Alternative Theory of Consciousness: "Fine, then How Do You Explain It?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the philosophy of consciousness, particularly the ideas of Daniel Dennett. One participant challenges critics of Dennett to present their own theories of consciousness, emphasizing the need for constructive dialogue rather than mere critique. Several contributors express agreement with Dennett's views, particularly regarding memory and thought processes, while others explore the complexities of consciousness and memory, including the interplay of sensory information and biological feedback. Some participants introduce metaphysical concepts, suggesting a unified consciousness or "One" that connects all individuals, contrasting with materialist perspectives. The conversation also touches on the limitations of Dennett's hypothesis, with calls for empirical validation and acknowledgment of the subjective nature of consciousness. Overall, the thread highlights a rich exchange of ideas about the nature of consciousness, memory, and the philosophical implications of these concepts.
  • #61
Originally posted by Fliption
You're saying that science assumes a non testable philosophical idea? Actually, I think I agree with Tom on this one. I recall that LifeGazer used to always claim that science was biased and limited itself by assuming that materialism was true. On one particular thread Tom spent a good amount of time explaining to him that science assumed no such thing. Science can be practiced in the Matrix as well.

No, I must have mis-stated...Science itself makes no assumptions, except those of the Method...these can, indeed, be practiced by a Solipsist, but it just seemed inconsistent with the Solipsistic philosophy, to study something outside of theirself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Originally posted by FZ+
Well, more accurately science at the minimum assumes a sort of functional materialism - ie. the material aspect is worthwhile, though it may not be the only thing.

Basically, you are saying it is based on skepticism, right? Skepticism, basically, says that the Solipsistic notion that "everything is part of some on-going dream that I (the only thing that really exists) am having" is non-sensical, since there is nothing to compare "parts of the dream" with (to ascertain whether they are "real" or not). Therefore, science makes no claim as to the truth of Solipsism, or Materialism, but takes the skeptic approach, and assumes that it doesn't matter either way - unless a dividing line is discovered, between what is "real" and what is not.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by Mentat
No, I must have mis-stated...Science itself makes no assumptions, except those of the Method...these can, indeed, be practiced by a Solipsist, but it just seemed inconsistent with the Solipsistic philosophy, to study something outside of theirself.

But it wouldn't be studying something outside of themselves. In this case it would be study yourself :smile:. You assume that what is experienced is external because you are a materialist. But you can't hold a solipsist responsible to that notion.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Fliption
But it wouldn't be studying something outside of themselves. In this case it would be study yourself :smile:. You assume that what is experienced is external because you are a materialist. But you can't hold a solipsist responsible to that notion.

Very true, except the for the skeptic rebuttal (as previously mentioned). If there is nothing outside of my mind, then there is no difference between things in my mind, and things outside of it (the very distinction is non-sensical). Therefore, one would simply take the part that constitutes my dream-"body" as "me" and everything else as "objective".
 
  • #65
Originally posted by Mentat
Very true, except the for the skeptic rebuttal (as previously mentioned). If there is nothing outside of my mind, then there is no difference between things in my mind, and things outside of it (the very distinction is non-sensical). Therefore, one would simply take the part that constitutes my dream-"body" as "me" and everything else as "objective".

I'm not sure I understand this skeptic rebuttal that you described above in response to FZ.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Fliption
I'm not sure I understand this skeptic rebuttal that you described above in response to FZ.

Sorry. I'll try to explain it better (as I had just assumed he'd know what I was talking about)...

Solipsism dictates that there is nothing to "reality" except that which exists in my mind (I say "my mind", because, if I were a Solipsist, I wouldn't think there were any other minds). The Skeptic's response is that the distinction (implied by having said "nothing but that which exists in my mind") is non-sensical, since, if Solipsism is true, and there isn't anything else, then there's nothing to compare that which exists in your mind to. IOW, it doesn't make sense to call every event in life a part of an on-going "dream", since a dream is something you wake up from (back into the real world), while you never wake up from reality, and thus have nothing to compare your world to.
 
  • #67
Hypna, where are you? Hast thou forsaken this discussion?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
10K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K