Submitted by Gmroo t3_zdfsu4 in philosophy
Reply to comment by locklear24 in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo
Certaintity, knowing and belief are rabbit holes in themselves, but that doesn't quite have bearing on my post does it?
The central point being that without subjective experience, you can't from its description infer it even exists. That it can feel like something.
So here I mean knowing of consciosuness not fully or ideally, but simply having access to it so that we can even consider it in any shape or form.
I guess I really don’t find it that profound, just a pragmatic necessity as it is. Not to stop anyone from asking these questions, because we always will, but just accept it with a structural-functionalist interpretation. It exists for a biological function. Any further understanding of it is just bonus. I’m ok with our understanding being a little on the fuzzy side, content that a rock doesn’t have the structure because it has no need of metabolizing or replicating.
> The central point being that without subjective experience, you can't from its description infer it even exists. That it can feel like something.
A philosopher writes lengthy text about consciousness. Why does he do that? Answer that question and you have an understanding of consciousness. There is no reason to assume that this question would be unanswerable, since it's observable.
without subjective experience...
And I think they do have a bearing on the post if one is trying to make metaphysical claims from observations. We can argue them, but I think any kind of proposition making a metaphysical statement can rightly be deflated when the justification is lacking.
Okay, I struggle to see how you're engaging with the actual central point. Do you know of any way subjective experience could be inferred to exist, illusion/seeming or whatever label you want to slap on it?
You’re only struggling to see that I’m struggling with how your central point is anything to really take note of.
As someone else already said above. That, being conscious is really the only way we are aware of the phenomenon of consciousness, just seems a tautology, a restatement of obvious practical limitation. They were also right that its our only way of being familiar with anything.
That being said, with all importance being deflated finally, trying to infer further metaphysical claims from it seems dubious.
As I said in another thread:
Again, I would invoke Chalmers' argumentation here:
One can make a debunking argument about beliefs about phenomenal consciousness in general, perhaps with some variety of non-reductionism operating as a background assumption. There are various ways to lay out such an argument, but perhaps the most straight forward is as follows: 1.There is a correct explanation of our beliefs about conscious-ness that is independent of consciousness 2. If there is a correct explanation of our beliefs about conscious- ness that is independent of consciousness, those beliefs are not justified 3. Our beliefs about consciousness are not justified.
Basically, I am claiming 1 and in my post list 2 as a partial knockdown argument. I personally find this a brain-breaking and fascinating idea wrt to the properties of our universe.
So we can bicker about knowing or belief, but in the end I don't see how the basic idea that whatever consciousness is bears a particular relation to us so that we can even bicker about it as an explicandum, is not compelling basis to ponder the search for other phenomena that might not be easily or at all detectable without a particular relation we'd have to bear to them.
Is there though? That doesn’t seem self evident or settled considering there’s a whole tradition and sub-camps of empiricism, a posteriori knowledge completely dependent on the pragmatic acceptance of consciousness as the only lens we have.
“If there is” seems like the first would need to be settled first before this conditional can be pondered.
Since we can’t get past the first premise, there’s no real reason to grant this conclusion.
And no, it really doesn’t seem that profound once deflated.
It's highly speculative and one can attack many issues wrt to epistemology. For this post I opted to focus on the idea as presented. As far as I know there is no way to infer phenomenal consciousness/qualia without the actual experience. If there is, I'd love to know. Until then, it suggests something pretty fascinating about our universe.
And yes there is an if... so if 1 falls then the rest falls although not entirely as I explain in my post. Either p-consc can not be inferred without experiencing it or it's super hard to figure out how to ever infer it without the experience. Both cases - interesting wrt to our universe and may suggests other phenomena that are interesting in this manner wrt to how they manifest or their detectibility.
I don’t know if it really that is interesting though. To say that we can’t infer anything without being conscious is as deep as saying we can’t investigate anything else once we’re dead.
Have you read the post? Here is what chatGPT said based on the summary:
It is an interesting idea that there may be other significant phenomena in our universe that we are not currently aware of. This idea is based on the idea that consciousness is a unique phenomenon that is only knowable through our own subjective experience of it. If this is the case, then it is possible that there are other phenomena in the universe that are only knowable through some other unique process.
One way to explore this idea conceptually would be to consider the ways in which we currently know about the universe and the phenomena within it. We know about the universe through our senses and through scientific instruments that allow us to observe and measure it. However, our senses and instruments are limited in their ability to perceive and measure everything that exists in the universe. It is possible that there are phenomena that exist outside of the range of our senses and instruments, and therefore outside of our current knowledge.
Another way to explore this idea would be to consider the ways in which we might be able to detect these other, potentially obscured phenomena. One possibility is that we might be able to find hints of their existence in the behavior of known phenomena. For example, if there is a phenomenon that influences the behavior of particles in some way, we might be able to detect its presence by looking for patterns in the behavior of those particles that cannot be explained by known physical laws.
There are several objections to this idea that are worth considering. One objection is that our current scientific understanding of the universe is comprehensive and that there is no room for additional, unknown phenomena. However, this objection is not necessarily true. Our scientific understanding of the universe is always evolving, and there is always the possibility that we will discover new phenomena or new aspects of known phenomena that were previously unknown.
Another objection is that if there are additional, unknown phenomena in the universe, we have no way of knowing what they are or how they would behave. This is a valid concern, but it is also true of many other aspects of our scientific understanding. We do not always have a complete understanding of the phenomena we do know about, and we often have to make predictions and develop theories based on incomplete information.
Overall, the idea that there may be significant phenomena in our universe that are currently unknown is an interesting one, and it is worth considering further. Further exploration of this idea could involve looking for patterns in the behavior of known phenomena that cannot be explained by current scientific theories, and developing new theories and experiments to test those patterns. This could potentially lead to the discovery of new phenomena and a deeper understanding of the universe
Yes, it really not that profound. We’re liminally bound. There are obviously the possibilities and even likelihoods of phenomena present in the universe we are not aware of or only aware in part of, even our instruments just being a way to extend our senses.
The solutions you’re speaking of aren’t really any different from the pattern detection we seek in the universe through our empiricism to begin with. If we can’t find direct effects, sometimes we settle for looking at downstream or indirect effects.
The blind speculation though I can do without. There may or may not be other phenomena we’re familiar with. I’ll worry about it when they have an interaction with reality that is within our ability to study.
I find it brain-tickling and profound based on how profound and significant cosciousness is. But to each their own. :)
That’s the thing though. I don’t find consciousness to be profound or significant, just the navigation system we’re stuck with.
> Again, I would invoke Chalmers' argumentation here:
This is not what Chalmers' argument is.
“Seems a tautology, a restatement…” ironic isn’t it hahah. I mean no harm, just made me smile
I believe that there is a standing of inference/conformity to rationally acceptable modes of being when comprehending the environment which we tread . We subsist within a stark difference to the notion of inner being and our own perceptions of what we are as an individual - we only perceive ourselves as homeogenous with our species in depictions which the external form shows , not in any regard with our inner atunements . We apply our own logic and applicable overlay as a processing basis and interaction veil atop a plausibly differenced state of the truth of reality . Every human , from the viewport of themselves, exists as a uniquety of form in and of their own conceptions/perceptions of the entirety of existence . This is rationally negligable but rationality in and of itself is a machination which is taught to us predominantly by the external world . The only true primary evidence of consciousness is withheld within the individual and can never be ported as a shared relation of definable standards.
Beyond this, and taking speciative congruency into account, a suspension of disbelief is required to ever believe with certainty that consciousness exists beyond the realm of the michrochosm that is the specific slice of the anima mundi which you have been blessed with. It is an interesting thing to note
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments