Is he still a thing? — M777

He's still not in prison.

Tales like this and others reminds me that Anti-Trumpism and it’s supporters have shaped the world to what it is today — NOS4A2

Trump is a fascist.

I have got the impression over the years that the main objections against the supernatural are based on plausibility. — Andrew4Handel

What do you mean by Supernatural? I would think that means actions of God.

Yes. That is the implication of my personal BothAnd Philosophy. Some apparent "paradoxes" result from viewing only one side of the same coin. — Gnomon

This is also Hegel's dialectic. In simple terms, all opposites are defined by a shared property.

I had never heard of "paraconsistent logic". — Gnomon

My understanding of paraconsistent logic, from Graham Priest, is that things can contradict each other and still be true

Would that be true intelligence, though, or an example of Searles Chinese Room? — RogueAI

Intelligence. I don't agree with Searle on the Chinese room.

Well I at least do — Tobias

We're done. Another time maybe.

Materiality is true only via spirit or mediation or idea. — waarala

What other way would it be real?

What else besides brains can be conscious? Can a computer be conscious? — RogueAI

Then consciousness is not the same as intelligence. A system can be intelligent without be conscious.

You, like many others on this forum actually, use a sloganified form of Berkeleyan idealism as 'idealism'. — Tobias

You should start reading Hegel and quit pontificating.

Bashing Hegel as an idealist is the Analytic way to dismiss him without taking him seriously. The analytic school simply refuses to treat history as a real thing because it was a science based philosophy.

Hegel's version is far more sophisticated than that and avoids some of its pitfalls. — Tobias

I find the term "idealism" to be virtually meaningless.

I did not use him, I just said I concurred. I am not going to refer to 'he who may not be mentioned', just because you got annoyed with him... — Tobias

Fine.

In the passage he states that the consciousness of that real object (no disagreement there) is making the experience, not the material quality of the object itself. At least that is how I read it. I have no reason to think it is not an accurate reading. — Tobias

So, Hegel is not saying its materiality is meaningless.

I did think Proof — Tobias

That person is who I mean. Just saying, using him is not a good way to have a discussion with me.

That’s right , by inventing the idea of objectivity. Objective reality is incoherent without a subject to apprehend it. — Joshs

Exactly. Look how often we conflate "objective" with "objectively true" and subjective with "my opinion/perspective."

The dissolve it by showing the subjective and the objective to be inextricable aspects of all experience rather than separate categories. — Joshs

Modern science invented the idea of subjectivity. Brief comment, but I can defend it.

My Hegelian dander is up.
In his Philosophy of Art and Philosophy of Right, Hegel gives specific analyses of art and politics. He describes actual paintings in great detail and says their physicality gives the idea (thought) in sensuous form. Hegel gives detailed explanations of historical changes in actual governments and how that change takes place. He criticizes abstract, universal morality and says morality is the customs and practices of a people (very similar to Hume).

Hardly the work of an idealist.

Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division? — Hillary

Specialization. Contemporary philosophers give common examples to illustrate their ideas, like, "Mary sees blue."
Earlier figures like Frege used examples that more literary, like citing Homer or a Latin author (untranslated). Even Frege expected his readers to be widely educated.

The only way I can access these files on another person's consciousness is to literally be them; impossible, as of now, and ergo, the hard problem of consciousness — Agent Smith

Then, every human being has a unique consciousness and the problem of a bat is just the problem of every single life form having unique consciousness

Proof is right I think Jackson — Tobias

Just so you know, anyone who writes personal attacks is off my list.

It is not the experience with the world, i.e. the real impinging on our idea of it, that causes an experience, experience happens when the mind shifts and starts considering things differently. — Tobias

Consciousness is always consciousness of real objects and events. Your reading of this passage is not accurate.

My Hegel interpretation by the way is formed by Wather Jaeschke, a German scholar and Robert Pippin's book... Hegel's Idealism — Tobias

Yes, quite familiar with Pippin. I do not agree with his reading at all. He is just a Kantian giving a non-metaphysical interpretation of Hegel. So, there's the problem. Some scholars dispute Pippin and point out that metaphysics is not the same as transcendence.

How about this one:

"Third Subdivision: The Notion — waarala

The Idea is truth in itself and for itself — the absolute unity of the notion and objectivity. Its ‘ideal’ content is nothing but the notion in its detailed terms: its ‘real’ content is only the exhibition which the notion gives itself in the form of external existence, while yet, by enclosing this shape in its ideality, it keeps it in its power, and so keeps itself in it. The definition, which declares the Absolute to be the Idea, is itself absolute. All former definitions come back to this. The Idea is the Truth: for Truth is the correspondence of objectivity with the notion — not of course the correspondence of external things with my conceptions, for these are only correct conceptions held by me, the individual person. In the idea we have nothing to do with the individual, nor with figurate conceptions, nor with external things.And yet, again, everything actual, in so far as it is true, is the Idea, and has its truth by and in virtue of the Idea alone. Every individual being is some one aspect of the Idea: for which, therefore, yet other actualities are needed, which in their turn appear to have a self-subsistence of their own. It is only in them altogether and in their relation that the notion is realised. The individual by itself does not co — waarala

Hegel is not saying the materiality of the world is fake. Like Aristotle he is say the form of objects is what we conceive and therefore the intelligibility of the world. Not separate from its material.

So maybe what you refer to as realism — Tobias

Never mentioned realism. I think many bad readers of Hegel use the very categories of idealism/realism he is actually critical of.

I think Nagel puts a lot of weight on "like" and never really defines it. In the end, "what it is like" does not really mean anything.

There is a shared world, a world about which we overwhelmingly agree. A world that we might set out in terms that are agreeable to all observers. — Banno

There is a world. Not sure what you refer to as "overwhelmingly agree" about.

Nagel’s most important insight is that humans aren’t bats. — NOS4A2

I think so.

Language games a la Wittgenstein. Banno is the forum expert on it. It's just a sideshow to me. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

But the game can be played.

If you reject the game of chess, you just stop playing it. You don't get on a soapbox about it - unless you're a very odd sort of fanatic. — ZzzoneiroCosm

What is this "game?"

There is nothing "it is like" to see red or to be a bat; there is just seeing red, and being a bat. — Banno

Yes, agree with that.

It remains true that the word 'quale' can be used. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Why mention my name? I said nothing about quale.

He also says that one of the major themes of the metaphysics is the analysis of the different meanings of the verb ‘to be’. — Wayfarer

Yes, but not as a function of subjectivity.

But, to jettison the concept of likeness as incoherent because all you've ever been is you simply isn't correct. — Hanover

When I read his article my reaction was, why am I supposed to know what it is like to be me?
Familiarity is not knowledge.

But the subject is never something amenable to objective description or analysis, for the very good reason that it's not an object. — Wayfarer

The concept of the subject is a modern notion. Aristotle uses the word "subject" only in the context of grammar.

ultimately Hegel holds that what we can consider as 'world' is ideal. — Tobias

I've studied a lot of his work and see that nowhere. Please cite something by Hegel.

There is no ideal world, only experience.

"86. Inasmuch as the new true object issues from it, this dialectical
movement which consciousness exercises on itself and which
affects both its knowledge and its object, is precisely what is
called experience [Eifahrung]. "

"The Science of this pathway is the Science of the experience
which consciousness goes through; the substance and its movement are viewed as the object of consciousness. Consciousness
knows and comprehends only what falls within its experience;
for what is contained in this is nothing but spiritual substance,
and -this, too, as object of the self. (Phenomenology of Spirit, #36)

The dialectical method is the logic of experience, not ideal forms.

Here you go, Mr "I am no beginner" — 180 Proof

We are done.

You can read, cant you? Start with the SEP link ... — 180 Proof

So, you have nothing. Good day.