Is it or is it not an objective fact that we're all subjectively conscious? Just because neither of our first-person realities of consciousness appear as objects in the world doesn't mean they don't both come into being for the same objective reason/when the same objective conditions are present. — Patterner
Does it somehow make more sense that consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain... — Patterner
It is an argument about emergence, not combination — Wayfarer
Phenomenology (and also idealism) don't face this problem, as they don't presume that matter is fundamental in the first place. — Wayfarer
Just saying everything is mental may in some sense be simpler than materialism or dualism, but I don't think it provides any deeper insights or amelioration to these issues. — Apustimelogist
Replacing combination with emergence does not really solve much because they are similar issues. — Apustimelogist
This is precisely why I favour Husserl's approach to a science of consciousness. — I like sushi
Husserlian Phenomenology is not at all concerned with material existence as it is focused on the experience of consciousness. It is not merely sayign everything is Mental it just does not care about material measurements -- the aim being to figure out an approach that can better ground science in subjectivity.
You are missing the point. Husserlian Phenomenology is not at all concerned with material existence as it is focused on the experience of consciousness. — I like sushi
We are talking about consciousness so it makes sense to start at the source rather than shift to what our consciousness constructs (that is a representation of other in the idea of something being something). — I like sushi
But if this structure weren’t there no one would be able to determine who was who and where one person ended and another began. Also we would all know each others thoughts all the time. The whole world would just be a chaotic mess. — Punshhh
I expect we'll all just continue acting like the social primates that we are, despite efforts on the part of many to deny our nature. ...
To me it seems likely that improved and more widespread knowledge of our natures is the best hope humanity has for avoiding the bleakness that the denial of our natures is leading towards. — wonderer1
There's a real problem with the naturalist account of human nature, which is that it doesn't or can't acknowledge the sense in which we're essentially different from other animals. — Wayfarer
The only hope that humanity has is the transfiguration of our natures, otherwise we are doomed to become extinct due to the overstretch of resources and resultant conflict.* The fossil record has numerous examples, why would we be any different.To me it seems likely that improved and more widespread knowledge of our natures is the best hope humanity has for avoiding the bleakness that the denial of our natures is leading towards.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.