3 ms·

I think that reasoning makes sense up to a point. But how do you know you weren't uncomfortable before you were born ? There were likely times you were uncomf

I think that reasoning makes sense up to a point. But how do you know you weren't uncomfortable before you were born ? There were likely times you were uncomfortable when you were a baby but you don't remember them.

bspammer 4y ago
It’s not memory I’m relying on, but evidence. All the evidence, not to mention common sense, points to conscious experience requiring a brain.
- tgflynn 4y ago
  > It’s not memory I’m relying on, but evidence. I'm pretty sure you are relying on memory because how do you know this "evidence" other than by experiencing it as memories ? What is certain is that this "evidence" is only known to you within conscious experience (either memories, thoughts, or maybe some other kind of experience I haven't thought of) so using it to infer something about the nature of conscious experience itself is a questionable exercise.
  - bspammer 4y ago
    It’s very easy in these philosophical discussions to just throw your hands up in the air and say “well we can never know anything because everything is subjective”, but personally I think that’s boring.
    - tgflynn 4y ago
      It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. In any case I disagree that we know nothing. We know that subjective experience exists. I think it makes sense to start with what we actually know rather than with a bunch of concepts we've invented (like matter) to explain the phenomena we experience. The only basis I see for believing in the reality of these concepts is their apparent consistency and predictability, but even that is largely illusory once you move beyond very simple systems or machines that we've designed to be predictable.
      - bspammer 4y ago
        > It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. I did not say this, I said the discussion is boring because it’s not falsifiable. We might as well just say fairies are real but not perceivable by humans or any device humans can build. It could be true, but who cares? We’ll never know one way or the other by definition.
        tgflynn 4y ago
        But that example is unlike what we were discussing. If I were making the claim that some completely unknown and unknowable thing exists then your objection would be on point, but that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is challenging your claim that things like matter and brains exist independently of consciousness, because the evidence you have for that claim is tainted by the fact that the evidence itself is known only via conscious experience. In many ways materialism is more like your example about unknowable fairies than anything I have said because ultimately it postulates that there is something called matter that exists independently of consciousness and yet is knowable only through consciousness. That concept of "bare matter" as a thing in itself looks a lot like your unknowable fairies.

bspammer 4y ago

It’s not memory I’m relying on, but evidence. All the evidence, not to mention common sense, points to conscious experience requiring a brain.

tgflynn 4y ago
> It’s not memory I’m relying on, but evidence. I'm pretty sure you are relying on memory because how do you know this "evidence" other than by experiencing it as memories ? What is certain is that this "evidence" is only known to you within conscious experience (either memories, thoughts, or maybe some other kind of experience I haven't thought of) so using it to infer something about the nature of conscious experience itself is a questionable exercise.
- bspammer 4y ago
  It’s very easy in these philosophical discussions to just throw your hands up in the air and say “well we can never know anything because everything is subjective”, but personally I think that’s boring.
  - tgflynn 4y ago
    It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. In any case I disagree that we know nothing. We know that subjective experience exists. I think it makes sense to start with what we actually know rather than with a bunch of concepts we've invented (like matter) to explain the phenomena we experience. The only basis I see for believing in the reality of these concepts is their apparent consistency and predictability, but even that is largely illusory once you move beyond very simple systems or machines that we've designed to be predictable.
    - bspammer 4y ago
      > It's interesting that you think the fundamental nature of reality depends on what you find "boring" or not. I did not say this, I said the discussion is boring because it’s not falsifiable. We might as well just say fairies are real but not perceivable by humans or any device humans can build. It could be true, but who cares? We’ll never know one way or the other by definition.
      - tgflynn 4y ago
        But that example is unlike what we were discussing. If I were making the claim that some completely unknown and unknowable thing exists then your objection would be on point, but that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is challenging your claim that things like matter and brains exist independently of consciousness, because the evidence you have for that claim is tainted by the fact that the evidence itself is known only via conscious experience. In many ways materialism is more like your example about unknowable fairies than anything I have said because ultimately it postulates that there is something called matter that exists independently of consciousness and yet is knowable only through consciousness. That concept of "bare matter" as a thing in itself looks a lot like your unknowable fairies.