I think I am dealing more in reason than history. Is it not the case that the focus of current discussions about the viability of physicalism is focused on the nature of consciousness- esp the hard question? QM is playing a similar role. If this is incorrect please show me. Happy to change my view.

No offence, but I can honestly say I have never given those kinds of posits or questions a single moment of thought. :grin:

I think your reflection invokes the historian, in spite of your self-perception as non-historian. — ucarr

OK. I'm nor sure what this gives us.

Like most people here, I am not a historian, scientist or philosopher. I was simply reflecting on the key issues which today separate the physicalist from the higher consciousness/idealism schools. I think what I say is accurate for that particular argument but I make no claims about science as a pathway to ultimate truth. I'm not in the ultimate truth business. Scientism is equally frustrating.

Subjective mind might not be out of bounds of effective scientific examination, but it shows promise as a good axis for pivoting into examination of scientific boundaries. — ucarr

I have no problem with this view at the present time and it can generate an interesting discussion.

But it helps make the point that contrary to the idea that identities are tools that can be picked up and disregarded for practical purposes (as their malleability and lack of distinct boundaries compared to “selves” might suggest), they are psychologically sticky and tend to interfere with each other’s expression and compete for libidinal energy in a potentially destructive and paralysing way such that yes, they may not be reconciled as you said, or worse, we blind ourselves to what it means to have a reconciled self/identity structure that consistently and productively channels our energies outward because we know nothing other than the circular process of anaesthetising undesired identities with the temporary salve of desired ones. — Baden

Yes, I understand this too. And I have certainly watched this process with people going to jail who bring out a particular person to survive in there only to find they have been taken over by it forever. I've watched some basically very sweet people become monsters. Cue the inevitable Nietzsche quote. As for myself - I'm not aware of any selves other than one which doesn't swear and one which does... The Polite Company Persona.

Nice. Thank you. That blog post reminds me of how much I was aware of this kind of thing -"natural attitude" - as a child and how this was not necessarily the only way of experiencing things (being).

:up:

I'm not sure what we're looking inside of or why... it's curious how this matter seems to divide the members here down party lines. I'm still trying to understand what phenomenology might bring to this hard question. Surely a direction can be sketched out in just a few clear sentences? Not that clarity and phenomenology mesh well (at least as I read it).

It's compelling that thinkers like Chomsky are mysterians on the basis that we don't have a coherent theory of materialism in the first place. Metacognition suddenly seems more readily explicable than the existence of a material 'reality'. What's Chomsky's marvelous quote? "Newton exorcised the machine, leaving the ghost intact..."

Do you hold a view that science in its conventional mode will resolve this matter, or will this one need a paradigm shift?

Thanks. When I used to term 'transformative' I really just meant how potentially might a person's life changed in more quotidian terms, but your answers are good.

I'm not sure I recognize the problem. Do you think this experience of having several or multiple identities can also be experienced as coherent and perhaps more like a set of tools for a particular job? Or modalities of being which have a particular grammar relevant to a particular domain? And maybe some of us do experience a fracture or blunting of sorts, with an inability to reconcile these 'selves' and the societal expectations which shape them. Does that make sense?

Whereas the 'good that has no opposite' is an appeal to a good that lies beyond the opposites. — Wayfarer

Interesting, but hard to imagine what that might be and possibly hard to access such knowledge.

That's a great response.

Would anyone disagree that all things define themselves better than humans ever could? — neonspectraltoast

It's often argued that the definition game is circular but I don't know if what you say is accurate. Things are not always recognizable or understandable. Do things 'define' themselves or is it rather the case that definitions may be unnecessary if you have the thing before you?

The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
There are lots of theories on what the basis of the universe is. Some physicists say its subatomic particles. Others believe its energy or even space-time. One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos. — Gnomon

How does this change, if at all, how we live our lives? As far back as the 1980's I recall my science teacher was saying that all of reality is information. I think he had maths in mind. Either way, we still have to set our alarm clocks and go to work, still have to shower and pay bills, still have to find a parking space near the supermarket, right? Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis?

I can put something out there, but you won't like it. — Constance

Perhaps. Again, thank you.

One has to understand that there is a whole other philosophical world that continues in Germany and France that is not popular in Anglo-American philosophy. — Constance

I'm aware of the work of Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Dan Zahavi and the alleged split in traditions. Good thing is, I am from neither.

Kant had to talk about noumena; why? Either it is nonsense, or there is something in the witnessable, phenomenological (empirical) world that insists. — Constance

I wouldn't presume to disagree with Kant and I have no commitments to naive realism - other than that's the world we 'appear' to play in.

What is there in the presence of things that is the threshold for metaphysics? How does one talk about such a threshold? One cannot say it, for it is an absence, and yet it is an absence that is in the presence of the world. — Constance

I'm not sure I can say much of anything about the potentiality of such a threshold myself. They say talk is cheap.

metaphysics is not just nothing at all, like an empty set. This absence is intimated in the world, so it is part of the structure of our existence, and so, it is not outside of our identifiable existence as Kant would have it, but in it, saturating it, if you will, and it is staring you right in the face in everything you encounter. — Constance

This is unclear. Are you saying, as I do, that any philosophical worldview we can hold rests upon some metaphysical presuppositions? The 'saturating' part sounds a bit dramatic.

In the analysis of what it is to experience the world, it is clear that the language used to "say" what the world is is radically distinct from the existence that is being talked about. — Constance

Yes - many philosophers have said that (which is ironic). This is a point which is debated endlessly of course and we arrive back at the nature of the ineffable and probably soon talk of beetles in boxes. I have no firm commitments in this space. I really don't know what langauge does or doesn't do. But I do accept language is not the real world, that it helps 'create' it and I have read enough Richard Rorty to be sympathetic to some of his ideas here (the decadent scoundrel!)

The cup is smooth to the touch, and warm, and resists being lifted, and so on, but all this language I use to describe the cup takes the actual givenness of sensation up IN a language setting. I call it a cup, but the calling does not, if you will, totalize what is there in the language possibilities because there is something that is not language in the "there" of it. It is an impossible other-than-language, and because language and propositional knowledge is what knowing is about, the understanding encounters in the familiar day to dayness of our lives something utterly transcendental. The cup is both clearly defined as long as I can keep it contained within familiar language, and, utterly impossible, because it is there, radically unknowable, for to know is to be able to say. Wittgenstein put it simply: It is not how things are that is mystical; but THAT is exists. — Constance

I used to hold pretty much this view when I was a boy. I was always struck by the multiplicity of possibilities present in ordinary objects - both familiar and strange simultaneously. Not sure what this brings us. Humans are meaning making creatures. We see faces in clouds too.

Heidegger held that language and existence were of a piece, and our existence is language, and I think this is right; but I argue (have read it argued, too) that IN this matrix of language-in-the-world, a transcendental affirmation is possible, and this affirmation occurs in-the-midst-of everyday affairs. — Constance

Sounds like we would need an entire thread on how transcendental affirmation may be possible in such cases. Perhaps, but it is not a given (if you'll forgive my use of that word).

I was stuck by this from Rorty:

We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that truth is out there. To say that the world is out there, that is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

Truth cannot be out there—cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.

In this issue, the hard problem of consciousness, phenomenology is not just an alternative view; it is necessary and inevitable. — Constance

I'm not sure I can see the connection, or how it would assist us with mind/body. Unless you are saying that all there is is experience - a monist ontology - and that phenomenology is our only pathway out of the badlands of Cartesianism.

I can put something out there, but you won't like it. — Constance

Turns out I didn't dislike it. :wink:

Thank you for the considered response. It does strike me that all this is being done by - as you put it - swapping words. I'm not sure those words are having the same power on me as they are having on you.

In relation to the mind body problem it seems to be a problem for idealists but not naturalists. A problem in as much as 'physicalism' seems to be its target. The ontology held seems to generate the type of argument and its resolution. Which may partly be your point.

I observe the cup on the table and there before me in the appearance is the reality. — Constance

But you are only able to say this from the perspective you have chosen. For many philosophers there remains a Kantian distinction between appearance and reality as it is in itself. Can we just make this go away simply by using different words or concepts? How is this different to saying that we can solve the problem of the origin of life just by saying God created it? It's only solved if God is 1) real and 2) God created life.

If I say from now on I am a monist, that very act does not do away with the hard question even if it satisfies me, right?

But maybe I've missed something in your response?

Things are ultimately their own finest definitions. If you're not speaking as an aside to the ineffable, you're confused and wrong. There simply cannot be a satisfactory, ultimate explanation.

The dilemma resides I'm humanity's pride — neonspectraltoast

Your points remains opaque - the sentences are incomplete, seem to be constructed around some unstated presuppositions and do not argue a case with evidence or references.

What, for instance does this mean? "If you're not speaking as an aside to the ineffable, you're confused and wrong.' What do you mean by speaking? What is an aside to the ineffable? What do you mean by ineffable? What is confused? What is wrong?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are just saying: "Reality's a mystery, man."

Oh, and how are things 'ultimately their own finest definitions?'

It demonstrates nothing. Looks more like a desperate move to find anything that can be used as evidence against the proposition that transgender is just one legitimate expression of humanity.

We're stalemate then. I'm no expert on the matter, but I am comfortable with the notion that gender's a social construct and that biological sex is different. If people's psychological wellbeing is almost always enhanced by taking the transgender commitment, so be it. We ain't going to change this by being retrograde monomaniacs about the issue. It's here to stay and we need to understand how to live harmoniously with our fellow creatures and allow people the dignity of becoming who they need to be. No doubt there'll be lots to work though and many jagged edges.

:up:

This is how the John Money and David Reimer case was Reported — Andrew4Handel

Not sure this unusual case from almost 50 years ago is much relevant to the current discussion. We can all cherry pick examples of shit going wrong. Does the fact that the Challenger Space Shuttle blew up, killing 7 astronauts mean space exploration is wrong?

Or do we have so much pride we can't believe we're asinine? — neonspectraltoast

Sounds like you are running some kind of back story with those cryptic references of pride. Why pride? Do you have some citations, or is this just some opinion?

And Not the facts of reality, biological reality or women's integrity and safety? — Andrew4Handel

These are distractions and smears. If you are so obsessed with social justice, A4H, why not work at a homeless shelter or financially support a women's refuge?

Idealism affirms that everything in the we encounter is idea. Phenomenology affirms it as reality. — Constance

Phenomenology affirms that idealism is accurate? So phenomenology is a monist view which dissolves the dualistic fallacy of mind and body?

How does phenomenology affirm the above?

Isn't this what they call the hard problem - — T Clark

Phenomenal consciousness and metacognition constitute the hard problem. There is something it is like to be you (or me) what is this? (And no, I'm not looking for an answer.)

don't know if I'm smarter, but I am more privy to actual reality. And still too foolish to assert myself. — neonspectraltoast

Isn't being aware of our ignorance the beginnings of wisdom (Socrates) and isn't ignorance quite different to being 'so, so dumb'? That latter seems a celebration of hopelessness.

I have already cited the case of Karen White https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

So does society really believe these men are women? I don't for certain. Are we to everyone on behalf of sparing someone's feelings or subjective self assessment and desires.

An absurd situation would be is someone like Caitlyn Jenner went to the Moon would we call Caitlyn the first woman on the moon? Are we going to call a man "the first woman on the moon" or the first Female X and allow them to take credit for what is intended for women. (This as already happened with male sports people breaking women's sporting records)

If Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page) went to the moon would Elliot be the first woman on the moon or just another man on the moon now she identifies as a "He". — Andrew4Handel

Nice example of transphobia. Interesting that you focus on a trip to the moon when the issue is entirely of terrestrial significance. The fact that Jenner and Page can now live happily should be our focus, not some weird bragging rights to an event - a prosperous distraction. And if a transgender person was first on the moon? We can manage that, A4H - humans have had to negotiate far more subtle matters over the centuries. And sure, there are tans people who are 'bad', just as there are straight people and gay people who are bad. People can do bad things, so? I remember 40 years ago people regularly smearing gay men with the allegation that they are pederasts. This still holds in some places I've traveled through where they say ignorant shit like God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

We are so, so dumb. It's always the final paradigm. — neonspectraltoast

If we are so stupid, how do you know this? With what mechanism can you establish the clever things we do not know but should? Does this imply you are smarter than most? Or is this more of a Socratic position?

Its pretty straightforward, tbh: gender dysphoria is by all accounts quite miserable, hence the increased rate of e.g. depression, suicide, etc, and gender-affirming surgery is both relatively safe as far as major surgery goes and has a strong positive effect on mental health. And in any case, if gender-affirming surgery scares you so much, there's an easy solution: don't have any.

My question for you is, why do you care so much about what other people are doing, especially if they find it helpful? Why are you obsessed with this particular type of surgery? I don't hear you going on about plastic surgery or other medical interventions that carry similar amounts of risk, so what is it that makes you so worried about this particular type of surgery and not any others? It couldn't have anything to do with your obvious prejudice towards trans people/transexuality, could it? — busycuttingcrap

I think this covers off on the key points rather well. The trans people I know have had their lives transformed for the better - freedom, happiness, clarity - by becoming the gender they identify as.

All that has changed is now we are freed from the absurd ontology of physical materialism that makes it, not hard, but impossible to describe epistemic relations, which are THE biggest embarrassment of analytic's naturalism. What is left for philosophy is clearer analysis of what makes appearance possible. — Constance

How does this differ to idealism?

I don't follow. Can you dumb that down into simpler English and dot points? Phenomenological English seems labyrinthine. :wink:

We forget there's an ineffable surface to everything, and that we're always on the surface, which ultimately best describes itself. — neonspectraltoast

Can you explain what you mean - an example of this perhaps?

I don't want to get into a long discussion about how science has to proceed. I will say that there is no reason the mind would not be among entities amenable for study by science. You and Constance are just waving your arms and promoting a ghost in the machine with no basis except that you can't imagine anything else. — T Clark

It's an interesting one, isn't it? I think at this point in history there are a few key issues left to people who wish to find support for higher consciousness/idealism/theism worldviews - the nature of consciousness, and the mysteries of QM, being the most commonly referenced. I don't know if consciousness is a hard problem or not. It seems to depend on what presuppositions one brings to it. Nothing new there. But I do know that it has become a 'god of the gaps' style argument, a kind of prophylactic against naturalism and a putative limitation on science and rationalism and their questionable role generating Weberian disenchantment in our world. I'm suspicious of the arguments and I'm not sure the matter will be resolved in my lifetime.

:up:

I can't seem to find a fitting candidate. What do you all think? — khaled

Person is just a word we use to describe a range of presentations. I call my cat a person. Stupid, I know, but it's merely a word - I don't live in the crystal palace of essentialism.

Despite Pope Francis is more warmly than Ratzinger he receives hard criticism from the conservative wing too. — javi2541997

Of course, which is seen as robust evidence that Francis is a good guy, One must have the right enemies. Or in F's case, enemies in the Right. :wink:

Your testimony is interesting because it shows that priests and nuns are "free" to critique the Pope. I always thought that they were forced to venerated him whatever the circumstances... — javi2541997

It's how they speak with each other. I doubt that they would say this in church or as an official position. I was referring to their dislike of Ratzinger.

Pope Francis, however they feel a lot more warmly towards as he is more progressive and in keeping with the notion of Jesus as a social reformer.

*

Put differently, there is no such thing as an extant concept, and we would do well to drop the notion of concept - a hangover from considerations of private language - and instead look to use. — Banno

Is it also a hangover from Platonism?

To see things with genuine clarity, one simply has to be a bit insane, for the world is NOT, as the world, something that conforms the ready-mades of our understanding. — Constance

This may well be accurate. But there's an assumption that seeing the world with clarity matters. What's the goal? You've already hinted that madness could await.

I apologize for bothering you with my personal interest in the "details" of a myth that was the foundation of my worldview in my youth. — Gnomon

This sounds a little passive aggressive - did you intend it this way?

I was brought up in the Baptist tradition so I think I understand.

You seem to like exploring elaborate explanations for everything. I don't. I am not engaged in the mad scramble to make sense of all things as 1) I am not a scholar or expert and 2) I generally reject the premise that humans can attain any kind of absolute truth or ultimate reality. I also leave theology, neuroscience and physics to qualified theologians, neuroscientists and physicists. Ultimately how I conduct my life is unlikely to be effected by any armchair theorising in those areas.

Everything is metaphysics - so it's quite safe to ignore the subject and just go about your business - work, shopping, taking the kids to school, paying one's mortgage, mowing the lawn. :wink:

I am not so involved with Vatican and Catholic dogmas, but this debate between theologians It has made me wonder: How much power and authority should the Pope have? — javi2541997

I am close to some Catholics, including a few priests and nuns and some of the hierarchy in my country. My understanding it that many Catholics thought of this particular pope as a conservative zealot who was trying to drag the church back to pre Vatican Two days. For others he was hero of the counterrevolution.

It's important to understand that the Catholic church (like elsewhere) has been engaged in a bitter internal culture war about what constitutes its core beliefs and how it positions itself in relation to contemporary culture. And, on top of this, it can no longer compete in poor countries with Evangelical forms of Christianity which have an easier, minimalistic theology, with a focus almost entirely on emotions.