All we experience is the subjective. — Bird-Up

I thing that is wrong or vague. That we have experience can be define as the subjective, but our experiences themselves are not merely subjective.

My point is that this notion of subjectivity reifies inner experience and makes it a form of epistemic solipsism.

Get lost.

Same reason the greeks didn't have such a thing as "mental illness" — Bob Ross

I think they did. They had doctors.

"Psychological and mental illnesses were viewed as the effect of nature on man and were treated like other diseases.Hippocrates argued that the brain is the organ responsible for mental illnesses and that intelligence and sensitivity reach the brain through the mouth by breathing. Hippocrates believed that mental illnesses can be treated more effectively if they are handled in a similar manner to physical medical conditions"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263393/

But why that special designation of "conscious"? Couldn't I just say: "My body has nerves."

What is our motive behind creating the superfluous "conscious" label? — Bird-Up

I agree with that. The idea of the "hard problem" just makes a fetish out of consciousness.

Why did Aristotle and the ancient Greeks never talk about self-consciousness? Was there some huge leap in evolution where the brain developed self-consciousness? I think not.

Up-down, left-right, cold-warm, old-new, big-little, intriguing-boring, violent-peaceful. — Tate

Yes. Notice the fruitless debate between science and religion. They need each other to protect their knowledge domains.

I appreciate it, but no apology necessary. Disagreement is standard practice in philosophy. I learned long ago that it is a mistake to take such things personally. — Fooloso4

Good. I actually appreciate your contribution to this forum

Indeed, that is still the case! — Fooloso4

I do not think we disagree on anything. My apology if there was offense based on my misunderstanding.

I did not claim that ousia is the formal cause. — Fooloso4

Misunderstanding. My mistake.

First person, third person. Isomorphic. Back and forth, back and forth. Each concept depends on the other.

I am not sure how science participates in (1) christian tradition or (2) subjectivity: with respect to the latter, it tries to eliminate it into 3rd person light and with respect to the former I see no relevance whatsoever. — Bob Ross

Same metaphysics. Science needs to treat subjectivity as an opposite.

Funny. I was going to say the same thing to you — Harry Hindu

Goodbye.

In the long history since those terms were used to translate 'ousia' they have gained various meanings that should not be attributed to Aristotle. — Fooloso4

I believe you are just wrong.

Aristotle did not use the term 'essence'. It is an English translation of the Latin 'essentia'. A term coined by Cicero to translate 'ousia'. Ousia, the term used by Aristotle, does not mean eidos or morphê. They are three different terms that have some overlap but have different meanings. — Fooloso4

No, in the Physics, formal cause is "eidos" or "morphe". You are wrong that it is ousia. Ousia just means being or a thing.

Banno? Is that you? — Harry Hindu

I think we ran out.

Sorry, I just don't know what you're talking about anymore.

Where I am from, using wiki to debate philosophy would get you laughed out of the room.

I put it several ways but you're cherry-picking. — Harry Hindu

Which is what philosophy is. One choses a specific thing to discuss.

You never experience your own mental activity the way you experience others' mental activity. — Harry Hindu

How do you experience another person's mental activity?

Of course there is. Everyone knows there is. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Ok, close down the philosophy departments!

I am picking up Hegel's Logic right now to try and figure this out better — Gregory

In the Science of Logic he criticizes the logic of Being and Nonbeing as opposites. Thus, the negation of Being is not Nonbeing but Nothingness.

P-zombies are specifically stipulated as appearing to be normal people. — Tate

Which is Chalmer's point. He wants to say there is a difference between a zombie and a human with self -consciousness.

Ancient Greeks, like Aristotle, never discussed consciousness. He talks about thought, but makes nothing of self-consciousness.
Kierkegaard said Christianity invented inwardness, or subjectivity. It strikes me that trying to explain consciousness is based on this error.

I think this discrepancy is a large part of why we find consciousness to be confusing: it is existing everywhere in the brain, and nowhere in the brain, at the same time. It seems out of place. — Bird-Up

Consciousness is just thought and awareness. I think it's a fake problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by "...do not have knowledge of the structure of" — Moliere

Yes, me too.

The hard problem only exists as long as you declare the experience of consciousness to be unnecessary. — Bird-Up

That is confusing. I would think it is the other way around.

I would put Nietzsche, Rorty, Lyotard, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida , Heidegger and Butler in this category. — Joshs

Okay, that is fair.

Marxism relies on an emancipatory meta-narrative (dialectical materialism). Postmodern deconstructs all grand meta-narratives , like the narrative of progress or thesis-antithesis-synthesis. — Joshs

The idea of post-modern is first (to my knowledge) found in Hegel. Who often talks about the next period after the modern.

Post modernism posits that meta narratives do not exist — Albero

Lyotard said that. Not sure who belongs to the postmodern school.

thesis-antithesis-synthesis — Joshs

A term by Fichte, not Hegel.

postmodern philosophy was formed in part in opposition to Marxism — Joshs

How, exactly?

Why create a sign post at the point of the hard problem by labeling it as too-unexpected, and demanding of special explanation? — Bird-Up

Can you explain this sentence a bit more?

What do you find unmeaningful about it? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I have explained this. We just don't agree.

Before responding, what is it like reading my post? — Harry Hindu

I do not see how that is a meaningful concept.

It's most likely that the superman will be a computer. — Bird-Up

Eventually AI will make human anatomy an evolutionary dead end.

So you don't know you're a p-zombie? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I do not need to care about the question.

Proof that you're a p-zombie or proof that you know? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I said nothing about knowledge.

Proof that you're a p-zombie or proof that you know? You're being evasive. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No. I was asked a question and answered. And cut the ad hominem stuff.

Proof of what? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Proof of what we were talking about.

Not all violent crime requires a gun to deal with if you train your police properly. We have special armed units to deal with exceptional cases. Anyhow, I never in my entire life here felt I would need a gun to protect myself and I can't ever remember it even being a topic of conversation. It's certainly not a matter of political debate. Any political party suggesting we should infuse our society with deadly weapons to make it safer would be considered morons and immediately lose power. — Baden

I have lived in dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Never carried a gun.