3 ms·
> The better explanation, of course, is that consciousness somehow is the universe... What is love? How can an uncaring chunk of bones and flesh feel love? But
by upquark 11y ago
> The better explanation, of course, is that consciousness somehow is the universe...
What is love? How can an uncaring chunk of bones and flesh feel love? But we do fall in love, so it must exist in some form. Hence, love is the universe itself. Checkmate
- fsargent 11y agoBaby don't hurt me, Don't hurt me, No more.
- upquark 11y agoJust say the safe word
- andybak 11y agoIf you're intending to show how the previous argument is fallacious by constructing an obviously silly equivalent but substituting x for 'consciousness' then I don't think you've achieved what you think you've achieved. 'Love' or 'justice' or any other x that would work in this context depend themselves on consciousness and therefore the only silly part of the resulting argument is that "x is the universe itself" only works if x is the broadest aspect of the concept under discussion - i.e. consciousness itself. I'm not saying the argument isn't flawed. It's possibly a hand-waving, question-begging, non-explanation. But it's a natural place to reach if, like me, you think a Descartian "I have qualia therefore I am" can't be hand-waved away as easily as some claim.