I think the self is contingent, and constantly changes along with other aspects of our experience. — Joshs

Agree.

I dont go along with writers like Nagel who want to establish some sort of self-identical ‘I’ that accompanies every perception and infuses it with some sort of special feeling of me-ness. — Joshs

He says in What is it like to be a bat: Therefore the analogical form of the English expression "what it is like" is misleading. It does not mean "what (in our experience) it resembles," but rather "how it is for the subject himself." (footnote 6).

Nagel really never explains what this means and I think the concept is incoherent.

You do both simultaneously: — Joshs

It seems foolish to say there is no "inner and outer" but maybe prove me wrong. — schopenhauer1

Long story....
Hegel defined ancient greek metaphysics as natural consciousness and modern (Christian) as self consciousness. I think he is correct. Reading Aristotle one does not see discussion of 'my experience', or subjectivity.

Self consciousness is a form of subjectivity. Why did not Aristotle talk about consciousness--is it a new part of the brain? No.

So I think self consciousness is just a form of consciousness. The "self" is just the modern emphasis on the individual. "I see red" and "I know myself as seeing red" are rhetorically different, but logically both mean, "I see red."

For Reason everyactual beauty must be accidental. — skyblack

Why must it be that way for Reason?

Then this is foolish. — schopenhauer1

Seems rude.

"I" see red. That's all you need in my book to confirm an inner aspect (other than me actually getting inside your head). — schopenhauer1

Sorry, I don't follow. The designations of inner and outer do not seem correct.

It's the most immediate thing.. Unless you ARE a zombie.. you DO have "what it feels like" aspects (tastes, colors, thoughts, emotions, motives, goals, imagination etc.). — schopenhauer1

I see red. I don't feel myself seeing red.

THAT there is an inner aspect is the problem at hand, — schopenhauer1

Again, do not agree. My point is that "inner aspect" is vague or incoherent.

Nagel's point is that a human can know what is like to be a human but not a bat. I do not agree.

there IS an inner aspect. What is THAT inner aspect? That is the thing to be explained in consciousness. — schopenhauer1

Yes, exactly what I am disputing.

I don't think that was his main point that we can't know what it's like to be a bat. Rather it is the idea that there IS a "what it's like to be a bat", EVEN if we don't know exactly what that means. — schopenhauer1

That is what I am disagreeing with. I don't know what it's like to be the person standing in front of me at the bank, either.

Why do you think that is the case? — schopenhauer1

Nagel asks, What is it like to be a bat?

What is it like to be me? I am the things I do and think about. What's the mystery?
Nagel thinks bats are so different from humans that we cannot understand bats. But do we know what is like to be a human; to be what one is? No, not any better than what it is like to be a bat.

And when linked to the idea of p-zombies, it may not be a necessity to have "what it's like" aspects to processes.. It is conceivable that animal processes (like nervous systems) can do the exact same things we can measure now, but WITHOUT the attendant "what it's like" inner aspect to it. Of course that is debatable. If it IS a necessity, then we must understand WHY they are intrinsically linked. THAT is the question at hand. — schopenhauer1

I think the 'what is it like' concept is either incoherent or meaningless. From Nagel's paper, the concept he tried to explain does not really make sense.

Do you think it was always there, from before the earth existed? — GLEN willows

Yes.

Do you think there's anyone on the forum here who doesn't have awareness of their feelings? — Daemon

Yes.

but how does the process come into existence? This is what has yet to be explained. — GLEN willows

Why does it have to come into existence?

Why would you say that to someone who wants to have a productive debate? What do you hope to achieve with that? If you really think I don't have a point, ask more questions to prove it instead of telling everyone how stupid they are based on a few messages. Is that also part of the great set of methods philosophy has? Is that how you challenge the logic of your ideas? — Skalidris

Respectfully, please state the thesis you are arguing for.

Theology is thinking for religion; Philosophy of religion is thinking of religion. The former attempts attempts to find a good foundation for theistic doctrines, the latter examines it. — Agent Smith

Fair definition. Agree.

Wouldnt it be more satisfying to be able to see mind and matter as each in its own right possessing attributes that were formerly only seen in the other? Your approach, in Kantian fashion , maintains the split but makes each dependent on the other. What is needed is a way to get beyond the split, by making creative differentiation and transformation intrinsic to matter, and by understanding subjective feeling as having a kind of causality or logic. — Joshs

Agree.

I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to. — Tobias

My conclusion as well.

But has A.I. solved the frame problem yet? — Joshs

What is the frame problem?

virtue ethics tries to answer the question "how do we ought to be ?" — Hello Human

Please explain this sentence, hard to understand.

Doesn't finite say there is a beginning? — Hillary

No.

A very astute observation. Why would, should, or could gods be proven in a "scientifically rigorous" way? — Hillary

Again, I said nothing about science.

What an idiotic remark! Have you actually met and interacted with humans? — Daemon

Goodbye.

past time is finite. — Hillary

Finite or infinite do not seem the same as saying there is no beginning.

It must have a beginning, for if not, we would see chaos only. — Hillary

What does beginning have to do with chaos?

The brain processes are not programmed. — Hillary

Human processes are programmed. We don't cause our brain to have thought.

Consciousness is not the process itself. Its the content — Hillary

Both.

Another thing is that maybe God does not want to be proven. — chiknsld

Why would that be?

AI is programmed. It appears to understand, learn, be creative, feel, think, or be intelligent because of a programmed series of hyperfast operations on collections of data — Hillary

Same with humans. Not being sarcastic. Most humans are not creative. Most don't have awareness of their feelings.

...however saying that there is no beginning is logically impossible.
— SpaceDweller

Correct. :up: — chiknsld

What is the logical contradiction in the universe having no beginning?

I suppose this is different than relativism? — Olento

I think it is connected. After all, "relativism" means everything is relational, so there is no absolute measure of all truths.

if not a materialist, how do you see consciousness? — GLEN willows

As a process. Not merely a function of the physical.

Even if AI can create new things it is only on account of the fact that we have programmed them to do so, which means it is really us creating the new things utilizing the AI to augment our creativity — Janus

No, it learns and is not just repetative.

Inferior minds think nothing is true but what they already believe.

And you're not a philosopher either — 180 Proof

Insults end discussion.

like other scientists (i.e. natural philosophers) observe that only "minds" – mental beings – exhibit a "telos" (contra Aristotle). — 180 Proof

And I am not a scientist so I do not care what they do.

"Teleology" has been debunked — 180 Proof

No. Mechanistic science did not use it to explain motion. That's all.

You/we attribute "purpose" to the process (i.e. anthropomorphism) — 180 Proof

No. Anthropomorphism is the idea that humans are the only reality and thus purpose can only be a function of human agency.

Leibniz criticized mechanism because it excluded purpose (Aristotle's telos) from explanations. Nature is purposeful. Not always, not always in a good way, but it exhibits purpose--accomplishing an end.

What makes this "an intelligent process"? — 180 Proof

Purposeful in constructing more complex objects. Diversifying itself and being different from itself. Producing objects which are new.