# There is no supernatural. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2005, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587 "2005-04-22T13:04:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/61 "2005-04-25T14:22:50Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And physicalism _accounts for_ that something. It _explains_ it. It _provides a causative mechanism_ for it. I ask again: what is panpsychism’s equivalent? Coincidence? Panpsychism doesn’t have a leg in it. Besides, as I’ve already said, physicalism accounts for it, but consistency and coherence is all that is maintained. How close is this accounting to the truth. No one knows. [quote] _of course_ there’s a difference in behaviour, perceived or not. What **explanation** are you putting forward for the different behaviour of a live brain and a dead one, or a live brain and a fingernail or a photon? > [@](#): > > If photons are conscious then surely _lots and lots_ of photons will be _very_ conscious, in which case, why doesn’t the sun have a conversation with us by encoding non-random data in its light (or, at least, doing _something_ uncharacteristic of a non-conscious entity)? This begs the question. It assumes the range of behavior expected of a conscious entity. > [@](#): > > What is the _point_ of drawing such an arbitrary distinction if you don’t know how or why it should be _applied_? What’s arbitrary is physicalism’s demarcation of an unempirical phenomena i.e. consciousness. > [@](#): > > Why could he not have appeared _anywhere_? In dualistic panpsychism, because the right arrangement of matter might not have manifested. > [@](#): > > Two elements is (largely) all that non-stellar nucleosynthesis produces. What is _logically necessary or unnecessary_ about that nucleosynthesis? Appealing to logic here is as much a _non sequitur_ as answering “non-stellar nucleosynthesis only produces elements beginning with the letter H”. Why are you bringing physics into this? Panpsychism does not contradict physics. It just contradicts the claim of arising of consciousness, which physics doesn’t **explain** anyhow. > [@](#): > > But there you are just _tautologically **describing** _ what happens, rather than **explaining** it. Logic provides no _explanatory mechanism_ and, as far as I can tell, neither does your particular version of panpsychism: what _use_ is it? Neither does physicalism. No one knows why, only how. Physicalism asserts that the hard problem of consciousness is suitable for the latter, panpsychism says, currently, it is less arbitrary to assume it isn’t. > [@](#): > > Que _savez_-vous, exactement? Rien. Just that the bridge between non-conscious and conscious realms is uncrossable. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/62 "2005-04-25T15:05:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Besides, as I’ve already said, physicalism accounts for it, but consistency and coherence is all that is maintained. How close is this accounting to the truth. No one knows. Err … what? An explanation _must_ be consistent and coherent to _count_ as an explanation. You seem to be saying “Oh, well, _anyone_ could go ahead and come up with a consistent, coherent explanation of things like computation or nucleosynthesis”. My challenge is for you to go ahead and do it. > [@](#): > > This begs the question. It assumes the range of behavior expected of a conscious entity. Well, let’s start simple. _Do you_ think a photon, or the sun, is a conscious entity? If not, why not? > [@](#): > > What’s arbitrary is physicalism’s demarcation of an unempirical phenomena i.e. consciousness. How is _explaining_ consciousness in terms of computational elements “arbitrarily demarking” it? Does explaining the weather in terms of water vapour elements “arbitrarily demark” weather from non-weather? By explaining nucleosynthesis in stars am I “arbitrarily demarking” non-stars or higher elements? > [@](#): > > In dualistic panpsychism, because the right arrangement of matter might not have manifested. Ah, thank you. So computational entities like Sonic the Hedgehog _do_ emerge from arrangements of matter. Now, what’s the difference between Sonic and [me](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications), in your opinion? > [@](#): > > Why are you bringing physics into this? Panpsychism does not contradict physics. It just contradicts the claim of arising of consciousness, which physics doesn’t **explain** anyhow. Well, that’s where we differ. I am providing **physical explanations** of things, from stars to higher elements to weather to life to Sonic the Hedgehog, in terms of simpler **physical** entities. I am showing that one needn’t be so lazy as to simply propose that everything in the universe is a _little bit Sonic_, or _fundamentally humid_, or has some inseparable _star-ness_ about it. People used to make precisely the same argument about _life_ - that it was [distinct from the physical](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism). Suffice it to say, if one followed _all_ of these possible fundamental distinctions one would end up so mauled by Ockham’s Razor that you’d look like the fellow off Hellraiser. > [@](#): > > Neither does physicalism. No one knows why, only how. Agreed, because “why?” is so often a myopic category error of a question. But if physicalism explains _how_ sensory input being processed into different kinds of memory could produce a “first person subjective experience” in the sensor, the “why” is surely unnecessary. What I am interested in here is where the panpsychic “how” differs from the physicalist “how”: _How_ does a live brain produce a unitary consciousness while a dead one does not (or, at least, a far _lesser_ consciousness)? How come a physical molecule like sevofluorane _extinguishes_ (or massively inhibits) consciousness? How do some entities, like humans, attain such demonstrable consciousness while others of similar complexity, like stars or hurricanes, do not? > [@](#): > > Just that the bridge between non-conscious and conscious realms is uncrossable. Do you say the same of the non-Sonic/Sonic, nonstellar/stellar, nonweather/weather, nonlife/life realms also? It sounds as though you just don’t _want_ it crossed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/63 "2005-04-25T16:00:38Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > The manifestation of a thing is not the thing itself, but it does not follow that by manifesting itself the thing itself becomes not the thing itself. Well, yes, but that’s my point. You seemed to be saying that if a supernatural thing manifested, it became, by virtue of its manifestation, a natural thing. But that is not the case. The manifestation is itself a new thing, but the original thing is still the original thing. Perhaps it would help to abstract it: Let A = thing Let B = manifestation of thing A != B Since there is no contradiction, both A and B may exist. We can also look at analogies. For example, I can manifest myself as a two-dimensional image using a camera as a tool. But although I now have a picture of myself, I still exist independently of both the picture and the camera. Manifesting as some other thing did not alter me as an original thing. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/64 "2005-04-25T17:59:03Z")
**Liberal** , we’re arguing over a trivial ambiguity in the meaning of “manifest”. As you define it, and your definition is not “wrong”, you are of course correct. Let’s stop. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/65 "2005-04-25T18:04:19Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > You seem to be saying “Oh, well, _anyone_ could go ahead and come up with a consistent, coherent explanation of things like computation or nucleosynthesis”. No. Given the Problem of induction, an explanation is just a coherent/consistent narrative. > [@](#): > > _Do you_ think a photon, or the sun, is a conscious entity? If not, why not? I don’t know. I would guess that if the sun is a distinct entity, it does. > [@](#): > > How is _explaining_ consciousness in terms of computational elements “arbitrarily demarking” it? Because you aren’t explaining consciousness, you’re explaining behavior. > [@](#): > > Does explaining the weather in terms of water vapour elements “arbitrarily demark” weather from non-weather? Weather’s an empirical phenomenon. > [@](#): > > By explaining nucleosynthesis in stars am I “arbitrarily demarking” non-stars or higher elements? Same as above. > [@](#): > > So computational entities like Sonic the Hedgehog _do_ emerge from arrangements of matter. Now, what’s the difference between Sonic and [me](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications), in your opinion? Behavioral properties. > [@](#): > > I am providing **physical explanations** of things, from stars to higher elements to weather to life to Sonic the Hedgehog, in terms of simpler **physical** entities. You’re correlating one set of empirical phenomena to another. > [@](#): > > But if physicalism explains _how_ sensory input being processed into different kinds of memory could produce a “first person subjective experience” in the sensor, the “why” is surely unnecessary. But it doesn’t. Physicalism looks at brain activity & observed behaviour and attempts to pair them up. Consciousness doesn’t enter the picture, unless you accept on good faith self-reported behaviour by the test subject. > [@](#): > > What I am interested in here is where the panpsychic “how” differs from the physicalist “how” Panpsychism asserts that consciousness is somewhat as fundamental as mass. An entity by virtue of its existence possesses it. This not equating their nature. > [@](#): > > _How_ does a live brain produce a unitary consciousness while a dead one does not (or, at least, a far _lesser_ consciousness)? Do not know. > [@](#): > > How come a physical molecule like sevofluorane _extinguishes_ (or massively inhibits) consciousness? How do some entities, like humans, attain such demonstrable consciousness while others of similar complexity, like stars or hurricanes, do not? Complexity is a catch-all term. Don’t know what parameters of physical arrangement and function would correlate to form of consciousness. > [@](#): > > Do you say the same of the non-Sonic/Sonic, nonstellar/stellar, nonweather/weather, nonlife/life realms also? Inapplicable, as explained. If panpsychism shows how to observe consciousness, panpsychism shall be proved right or wrong. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/66 "2005-04-25T18:16:22Z")
Correction: If _physicalism_ shows how to observe… ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/67 "2005-04-25T18:55:30Z")
> [@](#): > > No. Given the Problem of induction, an explanation is just a coherent/consistent narrative. Well, I [disagree](http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/explanat.htm) but won’t push the point. I will only ask what your explanation of consciousness _is_. > [@](#): > > I would guess that if the sun is a distinct entity, it does. There’s a whole load of vacuum all around it - I’d say it’s as “distinct” as entities _get_. Now, _why_ do you think it is? _How_ is a fusion reaction _conscious_? What does it think about? > [@](#): > > Because you aren’t explaining consciousness, you’re explaining behavior. The behaviour of clouds _is_ the weather. The behaviour of stars _is_ nucleosynthesis. The behaviour of the screen, chips and memory _is_ computation. The behaviour of DNA-based structures _is_ life. The behaviour of my brain _is_ my mind. > [@](#): > > Weather’s[/stars are]an empirical phenomenon. But I _could_ declare that they _weren’t_: I could say that all I was explaining was the _behaviour_ of water vapour or hydrogen, not weather or stars _themselves_. If I did so, how would you rebut me? > [@](#): > > Behavioral properties. The only difference between my “self” and Sonic the Hedgehog is “behavioural properties”? I actually agree with that wholeheartedly, but I’m surprised you say so. Do you propose that every entity has a fundamentally distinct _Sonicness_? If not, you just admitted that Sonic **and** me _emerged from physical hardware_, and differ only in our behaviour. > [@](#): > > You’re correlating one set of empirical phenomena to another. And the results of decades of experiments in cognitive science and neuropsychology are empirical phenomena. The behaviour of the brain which produces consciousness is not fundamentally different to the behaviour of the computer which produced Sonic. > [@](#): > > But it doesn’t. We disagree. > [@](#): > > Panpsychism asserts that consciousness is somewhat as fundamental as mass. An entity by virtue of its existence possesses it. This not equating their nature. A dead body weighs as much as a live one. Is it just as conscious? If not, why not? > [@](#): > > Do not know. Well, see, here’s the problem. On one hand I have all of these respected cognitive scientists, psychologists and neurologists who provide an admittedly incomplete but nevertheless powerful and predictive model of how a biological computer can have subjective experience by means of sensory input, memory and chemical emotion moderators. On the other hand, I have “I don’t know”. > [@](#): > > Don’t know what parameters of physical arrangement and function would correlate to form of consciousness. How about sensory and memory apparatus? Would you be willing to **entertain the possibility** that _they_ were the physical arrangements and functions which produced an “elevated” form of consciousness (or whatever terminology you guys use to distinguish “forms”)? > [@](#): > > Inapplicable, as explained. As _evaded_, I’d suggest, but understand that I’m genuinely _curious_ about panpsychism here, **Gyan**. Feel free to open a new thread in which you can dictate the terms of the debate yourself, if you like. > [@](#): > > If [physicalism] shows how to observe consciousness, panpsychism shall be proved right or wrong Ah, but physicalism does not necessarily show how to observe _life_ or _weather_ or computer _programs_. Again, such a challenge might be a simple [category error](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake). All it can do is provide **an** explanation for life, weather, Sonic or sensory cognition. It is up to you to decide whether that is **the** explanation for any of them. Cognitive science is _all about_ falsifiable hypotheses and experimental results. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/68 "2005-04-25T19:01:51Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > **Liberal** , we’re arguing over a trivial ambiguity in the meaning of “manifest”. As you define it, and your definition is not “wrong”, you are of course correct. Let’s stop. Although that may be what you are doing, speaking for myself, I’m not. I’m using the same definition that you are, in fact. The definition is not something that I’m quibbling over, or even talking about. Meanwhile, what I’ve said remains unrefuted: 1. It is possible that we are encased in the universe, but that God is not. 2. It is possible that God influences nature without Himself being natural. 3. It is possible that God manifests Himself to man while still being supernatural. I welcome debating the substance of any of those. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/69 "2005-04-25T19:58:14Z")
**Liberal** , re the definition. As I was using it, this would be a proper sentence: “Having been invited to a party at your home, I manifested myself at your front door.” Me, not a hologram. You may argue that this is a misuse of the word. As I said, it’s trivial. As to your three propositions, I grant their logical possibility. I was wrong. Perhaps someone else doesn’t think so and it’s not over. As to their physical possibility, or their truth, that is beyond the scope of the debate as I framed it. I would be happy to for this thread to continue as a debate over their truth. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/70 "2005-04-25T20:04:46Z")
I was thinking today that Gravity might be supernatural in some respects. In ancient Greece there was the idea of a perfect machine. It would be unbreakable, flawless, would not require fuel or work, and would not have to be built (it was _perfect_). It strikes me that all possible such machines may already exist. Gravity, Time, Electrons - all cannot be made, exactly; they perform a function at least from our perspective, and do so flawlessly as far as we can tell. It may not always do what we want, but they work nonetheless. If they exist, then someone following the original philosphy might logically conclude they had to be designed. It would not be ironclad proff, but it is as close to proof as anything. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/71 "2005-04-25T20:12:42Z")
**Gyan** what is your definition of conscious? I’m just enjoying following this thread, but without that definition it seems like it’s going nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/72 "2005-04-25T21:19:35Z")
Indeed, **bandit** : Ironically enough, William of Ockham’s protege Jean Buridan (of the famously indecisive ass) proposed that angels pushed the planets around the Earth. 250-300 years later, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton shaved the planet-pushing angels away with his tutor’s philosophical tool. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/73 "2005-04-25T21:30:15Z")
**Bandit** , I would summarise your view as follows: Things happen precisely as they happen. Thus, they are the product of design.Am I being unfair? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/74 "2005-04-25T21:31:10Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Indeed, **bandit** : Ironically enough, William of Ockham’s protege Jean Buridan (of the famously indecisive ass) proposed that angels pushed the planets around the Earth. 250-300 years later, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton shaved the planet-pushing angels away with his tutor’s philosophical tool. Not exactly. Science has quantified gravity, but hasn’t explained how it works (nor will it). All we know is what gravitational effects objects ought to have on each other based on their masses, distances, and velocities. But it may well be the case that angels are doing the work. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/75 "2005-04-25T21:50:36Z")
**Liberal** , no effect on the debate, but I can’t resist a cheap gotcha. > [@Liberal](#): > > Something is natural if it manifests in nature; i.e., the ultimate source of its existence is the material from the Big Bang. > > (in another post) > It is possible that God manifests Himself to man while still being supernatural. Your \*i.e.\*sorta gets you out of the contradiction, though. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/76 "2005-04-25T23:36:34Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I will only ask what your explanation of consciousness _is_. A fundamental property. Not an emergent. Beyond that, I’m not sure what’s to explain. > [@](#): > > _How_ is a fusion reaction _conscious_? What does it think about? There’s no compunction for conscious activity to be translatable. It may be. Our consciousness reflects our context and heritage, the same for other entities. > [@](#): > > The behaviour of clouds _is_ the weather. The behaviour of stars _is_ nucleosynthesis. The behaviour of the screen, chips and memory _is_ computation. The behaviour of DNA-based structures _is_ life. The behaviour of my brain _is_ my mind. Right on all counts. This doesn’t affect panpsychism/physicalism. I never denied that neurology doesn’t reflect psychology. > [@](#): > > But I _could_ declare that they _weren’t_: I could say that all I was explaining was the _behaviour_ of water vapour or hydrogen, not weather or stars _themselves_. If I did so, how would you rebut me? Weather is the linguistic term for aggregate behaviour. The medium of the weather and constituent H2O is the same. Mind is a conscious phenomenon. Supposedly, pottasium effluxing during an action potential isn’t. > [@](#): > > The only difference between my “self” and Sonic the Hedgehog is “behavioural properties”? I actually agree with that wholeheartedly, but I’m surprised you say so. Do you propose that every entity has a fundamentally distinct _Sonicness_? What’s sonicness? > [@](#): > > And the results of decades of experiments in cognitive science and neuropsychology are empirical phenomena. The behaviour of the brain which produces consciousness is not fundamentally different to the behaviour of the computer which produced Sonic. Agreed. > [@](#): > > A dead body weighs as much as a live one. Is it just as conscious? If not, why not? I hold that activity is a good correlate, so consciousness would be diminished. > [@](#): > > Well, see, here’s the problem. On one hand I have all of these respected cognitive scientists, psychologists and neurologists who provide an admittedly incomplete but nevertheless powerful and predictive model of how a biological computer can have subjective experience by means of sensory input, memory and chemical emotion moderators. Cite (just a couple :)) ? > [@](#): > > On the other hand, I have “I don’t know”. I won’t pretend that I do. > [@](#): > > Would you be willing to **entertain the possibility** that _they_ were the physical arrangements and functions which produced an “elevated” form of consciousness (or whatever terminology you guys use to distinguish “forms”)? Yes, with the caveat that ‘produced’ buys into physicalism. ‘Reflected’ is better. > [@](#): > > Ah, but physicalism does not necessarily show how to observe _life_ or _weather_ or computer _programs_. My mistake. My original was worded wrong. Replace with ‘_If consiousness can be observed, panpsychism can be proved right/wrong_’. **RaftPeople** , consciousness is the phenomenon of experience. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/77 "2005-04-26T00:31:53Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Replace with ‘_If consiousness can be observed, panpsychism can be proved right/wrong_’. So, _can_ consciousness be observed? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/78 "2005-04-26T02:08:52Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > So, _can_ consciousness be observed? Umm, no. Else solipsism would be instantly shown to be true or false. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/79 "2005-04-26T04:07:19Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > RaftPeople, consciousness is the phenomenon of experience. Does the term “experience” mean anything beyond simply being a participating in (choose the best word here: reality, the universe, existence, etc.)? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/80 "2005-04-26T04:08:21Z")
That should have said “participant” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587.md?page=5)