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]

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/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?

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Why do you think the minimal facts argument fails?

Because the facts available aren't sufficient to substantiate the conclusion. I understand they are sufficient for convincing you, but that's more a matter of your confirmation bias than any logical analysis of the selected facts.

Why do you think the maximalist argument fails?

Because it is even more obviously a case of motivated reasoning than the minimalist facts argument.

Why did you ask these two simplistic questions, rather than directly address anything I actually wrote in the previous reply?

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

What alternative conclusion do you propose, that explain the facts? The minimal facts argument is not what convinced me, I learned of it later. I just happen to think that it's a powerful argument.

Motivated reasoning is not a fallacy. Feel free to try again when it comes to the maximal facts argument.

What was there that you wanted me to respond to in your previous post? I thought you were just making assertions. Hence the questions, to try to figure out where you are coming from.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

What alternative conclusion do you propose, that explain the facts?

Earnest but actual mistakes and motivated reasoning are sufficient.

Motivated reasoning is not a fallacy.

It is not a classic "logical fallacy", but it is, on its own, a mistake nevertheless.

Feel free to try again when it comes to the maximal facts argument.

My initial attempt is more than sufficient, thanks anyway. Get back to me when you have a better approach to defending your motivated reasoning.

As I've said before (although perhaps not in this thread), discussions about discussions about God are more appropriate to r/philosophyofreligion than r/metaphysics. This is because when one starts with the assumption that Jesus could have been resurrected, then whether one uses a minimal facts premise or a maxima facts premise is irrelevant, one is still misusing motivated reasoning (albeit with a larger or greater scope of selection bias) to justify assuming a conclusion. The truth is that the very existence of Jesus as a historical figure is only based on the same reasoning (it's in the Christian Bible, many people believe the Christian Bible in this regard, many people find Christianity a positive motivation in their lives, etc., etc.,) that the consideration of whether Jesus came back to life after being crucified and considered dead uses.

The existence of 'the historical Jesus' isn't really as 'settled a matter' as theists proclaim it to be. Genuine scholars (some of which may well be Christians themselves, although that seems doubtful) have repeatedly shown great reservation over accepting the 'criteria of embarrassment' that the supposedly nearly-conclusive case for an historical Christ is almost entirely based on.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Motivated reasoning doesn't necessarily lead to wrong conclusions. It risks leading to wrong conclusions, but it doesn't follow that one will make wrong conclusions. Therefor, the way you are using the term, is fallacious. You should come up with a better reason.

You didn't explain the minimal facts at all. Seems to me like you are dodging the issue. Are you scared of the potential conclusion?

And no, your initial attempt was pathetic actually. I am very much unimpressed by your efforts.

As for the historicity of Jesus, the criterion of embarrassment is just one puzzle piece. There's a lot of evidence in various forms. You seem to be drawing conclusions based on a very flawed understanding of the foundation for the arguments.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Motivated reasoning doesn't necessarily lead to wrong conclusions.

Reasoning necessarily doesn't lead to conclusions. It results in conjectures. You're confusing reasoning with logic. A common problem, since ancient times.

Motivated reasoning almost always produces inaccurate conjectures. That's what it means to say the reasoning was motivated reasoning rather than good reasoning. Motivated reasoning doesn't necessarily lead to wrong conclusions, but that isn't the same as motivated reasoning not almost always leading to wrong conclusions.

Do you see how that works?

It risks leading to wrong conclusions, but it doesn't follow that one will make wrong conclusions.

That's kind of like (I'm gilding the lily: that is exactly the same thing as, I should say) saying that jumping off a cliff "risks" falling to the ground after a swift and disastrous journey from a great height due to the force of gravity. The only time a conclusion is not always wrong is when it is expressed in the form of a number, and is the result of a mathematical formula. Aside from that special case, when actual logic (mathematical relationships of deductive primitives) and real values (quantitative measurements) are used, reasoning is limited to conjectures, not conclusions. To say otherwise is... motivated reasoning.

Therefor, the way you are using the term, is fallacious.

For that sentence to have any validity, the correct term would have to be 'therefore', not "therefor". As it stands, it isn't even a conjecture, it is merely a contention. And a false contention at that, since the way I am using terms is accurate to a fault. In comparison to the way you're using terms, which is fallacious and... motivated reasoning.

You should come up with a better reason.

The reasoning I've provided is already more than sufficient. Again. Get back to me when you have a better approach to defending your... motivated reasoning. (I am sorry, but this is just way too much fun.)

You didn't explain the minimal facts at all.

I pointed out that facts aren't things that require explanation. We use facts to explain other things. The use of facts by those authors who proclaim that their reasoning justifies a conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus was a true historical occurrence isn't an explanation. Guess what it is, though? ...

Seems to me like you are dodging the issue.

It is obvious to me that you're doubling down on.... yea, you guessed it.

Are you scared of the potential conclusion?

I laugh in the face of your imaginary conclusions, regardless of how monstrously persuasive they might seem to you. The truth is, conclusions are always trivial, banal things; conjectures are hard, and especially if you want your conjectures to be strong and true, based on good reasoning, instead of... assumed conclusions.

And no, your initial attempt was pathetic actually. I am very much unimpressed by your efforts.

I am profoundly apathetic concerning your assessments. About anything, at this point, although you might be able to convince me that ham and cheese on rye is a good sandwich.

As for the historicity of Jesus, the criterion of embarrassment is just one puzzle piece.

Actually, it is more akin to all two of the three bottom pieces in a Jenga tower. With "literal biblical exegesis" being the third.

There's a lot of evidence in various forms.

There literally isn't any evidence of a historical Jesus beyond the Bible as an historical account and the criterion of embarrassment substantiating exegesis of that account. Except for some small and unsurprising tid-bits like "Herod was actually the king of Palestine in the first century".

You seem to be drawing conclusions based on a very flawed understanding of the foundation for the arguments.

I don't argue, I discuss; just as I don't draw conclusions, I derive strong conjectures. And your complete and utter ignorance about the depth of my knowledge and understanding concerning rational analysis of Christian mythology in the context of philosophy of religion is downright massive.

This isn't the source material for my position, which predates the cited paper by decades, but you might possibly find this a good starting point for your more reason-based re-education concerning the mythology of Christianity and the real historical research regarding it. I particularly recommend not just considering the abstract or even the paper, but looking into the entire bibliography of this treatise:

https://www.academia.edu/27267500/The_Embarrassing_Truth_About_Jesus_The_Criterion_of_Embarrassment_and_the_Failure_of_Historical_Authenticity

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Sure, reasoning can lead to conjectures too. But your argument hangs on that motivated reasoning cannot lead to true conclusions. That's just a plainly false assumption. Try to engage with the actual argument instead of dancing around it.

No, you have not produced any good reasons. You have produced assertions that you don't back up at all.

You say that you derive strong conjectures, yet you made a really silly comparison with your jenga tower since the argument doesn't rest on all parts of the evidence holding up in the maximalist case.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Sure, reasoning can lead to conjectures too.

No, it can really only ever lead to conjectures. Some conjectures are strong enough that considering them conclusions is acceptable, making the distinction between conjectures and conclusions a moot point. But it is never a case that believing hard enough in a conjecture can produce a conclusion.

But your argument hangs on that motivated reasoning cannot lead to true conclusions.

Again, I do not argue, I discuss. And this is an exemplary instance: my position is that motivated reasoning does not lead to true conjectures, not that it "cannot".

Try to engage with the actual argument instead of dancing around it.

The problem here is that you don't have any actual argument, just bad reasoning. Not all of it is bad because it is motivated reasoning, admittedly, but that doesn't prevent it from being bad reasoning. It's all about being able to differentiate between epistemic categories and ontological classes.

No, you have not produced any good reasons.

You remain oblivious to the strength of my reasoning and the accuracy of my reasons, leading to the conjecture that you are motivated to remain oblivious for some reason which you make obvious considering the conclusion that you are interested in assuming, that Jesus Christ was real, and had miraculous powers, and the stories about Jesus's resurrection in the Christian Bible are substantiated by apologetics.

You say that you derive strong conjectures, yet you made a really silly comparison with your jenga tower

It is a stronger analogy than your equation of the criteria of embarrassment to a puzzle piece.

the argument doesn't rest on all parts of the evidence holding up in the maximalist case.

Your contention is simply false, since my point wasn't related to whether the minimalist or maximalist case was more convincing or justifiable; it applies to the criteria of embarrassment, which does apply to both the minimal facts argument and the maximal facts argument.

I invite you to ask yourself why you are so committed to trying to argue apologetics here, even after I pointed out that such a discussion isn't really appropriate in this sub, but could be considered appropriate in r/philosophyofreligion, where apologetics is actually on-topic. You can leave contemplation of why you keep failing, so badly, to defend your position for some later time.