the content of consciousness?! Where did it came from? What is the external source for dream appearances?.
Don't tell me the brain. The brain is just another appearance.

Yes.

(Weird. Did you see where the C & P included the time? Made it look like I said “....impressions seconds ago.”

no "the mind" doesn't create these appearances. The mind is itself an appearance. You might ask " then WHAT is creating it?:?
Literally nothing. Reality is a hallucination. A dream. If you take DMT you will know.

Contents of consciousness are given from the human cognitive system, operating from the brain but are not the brain. Although advocates of modern neurobiology and cognitive neuroscience will shoot me if they find out I said that.

Why would we settle on representationalism as the theory rather than alternatives?

And what are "the human cognitive system " if not just another appearance.
What is the ultimate ground of reality?!

"Literally nothing is creating it" is the appearance?

no. It is nothing not a something. Which means it is not created.

So where is the claim that literally nothing created it coming from if that's not an appearance?

Yes. Ofcourse .everything is just appearances. This very statement is appearance.

But you had just said that it's not an appearance: "no. It is nothing not a something. Which means it is not created."

Take LSD or DMT and see for yourself.

So what does "nothing is creating it" look like?

Yes you don't understand. What I mean is that everything without exception (even this paragraph) is appearances with no external objective medium creating it just like dreams.

It looks like your dreams .Which is identical to whats happening right now.

But my dreams look like something, not like nothing creating something.

Your dreams are something in a sense that they are appearances. But they came from nothing which means there is no actual substance to them . This experience you are having right now is just another dream.

You're saying that "they came from nothing" is an appearance. I'm wondering what that appearance looks like. It doesn't look like my dreams, because they look like something, not like "they came from nothing."

Because there are no basketballs in our heads, but we know all about basketballs. The thing we know merely represents the thing we know about.

A suitable alternative isn’t impossible, but it would have to be sufficient to overturn what it’s replacing.

You don't get . Everything without exception is appearances. Even me saying that . Done with this.
Now..your dreams look like something..fine. But let me ask you :is there an objective external source to your dreams or No? The answer is no. Which means they are something which being sourced by nothing.
Don't tell me the brain..the brain is an appearance.

There's a difference between only being aware of a representation/a mental creation of a basketball and being directly aware of the basketball. The latter doesn't imply that a basketball is literally in your head.

You're rather not understanding because you want the discussion to go in a manner that you've already prepared for. I'm not arguing with you about "nothing creates appearances" being an appearance. I'm asking you what that appearance looks like (or sounds like, or whatever sense is appropriate).

Assuming perception itself to be a passive faculty, appearance is what I am directly aware of. The naturally occurring information impressed on sense as appearance is a different form than the procedural information in the brain that gives representation of the appearance. Even allowing the all-inclusive four fundamental forces, the medium is different, the mechanics are different, yet the results conform to the incidence.

The naturally occurring information impressed on sense as appearance is a different form than the procedural information in the brain that gives representation of the appearance. — Mww

That's the claim, isn't it? It's not a support of the claim.

Correct. The support is in the theory. Or, the support is the theory. And, as we all know, good theory must be falsifiable.

Correct. The support is in the theory. Or, the support is the theory. And, as we all know, good theory must be falsifiable. — Mww

You could just as well posit a contradictory theory. Why not believe that one instead?

You have nothing but subjective appearances..that's the only thing that there is. — Nobody

I was with you until this point. You have not even begun to justify this conclusion. Why do you think this is so? What evidence do you have to offer? Or is this just a feeling? [Nothing wrong with that, but say so! :smile: ]

Sure I could so posit, just by negating the tenents of the extant theory. First, I’d have to have a reason for so doing, then I would have to go about doing it, and after all that I would have to derive more satisfaction from doing so, I’d have to learn something, have my mind changed, conventionally speaking.

I haven’t got past having a reason yet, so the rest is moot. Which is merely a blatant cognitive prejudice, to be sure, but I’m ok with that.

First, I’d have to have a reason for so doing, — Mww

Well, what was the reason for adopting the theory you adopted in the first place?

Two reasons: ego and intelligence. The first for thinking I might actually understand something so incredibly convoluted, and the second for thinking it actually makes sense to me.

It’s just speculative philosophy after all, which means it’s being correct is not a consideration, whereas it’s usefulness might be.