Is it really that dumb to believe the world essentially operates on magic?

[Anonymous No.20932091]

Specifically, I'm talking about a non-eliminativist view of the world. Almost everyone believes in things like consciousness and morals, but there is no proof or evidence that these things exist. Reductive ontologies that try to keep ordinary objects/folk psychology never explain why I'm FORCED to believe in these things. If these isn't a logical/mathematical proof starting with physics that consciousness exists, isn't that just like saying that we believe in it for no reason? Is it really that dumb for one's philosophy to be something like "I believe that world operates on principles which are not understandable and that entities that I cannot interact with exist" really that dumb? I'm genuinely wondering whether the best philosophy is basically just a belief that some kind of magic makes everything work like how we naively think it does.

[Anonymous No.20932119]

>>20932091
We know consciousness is there because we actually experience it. Infact philosophers believe that it is the only thing you can be sure about. Magic on the other hand renders on experience of itself(just like God).

[Anonymous No.20932149]

I fully believe magic is real

[Anonymous No.20932940]

>>20932119
>We know consciousness is there because we actually experience it.
Why is the experience of consciousness sufficient to know consciousness? For, certainly, the experience of consciousness is objectively a perfect ground on which to base that consciousness exists, but this doesn't mean the experience of consciousness implies the knowledge of consciousness, which includes, for instance, a belief in consciousness.

To make myself more clear, let's say that we both experience consciousness, and believe in consciousness. This wouldn't necessarily be sufficient grounds on which to claim we know consciousness, since the consciousness that the one justifies the other is missing. It is this phenomenological justifier that is problematic. When we want to say, for instance, we have a phenomenological justification such that experience of consciousness justifies belief in consciousness because we have a proof experience of consciousness -> experience -> consciousness, such a logical derivation is capable of being believed to be true when it is not.

[Anonymous No.20932959]

>>20932940
>Why is the experience of consciousness sufficient to know consciousness?

[Anonymous No.20932973]

>>20932959
OP is an NPC

http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

[Anonymous No.20932976]

>>20932973
Hes actually just making some pedantic argument about logical statements and what belief is.

[Anonymous No.20932985]

>>20932091
This is just Humean skepticism about induction taken to an extreme. The problem with it is that any magic you put forward can just as easily be dismissed. It would make everyone have their own personal version of reality or total relativism.

[Anonymous No.20932988]

Because "lol magic" is not a helpful answer. It gives you no deeper insight into the world, and in fact discourages you from seeking that insight. E.g.

>Why does it rain?
lol magic
>Why does it rain?
Well, it must come from clouds. Where do clouds come from? Well, you can see, if you live near the ocean, that fog is quite similar to clouds. You could then, maybe, make the link between water, clouds, and raining. Or maybe not. But it encourages you to think

Believing that not everything can be known simply discourages you from seeking out knowledge. The truth of the statement, which we do not know and perhaps may never know, is irrelevant. It's not a useful way to think.

[Anonymous No.20933002]

>>20932940
> Why is the experience of consciousness sufficient to know consciousness?
because knowing consciousness equals experiencing it

[Anonymous No.20933169]

>>20932988
You're right that it's usually not a very helpful way to frame things but it's still basically true that everything is magic and you can forget that in your projects to map everything.

[Anonymous No.20933406]

>>20933169
Not who you are replying too, but I agree with this!

[Anonymous No.20933424]

>>20932940
Consciousness, if nothing else, is the phenomenon which allows to us to say “I am conscious.” There is literally no other validation you need for consciousness. The appearance of water in a mirage is still an appearance, even if there is no water there.

[Anonymous No.20933498]

>>20932091
> I believe that world operates on principles which are not understandable
Not dumb, just not necessarily a good policy? I mean at worst its a self-realizing prophecy, right?
>that entities that I cannot interact with exist
Probably a safe bet, wouldn't say its dumb.
>a logical/mathematical proof starting with physics that consciousness exists
Do you also ask for a geometric proof that morals exists? An anthropological explanation as to the rotation of celestial bodies? Perhaps a gender study of gravity?