> Indeed, it definitely is one hell of an assumption. Just as "matter is fundamental and consciousness is an emergent phenomena" is. Well, except you snuck two

> Indeed, it definitely is one hell of an assumption. Just as "matter is fundamental and consciousness is an emergent phenomena" is. Well, except you snuck two assumptions in there. I'm certainly not assuming, nor claiming to know definitively whether consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. > However when we accept the 'panpsychist' axiom, we're free to come up with more detailed theorie If you assume a false premise you can come up with literally anything, so this is not particularly surprising or illuminating. > I'm just saying that this whole approach is as valid as the physicalist one. One is grounded in what can be observed objectively[1] and the other is not. ... and to believe your explanation, I'm going to need evidence that it's as valid as the "physicalist"[2] one. [1] Well, at least as far as others can confirm that they observe roughly the same things, e.g. "red" or "consciousness". [2] I think you're thinking of "materialist"?