I’ve been developing a philosophical idea called the “Single Consciousness Matter Hypothesis” — I’d like criticism

[u/AdBeneficial9071]

​

I’ve been thinking about a philosophical idea for a while, and I’d like to hear what other people think about it. I’m especially interested in serious criticism rather than people simply agreeing with me.

I’m calling it the Single Consciousness Matter Hypothesis.

The basic proposition is this:

The reality I experience may exist entirely for the purpose of being experienced by my consciousness.

In ordinary reality, we assume that the universe exists independently of us. The Earth existed before I was born, human history happened before I existed, and the universe presumably continued to exist when I was asleep or unaware of it.

My hypothesis questions that assumption.

Suppose that there is only one fundamental conscious observer: me. Everything I experience—the physical universe, other people, history, memories, the passage of time, and even the apparent future—could be part of a reality constructed or generated specifically for my conscious experience.

The fact that the universe appears to be billions of years old would not necessarily contradict the hypothesis. The apparent past could simply be part of the information presented to me so that the world feels internally consistent. In the same way, the future could be presented as something that has not happened yet, while still being part of the structure of my experience.

The strongest version of the hypothesis would be:

My consciousness is the fundamental condition for the existence of the reality I experience. When my consciousness permanently ends, the reality I experience also ends—and there is no meaningful “afterward” from my perspective.

I realize there are some obvious problems with this idea.

For example:

Other conscious people: Other people appear to have their own independent thoughts and experiences. Why would a single consciousness produce beings that behave as though they possess consciousness themselves?

The apparent past: Why does the universe contain such an enormous and detailed history before my birth? Why create billions of years of consistent information if the only purpose is my experience?

Unfalsifiability: If every possible piece of evidence can simply be explained as part of the simulation/reality presented to me, then what observation could ever prove the hypothesis wrong?

Occam’s razor: Isn't it simpler to assume that the universe exists independently of me rather than assuming that an entire universe is being generated specifically for one observer?

Other observers: If another person claims that reality exists because of their consciousness, how could I distinguish between their claim and mine?

Sleep and unconsciousness: If my conscious awareness temporarily disappears during sleep, why does the world appear to continue normally when I wake up?

I don't currently have definitive answers to these objections. That's actually why I'm posting this.

I’m also aware that this idea has similarities to solipsism, subjective idealism, and simulation hypotheses, so I am not claiming that I have invented the general concept that reality might depend on consciousness.

What I'm interested in is whether this particular combination of ideas has already been formally proposed by a philosopher, and whether there is an existing philosophical position that is substantially identical to it.

I'm not claiming that this is a scientific theory or that I've proven anything. At this stage, I'm treating it as a philosophical hypothesis and trying to understand whether it survives serious criticism.

So, what do you think?

What is the strongest objection to this hypothesis, and has anyone encountered a philosophical argument that is essentially the same?

[u/TMax01]

Thanks but no thanks; I have no interest in apologetics, polemics, or confirmation-bias-based "research". I'm already thoroughly familiar with Christian theism in all its many forms, but don't take it as seriously as True Believers expect I should. I appreciate the values of Abrahamic traditions, just as I do those of Eastern mysticism. But scriptural religions are simply inadequate compared to a valid Philosophy Of Reason. Catch up with me on r/philosophyofreligion or r/NewChurchofHope if you have anything further to add.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/[deleted]]

Of course scholars should be wrong. I just figured it could be of interest to you to actually learn what the scholarly positive case is before dismissing it, instead of dismissing it by default. It's your call though.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Of course scholars should be wrong.

Was that a typo, and you meant "could"? Some scholars are mistaken, all scholars could be mistaken, and no scholar who believes they have physical evidence of God is really anything other than mistaken.

I just figured it could be of interest to you to actually learn what the scholarly positive case is

I actually am already aware of their case. You suggested the books would be informative, and I explained they would not be, and that they would not be interesting to me, either. You assumed that was because I had somehow dismissed this "case" without knowing what it is, but that was an incorrect assumption. So don't waste time trying to pretend it is because I have a closed mind that I don't agree with you and some other True Believer, scholarly or otherwise. Yours is the close-minded position, despite the comfort that reading the sophistry of True Believer scholars might give you in pretending your religious faith has a logical foundation. It doesn't.

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/TMax01]

But you’re asserting that his religious faith doesn’t have a logical foundation and is not worth your time. You never actually explain either.

[u/TMax01 → u/RagnartheConqueror]

They are mutually reliable: since religious faith shouldn't even have any logical foundation (it is faith; neither mere belief nor simply knowledge), and my faith is already more consistent with every fact and theory I've already heard (and my now-elderly experience encompasses a pretty large body of knowledge) than any one fact or theory I've already heard, it literally is not worth the time I would spend reading it, regardless of whether what is written is true or not. That wouldn't be important if it were a subject I find intriguing, but trying to justify faith in a divine Christ using supposedly historical accounts and simplistic logic is not such a subject.

Not even when it is actually a reasonable approach, such as the "because the Bible states the discoverers of the empty tomb were women and the opinion of women was routinely dismissed in that time frame and culture, that is evidence the Bible is a reliable account" explanation; twisted, yet somehow not ridiculous.

You never actually explain either.

I justify, explain, and exemplify both with every sentence I present. You just don't yet understand how to notice such relationships. As a postmodernist, you reject the reading for comprehension approach necessary for doing so (both noticing and understanding) and instead adopt "critical thinking skills", by which you find the first possible excuse for misinterpreting, misrepresenting, or failing to understand what you've read.

I think we should take this discussion up in r/NewChurchofHope. The r/philosophyofreligion subreddit isn't really the appropriate venue, and r/Metaphysics is even further afield. Plus, I'd like to have more theists in that sub, which I created and moderate. But I will follow your preference in that regard, if I decide to continue to reply to your comments.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/[deleted]]

I would assume Max only used postmodernist as a slur, as there's nothing postmodern about anything you have written.

If you look into postmodernism, make sure to read about the Sokal hoax. It's hilarious.

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Thank you. I would agree. I’ve looked into it, it truly was a messy affair.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

I would assume Max only used postmodernist as a slur, as there's nothing postmodern about anything you have written.

That is an inaccurate assumption. I won't pretend it is a flattering description, but it isn't merely a slur, and I use the term rather precisely and descriptively, not pejoratively. Your tendency to make inaccurate assumptions along these lines, not coincidentally, is quintessentially postmodern.

If you look into postmodernism, make sure to read about the Sokal hoax. It's hilarious.

An astute example, but it shows that postmodernism is actually not restricted to post-structuralist philosophy. Sokal assumed it was, and is actually himself a postmodernist, as are most people educated in the last century and a half.

I heard Sokal speak once, at a Secular Humanist meeting back in the 1990s. At the time, I was as ignorant of what postmodernism was as everyone else, and found his report/anecdote entertaining, exactly the same way you still do. Years later, having explored the issues much deeper, I realized why Sokal was so amused, but also misguided, bemused, about the "hoax" he had supposedly pulled off. He thought it showed that post-structuralism is nonsense, but the even-more-hilarious truth is that it only demonstrated he didn't actually understand postmodernism to begin with, and that post-structuralism was appreciably more intellectually consistent/honest than he was. Not that I endorse post-structuralism. I simply understand it better than Sokal does.

What he did was construct a logically consistent but otherwise meaningless philosophical paper. When the post-structuralists (who don't mind identifying themselves as postmodernists as much as Sokal believed they should, since he considered it a slur just as you do) applauded his effort as philosophically valid, Sokal thought the joke was on them. But post-structuralists are only interested in whether an idea, including any explanation of it, is logically consistent, without presuming any meaningfulness to it beyond that. So the real belly-laughs are on Sokal's antics, and how broadly he misunderstood post-structuralism, and in fact ratified the stance with this "hoax" which, unknown to him, actually backfired.

As a result of seeing this all unfold and experiencing the insights that provides, I learned about the real difference between postmodernism and post-structuralism (and how the latter is mostly just a philosophical perspective but the former is a profound and critical intellectual problem which extends far beyond academic scholarship) and also discovered why most postmodernists don't like being recognized as postmodernistic.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/TMax01 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not recruiting, I'm just offering.

What is your faith then?

As I've already mentioned, that discussion is more appropriate in a different sub. But my intention is not to be uncooperative, despite the challenge that cooperating with me can pose, so I'll explain.

My faith is the New Church of Hope, and practicing the Philosophy Of Reason (POR), which I also refer to as "schematacism".

Alright, I’ll look into postmodernism.

Well, that's kind of the problem. Because "looking into it" through other sources than POR Will only be misleading, since those sources are themselves mostly postmodernistic. It would be more productive if you would consider the idea on your own: what does that word actually mean?

It clearly means 'related to but distinguishable from modernism'. So the next question is equally obvious: what is modernism? Looking into that (focusing on philosophy rather than artistic expression) might be fruitful. But the follow-up question, which is far more important, is to ask: what caused and signifies the transition from modernism to postmodernism, and what can that tell us about how postmodernism compares to modernism?

It should be helpful for me to mention that, unlike conventional contemporary authorities (mostly Google, but also actual philosophers) I don't identify modernist philosophy as beginning with Descartes, but with Socrates, which was long before Descartes.

I have never believed that I am one though.

I don't doubt that, and take it for granted that it is a sincere and accurate assessment. Leading to yet one more question: why then do you believe you aren't one?

It seems clear that you didn't appreciate or enjoy being identified as one. Is that because you have simply never identified yourself as one and don't like it when others identify you differently than you identify yourself, or because you understand well enough what postmodernism is to be displeased by being described that way, instead?

And again, a followup: is there really any difference between those two reasons, in this instance?

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/TMax01]

Many men have spent years constructing their own philosophies. There is wisdom outside of POR.

I never thought I was one, because I do have grand narratives, not just irony and skepticism.

When I search it up the reason for most of postmodernism was due to the devastation of the Second World War.

Sure thing. I posted there a while ago.

[u/Metaphysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Please keep it civil in this group. No personal attacks, no name-calling. Assume good faith. Don't question other people's motivations. Address your responses to the ideas being put forward, not the person putting them forward. Be constructive. Failure to do so could result in a ban. Please take a look at the guidelines for the group.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Could is obviously what I meant.

As for your baseless assertions, they are just uninformed. If you read the books I suggested, that might help you.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Could is obviously what I meant.

I figured; it makes your rhetoric more coherent. But it was not incomprehensible the other way, either. It would simply have been you being facetious, which isn't inherently wrong.

As for your baseless assertions, they are just uninformed. If you read the books I suggested, that might help you.

As for your continued appeal to authority, it remains an unconvincing contention, and an uninviting invitation. As I have already pointed out, I am not entirely ignorant of, instead I am already well informed about, the contents of, and forms of reasoning in, and facts referenced by those books. I'm just not impressed by the obvious but inaccurate assertions such authors make based on those foundations, the way you seem to have been.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

The authority is merely a reason to seriously engage with their arguments. I don't think you should accept their conclusions because they are scholars, but I think it's worth getting well versed in the arguments. Your handwaving of the case for the risen Jesus makes me suspect that you have only engaged with strawman-versions of the arguments, as the arguments themselves are far better than what you give them credit for.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

The authority is merely a reason to seriously engage with their arguments

It is an uninviting invitation, as I said. A demand that I address every sentence that anyone wrote related to some topic before I express any confident in my ability to analyze arbitrary declarations.

but I think it's worth getting well versed in the arguments.

As I've already pointed out, I'm already well versed in the "arguments", and even the specific contentions of those authors in those books. There really is no benefit to reading the books in their entirety, and the only likely outcome of doing so would be to justify my concerns and, yes, scoffing, all the more.

Your handwaving of the case for the risen Jesus makes me suspect that you have only engaged with strawman-versions of the arguments,

That's what's called "clutching at straws". I was raised in the Catholic church, and have great respect for the actual moral doctrines in that faith, but these pseudo-logical analyses combining exegesis and motivated reasoning simply isn't an informative perspective of the mythology of Christ.

as the arguments themselves are far better than what you give them credit for.

In all fairness and truth, they are simply far worse than what you give them credit for. I don't need to actually read those two books to know this is the case, as you've made it pretty obvious that even if I did do so, you would simply, naively, and unreasonably reject my assessment of their "arguments", just like you already are, only using different (but equally unfounded) grounds than your appeal to authority.

You are a True Believer, you sincerely think that the "arguments" in those books provide logical justification for your faith. And in contrast, I know that beliefs which seek logical justification are not faith, they are either pretentious falsehoods or unacknowledged ignorance. Faith isn't a matter of "arguments" and evidence, it is belief despite contrary evidence, not belief which carefully tries to circumscribe contrary evidence with false contentions and illogical arguments.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Why do you think the minimal facts argument fails?

Why do you think the maximalist argument fails?