LOL. Touche. A fitting finale.

It absolutely does address the hard problem of consciousness. The solution is called "biperspectivism". It is quite neat. I've read a number of books on systems theory and systems philosophy in the last few months, I can't remember if it was Laszlo or von Bertalanffy that had the really concise description. I actually mentioned it in another thread about neurophilosophy here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6692/does-neurophilosophy-signal-the-end-of-philosophy-as-we-know-it-/p1

No, it really isn't. — Bartricks

Clearly you have not tried meditation.

↪Pantagruel Have you considered Buddhism? I recommend Buddhism to you. It encourages you to think nothing. I think you'll do well. — Bartricks

Thank you, I do consider myself philosophically a buddhist. Thinking nothing is a great accomplishment.

↪Bartricks
What I mind about is up to me.
You are clearly not listening. Repeating your claims when I, and others, have addressed them is a waste of time and energy. — Amity

:up:

Actually that is the generic definition of emergence in systems philosophy. Systems philosophy is based on the validated premise that systems of all varieties exhibit similar characteristics.

The hard problem is hard because it assumes emergence. — bert1

Why is emergence a problem? Emergence is a well known property of complex physical systems.

Stop being so self-involved. So it inspired you. Doesn't matter. That won't make it true. — Bartricks

It won't make it not-true.

My personal belief is that, phrased as a question, as Socrates did, the observation has merit. I believe that people are in some sense misguided when they do misdeeds, yes.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? — 3017amen

That the subconscious is independent? That was because you specifically made reference to the subconscious doing the driving.

For instance, a view associated with Stoicism is the view that all wrongdoing is the product of ignorance. — Bartricks

This is a pretty common position among ancient philosophers. If the good is by definition desirable, why do men do evil? Socrates for sure.

I found the elements of Stoicism that inspire me, I get a thrill of inspiration reading the meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Maybe you will find something that you like. Maybe it isn't for you.

No, a worldview is not true if it 'works' for you. — Bartricks

What worldview? Everyone's worldview is unique. All anyone has are the principles and strategies he lives by. People can (and often do) misrepresent what they claim to believe, when in practice they will do something entirely different. The gap between "espoused" and "enacted" beliefs is often very wide indeed.

Is it juvenile to expect to live by one's philosophy? Out of the mouth of babes I guess.

Why bother what? I am interested in what's true. — Bartricks

Ok, then you should in good faith make an effort to learn and adopt stoical principles in a way that makes sense to you, and then decide if they have the purported effect. That is the essential "truth" of the Stoic philosophy (or any moral/ethical philosophical system).

here is a distinction between distraction and daydreaming, yes? — 3017amen

I wouldn't say so. If you are ascribing some kind of independence to subconscious phenomena that's a pretty large leap. Undoubtedly buried 'subconscious' processes do affect consciousness, but these are in principle identifiable, even 'editable' - that's the premise of the original Freudian psychoanalytic method.

When consciousness, as a mysteriously emerging property in itself, morphs into subconscious, creates part of the unexplained hard problem. The daydreaming while driving example is one phenomenon. Two brains are acting as one to create the same or 'one' sense of awareness level. — 3017amen

Isn't this just a lot of rationalization to account for distracted driving? I'm having a hard time seeing this as exemplifying a cognitively significant phenomenon.

The only type of answer we can give is in terms of motion, something moves somewhere and then poof, that's consciousness. — Zelebg

That's right. Poof, there's mathematics. Poof, there's history. Consciousness is doing a LOT. You are absolutely right in that coming up with a comprehensive "science" around all that is a daunting task. Dilthey wrote literally thousands of pages on it.... ;)

Why is being in the state of becoming? It sounds like a variation on Zeno's paradox, which is based on the error of assuming that both distance and time are infinitely divisible, while time is continuous. Yes, everything moves through time, this doesn't stop it from being what it is at any particular moment though?

But back to logic; the subconscious and conscious mind working together seems to defy LEM. Of course the infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming and having an accident, rears its ugly head again there... . — 3017amen

What is LEM?
Certainly traditional logic does not currently encompass the newer forms of 'action at a distance' relationships that are emerging in physics and non-linear mathematics. But I'd say that is a limitation of traditional logic, not the "logic of the real."

Pretty much the entirety of the human sciences, History, Sociology, Psychology, Cognitive Science, Economics, Ethics, Aesthetics are the products of the nebulous thing called consciousness. And yes, these sciences are amenable to "scientific" analysis. Stochastically, and most recently, through the use of non-linear dynamics which it turns out can be used to model a lot of previously stubborn problems in complex open systems. Dilthey dedicated a huge portion of his philosophical career to the formalization of the development of the objective spirit in the human sciences. I guess you could call it the "material mind".

In any case, consciousness has been studied scientifically and is amenable to scientific study.

Okay, maybe. But that is just a point about the therapeutic benefits of believing certain things and is not evidence of the truth of the beliefs in question. — Bartricks

The entire point of the philosophy is its therapeutic benefits. That is the entire point of any moral philosophy. IF you do X, THEN result Y. The only way to prove or disprove Stoicism is to adopt it 'in good faith'. If you haven't actually applied any of the principles of Stoicism diligently in your life then you aren't in a position to comment on its validity. If the principles work, then Stoicism is valid in that it has been effective for you. If not, then it is not effective for you, but it could still be 'true' in that it may well be valid for someone else....

But what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? To what extent a view resonates with you, or bears similarity to another view, has nothing whatever to do with its truth. — Bartricks

Well, Stoicism is a moral philosophy, which suggests principles upon which to base one's life and one's actions. So nothing could be more relevant to a moral philosophy than that it 'resonates' with a person.

This is what I find so humourous about these skeptical-stoical threads: If stoicism clearly does not resonate with you...why bother?

Stoicism really seems to attract a lot of skeptical attention around here. The expression of stoicism that says the most to me is to learn to control one's expectations. This resonates well with my Buddhist orientation.

It's not just the world, but my own mind. I have reasons for behaving the way I do, or for the conclusions I come to. That is how reasoning works. You use reasons to support your conclusion. Your reasons are usually observations. Reasoning is causal, and can be predictable when you have access to the information in another person's mind - like when you know how they think because you have the experience of having lived with them for 25 years. — Harry Hindu

Interesting. You are kind of making the case for a 'cumulative empirical intuition'. Even though the knowledge you are talking about doesn't achieve the level of formal conceptualization, it is possible to have a complete-enough knowledge of a system to apprehend it as deterministic. Performance knowledge preceding conceptual awareness. That approach does hold water I think.

The world 'appears' deterministic at times at the human scale (e.g billiard balls on a pool table) but this in fact is only an artefact of approximate perception. Is that the origin of the confusion?

It sounds ...very...cybernetic-computational to me!

There seems to be a conflation between the sense of the original post "to be ruled" and the sense of "having rules"? Maybe it would be helpful to clarify who the "some people" are? Japanese society, which has a very strong sense of social identity traditionally apotheosized in the Emperor? Or Germans, who are renowned for their uber-orderliness? Or some other?

I think the best answer I can give you is that materials science if by it's nature inexact, due to the innate complexities of natural objects (systems) which limit our ability to perform exact measurements which precisely determine their properties. Sure, we could attempt to model these objects as non-linear dynamical systems, but in the end all that would be doing is replacing probability with systems theory.

(I really don’t know what I’m meant to do with this information. Its probably obvious that I never studied psychology or anything. I’m just a poker player from the streets who mapped out the mind. Any advice be much appreciated?) — Yadoula

I think it is an extremely interesting effort, only I don't think it does exactly what you think it does. The term "conscious" has a lot of technical history. I think your observations on the body-mind interface are promising.

Before developing an imagination beings are unable make decisions based on the future. — Yadoula

Are you equating "imagination" with "comparing alternate possibilities"? Because computers and lots of lower animals can do that.

Yes, I came across the epistemological equivalent in a book by Kornblith many years ago on naturalistic epistemology. Kornblith describes "natural kinds" as homeostatic property clusters, physicalizing the mental.

Yes, I just skimmed through the Stanford article on Tropes also.

Personally, I find metaphysical hairsplitting to be a little tedious. Invariably it seems we are either trying to graft the mental onto the physical or ungraft it. In the end, both are in play, so unless there is some really compelling practical consequence I can live with a little ambiguity.

Ok. New to me, however what I just read says that tropes can be viewed either as objects, or properties, but not both, so they cannot bridge the gap between the two.

Properties are particulars — Terrapin Station

Typically, properties are considered to be examples of universals, not particulars.

Physics/mechanics???!!! We've put men on the moon. Surely a humble dice is within its reach. — TheMadFool

To quote Regis, Is that your final answer?

That said let's consider the system (one roll of a dice) mechanistically. We know from basic physics that given all the information (force, direction, mass, etc.) of the system (one roll of a dice) we can predict the outcome with perfect accuracy. In other words the system (one roll of a dice) is, well, deterministic (certainty assured). — TheMadFool

How do you figure this? Practically speaking, physical science is always subject to some degree of inaccuracy.

I think philosophy should bend over backwards to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Poor argument is its own best censor.

I don't think we have to assume reductionism. Chemical properties emerge from physical systems which have evolved to a certain level of complexity, but chemical properties are not reducible to physical properties. They are undeniably real, and form the basis of further empirical inquiry. So why should consciousness be any different than that?

Yes, I thought that consciousness "having" an idea ought to be different from conscious qua idea. Unless we are saying that an idea can have an idea?

If mental constructs exist then I guess a fortiori consciousness must also exist.

As personal progress, for sure!

I am starting to think that, culturally, we have reached the tipping point of decadence and are now cartwheeling down into decay.