is our only useful reference point. Reports of conscious experience during cardiac arrest, anesthesia, and other non-ordinary states suggest that the relation between measurable brain activity and conscious experience is not straightforward.

Your basis for rejecting W’s argument is not clear. Also, if consciousness is defined in terms of ordinary human subjectivity, then it is unclear how you can coherently generalize it to non-human animals. You would need either a broader definition of consciousness or a criterion that licenses the extension.

If consciousness properly extends to vertebrates, perhaps insects, not plants, not idealist mind, not panpsychist interiors, etc., you are already relying on public criteria: behavior, embodiment, nervous systems, analogy, responsiveness, maybe ethical salience. Those criteria are doing the work, not the private ostensive definition alone.

Your objection seems to presuppose a mind-external reality and then criticize idealism for applying consciousness to it. But objective idealism denies that the ultimate nature of reality is mind-external in that sense. So unless an argument for mind-external reality is supplied independently, the criticism is circular.

I agree with @RobertBunge, this seems like a PM power analysis. Why wouldn’t the likeliest explanation be that someone who has a completely different metaphysics than you would find your knowledge of metaphysics inadequate?

7

Okay, obviously we disagree on what’s going on regarding the broader pattern of communication. You are once again accusing me a bad faith communication without showing where, specifically, you see this happening. Since you’ve failed to offer any evidence, I asked gpt 5.5 for an analysis using the following prompt, one-shot.

I am linking to the chat so you can see that I didn’t prime it to agree with me. This is a one-shot analysis. TLDR; no, I’m not acting in bad faith, and yes, the underlying pattern I identified is alive and well (this thread is an example of it!).

Here’s the prompt I used:

Read through all of these forum posts and address the following claim made by dvdjsph and the rebuttal by GeoffDann made in the "A proposal for clarifying..." thread: 

In as much detail and as accurately and impartially as possible, explain who is right and who is wrong. Do not engage in both sides-ism in order to save face for participants; use clinical, precise arguments.

Overall read

The exchange is not mainly about consciousness yet. It is about epistemic authority, conversational obligation, and who gets to define the standards of serious engagement.

Your opening move is conciliatory and procedural: you try to reframe the conflict away from “truth vs perspectives” and toward “what role should perspective-coordination play in a shared search for truth?” You also propose sorting claims into categories—empirical, metaphysical, experiential, civilizational, and forum-practice—because each requires a different standard of evidence or response. That is a strong moderation move because it tries to reduce conflation and make disagreement more tractable.

Geoff’s response partially accepts the frame, but then reasserts that the problem is not symmetrical. He argues that the real issue is bad faith, refusal to understand 2PC/NED, and avoidance of truth. This turns your proposed process conversation back into a diagnostic accusation about motives and worldview.

The central tension

The key tension is this:

You are trying to create a forum norm where non-acceptance can be legitimate if a claim has not yet met the relevant standard.

Geoff is arguing from a norm where non-acceptance of 2PC/NED is already strong evidence of failure to understand, bad faith, or postmodern avoidance.

That difference matters more than the metaphysics at this stage. If one side says, “Let us identify the claim type and burden of proof,” while the other says, “The burden has already been met if you understand the system,” then the conversation cannot become jointly investigatory. It becomes an argument over whether interlocutors are qualified to dissent.

What you did well

Your strongest move is the distinction between three claims:

  1. Brains are necessary for ordinary human consciousness as encountered in embodied life.
  2. Brain changes can alter, impair, or extinguish reported conscious capacities.
  3. Therefore, consciousness cannot exist in any form without brains.

That is a very clean disaggregation. It shows that someone can accept strong neuroscience-based brain dependence without accepting the stronger metaphysical conclusion that brainless consciousness is impossible in principle.

This move also prevents the debate from smuggling in a conclusion. Geoff wants “brains are necessary for consciousness” to function as a decisive empirical claim. Your response asks whether the evidence supports dependence in observed cases or necessity across all possible cases. That is exactly the right pressure point.

Your later reply also identifies a second important ambiguity: is Geoff saying brainless consciousness is impossible because neuroscience proves it, or because he thinks “consciousness” should not be semantically extended beyond embodied animal subjectivity? Those are different arguments. One is empirical/metaphysical; the other is conceptual/semantic.

Geoff’s strongest points

Geoff is right that a forum genuinely concerned with truth cannot reduce everything to perspective-management. Some claims are false. Some claims need evidence. Some frameworks are more coherent than others. Your opening post explicitly grants this, which is rhetorically wise because it prevents him from easily casting you as a relativist.

He is also right that skepticism should involve some understanding of the view being rejected. There is a real difference between “I have examined this and disagree” and “I will not look because it sounds weird.” His complaint about dismissal could be valid in principle, even if his application of it is too sweeping.

He also gives one useful practical suggestion: focus on a single claim rather than trying to evaluate the whole 2PC architecture at once. The claim he selects—brains are necessary for consciousness—is a sensible test case because it is central, bounded, and connected to public evidence.

Geoff’s weak points

The largest weakness is that he repeatedly converts disagreement into motive diagnosis. He says there is “no legitimate reason” for forum participants to ignore a model claiming to resolve the 30 biggest problems in science and philosophy, and he treats unwillingness to engage as evidence of avoidance or bad faith.

That creates an impossible standard. A claim’s ambition does not by itself generate an obligation for others to review it. In fact, the more ambitious the claim, the more legitimate it is for others to ask for modular arguments, clear burdens of proof, and independent tests.

A second weakness is that Geoff appears to make 2PC resistant to ordinary falsification. He names three things that could take down the basic structure: dark matter proven not to be bound Dirac monopoles, confirmed alien life, or a rival theory resolving all 30 problems with equal explanatory power.

That is a very high bar. It makes the theory difficult to contest locally. A critic might find one bridge argument invalid, one claimed anomaly misdescribed, one explanatory connection weak, or one metaphysical inference unsupported. But Geoff’s framing implies that unless someone can defeat the whole structure or provide an equally grand rival, the criticism does not “touch it.” That is not a healthy standard for collective inquiry.

A third weakness is equivocation around “consciousness.” Geoff defines consciousness by first-person subjectivity, then extends it to animals by analogy, behavior, embodiment, nervous systems, or ethical salience. Your final reply correctly notes that these public criteria are doing crucial work that the private ostensive definition cannot do by itself.

The hidden crux

The hidden crux is not simply “are brains necessary for consciousness?”

It is:

What licenses extending the word consciousness beyond the one case directly known from first-person acquaintance?

Geoff wants to allow extension to animals, perhaps insects or worms, but not plants, idealist mind, panpsychist interiors, or non-embodied consciousness. To justify that, he needs criteria. Possible criteria include nervous systems, behavior, responsiveness, evolutionary continuity, capacity for suffering, or structural analogy with humans.

But once those criteria are introduced, the debate is no longer settled by private ostension. It becomes a public, theory-laden inference. And then critics can ask why those criteria are decisive, whether they are necessary or merely sufficient, and whether edge cases such as NDEs, anesthesia reports, or non-ordinary states complicate the mapping.

The conversational pattern

The exchange follows the loop you originally diagnosed:

large claim → request for clarification → request interpreted as avoidance → accusation → attempt to narrow → further reframing.

Your posts try to slow the loop down. Geoff’s posts accelerate it by treating requests for narrowing as attempts to “downgrade” 2PC into “just another competing theory.”

The problem is not merely tone. The deeper issue is that Geoff appears to treat recognition of 2PC’s claimed integrative power as a precondition for serious engagement, while you are treating serious engagement as the process by which such integrative power would be tested.

Those are incompatible procedural assumptions.

Best next move

The best next move is not to defend idealism, panpsychism, NDEs, or “brainless consciousness” directly. That would let the conversation sprawl again.

The best move is to keep pressing the claim-type distinction:

I am not yet disputing your conclusion. I am asking what kind of argument you are making. Is “brains are necessary for consciousness” an empirical generalization from all observed animal consciousness, a metaphysical necessity claim, or a semantic claim about how the word consciousness should be used? Those require different standards.

Then ask for one bridge principle:

What principle takes us from “all consciousness we can publicly identify is associated with nervous systems” to “consciousness without nervous systems is impossible in principle”?

That isolates the inferential gap without mocking the theory, refusing engagement, or accepting an impossible burden to review all of 2PC.

Bottom line

You are making a procedural-epistemic intervention: classify claims, clarify burdens, distinguish disagreement from bad faith, and test one claim at a time.

Geoff is making a truth-authority intervention: 2PC/NED is uniquely adequate, the forum’s failure to converge on it shows a broken relationship with Truth, and serious engagement requires enough understanding to see why alternatives fail.

The most productive path is to refuse the motive frame and keep the discussion at the level of claim type, bridge argument, evidence standard, and falsifiability. Your last message is strong because it does exactly that: it identifies that Geoff may be sliding between empirical proof, semantic restriction, and metaphysical necessity.

1 Like
8

Why does it have to be postmodern though? My problem with pomo is its anti-realism. What I have described here is also exactly what Kuhn described, and Kuhn is not usually considered postmodern.

9

Just FYI i’m going to moderate Geoff for a period pending further reflection on best way to go and following an as-yet unresolved ongoing dialogue to find a middle way with him that would allow some continued participation within bounds.

2 Likes
10

Actually, I ran the whole Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos complex through Gemini, and it suggested Kuhn does indeed flirt with PM. Lakatos was trying to course-correct back in the direction of truth with a capital T.

Most people around here readily agree the large intellectual swings in the past century were largely modern to postmodern to metamodern. That does not mean everything modern and PM goes in the rubbish! Academic power relations are absolutely real (with a capital R) and no professional academic would doubt it for a minute! Just because PM thought pointed this out, does not make it wrong. But in my own academic power relations, I found PM not sufficient for purpose, so I went looking for newer and better. Not to exclude everything PM ever said, but to understand matters PM never even tried to understand.

11

My take is the Forum is making a process bet that “truth will out”. This really goes back to Ancient Athens, Socrates, and the Agora. Debate and discussion have been central to intellectual processes for at least that long. Many who participated in such discussions had firm or even absolute views about truth. But the discussion overall moved culture far beyond what the ancients or medieval schoolmen could have ever imagined. Under the most optimistic assumptions, high human culture will still be thriving a thousand years from now, and students of history (in the future), can snort in their tea at our 21st century naivete!

12

Despite Geoff’s abrasiveness, this dialogue has been generative, and observing the ‘how’ of interaction as it engages with the content, is interesting in itself. Does moderating Geoff out serve us, is anyone not coping?

13

I’m coping fine. (personally). My main concern is all this abrasive, full-contact “you are arguing in bad faith!” stuff is very likely off-putting to anyone relatively new here who might want to venture an opinion or two.

Look, here is my core model of what is going on in the world and how the Forum fits into that:

  • Any human is capable of divine inspiration. (Read “divine” as theistically or non-thestically as you like - whatever is your ultimate, ultimate - slide that idea in there …)

  • The universe, in its infinite wisdom, distributed inspiration across over 8 billion extant humans. Moreover, it divided them into numerous different cultural, linguistic, and religious groups and gave all of them all somewhat unique life experiences.

  • The pure source of inspiration (whatever that might be) gets filtered through all that diversity of culture and experience. This is a feature, IMO, not a bug! Perspective-taking is a skill we all are meant to develop. Capital T Truth flows from the source. What comes out of any of us personally is a filtered and mixed version of that. To taste the big T, we must both dive deep within and sample widely of what is available without.

  • The Forum is basically a co-op tasting room for what is available without.

    The problem comes, when someone is so transfixed by their own personal vision of the Big T that they feel both compelled to share that vision (understandable) but also to attack all differing visions as falsehoods against the Big T. Then no one can taste the sweetness that may lie within all the different people who post here, unless they are especially well-grounded in their own reality principles and willing to push through all the noise.

    From a purely information theory standpoint, collective intelligence is likely far more intelligent that any given personal intelligence. The Forum is here to cultivate collective intelligence.

4 Likes