The Case Against Reality

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Just thought I'd share this very interesting article. Guy says reality is nothing like what we perceive. I agree that this is totally possible. What we really are could be completely abstract from how what we are models what we are. For all we know our actual bodies could be some kind of alien slime in a different dimension.

 

Mr. Writer has posted a TED talk from Hoffman before discussing many of the points in the article. It is interesting, particularly in the context of evolutionary "fitness."

 

Now that is cool---it is right along the lines of my philosophy of archephenomenalism, except I do answer that we are not machines because we are conscious beings, able to manipulate and determine not only our essence, but also the essence of reality around us. Machines are purely physical, while we, as conscious beings transcend the physical.

I would say that we are not slime, but that what we believe to be physical manifestation is only a partial manifestation within any given instant, and that what is manifested within a given instant only manifests for an infinitely small moment, otherwise, it is all just waves of energy...

 

This would potentially imply that Taoism or at least my perception of Taoism is correct . Now time for a new thread!

 

The research on consciousness suggests that "we", too, are constructs. Most of our more routine decisions are made autonomically before we know we made them, others are the product of a wrestling match between modularized parts of our unconscious, and the picture that we have of reality is an illusion to give unity to it all. But despite it all, I think we're basically in contact with a construct that reflects a basic objective underlying reality. I think that because: it seems intuitively obvious and because I've made an educated bet that it is so: Santayana's "animal faith."

 

I responded to this in Do You Believe in Free Will. My philosophy places consciousness as the First cause (arche). I have trouble with such research because it leads to epiphenomenalist conclusions (that the brain responds biochemically, and that the decisions are made automatically, therefore consciousness and the concept of choice are simply illusions). I argue that while the research suggests that we make choices before we are conscious of them, we are still only identifying brain activity without truly knowing what it is, therefore it may be nothing more than the perception of choice. likewise, there may be a delay, not in awareness, but in expressing that awareness, then too, we do not really know in this sense the role of the subconscious.

This suggests too much structuralism, which in its most radical form, does away with the subjective self altogether. My philosophy incorporates structuralism but compared to this it is quite minimalist.