A world independent of mind is a world which exists without mind.
Imagination is a function of mind.
Without mind, there is no imagination.
Therefore a world independent of mind cannot be imagined. (or It is impossible to imagine a world independent of mind.)

That was my argument. It seems to be free from logical inconsistency here, but you claim, it doesn't follow. I was asking you why you assert it doesn't follow. What is your ground or reason for claiming that it doesn't follow. — Corvus

If you imagine a world without mind of course there is no mind by stipulation. The fact that you are using a mind to imagine a world without mind is not illogical. When you are, for example, just imagining a landscape you are not imagining it to have a mind.

The part of your claim that is unargued is as to why it should be impossible to use a mind to imagine something that has no mind.

Eh, scientism doesn't work nor logical positivism. E.g., you can't scientifically determine the nature of truth, logic, mathematics, knowledge, some a priori modes of cognition, etc.

There is nothing science can say of, e.g., the nature of a proposition.

Likewise, metaphysics which is not derived from science may still be informed by it; and the parts that are not are guided by that application of reason to evidence---not the imagination (if it is done properly). — Bob Ross

Demonstrating the nature of truth, and the other things you mention cannot be done. If it could be it would have been by now after more than two thousand years of trying.

Those are not scientific questions, they are semantic follies, but the nature of the world can only be investigated by science, not by imagination or logic alone.

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is
— Janus

Why is the ability to judge of "special" importance? I agree that it is an important philosophical question, but why more important than other philosophical questions, such as those of space, time, existence, consciousness, the quantum theory, knowledge, the origin of the Universe, etc? — RussellA

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is, but only in a few domains I can think of: for examples, the domain of argument itself (obviously) and the domain of adaptability and the domains of the arts and sciences. — Janus

:roll: Try reading and quoting the whole thing in context.

For what it's worth I agree with your arguments against human exceptionalism.

Yes, it is. Humans are more important. In some bizarre scenario in which a human is about to be killed, some glorious natural wonder is about to be destroyed, and I can only prevent one, I'm saving the human. It's not even a close call. I will say, "Damn! What a shame! That was very pretty!" — Patterner

All that says is that humans are more important to you. Could be just your conditioning. I'd save the natural wonder unless the person was important to me. I'd save my dog before a person who meant nothing to me.

This is a contradiction in terms: ontology is philosophy, not science. Science cannot get at ontology, being merely the study of the relation of things and not the nature of things. — Bob Ross

Ontology is the study of what exists—metaphysics is the study of the nature of what exists. Science is the only possible guide to both enquiries. Imagination alone won't do. Logic alone won't do. So, what are we left with?

Science involves both imagination and logic of course, but it does not stop there—it observes and studies the phenomena we encounter and the perceived invariances and speculates about how things are in ways that can be tested.

Life may be common throughout the Universe, and H.sapiens may not be the only example of something that can judge the world around it. In which case, being able to judge may be a natural expression of the nature of the world.

Yes, something having the ability to judge, such as a human, is different to something that doesn't have the ability to judge, such as a tree, but how can this be argued to be of special importance, if no more than a natural expression of nature.

Why is the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Bosun? — RussellA

Even if H sapiens is the only example in the whole universe of an animal that can formulate judgements in symbolic linguistic form why would that fact by itself not qualify such an ability as natural? What would be the alternative? I can only think of two—that it is an unnatural ability or that it is a supernatural ability, and the first of those seems absurd and the second tendentious and ultimately incoherent.

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is, but only in a few domains I can think of: for examples, the domain of argument itself (obviously) and the domain of adaptability and the domains of the arts and sciences.

What was the name of the bosun on the good ship 'higgs'?

Sorry I missed your response. The exchange thus far in reverse order has been:

I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows.
— Janus

It was a simple statement with no complexities in its point. But you pointed out something doesn't follow in the statement, which indicates you have an argument why it doesn't follow. You couldn't have said it doesn't follow without your argument why it doesn't follow. :) — Corvus

That doesn't seem to follow. Do you have an argument for why and how the fact that imagining is a function of mind precludes the possibility of imagining that the world is independent of mind?
— Janus

Tell us first why it doesn't seem to follow. — Corvus

You made a bare assertion, to wit:

It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind. — Corvus

It doesn't sound illogical to me, so I wanted to know why you think it sounds illogical. Do you think it just sounds illogical but is not, or do you think it not only sounds illogical but is illogical. I see no logical contradiction in saying that we can imagine that the world is independent of mind or even that we can imagine a world independent of mind.

I never did :) — Arcane Sandwich

Tell me something I don't know.

I'm a Smart Fox :)
I'm a Firefox! :D
:fire: — Arcane Sandwich

OK.... if you say so.

Don't worry about it.

The question in the first response to you from me in this thread.

I didn't say it was anyone's fault. Are you going to answer the question?

You didn't get the point. Should beliefs alone (in the absence of respectable argument) be respected in the context of discussion?

And I'm saying, that your beliefs are respectable. When have I disrespected you? — Arcane Sandwich

What's the difference between disrespecting someone's beliefs and disagreeing with them? Is it just a matter of not telling them you disagree and why? Should arrant dogma be respected?

That is indeed his perennial confusion, which I also have pointed out to no avail many times. perhps it's a diificult point to understand—hopefully one day he'll get it.

I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows.

Are past precedents always the best guides to action? Some would think the currently precarious situation the US (and the world) is in qualifies as a time of crisis. As I said earlier this is a significant development, it is certainly no "business as usual". But what is really needed? Just more business as usual? Don't get me wrong—I don't agree with much of what Trump seems to be doing and least of all with his (lack of) environmental policies.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this all pans out.

How are they actually stopping the people responsible for disbursing the funds from disbursing them? Can you answer that?

"Stiirng the pot"! You presumptuous person! I am interested in understanding what is going on, and I don't just believe anything I read, I try to understand both sides of the argument and reserve judgement until more information comes to light, unlike hysterical people like you who are always jumping ti unwarranted conclusions on some moral crusade.

So, it would seem the legality of what the DOGE are doing turns on the question of whether or not this is a "time of crisis"?

Right, and I think that, ethically speaking, the stopping of funds should come only after an investigation that shows extensive corruption and waste. If there were no legal mechanism in place allowing this freezing of funds, then how is it being effected. It's a genuine question since I know little about the US system.

The point about DOGE's activities is that NOBODY knows on what basis all of these wild claims about 'fraud and corruption' are being made. — Wayfarer

You are assuming the claims have no substance. How could you know that? And also, you are forgetting "waste". One man's waste is another man's judicious spending. the American people voted for Trump and so will be subject to his definition of waste.

If you read the article I linked you will find the claim that it is congress that will enact Trump's policies, and that the DOGE are only gathering the information re corruption, waste etc that congress needs in order to act. I don't know enough to know if the article is correct. But whatever Trump and Co does one would think must be within the law or it would be stopped.

I think your interpretation is overblown and a tad hysterical, even though I think that what Trump is doing is not a good idea and is probably, on balance, unethical.

He can realistically have claimed only that what he does will bring down prices, he cannot directly control the markets. It seems that what he is doing will actually inflate prices, so it seems he was mistaken to think he could bring down prices, or else it was just empty rhetoric designed to hoodwink those who are struggling economically.

I don't think that what Trump is doing is a good idea, but I think it must be admitted that he is doing just what he said he would. So, anyone who voted for him has no justification for complaint.
Is he actually flouting the law, the courts? I don't know, but if what the stupid article I linked a few posts ago claims is correct, he is not, and it will be congress that acts on the DOGE's 'intelligence'.

It seems to me that it is the various explanations for how and why the world we perceive is as it is that involve various conceptual lenses (conceptual schemes), and that is not that what we perceive is determined by conceptual lenses, but rather by what is noticed, what is selected, which in turn is determined by what is of interest or use.

No doubt some will reject this article out of hand, but anyway here is a counterpoint:

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/swamp-apocalypse-wednesday-february

The gist is that the DOGE is merely reconnoitering, and that Congress will act on the information gathered, and that the courts will have no say in the matter.

True, but I don’t see magnetism as a good example of more going on. It’s perceptible. So Arcane’s argument supporting the assertion that there is more going on than just a bunch of perceptible properties based on a distinction between seeing apples and (somehow not explained in the post) distinguishing magnetism doesn’t work. — Fire Ologist

The attraction is perceptible—the magnetic field is not—it is a theoretical explanation. Strict empiricism, pace Hume, claims that causation of any kind is not perceptible and is hence merely an inference made on account of the experience of constant conjunctions of observed effects and events.

You responded to the introduction of Rousseau. I think there is considerable anthropological research which tells against your claim. Anyway, I would agree that generally speaking when things get tough, the worst aspects of humanity come to the fore, and the tougher they get the worse the manifesting qualities, and I think that is what we are now witnessing, so it is not unrelated to the subject of the OP.

Which anthropology has comprehensively debunked - many tribal and non-industrialised cultures are shown to have high rates of murder and domestic violence. — Wayfarer

Can you cite sources for that claim?

Neither can I. I just believe in it. — Arcane Sandwich

I have definitely been drawn to the idea, but I have never been able to believe in it. Same with religion and mythos in general. I love some of it as literature, as expression of the endlessly creative human imagination. That'll do for me.

I think the point of the OP is that there is more going on that what we can be conscious of directly sensing, from which it would seem to follow that there is more to objects than just a bunch of perceived qualities.

We need light to see objects attract and repulse - all we ever see is light, we never see anything else. — Fire Ologist

I think that's not quite correct. All we ever see is not light, but due to light. We see objects on account of the light that reflects from them. We cannot see light itself. Our eyes are affected by light, but that effect is pre-cognitive, and I don't think it can rightly be counted as "seeing" because we cannot be conscious of the effect of light except when we look at its source or at a reflecting object.

Why does democracy fail to bring about what he hoped? — frank

In order to give all people freedom democracy would need to be strictly regulated with a view to stopping personal accumulation of wealth (at least beyond a certain quite limited point) and its economic policies would need to take account of the environment as an integral part of the economy in order to curtail the depletion of resources.

Many would likely consider such measures undemocratic. hence the problem—people will not vote for a party that proposes introducing the kinds of regulation that would be necessary to support the continuation of democracy—and democracy unchecked undermines itself.

It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind. — Corvus

That doesn't seem to follow. Do you have an argument for why and how the fact that imagining is a function of mind precludes the possibility of imagining that the world is independent of mind?

I'm afraid you're right...the world might get the Mumps.

I doubt it is as benign or 'business as usual' as you seem to want to paint it Frank. Anyway, we'll see how it all plays out and what the ramifications are. Not just for the US, but for the world.

The kid seems to be pointing to Trump. I imagine him saying "look Dad, there's a disgruntled ogre over there".

Nothing to comment here, from me. I neither agree nor disagree with those statements. — Arcane Sandwich

Fair enough.

Deleuze says he was an atheist. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, and I think that's a fair reading. Spinoza's God is a deistic one. not a personal one either aware of or concerned with its creatures. Spinoza's God also lacks free will, just as we do according to Spinoza. So there is little to distinguish his God from Einstein's conception of nature.

As far as I'm concerned, Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit is the Ultimate Truth about Reality itself. I do not intend that as a polemic. It is simply what I believe. — Arcane Sandwich

Whereas Spinoza's God is static and eternal, Hegel's God is evolving along with its creatures. Peirce extended Hegel's idea to posit that even the laws of nature have evolved, having become crystallized due to established habit.

I can't claim to have understood the idea of Absolute Spirit. or the 'end of history'.

Nice summations! :up:

I was drawn to Whitehead's philosophy and struggled on and off for years to penetrate what I thought must be the sense of it, only to conclude in the end that it is pretty much vacuous, unintelligible.

Cheers, I haven't read the book. I'll place it on my list.

Are you assuming that God exists?
— Janus

No, I am not. Fictional entities have essences, just as much as real entities do.

Because if God is merely a human idea, something imaginary, it seems strange to say that it is impossible to understand it.
— Janus

No essence can be understood. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm confused here because you say even fictional entities have essences and then say that no essence can be understood. The first statement seems to suggest that an essence cannot be some intrinsic thing like being because fictional entities have no substantive being beyond what is said or imagined about them, and also what is said or imagined can presumably be understood.

But the idea of an essence as a set of defining or identifying characteristics would also seem to be ruled out because such sets must surely be understandable.

There's nothing incoherent about the idea of a single unique essence. It's called pantheism. Spinoza was a pantheist, unlike Descartes, for example. — Arcane Sandwich

Whether or not Spinoza was a pantheist is a matter of interpretation. An alternative would be to see him as an acosmist. Spinoza held a distinction between 'natura naturata' and 'natura naturans' with the former being the manifest nature we experience via the senses and the latter being something like creative nature or the laws of nature that give rise to manifest nature.

It's possible. Kant didn't believe in intellectual intuition, yet Meillassoux does. In After Finitude, he says: — Arcane Sandwich

Correct, and Hegel tried to reintroduce it. Yet the historicist character of Hegel's thought is not compatible with Spinoza's system of thought.

.

Clearly illegality is not the proper benchmark of corruption, nor is it the proper benchmark for "incitement."
5 hours ago — Count Timothy von Icarus

Particularly when you consider the absurd presidential power to arbitrarily and with impunity issue pardons.

The situation afterwards is hard to know. It makes me think of the novel, Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. — Paine

Tarkovsky made a fascinating movie, Stalker, loosely based on Roadside Picnic. Arkady and Boris Strugatsky wrote the screenplay.

No essence can be understood. — Arcane Sandwich

Could that be because the idea of a single unique essence is incoherent? I think of essences as sets of specifying characteristics. So, I would say that we have a set of specifying characteristics for God, which is it is an imaginary entity are understandable.

If God is a real entity, then there may well be real essences, which would presumably be the ideas of things in God's own understanding of them. In that case it would seem though, to echo Spinoza, that God would have infinite attributes, of which we can comprehend only extensa and cogitans.

As you no doubt no Spinoza thought the highest function of reason was a kind of intellectual intuition— to see things "sub specie aeternitatis", and that intuition may well be ineffable, or only partly effable.