Well, first you’ll have to define what “outside of conscious experience” means, and how it could be pointed to (which suggest it is something not outside conscious experience). Otherwise, your test is gibberish.
There once was a man who said: “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no one about in the Quad.”
Langford Reed, The Complete Limerick Book (1924)
Reply, anonymous but attributed to Monsignor Ronald Knox
*Dear Sir,
Your astonishment’s odd;
I am always about in the Quad;
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God. *
It’s all been said. Just refer to Berkeley and tweak it a bit as necessary if you object to the god stuff.
This is the first reference to “Berkeley” in this thread. Specifics or a summary, please.
It certainly has aspects of it. But it isn’t wholly bunkum.
Sherlock Holmes said, “From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other.”
That might apply to a logician…but not to a scientist, because a drop of water doesn’t exhibit the foaming action that turns Niagara Falls or a breaking wave white in color. Foaming up into whiteness is a property of water only in large volumes, under energetic conditions…i.e., an emergent property.
Some claims made by invoking “emergence” are woo… But not all.
Thing is, Holmes could follow his inference and make his way to the Atlantic. You can’t do the same thing with whatever lies outside of consciousness.
Or let’s say you can infer a criminal from a footprint. You can catch the criminal, but you will never catch the thing beyond consciousness.
I’m afraid I have to turn down your request because I’m busy figuring the phenomenal world out.
The Greenwood Convention predicted that would be your response.
I do not understand what the phrases “outside of consciousness” and “beyond consciousness” mean.
I refute it thus! OW!!! FUCK!!!