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: 72003876" data-attributes="member: 395596"><p>And I would be aware of it, but I'm not. I can conceptualize having been someone different, so I'm not talking about my own self, per se. Non-dualism solves this problem (and a lot of problems, truth be told), but if my questions are dualistic, it's probably because materialism is a product of Cartesian dualism.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It could easily be different. To slip into theological language, this is quite clearly an aspect of contingent rather than necessary existence--it could have been otherwise and it could have not existed at all. Life experience doesn't break continuity of consciousness, so it's not an answer to this particular question. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, idealism works just fine for me. I'm just venting my frustrations with ontological materialism the same way someone on the other side would with theistic ideas. Don't expect me to take illusions without aware subjects on faith, and I'll leave you alone about necessary existence. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="^_^" title="Kawaii ^_^" data-shortname="^_^" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I know about the combination problem. I prefer versions of panpsychism that veer straight into idealism, so it doesn't really show up there, but it's an interesting problem for more naturalistic varieties. Still, if one views panpsychism in combination with emergentism, I'm not sure it's a greater issue when addressing mental phenomena as it is when unanticipated complexity emerges from physical systems. As for intermediate level consciousness, I don't really think that's outside of the realm of possibilities anyway--I wonder what goes on in the hive mind of an insect colony, for example. If the whole hive has its own consciousness, panpsychism survives but certain approaches to materialism do not.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, these potential issues with panpsychism make it fairly counterintuitive. If awareness is present at all levels, then free will and selfhood are as likely to be illusory under panpsychism as they are under materialism. The only real difference between atomistic panpsychism and ontological materialism is that the former escapes the problem of saying that physical processes can conjure mental experience out of nothing.</p><p></p><p>Epistemologically, they seems to be on equal footing. If consciousness is an illusion, after all, from the outside there would be no difference between a situation where it "existed" and one where it did not. If we can't know whether or not consciousness is present on other levels under panpsychism, we also can't know whether the illusion of it is produced by other chemical reactions. One metaphysical position suggests that awareness is in some sense a fundamental property of matter and the other conjures it up as an illusion, but practically speaking, the results would be the same.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Silmarien, post: 72003876, member: 395596"] And I would be aware of it, but I'm not. I can conceptualize having been someone different, so I'm not talking about my own self, per se. Non-dualism solves this problem (and a lot of problems, truth be told), but if my questions are dualistic, it's probably because materialism is a product of Cartesian dualism. It could easily be different. To slip into theological language, this is quite clearly an aspect of contingent rather than necessary existence--it could have been otherwise and it could have not existed at all. Life experience doesn't break continuity of consciousness, so it's not an answer to this particular question. Oh, idealism works just fine for me. I'm just venting my frustrations with ontological materialism the same way someone on the other side would with theistic ideas. Don't expect me to take illusions without aware subjects on faith, and I'll leave you alone about necessary existence. ^_^ Yes, I know about the combination problem. I prefer versions of panpsychism that veer straight into idealism, so it doesn't really show up there, but it's an interesting problem for more naturalistic varieties. Still, if one views panpsychism in combination with emergentism, I'm not sure it's a greater issue when addressing mental phenomena as it is when unanticipated complexity emerges from physical systems. As for intermediate level consciousness, I don't really think that's outside of the realm of possibilities anyway--I wonder what goes on in the hive mind of an insect colony, for example. If the whole hive has its own consciousness, panpsychism survives but certain approaches to materialism do not. On the other hand, these potential issues with panpsychism make it fairly counterintuitive. If awareness is present at all levels, then free will and selfhood are as likely to be illusory under panpsychism as they are under materialism. The only real difference between atomistic panpsychism and ontological materialism is that the former escapes the problem of saying that physical processes can conjure mental experience out of nothing. Epistemologically, they seems to be on equal footing. If consciousness is an illusion, after all, from the outside there would be no difference between a situation where it "existed" and one where it did not. If we can't know whether or not consciousness is present on other levels under panpsychism, we also can't know whether the illusion of it is produced by other chemical reactions. One metaphysical position suggests that awareness is in some sense a fundamental property of matter and the other conjures it up as an illusion, but practically speaking, the results would be the same. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Origin of Life
Top
Bottom