Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gurgoth t1_iz3dgdp wrote

Reply to comment by Gmroo in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

We have an observance system because it has demonstrated an evolutionary advantage.

Applying such a concept out of context requires justification to do so. We do not see the universe alive in the same context as we are. What is the justification to apply such a concept to vast empty space, gasses, solids, liquids, and metals out in space?

3

Gmroo OP t1_iz3dzk3 wrote

I don't follow what you're getting at or asking. Yes, consciousness evolved. What do you mean by applying it out of context? The point is simply that significant phenomena may exist like that which in principle we couldn't detect any less than we can infer what taste, eyesight or hearing is like without experiencing them. These significant phenomena may just as well evolve or be constructed, they needn't be states of matter...

1

Gurgoth t1_iz3f6vk wrote

That assertion is false. Why can't we infer taste, eyesight or hearing without experiencing then?

We know eagles have better sight than us without needing their eyes.

We know bats hear better than us, and use it for sight without that capability ourselves.

We know migrating birds have mechanisms for navigating that we do not posses. Even though we have not pinned down exactly what, we know it exists and we don't need metaphysics for it.

The more we know about how each thing works the less we need to be able to experience it ourselves to understand it

5