The Hard Problem: Distinction & Unity (1/5)

This is a re-posting of a video I posted yesterday. I removed a couple of the effects because they made the audio go slightly out of sync with the video. This subject is weird enough without having to deal with that. Sorry for the confusion.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• hard
• problem
• consciousness
• mike
• earl
• chalmers
• distinction
• unity
• binding

[forgetfulgod]

basically our reality is ourself. Very nice video.

[SpiritualAtheist]

Thanks for the comment. Hope you enjoy the others.

[cosmicpilgrim]

Yes, the point you make about not being able to experience reality first hand is so true...When I was new to university, I suddenly realized that I would NEVER be able to experience "objective reality"....I was sixteen and it was a very scary experience. I read William James my freshman...He seemed to know that and to write so eloquently about it I felt better.

[SpiritualAtheist]

Actually, i think we do experience objective reality directly; it's just that the mode of experience (physical) we assumed to give us that direct contact is not it. At least that's my hypothesis.

[wsxcvb23]

I think there's a problem with your argument for the logical necessity of distinction. You suggest trying to imagine the experience of just one thing, when instead you should have suggested trying to imagine the experience of just one EXPERIENCE, not of an object extended in space. IOW to test the conceivability of non-distinction, one must imagine that there is only one experience, such as only the color black or only the taste of strawberry ice-cream. And I think that is conceivable.

[matrixcmitech]

well done explorations and deconstructions!

[MaBu888]

Whoa agree there LOLZ.

[Canteatpancakes]

I know I'm just being picky here, but light its self is a phenomenal experience.

It may be more accurate to say that 'photons' collide with our photo-receptors, and we construct the experience of light in particular spectrum.

Although I will of course admit that a photon is merely a concept in phenomenal reality and I'm just playing stupid linguistic games!

Cool video! on to the next one. :)

[Canteatpancakes]

I'm not so sure about that Everett, I don't think you would experience anything in that case. In order for there to be an experience there would have to be a subject whom is experiencing, which would be a thing separate from the experience of red.

Also, when you have a static background such as you have described, it becomes null, you would simply not experience it.

I think Metzinger brought this up in Being No One, but it has been a while since I read that book...

[EverettsVLOG]

I think one coudl have conscious experience without distinction by simply having an unchanging experience of red. It would not be a red object, jsut the color red. But, even if it were a red object, it would not have to extend into infinity. It woudl be like standing against a red wall and looking at it (but of course, i am talking about a being with no eyes ears etc., jsut a machine that has a permanent conscious experience of red with no distinctions.)

[cosmicpilgrim]

Yes, good point...The sticking point, for me at least, is when we try to create a one-to-one relationship between consciousness and external reality. Some experiences elude any attempt to confine them to such a methodology...