'Hard empiricism' is obsolete science.
Thats why, perhaps, the same old refuted notions are no longer seriously offered as evidence/support (except by the 'true believers', of course).
It became obsolete when the first mystic experienced Consciousness with no subject or object, also ever since quantum physics discovered Consciousness "the Ground of all Being".

Validity are you looking for hard-core empiricists towards philosophy of mind or just empiricism in general? If the former then I hear Churchland is an extreme reductionist, kinda like Dennett.

'Hard empiricism' is obsolete science.
Thats why, perhaps, the same old refuted notions are no longer seriously offered as evidence/support (except by the 'true believers', of course).
It became obsolete when the first mystic experienced Consciousness with no subject or object, also ever since quantum physics discovered Consciousness "the Ground of all Being".

Hello there

I want to explore the idea that, since my consciousness is the only consciousness that I can experience it is therefore the only one that exists.

I want to develop this idea further and to do so I should start off by reading what has been written before. When I look I can only seem to find
the view of a single consciousness that is shared out among all minds, but this idea is not what I mean. I am persuing the outcome of empiricism.

Does anyone know of any relevant works that take this hard empiricism approach to the idea?

Hello there

I want to explore the idea that, since my consciousness is the only consciousness that I can experience it is therefore the only one that exists.


Does anyone know of any relevant works that take this hard empiricism approach to the idea?

So correct me if I'm wrong, but if your consciousness is the only consciousness that exists, by asking if anyone knows of any relevant works on your idea, are you not essentially asking the question of yourself?

'Hard empiricism' is obsolete science.
Thats why, perhaps, the same old refuted notions are no longer seriously offered as evidence/support (except by the 'true believers', of course).
It became obsolete when the first mystic experienced Consciousness with no subject or object, also ever since quantum physics discovered Consciousness "the Ground of all Being".

I have no idea, mainly due to not knowing much about any version of empiricism that will help me find contentment in any answer to that question, that is the interesting bit. I am suspecting, in my current limited knowledge, that there would be a spectrum of answers built on empiricism. The hard empiricist may say 'yes'. A weaker version may say if my consciousness exists then there is no reason to suspect that another consciousness can not exist, so the answer may be 'no'.

I think the "I am alone" belief actually cannot be correct, because in order for us to be under an ilusion, something else must be creating it.

What will you do with the answer when you find it?

What if we're self-deluded?

We would know. If we dont know a part of our mind, its not our mind. If we set up something for ourselves and then dont know it, its not our doing either. I see it this way.

I believe that in a court of law this would be termed "copping an insanity plea."

Absolving the self of responsibility has always been a popular pastime among humans.

The issue is not whose fault it is, but whenever the consequences are the same. If I set up an ilusion to myself and forget about it, its the same as if someone else had done it.

So if I kill one of my co-workers, hide his body in the trash dumpster out back, then forget that I killed him, would it be the same as if someone else had killed him?

Yes, until the moment you remember it was you.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if something is influencing your consciousness, wouldn't you have to admit that it's at least as real as your consciousness is?

I mean, if something is not real, how could it possibly influence something that is?

. . . . but only from our perspective, right? To an outside observer, I killed my co-worker, and should be punished accordingly.