This "knower" (i.e. perceiver) Bishop Berkeley calls "God" which, not by coincidence I'm sure, is functionally indistinguishable from @Gnomon's "Enformer". An infinite regress-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes:It is that which discloses such things as gravity and raditation and sub-atomic particles, amidst innumerable other things. It is the subject to whom all this occurs or appears. The ‘unknown knower’. — Wayfarer
Agreed. Mind(ing) is something sufficiently complex brains do – a (meta)activity, not an entity.[T]he mind is not ‘a thing among other things’ — Wayfarer
:up:... to head off the common notion that science seeks a "view from nowhere" ... Rather, science seeks a view from anywhere. A point worth making in a philosophy forum — Banno
:up: :up:It is one thing to say that things unperceived are not the same as we perceive them to be and altogether another to claim that when unperceived they don't exist. — Janus
IMO, not "a loser" versus two misogynists who advocate a National Abortion Ban (i.e. criminalizing women's reproductive healthcare) if elected.Two women on the ticket is, unfortunately, a loser. — Mikie
:up:The question is, why does he want to preserve that relationship? — Igitur
:lol: The only "deep state" is Project 2025 (i.e. The Heritage Foundation + The Federalist Society). Take your meds, dude. Roevember is coming! :victory:Survivor of an FBI entrapment case, more like it. It was planned by paid FBI informants. More deep state crooks elevated by deep state dupes. — NOS4A2
(a) So if "consciousness ... creates reality", then what "creates" "consciousness"?[C]onsciousness is the source of this reality, and probably all reality except base reality, which is consciousness itself. It could be that consciousness created something that then creates reality, but we don't know. Consciousness may be able to create reality by its own volition. — Sam26
:up: :up:The rules of chess encompass all the possible games of chess without themselves being one, and a game can provide examples of the rules in action, without being them. — tim wood
Yes (e.g. a community – more than any "subjective mind" – that uses the public conventions of "stop signs" & "traffic lights"; see below).Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020
Yes (e.g. thermal EM radiation from stars, etc). The "experience" may be "subjective", though "red" is acquired publicly, but (except for those who are colorblind) what "red" corresponds to in every instance (e.g. EM frequencies) is not "subjective".If there is no mind to experience and conceptually designate “red” does red ever aquire aninherentexistence independent of a third party mind?
No. Physics (provisionally) explains 'the regularities of nature' and logic (exactly) describes 'the entailments of regularities as such'. The latter is, imo so to speak, the syntax of the former (i.e. physics discursively presupposes logic). Why? Perhaps because ... nature, which includes – constitutes – h. sapiens' intelligence, is a dynamic process evolving within (thermal?) constraints from initial conditions – ur-regularities.[D]o you think physics describes logic? — Shawn
:lol: Principle of explosion —> STFU, kid.First Order Logic is a subset of Axiomatic Mathematics ... First order Logic, a subset of axiomatic mathematics, doesn't exist. — Treatid
:clap: :rofl:It doesn't matter ... the meaning of death, who cares? It's not the concept that matters it's the experience! — Sam26
No, I'm neither an economist nor a policy-maker.Are you critical of the subject, 180 Proof? — Mark Nyquist
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/918584just dogmatism, mere dogmatism. — Pantagruel
:sweat: :lol: :rofl:How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective?
— 180 Proof
cogito, ergo sum — Wayfarer
(a) How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective? :chin:The issue with consciousness, is that you must first be a conscious agent to create or provide any kind of explanation. — Wayfarer
The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. :roll:Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy... — Sam26
Yeah, like your posts ... care to try again?Life is largelyanecdotal[sophistry]. — Pantagruel
And that suffices, the rest is derivative (pace Kant) or superfluous. A more cogent and parsimonious description is, imo, more or less this one: "observers" are any aspects of the world interacting with – abstracting stochastic patterns from – any other aspects of the world.Science has no trouble depicting the world as it was before the evolution of h.sapiens, for instance - an empirical fact - — Wayfarer
Which law was broken?Biden was not removed by lawful means. — fishfry
:up: :up:Philosophy should be about how best to live. Whatever does not inform that, however interesting and creative it might be, is just a diversion in the form of speculation. — Janus
:roll: Schrödinger proposed this thought-experiment only to show that the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of quantum mechanics is, at best, paradoxical (i.e. does not make sense).The precise point Schrodinger was making with Schrodinger's Cat. — Wayfarer
:sparkle: :eyes: :lol:... perhaps unrealistic Idealism is not too far off the mark. But I prefer the unfamiliar term Enformationism, which has no history of philosophical [cogency or self-consistency]politics to elicit incredulity and knee-jerk reactions.— Gnomon
Yeah, and then you draw an unwarranted conclusion about "the world itself" as if the living are the world's victims. Stop shifting goal posts and admit you've been caught poorly reasoning again (e.g. category mistake of "world as perpetrator of unfairness and injustice").Notice I said "live in the world", NOT the world itself. — schopenhauer1
:smirk:NOS4A2
And you're happy to let Americans live however they like. :up: — frank
We agree for once, NOS. Here in America we've been "outraged" about that since 1619 ... 1701 ... 1787 ... (1791-1804) ... 1857 ... 1896 ... 1954 ... 1963 ... and now in 2024 this "outrage" may culminate again (like 2008) in another (merely symbolic?) step up and forward out of America's white male caste system. TBD.I am outraged that people are given power based on race and gender, yes. — NOS4A2
:lol: STFDLogic doesn't work by the principles of logic. — Treatid
Coming from you, lil troll, I wear your grunt like a badge of honor. :up:You are not a serious person. — AmadeusD
I waa a courtroom prosecutor ... I took on perpetrators of all kind: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped-off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump's type. — VPOTUS Kamala Harris (D-CA)
