>>40380889
>well you invoke your own self-perspective 'we can only interact with our own consciousnesses' and then say you don't believe in self, which is a lil contradictory yeh
being able to experience consciousness doesnt imply the existence of a self the way i would define it. it's like the image on a tv screen. you can pause on any given frame but no frame will encompass the totality of the program. that is to say there isnt a self outside of the active process of consciousness, which means that consciousness is sufficient to explain subjective experience and a self isnt. thoughts and experiences are always in flux so there is no self outside of ephemeral chains in the process.
>to try to separate what you call 'consciousness' from the structure of your body and the environment itself is the most hand wavey thing you could do that only leads to the illogical path of skepticism forever and ever
im not. like i was saying there is a chain of contingent awarenesses. our eyes can process data. so can our fingers. our retinas also distort the light. and even the light reacts to forces outside of us. each stage of reaction is a different stage in the chain of contingency between the actual and the experiential. our stage isnt necessarily the supreme one, you could even say structures of multiple people like families or societies are larger stages of awareness that we cannot personally access due to being an individual.
>all you can really show is that you can construct such a system of thought, but can't really derive anything meaningful from it
depends on what you find meaningful i guess. but that seems just like an ad hominem outside of any truth statement. this stuff interest me, i dont need a better reason.
>in the end whether or not you truly believe it, you will necessarily have to behave as if you don't
why would a consciousness want to or be able to not exist within its own existence? thats meaningless