Physical reality by definition is everything that exists.

Do numbers exist? I mean really big numbers.

How about algorithms? Those that are not yet implemented.

I believe consciousness is some kind of algorithm. But consciousness alone doesn't define who we are, inherently.

I think there is a mistake in this dichotomy. Do really big numbers "exist?" Are really big numbers meaningful?

Sometimes I think we conflate those two things, and I don't think they are the same.

My interpretation would be that numbers do not exist on their own. Only your thought (as in physical process) of them does.

How can you be sure is not the same with physical reality? Ie. That only your thought of it exists.

After all, the only thing that we can be certain of is our own (subjective) experience.

There is no reason to assume my thought (as in physical process) is self-sustaining. Rather it seems to be powered by the rest of the stuff.

Not sure what you mean about assuming a self-sustaining thought.

The point is that you can never experience anything outside your own point of view, which means that you can never know if anything outside of your own personal experience is at all separate or independent of it.

Sure, you can “trust” others when they say something to you, but you can never experience anything from someone else’s perspective (unless you could become them, but then you’d stop being you). All experience is subjective. We can all try to agree on what something (a physical process) means, but that is only an agreement, it is not “true reality”. So in that sense, you can never know what “true reality” is, except for whatever you subjectively experience.

The article assumes that consciousness is something that results from our brain's behaviour. (The big bang creating reality, and life, and therefore consciousness.) Further, it seems to almost reduce it do a conceptual feeling. (It also implies your consciousness does not exist before your birth and after your death.)

A different view may see the brain as merely a processing, storage, and interaction peripheral device to our consciousness. (With consciousness being either an everlasting fundamental building block of the universe (e.g. God, etc), or consciousness being things in a different non-physical universe with different laws (a mirror copy of our mind that is used to exert spooky action at a distance, etc)).

That is, consciousness may also exist in some form without the physical body, and be a source of physical reality, or exist next to it.

Further, do all living beings actually have one?

This hypothesis fails to Occam's razor.

As opposed to a consciousness existing in the brain that cannot even be explained? Not really.

Consciousness as a fundamental building block of all reality is a very simple solution.

So is consciousness in a symbiotic dual-universe configuration. Yin-yang configurations are quite natural.

Don't confuse a life with consciousness. Memories may only exist in your brain. Consciousness goes two ways. Not only does your consciousness observe your senses, you also make your brain aware that you are observing, that is, your consciousness also gives input to your brain.

If consciousness is a part of the brain, then this becomes merely a stray feedback loop, which is quite unnecessary, and should not be required for life to exist.

If the brain is a (temporary) peripheral to consciousness, and biological life and consciousness enhance each other in a symbiotic configuration, then the interaction of consciousness with the brain makes absolute sense.

The brain by itself is merely reactive. It recognizes learned patterns, it executes learned behaviors, and it learns from all that.

Consciousness observes the brain (and by extension consciousness sees, hears, and feels). The brain reacts on the input of consciousness (and by extension, consciousness makes our body act).

Consciousness as a feedback loop in the brain would only explain self-awareness of the brain. It does not explain the observer (nor debatably free will or conscious choice).

> As opposed to a consciousness existing in the brain that cannot even be explained? Not really.

Brain can not be explained? Which part specifically are you referring to?

Reading comprehension.

No point in discussing deeper.

What exactly is unexplainable about brain's reading comprehensible?

>Physical reality by definition is everything that exists.

The problem with this statement is it assumes we have a solid definition of what "physical reality" is on a fundamental level.

The current state of quantum physics shows that we do not.

>It is not a problem with the statement itself, more with the quantum physics.

Are you trying to imply "physical reality" is unrelated to physics? Define precisely what you mean by "physical reality"

Physics is a model. Physical reality is defined above.

>Physical reality by definition is everything that exists.

How do we define what exists?

This question is hard to answer, but appears irrelevant to the contention point. The topmost comment is nonsensical because it claims consciousness "exists" (whatever that means) outside physical reality, which directly contradicts the definition of physical reality which is roughly all(X): exists(X) === (X in physical reality).

So you don't want to continue to play the game?

It's not an assumption, it's existential.