Consciousness; a radically new theory. Romansh? (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, July 04, 2015, 22:05 (3429 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: I still don't see the point. How does the fact that consciousness takes time to operate affect its reality or our control over its activities? 
ROMANSH: The point for me is the ephemeral entity of consciousness is not responsible for the choices we make. The electrobiochemistry has done that for us. Now if you are suggesting that the ephemeral entity is possibly somehow manipulating the biochemistry then I would like some evidence. Otherwise this is an unnecessary hypothesis.-The fact that consciousness takes time to operate therefore does not mean it is unreal or that it is beyond our control. Thank you. As for free will (our choices), I summed up my own ambivalent view of the causal chain in my last post to you. I am also open-minded towards your electrobiochemical theory, but since even neuroscientists cannot explain how chemicals might engender consciousness, the dualist can ask what evidence you have that they do. There is no default position here. Incidentally, I wonder if you have followed up David's post on NDEs, which in my view are not to be dismissed lightly.
 
Dhw: At least now I know you believe you are conscious (thank you), though I still don't understand what you mean by “everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin.”
ROMANSH: Not quite sure how I can explain this further. If a panpsychist sees a brick as conscious ... then I could just as easily argue I am not conscious. Just because a video recorder can playback old sights and sounds does not make it conscious.-You have agreed that you are conscious. Why would someone else's belief that a brick (or a videorecorder) is conscious enable you to argue that you are not conscious? -ROMANSH: I am tempted by the idea that consciousness is an illusion...a very real illusion.
Dhw: I am tempted by the idea that life itself is an illusion...a very real illusion. The present is real, and the reality of the past has helped to shape the present, but it increasingly takes on the quality of a dream. 
ROMANSH: I would not argue too much about life being an illusion. For me, it is more of an interesting semantic definition game.
And as for the present, by the time we think we have experienced it ... it has gone. We can only experience the past ... I would argue [...] -As with consciousness, the time element seems to be important for you, and I've also noticed your enjoyment of semantic games! Fair enough. For me semantic definitions are a frustrating but unavoidable exercise, and all too often we get diverted by the “game” from the realities/illusions that language is supposed to help us investigate.