It's simple, but you cannot even read my simple words. Our experience is not neurotransmitters, even if it is wholly formed by them. If we did, we wouldn't need science, because we could already observe it.

Generally speaking, for most people, external things are projected into our sensory nerves, which transmit a signal through neurotransmitters to the brain, where more neurotransmitters transmit more signals to the part of the brain that deals with advanced subjective experience, where more neurotransmitters process those signals constantly when we are alert and conscious.

And that advanced subjective experience is what we call 'consciousness'

The act of being conscious and consciousness itself are two different things

What do you call this theory

Neuroscience

You're missing my point entirely.

The conscious part, not the sensory nerves and transmitters

What's your fucking point, sir?

Oh, that's just the definitions of words.

Because string theory says otherwise, was curious what your theory comes from

The explanation of consciousness is different from the experience of it.

Conscious as most people use it means "awake" or "not unconscious".

>string theory

Whereas "consciousness" is an abstract term used by philosophers as a catchall for sensory perception and the "meaning" of our senses.

There is no 'hard problem of consiousness', it's all a chemical reaction

I never said there was.

You are just going off on a tangent.

No, I'm being precise.

Now please explain the diference between the experience of what we call consciousness, and consciousness itself.

Im of the opinion no one knows what consciousness is, but im not about to effort post

I used to be of that opinion too.

Subjective versus objective.

I just wasn't compelled by the evidence that consciousness is not entirely comprised of chemical reactions in your brain and nothing more.

I know, that's not my contention whatsoever.

I mean, the lack of evidence.

Ok

That's cool, I'm just being very precise with *my* words so people understand what *I* mean. I'm not trying to correct you.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf

Lots of pseudoscience in here

And they are just as likely to be wrong as everyone else

The US government employs pseudoscientific people a lot more than people would probably like to admit

It's pretty disgusting

Not in here specifically

But in this document

One last go. Our subjective experience - consciousness, whatever you want to call it - is the first thing we confront in the world. It is primary to our existence, however it really arises. It is interpretive and intuitive, not scientific or all-knowing. Referring back to spirituality and life, it is a byproduct of this natural state, the way man works and lives in the world. It does not mean, at all, it is correct in an objective sense, it is just his impression of things. It can clearly be demonstrated by science that his ideas are misplaced, like someone believing dreams really happen. But then, knowing the objective explanation of subjective experience is not enough to stop it, cancel it, or modify it to not be mistaken again. It is only possible to re-interpret and fight against our intuitions. But it is apart of our mechanics as human beings, our nature.

Ehh

Mankind has to become something else entirely to stop believing in myths.

I'm pretty awake to all of those little mechanisms

Or misunderstandings.

When you have an anxiety disorder, you notice the animalistic underpinnings of your consciousness when you have anxiety-provoking experiences.