[crabkin]

Not the person you are replying to, but the assertion in question may not be arrogant if we construe it was made with the intent of saying "I think that consciousness is an emergent property having to do with the whole body," instead of just flat out making the assertion as if it was a general consensus.

If an assertion sounds like it makes sense, that doesn't mean it's not arrogant to make. Another point is that you supposing that since it "makes sense", that's enough justification to pass the burden proving-it-isn't-plausible onto someone who disagrees. In effect it comes off like someone taking one person for their word while asking for documentation and proof from another. Consciousness is an elusive thing to define much less to start making super strong claims about at this point lest you reveal some internal prejudices.

[aatd86]

Well people have to read between the lines and be charitable.

If both positions are not proven absolute truths, it's just as arrogant to claim another sensible opinion's arrogant.

By the way, if one corrects a statement, I expect to know why? Don't tell someone is just wrong because they think 2 + 2 = 5 and you think 2 + 2 = 4.

That's why we have proof in mathematics so that we deal in truths and not opinions and avoid conflicts.

[crabkin]

The opinion isn't arrogant because opinions can't really be arrogant, it's the context they're presented in which gives off the impression. I probably took what you wrote more seriously than my reply merited, but I do have an impression reading comments on this site that some people overwhelmingly lean in certain directions regarding such topics, they are essentially prejudiced. What you say next I think shows you have a nice sense of humility :)

I definitely agree personally that "Don't tell someone is just wrong because they think 2 + 2 = 5 and you think 2 + 2 = 4." I think that's the fair way to go about things. But I'd also like to add on to your point about math, that those those sorts of truths seem to be separate from the world of experience in some way while the "truth" about consciousness, if you subscribe to values of strict physicalism, must be derived and exclusively reside with the world of experience. By that I mean if there even exists some point at which people arrive at a near-perfect scientific description of consciousness, before we converge to that point we dwell heavily in a discourse rooted by the inherit distortions of experience: faulty methods, faulty equipment, cultural trends, fads and biases in the field, etc...

Appeals then to anything but clear explications verified by probably the one of the if not the most important mountain of results people for some reason are expecting, mostly resemble opinion I think, but that's alright, opinion is good I wouldn't discount it.

[aatd86]

Where you have a point is that, if we were to reason metaphorically and consider that everyone was colorblind and couldn't see indigo except for me... I would probably claim that a rainbow has 7 colors and not 6.

The onus would be on me to prove it though. Just like Galileo had to prove himself.

In our case here though, I don't think that anyone is claiming that there aren't possibly conscious beings that are immaterial, or non-physical even for our definition of physical (What dreams are made of for example)

The issue is that human consciousness as we know it depends on perceptions for awareness. Self can't exist without Other(not self) hence if one is unable to gain awareness of the existence of that which is not self, one cannot gain awareness of self.

It seems to be a capability derived from the human physical structure. And we have yet to encounter a human who never had a body. Nor do we remember what was before birth. Some people claim they remember past lives. But that still means they'd remember being a physical entity.

Last point is that interactions require a common language. Something that is purely non-physical would probably be completely orthogonal and imperceptible to us. It wouldn't even perceive us. If I define consciousness as a spectrum of interactions between physical data, it means that consciousness require a physical support. Remains to be determined though.

(not negating anyone's experience and I fully agree, not everyone is able to experience existence the same; usually, there would be measurable things if it is physical. I agree that often times, the scientific instruments might be lagging, indadequate as too crude, so I guess I understand and agree with your point as well)

[crabkin]

Your chain of reasoning is difficult to refute if we're speaking strictly in terms of "common sense" and what I think may be some commonly accepted guide posts we have currently have culturally. For instance, "It seems to be a capability derived from the human physical structure," referring to the idea that we come to know what consciousness is by observing that the notion of self requires the notion of the other and vice-versa, which constitutes part of, if not our whole perception of awareness. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I am getting.

Alrighty next to support the assertion that recognition of this dichotomy indicates a strictly physical basis for consciousness, we assert that we've never encountered a person without a body, I think implying that a body is necessary for drawing this boundary between "in" and "out" which characterizes consciousness.

What I would find a bit tenuous about this approach is that it is difficult to define what the physical, the material, really even is. Next, we are working off the presumption that consciousness comes from a division you point out, but this definition comes from a subjective personal observation, which in your last sentence you concede may be the case since people's experiences are different. For instance, in Advaita Vedanta we have one historical example of your assertion with its head turned over, essentially that there is no division, that it is illusory. This idea I would argue has about as much a basis as the one put forth, and this is due to our limitations with such subject matter. If we go down the non dualist route, well I would think we'd be down a pretty different road.

It also doesn't seem immediately apparent how, for lack of a better term, beginning with a dualist assumption, that we can then jump into the idea that this seems to be derived from human physical structure. Sure it seems like it has definitely something to do with it, but the place we begin is so fundamental it feels circular to look through the same tool in order to measure the tool so to speak.

[aatd86]

Interesting. In my understanding, I'm not sure that division and oneness are actually in opposition.

The rationale being that the one overall encompassing thing is existence. Existence exists by definition and therefore non-existence cannot exist by definition.

It's within that one thing called Existence that I believe divisions are necessary for everything else to emerge. If everything is differentiated parts of existence, the physical world as we know may be just one of many kinds of worlds. (each world would probably called physical, composed of non orthogonal bits of existence so that interactions remain possible)

But division or differentiation is necessary for interaction. Total sameness, homogeneity cannot create space or time or anything else. Even in the physical world, gradients create displacements.

I am just not sure about the drivers of such differentiation.

I agree that, the concept of my own being exist outside of the physical world for an external observer of our world.

But my hunch is that this concept is quite plausibly the concept of a given physical structure of physical bits of existence just like any anything we perceive.

The one constant is existence.

Where you are absolutely right is that I could also be discarding the fact that we may be interacting unbeknownst to ourselves as part non-physical being. Basically, our physical existence would just be a projection in the physical world of higher dimensional selves. (thinking in the algebraic, tensorial sense).

Our physical world could also have been entirely created by a single entity but that entity would still be one of many parts of existence if not merely existence itself so I am really interested in the highest levels.

As far as I can personally tell, we don't know whichever takes is true. One seems to be quite plausible wrt our collective experience. Especially since we don't seem to be what is in our imagination. Even the idea of the self that we can envision via our imagination might be something else entirely residing in an orthogonal world. :)