>>11835956>Why would information transfer have anything to do with the topic?
Leads into the next explanations.>What is "foreign entities"?
In the context I was using it, it meant other parts of the theoretical composite consciouness.>How are those neurons "foreign entities" and why would it matter?
See above. It's because they are many.>It is apparent that we can realize "I'm thinking" due to the electrochemical changes going around in our brain.
And I'm telling you that doesn't make sense. After the clarifications I made above, let's go back to my previous post.
We have here a theoretical consciousness that is a composite. That's multiple interpreters (I use interpreter here to mean parts of the consciousness). Not multiple neurons (which are only signalers really, but I understand you're trying to argue they're responsible for interpretation). Let's simplify it to two interpreters. There are two parts to this consciousness, and each part needs to know 1.) It and the other part both exist. 2.) It and the other part are both itself.
1.) Checks out. Each part obviously intimately knows itself. And assuming the two are next to each other they can transfer information--that signals another exists.
2.) Does not check out. Because each part knows itself is itself, but any information coming from the other one will be known to be foreign--as an interpreter would obviously know what information processing it has done and what came from something else
Since 2.) does not check out, and in real life we know our whole consciousness knows it's itself, we can rule out there being multiple interpreters. >Why would information about immaterial things not fit into material? Material stuff can very much feel things as is apparent when you bite your tongue or step on a Lego.
Your teeth and the bumps on a lego are material.