Consciousness; a radically new theory. Romansh? (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 07, 2015, 19:39 (3214 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: ...since even neuroscientists cannot explain how chemicals might engender consciousness, the dualist can ask what evidence you have that they do. There is no default position here.
ROMANSH: First we have to be sure that consciousness is what you seem to think it is.
Dhw: I think consciousness is awareness, which can range in varying degrees from awareness of the outside world to awareness of the self. What do you think it is? 
ROMANSH: I see little difference between awareness and consciousness as well.-So you agree with me. -ROMANSH: When objective reality and subjective experience clash then one (or both) have to give way.
Dhw: [...] the nearest we can get to “objective reality” is a consensus of subjective experiences. That does not in any way mean we are not aware of the outside world or of ourselves. It simply means that what we are aware of is not necessarily objective reality.
ROMANSH: Well there is an objective reality ... and again if our subjective interpretations of that subjective reality point in opposite directions then I suspect one or both of them are inaccurate...-So you agree with me again. Then let's get back to my question: how does this justify your claim that chemicals engender consciousness?
 
Dhw: If you thought a brick was conscious, that would not change what I understand by consciousness! It would simply mean you think the brick is aware of the outside world, whereas I do not. What would be plain would be that different people think differently about which organisms and objects have consciousness.-ROMANSH: Yeah fair enough but you did ask ...-You had claimed that if you were to think a brick was conscious, “then plainly consciousness is not what everyone thinks it is.” Clearly you now agree that even in those circumstances, consciousness IS what you and I think it is.
 
ROMANSH: I don't think of brick as conscious either, but I am pretty sure it responds to cause and effect much as do the atoms in my body.-And indeed every other material you can think of. No disagreement there either.-Dhw: As an agnostic I freely admit to my ignorance of what constitutes objective reality. 
ROMANSH: Firstly I was specifically referring to ignosticism and not agnosticism.-You wrote “a healthy dose of ignosticism applied to reality does not go amiss”. As I understand it, ignosticism refers to ignorance of the nature of God, but “applied to reality” suggests you were using it in a wider sense.
 
Dhw: You say in your post to David that “it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness.” You are thereby claiming to have solved a mystery that absolutely no-one on this planet has yet solved: the source of consciousness. 
ROMANSH: I am not claiming that any mystery has been solved. Only that it has been pushed back to another place. With all the appropriate qualifiers. We advance by making accurate descriptions of the objective reality. I am not so agnostic as to claim this has not been done.-In the statement, “it is my biology that is running my awareness and consciousness”, to what other place and appropriate qualifiers are you pushing the unsolved mystery of the source of consciousness? How do you know your statement is an accurate description of objective reality?
 
Dhw: If we have an agreed upon nomenclature for certain visual experiences, then you and David will agree that the bus is red. Your experience of redness may be different, but the use of language is intersubjectively valid...
ROMANSH: Pragmatically, on a day to basis yeah fine. On a scientific and philosophical basis ... no way. My education was too thorough for that.-David wrote that you and he would agree that the bus was red. You replied, “No, I don't think so.” If you both accept that the nomenclature corresponds to the object, your use of language is intersubjectively valid on any basis. I hope your education was thorough enough to distinguish between intersubjective validity and objective reality.