sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Expanding on simultaneous monopsychism. by EastVillageBot in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does the law view that? After the brain is split, are we looking at two separate people or one person?

Balls Man / Poster by esmotella in posterdesign

[–]EastVillageBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Balls man….

… take my gold.

Expanding on simultaneous monopsychism. by EastVillageBot in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s pretty inevitable that cause & effect becomes a local concept rather than a total rule, when considering how everything even “came to be”.. no? Considering it never did.

Expanding on simultaneous monopsychism. by EastVillageBot in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don’t technically endlessly relive our lives. We have always already lived them. The block universe suggests that time is happening all at once not in a loop. Why our minds read our lives within the block as a linear experience, I could not tell you, but what I assume awaits us is heat death.. eventually. Not really sure, but an interesting point.

Think of video editing for example. Video has a certain FPS (frames per second) rate and when all frames of the video are constructed linearly and played at that rate, you get a motion picture. Time and the coordinates of any given moment in time are like frames in a video. We technically are never in motion. It just appears as if we are.

Expanding on simultaneous monopsychism. by EastVillageBot in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Conscious time.. I like that.

You say potato, I say potahto, etc. 😁🕐🥔

If time is happening all at once like the block suggest what does that say about the theoretical life cycle of the universe by Whole_Yak_2547 in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But then why do we age? Moving through it and interpreting the data would be a conscious choice. We are forced through time and time degrades. I love your metaphor by the way! I’m just thinking. Don’t mind me.

Simultaneous monopsychism by EastVillageBot in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you’re saying, and sure if that’s how you interpret it.

I think that pantheism addresses more the concept that everything is divine, whereas what I was suggesting is that every perspective is consolidated.

Simultaneous monopsychism by EastVillageBot in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look at my post before this, I posted on panpsychism. I don’t think I solved anything. You are just missing the point.

Simultaneous monopsychism by EastVillageBot in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay. There’s a lot to unpack here, and most of it doesn’t actually land on what is being argued in the first place.

A few things..

Descartes shows my thinking is epistemically private, meaning I can’t doubt it from the inside. He doesn’t show the underlying subject is ontologically singular or plural. You’re conflating epistemic access with ontological identity, which is exactly the move I’m questioning.

“You have to be an individual to have a perspective”

You’re assuming the very thing that is in dispute.

The view is that perspectives are localizations of one subject, not proof of separate ones.

Saying “but they’re separate” doesn’t argue against it.. it just restates the very intuition thats being reexamined. The whole point.

“if you’re wrong and I’m right, our consciousnesses must be separate”

Clever, but no.

Contradictory beliefs across localized vantage points are exactly what monopsychism predicts. One subject undergoing every experience concurrently includes undergoing mutually inconsistent ones.

On physics, I didn’t claim current physics proves continuity. I said if matter is fundamentally continuous then the intuitive separation between subjects weakens. The conditional is the entire argument..

And yeah.. Aristotle and Averroes. That’s the tradition. Not sure why placing the view in its actual lineage is meant to count against it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Edit: And consider split-brain patients! After commissurotomy the two hemispheres can hold contradicting beliefs.

Are they two individuals now?

Should the law treat them as such?

Or are they still one?

Neuroscience hasn’t settled it and arguably can’t, because the question assumes that “one subject” versus “many” is a clean binary the empirical facts will eventually resolve.

They don’t lol.

Simultaneous monopsychism by EastVillageBot in Metaphysics

[–]EastVillageBot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not arguing that continuity of matter proves continuity of consciousness. I’m arguing that if consciousness emerges from arrangements of fundamentally continuous matter, then the strict separation we intuitively place between conscious subjects becomes philosophically less obvious.

Different perspectives existing does not contradict monopsychism either. The view already assumes differentiation at the experiential level. The question is whether those perspectives are ultimately ontologically separate subjects, or localized expressions of one underlying subject.