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)
An old sparring partner ... :smirk:But few here would remember Landru Guide Us — Banno
Since my being "AWARE" is post hoc confabulation, I "CHOSE" before I became "AWARE" (as Libet's experiments¹, etc show) that I have "CHOSEN" (e.g. from prior "counterfactual" – imagined – options), therefore any "decision" is (mostly) unconscious² as I point out here without raising the concept of "determinism" (which is your strawman, schop1, not mine).... my point is that you are AWARE of counterfactuals and you CHOSE this one (whatever else might be the case surrounding this decision). — schopenhauer1
:smirk:There are various systems of paraconsistent logic that accomodate or mitigate explosive results, so I won't rule out some form of dialectic, but I won't rule it in, either. (see what I did there...?) — Banno
:up: :up:But it remains that the sort of contradiction seen in dialectic is not the sort of contradiction found in formal logic. What a dialectic contradiction is remains, I think, ambiguous.
And secondly, even if we supose that dialectic does not breach non-contradiction, the result is not clear. Given the Principle of Explosion, anything could follow from a contradiction, so given a thesis and an antithesis, the nature of the resulting synthesis is far from fixed.
So I would rather not glorify dialectic by calling it a "logic". — Banno
:100:Indeed, what we know is mental, but that does not imply that the world is mental...
The argument attempts to show that the world is partially mental, but only succeeded in showing that the what we say about the world is "mental".
That is, the argument presented here does not demonstrate it's conclusion. — Banno
Yes, and afaik it's this ...Does it matter what the primary function of religious thinking is? — Igitur
ergo[H]istory amply shows, imo, that 'religion' is required only (or at least mostly) for herding sheep, prophets making profits and sanguinary propitiating/martyring/scapegoating. — 180 Proof
Terror management (re: mortality) via reality-denial (i.e. fact-free, consoling myths & fairytales) seems the primary function of religious magical thinking (i.e. woo-woo), not "to find truth".[T]here is truth to be found and that the person is willing to find it. — Igitur
Yeah, in 2024 that "1 way to lose" will be the same as 2016: HRC. The Dems don't learn new tricks often ... though maybe VP Harris :yikes: (if Biden drops out of the race and the Dems don't nominate e.g. Gov Newsom, Gov Whitmer, et al) – HRC redux. — 180 Proof
Whitmer for President with running-mate Newsom for Veep works just as well for me too – maybe even better! — 180 Proof
:up:Trump never should be the nominee but the GOP has been shit since Reagan. — Benkei
:roll:It’s not a question of whether the ‘wave function’ is or isn’t mind-dependent. — Wayfarer
I grew up before wall-to-wall vidiocracy of 24/7/365 cable tv, video games, smart phones, social media & youtubing, so definitely not because my "early life" was "truly real" for me, especially as @Vera Mont so rightly points out, nature (i.e. wilderness – through which I, a fortunate though working class NYC kid, had often backpacked & hiked since early grade school).Has anyone else here had a sense that what they were experiencing in early life wasn't truly real or that it was highly stripped down? — TiredThinker
