Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Origin of Life
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Silmarien" data-source="post: 72000861" data-attributes="member: 395596"><p>The most detailed description of a clock does not tick, but there is no real controversy over mechanical descriptions for mechanical phenomena. There's nothing subjective about a clock ticking, except perhaps for Berkeley.</p><p></p><p>I think a different analogy is more appropriate: even the most detailed image of that clock exists only in two dimensions. The clock itself, however, exists in three. Model it all you want on a sheet of paper, but if you think being able to capture just enough of it in ink means reality itself is two dimensional, and that the third dimension is nothing more than an illusion created by perspective and clever use of shadowing, there is clearly a problem. And if you start complaining that height cannot exist in its own right because the top would collapse if it were not supported by the base, everyone is rightly going to look at you like you're a lunatic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm really not confounded by any of this; these issues seem completely trivial. It's a whole different set of problems that bother me--why do I exist as myself instead of, perhaps, as my brother instead? Why did this particular brain give rise to the sensation of being me instead of being someone else? Whether or not consciousness is in some sense illusory, it's certainly logically possible that the illusion conjured up by this particular brain could have had an entirely different awareness associated with it. Unless non-duality or reincarnation are true, every other brain in history has given rise to a different sense of self. Why was this one different?</p><p></p><p>I'm not convinced that my experience is coherent; I'm convinced that it should not exist at all. Perhaps I'm more of an eliminativist than the actual eliminativists, which I suppose is why materialism is so incoherent to me. The self-defeating nihilism involved gets a little bit too intense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Silmarien, post: 72000861, member: 395596"] The most detailed description of a clock does not tick, but there is no real controversy over mechanical descriptions for mechanical phenomena. There's nothing subjective about a clock ticking, except perhaps for Berkeley. I think a different analogy is more appropriate: even the most detailed image of that clock exists only in two dimensions. The clock itself, however, exists in three. Model it all you want on a sheet of paper, but if you think being able to capture just enough of it in ink means reality itself is two dimensional, and that the third dimension is nothing more than an illusion created by perspective and clever use of shadowing, there is clearly a problem. And if you start complaining that height cannot exist in its own right because the top would collapse if it were not supported by the base, everyone is rightly going to look at you like you're a lunatic. I'm really not confounded by any of this; these issues seem completely trivial. It's a whole different set of problems that bother me--why do I exist as myself instead of, perhaps, as my brother instead? Why did this particular brain give rise to the sensation of being me instead of being someone else? Whether or not consciousness is in some sense illusory, it's certainly logically possible that the illusion conjured up by this particular brain could have had an entirely different awareness associated with it. Unless non-duality or reincarnation are true, every other brain in history has given rise to a different sense of self. Why was this one different? I'm not convinced that my experience is coherent; I'm convinced that it should not exist at all. Perhaps I'm more of an eliminativist than the actual eliminativists, which I suppose is why materialism is so incoherent to me. The self-defeating nihilism involved gets a little bit too intense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Origin of Life
Top
Bottom