A hypothetical for Bernardo and for YOU

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, I think conceivability or imaginability is always a poor basis for metaphysical argumentation. I believe Mr. Kastrup has written well on that very topic.

It is a poor basis, but that still leaves it as a basis. Solipsism is at least one possible implication of idealism, even if it's a very unlikely one. Consciousness from non-consciousness is not even a possible implication of BK's worldview, rather it's the direct opposite. And the question was which option BK (which I took to mean any idealist) would consider more reasonable/possible.

[findingblanks]

Yes, Matthew, I thought "C" being the correct answer was presupposed by the question, but I guess not for some of you

AshvinP, I certainly can 'picture' A more easily than B, so I catch your drift and respect your reasoning. For me, nonetheless. it is less conceivable to me (meaning I can't find any good reasons) that you are a figment of my ego's imagination than that I am fundamentally confused regarding what it means to derive phenomenality from nonphenomenality.

But, to honor those people here who feel compelled to remind us that a silly thought experiment is certainly too simple to be enjoyed, I fully agree that C must be our stern and correct answer! Thank you

[Martin_]

No, not at all. This kind of casual 'forced choice' isn't an attempt to have a vigorous and precise philosophical conversation. Sorry, but not all useful conversations are in that realm, as Bernardo often demonstrates in his book and conversations.

Ok, well in that case, i think Bernardo would choose A. albeit extremely reluctantly.

Possibly he might try to weasel out of it by picking B, claiming that that's still consistent with idealism, since what the questioner meant with "consciousness" was probably "meta-consciousness" ; and you can still claim Idealism without meta-consciousness being the ontological prime.

Edit: We are discussing what we think Bernardo would answer, right?

[AshvinP]

Yes, Matthew, I thought "C" being the correct answer was presupposed by the question, but I guess not for some of you

AshvinP, I certainly can 'picture' A more easily than B, so I catch your drift and respect your reasoning. For me, nonetheless. it is less conceivable to me (meaning I can't find any good reasons) that you are a figment of my ego's imagination than that I am fundamentally confused regarding what it means to derive phenomenality from nonphenomenality.

But, to honor those people here who feel compelled to remind us that a silly thought experiment is certainly too simple to be enjoyed, I fully agree that C must be our stern and correct answer! Thank you

Right, well any answer is conditional on us not being "confused" about the meaning of 'solipsism', 'consciousness' and 'non-consciousness'. I am taking solipsism to mean there is no conscious activity independent of my own. And I am taking 'consciousness from non-consciousness' to mean there was a time in history in which phenomenal consciousness did not exist. The former is intellectually conceivable to me, while the latter is not. And I am assuming the same holds for BK.

[Matthew Brett]

But, to honor those people here who feel compelled to remind us that a silly thought experiment is certainly too simple to be enjoyed, I fully agree that C must be our stern and correct answer! Thank you

Oh dear, now I think I want to go with D. Probably just my contrarian impulse kicking in again.

[findingblanks]

Oh, but D is even better!

[findingblanks]

meta question: Am I correct that we can't click respond to a specific comment so that ours lines up under it in some way? We just go to bottom and respond, yeah?

AshvinP, I think you are stating the issue very clearly. And your reasoning makes sense to me. I almost go with solipsism myself, but for some reason I find the arguments (mixed with intuition) for solipsism even crazier (yes, I can picture it more easily, true) than the possibility that my brain can't correctly concieve of what non-phenomenal might really mean.

But, yes, I can imagine BK saying he'd go with solipsism in this extreme crazy scenario. But I can see him going the other way, too.

[Peter Jones]

I find the question impossible. Both seem utterly unlikely to me, although it might depend on exactly how you're defining solipsism.