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

by dhw, Monday, July 06, 2015, 13:30 (3427 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: 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. 
ROM: First we have to be sure that consciousness is what you seem to think it is. For here I am far from sure. When objective reality and subjective experience clash then one (or both) have to give way.-I think consciousness is awareness, which can range in varying degrees from awareness of the outside world to awareness of the self. What do you think it is? As we discussed at great length on the epistemology thread, the nearest we can get to “objective reality” is a consensus of subjective experiences. That does not in any way mean we are not aware of the outside world or of ourselves. It simply means that what we are aware of is not necessarily objective reality.-Dhw: 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 have agreed that we think we experience consciousness. Why do you think it is somebody else's belief that persuades me of this? IF I were to think a brick was conscious, then plainly consciousness is not what everyone thinks it is.
-I don't think it is somebody else's experience that persuades you. It's your own. If you thought a brick was conscious, that would not change what I understand by consciousness! It would simply mean you think the brick is aware of the outside world, whereas I do not. What would be plain would be that different people think differently about which organisms and objects have consciousness.-ROMANSH: Life is a game ... I enjoy that too. But a healthy dose of Ignosticism applied to reality does not go amiss.-As an agnostic I freely admit to my ignorance of what constitutes objective reality. You say in your post to David that “it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness.” You are thereby claiming to have solved a mystery that absolutely no-one on this planet has yet solved: the source of consciousness. You may, of course, be right - just as theists/atheists may be right: there either is or is not a god(s) - but on matters where there is no consensus of subjective views, a healthy acknowledgement of ignorance applied to reality does not go amiss.