[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 253 KB, 600x632, 1535121596127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13656290 No.13656290 [Reply] [Original]

does consciousness beget reality or does reality beget consciousness?

>> No.13656298

>>13656290
Does brainletism predicate OP's post or does OP's post predicate brainletism?

>> No.13656368

>>13656290
they are one and the same thing

>> No.13656388

>>13656368
But anon how can two things be one thing? Further, if two things are the same, why do they bear different names?

>> No.13656401

>>13656290
okay I'll make excessively easy for you brainlets so we don't have to have these threads again:

its goes matter -> brain -> consciousness. period. the end.

while your brain begets your consciousness which begets *your* reality, *the* Reality with a capital R is something entirely different and precedes your brain. consciousness is subsequent to reality. QED.

look into evolutionary game theory for more on this topic.

>> No.13656403

>>13656298
i think it just shows it to the world actually.

>> No.13656404

>>13656388
both questions can be answered with: because humans are not naturally omniscient

>> No.13656405

>>13656401
do you have proof?

>> No.13656430

>>13656388
Because people like to seperate reality from their consciousness. They want to believe their reality is actually more than part of their conscious experience of it. When they can neither prove nor disprove that it is. If they would be called the Same we would have to firstly acknowledge that reality can't be seperate from consciousness and that no man can surely talk about things such as truths(if thruth is defined as "objective reality" and objective reality as reality outside of consciousness), because they would have to be part of their conscious reality.

>> No.13656449

>>13656430
You talk like a tap dancer dances

>> No.13656458

>>13656430
To add to your comment, while it is true that reality cannot be experienced without consciousness, that does not explain away the idea of Truth.

Just because that which is objective can't be experienced without subjectivity it doens't throw objectivity out of the window. Rather, objectivity and subjectivity are two poles of the same phenomenon. There is not one without the other. There is no objective, absolute fact without subjective points of view to interpret it, because there is no defined fact that happens completely away from any observing mind.

Denying subjectivity is saying that everything we experience is absolute truth, and if we do away with absolute truths than all we experience is entirely subjective and, therefore, also subjectively true without any way to contradict it. Both suppositions result in solipsism and make any effort to make sense of reality entirely meaningless (not nihilistic meaningless, but wholly ego-centered meaningless).

And while we can't explain solipsism away either, we have enough evidence to consider it as false as a four-sided triangle.

>> No.13656462

>>13656401
ahahahha oh no no no

>> No.13656512

>>13656405
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVZwEARXYU

>> No.13656518

>>13656458
You're completely right, I didn't mean to say that there doesen't exist objective fact, just that humans can't experience it. Any attempt at it would just be our own interpretation of it, but I wouldn't say trying to make sense of reality would be completely meaningless, just that we should accept that we will never be able to truly experience objective reality. But being able to experience our subjective interpretation of it and trying to get as close to it as we humanly can is what we ought to do.

>> No.13656522

>>13656290
Without reality there would be nobody capable of consciousness. Consciousness is just a byproduct of evolution.

>> No.13656527

>>13656290
take the non-duality pill

>> No.13656537 [DELETED] 

>>13656518
Yes, I agree with you. We will never experience objective reality. However we can better attune ourselves to it, and become increasingly "less wrong".

As Asimov said, "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together".

>> No.13656572

>>13656518
>But being able to experience our subjective interpretation of it and trying to get as close to it as we humanly can is what we ought to do.
based and redpilled

As Asimov said, "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together".

>> No.13656582
File: 1.45 MB, 1000x1480, 21c952616381bc412a4d7f7551b623ad847514b1057544107f899cde9bfe3422.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13656582

>>13656290
consciousness is reality
reality is consciousness

>> No.13656583

>>13656518
>trying to get as close to it as we humanly can

Impossible without knowing objective reality, you can't judge how close you are

>> No.13656619

>>13656583
But you can judge how far you aren't. We once thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. When we "realized" that the Sun was the center we got closer. When we realized that Sun WASN'T the center we got even closer.

We will never acquire absolute knowledge, but we can always further our distance from ignorance.

>> No.13657988

>>13656290
It doesn't really matter. Also you're a brainlet.

>> No.13658237

>>13656388
>how can time and space be the same thing
>how can electricity and magnetism be the same thing
>how can matter and energy be the same thing
>how can everything be mere oscillations upon the Quantum Field, yet still be seen to be isolated things?

>> No.13658295

if consciousness begets reality, then nothing existed before the first human attained sentience. this means the universe began at that moment, which means that it had to have been created by a deity (something cannot come from nothing, where did all these skeletons come from?). since there are no interventionist deities, we can rule out this possibility
the other two options are that reality begets consciousness or that reality and consciousness have no overlap. I personally tend toward the former as a pandeist panpsychist, but I can empathize with those who believe the latter

>> No.13658337

>>13658295
Our subjektive experience of it began the moment we're conscious of it. Objective reality does exist, it just isn't truly attainable by the human mind. You may deify it, calling it god and splitting it into parts that we can experience, but it's essence will forever be out of reach to human hands.
The best we can is try to get as close to it as we can, one step at a time. Be that through science and logic or religion, we should all strive to get to it as closely as our subjective experience lets us do so.

>> No.13658366

>>13656401
>consciousness
>science
>scinece of consciousness

Are these niggas serious?

>> No.13658372

Reality as what? Obviously consciousness developed from evolution, therefore something existed before us being conscious of reality.

>> No.13658373

>>13656290
Consciousness is part of reality, and it interacts with the rest of reality.

>> No.13658385

>>13658366
please see >>13656512