On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 1:39 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Friday, 26 April 2019 20:16:19 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> That's a move that's not available to you - you cannot reference >> "evolutionary purposes", because evolutionary purposes do not exist in your >> theory. You cannot talk about fruits that existed before a consciousness >> was able to perceive them, because fruits do not exist in your theory. The >> only move you can make in order to explain the emergence of new qualia is >> to explain it in terms of the only thing you postulate to exist, namely >> consciousness. Thus far the only thing you've said about that is that, >> somehow, consciousnesses interact, and their interaction creates qualia, >> and the rules qualia appear to obey. But this is just hand waving. >> > > There are no fruits. There are systems of interacting consciousnesses. But > for some reasons, that are not known to me at this point, that interaction > needs fuel, also in form of other consciousnesses. And "fruits" is an > external appearance of internal interactions between consciousnesses. So > evolution gives you the quale of fruits in order to make you eat them and > thus get access to that fuel that allow you to maintain the interaction. > But some consciousness is poison. I could die just by breathing too much carbon monoxide. Funny thing about carbon monoxide is it has no qualia I can detect. That's why I need a carbon monoxide detector in my house. How can something affect my consciousness if it has no qualia? > >> How does one go from seeing black & white to color? How does a deaf >> person begin to hear sound? The answer you provide must not invoke >> anything that does not exist in your theory. If you're answer is "I don't >> know" then I applaud your honesty, but you leave me no reason to accept >> anything you've said. >> >> I already said that I don't know exactly how it happens. Probably there > is no alternative: you either see colors or you die. And in one universe > you will die, in another you will see colors and live and have offsprings. > What's a universe? Why is there more than one? I'm pretty sure you would say universes don't exist if I brought that up. > > >> >> Does your theory depend on the existence of other consciousnesses besides >> your own? Does it fail if there are no other consciousnesses? >> >> My theory is more or less just a phenomenological description of my own > consciousness. I don't think that "depends" is the proper word. It is in a > way inherent in the theory that there are other consciousnesses. One reason > is as I mentioned in some other post: the fact that we both hear and see is > probably because we are a unification between a consciousness that only > sees and another one that only hears. > It's fair to say that no idealistic theory can completely avoid the charge of solipsism. If you have to assume other consciousnesses, so be it. > And this is also grounded in empirical studies in which certain brain > regions are related to certain qualia and also in DID where the alters not > only differ in their personalities, but you can even have alters that are > blind for example, so in those alters the consciousness that sees is not > unified with them. > Grounded in empirical studies??? Why do *you* get to make reference to empirical facts, but when the rest of us do, it's all "such and such doesn't exist". > > >> What does "memories are true" mean? >> > > Means that if I remember that I had a teddy bear when I was 7 years old, > then it means that I really had it, and the world was not just created 1 > second ago with all the memories implanted in my consciousness. > But what if that teddy bear didn't exist, and your memory of it is a false one? Memory is not infallible. How do memories get implanted in your consciousness? Gentle reminder: brains don't exist. > >> What does "reason is true" mean? >> >> It means that it makes sense what I'm thinking, and is not all just a > delirium. > I don't see how you can distinguish between delirium, and whatever the alternative to delirium is, in your theory. The picture you're painting is of a world of qualia, experienced by some uncountable number of interacting consciousnesses, whose interactions form the basis of whatever patterns exist in the qualia. It has no reality beyond itself, no grounding in any principle or reason that I can see. It might as well all be a dream. Terren > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
