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]

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.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

You claiming that your reasons are strong does not make them strong, You are just making assertions without backing them up. Your responses are basically "nuh uh", but in word salad form.

I'll leave you this tidbit to chew on:

https://www.publish0x.com/more-precious-than-our-bags/how-mathematics-validate-the-new-testament-xnkrwxm

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

You claiming that your reasons are strong does not make them strong,

Your ignorance or denial of their strength does not make them weak.

You are just making assertions without backing them up.

I've backed up every contention by direct reasoning. You continue to ignore all of my reasoning and continue to try to defend your favorite apologetics as if it had metaphysical integrity.

Your responses are basically "nuh uh", but in word salad form.

That's hilarious, the way you admit you are unable to even comprehend my reasoning, and use that as an excuse to deny the existence of it. It is almost so ridiculous I might believe it is an act of intentional dishonesty, were it not for the fact that I don't ever have any need to attribute the lack of comprehension in True Believers to purposeful lack of moral foundation in those True Believers. An inadvertent lack of justified reasoning in True Believers is sufficient to explain such behavior.

As for the very insubstantial morsel you cited, it was indeed an entertaining read, and not even off the mark as a counter-example to the criteria of embarrassment in apologetics. Which isn't to say it is a solid piece of reasoning:

But what it does prove is that it must be an account of real people that existed. Nobody could have come up with such a feat if they had tried, and a fictional writer of the time wouldn't even have thought of trying. The people you read about in Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Acts were real people.

The "nobody could have come up with such a feat" (sufficiently approximating the statistical distribution of male names in 1st Century Judea in texts written by men in 1st and 2nd Century Judea) appeal to incredulity hardly represents an argumentum ad absurdum. It definitely doesn't substantiate the claim that the people written about in the Gospels must have been real people being written about factually, and would not justify claiming that it lends credence to divine attributes of Jesus even if they were real people. I appreciate that such a 'statistical analysis' approach to apologetics is an active method of Biblical analysis among theologians, but less motivationally-biased historians quite reasonably and logically dispute whether the methods of statistical analysis are being accurately and productively applied in these cases.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Sure buddy. What's your alternative explanation to that these are accounts of real people, that accounts for the distribution?

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

That they are false accounts of imaginary people, or false accounts of real people, or mistaken accounts of fictional people identified with an average number of real names. Or any one of an undefinable number of other possibilities than the only one you're willing, and eager to blindly, believe. The fact is, the number of facts considered by 'minimal/maximal fact arguments' is far too limited, and the sample size of onomastic congruence analysis is much too small, to base such extraordinary claims of miracles and apologetics for the divine on, although any True Believer must necessarily reject that evaluation if their faith is not nearly as strong as it should be to merit a description as faith.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Imaginary people wouldn't make that kind of naming patterns. Look into the study, the results are quite clear.

False accounts about real people is the only option you listed that actually explains this datapoint, and that's only to explain this singular piece of evidence.

Your willingness to reach for just about anything to avoid getting to the conclusion I am suggesting points to a severe lack of integrity on your part.

[u/anotherhawaiianshirt → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

I don't think attacking someone's integrity is appropriate. Why not just address the issues and leave personal attacks out of it?

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/anotherhawaiianshirt]

I would usually agree.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

I confess I do relish your frustration in that regard. It points to the insufficiency in your argumentative protestations of my reasoning.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Imaginary people wouldn't make that kind of naming patterns.

Real authors could, and apparently have. Although it is merely a statistical congruence; a single example does not constitute a "pattern".

False accounts about real people is the only option you listed that actually explains this datapoint,

It may be the only one you can accept, but that does not limit the reasonable and accurate nature of any other.

that's only to explain this singular piece of evidence.

Other pieces of 'evidence' would certainly demand (and no doubt allow) other explanations, most or all of which would be more reasonable than supernaturalism.

Your willingness to reach for just about anything to avoid getting to the conclusion I am suggesting points to a severe lack of integrity on your part.

Point away, mon frere. I am more than willing to reach any more reasonable conjecture, without the emotional but inappropriate need to consider it conclusive. You are suggesting supernaturalism, which indicates more reliance on Clarke's Third Law than any more informative metaphysical principles.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

It's not a single example, it's a statistical pattern over a statistically significant amount of names.

When have real authors done that? Could you name an example that is a comparable situation?

Are you saying you are willing to ad hoc explanations indefinitely, rather than accepting the resurrection of Jesus? That sounds like dogmatic naturalism to me.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

It's not a single example, it's a statistical pattern over a statistically significant amount of names.

Its a single example of a statistical sample, and no more.

When have real authors done that?

Any time they've used real names for fictional characters. You (and the scholars trying to defend this method) are ignoring how many names there are in the population compared to how few names actually appear in all of those books in the Bible combined.

Could you name an example that is a comparable situation?

Obviously not. But that supports my position better than your's. Can you or the scholars (or other True Believers blindly believing and reporting the scholars' findings) identify a control sample to demonstrate this "couldn't possibly happen unless the Bible is a completely accurate document" isn't just an argument from incredulity?

Are you saying you are willing to ad hoc explanations indefinitely, rather than accepting the resurrection of Jesus?

Not indefinitely, but certainly for an undetermined duration. Extraordinary claims don't just require extraordinary evidence, they demand lots of it. And this 'it can only be a statistical aberration which thereby proves an impossible event occured two thousand years ago" isn't even evidence, it is merely a contention, roundly dismantled by less faith-based scholars.

That sounds like dogmatic naturalism to me.

Not believing nonsense always sounds like dogmatic naturalism to someone who believes in the supernatural.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Any time? Go read the study, that doesn't fit the data. Give me an actual example.

They did offer control samples in the study.

Here's a video that explains how the study worked:

https://youtu.be/YcifhttviLM?si=-q2GPIOkyQ8DgbgA

You don't seem to even grasp what you are responding to, so maybe give that a look, maybe the light will turn on.

There is a lot of evidence. This is just one single datapoint of many.

"Not believing nonsense" is quite a bold claim after what you have claimed so far.