3 ms·
I used to think about this a lot when growing up and had come to a philosophical view that I find so obvious and simple at this point, that I'm surprised I hadn
by RivieraKid 9y ago
I used to think about this a lot when growing up and had come to a philosophical view that I find so obvious and simple at this point, that I'm surprised I hadn't come across (exactly) the same view yet. Of course, this view could be wrong but I just can't imagine an alternative that would make sense.
Basically (don't want to spend much time on this so it's not the best way summarize it):
- Consciousness is defined as my current feelings, perceptions, thoughts.
- In a way, consciousness (or experience) is the only thing that exists.
- The idea that the physical world is everything is ridiculously wrong. Physics is just a way to summarize patterns observed through our consciousness. The physical world is just a mental model.
- Physical state of the brain clearly affects consciousness but there could very well be an opposite casual link - consciousness affecting the brain by "pushing atoms" or making supposedly random quantum phenomena not-so-random. Why? Because I wouldn't be typing this otherwise - my brain would never realize it affects some consciousness in "parallel universe" (metaphorically speaking).
- Other people (or computers) don't have consciousness as defined above. But we could define a separate term, say "consciousness2", to describe some physical processes typical for brains. If the "consciousness pushing atoms in brain" hypothesis is correct, we could say that all brains with this kind of fishy activity are "conscious2".
- monktastic1 9y agoIs this not a form of Idealism?
- RivieraKid 9y agoYeah, it seems to be vaguely similar.
- monktastic1 9y agoBy your second bullet, it seems to meet the broad definition: "In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial." You might find it interesting to read about various forms: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html. Kastrup's work will probably interest you too.
- tpeo 9y agoThis definition bothers me immensely, because it can tempt people to make argumenta ad lapidem against idealism. Yet "idealist" philosophers can superficially fit the criterion of "believing that reality is mentally constructed" but not believe that things only exist in so far as they are perceived, as Berkeley did, and that someone might just walk through walls if they really want it so. Specially because certain words have no uniform usage among philosophers Kant for example, might be said to have believed that "reality" was "mentally constructed", and he used a really similar language in describing how we perceive the world. But he also wrote quite clearly that Berkeley's idealism was absurd and that we can never perceive anything which violates physical laws. And together with denying the possibility that we might ever come to real knowledge of the world by thinking alone, that was the whole point of his "transcendental idealism".
- RivieraKid 9y agoBy the way, briefly looking into Kastrup's views, they seem very similar to mine. I'll definitely look more into it. Perhaps my main disagreement is that he puts other people's minds on the same level as one's subjective consciousness (but this is just after quickly skimming the paper).
- psyc 9y agoIn philosophy, this is, broadly, Idealism. My money is on digital physics, considered through an Idealist lens.
- tpeo 9y agoSounds like Berkeley's version of idealism.