Featured The Brain as a Medium for Consciousness

[AgnosticBoy]

For several years, I've tried to explain the relationship between consciousness and the brain. I've recently settled on a safe and reasonable conclusion - one that isn't needlessly restrictive and that also fits the data. Today, I used Ai to aid in fleshing out my view, and I'll share some of the key details here.

My theory: The brain as a medium for consciousness. (Responses are from Grok which is like a ChatGpt but it's on Twitter or X).

What does this mean?
Saying the brain is a medium for consciousness suggests that consciousness—our subjective experience, awareness, and sense of self—is not solely produced by the brain but rather facilitated or expressed through it. The brain acts like a conduit, receiver, or interface that channels consciousness into our physical reality, much like a radio receives signals but doesn’t create the broadcast itself.

The brain, in this sense, could be seen as a biological structure that filters, processes, or localizes consciousness, enabling it to interact with the physical world through perception, thought, and action.

On the other hand, materialist perspectives counter that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity, fully dependent on neural processes. The "medium" idea challenges this by implying the brain is necessary for expressing consciousness in our physical form but not its ultimate source.

What is the evidence for this view?
[Pretty much all of the data for consciousness being dependent on the brain - all of that data can also lead to the conclusion that the brain is just a medium]
- Correlation vs. Causation: Current science cannot definitively distinguish between the brain as the source versus the medium of consciousness. Both interpretations fit the data, as correlation (brain activity and consciousness) doesn’t prove causation (brain creates consciousness). It could be that the brain modulates or channels a pre-existing consciousness. For example, altering brain activity (via injury or drugs) might disrupt how consciousness is expressed, not its existence, similar to how damaging a radio distorts the signal but doesn’t eliminate the broadcast.
- Non-Local Consciousness: Some interpretations of near-death experiences (NDEs) or out-of-body experiences (OBEs), where people report awareness despite minimal brain activity, suggest consciousness might persist independently of the brain. The brain could be a medium that localizes or interfaces consciousness with the physical world. For instance, studies on NDEs (e.g., van Lommel’s 2001 study in The Lancet) report cases of vivid awareness during cardiac arrest, though these are controversial and not conclusive.

Is it testable?
[There is a leading theory of consciousness that offers a testable hypothesis for consciousness being present in non-brain systems]
- Integrated Information Theory (IIT) posits that consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information in a way that is both differentiated (distinct states) and unified (a single, cohesive experience). It posits that consciousness corresponds to a system’s capacity to integrate information, measured as Φ (phi), which quantifies the extent to which a system’s parts interact to produce effects that are more than the sum of their individual contributions.
- IIT’s claim that consciousness depends on information integration, not specific biological substrates, aligns with the idea that the brain is one of many possible mediums. If consciousness can arise in non-biological systems (e.g., machines with high Φ), it suggests consciousness isn’t uniquely tied to the brain’s physical structure.

The theory is testable through the following approaches:

1. Neural Correlates of Consciousness:
   • Prediction: IIT predicts that conscious states correlate with high Φ in specific brain regions, while unconscious states (e.g., deep sleep, anesthesia, or coma) correlate with low Φ.
   • Testing: Neuroimaging techniques like fMRI, EEG, or MEG can measure neural activity and connectivity to estimate Φ or related metrics. For example, studies (e.g., Tononi et al., 2016) have used EEG to assess information integration in the posterior cortex, which is associated with conscious experience.
   • Evidence: Research shows that brain regions with high connectivity (e.g., the thalamo-cortical system) have higher Φ-like measures during conscious states compared to unconscious ones. For instance, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) combined with EEG (e.g., Massimini et al., 2005) has been used to measure the “perturbational complexity index” (PCI), a proxy for Φ, which distinguishes conscious from unconscious states in humans.

For Discussion:
1. What other key questions would help flesh this theory out?
2. Do you agree with the theory or see it as reasonable? Disagree?
3. What else would you add to it for support or take away?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

From another thread....

I agree that nothing about the brain itself explains consciousness. It looks more like a medium - a channel through which consciousness expresses - which would explain why damage to the brain affects expression but not necessarily the source. That opens space for out-of-body experiences and for consciousness beyond the human frame.

Agreed, William.

Sure, the ability to think may be altered or may even cease (e.g. during anesthesia?), but the bare minimum state of consciousness is still there - awareness. Perhaps we can even say that awareness is the subject and object in that case, and I think this is what happens in some meditation practices.

I ran this through Grok to see if it can clarify anything better (I asked an open ended question so I don't lead it on):
Me: Can you be aware of just awareness, like in meditation? An awareness with no thoughts or feelings?

Grok: Yes, it is possible to experience a state of pure awareness—often described as awareness without thoughts, feelings, or specific content—particularly in certain meditative practices. This state is sometimes referred to as "pure consciousness," "bare awareness," or "non-dual awareness" in various spiritual and philosophical traditions, such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen Buddhism, or mindfulness meditation.

In meditation, pure awareness refers to a state where the mind is alert and conscious but not fixated on thoughts, emotions, sensations, or external objects. It’s a form of awareness that observes without engaging with or attaching to mental content. Practitioners describe it as a clear, spacious, or boundless state where the sense of a separate self may dissolve, leaving only the experience of "being" or "knowing."

 

[William]

From another thread....

I agree that nothing about the brain itself explains consciousness. It looks more like a medium - a channel through which consciousness expresses - which would explain why damage to the brain affects expression but not necessarily the source. That opens space for out-of-body experiences and for consciousness beyond the human frame.

Agreed, William.

Sure, the ability to think may be altered or may even cease (e.g. during anesthesia?), but the bare minimum state of consciousness is still there - awareness. Perhaps we can even say that awareness is the subject and object in that case, and I think this is what happens in some meditation practices.

I ran this through Grok to see if it can clarify anything better (I asked an open ended question so I don't lead it on):
Me: Can you be aware of just awareness, like in meditation? An awareness with no thoughts or feelings?

Grok: Yes, it is possible to experience a state of pure awareness—often described as awareness without thoughts, feelings, or specific content—particularly in certain meditative practices. This state is sometimes referred to as "pure consciousness," "bare awareness," or "non-dual awareness" in various spiritual and philosophical traditions, such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen Buddhism, or mindfulness meditation.

In meditation, pure awareness refers to a state where the mind is alert and conscious but not fixated on thoughts, emotions, sensations, or external objects. It’s a form of awareness that observes without engaging with or attaching to mental content. Practitioners describe it as a clear, spacious, or boundless state where the sense of a separate self may dissolve, leaving only the experience of "being" or "knowing."

I don’t dispute that meditation can open into bare awareness - awareness without thoughts, feelings, or content. But if we take that as the ultimate ground, it reduces to a kind of deist god: existent but going nowhere, without relation or purpose. To me, that’s like a god one has when one is not really having a god - an atheist’s god. My interest is in the ground of being as living presence: not just awareness, but intelligent, purposeful, and relational - the source from which both silence and expression arise.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

But if we take that as the ultimate ground, it reduces to a kind of deist god: existent but going nowhere, without relation or purpose. To me, that’s like a god one has when one is not really having a god - an atheist’s god. My interest is in the ground of being as living presence: not just awareness, but intelligent, purposeful, and relational - the source from which both silence and expression arise.

Good points. I would though remove interests out of the picture, otherwise your position opens itself for criticism of introducing preference.

In my view, God doesn't have to be someone that we would follow or that we find some interests in. There could be no god or a boring god, like a deist one. I agree though that God would have to be someone or some thing that could account for all of existence, including consciousness itself. And given that consciousness seemingly can't be explained in physical terms (I think you disagree) and it seems so fundamental to who we are, then it's no surprise that it's a big part of a lot of God concepts out there.

 

[William]

But if we take that as the ultimate ground, it reduces to a kind of deist god: existent but going nowhere, without relation or purpose. To me, that’s like a god one has when one is not really having a god - an atheist’s god. My interest is in the ground of being as living presence: not just awareness, but intelligent, purposeful, and relational - the source from which both silence and expression arise.

Good points. I would though remove interests out of the picture, otherwise your position opens itself for criticism of introducing preference.

The "preference" introduced itself. Some (like myself) accepted the connections, while others resist and attempt to critique it.

In my view, God doesn't have to be someone that we would follow or that we find some interests in.

Why?

There could be no god or a boring god, like a deist one.

Neither of which are of interest to me.

I agree though that God would have to be someone or some thing that could account for all of existence, including consciousness itself.

Yet - iyo - can still be boring or deist in nature...

And given that consciousness seemingly can't be explained in physical terms (I think you disagree)

Indeed I do see
The Subjective God Model

for more on that. Critique it if you can.

and it seems so fundamental to who we are, then it's no surprise that it's a big part of a lot of God concepts out there.

Which if any God model do you currently subscribe to, and why?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Good points. I would though remove interests out of the picture, otherwise your position opens itself for criticism of introducing preference.

The "preference" introduced itself. Some (like myself) accepted the connections, while others resist and attempt to critique it.

Fortunately, it worked out for you.

In my view, God doesn't have to be someone that we would follow or that we find some interests in.

Why?

I'm just saying that I'm open to the possibility that a boring and impersonal god can exist. I see no logical reason to rule that out.

And given that consciousness seemingly can't be explained in physical terms (I think you disagree)

Indeed I do see
The Subjective God Model

for more on that. Critique it if you can.

I think well developed worldviews usually cover morality, knowledge (epistemology), and metaphysics. It's good to see that you're developing on just that.

I've read through the sections of your article that dealt with metaphysics. The only issue I see so far is that there's little focus on subjective experience itself. Seeing the title of that article has "subjective" in it, I was expecting more on that topic. That would be important to cover seeing that the concept of immateriality in philosophy is mostly made up of topics dealing with the mind, consciousness, and subjective experience. For instance, what is subjective experience? Are mental objects the same as physical objects?

and it seems so fundamental to who we are, then it's no surprise that it's a big part of a lot of God concepts out there.

Which if any God model do you currently subscribe to, and why?

I don't subscribe to any God model. I don't mind theorizing about the topic. I like the theories of God that take the panpsychism route. Then again, I'm also a fan of theories that simply view God or gods as highly advanced beings that have visited Earth from time to time.

 

[William]

Good points. I would though remove interests out of the picture, otherwise your position opens itself for criticism of introducing preference.

The "preference" introduced itself. Some (like myself) accepted the connections, while others resist and attempt to critique it.

Fortunately, it worked out for you.

What some subjectify as fortune, other subjectify as providence.

In my view, God doesn't have to be someone that we would follow or that we find some interests in.

Why?

I'm just saying that I'm open to the possibility that a boring and impersonal god can exist. I see no logical reason to rule that out.

Perhaps that is because subjectively, that is the only god you currently understand because it fits with your position as strictly Agonistic atheist?

And given that consciousness seemingly can't be explained in physical terms (I think you disagree)

Indeed I do see
The Subjective God Model

for more on that. Critique it if you can.

I think well developed worldviews usually cover morality, knowledge (epistemology), and metaphysics. It's good to see that you're developing on just that.

I've read through the sections of your article that dealt with metaphysics. The only issue I see so far is that there's little focus on subjective experience itself. Seeing the title of that article has "subjective" in it, I was expecting more on that topic. That would be important to cover seeing that the concept of immateriality in philosophy is mostly made up of topics dealing with the mind, consciousness, and subjective experience. For instance, what is subjective experience? Are mental objects the same as physical objects?

I don’t set out a dedicated definition paragraph of “subjective experience,” since I'm not treating subjective as a separate category. But the content is there, dispersed through the framework.

Section 2 & 3 (Eternal Materiality / Beginnings as Transformations): Everything, inner or outer, arises as transformation within the eternal material mind. That covers “mental vs physical objects” already - both are expressions of the same substrate.

Section 5 (Time and Space as Emergent Properties)
In SGM, time and space are not external dimensions that constrain material but emergent properties of material interactions. GOD’s material mind encompasses and generates these dimensions through its dynamic processes.

Timelessness: Material, as the foundational reality, exists beyond the constraints of time. Time arises as a relational property of material interactions.

Spacelessness: Similarly, space is an emergent feature of material arrangements, not a prerequisite for existence.

Section 6 & 9 (Representation of GOD / Subjective Presence): GOD is reflected through forms and experienced as a subjective, internal presence. That is already a clear claim about subjectivity.

Section 7 (Rejecting Immaterialism): So-called “spiritual” or “immaterial” phenomena are simply forms of material not yet understood - which means subjective phenomena are not excluded but absorbed into the material continuum.

Section 9 again: “GOD is experienced as a subjective, internal presence rather than an objectified external authority” that sentence alone already puts subjectivity in the heart of the model.

and it seems so fundamental to who we are, then it's no surprise that it's a big part of a lot of God concepts out there.

Which if any God model do you currently subscribe to, and why?

I don't subscribe to any God model. I don't mind theorizing about the topic. I like the theories of God that take the panpsychism route. Then again, I'm also a fan of theories that simply view God or gods as highly advanced beings that have visited Earth from time to time.

It seems to me that atheistic agnosticism gravitates toward God-models that ask little of the individual - theories that allow for discussion without real personal engagement. Panpsychism or ‘advanced beings’ may be interesting, but they keep GOD at arm’s length. My own journey through agnosticism leaned more toward Gnosticism — not in the religious sense, but in the sense of gnosis: knowledge. For me, tying the knowledge of personal subjective experience into theistic approaches offered a path that atheism rejects, not on grounds of logic, but as a matter of preference.
I notice the same pattern in how you’ve spoken about UICDS. You’re curious but you hold back until it promises a tangible payoff. That’s understandable - but it’s also exactly how atheistic agnosticism tends to treat God-models. My path has been the opposite: entering the practice first, letting it reveal its value from within.

____________________________________________________________________

Your ‘brain as medium’ theory lines up with how I’ve come to frame it over years of work. I’d only add that in my model, the brain isn’t just a receiver for some outside broadcast. Consciousness is the substrate itself - eternal material mind. The brain is a localized expression of that substrate, presenting consciousness in a form that fits our human interface. That’s why subjective and objective aren’t opposed categories in my framework: both are renditions of the same underlying field.

Is the brain like a radio picking up a distant signal, or like a whirlpool in a river - a local form of the water that is already everywhere?

The reason for this question is that even NDE reports, however unusual, are still physical - they are experiences carried and reported through material processes. Why not then conclude that “immaterial” doesn’t really exist, and that everything is material in nature? Or if you prefer the other side, that “material” doesn’t really exist and everything is immaterial in nature? Either way, framing them as opposites is misleading. Both “material” and “immaterial” together are just subjective renditions of the same field, misunderstood and therefore misinterpreted.

In all cases, subjectivity is the default position of consciousness, whether expressed through a human being or through GOD. What we call “material” and “immaterial” are not opposites but renditions of that subjectivity in different modes. The field itself is One, and its expressions are always experienced from within. There is no “without” more real than consciousness, for without consciousness, nothing could ever be regarded as real.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm just saying that I'm open to the possibility that a boring and impersonal god can exist. I see no logical reason to rule that out.

Perhaps that is because subjectively, that is the only god you currently understand because it fits with your position as strictly Agonistic atheist?

I don't have a position on God. I don't even want to have any preconceived beliefs (nothing beyond theorizing) about what God should or shouldn't be. I see this as an optimal position that helps me be open to any position (a boring God or a cool and interesting one, or no God existing) and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I've read through the sections of your article that dealt with metaphysics. The only issue I see so far is that there's little focus on subjective experience itself. Seeing the title of that article has "subjective" in it, I was expecting more on that topic. That would be important to cover seeing that the concept of immateriality in philosophy is mostly made up of topics dealing with the mind, consciousness, and subjective experience. For instance, what is subjective experience? Are mental objects the same as physical objects?

I don’t set out a dedicated definition paragraph of “subjective experience,” since I'm not treating subjective as a separate category. But the content is there, dispersed through the framework.

Section 2 & 3 (Eternal Materiality / Beginnings as Transformations): Everything, inner or outer, arises as transformation within the eternal material mind. That covers “mental vs physical objects” already - both are expressions of the same substrate.

Section 5 (Time and Space as Emergent Properties)
In SGM, time and space are not external dimensions that constrain material but emergent properties of material interactions. GOD’s material mind encompasses and generates these dimensions through its dynamic processes.

...

Section 6 & 9 (Representation of GOD / Subjective Presence): GOD is reflected through forms and experienced as a subjective, internal presence. That is already a clear claim about subjectivity.

Section 7 (Rejecting Immaterialism): So-called “spiritual” or “immaterial” phenomena are simply forms of material not yet understood - which means subjective phenomena are not excluded but absorbed into the material continuum.

Section 9 again: “GOD is experienced as a subjective, internal presence rather than an objectified external authority” that sentence alone already puts subjectivity in the heart of the model.

Appreciate you picking those out.

One big doubt I have about some of your theories is what to expect or predict given them. For instance, I'd expect for mental, subjective, and even spiritual things to be observable just like material things are. But as of now, that's not the case. I can't observe someone else's subjective experience.

The last time I brought this up to a materialist, they made it a point to say that there's nothing to "see" with subjective experiences. Then I countered and said that there is still something being experienced, and I put the burden back on the materialist to explain how could they know or observe what that experience was. I didn't get a good response back other than just repeating the same thing that there was nothing to see.

Sure, we can know about others' subjective experience when we report it to each other, but that's sort of cheating. You're not experiencing or observing their subjective experience first-hand as we do with physical objects. Some bring up scientists now being able to see dreams, but this still is not the same as observing the experience. Instead it involves a computer generating an image by inferring it from neural activity. The key thing here is that neither the computer nor scientists understand how or if neural activity causes subjective experiences. The way the computer is able to infer what images a person is seeing in their head is drawn from a data pool of documented associations between neural activity and subjective experience, something they mapped out beforehand by asking the subject to think about something and seeing the neural activity associated with that. So the computer uses this pre-existing data to infer or make predictions for new data (neural activity) it receives.

I was arguing this during the pre-Chat-GPT error. But now I can use ChatGPT to check and bolster my explanations...
Me: Can scientists see people's dreams?
ChatGPT: Not exactly — at least not in the way science fiction often imagines (like projecting your dreams on a screen).

Here’s what’s real so far:

• Brain imaging: Scientists can use fMRI and EEG to see which areas of your brain are active during REM sleep (the stage where most vivid dreaming happens). This shows patterns of activity, not actual dream images.
• Decoding attempts: Some labs (like at Kyoto University) have used AI to analyze fMRI scans and predict general categories of dream content (like “faces,” “buildings,” or “animals”) with modest accuracy. They do this by training the AI on brain activity while people look at images when awake, then applying that model to dream activity.
• Limitations: This isn’t a literal “video” of your dreams — it’s more like a rough guess about themes or objects. Details, narrative, and private thoughts are still out of reach.

So scientists can get hints about what someone might be dreaming about, but they can’t directly “see” your dreams yet.

And here's GROK's explanation:
- They rely on training algorithms with known brain patterns from waking visual experiences, which are then matched to dream-related activity.
- The process requires extensive calibration for each individual, as brain patterns vary, and it’s not yet possible to decode dreams in real-time or without prior data from the dreamer.
- The reconstructions are not vivid images but statistical approximations, often resembling blurry or abstract patterns. Scientists can’t see a dream’s narrative, emotions, or non-visual elements (like sounds or smells) in detail.
- Conclusion: Scientists can infer and partially reconstruct limited aspects of dreams (mostly visual elements) using brain imaging and AI, but they cannot "see" dreams in a detailed, direct way as some studies or media might suggest. The field is advancing, but we’re still far from fully visualizing or understanding the rich, subjective experience of dreams. If you’re referring to a specific study or claim, let me know, and I can dig deeper!

I don't subscribe to any God model. I don't mind theorizing about the topic. I like the theories of God that take the panpsychism route. Then again, I'm also a fan of theories that simply view God or gods as highly advanced beings that have visited Earth from time to time.

It seems to me that atheistic agnosticism gravitates toward God-models that ask little of the individual - theories that allow for discussion without real personal engagement. Panpsychism or ‘advanced beings’ may be interesting, but they keep GOD at arm’s length. My own journey through agnosticism leaned more toward Gnosticism — not in the religious sense, but in the sense of gnosis: knowledge. For me, tying the knowledge of personal subjective experience into theistic approaches offered a path that atheism rejects, not on grounds of logic, but as a matter of preference.
I notice the same pattern in how you’ve spoken about UICDS. You’re curious but you hold back until it promises a tangible payoff. That’s understandable - but it’s also exactly how atheistic agnosticism tends to treat God-models. My path has been the opposite: entering the practice first, letting it reveal its value from within.

I'm open to exploring any God concept unless I have evidence to narrow it down or weed out some concepts. I would start with the down-to-earth version because that's closer to what I do know and experience. Where I definitely differ from many atheists is that I accept that there is a non-physical or non-material domain of existence.

The reason for this question is that even NDE reports, however unusual, are still physical - they are experiences carried and reported through material processes. Why not then conclude that “immaterial” doesn’t really exist, and that everything is material in nature? Or if you prefer the other side, that “material” doesn’t really exist and everything is immaterial in nature? Either way, framing them as opposites is misleading. Both “material” and “immaterial” together are just subjective renditions of the same field, misunderstood and therefore misinterpreted.

I was thinking just that before responding to your post. Isn't this similar to the Matrix except the distinction with Matrix is real vs. unreal and not physical vs. non-physical?

In all cases, subjectivity is the default position of consciousness, whether expressed through a human being or through GOD. What we call “material” and “immaterial” are not opposites but renditions of that subjectivity in different modes. The field itself is One, and its expressions are always experienced from within. There is no “without” more real than consciousness, for without consciousness, nothing could ever be regarded as real.

Well, I'll say this. I don't disagree with your theory as if it's entirely wrong. There are definitely some good points. I also don't view my view on the existence of the non-physical as being entirely correct. There are definitely some problems with that. This really makes me want to reflect and develop my view even more. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up.
[/QUOTE]

 

[William]

I'm just saying that I'm open to the possibility that a boring and impersonal god can exist. I see no logical reason to rule that out.

Perhaps that is because subjectively, that is the only god you currently understand because it fits with your position as strictly Agonistic atheist?

I don't have a position on God. I don't even want to have any preconceived beliefs (nothing beyond theorizing) about what God should or shouldn't be. I see this as an optimal position that helps me be open to any position (a boring God or a cool and interesting one, or no God existing) and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

What then would you think of as evidence for existing within a created thing?

I've read through the sections of your article that dealt with metaphysics. The only issue I see so far is that there's little focus on subjective experience itself. Seeing the title of that article has "subjective" in it, I was expecting more on that topic. That would be important to cover seeing that the concept of immateriality in philosophy is mostly made up of topics dealing with the mind, consciousness, and subjective experience. For instance, what is subjective experience? Are mental objects the same as physical objects?

I don’t set out a dedicated definition paragraph of “subjective experience,” since I'm not treating subjective as a separate category. But the content is there, dispersed through the framework.

Section 2 & 3 (Eternal Materiality / Beginnings as Transformations): Everything, inner or outer, arises as transformation within the eternal material mind. That covers “mental vs physical objects” already - both are expressions of the same substrate.

Section 5 (Time and Space as Emergent Properties)
In SGM, time and space are not external dimensions that constrain material but emergent properties of material interactions. GOD’s material mind encompasses and generates these dimensions through its dynamic processes.

...

Section 6 & 9 (Representation of GOD / Subjective Presence): GOD is reflected through forms and experienced as a subjective, internal presence. That is already a clear claim about subjectivity.

Section 7 (Rejecting Immaterialism): So-called “spiritual” or “immaterial” phenomena are simply forms of material not yet understood - which means subjective phenomena are not excluded but absorbed into the material continuum.

Section 9 again: “GOD is experienced as a subjective, internal presence rather than an objectified external authority” that sentence alone already puts subjectivity in the heart of the model.

Appreciate you picking those out.

One big doubt I have about some of your theories is what to expect or predict given them. For instance, I'd expect for mental, subjective, and even spiritual things to be observable just like material things are. But as of now, that's not the case. I can't observe someone else's subjective experience.

The last time I brought this up to a materialist, they made it a point to say that there's nothing to "see" with subjective experiences. Then I countered and said that there is still something being experienced, and I put the burden back on the materialist to explain how could they know or observe what that experience was. I didn't get a good response back other than just repeating the same thing that there was nothing to see.

Sure, we can know about others' subjective experience when we report it to each other, but that's sort of cheating. You're not experiencing or observing their subjective experience first-hand as we do with physical objects. Some bring up scientists now being able to see dreams, but this still is not the same as observing the experience. Instead it involves a computer generating an image by inferring it from neural activity. The key thing here is that neither the computer nor scientists understand how or if neural activity causes subjective experiences. The way the computer is able to infer what images a person is seeing in their head is drawn from a data pool of documented associations between neural activity and subjective experience, something they mapped out beforehand by asking the subject to think about something and seeing the neural activity associated with that. So the computer uses this pre-existing data to infer or make predictions for new data (neural activity) it receives.

I was arguing this during the pre-Chat-GPT error. But now I can use ChatGPT to check and bolster my explanations...
Me: Can scientists see people's dreams?
ChatGPT: Not exactly — at least not in the way science fiction often imagines (like projecting your dreams on a screen).

Here’s what’s real so far:

• Brain imaging: Scientists can use fMRI and EEG to see which areas of your brain are active during REM sleep (the stage where most vivid dreaming happens). This shows patterns of activity, not actual dream images.
• Decoding attempts: Some labs (like at Kyoto University) have used AI to analyze fMRI scans and predict general categories of dream content (like “faces,” “buildings,” or “animals”) with modest accuracy. They do this by training the AI on brain activity while people look at images when awake, then applying that model to dream activity.
• Limitations: This isn’t a literal “video” of your dreams — it’s more like a rough guess about themes or objects. Details, narrative, and private thoughts are still out of reach.

So scientists can get hints about what someone might be dreaming about, but they can’t directly “see” your dreams yet.

And here's GROK's explanation:
- They rely on training algorithms with known brain patterns from waking visual experiences, which are then matched to dream-related activity.
- The process requires extensive calibration for each individual, as brain patterns vary, and it’s not yet possible to decode dreams in real-time or without prior data from the dreamer.
- The reconstructions are not vivid images but statistical approximations, often resembling blurry or abstract patterns. Scientists can’t see a dream’s narrative, emotions, or non-visual elements (like sounds or smells) in detail.
- Conclusion: Scientists can infer and partially reconstruct limited aspects of dreams (mostly visual elements) using brain imaging and AI, but they cannot "see" dreams in a detailed, direct way as some studies or media might suggest. The field is advancing, but we’re still far from fully visualizing or understanding the rich, subjective experience of dreams. If you’re referring to a specific study or claim, let me know, and I can dig deeper!

Chat GPT:

This is a rich exchange — AB is circling the crux: the opacity of subjective experience to third-person observation. He’s granting that subjective phenomena exist, but questioning whether your framework can generate predictions or testable consequences. That’s where the “what do we expect to see if your model is true?” challenge comes in.





A few angles you could take in reply:

---

1. Flip the Asymmetry​

You might point out that AB is describing exactly the distinction that makes subjective experience irreducible:

• Physical things are observed from outside.
• Subjective experience is observed from within.

That asymmetry isn’t a flaw or gap — it’s the structural fact of consciousness. The fact that I cannot see your awareness the way I see your chair is not evidence against its reality, but precisely what defines its mode of being.

---

2. Prediction in Your Framework​

You could meet AB’s concern by clarifying what your model does predict:

• If subjective experience is material (though not yet mapped fully), then we should expect correlations between inner reports and measurable brain activity to keep increasing in resolution.
• But we should also predict that no amount of external observation will ever collapse the first-person into a third-person object. There will always be a residue only knowable “from within.”
  That’s not “cheating” — that’s the signature of subjectivity in a materialist continuum.

---

3. The “Evidence of a Created Thing” Thread​

You can tie it back to your earlier question to AB:

• The inability to reduce subjectivity to objectivity could itself be evidence of a created order — one designed such that relation and interiority are essential, not reducible.
• If we were only in a purely mechanistic system, you’d expect every phenomenon (including consciousness) to be objectively exhaustible. The fact it isn’t might count as evidence of a deeper, purposive ground.

I don't subscribe to any God model. I don't mind theorizing about the topic. I like the theories of God that take the panpsychism route. Then again, I'm also a fan of theories that simply view God or gods as highly advanced beings that have visited Earth from time to time.

It seems to me that atheistic agnosticism gravitates toward God-models that ask little of the individual - theories that allow for discussion without real personal engagement. Panpsychism or ‘advanced beings’ may be interesting, but they keep GOD at arm’s length. My own journey through agnosticism leaned more toward Gnosticism — not in the religious sense, but in the sense of gnosis: knowledge. For me, tying the knowledge of personal subjective experience into theistic approaches offered a path that atheism rejects, not on grounds of logic, but as a matter of preference.
I notice the same pattern in how you’ve spoken about UICDS. You’re curious but you hold back until it promises a tangible payoff. That’s understandable - but it’s also exactly how atheistic agnosticism tends to treat God-models. My path has been the opposite: entering the practice first, letting it reveal its value from within.

I'm open to exploring any God concept unless I have evidence to narrow it down or weed out some concepts. I would start with the down-to-earth version because that's closer to what I do know and experience. Where I definitely differ from many atheists is that I accept that there is a non-physical or non-material domain of existence.

Our difference is that you accepts what you see as "non-material" whereas I accept that this is simply a misinterpretation. In that I am not declaring myself to being a materialist. Rather I am saying that I understand that what we think of as immaterial (like consciousness) is simply a thing which we cannot as easily measure as we do other things. Part of this reasoning has to do the lack of explanation for why consciousness can be held by apparent unconscious material objects (such as a human body) - how does one who believes consciousness is immaterial explain how a material thing can more or less capture and hold an immaterial thing, or for that matter, how an immaterial thing can work through a material object and do things with that.

The reason for this question is that even NDE reports, however unusual, are still physical - they are experiences carried and reported through material processes. Why not then conclude that “immaterial” doesn’t really exist, and that everything is material in nature? Or if you prefer the other side, that “material” doesn’t really exist and everything is immaterial in nature? Either way, framing them as opposites is misleading. Both “material” and “immaterial” together are just subjective renditions of the same field, misunderstood and therefore misinterpreted.

I was thinking just that before responding to your post. Isn't this similar to the Matrix except the distinction with Matrix is real vs. unreal and not physical vs. non-physical?

The way I understand it is that consciousness is the only thing which can be understood as truly REAL and when interacting with that which it creates, it makes those things appear to be real - but again, without consciousness what can be deemed as "real" or "unreal"?







This again spies back to NDEs OOBEs lucid dreams, alternate experiences. In every case, it is consciousness which does the experiencing and determines what is real.







If one were to remove the existence of things, and just be consciousness, the consciousness is that which remains real.







That is also why I do not identify as being a "human" as in - the form - but rather as the consciousness which is experiencing the temporal existence of a human individual.

If you ever have an OOBE you will understand why that is...

In all cases, subjectivity is the default position of consciousness, whether expressed through a human being or through GOD. What we call “material” and “immaterial” are not opposites but renditions of that subjectivity in different modes. The field itself is One, and its expressions are always experienced from within. There is no “without” more real than consciousness, for without consciousness, nothing could ever be regarded as real.

Well, I'll say this. I don't disagree with your theory as if it's entirely wrong. There are definitely some good points. I also don't view my view on the existence of the non-physical as being entirely correct. There are definitely some problems with that. This really makes me want to reflect and develop my view even more. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up.

Please explain what you mean by that last sentence. "It will be interesting to see where it all ends up."

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't have a position on God. I don't even want to have any preconceived beliefs (nothing beyond theorizing) about what God should or shouldn't be. I see this as an optimal position that helps me be open to any position (a boring God or a cool and interesting one, or no God existing) and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

What then would you think of as evidence for existing within a created thing?

At the least, I'd want evidence of a being that's highly advanced compared to humans. Call them whatever you'd like, aliens, engineers, gods, etc. I'd also be willing to go off of a profound spiritual experience, like an NDE that had details I could corroborate.

Also, have to weigh all of this with any counter-evidence, like atheistic arguments against God's existence and skeptical explanations. Can any evidence and arguments I have for theism answer for the arguments and evidence for atheism? That tends to be where I'm stuck at.

Appreciate you picking those out.

One big doubt I have about some of your theories is what to expect or predict given them. For instance, I'd expect for mental, subjective, and even spiritual things to be observable just like material things are. But as of now, that's not the case. I can't observe someone else's subjective experience.

The last time I brought this up to a materialist, they made it a point to say that there's nothing to "see" with subjective experiences. Then I countered and said that there is still something being experienced, and I put the burden back on the materialist to explain how could they know or observe what that experience was. I didn't get a good response back other than just repeating the same thing that there was nothing to see.

Sure, we can know about others' subjective experience when we report it to each other, but that's sort of cheating. You're not experiencing or observing their subjective experience first-hand as we do with physical objects. Some bring up scientists now being able to see dreams, but this still is not the same as observing the experience. Instead it involves a computer generating an image by inferring it from neural activity. The key thing here is that neither the computer nor scientists understand how or if neural activity causes subjective experiences. The way the computer is able to infer what images a person is seeing in their head is drawn from a data pool of documented associations between neural activity and subjective experience, something they mapped out beforehand by asking the subject to think about something and seeing the neural activity associated with that. So the computer uses this pre-existing data to infer or make predictions for new data (neural activity) it receives.

I was arguing this during the pre-Chat-GPT error. But now I can use ChatGPT to check and bolster my explanations...
Me: Can scientists see people's dreams?
ChatGPT: Not exactly — at least not in the way science fiction often imagines (like projecting your dreams on a screen).

Chat GPT:

This is a rich exchange — AB is circling the crux: the opacity of subjective experience to third-person observation. He’s granting that subjective phenomena exist, but questioning whether your framework can generate predictions or testable consequences. That’s where the “what do we expect to see if your model is true?” challenge comes in.

Agreed. Without evidence and predictions being part of theories, then we'd be left with explanations that simply define or explain things into existence (as opposed to connecting or rooting explanations in logic/evidence). I suspect that happens even for a lot of the mainstream scientific theories.

A few angles you could take in reply:

---

1. Flip the Asymmetry​

You might point out that AB is describing exactly the distinction that makes subjective experience irreducible:

• Physical things are observed from outside.
• Subjective experience is observed from within.

That asymmetry isn’t a flaw or gap — it’s the structural fact of consciousness. The fact that I cannot see your awareness the way I see your chair is not evidence against its reality, but precisely what defines its mode of being.

Not sure if this is implying that reality= physical. If so, I'd ask just what is physical - does it involve everything being made of matter, being observable....

Here's Grok on that distinction:
- Material: Refers to anything composed of matter, which has mass and occupies space
- Immaterial: Refers to things that lack physical substance, mass, or spatial dimensions

Key distinction: Material things exist in the physical world and are subject to physical laws, even if not always directly observable (e.g., dark matter). Immaterial things exist outside the physical realm, often as concepts, experiences, or non-physical entities, and cannot be measured or detected with physical tools.

End of Grok.
_______________________________________

There's definitely some overlap between the physical and non-physical.

2. Prediction in Your Framework​

You could meet AB’s concern by clarifying what your model does predict:

• If subjective experience is material (though not yet mapped fully), then we should expect correlations between inner reports and measurable brain activity to keep increasing in resolution.
• But we should also predict that no amount of external observation will ever collapse the first-person into a third-person object. There will always be a residue only knowable “from within.”
  That’s not “cheating” — that’s the signature of subjectivity in a materialist continuum.

Worth exploring. Would make a good topic discussion itself.

Our difference is that you accepts what you see as "non-material" whereas I accept that this is simply a misinterpretation. In that I am not declaring myself to being a materialist. Rather I am saying that I understand that what we think of as immaterial (like consciousness) is simply a thing which we cannot as easily measure as we do other things. Part of this reasoning has to do the lack of explanation for why consciousness can be held by apparent unconscious material objects (such as a human body) - how does one who believes consciousness is immaterial explain how a material thing can more or less capture and hold an immaterial thing, or for that matter, how an immaterial thing can work through a material object and do things with that.

The radio and signal analogy helps explains this. The brain may simply be receiving awareness just as a radio receives a signal. Doesn't have to mean that the signal originated from the radio.

Here's how Google's Ai explains it:
The "brain-as-radio-receiver" analogy suggests the brain doesn't create consciousness but tunes into a universal consciousness signal, much like a radio receiver picks up music from the air.

Brain as a Receiver: In this analogy, the brain is a localized, physical device (like a radio) that is capable of receiving or tuning into a broader, non-material consciousness.

Universal Consciousness: Consciousness is thought to be an existing field or spectrum of signals that are spread throughout space.
Antenna and Tuning: The brain's components (or the body's structure) would act as an antenna to capture this universal signal, and the tuning mechanisms would filter for specific streams of information, similar to how a radio tunes into different stations.

Implications: If the brain is a receiver, then a damaged or malfunctioning brain would explain mental illness or loss of consciousness by distorting or disrupting the reception of the signal.

I was thinking just that before responding to your post. Isn't this similar to the Matrix except the distinction with Matrix is real vs. unreal and not physical vs. non-physical?

The way I understand it is that consciousness is the only thing which can be understood as truly REAL and when interacting with that which it creates, it makes those things appear to be real - but again, without consciousness what can be deemed as "real" or "unreal"?

True. Could we ever tell what existed outside of our awareness? It is the feature that gives us the ability to even determine what is real and unreal in the first place. Not saying someone should reach a conclusion on just that, but it does seem to be a big part of the puzzle for reality.

That is also why I do not identify as being a "human" as in - the form - but rather as the consciousness which is experiencing the temporal existence of a human individual.

I don't disagree with your theory as if it's entirely wrong. There are definitely some good points. I also don't view my view on the existence of the non-physical as being entirely correct. There are definitely some problems with that. This really makes me want to reflect and develop my view even more. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up.

Please explain what you mean by that last sentence. "It will be interesting to see where it all ends up."

I meant my journey in exploring things and developing a theory based on that. Many may not feel satisfied until they get an answer, but I take some pride in packing all of the good things (open-mindedness+logic) that I think I need to go on this trip...