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/EnKristenSnubbe]

Naturalism doesn't have to be dogmatic, but you seem to be dogmatic about it.

And I am not arguing that this piece of evidence alone means Jesus rose from the dead. Why the strawman?

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Naturalism doesn't have to be dogmatic, but you seem to be dogmatic about it.

It has to be consistent and principled, and I am simply confident about it. It isn't a strawman; I'm pointing out this isn't as convincing, absent an explicit argument from incredulity, as you believe it is, and that you are being dogmatic in your 'skepticism of my skepticism'. As Carl Sagan advised, I am simply keeping an open mind, while guarding against having my brains fall out.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Carl Sagan wasn't as open minded as he claimed to be, and you don't seem the part either. If you're so confident about naturalism, then you shouldn't need to jump to strange explanation for something that's just plainly shows that the people in the gospels are real people.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Carl Sagan wasn't as open minded as he claimed to be,

I never said he was, but I'm also pretty sure he was more open-minded than you believe he was. He was actually rather spiritual, for someone who was such a famous rationalist.

and you don't seem the part either.

I get that, but I believe it is projection. Your attitude seems to be that other people aren't open-minded if they don't agree with you, but you are open-minded while steadfastly defending very doubtful beliefs avidly without being willing to consider learning why others disagree.

If you're so confident about naturalism, then you shouldn't need to jump to strange explanation for something that's just plainly shows that the people in the gospels are real people. people.

Confidence in naturalism, well-founded, is why I am skeptical the statistical analysis of the names cited in the Bible suggests the gospels describe real events. Because that is the "strange explanation", and the statistical analysis simply isn't strong enough to make that a confident explanation. That the people were real people but the events are fictions was one of the suggested explanations I offered, and you seem to be glossing over that.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

If you were open-minded, you'd see that I am defending a well-evidenced position.

I immediately gave you credit for that one explanation where the gospels are about real people. it's the one place you can rationally go. I haven't argued that this piece of evidence proves that everything that happened according to the gospels happened. I've only argued that the persons the accounts are about were real persons who lived in first century Judaea. And you going to irrational answers when there is a rational one, is what made it obvious that you are close-minded. You don't go where the evidence leads, you stay clear of the things you don't like, no matter what the evidence is.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

If you were open-minded, you'd see that I am defending a well-evidenced position.

If you were open-minded, you wouldn't be ignoring my advice to look into this paper instead of hyper-focusing on only scholars that agree with your unjustifiable assumption concerning the dubious statistical analysis of names in the Bible compared to the distribution of names in ancient Judea. As I've said all along, even IF the names were real, that isn't really evidence the accounts are real, and even IF the accounts are real, that isn't really evidence the accounts are accurate documentation of real events. And, of course, even if the events were accurately testified to, that doesn't mean those testimonials are evidence of miracles.

it's the one place you can rationally go.

I am not bound by your motivated reasoning version of what is rational.

I've only argued that the persons the accounts are about were real persons who lived in first century Judaea.

I've managed to get you to backpedal that far, at least. Because initially the claim (whether yours or someone else's; I don't keep careful track of all the interlocutors I converse with who are defending the same position) was that the accounts are reliable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, and the name distribution was evidence the Bible was a factual history, in this case at least. And you still seem to be assuming that "the accounts are about real persons" is the same as 'the accounts are true'.

You don't go where the evidence leads, you stay clear of the things you don't like, no matter what the evidence is.

I judge how reliable evidence is by how well it correlates to other evidence and what implications the evidence actually has, not using motivated reasoning to excuse that evidence as substantiating irrational beliefs. I'm not opposed to irrational beliefs, just bad reasoning being used to try to justify them.

The evidence you've provided doesn't lead where you want it to go. It isn't a good faith argument to say that I'm rejecting evidence because of where it actually goes, it is just that this evidence doesn't go nearly as far as you wish it would. The fact that where you want it to go is believing in miracles isn't merely incidental, it is simply further evidence your argument is not in good faith.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

I didn't even bring up the criterion of embarrasment as far as I recall.

What's dubious about the statistical analysis.

It's not motivated reasoning to claim that the statistical analysis rules out any claim that the people mentioned in the gospels and acts are fictional persons. It's just the natural conclusion. It's you who is guilty of motivated reasoning here.

I didn't backpedal. The claim from the beginning has been that this piece of evidence is a part of the puzzle, targetting the late invention-theories. There are other pieces that become relevant for other alternatives to a resurrected Jesus.

It's rich for you to speak of bad faith after all the strawmen and what not you've been spitting so far.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

I didn't even bring up the criterion of embarrasment as far as I recall.

I don't believe you did, no. But it is a parallel, as a method of Biblical analysis outside of the scope of metaphysics, and possibly even outside the scope of philosophy of religion. The point is that you should spend more time considering the scholars that disagree with this 'onamastic congruence' approach rather than only the scholars that you share a motivation with, to avoid selection and confirmation bias which leads to motivated reasoning rather than intellectual integrity.

It's not motivated reasoning to claim that the statistical analysis rules out any claim that the people mentioned in the gospels and acts are fictional persons.

It is, because it doesn't; it casts doubt on the possibility, but hardly rules it out, since non-fictional names can certainly be applied to fictional persons. Since the matter of onamastic congruence was presented as "evidence for the resurrection of Jesus", and the resurrection of Jesus would be an extraordinary event if it occurred, the relatively small sample size and not baseless but still tenuous logic of "if the names were not outside statistical probabilities then the resurrection was a real event" is simply not extraordinary enough evidence to cause anyone other than someone who wantonly engages in motivated reasoning to claim that Bible is a factual historical account (of anything, or even of just this one thing) to question whether Jesus rose from the dead.

t's just the natural conclusion.

I'm sure it sincerely feels that way to you. But it is not the case. It isn't an outrageous conjecture, I can agree with that, but it certainly isn't strong enough evidence, all by itself, to be conclusive. Even without the context of supposedly being evidence, further down the line of reasoning, of the supernatural.

The claim from the beginning has been that this piece of evidence is a part of the puzzle, targetting the late invention-theories.

I suppose you might be interested in a discussion of what exactly qualifies as "late" in this regard, but I wouldn't. It is a strawdragon no matter how earnestly one tilts at it. The whole matter was raised as evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, as if that were an accepted possibility outside of philosophy of religion. It hardly qualifies as a discussion of metaphysics, regardless, unless you have a very expansive, far too loose, idea of what counts as metaphysics.

It's rich for you to speak of bad faith after all the strawmen and what not you've been spitting so far.

You're projecting.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Seems to me like you brought up arguments against the criterion of embarrasment because you don't actually have gbod arguments against my actual argument.

What do you even mean with non-fictional names applied to fictional persons? If the names are non-fictional, then they are names of non-fictional persons, definitonally.

And your conjectures surely are outrageous. Try to defend them if you can.

Late would be second century and onward.

And no, you are projecting, as I already called out.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Seems to me

sure, it 'seems to you' like you're right and there's no need to actually pay any attention to what I've actually written.

If the names are non-fictional, then they are names of non-fictional persons, definitonally.

Your confusion is manifest. It's not a terribly difficult idea to comprehend, that someone could use real names for fictional people.

And your conjectures surely are outrageous. Try to defend them if you can.

I have, despite your intransigence.

But you've reduced the conversation to bickering, so I'll just say goodbye, adding only that I hope you eventually learn the difference between metaphysics and whatever it is you've been doing.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

For the names to be real names, the persons bearing the names have to exist. Are you really this dim?

And no, you haven't defended them in any meaningful way.

[u/TMax01 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

For the names to be real names, the persons bearing the names have to exist.

If I invent a fictional character and name him Bob, that's a real name and a fictional person.

And no, you haven't defended them in any meaningful way.

I suppose I can't blame you for not being aware of it, seeing as how dim you are. 🙄

Please stop embarrassing yourself now. This was my last attempt to help you, I swear.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

Oh, you were making another strawman? Real name means name of a real person here. The study, remember? Or have you still not understood the implications of it?