She was a student of Galen Strawson and he recommended her book, fyi.

Again, I don't think you've misinterpreted anything. I was just pointing out what I think is the more comprehensive account of Kant's epistemology.

It's a suggestion, nothing more.

I think you did fine. The bit I understand of what you put forth makes sense.

But Kantian scholarship isn't something I'm an expert in; I suggested Allais because she covers almost all of them.

So, no interpretative issue arises that I can see here.

I won't get into the technicalities here - they don't fascinate me, with some exceptions of course. But I think looking at Lucy Allais' Manifest Reality is very comprehensive for Kant. She also analyzes people like Allison and Peter Strawson, many others.

Perhaps we ought to distinguish between meaning or signification with existence and then the puzzle is weakened.

Unless one wants to throw away all the evidence we have of non-conscious activity prior to our existence, which helps explain (in part) why we are here at all.

I don't know if I've shared this before. Even if I did, it's worth sharing again. It's a wonderful line by Hume on free will:

"For first; is there any principle in all nature more mysterious than the union of soul with body; by which a supposed spiritual substance acquires such an influence over a material one, that the most refined thought is able to actuate the grossest matter? Were we empowered, by a secret wish, to remove mountains, or control the planets in their orbit; this extensive authority would not be more extraordinary, nor more beyond our comprehension."

Man, there are just no words left. I don't even comment here and I just see headlines maybe twice a week. It's just... again no words.

Well, I can say that all those people who loved to say "If I were alive when the Holocaust happened, I would've done something" or words to that effect. Welp, something not entirely dissimilar is happening and you have people DEFENDING this. Granted, a small portion, but it's obscene, grotesque.

Personal identity consists in "continuity of consciousness", as Locke pointed out. As you say in the experiment, yes, there would be another person identical to you being "duplicated", but it's not you.

Your consciousness is not independent of its source in the brain. Ergo, as you seem to suggest, yes, doing the experiment would kill you.

There is extreme pressure to over-sexualize and look perfect and plastic surgeries and all that. That's for the most part pretty bad.

However there seems to be a standard of beauty that most people share, with slight variations based on culture. But with these new technologies and supplements and all that, we're just abusing nature for mere aesthetic appreciation.

Not sure how good that is.

The question is, why do you assume that absent the effects of sensation, there are "objects", plural. Division into distinct objects is a part of sense perception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct, individuation is something people do, hence why Schopenhauer speaks of the "thing-in-itsef", or Plotinus on the One.

It's tricky. Perhaps monism exists as a single substance, but its instantiation will be plural in some sense. This goes way back to the problem of the one and the many.

They're different formulations of the same issue. The way objects are (in themselves), absent the way they affect our sensation and intellectual capacities goes way beyond sensation, necessarily.

Now, you may think the premise does not follow the conclusion, but I don't see how I'm succumbing to the influence of sensation if things-in-themselves are intellectual posits.

As I've quoted a number of times already, "a more sympathetic reading is to see the concept of the “thing in itself” as a sort of placeholder in Kant's system; it both marks the limits of what we can know and expresses a sense of mystery that cannot be dissolved, the sense of mystery that underlies our unanswerable questions. Through both of these functions it serves to keep us humble." — Wayfarer

Yes, that's one interpretation of it, called the "deflationary" one by Allais. And sure, that could well be what Kant meant. That's not how I read it, but that's marginal.

The point is not Kant - it was formulated before him. More richly, in my opinion, by Plotinus, as "the One". And also, Neo-Platonists (Cudworth, More, Burthogge, etc.)

The question is if things - objects - have a nature independent of our (a way of being or existence). I think they do, but if they do, the way they exist must be completely incomprehensible to us.

I understand some will think this even if true is pointless, but it obsesses me.

That said. I do think the materialism/ idealism dichotomy is ultimately wrongheaded, but there is a deeply entrenched distinction between the ideas of things and the things the ideas are about. — Janus

Very much agree with the material/ideal distinction, I would even go so far as to say that the issue is merely terminological, not substantive, unless it is reframed.

Sure, ideas vs what these ideas are about (objects) is a problem.

And I wonder whether that isn't a "figment" generated by the dualistic nature of language―a reification or hypostatization. As I like to say "choose your poison" and it seems that people usually do, especially on philosophy forums. — Janus

The topic of things-in-themselves is just brutal. When I go down the rabbit hole, it's just total blindness.

But I think we can simplify a little, either things exist independently of us (in a manner we cannot at all conceive) or they can't.

If they cannot exist independently of us, then I can't make sense of reality. Granted both ideas are problematic, just that one is more coherent than the other to me.

That said, I have my own preference for thinking that they are actual, not ideal, existents―the 'god hypothesis' I don't find so compelling. — Janus

By "actual" do you merely mean they as a matter of fact exist?

aha. thanks man!

What is our brain made of? Literal ideas? That doesn't make sense.

Ah, well, ok, if you are talking about NDE's, then just say you are a dualist. That's fine.

These particles do not experience anything at all. That is all about physicalism. According to its believers, experience is something extra to physicalism, emerging only under certain conditions, such as when a living brain is present. — MoK

We don't know if particles have feeling or not. There is no evidence that they do, but there's no evidence that they lack it either.

Well, the point ought to be simple, show me an example of someone or something thinking or experiencing anything without a brain. If that can be done, then the "non-physical" proposal can be taken seriously.

Yes, all the smart young kids of my era were cheerfully fixated with deconstruction in the 1980’s. I never had the temperament to make it through the texts. They were so turgid and took time from women and booze. — Tom Storm

:lol:

At least most of that fad is behind us now.

It's an underrated song even if it's James Bond, he's got some great lines here.

Yes, a majestic voice, tragic to see him go so soon.

for many people — Tom Storm

That's the key isn't it? What's "many people"? If you have in mind people like us and people adjacent to us, then we are what, 5% of the population at very best?

One thing is passing interest: oh, I read Plato once or I saw this lecture on Heidegger. Another thing is to become a Platonist or a Heideggerian.

Most people - even in optimal conditions - don't care enough about these issues. Heck even interest in science is low for what I would like it to be, but philosophy today? That's tough.

It becomes more complicated if you pursue the analytic/continental tradition in which I think you do get cults. Some are mostly harmless, Wittgenstein - maybe Popper. Another thing is being a follower of Derrida or Lacan, that exists, is relatively small, but probably not good for thinking, imo.

But that's just how I see things.

"You Know My Name" - Chris Cornell

If you take a life do you know what you'll give?
Odds are you won't like what it is
When the storm arrives would you be seen with me
By the merciless eyes of deceit?

I've seen angels fall from blinding heights
But you yourself are nothing so divine
Just next in line

Arm yourself because no one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you
It longs to kill you, are you willing to die?
The coldest blood runs through my veins
You know my name

If you come inside things will not be the same
When you return to the night
And if you think you've won you never saw me change
The game that we've been playing
I've seen this diamond cut through harder men
Than you yourself but if you must pretend
You may meet your end

Arm yourself because no one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you
It longs to kill you, are you willing to die?
The coldest blood runs through my veins

Try to hide your hand
Forget how to feel (forget how to feel)
Life is gone with just a spin of the wheel (spin of the wheel)

Arm yourself because no one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you
It longs to kill you, are you willing to die?
The coldest blood runs through my veins
You know my name

I don't see how this example attempts to show what you're saying it does. Dead people don't experience things ok. Living people do, yep.

Where's the experience distinct from matter?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_EVz2GBN3E&list=RD8eqcPsA_9sk&index=9

I dunno how to format this, but "Alter Ego" from N'to

the phenomenon experience is distinct from matter. — MoK

What is the evidence for this claim?

There are lots of teens that pretend to be radicalized by Nietzche, most of the time it looks to be a fad. Heidegger often attracts a certain kind of person but ask them to articulate what it is and the meaning is very obscure.

Novels do similar things too. Not that it's impossible to have someone change the way you view things, it just looks to be very rare.

No. — 180 Proof

:rofl:

That was funny and true.

Coping with Life's Challenges: Does your knowledge of philosophy help you deal with life's difficulties, losses, or existential anxiety?

​Balancing Depth and Superficiality: How do you find a balance between your philosophical mindset and the superficiality you encounter in others?

Does philosophical thinking change your approach to relationships, friendships, and love? If so, how? — Astorre

I think life difficulties are much more defined or informed by one's temperament more than what some intelligent person said back in the day.

You can gain perspective and even insight in philosophy, but I don't think it will change the way you face problems, not unlike thinking that studying psychology will let you read other people's minds (it won't).

But if you are interested in the questions and the discussions, then there is plenty of benefit in that. Your conclusions may differ from mine.

And if not, that's fine too.

Stronger than an assertion, methinks, but not necessarily a fact? In the text, it’s simply an analytical logical judgement, true given the relations of the conceptions contained therein.

If there ever is a body encountered that isn’t extended, the judgement would need a revision, along with our entire logical system. I mean, blow one certainty out of the water is sufficient probability for blowing them all. — Mww

So, a kind of "intuitive concept" (taking "intuition" in the ordinary usage of the term, not the technical one).

If that's more or less it, then that's fine.

But as something more definitive, I think we don't know what bodies are. That is, when a body stops and becomes something non-body.

That's the issue with carrying commonsense intuition beyond what they're meant to be dealing with: common sense issues.

I suppose I am rambling a bit.

I don't recall being in such a situation explicitly, but it wouldn't be alien either. As in, you are in crowd of people who are crying over a sad event or excited over something important, you find yourself either sad or happy without exactly knowing why, unless the event in question specifically relates to you.

But I also think the point your making is kind of similar to what I was saying. That you got angry because you were mirroring someone, you knew he was angry because when someone is angry that's how they tend to behave "like you".

But I think this amplifies to almost everything: love, pain, laughter, proudness, humiliation, etc., the reason you can feel it from others is because it comes from you too. And I'd suspect that that's how other people relate to each other, with this "like me" attitude, exceptions being granted.

Hey M! Hope this are well with you. On to fun matters:

Is "all bodies are extended" an assertion or is it a fact?

I think the example is way simpler. Yes, babies do what the video is showing, but that's not the same thing.

It's very common, as in you are walking on the street a fellow civilian gets hit by a rock or bitten by a dog - whatever. Or you find him injured and he says his leg hurts, you may either see an injury or assume the pain is not visible to the eye. You don't doubt he is in pain.

But you are not puzzled as to why he is saying his leg hurts, you would do the same thing in his position if your leg hurt too.

Or even migraines, they are very hard to detect, but if a person says, "I have a massive headache", you immediately understand and empathize, because you've head headaches before.

It left me pondering how I know what it's like to be conscious if I can't know what it's like for other people. Wouldn't I need something to compare or contrast it with? I wasn't thinking about the ineffability issue. It would be closer to a private language problem, where I wouldn't be able to speak confidently about continuity of consciousness. I wouldn't be able to say it's this and not that. Maybe I have to assume other people experience things differently so I can say pinpoint something unique about me? Is it my POV that's unique — frank

It's the other way around. We assume that other people have consciousness "like me". Based on what they do or say, I can understand what they're saying based on my own experience. In other words, it's as if I am putting on the shoes of the other person and seeing things from their perspective, except it's my own.

That's why it's not particularly puzzling why - when someone has a broken leg, or even a cut and say, "it hurts", we understand what they mean, because that's what we would say if we were in a similar situation.

There are exceptions of course, some people are born feeling no physical pain (rare exceptions) and there are psychopaths, people lacking in empathy - but they're a small fraction of the whole human species. So, I'd argue you already know what it's like to be in the consciousness of someone else. Also, reading a good novel also helps.

Marble House Murders by Anthony Horowitz

Same Bed Different Deams was phenomenal. :ok:

It doesn't have a view - it doesn't care, it doesn't have insight. It's useful sure, but a person or people who know the subject matter will be more enriching.

AI can also entrench into beliefs which may otherwise not arise, or not as strongly.

Plus, all the words it is generating or based on words said by the finest minds in human history. So, we should be careful here when saying that AI can have better discussions.

It's another tool.

There's also the risk that if AI is permitted with no restrictions, you'll see posts here by people using AI replying with AI, making the whole point of philosophical discussion a bit of mockery.

It's perfectly fine to bounce ideas off of it - but it shouldn't substitute your own thinking. Whatever we believe - a good portion of it - has been through effort and careful consideration of difficult topics. To have that be watered down by an algorithm will lead to lazy-to-no thinking.

As the saying (somewhat) goes LLM's can be a good servant, but a terrible master.

Same Bed Different Dreams by Ed Park

“Shou’d it here be asked, whether I sincerely assent to this argument… whether I be one of
those scpetics, who hold that all is uncertain, and that our judgment is not in any thing possest
of any measures of truth and falsehood; I shou’d reply, that this question is entirely superfluous,
and that neither I, nor any other person was ever sincerely and constantly of that opinion.
Nature, by an absolute and uncontroulable necessity has determin’d us to judge as well as to
breathe and feel…”

- David Hume

"And, that these cogitations of the passive part of the soul called sensations, are not knowledge… is evident by experience also, not only in the sense of hunger and thirst, pain and corporal titillation, but also in… perceptions of light and colours, heat and cold , sounds… For if they were knowledges or intellection, then all men would rest satisfied in the sensible ideas, or phantasms of them and never inquire any further… as when we see the clear light of the meridian sun, or hear the loud noise of thunder, whereas… one dazzle or eyes, the other deafens our ears, but neither enlighten or inform our understandings."

- Ralph Cudworth

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”

- Thomas Pynchon

Philosophical naturalism (i.e. all testable explanations for nature, including the capabilities of natural beings (e.g. body, perception, reason), are completely constituted, constrained and enabled by (the) laws of nature) —> anti-supernaturalism, anti-antirealism. Re: Epicurus, Spinoza ... R. Brassier. — 180 Proof

Ah ok. Got it. Thought the "p" was physical. :up:

which underwrites my commitment to p-naturalism. — 180 Proof

P naturalism? As in physicalist naturalism?

How is that a better term than naturalism?