3 ms·
You don't have an experience. You might think you do, but I see no scientific reason to believe you. What you might have is an algorithm in your brain telling
by kypro 7y ago
You don't have an experience. You might think you do, but I see no scientific reason to believe you.
What you might have is an algorithm in your brain telling you that there is a self experiencing the world. But in reality you're just a collection of sub atomic particles.
Edit: Why should I take your claim of conscious experience any more seriously than my computer's who's screen is currently reading: "I AM CONSCIOUS" from a notepad?
Is the only difference that I told the computer to say it, where as you are told by your genetics to say and think it?
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y agoI'm not asking you to take my claims about my own conscious experience seriously at all. There's no need to cross the boundaries of self at all. The central problem of consciousness is about how you have an experience (even if it is an illusion). Unless you don't have any experience of anything, in which case I'm confident that we'd deem you non-conscious and therefore your existence to be of not much relevance to the question at hand. Whether or not your experience is an illusion or not, it is an experience. And it is experience ("qualia" in the philosophy of consciousness) that is the core question here.