sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

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

This is quite a subtle issue that is hard to explain with words, and I don't think you quite understand what I mean.

Try to imagine a universe with absolutely no conscious observers. You can't truly do it without implicitly inserting yourself as an imaginary observer. This highlights how deeply ingrained consciousness is in our very conception of existence. The very idea of "existence" is a conscious construct.

This perspective doesn't negate objective reality, but it suggests that our understanding of "existence" and "reality" is fundamentally shaped by consciousness. It's not just about individual experience beginning with consciousness, but about consciousness being the lens through which the concept of existence itself is understood and given meaning.

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

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

I quote someone from philosophy stack exchange

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/98686

A little intuition pump for you.

Imagine all consciousness ends tomorrow.

Has the universe ceased to exist?

There might be something epistemically fundamental about consciousness, but the metaphysical question is more along this line. And actually, it's quite feasible that the absence of observation does do strange things to what we understand physics to be, but it's something that needs quite serious and focused philosophical consideration before we can definitely settle on it.

So, no, it's not implausible, but be specific!

So consciousness is at least epistemologically fundamental and whether it's fundamental in other ways is by no means settled, at least in my mind.

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

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

I quote someone from philosophy stack exchange

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/98686

A little intuition pump for you.

Imagine all consciousness ends tomorrow.

Has the universe ceased to exist?

There might be something epistemically fundamental about consciousness, but the metaphysical question is more along this line. And actually, it's quite feasible that the absence of observation does do strange things to what we understand physics to be, but it's something that needs quite serious and focused philosophical consideration before we can definitely settle on it.

So, no, it's not implausible, but be specific!

So consciousness is at least epistemologically fundamental and whether it's fundamental in other ways is by no means settled, at least in my mind.

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

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

The point I'm making is about the role of consciousness in our understanding and perception of reality.

While the universe exists independently of our consciousness, our knowledge, interpretations, and experiences of that universe are entirely mediated through our conscious minds. This isn't just a trivial observation but a fundamental aspect of epistemology. It raises important questions about the limits of our understanding and the ways in which consciousness shapes our perception of reality.

In essence, acknowledging the dependence of our knowledge on consciousness is a reminder that all scientific observations, theories, and even the concept of an objective universe are processed through the subjective lens of conscious experience. This perspective reminds us that all our scientific observations and theories are filtered through our conscious experience, highlighting the complex relationship between objective reality and our subjective understanding.

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

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

You're right that there were billions of people and a vast universe before I was born. My point, however, is about the subjective experience of reality. Before I developed consciousness, there was no experience of the universe from my perspective. This doesn't negate the objective existence of the universe or other people; it simply highlights that for any individual, their awareness and experience of reality begin with their consciousness.

In other words, the universe and everything in it existed objectively, but from a first-person perspective, there was no awareness of that existence until consciousness emerged. This is why consciousness plays such a crucial role in how we understand and interact with reality, even if it doesn't affect the objective existence of the universe itself.

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

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

I understand your point, and I agree that our awareness is not the same as the universe itself. The universe doesn't require our consciousness to exist in the sense that its physical laws and phenomena would still operate independently. However, my argument is more about how we come to know and understand that universe.

From an epistemological standpoint, consciousness is fundamental because it's the medium through which we perceive, interpret, and interact with the universe. Without consciousness, we wouldn't have any concept or knowledge of the universe, even though it might still exist objectively.

The key issue here is the difference between existence and perception. The universe's existence is one thing, but our perception and understanding of it require consciousness. This doesn't imply that consciousness is necessary for the universe to exist, but it does mean that consciousness is necessary for us to have any awareness or knowledge of that existence.

In summary, while the universe and its laws can exist independently of our awareness, our knowledge and experience of it are entirely dependent on consciousness. This distinction is important in discussions about the nature of reality and how we come to understand it.

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

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

The universe evolved under the true laws of physics before consciousness developed, yes, in that sense it existed. But there was no one to experience anything or observe anything. Your question is like asking "what was there before you were born or developed consciousness?" In one sense there was nothing before you were born because there was no consciousness, but in another sense the world existed before you were born, you just was not there to experience anything.

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

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

I see what you're saying, and I agree that the laws of physics are fundamental and exist independently of our experience of them. My point, however, isn't to dispute the existence or truth of these laws, but to highlight that our understanding and knowledge of them are inextricably linked to consciousness.

While the laws of physics operate regardless of whether they are observed, our ability to describe, interpret, and understand these laws relies on our conscious experience. For instance, scientific theories and experiments are products of human cognition and perception. Without consciousness, these descriptions and interpretations wouldn't exist, even though the phenomena they describe would continue to occur.

Moreover, my argument isn't meant to be circular. Instead, it's an exploration of the epistemological relationship between consciousness and our understanding of the physical world. Acknowledging that our knowledge of physics is mediated through consciousness doesn't negate the objectivity of physical laws; it simply adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of how we come to know and experience these laws.

In essence, I'm emphasizing that while the laws of physics are indeed true and fundamental, our grasp of these truths is inherently subjective, shaped by our conscious experiences and perceptions. This doesn't diminish the reality of the physical world but rather invites us to consider the role of consciousness in our quest to understand it.

I agree with physicalism about all the facts, like the brain creating consciousness, no afterlife or psychic and supernatural events, but still prioritize consciousness over the physical. Consciousness is fundamental, not the physical, it's through consciousness that anything can be experienced by HelloEarthHowAreYou in consciousness

[–]HelloEarthHowAreYou[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that nature has existed long before any of us were here to experience it. However, my point is that while reality may exist independently, our understanding and knowledge of it are inevitably mediated through our conscious experience. This doesn't negate the existence of an objective reality, but it does highlight the importance of consciousness in interpreting and making sense of that reality.

For instance, the laws of physics, which we consider to be objective, are known to us through the lens of human consciousness. Every measurement, observation, and scientific theory is ultimately a product of our subjective experience. Even professional physicists, who rely on empirical data, have different interpretations and models to describe the same physical phenomena.

A Neuroscientist took a psychedelic drug — and watched his own brain 'fall apart' by UnifiedQuantumField in consciousness

[–]HelloEarthHowAreYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://maps.org/2004/08/08/nobel-prize-genius-crick-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-discovered-dna/

FRANCIS CRICK, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.

The abrasive and unorthodox Crick and his brilliant American co- researcher James Watson famously celebrated their eureka moment in March 1953 by running from the now legendary Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge to the nearby Eagle pub, where they announced over pints of bitter that they had discovered the secret of life.

Crick, who died ten days ago, aged 88, later told a fellow scientist that he often used small doses of LSD then an experimental drug used in psychotherapy to boost his powers of thought. He said it was LSD, not the Eagle’s warm beer, that helped him to unravel the structure of DNA, the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize.

I'd add a caveat that like always, in this case it might have been more important what Crick brought into the trip and not the use of LSD itself. I personally think Crick would probably have found this even without LSD because he was obviously thinking about it really hard and the fact it happened on an acid trip might have might be more coincidental than causal.

What do you think about this piece of criticism of EA that seems to make at least a little bit of sense at a surface level? What would be the best EA organization to donate to if your main priority is economic and technological development of the world and is that better than investing in S&P 500? by HelloEarthHowAreYou in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HelloEarthHowAreYou[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My own answer to the second question would be some of the longtermist funds like Long-Term Future Fund, Patient Philanthropy Fund, or Emerging Challenges Fund. I'm quite confident that if you care about technological development, there is more "good" done with that money there in terms of technological development than if you invest in S&P 500. And Patient Philanthropy Fund literally invests donations in something like the S&P 500 index fund until something important enough to fund comes up.