On naturalism and consciousness

[Mudhammam]

Consciousness?

Its an illusion of millions and millions processes of perception and sensory experiences. Brain chemistry. That's all "we" are. Objectively speaking, there is no real "you" or "I", not within the chemical, physical or biological worlds.

I think I think... therefore I am?

I agree with Sam Harris on this one: "Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." (His article, "The Mystery of Consciousness" is pretty good; for anyone interested, here you go: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...sciousness )

[Angrboda]

Here's a thought experiment.

Let's say that on the desk in front of me is a small porcelain rocking horse, about 6" tall. In my mind's eye is an image of just such a rocking horse on just such a desk. However, there are multiple ways this image could have gotten into my mind.

1. the image of the horse could have been relayed from my eyes;
   
2. I could have simply imagined the horse with no prior experience of it;
   
3. a genius neurosurgeon could have figured out the encoding of my memory and surgically implanted the memory of it;
   
4. I could have hallucinated the image of it.

In which of these cases is the image in my mind "about" the rocking horse on my desk and why? The image in my mind is the same in all four cases. Assuming that you picked #1 as being "about" the rocking horse on my desk, what makes that image "about" the rocking horse when the others are not? Or if none or all of them are "about" the rocking horse on my desk, what makes it so?

[Whateverist]

Not sure about the significance of the word "about" but I prefer choice number 1. That is the only pathway which directly links the thing on your desk to the image in your head. Presumably the horse, your head and the mechanisms of light and physiology make for a direct link. One could still question whether ordinary sense perception and cognition are actually 'about' an external reality, but so long as you have faith that you are a part of a greater reality and that your faculties have evolved under battle tested conditions to provide useful information - it is a bridge less far than the other two.

---

My second choice would be number 2. However, under most circumstances imagination isn't a dead ringer for visual perception.

[Surgenator]

Here's a thought experiment.

Let's say that on the desk in front of me is a small porcelain rocking horse, about 6" tall. In my mind's eye is an image of just such a rocking horse on just such a desk. However, there are multiple ways this image could have gotten into my mind.

1. the image of the horse could have been relayed from my eyes;
   
2. I could have simply imagined the horse with no prior experience of it;
   
3. a genius neurosurgeon could have figured out the encoding of my memory and surgically implanted the memory of it;
   
4. I could have hallucinated the image of it.

In which of these cases is the image in my mind "about" the rocking horse on my desk and why? The image in my mind is the same in all four cases. Assuming that you picked #1 as being "about" the rocking horse on my desk, what makes that image "about" the rocking horse when the others are not? Or if none or all of them are "about" the rocking horse on my desk, what makes it so?

1. Is about the horse because your mind is interpreting the image your eyes saw.
The others only give you the illusion of about the horse, but no image actually entered your eyes.

[bennyboy]

1. Is about the horse because your mind is interpreting the image your eyes saw.
The others only give you the illusion of about the horse, but no image actually entered your eyes.

Hmmmm. What about old memories, like those of childhood events? Are those about anything?

[Surgenator]

1. Is about the horse because your mind is interpreting the image your eyes saw.
The others only give you the illusion of about the horse, but no image actually entered your eyes.

Hmmmm. What about old memories, like those of childhood events? Are those about anything?

Those are you illusions that were based on real events.

[bennyboy]

Hmmmm. What about old memories, like those of childhood events? Are those about anything?

Those are you illusions that were based on real events.

How about my current experiences, which are light and sound thoroughly reprocessed and filtered before I ever experience them. Are those about anything? And if so, how can this be confirmed?

[Surgenator]

Those are you illusions that were based on real events.

How about my current experiences, which are light and sound thoroughly reprocessed and filtered before I ever experience them. Are those about anything? And if so, how can this be confirmed?

Wait, why are you saying your current experiences are REprocessed, not processed? Current experiences have to be processed first. Were they processed sometime in the past, and only currently being reprocessed? Your statement sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Also, filtering is a specific process. So it should just fall under the general processed umbrella.

Current experiences can be illusionary or real depending on what your doing. If your currently reminising about the past, then your experiences would be illusionary. If your playing ball, your experiences would be real.

This can be confired like anything else, observations of the reality around you. Lets my example of reminising about the past. Your body didn't become younger when you do so, so your experiences are illusionary. If we take my other example of playing ball. You hitting the ball with the baseball bat will make a real ball travel some distance.

[bennyboy]

I think you are making some philosophical assumptions about the nature of mind and the nature of reality, here.

[Surgenator]

You mean that our minds live in a larger universe generally called as reality? Yes I am making such an assumption.