androidbleepboop

I don't believe so, though I hope it's out soon- this sets up some interesting ideas but I feel like the meat of the argument hasn't been reached yet.

Lians: perhaps that's the point of the question. Maybe it isn't really that straightforward, as the video shows.

Masonman- Excellently said, I couldn't agree more with what you said. The point you make concerning animals without self-models as consciousness simply experiencing without analyzing is very interesting, and one that hadn't occurred to me before. darkskyabove- "Beg to differ. Watched the video again to double-check. He made a specific claim that we are, potentially, all part of one "universal experiencer." I still think you are misinterpreting that point, and I'm surprised it isn't clicking given the rebuttals I and Masonman have made. The point is that in order for experiences to occur, the phenomenon of consciousness must be there to have the experience. The phenomenon of consciousness itself is not something unique to your brain, but is something which is possible anywhere in the Universe, so long as physical interactions of they type brains under go occur. Since your brain is able to perform those types of physical interactions, consciousness happens in your brain. It isn't something special about your brain that makes your consciousness happen; brains anywhere in the Universe can make consciousness happen. The "Universal experiencer" is theorized here to be present wherever consciousness happens. Ha ha Lians- why wouldn't you?

What commonality do they share? Well, obviously, they are both states of consciousness, therefore they share all attributes which conscious states share. Clearly they are unique in the sense that mine is exclusive to me, and yours is exclusive to you, but we are examining the origin of the phenomenon itself, and not any single specific case of it. Your analysis of my supposed arrogance has no bearing on this discussion, and while I disagree, it doesn't matter to me if you believe that. I don't see any way I could convince you one way or another, and trying to dismiss my stance in that way equates to an ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't take arrogance to hold a specific viewpoint, otherwise, you would have to be equally arrogant to hold yours. If we are all one consciousness, but this fact is superficially hidden from us due to us each only experiencing the consciousness our brains produce, then of course it would not be apparent in "the activity of consciousness itself". I have no idea what you mean by saying "that which has not been fully explained can be explained by the witch doctor." If that is your final analysis of the argument, it is clear that you completely misunderstood the argument.

I think it helps shift the perspective from the anthropomorphic (anything that involves or happens to humans is uniquely special) to the cosmic (we are all expressions of the Universe, and far from the center of it in significance). This makes me question the validity of the all-too-human belief that each of our consciousnesses is singularly unique, and gives credence to the thought that the experiencer of consciousness is in effect the Universe, and not fundamentally the sole domain of the organism currently engaging that potential.

I'm not sure what your definition of evidence is. The evidence that consciousness is a "local phenomenon emerging from certain types of complex physical interaction" is direct evidence that the phenomenon itself is within the set of possible things in the Universe, and is therefore a Universal phenomenon. If you don't see the link between this evidence and the hypothesis that the one who experiences this phenomenon is not itself unique for every expression of this phenomenon, that's fine, but it is simply incorrect to state that "there is zero evidence for it." On the other hand, as far as I am aware, there is zero evidence for the first case you mention, the consciousness as illusion hypothesis. Some hard materialists jumped to this conclusion based on certain ill-conceived experiments, such as one which supposedly showed that the brain has decided on an action before the subject is consciously aware of choosing that action. This experiment was shown to be false because the millisecond measurements involved were well within the margin of error for the accuracy of the measuring apparatus. Essentially, this first hypothesis is an attempt to ignore the evidence in favor of consciousness as a real phenomenon because it doesn't fit into their paradigm; hard materialism cannot be correct if consciousness is a causal phenomenon in the Universe, and therefore proponents of hard materialism are required to find some way to dismiss consciousness. As you said, this attempt fails extravagantly due to the obvious existence of consciousness, as evidenced by our experience of reality. After all, even to believe that consciousness is an illusion requires conscious awareness of that belief! The second case you mention as presented expertly by Searle is not at all in conflict with the hypothesis in the video, it simply doesn't take the next step and connect the universality of this phenomenon (which is assured if this phenomenon arises anywhere in the Universe that the correct physical conditions are met) to overturning the cherished tradition of self-uniqueness for every expression of that phenomenon.

I don't see it as implying that "different consciousnesses share some kind of connection," exactly. I agree that this point in the video is a bit abstract and difficult to grasp, but I think it is still saying that each consciousness is experientially distinct from all others. For example, it says "your agonies are endured in the same experiential fabric as mine, just within a different shell, a superficially separate 'me'. While I don't feel your pain in my body, the one entity which does any feeling at all feels your pain, and my experiences are shared in that one entity." The point of this, to me, is that currently we are each stuck in our own perspective, due to being centered in our own brains. However, if consciousness is a phenomenon inherent to the Universe which brains tap into, then we are both tapping into this same phenomenon. I picture it as if every distinct brain is a window through which that universal potential (present everywhere in the Universe) is explicitly realized and engaged. In order to have any experience at all, one's brain must enact that Universal potential. So the point is that consciousness is much closer to the fundamental nature of the Universe than it is to our unique identities (contrary to the way the soul idea has it). Because of this, we can still behave cruelly, maybe stealing someone else's car and enjoying riding it around while they go into debt, without personally feeling the negative consequences of that action, but if their brains are tapping into the same Universal potential for consciousness to happen, that universal phenomenon experiences the stress of going into debt from their perspective. Again, "while I don't feel your pain in my body, the one entity which does any feeling at all feels your pain, and my experiences are shared in that one entity." For this reason, it is nonsensical to engage in cruelty, because you are foolishly thinking you are benefitting through causing pain for another, but that pain occurs in the phenomenon of consciousness, and you are a participant in that exact same phenomenon. Does that make sense? I agree that it is quite a complex idea, especially in contrast to the simplicity of the traditional understanding. Perhaps despite not being immediately obvious, it is closer to the truth of things. At least, that's what it seems to me the evidence is saying.

TheRobin: "Unless you want to say that there's literally only one Consciousness that inhabits all our brains. Is that what it is, that you're saying?" Yes, I believe so. I think the evidence (that subjective experience arises wherever physical interactions of the type undergone by brains occur) suggests very plainly that the phenomenon of subjective experience is not unique to each of us, but much more fundamental than that. Subjectivity is a Universal potential that we each partake in from a unique perspective. Ribuck: I don't think you interpreted the argument correctly. The argument is not analogous to "all animals eat food, therefore they all eat the same food." If you were to try and draw a correct analogy in those terms, it would go "all animals need food for energy to sustain the biological processes necessary to survival. This is enacted through the laws of chemistry, which themselves are extensions of the Universal laws of physics. Through eating, all animals engage the same Universal laws of physics via chemistry via biology to survive. Every instance of "eating food" is unique, but each necessarily occurs in the context and as an expression of these universal conditions." That is the form of the argument for consciousness being a universal phenomenon shared by all brains.

It's a mischaracterization to say that this case suggests that the property of redness "inhabits" all red things. It is more accurate to say that all red things exhibit redness, which is not making a subject out of a property. All red subjects necessarily have the property "redness". Similarly, all conscious subjects have the property "conscious". Redness is a universal property that red things have, and consciousness is a universal property that all conscious things have. The unique thing about consciousness is that it requires an experiencer, a "self", to experience that consciousness. I think it is true that "you" are the unique experiencer of your consciousness, but consciousness is a universal property, so it doesn't belong to you uniquely. Everything that makes you you is a result of your unique brain, product of your unique genes, but if consciousness is a universal phenomenon, your uniqueness is but one expression of this universal phenomenon, Consciousness, so the experiencer of your "you" is the same fundamentally as the experiencer of my "me", just within a different shell and perspective.

I'd also say that any phenomenon that occurs in the Universe can be said to happen to the Universe. For example, if a gas cloud coalesces into a star, the Universe now has one more star than before. Star birth happened to the Universe, just as a volcano erupting on Earth happens to the Earth (and simultaneously to the Universe). Perhaps this way of describing things is a bit unwieldy, but I don't think it can be said that by definition nothing can happen to the Universe.

Why don't you give the video a look? I think my comments will make sense in that context.

Quite a fascinating video. In ten minutes, it explores the origin of the traditional understanding of selfhood, wherein we each have a soul unto ourselves which animates our body and experiences our life, then shows how that belief is outdated given modern neuroscientific evidence. It goes on to conclude that rather than being something which belongs to each of us uniquely, consciousness is a universal phenomenon, something which has the potential to occur at any time and place in the Universe so long as the correct physical conditions are met. If this is the case, the experiencer of life is not each of our unique souls; consciousness is something that happens to the Universe itself. The ethical implications of this would be profound.