The stance of "I am alone"

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » The stance of "I am alone"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 07:37 pm
Hello there Smile

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?
 
nameless
 
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 12:11 am
@validity,
'Hard empiricism' is obsolete science.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".
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 12:54 am
@nameless,
nameless;75245 wrote:
'Hard empiricism' is obsolete science.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".



How bout instead of criticizing you actually influence the topic at hand. He's just looking for some good books and advice.

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.
 
validity
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 03:22 am
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;75248 wrote:
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.
Considering I want to understand more about this idea, I should start with empiricism in general. Thank you for the start.

nameless;75245 wrote:
'Hard empiricism' is obsolete science.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 want to understand the development of empiricism as a theory in order to consider the theory further. Regardless of the status of hard empiricism, it has wealth to offer my understanding.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 10:10 am
@validity,
validity;75196 wrote:
Hello there Smile

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?
I think descartes wrote some books about it.

Oh, and I wrote my sign Smile
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 12:24 pm
@validity,
validity;75196 wrote:
Hello there Smile

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?
 
validity
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 05:33 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;75668 wrote:
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?
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'.

nameless;75245 wrote:
'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 been thinking of your post. What has mysticism and quantum physics offered that renders hard empiricism obselete?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:34 pm
@validity,
validity;75775 wrote:
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'.


What will you do with the answer when you find it?
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:43 pm
@validity,
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. So I would say one needs at least two minds. Though I personally believe that if two minds can exist, then any number can.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:50 pm
@manored,
manored;75991 wrote:
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 if we're self-deluded?
 
validity
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 05:03 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;75988 wrote:
What will you do with the answer when you find it?
I am expecting a range of answers. Currently I am more interested in the strength of reasoning behind each answer and in particular the reasoning of hard empiricism. However I think strengths can be relative, and by not knowing the reasoning behind a spectrum of answers can only weaken my understanding of what I think I know.

As to what I will do with any specific answer to this question, will be to keep it in the back of my mind with a little mental post-it note reminding me that it is one of many answers that I happened to find the most contentment with at time of asking the question, move on and wait for further developments in brain science (hopefully described in lay terms) that will provide a finer understanding and prove the idea wrong or strengthen it.

Either that or become withdrawn and delusional Smile
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 05:21 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;75992 wrote:
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.
 
DasTrnegras
 
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 09:23 pm
@validity,
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?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:32 am
@manored,
manored;76169 wrote:
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.
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 12:56 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;76361 wrote:
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.
If you set up a trap, then forget about it and walk upon it later, will it kill you? Yes Smile

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.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:37 pm
@manored,
manored;76379 wrote:


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?

If so, why should I suffer the consequences when the police come around to visit me? I mean, gosh officer, I don't have any memory of killing him.
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:46 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;76387 wrote:
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.

As we cannot escape the ilusion of this reality, we cannot "realize it as us".
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 01:57 pm
@manored,
manored;76390 wrote:
Yes, until the moment you remember it was you.


. . . . but only from our perspective, right? To an outside observer, I killed my co-worker, and should be punished accordingly.
 
validity
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:34 pm
@DasTrnegras,
DasTränegras;76217 wrote:
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?
What do you mean by 'if something is influencing your consciousness' ? Would belief be one of these somethings or are you describing physiological things such as mind altering drugs, head trauma etc?
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 04:37 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;76396 wrote:
. . . . but only from our perspective, right? To an outside observer, I killed my co-worker, and should be punished accordingly.
Yep, but if we are alone in the universe, there are no "outside observers" Smile But, like I said, I dont think we can really be alone.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » The stance of "I am alone"
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 03:49:22