Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iiioiia t1_izfi4xn wrote

Reply to comment by Gurgoth 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

> We know how to examine the brain to some extent and we have improved on that significantly

On a percentage basis, how close are we to having perfect understanding of the entire system (including when brains are networked)?

> ...we also know that all who we are is contained within our bodies.

We don't actually, but there is certainly no shortage of belief who have faith that that is true.

> We require no metaphysical concept to understand that.

To understand what is really going on here, I believe it inevitably gets deep into metaphysics, depending on one's definition - for me, I use this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

> My argument is simple here. We are fundamentally real within our context of understanding. We do not require claims that suspend the reality to explain anything about ourselves.

Oh, I didn't realize your statements were an argument.

If it isn't too much trouble, would you be willing to continue this conversation in a form of only objectively true statements? (And if not: why not?)

> My thinking is that we have no demonstrated need for anything beyond our experiences within our reality to explain these concepts.

Your thinking may be correct, but it may also be incorrect.

Consider: what are the odds that your cognition and the "knowledge" that it rests on has zero substantial flaws?

0