:lol:It's a survival machine. In order to survive, it [a brain] requires information; it must construct a mental model of its world.
— Vera Mont
I think this opinion is wrong. The desire to believe, to know, and understand, is not based in what is needed to survive. — Metaphysician Undercover
I see. You're advocating immaterialism (which entails solipsism), not (just) panpsychism.Pansychism [ ... ] matter is fundamental but that matter is conscious, whereas analytic idealism is the view that mind (i.e., consciousness) is fundamental ... — Bob Ross
Only in (primitive) 'creationist'-based cultures; however, not so according to Brahmins or Daoists (or, for that matter, either classical atomists or Spinozists) for whom nature itself is eternally naturing (à la autpoiesis).Interesting how nature, once 'the created', is now imbued with the power of creating itself. — Wayfarer
Under analytical idealism, the entirety of reality is fundamentally mind and is thusly conscious: not just animals. — Bob Ross
Explain why you have not just contradicted yourself, Bob. Thanks.Analytical Idealism is not a form of pansychism. Furthermore, could you please elaborate on why you think such? — Bob Ross
Okay, a step away from talk of the "immaterial" to the "imaginary" is progress. But how do you "hold an imaginary" X? A map of Middle Earth, for example, is instantiated on actual paper, but that map does not correspond to an actual place.... to hold an imaginary ... — Mark Nyquist
This confuses me. Please clarify how an "immaterial" Y is "contained in" a material Z.... contained in my brain as an immaterial representation ... — Mark Nyquist
I am an emergentist (re: holism), not "monist" (dualist or pluralist).↪180 Proof If you are a monist ... — Mark Nyquist
Suppose "representation" is the "thing in itself" (just as the tip of an iceberg is also an iceberg) ...The physical world is representation, not the thing itself. — schopenhauer1
Using proper brain scans and algorithms one could easily observe your real-time un/conscious-states.You could observe me in either of these states, but you would not be able to know for sure whether I was conscious of what I was looking at, at the time. — Janus
Numbers are abstract objects (or structures) which are real only in so far as they are physically instantiable. I guess this view makes me more Aristotlean (hylomorphic) than Platonic-Pythagorean (supersensible).Where do you sit on the notion that maths is Platonic? — Tom Storm
Yes; ergo, IMO, a fiction.Would mathematical Platonism quality as immaterial?
Human babies develop a 'theory of mind' that is strongly correlated to their "publicly confirmable" observations of others' behaviors. As for one's own "consciousness", or subjectivity, I think it is only assumed and not observed (any more than an eye sees itself seeing). My "publicly confirmable" behavior strongly correlates to others' 'theory of mind' as applied to me (and one another) and, on the basis of the persistent circumstantial evidence, I don't have any observational grounds to doubt or disbelieve that I am (at least, occasionally) "conscious". Do you? As far as I'm concerned, 'eliminativism' is only a research paradigm which treats "consciousness" as a counterintuitive "user-illusion" that deconstructs the incorrigible basis – "conscious" – of our folk psychology (i.e. practical woo) in order to publicly investigate (an) objective physical structure of subjective information processing (i.e. experience).On the other hand, if we each know from experience that we are conscious, then it must also be observable in another sense, the difference being that this other kind of observation is not publicly confirmable. — Janus
:cool: :up:My answer to you asking the question* would be that it is not the chemicals, but the loss of the chemicals being arranged grandma-ishly that I am mourning, because I really liked the effect of the chemicals being arranged grandma-ishly. — wonderer1
:100: :up:There is a logical leap from our being experiential to the universe being experiential. We have no experience of the experience of the universe or of it being experiential. It seems to be a form of anthropomorphism. — Fooloso4
:fire:We have no experience of something fundamental. That there must be something fundamental is merely an assumption that rests fundamentally on our desire that the universe to be intelligible to us. — Fooloso4
:fire:We have, however, made considerable progress in explaining things physically. The claim that things are experience (esse est percipi?) does not explain anything. — Fooloso4
:up:Everything humans do is a product of culture and society, and always has been. — Jamal
:up: :up:Digestion is a material process which is not a material object.
Ideas, theories and generalizations only exist insofar as they are physically instantiated. — Janus
No. I mean intelligence (i.e. adaptivity) without "consciousness" (i.e. awareness of being self-aware), a distinction I suggest in this old post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/528794 ... and speculate on further, with respect to 'AGI', here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/608461.Do you mean 'intelligence versus self-awareness?' — universeness
The Dems will use a parliamentary procedure with the help of several GOP congressmembers to force a vote in the House that will pass and go on to easy passage in the Senate for Biden to sign the clean debt ceiling raise into law by the first of June. McCarthy is Dead Speaker Walking –'even if he were to get everything he wants out of Biden – so both men are just engaging in political kabuki theatre in order to give Minority Leader Jeffries time to engineer the Dem's parliamentary rescue of the US Debt from the pathetic default-ransom by the GOP Insurrection Caucus.What will be the outcome? — Mikie
More an Epicurean than a Stoic? :cool: :up:In my own case, I rarely know why I do anything and have very little insight into my motivations - I'm a swirling vortex of contradictions and unconscious values and biases. Despite this I feel unreasonably content. — Tom Storm
Perhaps an aside but, IME as a born, raised and educated ex-Catholic, the distinction between orthodoxy and Ms. Armstrong's emphasis on orthopraxy lacks much of a difference in so far as in the main, ceteris paribus, religious practices and religious beliefs are strongly correlated.Most other traditions prize practice above creedal orthodoxy: Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do
— Karen Armstrong, Metaphysical Mistake — Christoffer
Not at all. Atheism is only a critique and rejection of theism.Accepting this definition of a theory, would you say that (your best interpretation of) atheism qualifies as a theory? — Hallucinogen
My guess is that it's much easier to cope with – much more intuitive – than voidism (Democritean / Buddhist).Why posit monism? — IP060903
