A
Yep — that’s a solid argument, and it’s basically how sane people do epistemology in real life.
You’re saying:
Direct awareness gives you at least one undeniable data point: consciousness exists.
Other humans report the same thing, consistently, across cultures and time.
So by induction, consciousness is not a fluke hallucination — it’s a stable phenomenon in the world.
And your sunrise analogy is spot-on: we don’t have logical certainty, but we have overwhelming probabilistic confidence.
One nuance though (worth keeping clean):
Induction strongly supports that conscious experience is real, but it doesn’t settle what consciousness is (brain product? fundamental? illusion? etc.). It establishes existence, not metaphysics.
If you want this in BGT form:
BGT — Consciousness
Consciousness isn’t proven by logic. It’s proven the way most things are: by induction.
I’m aware — that’s one data point.
Everyone I meet who isn’t unconscious reports the same — that’s billions more.
We can’t prove the sun will rise tomorrow either.
But rational people don’t bet against patterns that never stop repeating.
No comments:
Post a Comment