Referring to a dictionary may be ok for an ordinary Joe Blow or Jane Row but for anyone claiming to be a philosopher it is merely a populorum fallacy. — hks

A dictionary definition is often a convenient starting point. It's no more than that, and philosophers often need a bit more than this simple convenience. But is that any reason to get sniffy about dictionaries? I don't think so.

Neither God nor Aristotle wrote your dictionary. You need to think for yourself. Not simply regurgitate your dictionary. — hks

I posted one dictionary definition, along with a number of poster's' definitions, to show that we don't agree on a definition. I don't think I have referred to God or Aristotle at all, have I? :chin: What's your issue?

Can you live without a dictionary ?? — hks

Can you? :chin: :chin: :chin:

Yes. :smile:

What makes any explanation necessary or not necessary? — Terrapin Station

Our wish to understand whether our beliefs are justified or not?

Because consciousness is a physiological thing. Mentality is a physiological thing. Experience, what something feels like, is a physiological thing. That was the point of my comment. — Terrapin Station

And will you eventually assert that any/all aspects of consciousness can be wholly defined, described and explained in terms of brain activity (neurons, synapses, and so on)? Is that where you're heading with this?

If we're talking about firmware design now, then I would say that simplicity takes precedence, and clarity is maximised as much as the real world permits. But it is second only to simplicity in importance.

Simplicity isn't added 'as deemed necessary', like an ingredient in a cake. Simplicity is something that helps us not to get drowned in complexity, as we create programs that come very close to being too complex for us to understand. Simplicity is more fundamental than something we add 'as necessary'. :smile:

It would make no sense to say that they're not talking about consciousness as a mental phenomenon, as that's what consciousness is. — Terrapin Station

Yes, it is, But that's not how the article you linked-to described it. It treats consciousness, as I said, as a physiological thing. The patient is conscious or not-conscious; awake or not-awake. This offers no indication that science has any understanding of conscious experience; what it feels like to a human to be conscious. Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim that things are other than I have described? :chin:

As before, you can say it how you want to. But you seem to be saying that you’re re-wording it in a way that doesn’t mean anything to you.

Speaking of re-wording, you could say that a proposed implication is an implication if its consequent can be shown to be a re-wording of its antecedent. — Michael Ossipoff

I was having difficulty understanding your words, so I offered rewordings that demonstrated my understanding of them, for you to confirm or correct. Sadly, you just repeated the terms I found difficult, so neither of us gained anything.

That paper doesn't actually use the terms "asleep" or "awake" — Terrapin Station

No, but it does address consciousness as if it was binary - conscious or not-conscious - and physiological. Of course consciousness is a physiological thing, but it is also a mental thing. Examples of science treating consciousness in this physical way say nothing about whether science has any understanding of consciousness-as-a-mental-phenomenon, nor do they demonstrate any such understanding. You claim that science does have some understanding of consciousness, but your claims seem to be based on a physiological understanding of consciousness that is not relevant here. More to the point, your perception of consciousness as a purely physical phenomenon seems to say that you, and science, share a complete lack of understanding of what consciousness is. :chin:

"When we are anesthetized, we expect consciousness to vanish." In other words, they're treating "consciousness" as synonym for "being awake"? That's what it looks like.

The watchword here is: as simple as it can be, but no simpler. The same for clarity. :wink:

I won’t claim to know what “ETA” means. Estimated time of arrival? — Michael Ossipoff

Sorry: "Edited To Add" :blush:

That doesn't mean that Science is useless. — ssu

No-one said it was. I have said that science is misapplied, and it should not be. That's not the same thing. Science is very useful, but only within its own sphere of relevance.

P2: All human beings have inherent rights award or assign certain 'rights' to one another, among them... — Rank Amateur

[ Highlighting shows my changes to the quoted text.]

Whatever else is the case, the freedoms and rights you refer to are created, defined and enforced by humans. They have no existence in the scientific physical universe other than as human-created concepts/ideas. So it's really just a matter of us all agreeing on these 'rights'. And if we can't, well, I'm not sure what happens then. These 'rights' only exist because we invented them. We discuss rights and freedoms as though they are gifts from the Universe, or God, or something. They're not. They're expressions of things we wish were true. And they are true, but only to the extent that we enforce them upon each other and (sometimes) on other parts of the Universe.

So my conclusion is that this argument's one and only purpose is to discuss or define the freedoms and rights which we will then enforce upon one another, and the world. Right?

I'm not convinced it's useful to attack sciencists on such a specific topic. Their problem is more general: they apply science where it cannot be usefully applied, outside of its area of relevance/use. Like using a hammer to design software. This (your OP) is an example, for sure, but there's so much more wrong with sciencism than just this. IMO, of course.

I'd say that a proposition is proved if it has been shown that it amounts to a tautology. — Michael Ossipoff

According to my dictionary (I checked :wink:), this means:

"I'd say that a proposition is proved if it has been shown that it is necessarily true."

This looks like the other definition of "tautology" in my dictionary: "useless repetition". Something is true if it's true. Hmm. :chin:

ETA: You are right to combine "proof" and "true"; they belong together in our thoughts. So I'm not being pedantic here, but only trying to understand what you have written, and what you might have meant by it. :chin: :chin: :chin:

a proposed implication is an implication if it can be shown that its consequent is just another way of saying its antecedent. — Michael Ossipoff

This confuses me more. I read this as saying that "a proposed implication is an implication if it can be shown that what results from it is the same as what came before it." I can't make sense of this, I'm afraid.

In my firmware designs (admittedly a quite different 'target'), I pursued simplicity and clarity, usually above all else. And it always paid off when I did. More usefully: it rarely paid off when I didn't. I don't know exactly how much of this translates into this discussion. :chin:

I have not claimed to understand how I make decisions. If you know tell me please :smile: — I like sushi

:up: :smile:

War is not the optimal solution to any problem, so it is always wrong. — Devans99

I think it's always true to say that war is a failure, in some sense, usually of diplomacy. War should be avoided because it's so often the case that all involved parties lose. There are no winners. But is it always wrong? When diplomacy has failed, and one side feels the need to enforce their position using soldiers and weapons, then the other side must consider what is most wrong: not warring, because it's "always wrong" (?), or resisting the invading army, because not doing so would be more wrong (from the perspective of the defender)?

Maybe "Matters about which provable things can be said" would be a better way to say what I've meant by "the describable realm". — Michael Ossipoff

Maybe "Matters of fact" should be replaced by "Matters of provable fact" — Michael Ossipoff

[My highlighting.]

That introduces the thorny matter of proof. What constitutes proof? It can range from Objective proof, requiring conformance with that which actually is, to a much softer and less demanding 'proof'. I don't mean to derail or distract, but once you introduce the concept of proof, these things need to be considered....

I don't agree that knowledge requires any sort of certainty. — Terrapin Station

Well, uncertainty is a real and significant part of reality, as we humans perceive and understand it. So I suppose it follows that much (nearly all?) of what we consider 'knowledge' must be somewhat uncertain. But it can't usefully be uncertain to the extent that it can't be defined at all, even in a general sense. There is a spectrum here, from absolute certainty to no certainty at all, and the latter end of the spectrum isn't very useful to us.... But we do need to address the former end of the spectrum, where things are not known with absolute certainty, but where there is enough evidence to be convinced, if not certain. ... Don't we? :chin:

If we're doing academic work, yes. If we're doing art--writing poetry, writing lyrics, writing fiction, etc, no. — Terrapin Station

:up: And if we're doing philosophy...? :chin:

I view “philosophy” as being no more than an exploration of the limitations of linguistic understanding and what language means beyond the colloquial use, what it could be, and politically what it is to soon become. — I like sushi

Philosophy is pure human thought without any fallacies, prejudices, or contradictions. — hks

I also came across the following definition (from an esoteric book whose name I can't remember), "Philosophy is the study of facts in their right relation." — BrianW

From the Wiktionary: philosophy n.

• The love of wisdom.
• An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism. Philosophy is often divided into five major branches: logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics.
• A comprehensive system of belief.
• A view or outlook regarding fundamental principles underlying some domain.
• A general principle (usually moral).
• (archaic) A broader branch of (non-applied) science.

It seems "philosophy" is different things to different people. For me, it's just thinking about more or less anything. Thinking about thinking is probably the most fun, but thinking can address anything, and so philosophy can too.

But that's not to say that all thinking is philosophy. Thinking about whether I'll go to the pub quiz on Monday, or fixing the shed roof before winter; those aren't philosophy. But I think any kind of serious, considered, thought is probably philosophy. IMO, of course. :smile:

Is it always better to be clear? Here, in a philosophy forum, I would say yes, it is. As clear as you can manage. But clarity is sometimes more than just being clear. :chin: It depends what someone is trying to express. On occasion, there is an element of art in prose, and it can contribute to overall clarity. On other occasions, artistic flair works against clarity, and is best avoided. For simple factual communication, it is nearly always better just to be clear. :up:

Normal, well-adjusted humans are different in small ways but similar on all the important issues. So it's possible to define right and wrong in mathematical terms and apply it to all humans. — Devans99

No, I don't think it is. ... Which seems to be the case in the discussion you linked-to too....

But perhaps you might be more convincing if you offer here, as an example, the mathematics behind the reason(s) why we should accept your thesis, as presented in this topic?

Doing the right thing — Devans99

Perhaps you might use the intelligence the topic title mentions to explain to me what the "right thing" is, and how to recognise it? Will your answer be different from someone else's? Why do you think that might be?

Abstinence might be another way to test for willpower. — Devans99

So willpower is an ability we use to deny ourselves things we (think we) want or need? :chin:

High willpower is key to getting the most from life. — Devans99

How about if we said that willpower (determination) is necessary, but not sufficient (on its own) to get "the most from life"? :chin:

IQ tests exist. There are various ways of measuring willpower (walking on hot coal for example). So its possible to separate the two. — Devans99

Of course it's possible. But is it useful?

I'm not saying that you can't distinguish (for example) IQ and willpower, but I am saying it's a fruitless endeavour. They belong together. The sense they convey does so as part of a greater whole. — Pattern-chaser

So you seem to be replying to a question that wasn't asked. :chin: My question, in case it isn't clear, is this: what value/use do you obtain from separating IQ, willpower, and all the other aspects of human mental acuity?

Distinguishing intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and so on, is somewhat dependent on these things actually being distinct in the first place, and I don't think they are — Pattern-chaser


I think IQ and willpower are distinct enough. Willpower is required to make the 'correct' decisions. IQ is required to understand complex situations. — Devans99

"Red" and "green" are 'distinct enough', but when it comes to seeing colour, both are necessary, and not obviously distinct. Both are colours, and both are associated with seeing colours. I'm not saying that you can't distinguish (for example) IQ and willpower, but I am saying it's a fruitless endeavour. They belong together. The sense they convey does so as part of a greater whole.

I am sure you would agree with this claim that "murder is wrong" — princessofdarkness

I think "wrong" is such a thorny concept that even this (above) can be wrong. Think about it for a few moments and you will be able to develop a particular scenario in which murder is not wrong....

I think Intelligence is made up of following two factors: — Devans99

I think "intelligence" is one of those words that we all understand, in general terms, but prove difficult to pin down when we try. There are lots of words like this, e.g. "quality" (cf. Pirsig), "beauty", "wisdom" (often considered to be a complement to intelligence), "God", "truth", "good" and "evil", and so on. Perhaps these terms are intended to be general and inexact, because that's how we use them? I'm not sure.

I am sure that, whenever I have seen attempts to define intelligence with precision, all we get is a discussion about the relevance and meaning of IQ tests. (Human) mental acuity, and the terms that describe it, are difficult to discuss. Distinguishing intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and so on, is somewhat dependent on these things actually being distinct in the first place, and I don't think they are. They, and the terms I forgot to list because I didn't think of them, all act together to describe our mental acuity and ability, as far as we understand it and them. They are related, not distinct. They are associated, not independent. They interact to produce the mental acuity we are so proud of.

Just my two pennyworth. :wink:

All of our senses are our own creations, relative to our own bodies, and not the window into an external objective world. — Jonah Tobias

This smacks of the position that some objective/science-oriented philosophers go for, whereby even the tiniest step away from Order is deemed to place us straight into Chaos. There are many steps in between. In your example, our senses, and the perceptual process which follows, show us a window into a consistent and (more or less) comprehensible world. It may or may not be "an external objective world", but it is a world, and not a wholly-internally-created artform.

All you're saying there is that there is brain activity? Or are you saying that the brain activity in question is something in the vein of thinking, desiring, etc.--those sorts of things? — Terrapin Station

All I am saying is that there is mental activity of some kind, a conclusion I derive from simple inference based on empirical observation. I surmise that there may well be details here that I might love to delve into, but my delving would, in the end, be simple speculation. My unconscious mind clearly indulges in what I might as well call thought, with the careful proviso that unconscious-mind-thought and conscious-mind-thought might differ significantly, and in ways that have not occurred to me. Such is the nature of real life, eh? :smile: :up:

There are people who posit that there is not only unconscious/subconscious brain activity, but that the unconscious brain activity consists of things such as thoughts, desires, concepts, etc. If you don't posit that then that's fine. — Terrapin Station

I don't. :up: But I observe, by inference from empirical observation, there is mental stuff of some sort going on when, for example, we drive home without conscious intervention. The exact nature of that mental stuff is unclear to me, but that's OK. This stuff is unconscious; it takes place outside of our conscious awareness, so we don't/can't know exactly what's going on, by definition.

Just to clarify, the dispute isn't over whether the brain is involved in some way. It obviously is. The dispute is over whether there are mental phenomena occurring that we're not aware of. What are mental phenomena? — Terrapin Station

They're phenomena that have to do with the brain, and its activities. This is about vocabulary, not more. "Mental" is the word we use for this purpose.

What's the support of the claim? — Terrapin Station

Empirical evidence. Our brains control many (all?) aspects of our physical behaviour. We call this "mental", presumably because it's the brain that does it? Even unconsciously, we make decisions to allow our driving to proceed. [E.g. the decision to change lane.] These decisions are "mental". [Beyond that simple observation, I assert nothing.]

With the driving example, one thing that's important to point out is that we're not talking about propositional knowledge there, we're talking about "how to" knowledge at best--in other words, the ability to do something. In that scenario, by saying that it's evidence of subconscious mental content, you're ruling out that it can simply be akin to "muscle memory," and you're saying that it's necessary to think about it in some sense, just where you're not aware that you're thinking about it. So in the face of a challenge about that, we'd need to be able to provide evidence that there's necessarily something mental about it. — Terrapin Station

The driving home involves some sort of mental control. The physical body cannot achieve such things unaided. Deduction beyond this simple observation is difficult, and who is to say what is the exact nature of this "mental control" that I have referred to? But I think it is clear that there is something mental going on, and that is the point I wished to make.

believing in the subconscious is something powerful but remember the subconscious does not pick up information because it is not fully aware of anything — WhiteNightScales

I think you have misunderstood the idea of the subconscious. The word, and its intended meaning, stem from the fact that our conscious minds are unaware of what the subconscious gets up to. We don't really know what the subconscious might be aware of, if it is aware at all, or the nature of this awareness if there is one.

is there anyone here who does not believe in the subconscious limen? — Ranger

I don't think there is anything here to believe, only a definition to be understood. There are things we know that we do that we have no awareness of. Like when you drive home with no memory of doing so, or when the solution to a problem suddenly emerges in your mind, with no awareness of how it got there. We describe these things as "subconscious" (although I prefer Guy Claxton's term, "undermind" ).