4 ms·

The act of saying “consciousness doesn’t have any effect on the material universe” denies the premise of what’s being said. Behold, your consciousness has just

The act of saying “consciousness doesn’t have any effect on the material universe” denies the premise of what’s being said. Behold, your consciousness has just had direct effect on material universe (just as deciding to obtain the device on which it was typed, and before that someone’s idea to make that device, had). I remember myself being unshakeably of the same opinion: consciousness is obviously something of no relation to reality, so it might as well not exist or be an illusion. It’s one of those things that are tricky to explain but can just dawn on you, how it’s inevitably the thought that manipulates reality.

hhjinks 4y ago
That depends on your perspective. I could argue that the consciousness merely attributes these actions to itself. The consciousness could be a passive observer, tricking itself into believing it is the cause behind the actions of the meat computer it observeres. Then again, that argument doesn't sit well with the evolution argument. If we assume consciousness is a fitness advantage, then it must have some effect on the organism's behaviour.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  Yes, a consciousness solely for the purposes of post-rationalisation seems quite redundant and to me raises more questions that it solves. I don’t subscribe to physicalism since it strikes me as clumsy and inelegant. A consciousness arguing for physicalism is denying the existence of the only thing it has direct access to and granting objective reality to something it may have well conjured up.
Sophistifunk 4y ago
That's not consciousness. Consciousness is the space in which your brain tells a story pretending that "you" are in charge a lot more often than you are.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  Ah, but it also is that place that tells you that external world exists. You prefer to trust it in one but not the other, don’t you?

hhjinks 4y ago

That depends on your perspective. I could argue that the consciousness merely attributes these actions to itself. The consciousness could be a passive observer, tricking itself into believing it is the cause behind the actions of the meat computer it observeres. Then again, that argument doesn't sit well with the evolution argument. If we assume consciousness is a fitness advantage, then it must have some effect on the organism's behaviour.

strogonoff 4y ago
Yes, a consciousness solely for the purposes of post-rationalisation seems quite redundant and to me raises more questions that it solves. I don’t subscribe to physicalism since it strikes me as clumsy and inelegant. A consciousness arguing for physicalism is denying the existence of the only thing it has direct access to and granting objective reality to something it may have well conjured up.

Sophistifunk 4y ago

That's not consciousness. Consciousness is the space in which your brain tells a story pretending that "you" are in charge a lot more often than you are.

strogonoff 4y ago
Ah, but it also is that place that tells you that external world exists. You prefer to trust it in one but not the other, don’t you?