Is the Sun Conscious? (2021) [pdf]

Thinking science and philosophy are entirely separate misses the big picture. Look at it this way: all the science fields we study today, like physics and biology, grew from philosophical questions. What we’re doing when we dive into these subjects is exploring questions about the world, a task philosophy started.

Take chemistry and astrology as examples. Why do we consider chemistry more valid? It's not because chemistry steps outside of physics' boundaries; it's that it gives us useful answers based on physics. Anything in chemistry that doesn't fit with physics we see as a mistake. But this doesn't mean chemistry doesn't have its place. It tackles parts of the world physics covers in broad strokes, just as physics uses math to detail its findings. Saying physics could exist without math, or implying a problem in physics could be solved outside of math, goes against the whole idea of what physics is.

Saying 'philosophy is dead' ironically shows how successful philosophy has been. We don’t need to constantly refer back to philosophy for everyday scientific questions because those frameworks are already well-established. Philosophy comes into play when we’re faced with truly strange or new questions that challenge our current understanding.

I swear that the administrative convenience of treating domains of science as distinct subjects rather than subsets and supersets and entirely separate from philosophy in K-12 has caused confusion and dogmatic rigidity on a global scale.

> so they finally discover how tightly coupled consciousness is to the matter in the nervous system and stop their embarrassing search for Holy Spirit

How would that explain out-of-body/near-death experiences? They happen to people, it's a fact. Sometimes people gain new information during them that they couldn't have possibly hallucinated by themselves, like being able to repeat a conversation that took place in another room while they were clinically dead. Within the framework of the modern science, the experience itself can be explained by the dying brain hallucinating it; the obtaining of new information from physically inaccessible parts of the reality, however, can not.

Then there's also the phenomenon of people suddenly waking up, or having dreams about it, when someone close gets into an accident while they sleep. This can not be explained by modern science at all. It happens too often, to too many people, to be a simple coincidence.

Then there's the phenomenon of heart transplant recipients receiving the memories of, and sometimes the ability to communicate with, their donors. This can be explained by some memories being stored in the heart cells, or in its nervous tissues.

Now, I'm not really into pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, but because of how unexplained and under-researched the subject of nature of consciousness is, I try to keep an open mind. Those field theories in particular sound appealing. They haven't been proven, but they haven't been disproven either.

Is a single cell conscious? What if the sun, planets or galaxies are just cells forming another being?

> I'd say in a way my consciousness comes from the sun.

Our star is the major, "central" (chuckle) factor in our Goldilocks existence, but Anthropomorphism is an anthropocentric game. [1]

Cyanobacteria [2] , flowering plants and pollinators would also be part of our complex Goldilocks consciousness.

Our awareness of this fragile existence should encourage us to be the best version of ourselves and enjoy every moment.

[1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[2] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

> consciousness isn't a separate thing to the brain's physical processes.

That's ironic, because this is the most popular theory of consciousness among analytic philosophers: physicalism. It says that consciousness is identical to some physical process.

The problem with this theory is the knowledge argument. Mary grew up in a room without colors. Inside the room, she did learn everything about the brain. For example, she knows exactly what physical process is associated with the experience of "red". One day, she goes outside for the first time, and sees a rose. Does she learn something new? Something she didn't already know from knowing everything about the physical correlate of having experiences of red?