3 ms·

Yeah. I think a lot of people have that issue. I have read about and understood a lot of physicalist theories of consciousness, but I have yet to see one that

Yeah. I think a lot of people have that issue. I have read about and understood a lot of physicalist theories of consciousness, but I have yet to see one that explains my subjective bubble of experience. I could see how this is all an illusion, but I can't see why I can perceive it then, why I have these vivid subjective experiences. Conciousness is really quite odd, especially because I realized that most of the important functions in the brain are unconcious. I don't find dualism satisfying either; it is not a testable theory.

posterboy 8y ago
Maybe the understanding you are looking for is something that the mind is not interested in. You can hardly formulate the question and the only fair answer is to tell you to not ask the question before you get lost in it. The mantra of yoga and all that jazz was to stop wondering, to find focus. Finding the right words and understanding the problem are two orthogonal problems. Dualism is a good word, and separation is essential to learning. The consciousness just observes the subconsciousness, not the outside world. In that sense, dualism makes perfect sense, but it's only testable by introspection. Empathy helps recognizing that behavior in others. Recognition and socializing is much more important for consciousness than seeing. Even single celled organisms can detect light, but that doesn't count as consciousness. Yet we might call plants our friends, figuratively, and "theory" derives from a root "to perceive".
md224 8y ago
> I don't find dualism satisfying either; it is not a testable theory. I understand the sentiment here, but I also think we should be careful when it comes to the assumption that the truth -- whatever it happens to be -- will be a testable theory. Whether or not something is true is a fact independent of larger epistemological concerns. Then again, perhaps you're just saying that if the truth turns out to be non-testable, then the truth won't be satisfying, which is a reasonable position (and I might agree).

posterboy 8y ago

Maybe the understanding you are looking for is something that the mind is not interested in. You can hardly formulate the question and the only fair answer is to tell you to not ask the question before you get lost in it. The mantra of yoga and all that jazz was to stop wondering, to find focus. Finding the right words and understanding the problem are two orthogonal problems. Dualism is a good word, and separation is essential to learning. The consciousness just observes the subconsciousness, not the outside world. In that sense, dualism makes perfect sense, but it's only testable by introspection. Empathy helps recognizing that behavior in others. Recognition and socializing is much more important for consciousness than seeing. Even single celled organisms can detect light, but that doesn't count as consciousness. Yet we might call plants our friends, figuratively, and "theory" derives from a root "to perceive".

md224 8y ago

> I don't find dualism satisfying either; it is not a testable theory. I understand the sentiment here, but I also think we should be careful when it comes to the assumption that the truth -- whatever it happens to be -- will be a testable theory. Whether or not something is true is a fact independent of larger epistemological concerns. Then again, perhaps you're just saying that if the truth turns out to be non-testable, then the truth won't be satisfying, which is a reasonable position (and I might agree).