The state information you are looking for (the "Index") is information intrinsic to each particle's position & interactions relative to all other particles.
Time is merely the medium through which we observe matter interacting.
> "Show me the index that says it’s now the present for you in the physical world"
The index *is* the configuration of particles making up the universe.
"The present" is the relative state of particles within the universe at *any* position along time. Thinking agents composed of particle configurations within a specific section of time get an illusion of exclusive immediacy, and this is true for each and every section of time.
Agents will always perceive all moments as the present. It's a constant, not a magical variable that needs tracking. It doesn't change.
Fully agree that the present is a relative state of particles in the universe at any position, that’s a great way to think of it. Good way to describe it, better than I.
What I don’t think follows from that you saying “AGENTS always perceive all moments as the present.” It seems like you’re distinguishing one agent from another, which doesn’t make sense with the universe in certain configurations of particles. If these agents can only experience this configuration from one perspective, where in the universe says where that one perspective is coming from?
It’s not as simple as saying “atoms in one place are different from another, agents always experience the present, I’m different than you like a tree is different from another tree” because I can look at the atoms of the trees. I can FULLY ACCEPT that there’s an illusion of immediacy like you say, but if you cede time exists at all, there’s a vantage point to talk about. I’m saying that if you concede there’s something rather than nothing, you can’t avoid privileging a perspective over others in some way.
I’m a little confused by what you mean by “the present is a constant”, are you saying all moments exist simultaneously or that global time exists, or there’s a “constant” feeling of the present in time in an agent — the last one is my whole argument!
(Now the conversation is in two places. I already replied in the other place so I'm just going to link as the alternative is copying things. I wish Substack didn't make the reply and the note technically different instances, it seems like it will make conversations harder for 3rd parties to follow)
I agree with the thesis that the illusionist argument is wrong and probably not even coherent—like, eluding what? — but I'm confused by a lot of the claims about time. The reason we posit the 4D model is because there is no privileged perspective. Once you start saying only the present exists you run in to the problem of whose present? The only way to square this is through relativity and the model of the world it entails. Also I think you’re imagining the 4D “omniscient” perspective incorrectly. Its not a view from the outside staring at the universe but a view without a chosen an origin or set of coordinates. This is like a view from nowhere or kinda everywhere. Maybe i’m totally miss understanding you. I also don’t get why you have singled out past and future to be unreal. You also experience only one point in space and to the extent you receive information from other points that info also came from different points in time. All this being said i agree with the spirit of whats being said that something like time is inherent to taking a perspective that is in some sense from the inside.
Yeah, my argument is basically saying the “set coordinates” of time are necessary to explain what we’re seeing — I mean, no consciousness is viewing from this 4D angle, so surely it’s easier to accept that consciousness is experienced from some “set coordinates”!
I think we mostly agree, your last sentence is pretty much my point. The claim I’m making in this article is really rather tame, though admittedly by calling it “a soul” I’m ruffling a few feathers.
While I honestly have no concrete idea about how consciousness works or what it is, I’ve always been fairly sympathetic to the illusionist argument because of the teleporter problem.
As briefly mentioned earlier, the teleporter problem asks you to imagine a scenario where you are completely destroyed, and another you with all the same memories is reconstructed in a different location. It asserts that your current “you” died when it was destroyed, but because your teleported copy has the exact same brain (and by extension, same memories), your clone experiences a continuous stream of memory and a teleportation. They feel like they’re you.
Teleporters aren’t quite real yet (unfortunately), but this hypothetical makes me more sympathetic to the idea that we might constantly be having our current consciousness destroyed and replaced with new ones holding the same memory. It reveals to us that we have no idea whether or not we’re actually continuous “I”s. The teleported person holds an illusion of continuity, and who’s to say that we aren’t holding onto the same illusion? How do you know that your consciousness is the same one from moment to moment? Is it possible to know if you’re the same conscious “you,” besides the chemicals in your brain?
Of course, as of right now, we have no idea if consciousness is an illusion or not, so for the time being, I’m going to behave as if it is a real thing.
Yep, I can agree with lots of Illusionism’s conclusions, and the teleporter one is very interesting and I agree with. I think it’s an underrated truth that you can’t confirm that the past or future even exist, and you only have the present to cling onto. The idea that continuity is an illusion given how we’re obviously mad combinations of atoms and quantum mechanics and neurons with no clear end or beginning is a pretty intuitive claim that illusionism makes.
I was just asking myself where are the dualist articles on substack? Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
I believe in weak dualism as well. I got there more because of qualia and red-green inversion. I didn't think time was a big problem for illusionists before, but I'll have to think about this more.
> Physicists posit a 4D model of the universe, with time as a fourth axis. A shame that this model isn’t real, or else the illusionists might have a point.
Funny, a 4D model seems to completely stand in opposition to two of the illusionist claims you made before. I don't really know why you would discount it as a model outright though.
I’m mostly saying that if time wasn’t experienced from an angle, illusionism wouldn’t have the indexing issue that I describe in the post that still didn’t kill dualism. You’re correct that illusionists don’t claim that, my bad for phrasing it that way.
I really do not get your argument here. You right now is different from me right now since you have completely different memories, opinions, character trates et cetera. This is the same way that my copy of a book is different from your copy of a different book.
As for time, just because it’s another dimension like space, doesn’t mean that different events cannot happen at different times relative to one another. obviously, my birth took place before I started typing this comment. Similarly, certain events within my field of view happen such that the brain state of me right now is in their light cone. You don’t need to pause it any special property to the present, only recognise that their exists a certain human with a certain set of memories, a certain personality, and a certain name at a certain time and place. The block universe does not suggest that you shouldn’t experience time from your own perspective. Because after all, how could the future affect your brain state and there is no reason to expect your brain and senses to have the ability to tell you your entire past light cone not to mention that what is in your past light cone is different at different times. Besides, what sensory input you receive from yor surroundings is obviously different at different times. So of course you experience different things at different times, and time flows in only one way for you since your past self can cause your future self to have memories, but not vice versa.
Also, this is unrelated to my main disagreement with your post, but I think you greatly overestimate just how special conservative realists think consciousness is, many of them would agree with a lot of the claims that you attribute to illusionism, though I will grant that they try to bite less bullets and use intuition more. Still, I think most of them would agree with with functionalism, and therefore, with a lot of what you say about a hypothetical copy.
I understand that your copy of a book is different from my copy of a book, but there’s atoms in the universe that clearly delineate which copy I’m reading right now. Where are the atoms that mark which one is me and which one is you? I know I can’t affect my future brain state, I’m ceding that, but the very act of having a privileged view of time assumes that something is marking the privilege!
The point about conservative realists is fair, I think they agree a lot with illusionists and would agree with many of the bullet points, but I there’s no clear marking of which ones they wouldn’t agree with tbh.
Just as the book consists of its atoms so your brain consists of its own atoms as does mine. There is no privileged timeframe. You right now just happens to perceive the things that cause experiences for him and so for all instances of you at all times. Just as a dirty shirt, that later gets cleaned, does not have a privileged timeframe and just happens to be a dirty shirt yesterday and a clean shirt today. So you looking at the sunset will be followed in time by you going indoors. There is nothing special about the timeframe of you right now, compare to the timeframe of any other event.
There’s “nothing special” about the present? The only vessel we can confirm exists, the only thing that IS what time is? To say this, you need to say there’s nothing special about time itself compared to physics. I argue that the present IS real, in comparison to the future and past, which we have no direct access to. Yesterday doesn’t exist, tomorrow doesn’t exist, right now does — and when it’s tomorrow, the present will STILL be the only thing that exists!
Saying the present is the same as the future is moot. You’ve never been to the future, and can’t confirm its existence. If you cede “I think therefore I am”, say that anything exists, you’re privileging the present.
I absolutely agree that right now. The present is all that exists and similarly five seconds ago, the world five seconds ago was all that existed. But that doesn’t mean the present is privileged, except in the sense that it’s privileged relative to itself, which is equally true of all other times since when they become the present, their equally all that exist. It is an obvious and practically meaningless statement that at any time, the world at that time is all that exists.
You are correct that we have privileged access to the present, although to be exactly accurate in practice, we have privileged access to the immediate past of our immediate surroundings. In fact, since even electrical signals in the brain, don’t move instantly and a single time slice of a brain is not conscious. Even you conscious experience is mostly at a time delay. In fact to be exactly accurate, your perception of the past through your memories, isn’t that different from your similarly, indirect perception of what’s in front of you through vision. Still, I obviously agree that from an epistemic standpoint, your access to your near present consciousness is privileged, but we should not mistake and epistemic fact about yourself for a metaphysical fact about the entire universe and all times.
Your observation about the present doesn’t really establish that time is special compare to space since obviously at any given point in space the universe at that point is all that exists. This is pretty much true by definition.
That said, I do actually agree that time is special because unlike space you can’t loop back to the same time, and also there is of course the thermodynamic and causal arrow of time. In fact, these are the very reasons why you experience of time is so different from your experience of space because while you can see what is both in front and behind you, you can’t form memories about the future but can form memories about the past because of the causal arrow of time.
If the block universe exists, then the agents at each instant exist, and experience their time as their present.
If there is a privileged present moment, and all other times "exist" only as memories and mental models and parameters in physics formulas, then the time agents experience is that present moment.
I incline towards the second view, but either way, I don't see a Problem that needs to be solved. Maybe there is an illusion of a problem if elements of the two different views are mixed up.
I don’t understand what you’re asking for in the index problem. What would a satisfactory answer look like?
More broadly, it feels like you’re assuming the thing to be proven. You introduce the term “perspective,” assume the reader is on board with this notion, and then reveal that “perspective” turns out to be the Cartesian soul. Relativistic time doesn’t seem to play an active role in the argument; the conclusion has already been Trojan-Horsed in as “perspective.” But the physicalist doesn’t have to cede “perspective” in the first place. They will, as a bare minimum, ask you what you mean by “perspective,” you’ll say something tantamount to “the Cartesian soul,” and they will accuse you of circularity.
To lay my cards on the table, I think the mind-body problem is exceedingly mysterious, and I find Dan Dennett and his ilk totally nauseating. When people say consciousness isn’t mysterious I seethe with rage. My worldview probably resembles yours a lot more than e.g. that of Lance Bush. But I am not sure this argument will convince anyone who isn’t already on board.
With all that said, I sympathize; I don’t have any arguments for my own views on mind/consciousness that amount to anything more than “if you have to ask you’ll never know.”
A satisfactory answer would be a complete understanding of time in the universe, which I ofc a not getting. When I say perspective, all I mean is whatever time is being experienced FROM, because nobody says that time isn’t being experienced from nowhere.
I agree the mind body problem is mysterious completely, yeah. This argument convinced one person who wasn’t on board: me! I don’t buy philosophical zombies or Mary’s room, but time seems unique and I don’t know how materialism accounts for it. But yes, I doubt we’ll get a very satisfactory answer. We are both def in the same camp there, lol
i think that combining a simple realism with 'something exists' (this might be the same williamson's necessitism, that necessarily everything is necessarily something) is sufficient to account for perspective.
so whatever exists, be it objects, processes, properties, events, facts, states of affairs, laws, propositions,
truth-values of propositions... in general, anything that is, was, or
will be actual, anything that actually
exists, occurs, manifests, obtains, holds, is in fact the case, or is true, is such that it is in some particular way and not in any other ways; it is somehow, so what exists isn't homogeneous, but there's distinguishability.
let me know if i'm not making sense or how i may be in error, but i don't see anything categorically special about perspective or particular what-it-is-likeness that can't be accounted for by the above, that existents are somehow. it is 'like this' here, and 'like that' here, and so on for however existence is structured.
Love this! I’ve been thinking a lot about consciousness lately and I like the way you’ve phrased things here.
I’ve kind of landed on emergentism as what makes the most sense to me. And from that I’ve started building an ideology that points to the rarity of consciousness and how nothing in the universe has any value or meaning until a mind comes along and decides to care.
Ties in really well with your thoughts on the subjectivity and relational explanation of the universe I think.
I don't see why we should need our perspectives to be outside the physical universe (although, we might need to update our understanding of the word "physical"...). If anything, the one thing I know about my perspective qua perspective is that it's located at a particular point in space and time ("here" and "now"). And in fact, a perspective pretty much just is a particular point in space and time/the web of relations that makes up reality.
My view is that everything exists as relations, and therefore there can be no "view from nowhere" as it involves imagining existence without relations. Instead, everything is relative/perspectivist. And so my personal conscious experiences are the universe as it exists in relation to myself. I do not need anything outside the universe to explain why I experience "objective reality" from my own limited "point of view", because all of reality only exists via its relations to all its different "points of view".
When you say "But how in the world am I going to say that my perspective is different from your perspective?", it seems to me that you are positing this "perspective" as a kind of blank screen for consciousness to be projected upon. Is that fair? If so, I think the solution is that there is no screen - no separation between consciousness and the contents of consciousness. We exist in relation to the world and we experience the world in relation to ourselves, and there is no separation between experience and experiencer. In that case, what distinguishes my perspective from yours is that I am *me, here, now*, and you are *you, there, then*. It's precisely because we have different perspectives.
The state information you are looking for (the "Index") is information intrinsic to each particle's position & interactions relative to all other particles.
Time is merely the medium through which we observe matter interacting.
> "Show me the index that says it’s now the present for you in the physical world"
The index *is* the configuration of particles making up the universe.
"The present" is the relative state of particles within the universe at *any* position along time. Thinking agents composed of particle configurations within a specific section of time get an illusion of exclusive immediacy, and this is true for each and every section of time.
Agents will always perceive all moments as the present. It's a constant, not a magical variable that needs tracking. It doesn't change.
Fully agree that the present is a relative state of particles in the universe at any position, that’s a great way to think of it. Good way to describe it, better than I.
What I don’t think follows from that you saying “AGENTS always perceive all moments as the present.” It seems like you’re distinguishing one agent from another, which doesn’t make sense with the universe in certain configurations of particles. If these agents can only experience this configuration from one perspective, where in the universe says where that one perspective is coming from?
It’s not as simple as saying “atoms in one place are different from another, agents always experience the present, I’m different than you like a tree is different from another tree” because I can look at the atoms of the trees. I can FULLY ACCEPT that there’s an illusion of immediacy like you say, but if you cede time exists at all, there’s a vantage point to talk about. I’m saying that if you concede there’s something rather than nothing, you can’t avoid privileging a perspective over others in some way.
I’m a little confused by what you mean by “the present is a constant”, are you saying all moments exist simultaneously or that global time exists, or there’s a “constant” feeling of the present in time in an agent — the last one is my whole argument!
(Now the conversation is in two places. I already replied in the other place so I'm just going to link as the alternative is copying things. I wish Substack didn't make the reply and the note technically different instances, it seems like it will make conversations harder for 3rd parties to follow)
https://substack.com/profile/14610034-david-steinberg/note/c-142431082
Makes sense, thanks for linking the quote. Substack is annoying! I wish I could dual-comment!
To me, this doesn’t even make any sense because the fact that you can experience anything proves it’s real. But I suppose I’ll look into it.
You might be interested in this podcast episode https://open.spotify.com/episode/7z8Xczc0A2re3tsi4CwNYd?si=161ec451da5040fe
I agree with the thesis that the illusionist argument is wrong and probably not even coherent—like, eluding what? — but I'm confused by a lot of the claims about time. The reason we posit the 4D model is because there is no privileged perspective. Once you start saying only the present exists you run in to the problem of whose present? The only way to square this is through relativity and the model of the world it entails. Also I think you’re imagining the 4D “omniscient” perspective incorrectly. Its not a view from the outside staring at the universe but a view without a chosen an origin or set of coordinates. This is like a view from nowhere or kinda everywhere. Maybe i’m totally miss understanding you. I also don’t get why you have singled out past and future to be unreal. You also experience only one point in space and to the extent you receive information from other points that info also came from different points in time. All this being said i agree with the spirit of whats being said that something like time is inherent to taking a perspective that is in some sense from the inside.
Yeah, my argument is basically saying the “set coordinates” of time are necessary to explain what we’re seeing — I mean, no consciousness is viewing from this 4D angle, so surely it’s easier to accept that consciousness is experienced from some “set coordinates”!
I think we mostly agree, your last sentence is pretty much my point. The claim I’m making in this article is really rather tame, though admittedly by calling it “a soul” I’m ruffling a few feathers.
I don't see time as problematic in the way you describe. A 4D block seems entirely logical to me.
For those interested in these issues, I quite enjoyed this book (apart from the misleading title):
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35187183-your-brain-is-a-time-machine
Consciousness is not only only invented, it's a fake-ass looking word too. I mean, just look at it?
Anyway, continuing to read .. lol.
While I honestly have no concrete idea about how consciousness works or what it is, I’ve always been fairly sympathetic to the illusionist argument because of the teleporter problem.
As briefly mentioned earlier, the teleporter problem asks you to imagine a scenario where you are completely destroyed, and another you with all the same memories is reconstructed in a different location. It asserts that your current “you” died when it was destroyed, but because your teleported copy has the exact same brain (and by extension, same memories), your clone experiences a continuous stream of memory and a teleportation. They feel like they’re you.
Teleporters aren’t quite real yet (unfortunately), but this hypothetical makes me more sympathetic to the idea that we might constantly be having our current consciousness destroyed and replaced with new ones holding the same memory. It reveals to us that we have no idea whether or not we’re actually continuous “I”s. The teleported person holds an illusion of continuity, and who’s to say that we aren’t holding onto the same illusion? How do you know that your consciousness is the same one from moment to moment? Is it possible to know if you’re the same conscious “you,” besides the chemicals in your brain?
Of course, as of right now, we have no idea if consciousness is an illusion or not, so for the time being, I’m going to behave as if it is a real thing.
Yep, I can agree with lots of Illusionism’s conclusions, and the teleporter one is very interesting and I agree with. I think it’s an underrated truth that you can’t confirm that the past or future even exist, and you only have the present to cling onto. The idea that continuity is an illusion given how we’re obviously mad combinations of atoms and quantum mechanics and neurons with no clear end or beginning is a pretty intuitive claim that illusionism makes.
I was just asking myself where are the dualist articles on substack? Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
I believe in weak dualism as well. I got there more because of qualia and red-green inversion. I didn't think time was a big problem for illusionists before, but I'll have to think about this more.
Yes! Weak dualism! If I could have philosophers focus just a little more on time instead of qualia my job would be a success.
> Physicists posit a 4D model of the universe, with time as a fourth axis. A shame that this model isn’t real, or else the illusionists might have a point.
Funny, a 4D model seems to completely stand in opposition to two of the illusionist claims you made before. I don't really know why you would discount it as a model outright though.
I’m mostly saying that if time wasn’t experienced from an angle, illusionism wouldn’t have the indexing issue that I describe in the post that still didn’t kill dualism. You’re correct that illusionists don’t claim that, my bad for phrasing it that way.
I really do not get your argument here. You right now is different from me right now since you have completely different memories, opinions, character trates et cetera. This is the same way that my copy of a book is different from your copy of a different book.
As for time, just because it’s another dimension like space, doesn’t mean that different events cannot happen at different times relative to one another. obviously, my birth took place before I started typing this comment. Similarly, certain events within my field of view happen such that the brain state of me right now is in their light cone. You don’t need to pause it any special property to the present, only recognise that their exists a certain human with a certain set of memories, a certain personality, and a certain name at a certain time and place. The block universe does not suggest that you shouldn’t experience time from your own perspective. Because after all, how could the future affect your brain state and there is no reason to expect your brain and senses to have the ability to tell you your entire past light cone not to mention that what is in your past light cone is different at different times. Besides, what sensory input you receive from yor surroundings is obviously different at different times. So of course you experience different things at different times, and time flows in only one way for you since your past self can cause your future self to have memories, but not vice versa.
Also, this is unrelated to my main disagreement with your post, but I think you greatly overestimate just how special conservative realists think consciousness is, many of them would agree with a lot of the claims that you attribute to illusionism, though I will grant that they try to bite less bullets and use intuition more. Still, I think most of them would agree with with functionalism, and therefore, with a lot of what you say about a hypothetical copy.
I understand that your copy of a book is different from my copy of a book, but there’s atoms in the universe that clearly delineate which copy I’m reading right now. Where are the atoms that mark which one is me and which one is you? I know I can’t affect my future brain state, I’m ceding that, but the very act of having a privileged view of time assumes that something is marking the privilege!
The point about conservative realists is fair, I think they agree a lot with illusionists and would agree with many of the bullet points, but I there’s no clear marking of which ones they wouldn’t agree with tbh.
Just as the book consists of its atoms so your brain consists of its own atoms as does mine. There is no privileged timeframe. You right now just happens to perceive the things that cause experiences for him and so for all instances of you at all times. Just as a dirty shirt, that later gets cleaned, does not have a privileged timeframe and just happens to be a dirty shirt yesterday and a clean shirt today. So you looking at the sunset will be followed in time by you going indoors. There is nothing special about the timeframe of you right now, compare to the timeframe of any other event.
There’s “nothing special” about the present? The only vessel we can confirm exists, the only thing that IS what time is? To say this, you need to say there’s nothing special about time itself compared to physics. I argue that the present IS real, in comparison to the future and past, which we have no direct access to. Yesterday doesn’t exist, tomorrow doesn’t exist, right now does — and when it’s tomorrow, the present will STILL be the only thing that exists!
Saying the present is the same as the future is moot. You’ve never been to the future, and can’t confirm its existence. If you cede “I think therefore I am”, say that anything exists, you’re privileging the present.
I absolutely agree that right now. The present is all that exists and similarly five seconds ago, the world five seconds ago was all that existed. But that doesn’t mean the present is privileged, except in the sense that it’s privileged relative to itself, which is equally true of all other times since when they become the present, their equally all that exist. It is an obvious and practically meaningless statement that at any time, the world at that time is all that exists.
You are correct that we have privileged access to the present, although to be exactly accurate in practice, we have privileged access to the immediate past of our immediate surroundings. In fact, since even electrical signals in the brain, don’t move instantly and a single time slice of a brain is not conscious. Even you conscious experience is mostly at a time delay. In fact to be exactly accurate, your perception of the past through your memories, isn’t that different from your similarly, indirect perception of what’s in front of you through vision. Still, I obviously agree that from an epistemic standpoint, your access to your near present consciousness is privileged, but we should not mistake and epistemic fact about yourself for a metaphysical fact about the entire universe and all times.
Your observation about the present doesn’t really establish that time is special compare to space since obviously at any given point in space the universe at that point is all that exists. This is pretty much true by definition.
That said, I do actually agree that time is special because unlike space you can’t loop back to the same time, and also there is of course the thermodynamic and causal arrow of time. In fact, these are the very reasons why you experience of time is so different from your experience of space because while you can see what is both in front and behind you, you can’t form memories about the future but can form memories about the past because of the causal arrow of time.
If the block universe exists, then the agents at each instant exist, and experience their time as their present.
If there is a privileged present moment, and all other times "exist" only as memories and mental models and parameters in physics formulas, then the time agents experience is that present moment.
I incline towards the second view, but either way, I don't see a Problem that needs to be solved. Maybe there is an illusion of a problem if elements of the two different views are mixed up.
I don’t understand what you’re asking for in the index problem. What would a satisfactory answer look like?
More broadly, it feels like you’re assuming the thing to be proven. You introduce the term “perspective,” assume the reader is on board with this notion, and then reveal that “perspective” turns out to be the Cartesian soul. Relativistic time doesn’t seem to play an active role in the argument; the conclusion has already been Trojan-Horsed in as “perspective.” But the physicalist doesn’t have to cede “perspective” in the first place. They will, as a bare minimum, ask you what you mean by “perspective,” you’ll say something tantamount to “the Cartesian soul,” and they will accuse you of circularity.
To lay my cards on the table, I think the mind-body problem is exceedingly mysterious, and I find Dan Dennett and his ilk totally nauseating. When people say consciousness isn’t mysterious I seethe with rage. My worldview probably resembles yours a lot more than e.g. that of Lance Bush. But I am not sure this argument will convince anyone who isn’t already on board.
With all that said, I sympathize; I don’t have any arguments for my own views on mind/consciousness that amount to anything more than “if you have to ask you’ll never know.”
A satisfactory answer would be a complete understanding of time in the universe, which I ofc a not getting. When I say perspective, all I mean is whatever time is being experienced FROM, because nobody says that time isn’t being experienced from nowhere.
I agree the mind body problem is mysterious completely, yeah. This argument convinced one person who wasn’t on board: me! I don’t buy philosophical zombies or Mary’s room, but time seems unique and I don’t know how materialism accounts for it. But yes, I doubt we’ll get a very satisfactory answer. We are both def in the same camp there, lol
i think that combining a simple realism with 'something exists' (this might be the same williamson's necessitism, that necessarily everything is necessarily something) is sufficient to account for perspective.
so whatever exists, be it objects, processes, properties, events, facts, states of affairs, laws, propositions,
truth-values of propositions... in general, anything that is, was, or
will be actual, anything that actually
exists, occurs, manifests, obtains, holds, is in fact the case, or is true, is such that it is in some particular way and not in any other ways; it is somehow, so what exists isn't homogeneous, but there's distinguishability.
let me know if i'm not making sense or how i may be in error, but i don't see anything categorically special about perspective or particular what-it-is-likeness that can't be accounted for by the above, that existents are somehow. it is 'like this' here, and 'like that' here, and so on for however existence is structured.
Love this! I’ve been thinking a lot about consciousness lately and I like the way you’ve phrased things here.
I’ve kind of landed on emergentism as what makes the most sense to me. And from that I’ve started building an ideology that points to the rarity of consciousness and how nothing in the universe has any value or meaning until a mind comes along and decides to care.
Ties in really well with your thoughts on the subjectivity and relational explanation of the universe I think.
Here are some of the introductory thoughts I’ve had on the topic https://lackofdequorum.substack.com/p/call-me-a-consciousnist
I don't see why we should need our perspectives to be outside the physical universe (although, we might need to update our understanding of the word "physical"...). If anything, the one thing I know about my perspective qua perspective is that it's located at a particular point in space and time ("here" and "now"). And in fact, a perspective pretty much just is a particular point in space and time/the web of relations that makes up reality.
My view is that everything exists as relations, and therefore there can be no "view from nowhere" as it involves imagining existence without relations. Instead, everything is relative/perspectivist. And so my personal conscious experiences are the universe as it exists in relation to myself. I do not need anything outside the universe to explain why I experience "objective reality" from my own limited "point of view", because all of reality only exists via its relations to all its different "points of view".
When you say "But how in the world am I going to say that my perspective is different from your perspective?", it seems to me that you are positing this "perspective" as a kind of blank screen for consciousness to be projected upon. Is that fair? If so, I think the solution is that there is no screen - no separation between consciousness and the contents of consciousness. We exist in relation to the world and we experience the world in relation to ourselves, and there is no separation between experience and experiencer. In that case, what distinguishes my perspective from yours is that I am *me, here, now*, and you are *you, there, then*. It's precisely because we have different perspectives.