Except that "neo" pertains more closely to the followers, not to the philosophy per se. Their philosophy does not need re-introduction, we are already aware of their philosophy. Have you heard of an emerging (new) school of thought with a Neo already attached to it? No.
In the beginning was the philosopher and his idea, then comes the remodeler who makes adjustments here and there.

If you're a materialist, then the world has parts, parts meaning you and other objects. Your consciousness must necessarily be in the same form -- it obeys space-time principle. It is local and individual. This is not negotiable. You can't argue your way out of this. I don't know why we keep beating around the bush.

There is no morality without moral beings. Moral beings are real. — charleton

Good.

So the manifold is consciousness? — bahman

You said: So the manifold is consciousness. I said, no. They are not identical. Consciousness is, necessarily, individual in the world of materialist.

I guess much of this has to do with the psychology of belief, which I've been interested in for quite some time. — Sam26

Some of the best books to read outside philosophy.

I think the difficulty I have with 'objectivity' is that it embodies a kind of implicit normative epistemology. It presumes that the criterion of what is real, is that it can be assessed as an object. So implicitly it accepts that the judgement must be grounded in respect of some truly existing object, or a matter of fact which is amenable to precise quantitative analysis. I suppose it seems a rather positivist attitude, which nevertheless presents itself as impartial or disinterested. — Wayfarer

Good take on 'impartiality' (3rd paragraph of your post). As you pointed out, 'objective' in morality is not the same as 'impartial' in matters of decisions in human affairs. So, no problem there.
On to objective morality. Rightfully, the pain point of justifying objective morality is in the word objective. Here is a gift that keeps giving to its opponents.

Shouldn't we be more humble about our beliefs given the evidence of the past, and given what we know will inevitably change in the future. Compare what we know, to what we don't know. The gulf is so vast it makes me wonder why we are so dogmatic about science, religion, politics, and a whole array of other subjects. Obviously some areas of study are more prone to rationality, and others are more prone to irrationality, but still it seems that we need to be careful about our claims. — Sam26

Sorry, I find 'humility' irrelevant to being "careful about our claims". Any philosopher would tell you that being careful about making a claim has to do with being careful about becoming dogmatic about anything. A humble person can be dogmatic in belief. These two qualities aren't exclusive. Hence, a humble rationalist could very well be dogmatic by explaining that arrogance lies in rejecting reason as the ultimate test of truth.
Similarly, what good it is to say "I know nothing" to feign humility if it doesn't contribute to the vitality of philosophical questions? To end all philosophical meowing?
If you asked me, I'd say it is arrogant to say "I know nothing."

So where do you get the consciousness from? — bahman

Is this a new question? Because in your opening post, you took it for granted there is consciousness. You were asking for why consciousness is local/or individual, not a streaming live on anywhere.
So, explain this question to me. Are you asking the cause of consciousness?

Statistical probability is a proportion of some reference class. So if it is statistically probable that I die before age 90 this is because the proportion of men (suitably similar to me) who have died before age 90 is quite high. Perhaps 7/10 men suitably like me die before age 90. That is what it means to say something is statistically likely. But what sense does it make to say that my belief that Plato taught Aristotle is statistically likely to be true? Statistically likely given what reference class? — PossibleAaran

You have identified two ways of probable belief. Statistical, which could be measured to some degree, and practical, which relies on facts -- were Plato and Aristotle both alive in the same era, for instance. If we are sincere about making and articulating a belief, we know that our beliefs must obey some form of reason. And note that I say some form of reason, because I don't necessarily mean epistemic. Your belief that Plato taught Aristotle must have been triggered by what you've read, heard, or learned from others. The same way your belief that you would die before the age of 90 was triggered by knowing some statistics on aging and men.

So the manifold is consciousness? — bahman

No.

Is the manifold continuous? — bahman

No. Manifold -- containing different parts. Not one continuous existence. Though the parts may interact, they do not occupy the same space and time...
Hey, ! How come you're also not using Bergson on this thread? Why don't you explain to Bahman about Bergson's theory on reality or something? You posted several posts and not one mention of this?

All particle are interacting with each other and the motion of the whole is given by Schrodinger equation. That one process. Materialists claim that consciousness is the result of process in matter. — bahman

Okay, so what do you tell the materialists? How do you resolve it? Tell the materialists that since process is not identical with the particles, then necessarily, by claiming there are particles, they admit to space-time existence. Since they admit to space-time existence, then the world is a manifold. And what do you get in world with parts, with atoms, with which you create a picture of reality? Individuation of consciousness.

There is however one process which describes the evolution of whole since all parts are interacting with each other. This means that there should be a single consciousness if we relate consciousness to motion of parts. — bahman

What is this "one process", and how does "single consciousness" follow from it?

However, even within this group, if inquired for more details and precision, there will arise vast differences in understanding or description. — Rich

Hence, the continued effort of a philosopher to refine his definition.
Mill and Wittgenstein must be one of the most prolific when it comes to defining concepts.

So, what's the status on this? Have we gotten clear on Bergson yet?

You want a debate, Banno? (I'm asking in general)

“That one innovation,” he continued, “will be enough to create riots in the street. And we’re about to do the same thing to retail workers, call center workers, fast-food workers, insurance companies, accounting firms. — Uneducated Pleb

Let me guess what that 'innovation' is ----- lay-offs (not the driver-less trucks).

Rather as one cleans the kitchen, knowing that the cook will immediately make a new mess; the goal is not that the kitchen be in a state of permanent cleanliness, but that the dirt is fresh — unenlightened

;) Nice!

The only certainty that we have is that experience exists. Therefore we cannot prove the existence of any being at all. This means that there is a gap in all ontological arguments. — bahman

Reading this gives me stomach ache.

If you do believe that, when do you think the instinct "decoupled" from linguistic-based cognition? — schopenhauer1

I would think this is the opposite of instinct. This is learned behavior, and not the kind where we just can't "help" but learn, but ones where the culture/family/community transmits information and instruction. — schopenhauer1

Good opening post.
I'm not sure about "decoupling" (what's this?). Instincts are such that they are innate. That we have now complex ideas doesn't mean that instincts aren't operative anymore or at some point, free from our decision-making capability. In fact, instinctive behaviors are fascinating. Pre-linguistic humans had the instinct of 'force' and how to use it. Remember that cave men would break animal bones by pounding -- they knew how to get the meat inside. How did they know that weight plus application of force equaled deconstruction. (And think about how early ideas of turning plants into powder to make something else out of them -- making a paste, a dough, collecting yeast from the air). You've seen birds take a nut and fly high and drop the nut to break its shell. That's instinct.

Are there other theories about them than UFOs? — BlueBanana

Hmmm.

bespoke analytical framework — Kovacocy

overlay of historical bubble comparison — Kovacocy

opaque pricing mechanism — Kovacocy

Ponzi capability — Kovacocy

game theory — Kovacocy

Enough said!

I think a brief description of each conspiracy should accompany the name. Even one line each would be helpful.
You forgot the Crop Circles, the children's vaccine, and subliminal messages on tv.

What the fuck!? Two years ago?? — Maw

Yeah, I know.

While I am glad to be here, with heavy heart I would like to let you know that Mars Man (or Oliver Carter in real life) has passed away.

I am not sure if many of you remember him, but he was a ray of sunshine. — hyena in petticoat

Sorry, I was late to get this.
Hyena, thank you for posting. Sad.
RIP Mars Man. You're in our hearts.

Trust
--The Pretty Things

Personally, I don't see any problem receiving an award, the moral issue is with the people issuing the award, receiving it could be seen simply as an act of kindness, not wanting to reject that which is offered. It's not that rewards should not be used to incentivise moral behaviour, I'm not of the view that morality is dictated by intention, it's that they should not be required. — Pseudonym

True. I'd characterize it as 'profiting' from moral acts if the motivation is the prize.

I don't think Kant would oblige you to reject the award. He would merely not characterise the motivation for the act (and therefore the act itself) as a moral one. You may make yourself a cup of tea, in Kant's theory, and it is not an example of a moral act. But he's not against people drinking tea. — Cuthbert

Fair enough. I'd imagine Mill would, though.

For Kant, one must follow a duty based on the rational assessment of that duty, acting to obtain a reward is not moral behaviour. — Pseudonym

What does a person do if an award committee gives him an award (even if he it wasn't his intention to receive an award)? Following the Kantian duty, then, he must reject the award.

If he's not knowing, then I think he's doubting. Agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope.

Kay.

What's the significant difference between this question and mine? — Agustino

You blurred the difference between the two, instead of highlighting it. Short of saying you didn't know the significant difference, I suspect you were eating a really good sandwich when you blurted out this thread, no?

I think it was fairly self-evident what I meant. In any case, the "why" question deals with the reason for there being objects of experience at all as opposed to the question of what they are ultimately composed of. — Thorongil

I don't think nihilism is the end result of having no reason why objects are. I find existential philosophers arguments to be compelling -- even in a nihilistic universe, an absurd world, we still can find meaning in life. — Moliere

Thorongil,

Not necessarily fairly self-evident. Not until I've read Moliere's statement above did I get the direction of where your question was going (intentional or not).
Theology (or ecclesiastical doctrines, for that matter) had tackled the why question long before metaphysics and scientific investigations had widely solidified the question of 'what exists'.

In other words, the more important question is not what objects are, but why they are. — Thorongil

Frankly, I don't understand this question. Could you flesh this out please? Thanks.

He wouldn't, but that's exactly what doubt is, being unsure. — Metaphysician Undercover

He wouldn't know he is only hallucinating? Then is he doubting or not?
I just said previously, You are the one making this observation about him. What is his observation?

One question that interests me, is why did the Platonist school, even though it was more widespread than Stoicism, didn't produce important historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Would it be because of the overly theoretic aspect of Platonism? — Agustino

What's wrong with asking that? — Agustino

I was wondering why not ask, why had Stoicism been adopted as a practical philosophy and practiced in everyday life? (Stoicism was purported to be the basis of Christianity). And meanwhile, you could also argue that Platonism was truly a scholastic endeavor.

One question that interests me, is why did the Platonist school, even though it was more widespread than Stoicism, didn't produce important historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Would it be because of the overly theoretic aspect of Platonism? — Agustino

With my utmost respect, are you even serious about asking this question?

The act of rewarding good behavior is not as philosophically invective as it is incendiary.
The corollary narrative to that has been one that is often flammable that philosophers expounding on this subject would have at their disposal not just the philosophical argument, but the legal and sociological facts in support of their position.
So what am I talking about? Punishment for bad behavior.

Suppose that a person is overcome with a severe illness causing delusion, and hallucinations, with the appearance of all sorts of phantasms, paranoia and suspicion of everyone and everything. This person would be completely unsure of what was real. Wouldn't this person doubt everything and know nothing? — Metaphysician Undercover

You are one describing this -- not the person you are referring to. How would he know he is hallucinating? Oh, I see. Because he would have an idea of what's not a hallucination. Just like you can't claim you're only dreaming if you have no idea of a not-dream world.

Eventually there is a point where your doubt is pointless. — Banno

Or we can say, a point where one's doubt is baseless.
Doubt has to hinge on something we know. We just could not haphazardly doubt anything and everything. The foundationalist would just dismiss us as irritating. And then, of course, what would we say when someone calls our attention to the fact that doubting itself is certitude.
Certainty is indestructible.

What relation does the ubiquity of art in the modern world have with it's perceived value? Does great art have a real value underneath the socially constructed one, or has "great" art literally become worthless in a globalized world? — Noble Dust

As I am, possibly, one with Bergson, I'd like art to tell me what it is out there. An artist has succeeded in his endeavor if the audience experiences some sort of discovery, a feeling of awe, or an agreement with what's being conveyed. It is perhaps a travesty to be always two clicks away from an opus or a masterpiece -- I thought art should encourage meditation or understanding of the universal.