Negation and dissent

You interpret consciousness as appearing in bodies and in the world. I interpret bodies and the world as appearing in consciousness. Why should your interpretation of the evidence be preferred over mine?

●°○°○°○°

 I have to say, I initially thought he had an argument refuting yours as false dichotomy.  But failed.  

Your original argument does represent two sides, vague enough to equal each other. Therefore, I see tautology.

"You interpret consciousness as appearing in bodies and in the world. I interpret bodies and the world as appearing in consciousness. Why should your interpretation of the evidence be preferred over mine?"

°○●••○●●○•

My debunking of your representation of your argument, sees ²equal parts.  My refutation is if interpretation is expressively prohibited, I would have agency without knowing what is consciousness.  How do we know? How do we claim consciousness.  I think this is a fair example given my counter argument.

°●●○○○○

My reason for suggesting tautology, is simple that refining your idea - interpretation justifies as cause for what we think of as consciousness.  My point here is, I agree with it. Why? Because consciousness can be seen as you have stated, in bodies and the world.  Interpretation appears in consciousness and consciousness appears in our renunciation of it. Hopefully you will understand what I have postulated, theoretically surmise consciousness in the body can be interpeted in ideas consciousness creates.

- Marco