The Problem of Consciousness

[atanu]

According to William Seager of the University of Toronto.

The problem of consciousness can be summed up in a simple inconsistent triad:

1. The fundamental reality is entirely un-present.
2. There is presence.
3. There is no way to generate presence from the un-presence.

Premise 2 is not negotiable. So, how to get a solution in the most parsimonious way?
...

Suggestions any?

 

[Left Coast]

According to William Seager of the University of Toronto.

The problem of consciousness can be summed up in a simple inconsistent triad:

1. The fundamental reality is entirely un-present.
2. There is presence.
3. There is no way to generate presence from the un-presence.

Premise 2 is not negotiable. So, how to get a solution in the most parsimonious way?
...

Suggestions any?

Can you explain #1?

 

[rational experiences]

Reality, real and ity.

SUFFIX

1. forming nouns denoting quality or condition.
   "humility" · 
   [more]
   • denoting an instance or degree of a quality or condition.
     "a profanity"

We are knowingly by parental self bio conscious life, the consciousness itself dead.

We move to our death so do not in reality claim physical existence self presence as it is unreal to our conscious psyche to know that our adult bio life body is actually deceased...and we are yet to die.

Yet by expressing the needed self reality, we bring to our attention how science lies to itself about what we personally are, as the consciousness....human life.

 

[atanu]

Can you explain #1?

Yes. To do that let me ask "What is fundamental reality to you?"

 

[Martin]

According to William Seager of the University of Toronto.

The problem of consciousness can be summed up in a simple inconsistent triad:

1. The fundamental reality is entirely un-present.
2. There is presence.
3. There is no way to generate presence from the un-presence.

Premise 2 is not negotiable. So, how to get a solution in the most parsimonious way?
...

Suggestions any?

Could you say what Seager means by "fundamental reality" here? And is this an assumption, or a given?
And could you say what Seager means by "presence"? Is it the presence of what we actually experience? Basically consciousness?

 

[atanu]

Could you say what Seager means by "fundamental reality" here? And is this an assumption, or a given?
And could you say what Seager means by "presence"? Is it the presence of what we actually experience? Basically consciousness?

Sure. I should have defined the terms. To me the 'presence' is self-evident awareness "I exist". No one can deny "I exist" without proving it.

Presence, according to the Seager, is undeniable. He says "We could be wrong about many things connected to our states of consciousness, but we cannot be mistaken about the existence of an immediately available source of information present to the mind. Consider your belief that something exists or that something is happening right now. As Descartes famously noted, this proposition is in a different category from most quotidian knowledge. It is in the category of things that you could not be wrong about. So there must be some source of information that vouchsafes your unassailable claim that something is happening. This source is the ‘present to mind’ we call consciousness."

The idea of what is fundamental reality can vary from person to person. Currently, however, we consider that physics informs us about the objective fundamental reality. Currently, mass, angular momentum, and spin are three basic parameters that are supposed to characterise the fundamental material that constitutes the black holes to the universe. This fundamental reality, as peer Seager, is not available to us.

Seager formulates the problem: How that which is unassailably present to the mind but how it could arise from un-present physical reality?

https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/ipe.pdf

...

 

[ChristineM]

According to William Seager of the University of Toronto.

The problem of consciousness can be summed up in a simple inconsistent triad:

1. The fundamental reality is entirely un-present.
2. There is presence.
3. There is no way to generate presence from the un-presence.

Premise 2 is not negotiable. So, how to get a solution in the most parsimonious way?
...

Suggestions any?

In my understanding, The first premise is wrong so the rest have nothing to balance on.

Reality can be observed and/or measured, it exists, that is the nature of reality.

 

[Martin]

Sure. I should have defined the terms. To me the 'presence' is self-evident awareness "I exist". No one can deny "I exist" without proving it.

Presence, according to the Seager, is undeniable. He says "We could be wrong about many things connected to our states of consciousness, but we cannot be mistaken about the existence of an immediately available source of information present to the mind. Consider your belief that something exists or that something is happening right now. As Descartes famously noted, this proposition is in a different category from most quotidian knowledge. It is in the category of things that you could not be wrong about. So there must be some source of information that vouchsafes your unassailable claim that something is happening. This source is the ‘present to mind’ we call consciousness."

The idea of what is fundamental reality can vary from person to person. Currently, however, we consider that physics informs us about the objective fundamental reality. Currently, mass, angular momentum, and spin are three basic parameters that are supposed to characterise the fundamental material that constitutes the black holes to the universe. This fundamental reality, as peer Seager, is not available to us.

Seager formulates the problem: How that which is unassailably present to the mind but how it could arise from un-present physical reality?

https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/ipe.pdf

...

My assumption is that what we experience through the senses and interpret with the mind is derived from an "underlying reality".
And although we can theorise about the nature of that underlying reality, it isn't directly accessible to our experience.

 

[atanu]

In my understanding, The first premise is wrong so the rest have nothing to balance on.

Reality can be observed and/or measured, it exists, that is the nature of reality.

Unknowingly you have won. Do you mean that your sense of "I exist" is not true?

 

[atanu]

My assumption is that what we experience through the senses and interpret with the mind is derived from the "underlying reality".
And it seems there are different ways of thinking about that underlying reality.

Agree.

 

[ChristineM]

Unknowingly you have won. Do you mean that your sense of "I exist" is not true?

My body exists, my brain exist, the electrical impulses that are produced in that brain can be observed.

 

[atanu]

My body exists, my brain exist, the electrical impulses that are produced in that brain can be observed.

Be open, please. And think whether these observations more primary than "I exist" awareness -- not the sentence "I exist", but the pure awareness stripped of qualifications of objects etc.

"I exist" awareness is the presence of Seager.

 

[ChristineM]

Be open, please. And think whether these observations more primary than "I exist" awareness -- not the sentence "I exist", but the pure awareness stripped of qualifications of objects etc.

"I exist" awareness is the presence of Seager.

The 'I exist' is generated by the physical brain chemistry which can be measured using functional MRI scanners.

I deal in evidence and facts, philosophy deals ideas

 

[rational experiences]

Whatever happened to life to have science researching what it claims is the consciousness that says it created everything....when a human male historically with his brothers claims that they as a human "know it all?"

Most naturally self balanced humans do not seek a condition that seems to imply that thinking is the only state of being....which place the scientist into their premise of claiming that invention is the path upon which they invest their presence and their thinking the object of their ability to do anything they agree that they will achieve by thinking.

As Stephen Hawking said......trying to give our life away to machine and invention, as if both are just the reason for existence.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes. To do that let me ask "What is fundamental reality to you?"

That's a good question, that was going to be another follow up I had if you didn't explain what that meant. I'm unclear how "fundamental" reality is distinct from just "reality." Reality is that which exists.

 

[osgart]

With fundamental reality are we assuming the reality we perceive is contingent upon other forms of reality?

 

[Martin]

"Reality" is an can of worms! We can talk about our empirical experience, which is how we interpret sense-experience. You might call that our "personal" reality.

Then there is the assumption of an "underlying" or "fundamental" reality, from which our personal reality is derived.
Most obviously this might be described in scientific terms, eg the sub-atomic scale, quantum mechanics, etc. Not stuff we directly experience at the human scale.
But there are also religious explanations....

 

[Martin]

The 'I exist' is generated by the physical brain chemistry which can be measured using functional MRI scanners.

I deal in evidence and facts, philosophy deals ideas

Sure, though an image from an MRI is still empirical information, something we experience via our eyes, and interpret in our mind.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure, though an image from an MRI is still empirical information, something we experience via our eyes, and interpret in our mind.

And copy images on disk or printout that can be recalled

 

[Twilight Hue]

According to William Seager of the University of Toronto.

The problem of consciousness can be summed up in a simple inconsistent triad:

1. The fundamental reality is entirely un-present.
2. There is presence.
3. There is no way to generate presence from the un-presence.

Premise 2 is not negotiable. So, how to get a solution in the most parsimonious way?
...

Suggestions any?

You're only conscious when you're conscious.