Ted Vollers wrote:
And this is supposed to mean something, to make sense? What is your point? This is now appearing to be ambiguous, rambling quotations. Is there a point to this? Can you not state it clearly? While I believe that you do have a point, you are presenting it badly and unclearly. Nor do I agree with what your point appears to be. You have proven nothing and not even stated it clearly. If your purpose is to state that consciousness does not form the origin and basis of this VR, then declare victory and move on please. This is not a useful exercise.
my apologies for being esoteric, the quotes above are from Wikipedia and are intended as sources to reinforce my previous statements, which in brevity are: emotions are physical in origin and corresponds to regions of the physical structure that is the brain and that similar structures and regions also exist in other life forms present and in the past.
Solipsism is not the only conclusion one can reach from the "consciousness first - physical second" or consciousness is fundamental premise. It is ONE of the many possible conclusions you can reach, but your logic may be slightly flawed if the BEST of all possible conclusions, for you, is the inevitability of solipsism. Solipsism tends to be a very Egocentric position, causing "ME" to be the center of the universe, and all "others" are simply automatons and illusions created for "my" benefit. But if you accept that "others" also possess (and are) consciousness, but the "scenery" is rendered (and "virtual") you might move one step closer to MBT
not at all, for one to accept consciousness as a prior, would require acknowledgement of consciousness, and the only absolute form and that which is infallibly is one's own. For the acknowledgement of other consciousness is simply accepting an assumption that can not be absolutely verified, consequentially, by accepting an assumption such as the existence of other consciousness, one would then must also yield to the absolute veracity of perceptions, which again falls into the logical fallacy of the Munchhausen trilemma.
Once again you are slightly off the mark because the "objective external" is extremely SUBJECTIVE, and ultimately based upon your PERCEPTIONS. Even the words and symbols we use to communicate are subjectively interpreted based on our knowledge, experience and beliefs
Yes i agree that what we deem as, along with the specifications of objectivity is subjective, however does that mean that the objective does not exist?