A bold, empty and unsubstantiated position. — charleton

I can't carry on a conversation with the void. it's just not possible.

I can't carry on a conversation with the void. it's just not possible. — Jon

Well there is what science has shown us, then there is your imagination.
I think the latter is more like a void.

Fair point. But it becomes a troubling question as to why it is that
one has to deny the existence of one's own mind - for economic reasons.
Surely this implies that our economic model is deficient - or even self-defeating?
Destined to cataclysmic failures?

Surely this implies that our economic model is deficient - or even self-defeating?
Destined to cataclysmic failures? — Jonathan AB

Some experiments don't end well.

There is no way I - or you - can prove that this is not just a dream.
But if this is an illusion - I still know that it is "I" that is suffering it. — Jonathan AB

And no way to prove anyone but me is self-aware...

Some experiments don't end well. — Rich

Can we fix it before it ends badly?

And no way to prove anyone but me is self-aware... — CasKev

There is actually. By conversing with me you implicitly agree that I exist,
or else there would be no point in conversing.

Can we fix it before it ends badly? — Jonathan AB

We can only try based upon our experiences. Outcomes are always uncertain.

By conversing with me you implicitly agree that I exist,
or else there would be no point in conversing. — Jonathan AB

Could it be looked at as a complex version of schizophrenia? You have to admit, life would be pretty boring without some imaginary friends...

Could it be looked at as a complex version of schizophrenia? You have to admit, life would be pretty boring without some imaginary friends... — CasKev

Yes, I believe the drug and psychiatric industry would endorse this point of view. As far as I can tell, everything is wrong about everyone nowadays and needs to be corrected by someone in the business.

The inelegant design examples remind me of the way overly-collaborative projects turn out over time. This happens a lot in administration. Lots of things are designed bottom up like that.

Just reread some parts of Robert Lanza's Biocentrism. Does our inability to assign self-aware consciousness to computers point to reality being created by consciousness? Does our inability to explain how consciousness arises from matter further support this? To me, this would also point to a singular consciousness rather than a shared reality, as having multiple creators would surely result in conflicts and inconsistencies in the shared reality, which don't seem to exist.

To me, this would also point to a singular consciousness rather than a shared reality, as having multiple creators would surely result in conflicts and inconsistencies in the shared reality, which don't seem to exist. — CasKev

Oh really?
I don't think that is supportable.

I don't think that is supportable. — charleton

Can you propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? I'm having difficulty coming up with one...

Can you propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? I'm having difficulty coming up with one... — CasKev

Yes, it's called parallel evolution. Different branches of the animal kingdom separately evolved.

It would not surprise me if consciousness can also be found in other places throughout the universe.
The idea that it can come from only one place is silly in the extreme.

Yes, it's called parallel evolution. — charleton

Can you explain in a bit of detail how that would work in a scenario where reality is created by consciousness?

Reality is not created by consciousness in an objective, sense, only in a subjective sense.
Why would you ask such a question?

Why would you ask such a question? — charleton

Not according to Robert Lanza's book Biocentrism. Give it a read. There's a free pdf version online.

Just reread some parts of Robert Lanza's Biocentrism. Does our inability to assign self-aware consciousness to computers point to reality being created by consciousness? Does our inability to explain how consciousness arises from matter further support this? To me, this would also point to a singular consciousness rather than a shared reality, as having multiple creators would surely result in conflicts and inconsistencies in the shared reality, which don't seem to exist. — CasKev

Can anyone propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness?

Can anyone propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? — CasKev

The closest thing I have found is The Simplest Case Scenario proposed by Karl Coryat, which says
"a system of observers connected in this way can be treated as one single observer. It is a kind of super-observer that comprises many individual observing subsystems, which are tied together in mutual informational constraint."

To me, this explains why there would be no conflicts or inconsistencies in the perceived reality, but doesn't explain how the original arising of self-aware consciousness could be split off or assigned to multiple entities.

What do you not understand by "Reality is not created by consciousness in an objective, sense, only in a subjective sense."?

Can you explain in a bit of detail how that would work in a scenario where reality is created by consciousness? — CasKev

I seriously do not think anyone is asking this question.

@charleton

Hmmm... You don't seem to have anything constructive to add to this thread at this point. Perhaps you would consider reading the two books I mentioned above? Both of them point to the lack of an objective physical reality.

First, if I was to put forth the argument it would take the following inductive form:

(1) Any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.

(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat).

(3) Hence, objects of nature are the result of intelligent design.

This is an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. The conclusion is not necessarily the case, but follows from the premises with a high degree of probability, based on the number of examples in nature, and comparing them with what we know about intelligently designed human productions.

By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone.

To answer the question about whether a tree would fit the description of intelligent design, the answer is yes. Any living organism would fit the description of intelligent design.

Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not. — Sam26

I know I'm very late to this party, but...

Premise (1) seems rather tautological, wouldn't you say? Given that humans are intelligent, all of their contrivances are the result of "intelligent design." Thus, it is just a circuitous means of saying that "objects designed by intelligent agents are intelligently designed."

Thus, you are here attempting to infer substantive conclusions about the world from a tautology, which seems logically suspect to me. Not that arguments from analogy can never work, of course, just that this particular one seems problematic.

Could it be looked at as a complex version of schizophrenia? — CasKev

Well now, who is to say that the schizophrenic imagines the beings she talks to?
Perhaps they are real. Surely you've seen '12 monkeys'?

Premise (1) seems rather tautological, wouldn't you say? Given that humans are intelligent, all of their contrivances are the result of "intelligent design." Thus, it is just a circuitous means of saying that "objects designed by intelligent agents are intelligently designed."

Thus, you are here attempting to infer substantive conclusions about the world from a tautology, which seems logically suspect to me. Not that arguments from analogy can never work, of course, just that this particular one seems problematic. — Arkady

Ya, I would say it's tautological, but I don't see how that makes it logically suspect. For example, if I say,

1) All men are mortal.
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Would this deductive argument be suspect in the same way? After all "All men are mortal" is a tautology too. I don't see how it being a tautology takes away from the conclusion. The conclusion either follows or it doesn't. In this argument we are also inferring a substantive conclusion about the world.

After all "All men are mortal" is a tautology too. — Sam26

It is? How? There are by definition no immortal men?

One might also quibble that deductive arguments tell us anything substantive about the world, vs. simply rearranging what we already know of it. Deductive reasoning is non-ampliative.

(I'm a bit rusty on this sort of thing, but I recall David Stove had a nice discussion on the invalidity of deriving non-tautological conclusions from tautological premises, a style of argument which he termed "the Gem." I believe that it arose in his critiques of idealism. There was even a lengthy thread about just this type of argument back in the old forum.)

Hmmm... You don't seem to have anything constructive to add to this thread at this point. Perhaps you would consider reading the two books I mentioned above? Both of them point to the lack of an objective physical reality. — CasKev

I not claiming to the contrary.

It is? How? There are by definition no immortal men? — Arkady

Yes "men are mortal".

The inelegant design examples remind me of the way overly-collaborative projects turn out over time. This happens a lot in administration. Lots of things are designed bottom up like that. — Roke

Yes. design by committee is one valid conclusion of many living examples. And if it were not for the evolutionary time-frame, one might have to conclude we were designed by 20-30 Gods who came back from a heavy pub lunch in which much wine was quaffed.

But is this true by definition? The mortality of men could be an accidental regularity. Some men alive today may well be rendered immortal by means of technological progress. Would they thereby no longer be men?

If, by some freak occurrence, all men with hair on their head died off, it would then be true that "all men are bald." However, it wouldn't follow that men are definitionally bald.

We can surely have non-tautological premises in deductive arguments. For instance:

(P1) No man lives on Mars.
(P2) Smith is a man.
(C1) Smith does not live on Mars.