So, are there beings other than human beings whose existence can be described in terms of 'dasein'? — Wayfarer
Honestly, I do not see why you come up with memory in this context. If you say my intent to move, reflected by the mirror as movement, is just a memory of itself, then what is not memory? Do you mean to say I would not know where I am without memory? Maybe. But when I move my hand along the mirror and it's reflection also moves, where is memory involved? I see both things move simultanously.When you look in a mirror in order to reflect on yourself you are studying an object ( the image of yourself) and comparing it with your memory of another object( your recollection of your sense of your self. — Joshs
That’s Hegel , not Heidegger. Big difference between the two here. Nothing undetermined about Heidegger’s Dasein. — Joshs
Why? I'd say that is correct. Heidegger uses the term throughout the book in the way he does. I just pointed out that he chose that term because it does not have any conrete determinations and not because he wanted it determined as human existence, if you understand.Is that wrong? Ought we to edit it? — Wayfarer
Correct.He was nevertheless obliged to call it out. — Wayfarer
Sure. But my point is that it was necessary for him to introduce such a term, to distinguish the mode of being for the human from mere existence, in my view. — Wayfarer
Or it can be what you see in a mirror. For me reflection is more like self-description, self-observation or anything where you are "your own object". You cannot write about yourself without reflecting.Reflection is considered to be a turning back of consciousness to draw an experience from memory in order to examine it. — Joshs
If you put aside the mirror....It is generally distinguished from intentional acts that deal with present objects rather than objects from memory. — Joshs
So, which things, do you think, told Heidegger that about his Dasein?“The Dasein does not need a special kind of observation, nor does it need to conduct a sort of espionage on the ego in order to have the self; rather, as the Dasein gives itself over immediately and passionately to the world itself, its own self is reflected to it from things.” — Joshs
How do you think the concept of reflection differs for Heidegger from the ordinary understanding of it , or from a Kantian understanding of it? — Joshs
Dasein doesn’t ‘reflect’ back to itself as a pre-existing subject, it It is always beyond or ahead of itself. — Joshs
But the way that I put it is that secular-scientific thought tends to 'objectify' human beings, and in so doing looses what makes human beings different from any other object of rational analysis; that's the sense in which I'm saying that 'beings' are different from 'objects'.
....
which is why I believe the Heidegger adopted the term 'dasein' to compensate for the loss of that sense of being in modern lexicons. — Wayfarer
So only that which is labeled "is"? — Xtrix
This is why existence is not treated as a predicate in logic. That is, there is no simple way to parse. "Xtrix exists". — Banno
The mind creates thought, not the brain. — EnPassant
Bear in mind that I said "consciously experienced"; I already allowed that there is a sense in which we could say that reflected electromagnetic radiation is (pre-consciously) experienced by the body. giving rise to the (possibly) conscious experience of coloured things. — Janus
In any case in your example what distinction are you making between content and meaning? If I'm reading text in an unfamiliar language I would surmise that there is a content or meaning there, but I don't know what it is. How then could I be said to have experienced it? — Janus
All I was saying was that wavelengths of electromagnetic energy are not consciously experienced; meaning that we don't see wavelengths, we see coloured things. To put it another way, prior to scientific investigations people had no idea that colour was the result of different electromagnetic.wavelengths. — Janus
I think I understand what you are saying but I don't see how it relates to
what what you were responding to here:
According to our investigations there are electromagnetic wavelengths that give rise to seeing coloured things in suitably equipped percipients, but those wavelengths are not themselves consciously experienced, obviously. — Janus — Janus
I think I understand what you are saying but I'm not seeing how it relates to what you originally were responding to, here:
According to our investigations there are electromagnetic wavelengths that give rise to seeing coloured things in suitably equipped percipients, but those wavelengths are not themselves consciously experienced, obviously. — Janus — Janus
Are you suggesting that we experience the effects of things prior to cognitive experience. If so, that would not be conscious experience, though. Sorry, beyond that guess, I'm not sure what you're getting at; can you explain a little? — Janus
But they refer to a real aspect of Nature. — GraveItty
According to our investigations there are electromagnetic wavelengths that give rise to seeing coloured things in suitably equipped percipients, but those wavelengths are not themselves consciously experienced, obviously. — Janus
The rational numbers stand far enough back from the fray that it seems quite easy to treat a continuous line as an ordered series of points. As an object, it can paradoxically be the two things at once. But then as mathematicians go deeper, they have to keep expanding the notion of continuity to come up with a transcendent hierarchy of infinities. Likewise, the ability to cut the number line ever finer leads to a hierarchy of divisions. We encounter the infinite decimal expansions of the irrationals. — apokrisis
According to the functionalist, anything that satisfies certain functional criteria of being conscious just is conscious. — SophistiCat
Before asking for a criterion one would have to justify the distinction. How do you prove that there is a difference at all? — Heiko
Along those lines, I might ask for a criterion to distinguish information-processing systems in general from conscious information-processing systems. — Cabbage Farmer
"Pain is the firing of C fibers", pointing out that while it might be valid in a physiological sense, it does not help us to understand how pain feels. — Wayfarer
This would be more compelling if materialists had some idea of what consciousness is and how brains produce it. Let me ask you: suppose science is still stumped on consciousness 1,000 years from now. Would you still think all there is is matter? — RogueAI
We don't get to study (non-mental) matter anywhere, unless we could literally get out of our bodies. We just have to postulate its existence. — Manuel
I posit you won't be able to dismiss my query which thus proves my theorum, and to this I conclude this post. — Varde
It would be odd to say that one gained extra knowledge/information just because you used a different language. — TheMadFool
Yes - someone pays to to paint something, and that is what you do.And being paid to do painting means bought painting .... wut? — Tobias
That is a necessary condition but ability is no reason to do anything.No, you get paid for something because you have a certain skill or trait that people pay money for. — Tobias
People pay to hear an educated philosopher lecture because they think they learn more from him or her. And lo and behold, they are probably right, because the man or woman in question has been dedicating her or his time to the subject. That is what academic education provies you with: time, a structure in which you are educated and educators that have obtained distinctions making it creible to think they are fit for their jobs and know what they talk about. — Tobias
Okay, nice to meet you :)I am, however, interested in non-binary, relevant, paraconistent, etc. logics and how they solve real world problems that classical logic (however slightly modified) cannot (or perhaps they solve such problems more efficiently). — Ennui Elucidator
It provides a guarantee of understandability for other beings. I guess you could get an agreement of any realist when showing the fundamental set operations - e.g. "O O is disjoint" and he will agree that no point in one O is also in the other. It is not so much the content but the basic rules of logic themselves that have a certain type of "reality".I am looking for an argument of what logic does for the realist besides act as a useful heuristic. — Ennui Elucidator
In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true.