It appears to me that Trump wants the "border" problems to persist, because it's to his political benefit. — Relativist
...a 3-hour riot was a violent insurrection... — NOS4A2
I find the distinction between object/objective and subject/subjective quite intelligible. The main issue in the context of the discussion of physicalism is the emphasis on objects and objectivity, and also on what is measurable. The basis of scientific method is the identification of the measurable attributes of objects. That is what has been referred to as the 'supremacy of quantity'. Whereas states of being are qualitative by nature - they're characterised by feeling (among other things).That is the whole 'hard problem' issue in a nutshell. I don't think it is unclear. — Wayfarer
I don't think the direction this thread is headed is of much help in understanding physicalism, so I had walked away, but I will make a few comments by way of responding to you directly.
I don't think emergence can be well understood in either casual or evolutionary terms, but that rather it might better be understood as a different way of talking about something. See this post. — Banno
But it's not clear to me from what you have said, whether you accept or reject a preference for monolithic explanations.
SO I'm not at all sure where this leaves us.
I get it, I really do! I'll have another go at it. What I'm saying, and it's an important qualification, is that consciousness does not exist as an object. We can, of course, speak of it as an object in the metaphorical sense - an 'object of discussion' - but the mind itself is not an object in the sense that all the objects we see and interact with are objects. I say that is why the 'eliminative materialists' can't acknowledge its reality - precisely because it's not objectively existent. — Wayfarer
There's another distinction that I make between 'what exists' and 'what is real', but it's a very difficult distinction to unpack. But what got me started on that was the distinction between intelligible objects, such as numbers and logical principles, and empirical objects, such as apples and chairs. I think that is preserved in the distinction between a posteriori and a priori knowledge although it's very much fallen out of favour in Anglo philosophy. — Wayfarer
I'm of the view that there was at least an implicit distinction recognised between empirical and intellectual objects in pre-modern philosophy. So, empirical objects are phenomenally existent - that is, they appear as objects of sense (bearing in mind that 'phenomena' means 'what appears'.) But logical principles, numbers and the like are not 'phenomenal objects' in that sense - they are 'objects of thought'. I'm of the view that this is an important epistemological distinction that has been lost in the transition to modernity. But it's the first point that is most relevant.) — Wayfarer
But the problem is, you’re still regarding ‘it’ as a phenomena, as something that exists. But consciousness is not ‘something that exists’, it is the ground of experience. Now, certainly, consciousness can be treated as a phenomena, as something that can be studied and understood - that is what cognitive science and psychology deal with. But I think the ‘hard problem’ argument is not addressed to that - it is about the meaning of being (‘what it is like to be….’), which is not an objective phenomenon.
— Wayfarer
As you implied, the key to your differences with ↪creativesoul is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist" — Gnomon
Emergence is what's going on when such knowledge is being formed.
— creativesoul
Yes, the awareness of physical emergence... — Gnomon
I define the human Mind as the primary Function of the human Brain. Technically, a "function" is not a thing-in-itself, but a causal relationship between inputs & outputs, as in the information processing of a computer. The biological Brain is a machine, but the psychological Mind is a process, a function : the creation of Meaning — Gnomon
When you look at a world containing a street with cars and buildings, if this world was not internal to your mind, how would you be able to think about it? — RussellA
The problem is that "what constitutes emergence," is deeply tied to metaphysical considerations that lie upstream of the concept, and how dependence is framed. Emergence is an old concept, but it seems many classical formulations of it are dead in the water.
I understand why people think we need emergence. My intuition though, is that a lot of attempts to build a definition of emergence are being built on top of prior assumptions that simply preclude the possibility of such a thing. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The second is that not only do we live in a physical world but that physical explanations are to be preferred to any other sort of explanation — Banno
...provide a single overall account of how the world works. — Banno
Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, — Gnomon
...can anyone set out clearly what emergence is? — Banno
But the problem is, you’re still regarding ‘it’ as a phenomena, as something that exists. But consciousness is not ‘something that exists’, — Wayfarer
If the 'subjective quality' of experience(or experience if you prefer) emerges, then a lack of experience within or regarding the more basic elemental constituents is exactly what would be required and expected, not by design so much, but rather by necessity(existential dependency and elemental constituency).
— creativesoul
Sorry, but this makes no sense. — Wayfarer
"Consciousness" is as undefined as a physical object as an "ecosystem". And in similar fashion both systems produce problems for us to define their behavior by just studying its parts. Just like consciousness we have problems explaining the behavior of the whole of an ecosystem by trying to draw lines from its parts. It's like something "clicks into place", a cutoff point in which new behaviors emerge. It's this abstraction that produce a problem for scientists to just explain consciousness by the neurological parts alone. The interactions between all systems and individual neurons increase so quickly in mathematical complexity that we lose our computational capability to verify any meaningful causal links other than trivial ones that formed our knowledge of how different parts in the brain are linked to basic and trivial functions of our consciousness. But the holistic entity that is our consciousness shows functions that we don't understand by these trivial links we experiment with. And they disappear as through a cutoff point when we remove more and more interactions and interplays between functions in the brain, as I defined when writing about the near-death waking up-experiences.
— Christoffer
:100: :up: to your whole post...
...and this paragraph especially is brilliantly said. — wonderer1
If monism and evolution are true, emergence must be true.
— creativesoul
Consciousness, in my view, is just part of the same coin as anything else. Maybe the best description would be that both mind and matter are part of the same thing, but an emergent property that functions as a fluid abstract system rather than a set object could be viewed as an abstract while a defined set object that emerge would be called an object. — Christoffer
This subjective quality is what is not observable or measurable in terms of objective properties of chemical substances. And that is by design... — Wayfarer
Emergence, as it seems, has some general attributes that can be found all over our reality and it may be part of how reality itself functions. — Christoffer
It seems to me that supervenience is all about existential dependency
— creativesoul
I don't think it's about dependency. — frank
What aspect(s) are you still trying to understand?
— wonderer1
The whole thing. — frank
Kindness and empathy and charity would make the world a better place even if kindness and empathy and charity aren't moral. — Michael
I don't care if I ought or ought not promote happiness or if I ought or ought not cause suffering. I'm going to promote happiness and not cause suffering either way. — Michael
I can acknowledge that the world would be a different, better place if everyone acted with kindness and empathy and charity, but whether or not kindness and empathy and charity are moral makes no difference. — Michael
You haven’t answered either:
What makes the statement true; or
Where your confidence comes from.
Neither of your answers are in any way adequate. — AmadeusD
Correspondence is an emergent relation between what is thought and/or believed about what is going on and what is going on. When what is thought about what's going on is 'equivalent' enough, or close enough to what is going on, then truth emerges. That is how meaningful true belief become real/actual/manifest/formed. That's what it takes. That's how correspondence 'between' belief about reality and reality(hence, meaningful true belief) emerges onto the world stage.
If it is the case that we ought not kick puppies, then "we ought not kick puppies" is true.
Are you questioning whether or not it is the case that we ought not kick puppies? — creativesoul
Since we can build on the simple fact of our agreement. We can discourage puppy kicking, try to avoid the temptation provided by puppies, or introduce sanctions against puppy kickers. All the bits we need for a moral practice still follow, without a grounding in deontology or consequentialism, and with precious little metaethics. — Banno