7 ms·

> assumption that consciousness is only physical is merely that - another assumption What does it mean for consciousness to be non-physical? If it is non-physi

> assumption that consciousness is only physical is merely that - another assumption What does it mean for consciousness to be non-physical? If it is non-physical then it cannot have any impact on the physical world by definition.

tuespetre 7y ago
This is exactly why I prefer to use the term 'real' rather than 'physical'.
TimTheTinker 7y ago
> If it is non-physical then it cannot have any impact on the physical world by definition. Well, that depends on your definition. If non-physical things have no interface with physical things, then they might as well not exist -- their non-existence is tautological and the hypothesis is meaningless. So the only meaningful "non-physical" hypothesis is one that allows an interface with the physical.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > the only meaningful "non-physical" hypothesis is one that allows an interface with the physical. I don't think that's meaningful, it sounds to me like a contradiction of terms. If it is non-physical but it can interact with physical objects as if it were physical, what is the label "non-physical" actually describing? In a world where there are physical entities but also non-physical entities with physical interactions, how is the non-physical entity distinct from the physical one in terms of observable reality?
  - TimTheTinker 7y ago
    > what is the label "non-physical" actually describing In this case, it would be describing the consciousness phenomenon -- which we can't get at using normal, scientific, physical observations of the world. If X exists, we all know it exists and can talk about it, but we have no way to observe it (in fact, all our observations are restricted to being through it) - then I'd venture we're on an edge of reality itself. In my opinion, a non-physical hypothesis here is allowable if it has more explanatory power than the alternative.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > which we can't get at using normal, scientific, physical observations of the world Why? This would make it unusual compared to every other process in biology and everything we actually do know about consciousness. We know that most of the faculties we subjectively attribute to the conscious experience are rooted in physical biology (reasoning, instinct, emotion, memory etc), so I am not sure what the possibility of a non-physical component adds to the model.

tuespetre 7y ago

This is exactly why I prefer to use the term 'real' rather than 'physical'.

TimTheTinker 7y ago

> If it is non-physical then it cannot have any impact on the physical world by definition. Well, that depends on your definition. If non-physical things have no interface with physical things, then they might as well not exist -- their non-existence is tautological and the hypothesis is meaningless. So the only meaningful "non-physical" hypothesis is one that allows an interface with the physical.

root_axis 7y ago
> the only meaningful "non-physical" hypothesis is one that allows an interface with the physical. I don't think that's meaningful, it sounds to me like a contradiction of terms. If it is non-physical but it can interact with physical objects as if it were physical, what is the label "non-physical" actually describing? In a world where there are physical entities but also non-physical entities with physical interactions, how is the non-physical entity distinct from the physical one in terms of observable reality?
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  > what is the label "non-physical" actually describing In this case, it would be describing the consciousness phenomenon -- which we can't get at using normal, scientific, physical observations of the world. If X exists, we all know it exists and can talk about it, but we have no way to observe it (in fact, all our observations are restricted to being through it) - then I'd venture we're on an edge of reality itself. In my opinion, a non-physical hypothesis here is allowable if it has more explanatory power than the alternative.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > which we can't get at using normal, scientific, physical observations of the world Why? This would make it unusual compared to every other process in biology and everything we actually do know about consciousness. We know that most of the faculties we subjectively attribute to the conscious experience are rooted in physical biology (reasoning, instinct, emotion, memory etc), so I am not sure what the possibility of a non-physical component adds to the model.