|
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. |
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. :)