4 ms·

Just because we perceive something doesn't make it real. I think that's the issue here. By what mechanisms do we prove the perception is congruent with reality?

• drdeca 8y ago
  I believe this was all in response to the idea that “it _feels_ like consciousness is in the head/brain” being an argument against panpsychism. That one can do things such that it _feels like_ one’s consciousness is elsewhere, seems to go against that point? Though, a similar point of “if a person loses their head, their consciousness seems to go away. Their hands do not move independently.” And “ If, as panpsychism claims, their hands are also conscious, what must it be like for their movement to be directed by consciousness outside of itself?”
  • TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > I believe this was all in response to the idea that “it _feels_ like consciousness is in the head/brain” being an argument against panpsychism. I'm trying to argue against panpsychism by noting that the place where it "feels like" consciousness is is completely arbitrary and one can learn to move it around, so this feeling is useless as evidence for panpsychism.
  • goldenkey 8y ago
    It feels like such only because the eyes, nose, and number of nerves in the head and face. If the sensors were centered elsewhere, it might feel like it were elsewhere...
• goldenkey 8y ago
  As grim as it is, and depending on your degree of skepticism: craniotomy, psychoactive drugs, concussions, etc.. Reminds me of the scene in Ex Machina where he cuts himself to make sure he still bleeds - a physical realization of a turing test.