Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@Hazarth what entities “are”? Nobody questions the existence, this is merely an insight that demonstrates the discrete nature
-
@kiki From the perspective of reasoning both being and consciousness are facts. Occam's razor applies to some intuitive metric of complexity for explanations, usually it's associated with the amount of assumptions. A good explanation must support all facts, but this principle isn't Occam's razor.
I'm also not sure what exactly you mean by being, but the above should be true for most definitions I've heard so far. -
@kiki I highlight the difference because the credibility of an explanation that does not include all the facts degrades very differently from one that depends on extraneous assumptions. A theory can always be expanded without modification to prove new facts it didn't previously conflict with, whereas extraneous assumptions can usually only be eliminated by modifying the theory.
-
Reality doesn’t care if you know about it or not. It’ll always be there whether we know we exist or not. A tree falling in the woods still falls, still makes a noise but nobody hears it.
Another mind bending question for you: if what happened has happened how can we know if what happened was going to happen? Was it always going to happen? ;) anyway. I better leave the existential crisis questions and do that thing where I close my eyes for ages
Does being dictate consciousness or does consciousness dictate being?
In this layman form, the answer is undefined. But let's dig deeper.
The layman form doesn't account for the difference between discrete and continuous. Without that difference, the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise can't be solved. Yes, it took from ancient Greeks up until 17th century to solve it, introducing that distinction.
Both being and consciousness are discrete entities. This way, technically being was the first, because you were born to it. But when you became self-aware, your consciousness started to dictate being, and not the other way around.
If being truly fully dictate consciousness, then consciousness can be cut away by Occam's razor. In the same way, your parents are technically the reason you exist at all, but if that fact fully dictated who you are, then _you_ could be cut away in similar fashion.
Contrary to that, if consciousness fully dictated being all the time, being could be cut away too.
So, yes, being created your consciousness. But later, when your consciousness was created, it started to dictate being. This is the only way they're both can't be cut and are aligned with the timeline.
random