4 ms·

If you can show any examples of consciousness regularly/usually claiming to have omniscient knowledge of all that is, or even someone other than yourself saying

If you can show any examples of consciousness regularly/usually claiming to have omniscient knowledge of all that is, or even someone other than yourself saying that consciousness regularly/usually does so, I would be most interested - in my studies of what's written and said about it, I have never come across this view before. A simple search should be sufficient to establish that the most common usage of 'consciousness' is as being an aspect of perception - and more specifically, the subjective aspect of it. Furthermore, I am at a loss to figure out how this claim could have any relevance to the sentence of mine that you quoted in your first reply to me.

mistermann 3y ago
> If you can show any examples of consciousness regularly/usually claiming to have omniscient knowledge of all that is, or even someone other than yourself saying that consciousness regularly/usually does so, I would be most interested And if I do not, can you still be interested? > in my studies of what's written and said about it, I have never come across this view before. Consider what exists now, compared to what existed at the Big Bang. Then do today vs tomorrow, also taking into consideration whether inactivity or non-exploitation of the realm of possibility plays a role. > A simple search should be sufficient to establish that the most common usage of 'consciousness' is as being an aspect of perception - and more specifically, the subjective aspect of it. Consider what common perception (which manifests at runtime as Truth) was of African Americans, or gay people, 30 or so years ago. > Furthermore, I am at a loss to figure out how this claim could have any relevance to the sentence of mine that you quoted in your first reply to me. "...but consciousness itself, at least as it is usually conceived of, does not." It isn't possible for you to know how consciousness is commonly conceived, but your consciousness would have you believe otherwise. Consciousness is shaped by culture, and your culture has taught you to think this way, it is the proper way to think here in 2024. Maybe an analogy would help: Consider the aggregate (adjusted to remove affects of population size) quality & power of human cognitive capability before and after the enlightenment, comprehensively, but also with respect to a certain phenomenon: faith based thinking. Then, consider where we may currently sit on an absolute scale, and what the distribution of faith based thinking is (actually, opposed to virtually) throughout the system. How likely does it seem that humans have produced the perfect methodology, even without considering the state of affairs we see all around us? Basically, I'm kind of asking (teasing may be a better word) that physicists, and science in general, to expand their theories to include explanations for their implicit claims of omniscience, or stop engaging in it, or at least stop taking cheap shots at and claiming (without proof or even substantial evidence) comprehensive objective superiority to other competing frameworks/methodologies/etc.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  > And if I do not, can you still be interested? I could be, but not by this rather idiosyncratic diatribe against intellectual arrogance, a domain which is in any case far from being exclusively populated by physicists.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > I could be.... Could you (are you willing to, and will in fact do it) describe at least one set of conditions where you could be? > ...but not by this rather idiosyncratic diatribe against intellectual arrogance Can you explain why you believe this is necessarily (presumably) the case? Meta: - Is there a way or tone I could write in such that I could achieve the same level of logical rigour, but somehow bypass the natural, fundamental aversion to this sort of dialogue? - Do you believe it to be optimal that you can criticize/insult my performance, but my criticism/inquiry into particular details of of yours is ~non-valid/inappropriate/etc (I am assuming something like this is the case, please correct me if I am wrong)?

mistermann 3y ago

> If you can show any examples of consciousness regularly/usually claiming to have omniscient knowledge of all that is, or even someone other than yourself saying that consciousness regularly/usually does so, I would be most interested And if I do not, can you still be interested? > in my studies of what's written and said about it, I have never come across this view before. Consider what exists now, compared to what existed at the Big Bang. Then do today vs tomorrow, also taking into consideration whether inactivity or non-exploitation of the realm of possibility plays a role. > A simple search should be sufficient to establish that the most common usage of 'consciousness' is as being an aspect of perception - and more specifically, the subjective aspect of it. Consider what common perception (which manifests at runtime as Truth) was of African Americans, or gay people, 30 or so years ago. > Furthermore, I am at a loss to figure out how this claim could have any relevance to the sentence of mine that you quoted in your first reply to me. "...but consciousness itself, at least as it is usually conceived of, does not." It isn't possible for you to know how consciousness is commonly conceived, but your consciousness would have you believe otherwise. Consciousness is shaped by culture, and your culture has taught you to think this way, it is the proper way to think here in 2024. Maybe an analogy would help: Consider the aggregate (adjusted to remove affects of population size) quality & power of human cognitive capability before and after the enlightenment, comprehensively, but also with respect to a certain phenomenon: faith based thinking. Then, consider where we may currently sit on an absolute scale, and what the distribution of faith based thinking is (actually, opposed to virtually) throughout the system. How likely does it seem that humans have produced the perfect methodology, even without considering the state of affairs we see all around us? Basically, I'm kind of asking (teasing may be a better word) that physicists, and science in general, to expand their theories to include explanations for their implicit claims of omniscience, or stop engaging in it, or at least stop taking cheap shots at and claiming (without proof or even substantial evidence) comprehensive objective superiority to other competing frameworks/methodologies/etc.

mannykannot 3y ago
> And if I do not, can you still be interested? I could be, but not by this rather idiosyncratic diatribe against intellectual arrogance, a domain which is in any case far from being exclusively populated by physicists.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > I could be.... Could you (are you willing to, and will in fact do it) describe at least one set of conditions where you could be? > ...but not by this rather idiosyncratic diatribe against intellectual arrogance Can you explain why you believe this is necessarily (presumably) the case? Meta: - Is there a way or tone I could write in such that I could achieve the same level of logical rigour, but somehow bypass the natural, fundamental aversion to this sort of dialogue? - Do you believe it to be optimal that you can criticize/insult my performance, but my criticism/inquiry into particular details of of yours is ~non-valid/inappropriate/etc (I am assuming something like this is the case, please correct me if I am wrong)?