Say, let’s admit consciousness is the result of a physical process.
Then say this process only goes “forward” when our time coordinate increases. Just like an egg gets cooked when it’s temperature coordinate increases, but it doesn’t get more or less cooked when it’s temperature coordinate decreases.
This would mean that going back in time doesn’t result in any perceptible change, since your consciousness hasn’t evolved from it’s “former” state.
Thus making it possible for us to be travelling through plenty of dimensions in varied directions, only ever experiencing the brief times when you happen to be moving in increasing time. Or whatever combination of movement along varied dimensions makes it possible for you to be conscious.
TLDR: i need to take shorter showers
For being so sure of your stance, you seem weirdly reluctant to question your own assumptions.
My assumption that being healthy is good? geesh, there is a limit to mindless argument.
Lazy argumentation.
"Can you show me across the ages that humanity in general experiences that the quality of their lives has clearly improved? "
You haven’t. Because you can’t. Back then, people could’ve rated their quality of life as 3/5 stars. People now could rate their life as 3/5 stars. But by your logic, we should be having infinitely more stars now. But looking at the world, I’m not sure if we’d get 5/5. If you can’t prove that the subjective experience of people’s quality of life has improved, you are just believing a narrative you want to believe, and you use argumentation tactics of believers, not of those who follow logic.
In this case we can’t subjectively measure it. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that with less pain, people would enjoy life more. We can test that now (probably been done, but maybe too basic). We can look at historical records that people has diseases more in the past, and we can measure the relative discomfort of those diseases now. But, yes, there is a certain amount of believe that logic holds, and that historical evidence is reliable. That said, if a competing theory was put forward, I would think about it and see if there was any way to differentiate via subjective experimental means. It’s only belief in so much as there are no better models.
But what of my belief? How does it offend you so? Are you trying to justify some crazy beliefs of your own by creating a false equivalence?
The original point is essentially that you argue matter is prior, and dismiss everything else by calling it “silly” and “crazy”. Yet you keep going around in a circular argument, failing to prove that your beliefs hold any more water than those you dismiss.
You said “We don’t have proof that consciousness is the result of a physical process. But there’s no reason to think it isn’t.”. You are subtly asking for proof for something NOT being the case. When the burden of proof is on you. Provide positive evidence or arguments for physicalism, or acknowledge it’s an assumption - there’s no point in offering alternatives when you will reject them based on your unproven, physicalist worldview.
That’s just not how science works. One can only postulate a theory, make predictions based on it, and test it. If you can come up with an experiment that shows the model false, it is disproved. Otherwise only if it stands the test of time, and useful predictions it becomes a law - although there’s always the caveat that it could still be proven false.
But you do have to start somewhere, with a framework for consistency and logic, or else you’ll never get anywhere and it’s a waste of time. That the universe is based on repeatable, consistent physical laws is about as basic of a framework as there could be. You can add abstract random magic into your model if it makes you happy, but I think it makes the model considerably less useful. Unless you can show me how it doesn’t, of course.
Then why don’t you? Why are you starting at a logically flawed position? You are insisting the horse exists because there’s a cart. You insist that all models must adhere to your unproven physicalist model. In any other case this would be called dogma.
No, science works by positing an idea and then pokes and prods at it until it either falls apart or survives. Yours keeps falling apart but you keep insisting. This is intellectually dishonest.
What competing model do you propose? Why does my model fall apart?
https://lemmy.zip/post/58312368/24394920 this is the post you initially challenged. Both I and Ageedizzle have been having this conversation with you. Everything we bring to you, you dismiss as “magic”, “silly”, “navel gazing”. Because it doesn’t fit your paradigm, yet you can’t logically defend your paradigm as evidenced by the circularity of your arguments. They hinge on the unproven claim that matter is prior to consciousness.
I’ve been around this block a few times so I’ve seen this cognitive wall you got going on many times. It’s exactly the same as with religious people. I can’t force you to access enough impartiality and awareness to see the logical error.