• Do we genuinely feel things
    ↪boagie

    OK.
    So, based on your basic statement, "Our senses and understanding are fallible", I undestand that you believe that (sometimes) what we feel is not what we actually feel. That is, e.g., if I feel angry, it may be that what I feel is not actually anger but something else. It doesn't matter what that would be or how could it be called, but it is simply something else.
    Well, this is too theoretical for me and I can't see how this works in practice, i.e. I can't find any example. Maybe you do.
  • Do we genuinely feel things
    Our senses and understanding are fallible. Our senses give us experience due to the energies or objects of the physical world creating alterations to our body, thus informing bodily consciousness; for it is through the body we come to know an apparent reality. Our apparent reality is made up of reactions to these outer energies or objects, telling us more about our sensory experience than about the energies or objects in and of themselves. So, apparent reality is a biological readout, as much dependent upon the energies/objects of our outer world as it is on the perceptions of their alterations to our bodies. — boagie
    Quite interesting.
    This text is written in a literary and official style. Far from everyday style, which I'm used to read in here and other free discussion places.
    Not that it really matters, but out of interest: Are you a writer? And are you often using this kind of style for commenting in these discussions?
  • Judging moral ‘means’ separately from moral ‘ends’
    nor the means justify the end — Mark S
    I have never heard of or considered this possibility.
    It would be better of course if you supported that with some argumentation and/or examples ... (Referring to Kant cannot substitute that.)

    Anyway, I'll try to do that for you. :smile:

    Actions (means) in general are based on will and are done in order to accomplish something. That is, they are intended and have a purpose (end). So, in this case, the means follow the end and thus they cannot justify. So, from that aspect, means indeed cannot not justify the end.
    (But this is not what the statement actually wants to convey, I believe.)

    Now, let's consider the case of actions that are not based on free will or done consciously or on purpose: mistakes, accidents, actions dictated by the subconsious, etc. It's obvious that there's no purpose (end) to be attained here. So, neither here can means justify the end.

    So, in either case, it makes no sense to talk about "the means justifying the end". Which makes this statement void of meaning and of no use.

    I will be glad to "hear" about any arguments or examples that disagree with the above. :smile:
  • Time and Boundaries
    Gravity and acceleration-due-to-gravity are, in a certain sense, as one. They are conjoined as a unified concept: gravity-and-acceleration. Thus cause and effect are, in the same sense, as one, save one stipulation: temporal sequencing. — ucarr
    I see one inconsistency and one redundancy in this argumentation:
    First, there's a circularity: You take two different things, a cause and an effect, and assume that they are one thing --in a sense, or whatever. Then you conclude that cause and effect are the same, well, also in a sense.
    Then you introduce the element of timing ("temporal sequencing") that refutes the above statement and which doesn't actually change anything; it's only another reason why the first statement is invalid, since cause precedes effect. Which can be also considered as a tautology.

    Is it maybe the argumentation --as a whole-- not properly worded or constructed?
  • Do we genuinely feel things
    What she meant by genuine and what I meant are two different things.. — Darkneos
    Who is "she"? In fact, your message has nothing to do with what I have said so far. Most probably you are responding to someone else's message than mine ...
  • How should we define 'knowledge'?
    How should we define 'knowledge'? — Cidat
    I don't think there's a perfect, single definition of "knowledge". However one tries to create such a single definition, one will necessary leave out things. It can only be defined in a context.

    Moreover, the word "perfect" alone makes such an attempt impossible. Perfect means or implies "absolute" and nothing can be considered "perfect" or "absolute". We can only use such words figuratively and for description purposes. There's no actual "absolute zero", even if this a scientific term. It refers to measurement and thus it depends on the method, conditions and means with which we are measuring it.
  • Do we genuinely feel things
    Then by that dictionary definition we do genuinely feel things. — Darkneos
    Right. This is what I said.
    But why "this dictionary"? This is what I picked. You can pick another one ...
  • Judging moral ‘means’ separately from moral ‘ends’
    Does anyone have arguments that judging moral means and moral ends separately would necessarily be incoherent? — Mark S
    I will simplify the statement-thesis that is included in the question and which is to be debated, as follows:
    "It is incorrect to judge means and ends separately".
    (I replaced the word "incoherent", as it is somewhat ambiguous and I removed the attrribute "moral" from both means and ends, as it implies already a "judgment".
    I hope this is OK for you. (Correct me if this is not what you mean.)

    My position is that separating means and ends is not incorrect.

    Ideally, actions (means) should be compatible with intentions (purpose, end). But this is not always the case. In fact, sometimes means and ends must be separated, as I will show.

    Example:

    I lie to my wife about a very serious matter --e.g. I have cheated on her-- which will have bad consequences for our marriage, even lead to a divorce, if she learns about that. But I lie with *good* intentions, i.e. to avoid this to happen and thus rescue our marriage. However, the action (means) that I've chosen to use for that are unethical and might lead to exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve, if my wife discovers that I lied. But of course, I might also achieve my purpose (end) if my lie is not discovered.
    So, the question is, "Is my intentions enough to justify my action?" I would say no. From an ethical viewpoint, my action was incompatible with my intentions.

    Now, instead of lying, I decide to do something that she likes very much, to show that I really love her and I care for her: propose to her a trip to Paris that she always wanted to visit. Or, simply propose to her. :smile: I mean again. I mean a vow renewal and a start of a "new" marriage.
    In this case my action (means) is compatible with my intentions. (Independently of whether I achieve my purpose (end) or not.)

    So, actions (means) should be judged for themselves, independently of the purpose (end) they are supposed to achieve.
    Actions have end results, consequences and possible outcomes. They can --and sometimes even must-- be judged for themselves.

    As a general rule, the end does not justify the means.
  • Do we genuinely feel things
    But it's caused by something so it's not genuine. How our family makes you feel is based on how society says you ought to feel about it. — Darkneos
    I see now what you mean. But everything is caused by something. So, according to your point, nothing is genuine!

    Definition of "genuine" from Merriam-Webster dictionary (copy-pasted):
    1a: actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character
    1b: actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author the signature is genuine
    1c: sincerely and honestly felt or experienced a deep and genuine love
    1d: ACTUAL, TRUE
    2: free from hypocrisy or pretense : SINCERE

    So, a feeling is not genuine, only if it is false, faked, insincere, pretended, etc. Which is irrelevant to our subject ...
  • How Atheism Supports Religion
    ↪javi2541997

    You're welcome, Javi. I hope you enjoy it!
    I remember I loved it. At the time I was deeply involved in the study of Eastern Philosophy and I was surprised to find out that Kazantzakis' concepts were "touching" Gautama's thoughts and teaching. In fact I found out later that indeed the he was kind of preoccupied by the figure of Gautama. Well, all philosophers and philosophical thinkers should --at some point in their life at least. (But they don't!)

    He has also written a theatrical play called "Buddha". And this work has been even more neglected than "Ascetic". Quite expected of course. Unfortunately.
  • How Atheism Supports Religion
    ↪ucarr

    BTW, I forgot to suggest you reading his philosophical essay "Ascetic" (if you haven't already).
    You can read it here: http://www.angel.net/~nic/askitiki.html

    (I just found this ref. I will re-read it myself ... after about 50 years, to see what "it feels" now.)
  • Do we genuinely feel things
    society makes you feel ways about certain things. ... society makes us care about things that we normally wouldn't. — Darkneos
    Yest, I got that and your viewpoint in the first place by reading your description of the topic.
    I just viewed the question "Do we genuinely feel things?" from a simpler aspect. In its essence. Indepedently of what external factors cause feelings. There can be millions of them. And why society in particular? Your wife or husband or family or a a friend may make you feel a certain way. On purpose or not. Even ourselves --out subconscious-- make us feel things that are not natural; for no apparent or real reason.
    In every case, i.e. independenty of the cause, the fact is that we feel them. And what we feel is genuine.
    Maybe the title of the topic is misleading then ...

    it is all just cause and effect response.
    and a lot of the time the specificity of that response is ascribed to how societal expectations dictate one should be effected by a particular cause
    loss-->sadness
    gain-->joy     — Darkneos
    Yes, of course there's always a cause for every feeling. And indeed, grief is caused by loss. Not only in humans but in animals too. Maybe in plants too, if we accept the belief that they feel too.

    Also, I know, by experience on the subject of emotions, that what society makes us feel is of much less importance and has much less consequences for us than what people around us, and esp. close ones, cause us. On purpose or not. Almost all traumas in our lives are created by people, esp. family, since the time we are born.
  • Do we genuinely feel things
    ↪Darkneos

    "Do we genuinely feel things?"
    In what other way can we feel things than genuinely? Feeling --either physical or mental (emotion)-- is an experience. Can an experience be non genuine, i.e. false or fake or imaginary? You feel something or you don't. If I say to you that "I'm angry", you can't tell me "This is not true" or "It's only your imagination", and that sort of thing.

    Or do I miss something? :chin:
  • Our relation to Eternity
    I’m offended by is your lack of ambition — invicta
    :gasp:
  • Our relation to Eternity
    There’s nothing vain about wanting to live forever to me it’s a fundamental right as a sentient being and not selfish at all. — invicta
    I'm sorry if the words "vanity" and "foolishness" offended you. They came out of me spontaneously, since I know well that most people in here and elsewhere believe that they are bodies and thinking that a body can survive forever is just absurd.
    And certainly did not refer to your views, which I certainly respect.

    That is if my sentience was granted by the divine. — invicta
    Now, since you speak about divinity, and you are not constricted to the material part of you, I strongly believe that we are eternal beings. I hope that at least this might make you feel more comfortable. And of because not because I believe it. It is believed maybe by the most part of the planet, esp. the Eastern world.

    You could say a mortal wanting to live a long life like in their 80s etc is also vain, which is not btw. The difference between the two is one of scale with the other end of it being forever. — invicta
    Yes, I believe that someone wanting to live a long life --90, 100 and more-- is a trait of vanity. My aunt died at 102 and even in her 90s she could really accept that she "got old". She was hidding her age by 7 years and she even threw out her ID card and torne out the first page of her passportm for not letting people know her real age. She was a very vain woman in general.

    When he was dying, Einstein refused surgery, saying "I want to go when I want. It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly."
    (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/436253)
    WoRv9RYWhhzUe0gRkA_EXovzgOtsWXBazLnxzzttkUY.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=7d037014b210ec22b8f133bdf6ce0fe4f9fb5a7c
  • How Atheism Supports Religion
    ↪ucarr

    Me too. One of my best among his works.
    Good to hear that, because I believe he is mainly known for his "Zorba the Greek" and mainly because of the homonymous film that went international. Excellent work of course, but not so "intellectual" or "philosophical" as other.
  • Our relation to Eternity
    how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory notions of being given existence but only for a limited time? Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it? — invicta
    As far as I can remember, I personally have never felt powerless from that aspect. I don't remember ever wanting to live for eternity, i.e. to be immortal, like e.g. an angel or a god. And certainly not a vampire! :grin:

    Wanting to live for eternity is a trait of vanity. And foolishness.

    Now, this regards the physical part of the human beings. There's another part, about which --maybe more than half of the planet (think widely!)-- believes that it is eternal.
    But this is of course out of the spirit of this topic ...
  • How Atheism Supports Religion
    ↪Art48

    Very interesting and good topic! :up:

    Many people have a deep need to believe in God. — Art48
    I think that first of all, one must define what religion is. And although, in most dictionaries you will find the term connected to a God or gods, this is not necessary the case.

    Theoretical view:
    "Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

    Practical and legal view:
    "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.

    Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII."
    https://www.cbp.gov/faqs/what-religion-under-title-vii

    It is evident from the above that a religion might not contain a belief to a God or gods.
    Furthermore, it can be seen clearly religious beliefs not only may not be connected to worship of a God or gods but even not to a specific religion.

    “I believe God exists. I also believe the Bible tells enormous lies about God. — Art48
    Good point.
    Bible is a combined work of beliefs based on ignorance and of stories of religious nature, which are actually myths, based on ignorance, irrationalism and lies --as you said-- and it is full of immoral stories and stories of vengeance, punishment and cruelty. Which is quite ironic and paradoxical, because a religion is supposed to teach and promote morality.
    So, actually, not only it does not promote religious beliefs but it diminishes if not, ruins them.

    ***

    I consider myself a "religious" person and also an "atheist".
    And I support what the topic suggests, namely, that "Atheism Supports Religion".

    Being a Christian or Muslim or Hinduist or abiding to any religion does not make you a "religious" person, as I described above. Your actions and behavior might not show a devotion or even just acceptance of such a religion.
    On the contrary, an "atheist" can be a really religious person and show it with his words, behavior and acts. And, by extension such a person may support religion much more that a "theist".

    Socrates had been accused --among other things-- of not obeying gods and even not accepting national religious standards and rules. Yet, he was a most ethical person.

    Nikos Kazantzakis --a giant of the Greek literature-- had been excommunicated by the Greek Orthodox Church because he was a declared atheist. Yet, he was a very ethical person and if one knows well his works, one could say that he was a very religious person.

    Religion and religious beliefs are not tied to the worship of a God.
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    When it was made, the sexist connotation escaped notice. — Dfpolis
    Most probably. I hope so! :smile:
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    some now assume that the term 'man' is sexist and so whoever uses it is sexist. — Fooloso4
    I know. Same with "he". Esp. women. Once, I received a big protest from a female interlocutor because I a had used the word "he" ... She was offended! It was from carelessness. I only use to do this sometimes, but only in "relaxed" exchanges and with males only! :smile:

    Even the term 'human' retains 'man'. — Fooloso4
    Right! "Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being" (Merriam-Webster)

    We can go on bringing up more and more ...
    And ... we must not forget all superheroes, except Catwoman and --the less known-- Batwoman.
    And, of course, Pacman! :grin:

    ***

    BTW, I checked https://www.vocabulary.cl/Basic/Nationalities.htm. All the nationality names ending in "-man" have also a "-woman" version, except "German". Should we award them the prize of sexism? :smile:

    ***

    BTW #2, this discussion pertains more to the recently launched one "'Sexist language?' A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary" by @javi2541997.
  • Bernard Gert’s answer to the question “But what makes it moral?”
    Cultural moral codes have existed quite comfortably for all of history without a unified theory or fundamental principles. — Mark S
    Of course. I didn't deny that and no one should. They still work today for a lot --if not most-- places.

    The theories or principles you refer to are moral philosophy’s answers to the big ethical questions “What is good?”, “How should I live?”, and “What are my obligations?” — Mark S
    Not exactly. These are general questions referring to living prototypes, which can well be answered by moral codes, religious rules and dictates, etc.

    The fundamental pronciple I'm talking about refers to a general behavior. When one has adopted such a principle, one lives accordingly. One has no questions such as the above. And, if some situation produces a dilemma as to how one should, one can stiil resort to that f.p. to choose the best action, i.e. the action that is more ethical in such a situation. One can also resort to a code of ethics (a creed), which hase been created, based on and developed according to that f.p.

    Proposed answers include positive and negative utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and Kantianism. — Mark S
    I don't like "isms" much ... They restrict one's beliefs or undestanding of life and the world within a certain system or frame of reference.

    we both take on the simpler task of understanding the function of past and present cultural moral norms. — Mark S
    A f.p. is independent of cultural elements, as I already said.
    It can explain and support the behaviour and moral values of the primitive tribes -- even cannibals-- as well as those of the civilized people.

    I understand Gert to be proposing that the function (the principle reason they exist) of cultural moral norms is lessening suffering. — Mark S
    I undestand this. This is one of the main "functions" of all religions.

    I see solving cooperation problems as the ‘means’ by which moral norms enable people to accomplish whatever goals they agree on, one of which could be “lessening suffering”. — Mark S
    This is a noble thought referring to a noble purpose.

    Then Gert proposes a useful definition of what is normative which I interpret as what all well-informed, mentally normal (not delusional), rational people would advocate. — Mark S
    I see. It makes sense.
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    In the not too distant past, the term 'man' was not assumed to be used in a gendered way. — Fooloso4
    But it is still used in that sense. In fact, "a human" is even the first meaning that you find in some dictionaries.

    But even the term 'woman' retains a trace of sexism. Most would not accuse someone of sexism for using the term woman — Fooloso4
    Certainly. Maybe the word started to be used as as "wooerman" (one who courts women) --> "wooman" --> "woman" :grin:
    Just joking. In Wiki, I found that it originates from "wifmann" (sounds like a man's wife) and also that there was once a neuter-gender name, "Mann", which we often meet today as "Man" (capital). I use this form whan I want to refer to humans from an historical veiwpoint. I find it OK. But in general I prefer the term "human beings" by far.

    BTW, the English language faces today a big problem with the use of "he/she" and "his/her". Because repeating these scheme is quite burdensome, they've chosen to resort to violating their grammar by shifting number from singular to plural: "Every person have their own opinion." Terrible!
    I don't know if this has anything to do with the "man" issue, but it seems the English people have indeed a problem with sex(ism)! :grin:

    There was, and maybe still is, a contentious argument about changing the gendered language of the story of Genesis. — Fooloso4
    Too late. That ship has sailed!

    "And God prepareth the man in His image" — Fooloso4
    Ah, this infamous Bible quote produces a much more serious problem and consequences than just the interpretation of the word "man"!
    I'm sure you know what I'm thinking about ...
    (It makes a whole chapter in the critique of the Bible and the history of the Chritian religion. And I'm really fed up with talking about it.)

    Note that there is a switching back and forth between between the singular 'man' and dual 'them' — Fooloso4
    Ha! I just mentioned this problem, before I reached this point! What a timing! (Ad meeting of minds.)

    it is not just the human beings who are talked about in this way but God as well. — Fooloso4
    Of course. And don't forget about the Devil. And Satan. And the (Arch)angels ,,,
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    Still, Aristotle was a racist and a sexist. He opposed Alexander's liberal policy of granting citizenship to conquered races and explicitly thought females were defective males, ranking women between men and slaves. — Dfpolis
    Ha! Quite interesting!
    So, always referring to @Fooloso4's quote. maybe Aristotle's translator knew that and has chosen the right word! :grin:
    (Still, it's an incorrect/bad translation.)
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    Most briefly, human wisdom is knowledge of ignorance. Philosophy, as described in Plato's Symposium is the desire to be wise. — Fooloso4
    I see. OK.

    [Re Aristotle] "All men naturally desire knowledge" — Fooloso4
    The above translation --which I have located in the Web --with the only difference "by nature" instead of "naturally" which mean the same thing-- sounds as if Aristotle was sexist. The original Greek text is "πάντες ἄνθρωποι τοῦ εἰδέναι ὀρέγονται φύσει", which means --if correctly translated-- "All people by their nature desire knowledge". The main idea is the same, but the difference between "men" and "people" is enough to insinuate sexism. Either of the person who made that statement or the person who translated it. Here, it's the second case. But not cessarily, of course. It can be also because of just carelessness. This is why:
    The English word "man" refers to both "human" in general and a "male individual", which makes it ambiguous. This does not happen in ancient (or modern) Greek, in which there is a specific word for the second case: "άνδρας". For that reason, a professional and/or serious translator, would chose "people" over "men".

    That's why I believe that in philosophy, one has to use words that do not make a statement --or parts of it-- ambiguous, so that it can be correctly interpreted and evaluated by others as a whole and in its parts. However, this "principle" is very often violated, mainly because of carelessness. I'm careless myself of course sometimes ...

    [Re Aristotle and Plato] In both cases there is not only an awareness of something lacking but a desire to obtain it, but we have found no way to move past the aporia raised in these texts. — Fooloso4
    Indeed. Good point.
  • Bernard Gert’s answer to the question “But what makes it moral?”
    ↪Mark S

    Interesting topic.

    I have a question regarding moral codes: Aren't or shouldn't they be based on some theory or ethics system and/or fundamental principles regarding the nature of ethics ? (I prefer this term in general over "morality", but I use both words "moral" and "ethical" according to language requirements.)
    I believe that even normative ethics, which refer to a practical view of the subject, are based on some fundamental principles. A moral code and the principles that are involved in it cannot be built out of opinions or beliefs. These change not only from culture to culture, but within the cultures themselves as well as with time and ever changing conditions in life.

    A moral code consists of principles that determine the morality of an action. It doesn't answer the big question of what is considered ethical. And to answer that, one must find the root, the fundamental principle that describes and determines and defines ethics, independently of culture and changing conditions in life. Otherwise, a moral code is reduced to a set of principles that people must just follow. Take for example "The Ten Commandments". "Thou shalt not kill". Why? "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Why? An answer "Because it is bad" can easily create a circularity: "Why i is bad?" -> "Because it is said in the "The Ten Commandments". See what I mean?

    So, only when you have a fundamental principle that determines and defines ethics, what is considered ethical etc., only then you can create a moral code based on that fundamental principle. Then, all the "why"s can be easily answered by just referring to the fundamental principle.

    Now, what can be such a fundamental principle?

    I will be glad to expand my comment and answer this, if what I described makes sense. (Otherwise, it will be useless, of course.)
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    In my opinion, the wisdom of Socratic philosophy has to do with the articulation of problems that defy solution. — Fooloso4
    I'm not sure I get this right. Can you expand it a little?
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    The problem is even more complex since the concept of 'imagination' through the Latin imaginatio has itself undergone changes. — Fooloso4
    Indeed so.

    If phantasia is that according to which we say that a phantasma comes to be in us, is it a power or a condition by which we judge and are correct or incorrect? — Fooloso4
    This sounds nice to my ears, but not much deeper than that. Mainly because I don't know --actually, remember-- what Aristotle meant by "in us". Most probably, I guess, he refers to the "nous" (mind), about which he --together with Anaxagoras-- talked a lot. (But then I will have to do a good house cleaning and get a fresh insight about their thoughts and ideas by examining them in a new unit of time and in the current state of my reality. And you are offering me a good incentive to do that! :smile:)

    For Aristotle too there is there is the treachery of images — Fooloso4
    I guess so.

    As I keep saying, there's much more wisdom in ancient Greek philosophopy than what we can remember in our times, after all the changes in and the evolution of the human thought. Which evolution, in some aspects --esp. of mental nature-- is not so much going forward and expanding, as the word suggests, but rather backwards and shrinking. That is, in fact it's an "involution".
    I believe that Science --with all its wonderful things that has offered and is offering us-- together with our evolution as human beings and the modern life we are leading, with all the comforts and the techonological advances that it offers us, are somehow responsible for making us lazy thinkers and losing a big part of that ancient wisdom.
    (I'll keep this in my notes, as a subject to expand, for the day I will start writing a book. :grin:)
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    Same root as 'phenomena' — Wayfarer
    Right. However, I just looked for the word "phenomenon" (singular) in the lexicon and it is not included. Τhen, Ι found out the following explanation from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/phenomenon:
    "From Late Latin phaenomenon ('appearance'), from Ancient Greek φαινόμενον (phainómenon, 'thing appearing to view'), neuter present middle participle of φαίνω (phaínō, 'I show')."
    Now, except for the word "phaínō", which I mentioned in my previous message on the subject, they also mention the word "phainómenon", which must probably be a mistake, according to my dictionary didn't exist ain the ancient literature. My dictionary, as I mentioned, contains an enormous amout of words related to or based on the word "phaínō". It is difficult to believe that the scholars Henry George Liddell and Robert Scot who have compliled the original Greek-English version in 1889, and from of which the Greek-Greek version was created, have missed such a common word as "phenomenon".
    So, most probably, the above description contains an "arbitrary element" which may come from a confusion between the ancient Greek and the purist Greek language that has followed it.

    I have observed this ... phenomenon :smile: also with other words. (I have already mentioned a case in a past discussion.) It's sad indeed to come across such mistakes so easily from supposedly "standard" sources. But, together with citations attributed to wrong persons, etc. it ofers us a good reason for never trusting information 100%.
    So, based on this, you shouldn't trust 100% the information I have presented here either! :grin:
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    But a discussion of Aristotle on phantasia would not be too difficult to bring in here. — Fooloso4
    :smile:
    It is quite interesting that you have brought up Aristotle and his phantasia in this subject: There is no thought without phantasia, he maintained. The importance of "phantasia" for Aristotle seems greater than for Einstein, when he said that "Imagination is more important than knowledge". However, there's a difference between the ancient Greek word "phantasia" and its literal translation in English from modern Greek, "imagination. For anyone who is interested, I explain this below.

    The correspondence of the word "phantasia" with the word "imagination" is valid only in modern Greek. In Aristotles's time however, the word "phantasia" meant "the external appearance of something" and it originated from the verb "phaínō" (pronounced "faeno"), which mainly means "I show, I make appear", and which in passive voice becomes "phainomai" (pronounced "faenomae"), which mainly means "I appear (as something), I am visible*. This word had --and still has in modern Greek-- an enormous amount of applications and derivatives, and it represented of course a key concept in ancient Greek Philosophy. From it, we also have the word "phantasma", which in modern Greek mainly means an object of the imagination, and it is literally translated into English as "ghost" (!). But in ancient Greek, esp. Philosophy, it meant "an icon (image), appearing in the mind from some object".
    (Note: The definitions of the ancient Greek words I described above are from my Great Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language.)

    The important meanings of these words have been "flattened out" in modern Greek and, as a consequence, when translated in English they mean other things. (A well known example is the word "word" in "In the beginning was the Word", about which I have talked in some discussion ot the past.)

    So, kudos to you Foolosof4 for using the original Greek words --like "ousia" and "phantasia"-- instead of their literally translated version in English, and for keeping the ancient Greek language and thought alive! :smile:
  • Emergence
    In union Alkis, finding common cause is our best hope for a better future for all. — universeness
    :up:
  • Emergence
    ↪universeness

    I enjoyed the exchange, too univereness. :smile:

    ... Till the next topic!
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    In that case, Alkis Piskas is not a person. And, as he says, Magritte's pipe is not a pipe. Nor is it La Trahison des images, The Treachery of images. — Fooloso4
    Exactly. I have ben inspired from "Magritte's pipe" a lot of years ago ... :smile:
    These are nice realizations one has in life.

    So what is La Trahison des images? Nothing more than the name of a painting? — Fooloso4
    I don't think that the word "treason", even figuratively used, is the right one for this case. I would rather use the word "illusion", in the sense of "perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature" (Merriam-Webster)
    And, of course "The Treachery of images" is a name of a painting. It would be quite difficult to bring the painting (tableau) itself in here, wouldn't it? :grin:
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    Lassie's being a dog is not the same thing as dog, and the latter is what she is. — Fooloso4
    Actually, "Lassie" is not a dog. It's a name of a dog. :smile:
    Neither what you see below is Lassie or a dog:
    81VjBdJQZdL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg
    ... It's an image of a dog and its name, Lassie.
  • The “Supernatural”
    when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them — Art48
    Right. :up:
    I'm using too this "burden of proof" principle in various cases where someone does not believe that something exists or occurs or can occur. E.g. If one does not believe in the existence of God --let's say the Christian God-- how can one prove that it doesn't exist? It's just absurd. The "supernatural", being something that is not visible or can be sensed in any other way, is one of these cases.
    Hence the expression "Innocent until proven guilty". :smile:
  • Emergence
    Not 'an evidence' but your own 'perception' — universeness
    Yes, you also used the word "perception". And I believe that by that you mean "understanding", right?
    Because the term "perceprion" has to do mainly with senses and physical things.

    my intentions for this thread, is about personal credence levels held by individuals based on what they consider as 'emergent' in humans — universeness
    I know. And I, personally, always say what I believe, my opinion, my own views. Occasionally, I quote someone else or bring up external references, esp. on subjects that I'm not much knowledgeable of, but also to to spice up things a little because I know people just love that! :smile: So, maybe I should stop doing that for not promoting this habit.
    However, in general, I believe that as a general rule, people present here their own positions and opinions/beliefs.

    If YOU are say 99.9% convinced that YOUR concept of the human mind is completely separate from, but strongly related to, and dependent on, YOUR concept of human consciousness, then I would assume that YOU must consider certain concepts to be, FOR YOU, very strong evidence, that confirms why YOU assign such a high credence level to 'mind does not = consciousness.'. — universeness
    Firtst of all, I don't like the word "conviction" which is close to "persuasion", and they allude to the fact that one comes to admit, accept etc. something, eventually, in a relatively short period of time and usually based on the infuence of some external force, although one can produce this result by one's own thinking.
    Then, you see, you are still using the word "evidence" as your main or central requirement in establishing a truth. I can undestand that, beacus from what I came to undestand about you is that you are a "scientific" person based on proofs.
    But, unfortunately, there are no proofs in Philosophy, except in logical schemes, which are shared with Mathematics and Logic as a separate field of study, where proofs are the main goal.

    Does the brain not interpret and produce explanations via analysis? — universeness
    The brain cannot literaly interpret, ony figuratively. Iterpretation involves undesrtanding, reasining, judgement, etc. All these are faculties of the human mind. The brain works on a stimulus-response basis. It receives and sends signals, based on its own structure and means, which are neurons, glia and gray matter. But you know all that. Why the h... do you make me spell them out? :grin:

    Does it not do this BECAUSE the brain IS conscious. — universeness
    I believe this a fixed idea comimg from Science, which has not proven absolutely anything regarding this subject although it's its job to provide proofs. (See, it's here whereproofs are needed.)

    Only you can tell me if I am misinterpreting your viewpoints and require correction. — universeness
    I cannot say "misinterpreting". I rather feel that you are "ignoring" or just "rejecting" some things I say. And without providing enough or not at all arguments and explanations against them. But you are not the only one. I have become used to it! :grin:
  • Emergence
    I am asking you for what convinces you most that 'mind' and consciousness are not the same thing. — universeness
    Your question was:
    what is YOUR absolute best bit of evidence, that MOST convinces YOU, that the human mind and human consciousness, is NOT the same phenomenon" — universeness
    The two elements that I emphasized, can be used for any two (or more) things. In the present case, you are asking me to present an evidence that the mind is not the same with consciousness. Is that right?
    Well, how can I present an evicence that e.g. "intelligence" and "perception" are not the same thing? I can only describe what intelligence and perception mean to me. But this wouldn't constitute an evidence, would it?
    And regarding the nature, the desciption and characteristics of the mind and conciousness, I have talked plenty I think in this thread.

    BTW, I wouldn't call either the mind and consciousness "phenomena", i.e. facts, situations or events. The mind interprets, explains, produces, etc. phenomena; it's not a phenomenon itself. Consciousness is being aware of phenomenona; it's not a phenomenon itself.

    You can add the above description in my views regarding the difference between mind and consciousness.

    Do all these make sense and are they satisfactory for you?
  • Emergence
    I have read up mostly on the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, in this area. — universeness
    I have read stuff from Roger Penrose and watced a couple of videos in the past, the content of wihch I can't remember any more. What I remember is that I liked him quite a lot.

    [Re Kastrup] — universeness
    The passage you brought in is quite interesting, indeed. Quite technical though. But I can undestand the essence of and the basic thinking behind these technicalities. But I'm not sure if he is aware or knows about biocomputing that we have talked about. E.g. comparing the forms and functioning of the brain with conventional computers is of course a lost cause. I'm glad though that you find his ideas interesting for your --quite energetic I can say-- research. For me, he has to still remain in my "waiting" list, possibly without ever getting the chance to come out of it! :grin:

    [Re quantum Physics] — universeness
    I hope you will find such a sojourn fruitful.
    Thanks!

    I am referring to you posting such as:
    People choose their actions
    and
    experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions.     — universeness
    I see. OK.

    I was asking, what is YOUR absolute best bit of evidence, that MOST convinces YOU, that the human mind and human consciousness, is NOT the same phenomenon. — universeness
    You ask me to present evidence on something that I don't believe is true (Re mind = consciousness). Remember what we said about whose responsibility is to provide evidence in such cases? :smile:
  • Emergence
    The Buddhist talk about us being controlled by our emotions — Athena
    I have read a lot of Buddhist material and watched/listened to a lot of talks, from a lot of different sources, in the past, but I don't remember anything about that. In fact, I don't remember even the word "hormobnes" coming i to play. It sounds like what you say is an interpretation of westerners. And not westerners that have been initiated to Buddhism, but who are mixing western with eastern concepts or, better, who are interpreting eastern concepts and principles based on western ones.
    My sources where always mainly from Eastern philosophers but also from Western philosophers who were educated and trained in a Buddhist or other Eastern environment, either in the East or the West, and have reached a high level of awareness. The latter is most important because it is one thing to know something in theory and based on concepts, even if these are accompanied with examples of people who have had such experience, and another thing to have that experience yourself, esp. after a lot ot training and exercise.

    I deeply believe that if people were based more on personal experience --and learn from that, of course-- and less on concepts and theories, they would be much wiser and nearer to the knowledge they are trying to acquire and the truth they are trying to reach. This is what I call "experiencing". In fact, the essence and nature of some things can be only obtained by experiencing them. Mind and consciousness are among them.

    Exercise is very important to how feel mentally and physically. — Athena
    Certainly.
    ΒΤW, it is befitting here to mention the known saying "a healthy mind in a healthy body". Which, can and is interpreted by people in one or the other direction --as to what affects the other-- but rarily in both, which is my interpretation.

    We should not get botox injections that prevent us from smiling, because if we can not smile we can become depressed — Athena
    :smile:

    BTW, thank you for sharing your personal experiences and I'm sorry to hear that some of them where quite unpleasant ...
  • Emergence
    There must be a body to have both emotional and physical feelings. — Athena
    Physical, yes.
    I'm not sure though what do you mean by "emotional feelings". Emotion is itself a state of feeling.
    But a "feeling" can mean different things. When you say "I feel fear" you refer to a mental reaction. When you say "I feel a pain" you refer to a physical reaction. And "I feel guilty", is still another example, referring to conscience.

    Mental states can produce changes in the body. E.g. when you are very anxious/stressed, you can feel one or more of various things: adrenaline running in your body, irritability or pain in your stomach, tightness in your chest, increased heart beats, etc. There are also positive emotions which you can "feel", but are very little physical: E.g. When you feel joy a cheerful you feel your body "lighter" and a sense of wellness. The more positive an emotion is, the lighter body feels. And the opposite, the more negativean emotion is, the heavier the body feels.

    All these states are produced by the mind. The brain receives automatically signals (stimuli) from these states and sends in its turn signals to different parts of the body (organs, organism) via the nervous system, which in turn react to these signals accorfing to their nature and f\unction. The brain can also get signals from these parts of the body as a feedback. It's a wondrous system! :smile:
  • Emergence
    A book contains data, not knowledge. Knowledge is created after you assimilate this data. (Check the term "knowledge".)
    — Alkis Piskas
    I pretty much disagree with every statement here.     — "NoAxioms
    Who asked you? :grin:
    Anyway, if you want to react to what I said, say something useful; a point, an argument, anything. Sometimg that refutes my point. Something that can be discussed.
Home » Alkis Piskas