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

by dhw, Wednesday, July 08, 2015, 20:47 (3425 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: So you agree with me again. Then let's get back to my question: how does this justify your claim that chemicals engender consciousness?
ROMANSH: But do you agree with me ... when two concepts point in opposite directions then one or both are wron?-You have now evaded my question twice. Yes of course, if I say x and you say y, one or both of us may be wrong. Once more, how does this glaringly obvious observation justify your claim that chemicals engender consciousness?-ROMANSH: I am pretty sure it [the brick] responds to cause and effect much as do the atoms in my body.
Dhw: And indeed every other material you can think of. No disagreement there either.
ROMANSH: including consciousness?-Whether consciousness is material is the issue under discussion, but yes of course. Even an immaterial consciousness would be subject to cause and effect, so how does that prove that chemicals engender consciousness?
 
Dhw: In the statement, “it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness”, to what other place and appropriate qualifiers are you pushing the unsolved mystery of the source of consciousness? How do you know your statement is an accurate description of objective reality?
ROMANSH: I don't know anything. -Then why make such an authoritative statement? Once again, what other place and appropriate qualifiers are you referring to?-ROMANSH: But a whack load of evidence points me to think of consciousness as an illusion. AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT REAL. Illusions are real.-Illusions by definition do not correspond to reality. By playing these linguistic games, I think you are tricking yourself into conflating one valid point with one invalid point. You agreed that consciousness means awareness; WHAT we are aware of may not correspond to objective reality, and so WHAT we are aware of may be an illusion. The awareness itself, however, is not an illusion, unless you wish to inform me that you are not aware of our current conversation, in which case how are you able to continue it?
 
Dhw: David wrote that you and he would agree that the bus was red. You replied, “No, I don't think so.” If you both accept that the nomenclature corresponds to the object, your use of language is intersubjectively valid on any basis. I hope your education was thorough enough to distinguish between intersubjective validity and objective reality.-ROMANSH: The bus is red. I perceive it as red. I don't care too much what David perceives it as. There is a difference between perception and reality. The difference between phenomenon and noumenon. 
The bus is unlikely to be red, in fact we should be skeptical about colours as noumena.-The bus is red...The bus is unlikely to be red....What are you trying to say? Or if you meant to say the bus is NOT red, how do you know? What access do you have to the objective reality of redness? Yes, all of us on this forum have long ago agreed that there is or at least may be (we can't know for sure) a difference between perception and reality. We do not know what objective redness is - we only know that the word “red” was invented by humans to describe a visual experience which we share with others. If others agree that the bus is red, we have intersubjective validity.-ROMANSH: Yes, I can't be sure of anything, but nevertheless I think I get out bed most mornings and go to work. Is that an objective reality or a intersubjective validity?-It only becomes intersubjectively valid if someone else agrees with you. A general consensus is the closest we can get to objective reality.-ROMANSH: I am pretty sure as an objective reality the sun does not revolve around the Earth. We are allowed to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. And there is next to no evidence for a dualistic consciousness. There is a lot evidence for a chemical origin for our consciousness.-There is almost total consensus that the sun does not revolve around the earth. There is absolutely no consensus on the source of consciousness, but of course we are allowed to come to our own conclusion. What constitutes evidence is wide open to subjective opinion, and your statement that there is next to no evidence for one view and a lot of evidence for the other is also as subjective as your statement that biology runs your consciousness.