Ye, I twisted it in order to explain my problems with it. SorryI don't say it in those terms, but you could put it that way. — Lionino
One clue to the puzzle of Personal Experience may be that both Consciousness and Energy are special forms of non-specific Generic Information (the power to change form ; to transform ; energy?). And in human experience, Information is also Meaning, Significance, Relevance to Self. — Gnomon
Yes. My Enformationism thesis posits that Information/EnFormAction (EFA -- power to transform) is fundamental ; hence is the precursor of Energy, Matter, and Mind. The thesis is an expansion of physicist John A. Wheeler's visionary & controversial concept of "It from Bit" : material things evolve from elementary information. Since he made that connection, scientists have been finding evidence to expand on Einstein's equation of Energy & Mass to include a role for Information*1. My thesis is merely an amateur conjecture, intended only for the purpose of forum discussions about Physics & Metaphysics. I rely on professional scientists to vett the speculations.The information is basic. Metaphorically. Because what is transformed is the physical into the mental, no? Or is it the physical into the physical? Energy, mind…what do they have in common? Nothing, and that’s the point – one must transform into the other by means of a unity that is the(i)re.. informational content. Information is meaning, but it is also wave functions. A graph of reality? — NotAristotle
Hence, all physical & mental forms in the world can be traced back to a single unitary monistic First Cause (???). Some call that Prime Mover "G*D", but in view of the information function, I call it "The Programmer". Below, I have pasted my own Graphs of Reality*3*4 — Gnomon
Do you agree that you and I could both share the source of thought? A dreaming super consciousness? — mentos987
In this scenario you have broadened "I" so much that it equates the entirety of existence (I = existence) — mentos987
At that stage, there would be no point in the term "I" at all, as it is normally used to separate yourself from someone else. — mentos987
With this in mind, it adds up. However, normally when a person would use the word "I" it entails a lot more than just "something that is subjectively experiencing thought".The "I" is used exactly to name the thing that has a subject experience. — Lionino
I agree. But, I am agnostic about any divine characteristics beyond the otherwise unexplained chain of causation in evolution, and the mysterious emergence of immaterial noumenal phemomena (Mind & Consciousness) in an otherwise physical universe. Without a direct introduction, the First Cause may forever remain a philosophical enigma. But without such mysteries, what would we have toRight, an informational basis of the universe would seem to hint towards a mind of sorts. — NotAristotle
Sorry! Does that extra white space bother you? It's a personal quirk of mine ; to make the transitional conjunction mark stand-out. Another eccentricity is the use of smilies as a message-concluding bullet-period. The smile or frown is an implicit part of the message. Are you OK with that? :smile: :wink:↪Gnomon
There is no space before a semi-colon or a comma. — Lionino
Scenario 2: You and I are conversing. I say that I think and therefore am. The problem is that I am a figment of your imagination. I am only a small part of you. Would it not, in that case, work just as well to say, "I am, therefore you are". Since I am just a small part of you. If "you" and "I" can be mixed into the same being, does that not dilute the meaning of "I"? — mentos987
However, normally when a person would use the word "I" it entails a lot more than just "something that is subjectively experiencing thought". — mentos987
However, normally when a person would use the word "I" it entails a lot more than just "something that is subjectively experiencing thought". — mentos987
Does it though? I would say that that is pretty much the definition of "I". — Lionino
Again, I apologize for not following protocol. I have no formal training in Philosophy, so I'm making-up my formatting as seems best to present my informal science-based arguments. My website would jog your noggin. Please feel free to pass-over any of my posts that might "bother" your sensibilities. :smile:↪Gnomon
Honestly there are many things about that text's format that bother me, the semi-colon thing was the only one that I saw that would not be justified by stylistic choice. — Lionino
...our consciousness acts in the way it does and why we experience things as we do, but this basic reason has evolved into such a complex form that we've basically become lost in that complexity and produced this illusion that is our qualia, our inner experience of life.
We are highly advanced prediction machines, driven by emotions that guide our survival. Those are the strings we don't see and which gives us the illusion of complex experience. — Christoffer
Why do I sit here and write this? What drives me to do it? Not what I think is driving me, but what is actually pulling my strings doing this? My emotions surrounding the act of writing all of this. Is my emotions driving me to find survival in a group here? Predicting that if I write something good it will generate connection to the tribe, to the group and put me in a better place for survival? Is it an act against death? Is it about survival? — Christoffer
Are your notions here based on work by Daniel Dennett or Thomas Metzinger? — Tom Storm
Wouldn't there be the possibility to know one's emotions and thereby know why one is acting? And, is it not the case that if we know how we are going to act, we have the ability to act in a manner contrary to what we are conscious of?
And, if consciousness really is an illusion, why the illusion? Wouldn't we be better equipped evolutionarily speaking to see the truth; reality as it really is. — NotAristotle
By "naturalism" Plantinga seems to mean non-belief in God in this context. It appears that someone who does believe in God can, according to Plantinga's proposals, maintain that our cognitive abilities are reliable. Although it's possible I have misunderstood Plantinga. — NotAristotle
And, if consciousness really is an illusion, why the illusion? Wouldn't we be better equipped evolutionarily speaking to see the truth; reality as it really is. — NotAristotle
I'd say a more common definition of "I" refers to the body, mind and potentially the soul of someone, not to the source of their thinking. — mentos987
I think you misunderstood, my opinion is that the notion of subject isn't tied to the notion of consciousness. — Skalidris
Wouldn't there be the possibility to know one's emotions and thereby know why one is acting? And, is it not the case that if we know how we are going to act, we have the ability to act in a manner contrary to what we are conscious of? — NotAristotle
And, if consciousness really is an illusion, why the illusion? Wouldn't we be better equipped evolutionarily speaking to see the truth; reality as it really is. — NotAristotle
in this sense I think you mean to be free from the emotional driving forces and be able to always act without biases to any needs. — Christoffer
That is not necessarily what I mean when I speak of "seeing reality as it is." As I am presently using it, I mean seeing reality in contradistinction to the way reality is seen through the lens of an apparent illusion of consciousness. — NotAristotle
But because all of this becomes so extremely complex with maybe thousands of predictions that occur all the time, we don't experience it as such, but instead we experience some emergent phenomena of "being", an illusion that forms out of these basic adaptive functions. — Christoffer
Still, it seems to me that any sort of illusion of reality would be weeded out by evolution in favor of a more honest interface, seems to me like that would have an evolutionary advantage. — NotAristotle
I'm not sure I understand the question; I guess I take it as given that an illusion is necessarily differentiable from non-illusion . — NotAristotle
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.