Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

possible proof that consciousness is not physically describable?

Sign in to follow this  
nothing void


If we assume existence is NOT just imaginary, then we can say the following is true:

"It MUST exist if I perceive it, but it may or may not exist if I do not perceive it."

If we also assume that "I"/"the self" is an "it" - ie it is a physically explainable phenomena, we can say:

"I Must exist if I perceive I(myself), but I may or may not also exist if I do not perceive I(myself)".

for your "self" to exist without perceiving one's "self" is a pretty major problem.

So by this regard, either my consciousness is not an "It".
things do not exist unless I perceive them.

Note: By 'self' I'm not talking about your physical shell, but your consciousness, the "you" who is 'driving' the body.
Sign in to follow this  


Recommended Comments

My brain hurts from working through the logic. But I think I'm pretty comfortable with the former conclusion. *head a splode*

Share this comment

Link to comment
Depends on your definition of "it". In your first statement, you label everything outside of yourself as "it", then you apply the statement to yourself. Perceiving something outside of the self (which is based on our 5 senses) as opposed to perceiving oneself (an act of consciousness which is not dependent on our 5 senses [or is it?]) isn't necessarily the same thing.

If I were left in a sensory deprevation chamber, would I still be able to sense my consciousness. Probably. I would still have thoughts and that allows me to validate my existence whether I can feel/see myself or not. I could tell the difference between being asleep and being awake. After a while, who knows what would happen to the mind without the 5 senses regulating your thoughts, though. Ever see the movie Altered States?

Share this comment

Link to comment
Hi.. to the 2nd commenter, I was in fact, trying to prove that "it" IS different to "I", by providing an absurd example where "it" is the same as "I".

So yes, you're right.

In coming out with a nonsense conclusion, I proved that an "it" IS different to "I"

- In other words I'm saying, consciousness cannot be explained in terms of "it"/matter/'physical' properties & the laws controlling them.

The proof I gave is *probably* flawed, but you get the general jist of what I'm trying to achieve now, I hope!

Share this comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!