Been thinking about this actually, one thing this example does do is put into stark relief some of the internal/external universe problems.
There are some interesting problems involving consciousness, (meaning, in this case, the perception which I know I have and assume you have). Bluntly, without us to percieve it, the universe's existence becomes trivial, it's no more there than any other conceivable mathematical pattern.
Does this mean that I/you am/are cosmologically important? Yes, but only because 'importance' is predicated and assigned by me/you. Our definition of 'reality' is assigned in a similar manner*. This universe is only 'real' to us due to our existence in it, and the style in which we percieve it.
There's still the question of why I'm in this perceiver and you in that, and who bothered to turn on the lights so that anything at all would perceive from an internal perspective. Like, it's obvious that self-awareness is useful for a variety of genetic functions, but do we really only see out of our eyes because we say we do? Does consciousness reduce to believing yourself to be conscious (in the external perspective)? If so, I still shouldn't be seeing out of me, I should be just saying that I do.
* I'm something of an anti-realist, I don't believe that there's anything special or fundamental about the matter of the universe, it's all just patterns, and mysteriously, mathematical concepts**
** Mysteriously, because where are the concepts processed? Internally? In another universe?***By some sort of vaguely God-like thing?***
*** "It's turtles all the way down"
**** Thinking about God-like things in this context does give religion (e.g. Christianity version 13c variant 5) to have any further credence than it had or didn't already. It still says nothing about the vaguely God-like thing, and certainly doesnt clarify whether he/she/it disapproves of coveting, onanism etc.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 03:07 pm (UTC)There are some interesting problems involving consciousness, (meaning, in this case, the perception which I know I have and assume you have). Bluntly, without us to percieve it, the universe's existence becomes trivial, it's no more there than any other conceivable mathematical pattern.
Does this mean that I/you am/are cosmologically important? Yes, but only because 'importance' is predicated and assigned by me/you. Our definition of 'reality' is assigned in a similar manner*. This universe is only 'real' to us due to our existence in it, and the style in which we percieve it.
There's still the question of why I'm in this perceiver and you in that, and who bothered to turn on the lights so that anything at all would perceive from an internal perspective. Like, it's obvious that self-awareness is useful for a variety of genetic functions, but do we really only see out of our eyes because we say we do? Does consciousness reduce to believing yourself to be conscious (in the external perspective)? If so, I still shouldn't be seeing out of me, I should be just saying that I do.
* I'm something of an anti-realist, I don't believe that there's anything special or fundamental about the matter of the universe, it's all just patterns, and mysteriously, mathematical concepts**
** Mysteriously, because where are the concepts processed? Internally? In another universe?***By some sort of vaguely God-like thing?***
*** "It's turtles all the way down"
**** Thinking about God-like things in this context does give religion (e.g. Christianity version 13c variant 5) to have any further credence than it had or didn't already. It still says nothing about the vaguely God-like thing, and certainly doesnt clarify whether he/she/it disapproves of coveting, onanism etc.