How could we trust our consciousness ?!

[polymath257]

[url=https://atheistforums.org/post-1872132.html#pid1872132][/url]


And it should not be because ?

Our consciousness was not designed to realize the world .. It grew up and evolved for our survival

Yes. So it has to reliably interpret at least some aspects of reality sufficiently to allow for survival.

Nobody is claiming that we have a *perfect* model of reality or that we have access to *all* the information out there. in fact, we know exactly the opposite: humans do not see ultraviolet light, for example. We do not hear ultrasound. We do not detect neutrinos. All of those are aspects of reality that we do not even detect, let alone interpret correctly.

But, if we detect a tree in front of us, we can be assured that there is something there in reality that reflects green light from chlorophyll molecules and has xylem and phloem for water transport.

The same is true if we see a leopard: we can be reasonably sure there is a predator there that could impact our survival.

[GrandizerII]

I dont want to be a skeptist 
I will feel that I am paralyzed .. I will not be able to take any action or even take a stand in any Case !!!!

What do you think a skeptic is?

It seems like skepticism in the philosophical sense is not the same sort that we tend to think of as skepticism (religious/scientific skepticism). In the former case, it's more like the theists who are skeptics (though in a paradoxical fashion, since they then appeal to faith to account for the so-called unreliability of reason) whereas we atheists tend to be skeptics in the latter sense of the term.

See this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Basically, philosophical skepticism is a rejection of the possibility of knowledge of some or all subject matters.

[brewer]

Our consciousness was not designed to realize the world .. It grew up and evolved for our survival

Yes. So it has to reliably interpret at least some aspects of reality sufficiently to allow for survival.

Nobody is claiming that we have a *perfect* model of reality or that we have access to *all* the information out there. in fact, we know exactly the opposite: humans do not see ultraviolet light, for example. We do not hear ultrasound. We do not detect neutrinos. All of those are aspects of reality that we do not even detect, let alone interpret correctly.

But, if we detect a tree in front of us, we can be assured that there is something there in reality that reflects green light from chlorophyll molecules and has xylem and phloem for water transport.

The same is true if we see a leopard: we can be reasonably sure there is a predator there that could impact our survival.

I like the "us" and "we" part. It's not like an individual has to validate everything in a vacuum.

Edit: After thought. Is the OP's consciousness experiencing things that others indicate he shouldn't be trusting?

[zainab]

(We must just assume that our reason is reliable and work from there. There is no good alternative.)

---

  That isn't a guarantee, but I don't see why anybody would conclude that being a product of evolution would make something more suspect.   the same position 

Because evolution is about surviving not about Knowing!!

[zainab]

How could we trust our consciousness

Like this:  Put $50 in singles where your consciousness can see it, then announce loudly to your consciousness  that you're going out for a bit.  When you come back, count the singles to see if any are missing...

No, wait - that's how you see if you can trust your roommate.  Sorry.

Boru

---

I hate the word "mind". All that is to me is just a description of the unique neurological pathways each individual grows into in evolution and even upbringing. I really do not see what is wrong with accepting that consciousness is simply our brain in motion, unique to each individual. "Mind" to me  is such a loaded word that theists love to make separate than our physical self, and there is nothing at all that proves there is a separation between our uniqueness like a snowflake or fingerprint, which both depend on physical matter to happen.

The problem with using the word "mind" is that it gets twisted even by si fi fans and new agers as an excuse to gap fill, just like old mythological god believers like to use the word "soul".

If everything is made up of atoms, then all a "mind" can be still to me, is each individual's unique manifestation of neurological pathways born from our species long term evolution, and life to death individual interactions.

I dont believe in seperate entity called mind! its just an Abstraction!!!

[polymath257]

(We must just assume that our reason is reliable and work from there. There is no good alternative.)

---

  That isn't a guarantee, but I don't see why anybody would conclude that being a product of evolution would make something more suspect.   the same position 

Because evolution is about surviving not about Knowing!!

Correct. But in order to survive, the senses have to be giving at least *some* reliable knowledge about the surroundings. While that information is certainly far from perfect (as is easily shown), it is enough to be able to start doing science and to start eliminating false hypotheses.