I don't think we can say that, other than as a 'position' to take, rather than that it is the case. Isn't that what half of the questions in this arena relate to? The fact we don't know that that is the case? — AmadeusD

I think we can be highly confident thoughts arise in human beings from the brain. We can lose almost any part of our bodies and still have thoughts. But if you remove the brain, no more thinking.

The problem is not from where do thoughts come from, but the how.

Well, if you keep in mind that we do not know what 95% of the universe is, aside from naming them "dark energy" and "dark matter" and to postulate them in order to make sense of the 5% we do know, I think there's a little bit more work to do.

And even if we do get that, to say that physics can explain concepts or representations (which you have not said), is taking physics way outside of its purview.

I don't quite understand, how is it that the (to use a less problematic term - perhaps) mind/brain are not in the head?

If we read a novel, we imagine the stuff the book tells us, that would be a mental representation. If a neuroscientist examines a person reading a book, then he is talking about a brain.

But you can't invoke the brain at the level of novels, because we don't know nearly enough to say how mental representations, never mind concepts work, solely by appealing to the brain, or at least you're not going to get much depth by doing so.

I'm not sure what you mean.

You are pointing out the description of what Wilfred Sellars' says when he mentions the Manifest Image of Man, and the Scientific image of man, as you seem to indicate, two distinct perspectives which someone, at least in an ideal science, could explain with some clarity and insight, but which for now, we designate, roughly, between common-sense understanding and science.

I agree there is no mind-body problem, because we don't know what a body is, literally. Physicists don't even know what a particle is, though they do agree on some of its properties. And Newton demolished the one clear conception of materialism that existed, which was mechanical materialism. Now it's taken to mean, whatever physics says.

That can't be right, for today's physics will be different tomorrow, and physics does not tell us anything about the mind or brain, only that they are at the very bottom, made of the stuff physics describes, but that leaves a lot of stuff out.

I also agree that the hard problem of consciousness is extremely misleading, because we have many hard problems, not least the nature of motion, which Newton, Locke, Hume, Priestley, Russell and Chomsky have pointed out.

Sure, we can say that thoughts arise from brain, somehow, but we aren't too clear on how it does so.

The one explicit disagreement that I can see is that we can do so without metaphysics. Either something exists (in the world), or it does not. If we agree that something exists, it must have a nature - what's left to be determined is what the nature of the existing thing is. Crucially, whatever exists must accommodate both minds and brains, so the nature of things must allow for this continuity.

So the question is, can what is called consciousness in psychology be described physiologically? — Wolfgang

No, because we do not know enough and lack the capacity to make the leap from physiology to consciousness. Some may say that just wait for technology to advance and we'll show you. Well, it's been a good 40 years or so in research of the brain sciences, but we cannot even explain how the taste of chocolate could be explained neurophysiological. Asking for the taste of chocolate or the color blue, are not particularly ambitious things to ask an explanation for. But, so far, virtually nothing.

But this I think overlooks the issue, we have experience, through which we can see brains in other people (or more accurately, we designate an organ in another person and consider it a brain). But when we do brain science, we are not seeing the inside of persons thoughts, we are having perceptions of the brain of another person, and assume, quite correctly, that the thought comes from the brain, but we do not see how the brain yields thoughts, only that it does so.

Time for round 2 of CPR, very soon. Well, technically round 3 and 4, cause the damn book has the A and B editions in it. Ugh.

But I must. If I don't get something much more solid this time, I suppose Kant himself, isn't for me, but his successors and predecessors are.

Bring it on. :cool:

That's right.

How more right wing could they become?

I mean, Israel only has the strong backing if the US, and to a lesser but still substantial degree, Germany.

If not for them, Israel would be alone. You cannot do what they are doing and expect the world to say nothing about it. I mean the barbarity of this is unprecedented. Or at least, not seen in many years.

I don't think it's necessary to be too insistent on the topic of this statement being literally problematic.

Someone can saw they are an agnostic atheist in the following, trivial way, I am an atheist as regards to the Abrahamic religions, but am agnostic as to the topic of if there is some "higher power" or force or entity that orders the universe.

I don't see any good reasons to believe this, but, I don't think we attain certainty in the empirical world.

The Rigor of Angles by William Egginton

Quite an interesting book mixing Kant, Heisenberg and Borges to explore the limits of human understanding.

Title based on a wonderful quote by Borges:

"Enchanted by its rigour, humanity forgets over and again that it is a rigour of chess masters, not of angels”

"Encantada por su rigor, la humanidad olvida y torna a olvidar que es un rigor de ajedrecistas, no de ángeles.”

Well. It's a problem, surely. If we have half the population living in utter fantasy and we cannot even agree on facts and furthermore, tensions are rising, then somethings going to happen.

I don't like Trump, I don't like Biden. I think Trump would be worse for the world, though Biden is far, far from being good.

However, and despite my own personal wishes, if Trump is not allowed to run for president, then that could very well lead to something like a civil war.

As far as I know, experts are saying this is the strongest case they've seen in terms of "intent of genocide", so, I suppose that counts for something.

I hope South Africa will win... But there's the whole political angle that makes this more difficult than usual.



True, historical issues make this a thorny issue for Germany.

However, there seems to be a divide between the people and the government here, as is the case in most "Western" countries, but how large this gap is between public opinion and the German government specifically, I can't say, haven't seen any polls on the issue.

But this could all be rendered significantly less important if Israel goes to full scale war with Hezbollah, which could happen. It's very tense.

I'm not seeing the "any means necessary" part, in that document, not that they haven't said it, they have in many ways, maybe I'm looking at the wrong part.

But there is no argument here against intent, the intent is crystal clear. The genocide is not far away, especially if food and medicine do not come in in sufficient numbers, then we will have an exponential death and that would be actual genocide.

But, the fact they bothered to show up to court, means they can't completely disregard world opinion, otherwise they could've skipped this, as they have done before.

It's no guarantee that SA will win of course, but, it's some tiny bit of light.

Very much so.

I personally would be in favor of more evidence forcing us to reformulate our picture of the universe. It signifies progress, though if such oddities can be accounted for within our existing theories, then I suppose that's progress too, but it's a bit less exciting.

From what I've read through Haaretz, Al Jazeera and several knowledgeable people on the situation, including UN agencies, some aid is getting through, but it's nowhere near the amount of aid that needs to get through to prevent mass starvation, so it's kind of a band-aid for sawed off limbs.

I don't know if things would change if many thousands start dying from lack of food and water. Likely Biden, Blinken and Netanyahu wouldn't care, but then at that stage, maybe other Arab countries might be forced to do something much more significant.

If that includes breaking diplomatic ties, or cutting off trade or even war, I cannot say. But proportionally, what is happening in Gaza is almost unprecedented in modern war, so many doctors, journalists and babies being killed on purpose is ghastly.

Rwanda was worse, Yemen maybe, a few others. But even in terms of Israel's quite abysmal record on human rights in war, it's the worst they've done by quite a bit.

It's better than nothing, but it's still a pittance. Something's gotta give, or else this genocide may come to full fruition as mass starvation starts killing tens of thousands, maybe more.

So, there are reasons to suspect that in the short term nothing will change much, but it's also not sustainable for too much longer, Israel's economy is not doing well, and they may soon enter a full-blown war with Hezbollah. That would be quite disastrous for everybody, but Israel will be significantly harmed...

It's a powder keg.

They should.

But they also have the Samson Option, which they could use if they see themselves in an existential threat. Egypt, Jordan and others have done almost nothing.

Qatar has done good work.

Yes, Biden's policies in foreign affairs have been by and large pretty bad. Not to mention that if Israel did not receive so much aid from the US, Israel couldn't do what it is doing, with such intensity and impunity. Or at least, the conflict would not drag on so long. This also shows the Israeli government doesn't have a clue what to do with Hamas.

I think that Europe doesn't want to get dragged into a much larger conflict if things go sideways, regardless of the harm on international trade. But I'm not sure what they're thinking.

Interesting to note that the poorest and the people who have been through one of the worst wars in the 21st century are almost the only ones trying to do something to help Gaza to whatever extent it can. And Hezbollah too, but they are Palestinian so, they would do something.

Now we are all just waiting for the Israel-Lebanon situation to go completely blow up and then who knows what will happen?

I mean yes, technically Hezbollah. But remember Lebanon offered to remove Hezbollah from the border on condition that Israel stop its bombing campaign.

The reply was a murder of a Hamas leader in Beirut.

However, Hezbollah have been extremely restrained (given what they could do), because they know that if they go all in, Lebanon will be in ruins.

But there's the issue that if Israel keeps escalating inside Beirut, then the whole country may explode. And by then it would be beyond Hezbollah, even though they would be the single biggest actor inside Lebanon.

Sure, the Houthis have replied and are being quite effective. Are for numb, it's always a possibility. It's just not sustainable to maintain the same level of emotional attachment for a prolonged period - or at least, many people (me included) find it hard to do.

But the Gaza situation is just so awful, that I still think anything could happen, in terms of things blowing up. If Israel were rational, they would just call it a "victory" and just stop the damn thing.

Because finally, and unfortunately, you will get the American politician that doesn't praise AIPAC or Israel. Who simply won't care about it. And why I say this is unfortunate is because then it's going to be real field day for the real anti-semites.

Israel's hope is that there comes another issue which takes the attention away. — ssu

Standard issue so far, but as you indicate, it's becoming less effective. You can only continue this mass butchery for so long, people see the pictures and it just becomes impossible to defend.

I think they are hoping that Lebanon will eventually lose its patience, then Gaza can be forgotten for a bit. Probably not helped by the issue that Netanyahu may end up going to prison for unrelated issues.

War is an excellent motivator for many politicians.

Sure, what else are they going to say? Well, they did say South Africa was the legal extension of Hamas.

But it's all pathetic, having no defense, they hurl insults, which is what happens when your arguments (or rather, propaganda) no longer work.

Yes. It's insane to see, but there it is. And they will keep saying insane things.

Yes he was fantastic, and so was the judge. All of them really.

This case South Africa presented against Israel was superb. Defense against such facts, will be near impossible.

At least one country in the world is doing something serious against Israel.

That's in the Amphiboly if I don't misremember. Allais breaks down that section impeccably, and says pretty much what you say.

The question is, what do we make of it? Me feeling is that Kant was right, though we do not know how Leibniz would have replied. I have not read the Monadology, opting for his New Essays instead.

The issue with Descartes and Leibniz, as I see it, is that they were way too ambitious and too confident in the reach of reason, which Locke and Hume clearly saw as being a total mistake, correctly.

Yet, even after Kant wrote his Critique, we continue with "metaphysics", in manners he may not have approved of. The distinction between what counts and does not count as the bounds of legitimate speculation is not so clear to me.

Him arguing that metaphysics is essentially the topic of God freedom and immortality sounds off to modern ears. Freedom is still relevant.

But I suspect there may be other speculations which are near the borders "beyond all possible experience".

It's tough.

Or….I got it all wrong. There is that, of course, so…… — Mww

You better not.

If so I am doomed. And will say that Kant considers monads to be negative noumena available to introspection!

You have been warned. :grimace:

Yeah - he covers a fantastic deal of territory in that book. We are always going to try some parallels between our "ordinary experience" and whatever science says about the world, it very hard not to do so. We like to have some general intuitions - even if they are mostly misleading in some cases - than "just" an equation, that does nothing for most people.

Sure, as long as we don't find evidence of another intelligent creature, we might as well be the "center" of the universe.

As Wittgenstein famously said, a serious work of philosophy could be done consisting mostly of jokes.

Or as Schopenhauer said, on an individual basis life appears as tragedy, but looked at from a species perspective, life look like a comedy.

If I sometimes laugh to myself, it is because the questions I ask are so difficult to even give a bad guess, then humor must be a component. As I was walking today, I don't know why I was contemplating what constitutes a trivial answer? What makes something obvious to everybody (or most people anyway) as opposed to something that is not obvious?

Maybe something to do with immediate awareness and expectation, but, I couldn't go further. So I laughed - briefly mind you, not like seeing Monty Python or something.

But, at the same time, for me, philosophy fundamentally begins with what Raymond Tallis said, "astonishment".

And if front of the astonishing, I suppose many reactions are valid.

Finally some info on this.

Thank you very much. :pray:

I read this one! How did you become interested in Plotinus? — frank

As I am working on Cudworth's philosophy, I found that he frequently cited Plotinus in favor of his views and I found such views very interesting.

So, I got this book originally for Kindle, but wanted a paper back for closer study, it's very good.

Re-reading:

Plotinus by Eyjolfur K. Emilsson

Reading:

The Final Curtain by Keigo Higashino

Sure, it is an account that may sound persuasive to some, but I do appreciate him attempting to sketch out a framework of our mental activity and I do sympathize with his focus on trying to provide an alternative to scientism (which he calls "materialism", which I don't think necessarily follows at all).

I agree—I tend to see 'mind' as a verb not a noun, and I see mental functions as one kind of physical function. The tricky part is that the physical aspects of mental functions are well-hidden from us; we don't so easily feel the physical aspects of mental functions as we might, for example, with digestion. We don't feel our brains, I mean that's why they can be operated on without anaesthetic. — Janus

Very tricky yes. I mean, I agree that at least some important non-mental physical aspects are not felt by us, and obviously some parts of the brain play a role in experience which as parts, are not felt as experience.

But then we do know, from the inside, what a brain is "like" by having experience, given that experience must arise from this organ. The issue is, what parts of it are we experiencing? That's very hard to know at this stage.

I wonder if there isn't some merit to the concept, if reframed in terms of us being elements of a social species, whose thoughts are very much a function of of our encounters with conspecifics. — wonderer1

There's an element of that, it's hard to think so otherwise, but even taking this to account, I don't see how this expands to objects being "disassociated boundaries", with people you could say that, but I don't see how this entails creates Kastrup's idealism.

And I think that's what substance in the philosophical context, at least, means "that which stands under" or something like that. — Janus

Ah - ok. Yes, this is reasonable. I believe that the mental is another aspect of the physical though, so it's not an opposition, but your point is well taken.

But I'm really not referencing cosmological or physics theory, I'm just going with the more basic fact that everything seems to be constructed of energy in its manifold configurations and conditioned by energy exchange and entropy. We don't know of anything that escapes those conditions. — Janus

Energy yes - as far as I know, I think this applies. Entropy is tricky though, is the universe an open or closed system? What is order and what is disorder? Ben-Naim has written about this, it's quite interesting.

If one does. I'm saying that 'substance' is a poor choice of words, for the reasons I gave. I'm not denying the reality of the mind. — Wayfarer

Yes, substance is problematic and dated. But if qualified, it can be used, though it can lead to confusions.

Talk of mental substance, when everything we know tells us that mental phenomena are entirely dependent on this energetic foundation seems to me to be incoherent. We may not fully understand the idea of physical substance, but we have no idea at all of what mental substance could be. — Janus

That's a bit misleading I think. I agree with you that Kastrup, while interesting in some areas, goes off the wall with attributing "dissociated boundaries" to objects, this is an extreme extrapolation.

But I think we have a pretty decent idea of what mental substance, if one wants to use that term is, we have it with us all the time, it's what we are best acquainted out of anything. Which is why we can read novel, participate as jurors, pass laws, create art, etc.

The nature of the non-mental physical, is rather stranger. We only understand 5% of it, from a theoretical standpoint, even here, we have plenty of problems understanding this 5%, it's the other 95% of the universe, that we know almost nothing about, save that it needs to be postulated in order to make the 5% we do know, work.

At his age, it's not very plausible, he likely thinks every other person is serious deluded. Oh well.

Which he denies exist. Saw an extended interview with him the other day. His views on consciousness are frankly embarrassing to me. It's as Galen Strawson says you need to be trained to believe in this eliminitavist lunacy.

I mean, if we are talking about conceivability, it's also conceivable that the mind of supreme being exist, absent anything else, that is, no matter, no physics - no "material substrate".

Reductionism is of limited use.

These zombie arguments are kind of pointless. They show nothing, outside of the fact that we can imagine stuff. Sure, that's why we write fiction and stories.

It's just an excuse to rehabilitate behaviorism to show it is wrong again, and to paint consciousness as magic, whereas everything else in the world is just normal "expected stuff".

It is not a-priori evident that non-conscious things with complex behaviors should be evident or obvious at all.

Not addressed to me I know, but, thanks for the clarification. :up:

And happy 2024 to you and yours, am looking forward to exchanging books and ideas on mutual interests.

It would be a mistake not to talk about politics, especially if it's controversial.

Most philosophers up until recently were very much involved in current events, so, it is a crucial topic to cover because it is important and part of the tradition.

Of course, the risk is much higher in that people will be nasty and the like, but that should be navigated, as is done here.