What things feel like on the inside has never captured my imagination. I'm not even sure what that would mean experientially for me. — Tom Storm

But at the same time, the way you see things and the way I do are often very similar. We both have a use what works pragmatism.

Mostly when it comes to intuition or thinking I have instant access to a thought and it generally has no feeling attached to it or anything additional to the thought itself. Maybe this is why I don't care much for poetry and you do - it's in how we are wired to experience things. — Tom Storm

That's a really good question. It opens up a bunch of issues for me. I'll just keep it simple and say yes, the importance of intellectual self-awareness for me is related to the way I think when I'm reading or writing poetry. That kind of thinking has a purity and depth that are blunted with my regular old every day thinking.

That's not what the research shows. — Darkneos

As I noted, the research you referenced studied your misconception of what intuition is.

Have you seen that TED Talk? If not, I get the impression that you would appreciate it. — wonderer1

I'll take a look.

Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

My preference is for William James’ notion of specious time — Joshs

I've been following this thread but didn't feel like I had anything to contribute. Then I tripped over this from Charles S. Peirce last night while reading. When he says "air" in this context, I think he is making the distinction between the notes and the melody.

In this process we observe two sorts of elements of consciousness, the distinction between which may best be made clear by means of an illustration. In a piece of music there are the separate notes, and there is the air. A single tone may be prolonged for an hour or a day, and it exists as perfectly in each second of that time as in the whole taken together; so that, as long as it is sounding, it might be present to a sense from which everything in the past was as completely absent as the future itself. But it is different with the air, the performance of which occupies a certain time, during the portions of which only portions of it are played. It consists in an orderliness in the succession of sounds which strike the ear at different times; and to perceive it there must be some continuity of consciousness which makes the events of a lapse of time present to us. We certainly only perceive the air by hearing the separate notes; yet we cannot be said to directly hear it, for we hear only what is present at the instant, and an orderliness of succession cannot exist in an instant. These two sorts of objects, what we are immediately conscious of and what we are mediately conscious of, are found in all consciousness. Some elements (the sensations) are completely present at every instant so long as they last, while others (like thought) are actions having beginning, middle, and end, and consist in a congruence in the succession of sensations which flow through the mind. They cannot be immediately present to us, but must cover some portion of the past or future. Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our sensations. — Charles S. Peirce - How to Make Our Ideas Clear

Do you know what being wrong feel like? — wonderer1

[irony]It hasn't happened yet. I'm curious to see what it would feel like.[/irony]

You just can’t admit that you’re wrong — Darkneos

IMO you’re examining a settled matter and trying to make to more than it is — Darkneos

Your thinking is rigid and dogmatic. And wrong.

What does an awareness of how one's thinking process look like? — Tom Storm

A lot of what I've written in this thread is a description of my own experience using my mind. Earlier in this discussion and in other discussions I've described my experience of intuition as a cloud of knowledge, lit from within and containing everything I know and have experienced - all connected and interacting. I recognize that visual imagery like that has a big role in how I think. Although my thinking is strongly verbal, I visualize my thinking as ideas, thoughts, words bubbling up from a spring from a source I can't see or feel. That invisible source feels as much like me as the part of me I can be aware of.

I have been criticized by more philosophical types that my philosophy is too dependent on introspection, which they find suspect. I've started at least five discussions that examine what different types of mental process feel like from the inside. I've said many times that the focus of my intellectual life is on knowing things, knowing how I know them, and knowing how certain I am of that knowledge. Knowing what knowing feels like is a big part of that.

This is fun. I could go on and on.

Not sure what you are getting at, if you aren't aware of it then there isn't really anything you can do about it. — Darkneos

People who lack intellectual self-awareness are often unaware of how their thinking processes actually work. I have found that's true of people who dogmatically reject the value of intuition.

Seems like Dick was in the vanguard
— T Clark

From a certain perspective, maybe he was, — Jamal

As I said, I'm not a fan of Dick, but many people seem to think highly of his writing. I was thinking of "Foundation" and how I loved it when I was a kid, but when I reread it recently found it to be poorly written and boring. I can still feel the impact Asimov's ideas had on me, but I don't think I would enjoy it if I read it for the first time now. I guess I was trying to grant Dick that same benefit of the doubt.

Speaking of "Foundation," it's amazing to me the first story was written in 1942.

That "limited" meaning is what it actually is. Like I said, it doesn't matter what you think that doesn't make intuition more than what it is. — Darkneos

It has always surprised me how many people are not aware of their own thinking processes. Unaware that their consciousness and reason are just a small part of their mental life and that most of what we think, feel, know is not a function of those two limited processes. It's certainly something you see all the time here on the forum. So, I guess you could say you're in good company.

It's not a limited understanding, you're just trying to make out to be more than what it actually is and I'm showing you the research doesn't support you. — Darkneos

The research applies only to the limited meaning you incorrectly applied to it, as we pointed out to you during this discussion.

So in this case you're just wrong. — Darkneos

You can say it over and over again, but that doesn't make it true.

Intuition isn't some special knowledge, it's rooted in what you already know and is prone to bias as well. It's pretty much "thinking super fast" to where you reach the conclusion so quickly that it feels like "knowing" but it really isn't. — Darkneos

This just shows that you ignored everything other people said in this discussion.

Like I said already, it doesn't matter what you THINK it is that doesn't change the reality of what it is. All you and others here have shown is that you REALLY want magic to exist, but humans just aren't special bud. — Darkneos

Do you really think that the only way you can think other than by reasoning is magic? Also, capitalizing letters doesn't make you more correct.

To put it bluntly, you’re wrong about intuition. — Darkneos

To put it bluntly, of course I'm not. The "evidence" you provided at the beginning of the discussion was based on an incorrect understanding of what intuition is. I, and others on this thread, have demonstrated that your understanding is too limited. There's a name for a logical fallacy when you can't win an argument, you fall back to a more limited position that's easier to defend.

Well I’m right and you’re right wrong. — Darkneos

Am I right that you're wrong, or wrong that you're right?

Calling it a ring of truth is just wrong. — Darkneos

You and I disagree.

I remember the specific moment I decided to trust my intuition. I was in college, at the library studying, and some guy came in and dropped his books on the next table over from where I was and dropped into a chair. I glanced over and thought to myself, dumbass. And then I upbraided myself -- Why do you do that? Don't be so quick to judge. Don't jump to conclusions, you don't know that guy. After a while he left and I left shortly after. I was heading for the stairs that were right next to the elevator and he was standing there, repeatedly pushing the down button. We were on the second floor. I decided right then that whatever I had picked up on when I first saw him, I was right. Dumbass. Probably hungover dumbass. I have trusted my intuition ever since. — Srap Tasmaner

And that dumbass turned out to be Osama Bin Laden. True story.

Intuition is rooted in knowledge. The more you know the better it is. It honestly doesn’t matter what you think about it, doesn’t change what it is. — Darkneos

Intuition is a kind of knowledge. Has anyone really claimed it is more than that? If not, I'll do it now. I see intuition as that sense of the world, the ring of truth, that underpins all knowledge. I've described this before here on the forum. I carry a model of the world around in my head. I visualize it as a cloud lit from within that contains everything I know. Not just things I've learned formally, but anything I've picked up living in the world through observation, imagination, reasoning. Everything is there - electrons, elephants, love, lemmings, tomatoes, tetrahedrons, dogs, diamonds, galaxies, goldfish, integration, ice cream, Occam's razor, the Peter Principle, Murphy's Law... And everything is connected by strings of memory, history, logic, proximity, coincidence, analogy... If I wiggle and idea here, a bell rings somewhere over on the other side.

Dystopian fiction goes back to the nineteenth century and there are several famous examples from the early twentieth century, so I don’t think so. — Jamal

Sure, but it seems like now is the golden age of dystopian/apocalyptic books and movies, if "golden" is the right word. There is a sense of doom that permeates popular culture, and I guess society at large. Seems like Dick was in the vanguard. "Blade Runner" is probably the quintessential instance of the genre.

what is depressing about PKD? I don't get it. — Jamal

This is a conversation we're supposed to have once gets off his ass and finishes "Ubik."

Be that as it may, I don't have a lot of experience with Dick and I hadn't read any in a long time. My memory was that his books were full of unappealing people I don't care about doing uninteresting things in a bleak world. Reading "Ubik" reinforced that prejudice. The ideas examined didn't strike me as particularly insightful or interesting, although I recognize that the kind of writing he pioneered has become much more common. In a sense I guess he invented dystopian fiction, but that's not something I am drawn to.

Fuck! — Noble Dust

You shouldn't be reading either DeLillo or Dick. They are both depressing. I suggest one of my favorite science ficion/fantasy books, "Goodnight Moon."

Goodnight comb
And goodnight brush
Goodnight nobody
Goodnight mush
And goodnight to the old lady whispering “hush”
Goodnight stars
Goodnight air
Good night noises everywhere — Goodnight Moon

For a special treat, you can listen to Christopher Walken's reading:

I picked up Libra by Don DeLillo from one of those little free libraries. — Noble Dust

Well !@#$% put it back and get back to reading "Ubik"

Can a limitless power do the impossible? — leo

To me, this question belongs in the same category as "Can Santa Claus beat up the Easter Bunny." They are meaningless.

The first is a discussion in which present day events and historical events are discussed and used as resources to create what could be argued as the perfect society. This is generally found in productive discussion of politics, ethics, morality, etc.

The second is a discussion that often revolve around the social sciences and even some of the psychological sciences such as "gender identity", "consciousness", "spirituality". — Spencer Thurgood

Although I have some interest in the subjects you describe and have participated in discussions related to them, my primary interest is in metaphysics and epistemology. For me, those are subjects that can lead to greater self-awareness about how we think, which is the primary benefit I get from philosophy.

What are your thoughts on the idea that most discussion for the second category are by and large unproductive by their very nature vs the first category? — Spencer Thurgood

If you've looked at many threads here on the forum, you will find good evidence for your position. Those discussions don't often come to any conclusion and we often go over the same issues over and over again. Still, I find them useful for articulating and clarifying my thoughts on those subjects.

For me, philosophy is as much about process as it is about subject.

If "She has social, financial, and personal resources most people don't" then either she isn't oppressed, — Isaac

As I said, I won't use the word oppression. Beyond that, I strongly disagree, but this is not supposed to be a discussion of race.

How is this way of thinking not inherently racist? — Tzeentch

If you don't recognize that black people are treated differently, worse, than white people, there is no reason for us to have this discussion. Also, this discussion is supposed to be about masculinity, not race.

Sounds like you need some better friends. — Tzeentch

So, you don't think people should recognize their friends for what they are - with the good and the bad? Sounds like you need some better friends.

physical scientific uses — Gnomon

Yes. Exactly. Science needs materialism to work. Are there aspects of life where a materialist view is not helpful? Sure. Metaphysics is a toolbox. You can pull out the right metaphysical tool for the job when you need it.

But whether you actually are oppressed is still something to be determined, I don't think it's necessitated simply by possessing a characteristic typically used in one of the many forms of oppression. — Isaac

I intentionally didn't use the word "oppression" in my post because it has all sorts of meanings hanging on to it. I've told the story of one of my friends before. She is an attractive, well dressed, educated and articulate professional, my age. She lives in the northeast. She went to Hawaii with her family about 20 years ago. Her skin color is such that she was mistaken for a native Hawaiian. She told me that was the first time in her life she felt welcome - not suspected, mistrusted. Is she oppressed? She has social, financial, and personal resources most people don't and she has still spent a lifetime with that weight on her shoulders.

my purposes in exploring masculinity. — Moliere

This has been a really useful and interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it.

Respect seems a simple thing, but sadly notable by its absence these days. — Isaac

I've had to work at being less confrontational and more respectful as I've gotten older. As you can see from some of my posts, I still have a ways to go. The forum has helped in that regard.

Beware of the trap a lesser mind might fall into of just thinking that humans ought not oppress other humans and the best way of identifying victims is by their actually being, you know, victims, rather than by using chromosomes or skin colour which are obviously much better metrics. — Isaac

I was with you till the last phrase. I think to say white people as a class do not mistrust, disrespect, and fear black people as a class is wrong. I'm a good liberal with close black friends and I see it in myself. They do too and some of them tell me about it.

Insulting T Clark by suggesting his seeing no mystery is the result of a lack of wisdom, rather than the carefully considered conclusion I'm sure it actually is. — Isaac

Thanks for looking out for me. I appreciate it.

Well, you can see their behaviors. Their inner experiences (or lack thereof) are out of reach. Do other people see red the way I see green? Who knows. — RogueAI

It's true. From the outside, the mind manifests in behavior. That behavior includes self-reporting, which I think gives valuable insights about other people's inner lives. Who cares if other people see red the way I see green. That doesn't mean anything.

What are your thoughts regarding the suggestion that 'pragmatists and feminists are necessary partners'? — Amity

I don't know much about feminist philosophy beyond what gets out in public, which I'm sure is not representative. What I see on TV and read about is anything but pragmatic. Pragmatists focus on solving problems. I don't see that in public feminism.

Both of those positions are presumptions, not conclusions from the empirical scientific method. — Gnomon

Agreed. They are what R.G. Collingwood called "absolute presuppositions."

All cosmic conjectures are, of course, non-empirical, hence objectively unprovable. — Gnomon

If that's true, they are metaphysics - ways of looking at the world. The question to ask is whether or not they are useful ways.

What kind of a thing is it [mind]? I'm not sure....
— T Clark

What I said :-) — Wayfarer

I read the post you linked. It doesn't really say anything about what the mind is, only what it isn't.

The whole blind spot argument doesn't make sense to me. I can certainly see my mind from the inside, but I can also see it from the outside. I can also see other's minds from the outside. I don't see any big mystery.

I'd like to hear your own compare & contrast between monistic Materialism and monistic Panpsychism. — Gnomon

I don't really know much about panpsychism, so I won't comment on it. When I talk about materialism, I mean pretty much the standard meaning - the universe is made up of matter and energy interacting in space and time. That manifests in living organisms with nervous systems as neurological processes which manifest as mental processes which manifest as behavior. Mental processes in humans include thoughts, feelings, memories, perception, experience, consciousness, and other similar processes. They also include unconscious processes such as autonomic responses, reflexes, maintenance of physical homeostasis, and many other processes. Together those processes make up the mind. Is it real? Yes. Is it physical - good question. What kind of a thing is it? I'm not sure, but I do believe it is a manifestation of physical, biological, neurological processes.

you could embrace the ephemeral nature of philosophical struggles and shortlived victories and take giddy pleasure in it -- after all, you needn't worry about having any lasting influence! — Srap Tasmaner

I think there's a lesson to be learned. It's probably the most important in philosophy and the one that causes the most arguments and misunderstandings. Most of the issues that raise a ruckus in philosophy are metaphysics. They are matters of point of view, not fact. I've made this argument many times before. Differences in philosophical fashion are more cultural, historical, sociological, or psychological than they are factual.

I don't mean to suggest that I knew him personally; I didn't; — javra

No, I didn't think you suggested you knew him. I didn't either, but he was important to me. He seemed like a cool, albeit prickly and pugnacious, person.

And, perhaps most importantly, he was on an episode of "The Simpsons."

he book identifies three possible explanations for consciousness: dualism, materialism, and panpsychism".

Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. — Gnomon

You might consider me a materialist, depending on the time of day and the weather. I'm certainly not a dualist or a panpsychist. There is nothing in materialism that requires belief that the mind is not real. I certainly believe it is and I believe it matters. Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with.

how does talk about the history of ideas contribute to philosophical discussion? — Srap Tasmaner

I think you gave at least part of the answer in your OP.

Lots of people used to believe X, but then in modern times (glossed as appropriate, usually the Enlightenment or the 20th century) people mostly starting believing Y instead, and that's the current orthodoxy, but X has started making a comeback because look! — Srap Tasmaner

Studying the history of ideas helps you understand that things that were once seen as true but now aren't may be true again. More simply - they might have been true all along, or at least had perspectives that were helpful and useful. I've read in more than one place, I can't remember where, that ideas in science and philosophy have fashions. Being in fashion gets you professorships and funding. Being out of fashion doesn't.

And here's the main reason I responded. It gives me the chance to quote one of my favorite sections from my favorite poem by my favorite writer.

For, dear me, why abandon a belief
Merely because it ceases to be true.
Cling to it long enough, and not a doubt
It will turn true again, for so it goes.
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favour.
As I sit here, and oftentimes, I wish
I could be monarch of a desert land
I could devote and dedicate forever
To the truths we keep coming back and back to.
So desert it would have to be, so walled
By mountain ranges half in summer snow,
No one would covet it or think it worth
The pains of conquering to force change on.
Scattered oases where men dwelt, but mostly
Sand dunes held loosely in tamarisk
Blown over and over themselves in idleness.
Sand grains should sugar in the natal dew
The babe born to the desert, the sand storm
Retard mid-waste my cowering caravans- — Robert Frost - The Black Cottage

consider it as a pinpoint to the knowledge you need. — Charlie Lin

Yes. As an engineer, I would have to be able to document and justify the decisions I made in a design. If something went wrong, I'd have to be able to show that I'd done the work in accordance with standards of professional practice. Rational justification is at the heart of engineering.