When we perceive something - large, small, alive or inanimate, local or remote - there is a considerable amount of work involved in ‘creating’ the object from the raw material of perception. Your eyes receive the lightwaves reflected or emanated from it, your mind synthesises the image with regards to all of the other stimuli impacting your senses at that moment – acknowledging it or ignoring it depending on how busy you are; your memory will then compare it to other objects you have seen, from whence you will recall its name, and perhaps know something about it ('star', 'tree', 'frog', etc - this is the process of 'apperception').

And you will do all of this without you even noticing that you are doing it; it is largely unconscious.

In other words, your consciousness is not the passive recipient of sensory objects which exist irrespective of your perception of them. Instead, your consciousness is an active agent which constructs experiential reality - partially on the basis of sensory input, but also on the basis of a huge number of unconscious processes, including memories, intentions and cultural frameworks. This is how we arrive at what Schopenhauer designates as 'vorstellung', variously translated as 'representation' or 'idea'. And that is what reality consists of. It includes the object, but it is not in itself an object. As Schopenhauer says in the first paragraph of WWI, discerning this fact is the beginning of philosophical wisdom. — Wayfarer

This is a very rich and fascinating subject to me. It seems to me that phenomenology appreciates this approach. There's a salient quote by Dan Zahavi:

Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned.

I certainly see the 'constructionist' logic in your last paragraph. It's hard or impossible to imagine how we could separate our perception, cognition, experience and metaphysical presumptions from what we generally think of as an experience of reality.

I notice in modern discourse that even the notion of laws is called into question. This goes back to the discussion about the erosion of the idea of an animating cosmic purpose. — Wayfarer

Well, I guess 'laws' does imply a 'lawgiver' in the crudest traditions of anthropomorphising. And 'laws of logic' are certainly seized upon constantly by zealous apologists (like William Lane Craig) who need a magic man, himself without apparent explanation, to explain reality. No one with an apophatic theology draws attention to 'laws' this way.

Death gives us something to do. Because it's a full-time job looking the other way.

- Martin Amis

That sounds interesting. Creationist cultures do seem to have a crudity about them which suggest creation is ours for the fucking... if you'll forgive the vulgarity.

No. It's cow belching due to enteric fermentation - which is the digestive process of converting sugars into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream, which produces methane as a by-product. My source is NASA global climate change :wink:

Cows fart too much. — Varnaj42

I hear it's the belching that's the bigger methane problem.

Since there seem to be only two kinds of proof or evidence: the logical and the empirical, I think it's going to be a
very
long.........................................................................................................................(and fruitless)
search.
:fire: — Janus

Story of my life... I hear you, Brother. :cool:

It seems to me that those who insist on using this tendentious term have something invested in the belief that there is some reality over and above the physical. — Janus

The search for proof for the incorporeal is at the heart of idealism, I guess.

:up:

Perhaps all we know is that we cannot imagine it being otherwise; we certainly have access only to a vanishingly small sample of the universe. — Janus

Indeed - I should have said, 'is purported to operate throughout... ' etc. I agree.

I don't know either. Isn't Mathematical Platonism a common argument used to undermine physicalism (as opposed to QM speculations which we can leave for the time being)? As far as we know, the logical absolutes of identity, noncontradiction and excluded middle hold everywhere in the universe. What does this mean? Intrinsic to human consciousness, or part of the fabric of reality - assuming this can even be spoken of meaningfully outside of our experience.

No, that was a joke based on 'interest rates' not on my interest in the subject.

But do such examples transcend physicalism?

But what if you are not interested?

Therein lies something of a problem. :wink: Where do you sit on the notion that maths is Platonic? As you know, some people maintain that logic and maths transcend physical reality. Would mathematical Platonism quality as immaterial?

when something is said to be immaterial there are two common meanings: either that it doesn't exist or is unimportant, or that it exists in some way other than the material. — Janus

Small digression. Is there an example of an immaterial 'something' we can point to uncontroversially?

And why is this the way Will chooses to individuate itself? — schopenhauer1

That's the million dollar question. Nicely framed.

Would you consider yourself an idealist?

But then why is there an internal time/space, why is there a Platonic Form, and why how are these interacting with Will? Is Will the internal time/space, is Will outside this? — schopenhauer1

Good questions. I suspect will must be outside it if it is the foundation of all things including forms. But it's unclear. Are you sympathetic to the Kantian notion that space and time are part of the human cognitive apparatus and allow us to make sense of our experience, but not an aspect of the noumenal world?

Yes, that's kind of my reaction too.

Then I recognized the Schopenhauerian aspect of this. — schopenhauer1

I think that's a good point. Kastrup seems to be influenced by Schopenhauer and it seems that he has taken the notion or will and the world as representation of will, changed some terms and added some speculative insights from QM and psychology. Notably, the idea that people are dissociated alters of Mind at Large (will) with metacognitive capacities which Mind at Large does not have. Mind at large being a blind and striving instinctive consciousness - sounds familiar...

I don't think I am wedded to any approach. Negative ethics has merit. Whatever we do in the morality space will be flawed and inadequate, just like human beings.

:up: Got ya. Thanks.

:up:

OK. I must not be understanding what the discussion between C and MU is about then.

Sure, but don’t people hold presuppositions (axioms) which they don’t know they have? E.g., Reality can be understood through science? And aren't conscious biases also important?

Just checking as a non-philosopher here. Aren't biases generally like axioms or presuppositions, which provide a kind of foundation to one's thinking?

Since bias is an essential aspect of thinking, then to remove it from thinking would incapacitate and annihilate the thinking. T — Metaphysician Undercover

Sounds to me like this is accurate. Even a quest to remove biases is itself a bias, even if it might seem to be a performative contradiction?

Is a potential task of philosophy to question and perhaps dismantle axioms (beliefs, biases) one holds to find enhanced approaches to thinking and living? I can't help but find myself in a realm of 'good' biases and 'bad' biases and how this is determined strikes me as needing to be bias led.

I know the feeling. :cool:

and a bit savantish, — wonderer1

Isn't that like being a bit pregnant? Sorry - couldn't help it... :wink:

What? My pet peeves don't rule? I'm aghast!!! — BC

I hate to tell you...

No one was "assigned" a sex (not talking about gender) at birth until that peculiar construction was pushed by the transgendered and their allies. — BC

Kind of, but sex was always 'identified' or 'determined' then 'recorded' on birth paperwork and a birth certificate. Whether the word is assigned or identified makes little practical difference. The point being that recorded sex at birth by a health professional, as opposed to self-identified gender may be seen as separate matters - and by no means all trans folk, as I'm sure you know, agree on criteria, just as cishet males won't all agree on masculinity. Thank Christ.

I don't either, and have followed the trans person's world view, whether I thought it was sensible or not. — BC

Fair enough.

The only "man" who got pregnant was a woman transgender who had had nothing removed and decided to reverse her hormone therapy and have a child. It was reported in the popular press as some sort of "breakthrough". It was a breakthrough of stupidity into sensible discourse. — BC

And for me this type of issue is a separate matter to the reality of transgenderism. It's located in peripheral discourse or sense making about the issue. What worries me is people making a hasty generalization fallacy into 'therefore all trans is stupid.' Which I'm not accusing you of doing. There will no doubt be bullshit present too as there are in all matters.

I didn't have to provide social services to a MAGA Trump-type (I retired before Obama was elected) but had one walked into the office, I would have provided the services they were due. — BC

Now you've clearly crossed the line.

:up:

I have never understood how exactly words are meant to map onto reality. Is it a map-territory relation issue? People like Rorty, I believe, hold that language is not reality, but it is used by us to construct a reality - truth then is just about language doing something, but never involves a reality outside of this or, by implication, outside of us. Do words even point to reality? All of this is elementary Saussurean structuralism, I guess, but I have no good answer to these matters. You?

Ok. Off topic, but it sounds like control or autonomy is very important to you. I'm always fascinated by how different we are despite all the ways in which we are alike.

IOW: Whatever you do, whyever you think you're doing it, somebody's going to call it self-interest. — Vera Mont

I don't know whether we can even tell in theory what motivates us. It's not all that important to me, to be honest. My intuition says self-interest is probably inescapable, but this comes in soft and hard versions and we need to recognize that self-interest is not incompatible with altruism.

You're going to have to trust me on this one despite it just being an internet conversation. — Philosophim

Hey, I don't doubt that you are sincere and believe this. I guess I hold a view that all people, regardless of how they make decisions, are influenced by unconscious factors - biases, desires, etc.

More an Epicurean than a Stoic? :cool: — 180 Proof

No question. :wink:

I would not have felt guilty. I have no particular feelings towards my sister or her kids. She's made her own choices in life. I still sometimes have pushes to just leave and go up North. But I don't because its not time yet. I choose my outcomes in life based on what is most moral, because I've spent a lot of time thinking on these things and not letting my emotions sway my decisions. — Philosophim

You sound very certain. You are talking about what you are conscious of. Can you rule out unconscious influences on your actions - guilt, duty, pride, etc? In my own case, I rarely know why I do anything and have very little insight into my motivations - I'm a swirling vortex of contradictions and unconscious values and biases. Despite this I feel unreasonably content.

In my opinion, people only do something if they expect it to benefit them, and not because they ought to do it. — Jacques

In other words there is no selflessness? Personally I suspect self-interest plays a role in much altruism. I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that this is always the case, but it may be. The real question is does it matter? If morality is ultimately a social enterprise and about cooperation and flourishing, then the idea that there is something in it for us all to be moral is possibly inescapable.

Maybe we're having a language barrier of intentions here. I've tried to make it clear that I do not benefit from giving my money away compared to using the money for myself. I am not contradicting myself. When I say, "It is better for me", translate this to, "It is more ethical for me". I do not receive ANYTHING for giving my money away. This should be clear. — Philosophim

I don't disagree with you, but I wonder if a soft form of self-interested altruism might be behind such actions? Any thoughts on this? I take similar actions, providing money to various causes, etc. But I wonder if 'it is more ethical to me' comes with it a kind of satisfaction in doing one's duty, being part of a solution... whatever it might be.

These are not a step forward but a regressive move backward. In order to go beyond a way of thinking, you first have to demonstrate a proper understanding of it. — Joshs

Do you think there's a serious attempt at understanding and he got it wrong or do you think that other factors may be at play (deliberate misreading, etc)?

One of my pet peeves. Newborns are identified as male or female, they aren't arbitrarily assigned a sex. — BC

But who is saying anyone is arbitrarily assigned a sex? I thought this was about gender, not sex. People don't identify with the gender that accompanies their sex at birth.

All this genderendering results in such peculiar constructions as "persons with a uterus" or "pregnant persons" in health care settings. Stupid, stupid, stupid. — BC

Even if this language is stupid, stupid, stupid - it doesn't change the reality that there are people who identify with a particular gender, regardless of the sex they are born with. How we negotiate this is a matter of etiquette and practice. It ain't going away because it's a pet peeve.