Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Theory of Consciousness

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 8:20:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I should forewarn you that these ideas are not impressive, nor are they complicated, nor are they particularly learned or justified by much philosophical scholarship. But they are however, carefully nuanced, sensible, and (at least to my knowledge) uncommon.

I will parrot some philosophers like Ryle, in saying first that our nounification of objects in language has led to the mistaken objectification of nouns. That is to say - consciousness is a state of a thing that exists, and is not in itself something extant. But of what thing is consciousness a state?

My argument: Consciousness is not a state of mind -- minds do not exist (insofar as we're defining mind in any way that is inconsistent with physicalism). Consciousness is the subjective state of physical matter and combinations of matter. It is a fundamental difference in perspective from observing matter (objectivity) to actually being it (subjectivity). But we must resist the urge to insist, well WHAT matter am I, if my existence can be defined so clearly and scientifically - please point it out! Am I my brain, or am I just the neocortex? am I also my limbs? Which matter am I?

What qualifies as a unit of matter is actually quite arbitrary when you think mechanistically. Your body could be a unit of matter just the same as your body + the chair you're sitting on could unite to be conceptually regarded as a unit of matter. But there must be essential and peripheral properties of whatever unit is being examined. I can't say what exact combination of matter composes a person, but it's likely that whatever unit that is, the physiological properties of that matter become less essential and more peripheral to his or her personhood the farther you stray from the central nervous system. So I would conjecture that your existence is a physical continuum... the chair on which you are presently sitting (like any other material thing, anywhere in the universe) COULD conceptually be regarded as component to your material existence, but we would understand that this part of you, on the basis of experience and observation is not essential to your subjective state as a compendium of certain physical material.

So the consequences of this theory are thus:
1) You are a material thing
2) Subjectivity is the perspective held by any material entity, however that entity is defined
3) The quality of that subjectivity is alterable on a continuum decreasing in significance from essential to peripheral components
4) Your behavior is thus governable in its entirety by physical laws, and subjectivity is rendered a passive (yet seemingly active) experience, whose relationship with matter is epiphenomenal.... although I would repudiate the imagry of an objectified (in the sense of being made into an object) mind associated with that concept.

Thoughts?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 10:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with your theory (at least in part), except for your assumption that minds do not exist. I think a mind is simply a system possessing iterative internal self-description (sorry if this sounds verbose, but I don't know how else to describe it). This is basically synonymous with time. In other words, all matter is "conscious" in the sense that it is self-describing and self-recognizing i.e., persistently "cognizant" of the rules bearing on its description.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 10:42:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In other words, matter has two "aspects". One is its self-description, which corresponds to the metal side of reality, while the other places it within the context of other entities, which corresponds to the objective side of reality, and is basically spatial in nature.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 11:31:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 10:27:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I agree with your theory (at least in part), except for your assumption that minds do not exist. I think a mind is simply a system possessing iterative internal self-description (sorry if this sounds verbose, but I don't know how else to describe it). This is basically synonymous with time. In other words, all matter is "conscious" in the sense that it is self-describing and self-recognizing i.e., persistently "cognizant" of the rules bearing on its description.

the last noun of that definition is the word "description"... I'm not sure how to understand "the mind is a description"... Also, you're saying you agree with a portion of the argument, but that would suggest you agree with at least the fundamental claim on which everything written here rests,... that a person is a unit of matter. What extends logically from that is that there is no volition or any causal sequence that truly originates from a mind. So where is your agreement exactly and where is your disagreement?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Isn't this just double-aspect theory?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:17:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:22:35 PM, n7 wrote:
Isn't this just double-aspect theory?

I've didn't know what this was before looking it up right now, but it doesn't sound like the same thing I'm arguing:
"[double-aspect theory] proposes full empirical knowledge of the material brain cannot give us full knowledge of consciousness as this is subjective knowledge. Ultimately the point is to claim that materialism is insufficient for understanding consciousness and subjectivity. Spinoza's original two aspects were God and nature." http://rationalwiki.org...

It seems that the only similarity is that what I argue also depends on having 2 aspects (or perspectives) of the same fundamental substance, that are mutually exclusive yet both necessary for an exhaustive account of the substance's existence. It's possible that I've misunderstood the definition, (so please correct me if I'm wrong) ...but it doesn't sound like adherents of this theory believe that people are matter.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:52:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 8:17:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:22:35 PM, n7 wrote:
Isn't this just double-aspect theory?

I've didn't know what this was before looking it up right now, but it doesn't sound like the same thing I'm arguing:
"[double-aspect theory] proposes full empirical knowledge of the material brain cannot give us full knowledge of consciousness as this is subjective knowledge. Ultimately the point is to claim that materialism is insufficient for understanding consciousness and subjectivity. Spinoza's original two aspects were God and nature." http://rationalwiki.org...

It seems that the only similarity is that what I argue also depends on having 2 aspects (or perspectives) of the same fundamental substance, that are mutually exclusive yet both necessary for an exhaustive account of the substance's existence. It's possible that I've misunderstood the definition, (so please correct me if I'm wrong) ...but it doesn't sound like adherents of this theory believe that people are matter.

I think physicalism in the sense that they're talking about would fall under third person perspectives of the mind according to your idea. A dual aspect theorist could believe that people are matter, but matter has two aspects which are neither intrinsically those two aspects. Maybe it falls more under non-reductive physicalism more, but it's very close to double-aspect theory.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 2:06:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When in evolution did consciousness begin? A difficult question ; some would say.at the very begining and it inreased in quality as life became more complex.
Man is conscious of consciousness at least most adults are.
Julian Jaynes believes that self awareness , or self conciousness did not appear in man until about 3000 years ago.
Before that, Jaynes argues we had bicameral minds.
It is a startling theory and Richard Dawkins does not accept it.
I think Mr Dawkins like Steven Pinker believes the mind of man was created by natural selection long before this time.
Alfred Wallace could not bring himself to believe that and turned to divine intervention
How is it , said Wallace , that the mind of the savage is equal to the mind of modern man when he does not need it? How can natural.selection explain it?
Jaynes explains it with his bicarmeral.brain.theory
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:52:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The mind is the thing we know to exist for sure, everything else (a non-mental physical world) is expendable in a theory of reality as it doesn't explain more but posits more. A theory should explain more but posit less if it is to be a good theory. Idealism posits only mental properties without the added fat of a physical world and explains the same observations so it is to be preferred.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 2:32:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was a little disappointed by the theory proposed because it doesn't address my concerns with consciousness.

In my view, the mystery of consciousness is that no-one has (so far) explained how subjective consciousness can be produced by (or within) a mechanism (ie a suitably programmed computer), yet consciousness seems to be produced by brains easily enough. So are brains mechanisms or is something else involved?

That presents a big problem to people like me who prefer the mechanistic/materialistic world view. It is no good dogmatically asserting that materialism is right if consciousness cannot actually be explained in materialistic terms.

There are a few vague suggestions but no-one has gone any further than hand-waving ('self-reference'). No one has proposed anything an engineer could use as a blueprint to construct conscious computer.

Naturally, I only have a partial solution. The idea follows from the idea that my perception of X is guarantees that there is a 'neural representation encoding for' X within my brain. My perception of X says nothing about X or the 'real world' (except by co-incidence).

Thus the fact that I perceive myself as being 'subjectively conscious' does not mean that I really am subjectively conscious (which is just as well as it seems that subjective consciousness cannot be implemented in a mechanistical brain). Rather my self-perception as being a 'subjectively conscious entity' only means that my brain self-represents itself as being subjectively consciousness. That is to say that while my brain cannot actually implement subjective consciousness, it can(/does?) implement the representation of subjective consciousness.

In short, our brains do not implement the sort of consciousness we think they do. It seems (to us) that we are subjectively conscious because that is how our brain represent (or rather mis-represent) its own mode of operation. Presumably our brains really work along mechanically straightforward lines, but we don't pereceive that. Indeed we can't perceive how our brains/consciousness really work. All we can perceive is how our brains self-represent their operation.

It seems probably that the brains self-representation of its mode of operation evolved as it did because it was effective, not because it was accurate. There is no reason I can see why we should expect the brain to evolve an accurate representaton of how it really works - how could it find that out? Instead we can expect the brain to evolve an effective self-representation, and the subjective model seems to be that.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 10:16:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 9:31:43 PM, Devilry wrote:
Not very compelling.

A judgment without a reason is noise of the most trivial sort.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 10:23:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 8:20:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
My argument: Consciousness is not a state of mind -- minds do not exist (insofar as we're defining mind in any way that is inconsistent with physicalism). Consciousness is the subjective state of physical matter and combinations of matter. It is a fundamental difference in perspective from observing matter (objectivity) to actually being it (subjectivity). But we must resist the urge to insist, well WHAT matter am I, if my existence can be defined so clearly and scientifically - please point it out! Am I my brain, or am I just the neocortex? am I also my limbs? Which matter am I?

Read States of Consciousness by Charles Tart. Consciousness a system, a structure that helps you cope with reality. From there you can have different states of consciousness; ASoC. This can be attained through drugs, meditation, emotions, etc.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 10:29:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 2:32:01 PM, kp98 wrote:

I don't think you correctly interpreted my position. The OP obviates the need to understand "how" the brain produces consciousness because the brain does not produce consciousness. Rather consciousness is a sophisticated state of subjectivity, and subjectivity is the state of being matter, as opposed to observing it. We can't answer how consciousness arises because we're attempting explain subjectivity from objectivity ... two mutually exclusive modes of engagement with reality.

My argument was that you are your brain, plus other things, and where "you" as an entity begin and end is determinable on a gradient of physical coherence, where as you start straying away from the nervous system the interaction between the components of what we're calling "YOU" become less coherent - that is, less participatory in processing functions that characterize the human nervous system.

My explanation need not be fantastically successful, but at the very least your particular concerns are not valid or applicable here.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:09:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 8:20:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
I should forewarn you that these ideas are not impressive, nor are they complicated, nor are they particularly learned or justified by much philosophical scholarship. But they are however, carefully nuanced, sensible, and (at least to my knowledge) uncommon.

I will parrot some philosophers like Ryle, in saying first that our nounification of objects in language has led to the mistaken objectification of nouns. That is to say - consciousness is a state of a thing that exists, and is not in itself something extant. But of what thing is consciousness a state?

My argument: Consciousness is not a state of mind -- minds do not exist (insofar as we're defining mind in any way that is inconsistent with physicalism). Consciousness is the subjective state of physical matter and combinations of matter. It is a fundamental difference in perspective from observing matter (objectivity) to actually being it (subjectivity). But we must resist the urge to insist, well WHAT matter am I, if my existence can be defined so clearly and scientifically - please point it out! Am I my brain, or am I just the neocortex? am I also my limbs? Which matter am I?

What qualifies as a unit of matter is actually quite arbitrary when you think mechanistically. Your body could be a unit of matter just the same as your body + the chair you're sitting on could unite to be conceptually regarded as a unit of matter. But there must be essential and peripheral properties of whatever unit is being examined. I can't say what exact combination of matter composes a person, but it's likely that whatever unit that is, the physiological properties of that matter become less essential and more peripheral to his or her personhood the farther you stray from the central nervous system. So I would conjecture that your existence is a physical continuum... the chair on which you are presently sitting (like any other material thing, anywhere in the universe) COULD conceptually be regarded as component to your material existence, but we would understand that this part of you, on the basis of experience and observation is not essential to your subjective state as a compendium of certain physical material.

So the consequences of this theory are thus:
1) You are a material thing
2) Subjectivity is the perspective held by any material entity, however that entity is defined
3) The quality of that subjectivity is alterable on a continuum decreasing in significance from essential to peripheral components
4) Your behavior is thus governable in its entirety by physical laws, and subjectivity is rendered a passive (yet seemingly active) experience, whose relationship with matter is epiphenomenal.... although I would repudiate the imagry of an objectified (in the sense of being made into an object) mind associated with that concept.

Thoughts?

Your argument is self defeating.

You accept that your existence can be expressed scientifically, but who or what is doing this science? A mind. Therefore, you must presuppose the existence of a mind if you are to assert any scientific truth.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:23:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
n7 and Dylan are the only ones that got what I wrote, or at least what I was struggling to argue . . . and they don't even agree with me! But at least I think they saw that the heart of my argument was the concept of perspective, and understood that this idea would not be intelligently addressed with a return to concerns about how mind emerges from matter, as though I didn't just get done explaining why mind might be a state of being matter, and therefore need not arise from it like some supernumerary substance.

The rest of you,... I really don't know what happened or what went wrong.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:27:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:23:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
n7 and Dylan are the only ones that got what I wrote, or at least what I was struggling to argue . . . and they don't even agree with me! But at least I think they saw that the heart of my argument was the concept of perspective, and understood that this idea would not be intelligently addressed with a return to concerns about how mind emerges from matter, as though I didn't just get done explaining why mind might be a state of being matter, and therefore need not arise from it like some supernumerary substance.

The rest of you,... I really don't know what happened or what went wrong.

You can't say "The mind doesn't exist" and also affirm the existence of scientific truth. That makes no sense.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:30:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:27:40 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:23:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
n7 and Dylan are the only ones that got what I wrote, or at least what I was struggling to argue . . . and they don't even agree with me! But at least I think they saw that the heart of my argument was the concept of perspective, and understood that this idea would not be intelligently addressed with a return to concerns about how mind emerges from matter, as though I didn't just get done explaining why mind might be a state of being matter, and therefore need not arise from it like some supernumerary substance.

The rest of you,... I really don't know what happened or what went wrong.

You can't say "The mind doesn't exist" and also affirm the existence of scientific truth. That makes no sense.

I'm not saying doesn't exist, or that we have no mind (as we all understand that word to be defined),... that we have a mind is self-evident and incontrovertible. I'm saying that the mind is not A THING...it is A STATE of a thing.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:32:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:30:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm saying that the mind is not A THING...it is A STATE of a thing.

The first part is uncontroversial. Of course it isn't a thing. The second part I'm not sure about. I don't know what you mean by a state of a thing.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:38:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:32:59 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:30:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm saying that the mind is not A THING...it is A STATE of a thing.

The first part is uncontroversial. Of course it isn't a thing. The second part I'm not sure about. I don't know what you mean by a state of a thing.

I'm saying that consciousness is the subjective perspective of the matter composing a human being. It is what is like to be that unit of matter. And no this does not suggest that all objects have consciousness of the same order as we do, or any consciousness at all, but that there is subjectivity inherent in the material state.

I am saying that whatever we are, we are SOMETHING, yet the only SOMETHING we know is of a physical nature. Would it be so far fetched that this mind we're marveling at is merely a different vantage of the very same type of object we mistakenly observe as constitutively distinct from ourselves?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:49:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:38:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:32:59 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:30:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm saying that the mind is not A THING...it is A STATE of a thing.

The first part is uncontroversial. Of course it isn't a thing. The second part I'm not sure about. I don't know what you mean by a state of a thing.

I'm saying that consciousness is the subjective perspective of the matter composing a human being. It is what is like to be that unit of matter. And no this does not suggest that all objects have consciousness of the same order as we do, or any consciousness at all, but that there is subjectivity inherent in the material state.

I am saying that whatever we are, we are SOMETHING, yet the only SOMETHING we know is of a physical nature. Would it be so far fetched that this mind we're marveling at is merely a different vantage of the very same type of object we mistakenly observe as constitutively distinct from ourselves?

You're thinking too much into this.

Consciousness simply means awareness. I'd say all life forms are aware in their own way. A cell is aware when it must go through mitosis. On the other hand, not many people will think of consciousness or awareness to apply to cells because that's not how we normally use the word. So consciousness, as we normally use it, applies to humans and I'd say most species of the Animalia kingdom.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 12:00:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:49:32 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:38:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:32:59 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:30:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm saying that the mind is not A THING...it is A STATE of a thing.

The first part is uncontroversial. Of course it isn't a thing. The second part I'm not sure about. I don't know what you mean by a state of a thing.

I'm saying that consciousness is the subjective perspective of the matter composing a human being. It is what is like to be that unit of matter. And no this does not suggest that all objects have consciousness of the same order as we do, or any consciousness at all, but that there is subjectivity inherent in the material state.

I am saying that whatever we are, we are SOMETHING, yet the only SOMETHING we know is of a physical nature. Would it be so far fetched that this mind we're marveling at is merely a different vantage of the very same type of object we mistakenly observe as constitutively distinct from ourselves?

You're thinking too much into this.

Consciousness simply means awareness. I'd say all life forms are aware in their own way. A cell is aware when it must go through mitosis. On the other hand, not many people will think of consciousness or awareness to apply to cells because that's not how we normally use the word. So consciousness, as we normally use it, applies to humans and I'd say most species of the Animalia kingdom.

I'm not seeing how this is a response to anything I've said thus far....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 12:07:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 12:00:54 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:49:32 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:38:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:32:59 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:30:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm saying that the mind is not A THING...it is A STATE of a thing.

The first part is uncontroversial. Of course it isn't a thing. The second part I'm not sure about. I don't know what you mean by a state of a thing.

I'm saying that consciousness is the subjective perspective of the matter composing a human being. It is what is like to be that unit of matter. And no this does not suggest that all objects have consciousness of the same order as we do, or any consciousness at all, but that there is subjectivity inherent in the material state.

I am saying that whatever we are, we are SOMETHING, yet the only SOMETHING we know is of a physical nature. Would it be so far fetched that this mind we're marveling at is merely a different vantage of the very same type of object we mistakenly observe as constitutively distinct from ourselves?

You're thinking too much into this.

Consciousness simply means awareness. I'd say all life forms are aware in their own way. A cell is aware when it must go through mitosis. On the other hand, not many people will think of consciousness or awareness to apply to cells because that's not how we normally use the word. So consciousness, as we normally use it, applies to humans and I'd say most species of the Animalia kingdom.

I'm not seeing how this is a response to anything I've said thus far....

You have an "argument" regarding your theory of consciousness and I showed you why you're overthinking it. I didn't start talking about ducks and rabbits.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 2:02:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 1:43:37 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The theory fails as it arbitrarily places a physical world as ontologically prior to consciousness.

That's a valid point of objection as to why one should believe the theory is true, but not one that proves its falsity.

A physical world could indeed be prior to consciousness, and from the perspective of the sciences it's preferable that it is. My present concern is less with proving what's true as it is with raising an unfalsified possibility that's quite parsimonious in its additions and limited in its subtractions of what we perceive as intuitively true.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 2:09:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 2:02:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/29/2015 1:43:37 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The theory fails as it arbitrarily places a physical world as ontologically prior to consciousness.

That's a valid point of objection as to why one should believe the theory is true, but not one that proves its falsity.

A physical world could indeed be prior to consciousness, and from the perspective of the sciences it's preferable that it is.

I disagree. If Idealism is true when everything we discover by science still resides in consciousness. You are adding an extra category to reality (a non-mental physical world) when it is unnecessary and doesn't explain anything better.

My present concern is less with proving what's true as it is with raising an unfalsified possibility that's quite parsimonious in its additions and limited in its subtractions of what we perceive as intuitively true.

I'm not sure how intuition supports Physicalism. If anything, it supports Dualism. It certainly seems as if our consciousness is this magical thing that is different than anything we deem physical. Of course, I believe Dualism is false, as do you (I am an idealist).
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 8:37:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
but at the very least your particular concerns are not valid or applicable here

My concerns are with the nature of consciousness and with how consciousness arises in the human brain. How can they be invalid or inapplicable to a putative theory of consciousness? Is it perhaps that the theory is invalid and applicable to my concerns? And if so, what use is the theory?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 11:40:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 8:37:20 AM, kp98 wrote:
but at the very least your particular concerns are not valid or applicable here

My concerns are with the nature of consciousness and with how consciousness arises in the human brain. How can they be invalid or inapplicable to a putative theory of consciousness? Is it perhaps that the theory is invalid and applicable to my concerns? And if so, what use is the theory?

You've misunderstood and limited the possibilities for explanation of what we observe as consciousness by presupposing that it must arise or emerge,... while my argument is that its a change of perspective from observing matter to being it. That's why your concerns are irrelevant to what I'm saying, ... a successful response to my argument will necessarily engage the notion of perspective, evaluating its plausibility and comprehensiveness as an explanation, accepting, rejecting, or qualifying it.

You haven't done that, so you haven't really responded to the idea that's been proposed.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault