Re:Thomas Nagel: Thoughts Are Real (2013)
by Sol2Sol on Sunday September 05, 2021 @05:28PM
(#28427979)
I agree about not trusting entirely anything about consciousness. I said Hoffman's theory was fascinating, not that I bought it entirely as there are too many unanswered questions. But for me it was a paradigm shift in terms of how one could look at what we call reality. Hoffman is a serious scientist a professor emeritus at UC Irvine with impressive credentials in neuroscience and cognitive psychology.
Re:Thomas Nagel: Thoughts Are Real (2013)
by pierrebai on Sunday September 05, 2021 @07:04PM
(#28428602)
I'll say this colloquially and rhetorically (as I have little real interest in what the probably contorted answer might be), but I wonder how it can possibly account for the vast early period of time since the big bang when there was no consciousness.
Or was consciousness-created reality all made up on the spot on the birth of the first conscience?
And how has it been kept consistent through the life of all different consciences?
I think the simple fact that, for example, separated tribes of people have lived for millennium within a physically identical world is kinda a dead give-away that reality lives independently of consciousness.
Re:Thomas Nagel: Thoughts Are Real (2013)
by Sol2Sol on Sunday September 05, 2021 @07:32PM
(#28428769)
Based on Hoffman's theory the reason there is consistency in how the world is viewed and experienced across tribes is because we are born with similar gear - something akin to a built in VR headset. Hoffman gives several examples in the book of objects we create on the fly that are not really there - we call them visual illusions - based on our unconscious visual intelligence logic rules.
Re:Thomas Nagel: Thoughts Are Real (2013)
by pierrebai on Sunday September 05, 2021 @08:47PM
(#28429185)
So, hum, multiple consciousnesses create the same reality because our bodies, which are part of reality, are similar? Sounds to me this implies reality came first, but I'm just a simple man, not a book-writing philosopher.
... and the good old "visual illusions therefore 'anything'". About the level of argument sophistication I expected.
Never trust entirely anything about consciousness or physics that's not boring and downright indecipherable to the layman.