RE: Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis
February 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
(This post was last modified: February 16, 2017 at 12:59 pm by emjay.)
The problem for me is in understanding exactly what I mean by the word "exists"; I can say "I exist" any time I am experiencing because "I" am the only seemingly constant presence as the subject of experiences. If I'm a direct realist I can say everything I experience as external (ie sensory input) exists. If I'm an indirect realist, as I am, I say that external things exist and an internal model/representation of those things exists, which is what I perceive. I go further and narrow my conception of 'I' by seeing not only what is traditionally internal-external (ie internally perceived as external, directly for direct realists or indirectly for indirect realist) as internal-external but also things often considered to be part of the 'I'... like will for instance, such that pretty much everything is considered internal-external for me... the only part that's not the focal point which is the subject of experiences.
What I'm saying is that whatever perspective you have regarding internal-external, it ultimately comes down making statements about what exists about things you notice in consciousness; some people stay 'direct' (Exists(me)+(Exists(External objects)), some people go meta... ie 'indirect' (Exists(me)+(Exists(Internal model)+Exists(External Objects)))... and some people, like me, go even more meta (Exists(me)+(Exists(changeable states... will, feelings etc)+(Exists(Internal model)+Exists(External Objects))). But they're all just existence statements about whatever we've noticed in consciousness.
And since it's by no means certain even that 'I' exist as I subjectively infer I do, rather than some sort of ever-changing construct that only appears to be continuous, then it seems to me that existence statements are very dubious, given that they refer to the contents of consciousness which in some cases are considered to be external things or representative of external things but in other cases representative of the perceiving 'system' and/or the self as subject of perceptions.
It's just hard to know what I mean by the word "exists"... maybe it's not a useful term when consciousness is concerned because it can conflate the 'material' with the 'immaterial' and treat them just the same... as stuff that exists relative to (ie noticed by) a subjective observer, but where that observer itself is by no means cut and dry to be exactly what we think it is. No one else can know I exist only through inference from my body and my brain, but it's not the same thing. So I don't know whether exists is a useful word in this context.
What I'm saying is that whatever perspective you have regarding internal-external, it ultimately comes down making statements about what exists about things you notice in consciousness; some people stay 'direct' (Exists(me)+(Exists(External objects)), some people go meta... ie 'indirect' (Exists(me)+(Exists(Internal model)+Exists(External Objects)))... and some people, like me, go even more meta (Exists(me)+(Exists(changeable states... will, feelings etc)+(Exists(Internal model)+Exists(External Objects))). But they're all just existence statements about whatever we've noticed in consciousness.
And since it's by no means certain even that 'I' exist as I subjectively infer I do, rather than some sort of ever-changing construct that only appears to be continuous, then it seems to me that existence statements are very dubious, given that they refer to the contents of consciousness which in some cases are considered to be external things or representative of external things but in other cases representative of the perceiving 'system' and/or the self as subject of perceptions.
It's just hard to know what I mean by the word "exists"... maybe it's not a useful term when consciousness is concerned because it can conflate the 'material' with the 'immaterial' and treat them just the same... as stuff that exists relative to (ie noticed by) a subjective observer, but where that observer itself is by no means cut and dry to be exactly what we think it is. No one else can know I exist only through inference from my body and my brain, but it's not the same thing. So I don't know whether exists is a useful word in this context.
