Comment on Our understanding of reality might be a result of the way cousciousness works
AnDoLiN@lemmy.zip 2 weeks agoBut you do have to start somewhere, with a framework for consistency and logic
Then why don’t you? Why are you starting at a logically flawed position? You are insisting the horse exists because there’s a cart. You insist that all models must adhere to your physicalist model, without proof. In any other case this would be called dogma.
That’s just not how science works.
No, science works by positing an idea and then pokes and prods at it until it either falls apart or survives. Yours keeps falling apart but you keep insisting. This is intellectually dishonest.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
What competing model do you propose? Why does my model fall apart?
AnDoLiN@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
lemmy.zip/post/58312368/24394920 this is the post you initially challenged. Both I and Ageedizzle have been having this conversation with you. Everything we bring to you, you dismiss as “magic”, “silly”, “navel gazing”. Because it doesn’t fit your paradigm, yet you can’t logically defend your paradigm as evidenced by the circularity of your arguments. They hinge on the unproven claim that matter is prior to consciousness.
I’ve been around this block a few times so I’ve seen this cognitive wall you got going on many times. It’s exactly the same as with religious people. I can’t force you to access enough impartiality and awareness to see the logical error.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You haven’t brought anything up as an alternative! You just keep saying my theory has assumptions. I’m just suggesting that anything other than a physical explanation is ‘magical’ as a semantic tool because whatever it is clearly sits outside of any scientific rigor. Whether you are looking to some spiritual entity, or universe simulation theory, I don’t know, so I can’t argue for or against those. In fact, those examples ar impossible to argue against because as models they have no consistency or predictable test mechanism. Yes, a physical model has assumptions - as conscious beings experiencing them, fundamentally we will always have to have some root assumptions for any model. But a physical model based on scientific process is different than say ‘god made it’ theory, because it’s based on observation, and impartial (within its own reference frame) testing. It’s reference frame is the only one that can produce useful and predictable results because it is the only one based on the notion that the universe is based on predictable rules. That doesn’t mean it’s correct, but I see it as the only worthwhile approach. You can ponder other models that introduce unknowable things, but they inherently will always be incomplete; hence the ‘naval gazing’ vernacular. There’s nothing wrong with gazing at a nice naval if you’re into that sort of thing, but it won’t really explain anything, or provide pragmatic results. Feel free to show me I’m wrong. I am not closed minded. But in the absence of a better model, I see no reason not to stick to a physical one.
AnDoLiN@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Here’s Dr. Bernardo Kastrup (PhD in Computer Science (AI) and a PhD in Philosophy, and he worked at CERN) explaining analytic idealism. This is a framework where consciousness is fundamental, not matter. Not magic, not metaphysics: a structured, peer-reviewed alternative to the gaps in physicalism you ignore:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-rXm7Uk9Ys
Also his articles here: philpeople.org/profiles/bernardo-kastrup#%3A~%3At….
If you’re open to alternatives, actually engage with the materials given. Also the things Ageedizzle linked. And if you are going to dismiss these, before asking me for yet another model, please define what you would accept as proof.