Hi Glenn

RE: “I think it might be useful for you to read it [Nagel] again. “

I’d rather a trip to the dentist.

RE ”The "something" is the description, as I have repeatedly told you”

And as I have repeatedly asked you: What is the description? It has to be something specific otherwise you’re just left with “it is like something” – and everything is like something (as I’ve explained).

Part of me, I confess, feels quite sorry for people like yourself who try to defend the Nagel mantra. It is quite indefensible, yet still they try. Somewhere along the line, they must have been told it is important, and they have dutifully believed.

RE: ”Also just for reference, you had stated:

Nagel’s proposition – or at least the proposition allegedly based on his article – is this specifically: “There is something it is like to be conscious”. 

What Nagel actually stated was:

But no matter how the form may vary, the fact that an organism has conscious experience at all means, basically, that there is something it is like to be that organism.

So what’s your point? The Nagel proposition – the one I quote and that is repeatedly trotted out – is what Nagel says, as your quote shows.

RE: ”Could you answer the questions that I gave you by the way, because I am still not clear on what part of the question I previously gave you, and you repeatedly did not answer, that you thought was ambiguous or not clear. 

As I said, you would first have to convince me that the all the physics palaver in your question tells us something important about human consciousness. As I also said, I won’t hold my breath.  If you want to go on about particles etc, Jonathan is your man, not me. I notice also that someone has started a thread about a wonderful, brand new “fundamental type of event related to mind/sentience/consciousness” that he calls a “psychule”. Might that be to your taste? It might turn out to be a close cousin of the "neuron-in-a-vat" you mention to Jonathan.

DA