5 ms·

Consciousness is supernatural and metaphysical by virtue of it existing outside the natural and physical world. This is true even if we could prove that some fo

by montyf 9y ago

Consciousness is supernatural and metaphysical by virtue of it existing outside the natural and physical world. This is true even if we could prove that some formations of matter correlated or even had a one-to-one relationship to consciousness. It's easy to see that the experience of, say, reading this post exists nowhere in this physical universe. In fact, consciousness is the only supernatural phenomenon that we know of, and we even have first-hand, moment-to-moment proof of it.

tensor 9y ago
>It's easy to see that the experience of, say, reading this post exists nowhere in this physical universe. Never mind easy, I can't see the truth of your proposition at all. Why wouldn't my experience exist in this physical universe? Everything else does and we've never found evidence of a single thing that doesn't. That I experience a feeling of existing in no way at all implies it's not based in physics.
- montyf 9y ago
  > Everything else does and we've never found evidence of a single thing that doesn't. Right, consciousness seems to be in its own, unique realm in some way. > That I experience a feeling of existing in no way at all implies it's not based in physics. That must be some trippy physics. It's probably safest to be agnostic about it, but it just seems absurd to me to imply that a mathematical formula can produce feeling or experience. How can you describe the experience of qualia mathematically? I think this is the Materialist view gone a step too far. Still, can't rule out any possibility if we're searching for the truth.
  - matt-attack 9y ago
    They said the same thing about flesh. It cannot simply be made of the same material the makes up rocks and sand. But it is. They said the same thing about thoughts, that they are the domain of the soul. But we've now seen that they're entirely physical and measurable constructs. Same was said about mental disorders. Turns out they're physical deficiencies. Wouldn't we learn at some point to stop presuming complicated things to be non-physical?
    - lerno 9y ago
      Let’s assume it is a physical process. We can then recreate it away from a body. We run the experiment. Something is now experienced. Who is it that experiences?
taneq 9y ago
Either this is begging the question, or you're defining consciousness explicitly as something that doesn't actually exist.
- montyf 9y ago
  Of course it exists, I am conscious right now and I presume you are, too. But where are our experiences located? Clearly nowhere in the physical universe. It's a really simple thing to grasp if you're not a dogmatic Materialist.
red75prime 9y ago
Consciousness is as supernatural as natural numbers. Have you heard about philosophical zombie calculator? It looks and operates exactly like a calculator, but it doesn't perform operations on a subset of natural numbers. Your usual calculator experiences natural numbers and tells you about it by displaying them. In zombie calculator there's darkness inside, it doesn't experience anything. Yes, I'm mocking some philosophers' views. But I haven't seen strong rebuttals. To be precise I'm mocking the idea that existence of consciousness can depend on some non-physical condition.

by montyf 9y ago

tensor 9y ago

>It's easy to see that the experience of, say, reading this post exists nowhere in this physical universe. Never mind easy, I can't see the truth of your proposition at all. Why wouldn't my experience exist in this physical universe? Everything else does and we've never found evidence of a single thing that doesn't. That I experience a feeling of existing in no way at all implies it's not based in physics.

montyf 9y ago
> Everything else does and we've never found evidence of a single thing that doesn't. Right, consciousness seems to be in its own, unique realm in some way. > That I experience a feeling of existing in no way at all implies it's not based in physics. That must be some trippy physics. It's probably safest to be agnostic about it, but it just seems absurd to me to imply that a mathematical formula can produce feeling or experience. How can you describe the experience of qualia mathematically? I think this is the Materialist view gone a step too far. Still, can't rule out any possibility if we're searching for the truth.
- matt-attack 9y ago
  They said the same thing about flesh. It cannot simply be made of the same material the makes up rocks and sand. But it is. They said the same thing about thoughts, that they are the domain of the soul. But we've now seen that they're entirely physical and measurable constructs. Same was said about mental disorders. Turns out they're physical deficiencies. Wouldn't we learn at some point to stop presuming complicated things to be non-physical?
  - lerno 9y ago
    Let’s assume it is a physical process. We can then recreate it away from a body. We run the experiment. Something is now experienced. Who is it that experiences?

taneq 9y ago

Either this is begging the question, or you're defining consciousness explicitly as something that doesn't actually exist.

montyf 9y ago
Of course it exists, I am conscious right now and I presume you are, too. But where are our experiences located? Clearly nowhere in the physical universe. It's a really simple thing to grasp if you're not a dogmatic Materialist.

red75prime 9y ago

Consciousness is as supernatural as natural numbers. Have you heard about philosophical zombie calculator? It looks and operates exactly like a calculator, but it doesn't perform operations on a subset of natural numbers. Your usual calculator experiences natural numbers and tells you about it by displaying them. In zombie calculator there's darkness inside, it doesn't experience anything. Yes, I'm mocking some philosophers' views. But I haven't seen strong rebuttals. To be precise I'm mocking the idea that existence of consciousness can depend on some non-physical condition.