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

by romansh , Tuesday, July 07, 2015, 02:23 (3427 days ago) @ dhw

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.-I see little difference between awareness and consciousness as well. I see both as a result of cause and effect. Well there is an objective reality ... and again if our subjective interpretations of that subjective reality point in opposite directions then I suspect one or both of them are inaccurate is some useful sense.
 
 
> 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.
Yeah fair enough but you did ask ...
>> Why do you think it is somebody else's belief that persuades me of this?-I don't think of brick as conscious either, but I am pretty sure it responds to cause and effect much as do the atoms in my body.-> 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.-Firstly I was specifically referring to ignosticism and not agnosticism.-I am not claiming that any mystery has been solved. Only that it has been pushed back to another place. With all the appropriate qualifiers. We advance by making accurate descriptions of the objective reality. I am not so agnostic as to claim this has not been done. 
> If we have an agreed upon nomenclature for certain visual experiences, then you and David will agree that the bus is red. Your experience of redness may be different, but the use of language is intersubjectively valid
Pragmatically, on a day to basis yeah fine. On a scientific and philosophical basis ... no way. My education was too thorough for that.