Congratulations sir; I enjoyed reading this so much that I will let you have the joy of my non-disputatious response. For what it's worth though, and to arise a virus on your theoretical approach here's a thought: Pragmatic approaches always have a falsifiable end; except for those whose limits tend to be abstract. Is the Real[] pragmatic? Can you falsify its existence when you have none of instruments of observing such a "reality"? How could you tell?
My best regards
My best regards
Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious. _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-1. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.
No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, the self is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.
An unknowable facilitator of conscious experience (i.e., existence [username18333]) gives cause to the operational effect thereof termed consciousness (a body of knowledge).
Those "abilities" (TPTB_need_war) exist only in the phenomenology of consciousness. Conscious experience does not physically exist (A physical system which facilitates it physically exists; however, the phenomenology of that consciousness does not.), so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable to it.
These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.
Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.
From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.
From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.
Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.
From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.
From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.