What Defines Your Unique Existence in a Shared Reality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erus
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the nature of individual existence and consciousness within a shared reality. Participants examine the philosophical and scientific implications of being separate observers despite having similar properties and systems of understanding. The conversation touches on concepts of subjective experience, consciousness, and the potential for multiple realities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how individual consciousness arises when physical properties are shared, suggesting a need for scientific explanation of personal identity.
  • One participant humorously proposes that consciousness is merely a chemical reaction occurring in the brain.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of an "explanatory gap," noting that subjective experience may not be fully explainable by physical processes alone, referencing philosophical discussions on the hard problem of consciousness.
  • Some argue that individuals are not separate from their experiences; rather, they are the processes themselves, challenging the notion of a distinct "Feeler" within consciousness.
  • There is a suggestion that reality may be perceived differently by each observer, with some referencing Many Worlds Interpretation to propose that individual realities could exist simultaneously, leading to questions about the nature of existence and observation.
  • One participant emphasizes that personal experiences and respect for others contribute to individual identity, while another reflects on the implications of observing others in relation to one's own reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of consciousness and existence, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the complexity of subjective experience, while others propose differing interpretations of reality and observation.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of current scientific understanding regarding consciousness and subjective experience, highlighting the ongoing philosophical debate surrounding these topics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may interest those exploring the philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, and the nature of reality, as well as individuals curious about the intersection of science and subjective experience.

Erus
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Scientifically explain to me how I am me, and not you, even though we have the same properties and systems of science, we're still separate observers. How does this work and why is it separated into bodies? Why do I exist in my head?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If your eyes are put in your ass. you will exist in your ass.
seriously, I think I me is just some reaction made by the chemical in your head.
 
Chemical thing going on my head, granted. Why am I experiencing it?... lol.
 
Why is a big question, science just describes how.

Some believe in undifferentiated reality, the idea that everything is one. Science really has nothing to say about such things, except to note that people are capable of any number of distinctive awarenesses of the world around them. The more introverted we are, the more withdrawn we can become even from our own bodies.
 
Erus said:
Chemical thing going on my head, granted. Why am I experiencing it?... lol.

This is a perplexing question indeed, and currently there is no accepted answer. Some philosophers argue that it is impossible even in principle to explain subjective experience purely in terms of physics (for a good introduction, see for example David Chalmers' http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html ). This explanatory problem is called, appropriately enough, the explanatory gap: even once we have described all the physical processes of the brain, there still seems to be a conceptual gap-- it is still not clear how such processes could ever wind up accounting for something like conscious experience. Chalmers has also dubbed this problem 'the hard problem of consciousness.'

Issues surrounding the explanatory gap / the hard problem of consciousness are notoriously controversial; there is nothing really resembling an accepted wisdom on the subject. Some philosophers reject that an explanatory gap or a hard problem of consciousness even exists in the first place. For a range of views on the problem, see http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online1.html#gap .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Erus said:
Scientifically explain to me how I am me, and not you, even though we have the same properties and systems of science, we're still separate observers. How does this work and why is it separated into bodies? Why do I exist in my head?

You are just you...
to safeguard me...
and many of me and you to come
You are not me
and can't be me
until such time as
when I can be with/without...
you and others?
 
Last edited:
A little too poetic Philocrat. :p

Are you confused about reality? Are you doubting reality?


You exist because you live in reality. Whether or not you believe you live in reality or a non-reality, you remain existant. As long as your freedom is intact, you exist. As long as you continue thinking, you exist.
 
True...it's a bit poetic, but it's a summary of a philosophy. It does concern reality, even if it does not explain it.
 
Last edited:
Erus said:
Chemical thing going on my head, granted. Why am I experiencing it?... lol.

There is not a process going on, and a separate you that experiences it. You ARE the process, and the running of the process IS your experience. This expanation satisfies many, including many deep thinkers, and it seems to me that those who don't accept it are positing a separate "Feeler" - technically termed a humonculus - however they disguise it.
 
  • #10
You do! Of course, in life, we are all influenced by things, and others, in our environment that has a direct bearing on "who we are".
 
  • #11
What makes me Me?
The same thing that makes you You!

More so, a lifetime of experiences and respect for the not-me.
 
  • #12
Since there is no way I can observe what you (or others around me) are observing (from their prespective) do they really exist in my reality, if my reality is actually my own, as suggested by some Many Worlds Interpreters? Maybe we can only have one observer at a time, and my interactions with people on this board are just to "shadows" of other observing viewpoints, perhaps existing in other locations in time (or worlds). This to me would explain why even if we make a perfect clone of myself, there is always a separation in observering viewpoints. I guess we can all share a same timeline, but my soul(?) is paying attention to only one distinct thread in all that happens in time (which is a collection of events (collapsing of wave functions) that I see as my reality.)
 

Similar threads

So what are dreams made of? How do they differ from our waking reality?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
What defines a truly smart person?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Graduate Extended Wigner’s Friend Scenario and the existence of the reality
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Alternative model for counterfactual definiteness in Bohm-like EPR
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
To supercharge science, first experiment with how it is funded
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
Graduate Shauder basis for Hilbert spaces
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Graduate Dasgupta et al., What is the alternative to a unique dS vacua?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
The Lonely Scientist: Finding Friends Who Share Your Interests
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Is Beauty an Aspect of Awareness or an Independent Reality?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K