Motive questioning again...
So when people do not respond to your post, they are at fault — Olivier5
no one has said that the concept of pain is painful. — Isaac
When you have a thought, an experience, a sensation, this doesn't occur to you as an object, obviously. If a rock hits you, then the rock is an object, but the pain it causes you is not an object. Isn't that obvious?
— Wayfarer
Not at all. I can model the pain as an activity in neural circuits. It's seems quite clearly like an object to me. — Isaac
No one has said anything like "cameras are beings" — Isaac
the very thing which weaves all that together into a world is mind, which is not amongst those objects.
— Wayfarer
This is also true of a camera taking film. — Isaac
You implied that other people's criteria for not responding to your post may not be as rational as your criteria to not respond to their post. — Olivier5
You're obfuscating a very real, and very fundamental, distinction in philosophy, in fact even in ordinary discourse, between objects, objectivism, objective view, and subjects, subjects of experience, beings. But then, this is a consequence of your philosophical view, which has conditioned you to ignore this distinction. — Wayfarer
If Elon Musk does succeed in going to Mars, would he expect to find anything there answering to the description of 'a being'? — Wayfarer
The other point you haven't addressed is the dualism of symbols on the one hand, and physical matter, on the other. — Wayfarer
That's the distinction between form and substance. The question at hand is whether there are irreconcilably different kinds of substances (i.e. stuff that's not just a different form of some other stuff), or at least irreconcilably different kinds of properties of those substances; not a question of whether there's a difference between something having a form (or function, as above) and being made of a certain kind of stuff. — Pfhorrest
you can't repair a human being — Wayfarer
If philosophy uses words differently than the every-day use of the words, is philosophy talking about a different world than everyone else when they use those words? If philosphy is an attempt to explain the world and our relationship in it, you would think that we would all be using the same words in the same way - philosophically or not.I just find your use of the words "existence" vs "being" to mean about the same as "object" vs "subject" to be idiosyncratic and not in keeping with the usual way those words are used in philosophy. — Pfhorrest
Devices and beings are ontologically distinct. — Wayfarer
You don't murder a camera, and you can't repair a human being. — Wayfarer
What I'm saying that we don't see is the way in which the mind, the subject, constructs or creates what we understand as the real world. We constantly interpret what we see to make our worldview. Heck even neuroscientists see that, although they don't always grasp the philosophical implications. — Wayfarer
The other point you haven't addressed is the dualism of symbols on the one hand, and physical matter, on the other. — Wayfarer
The pattern is willful, petulant misunderstanding. — Olivier5
See,if you debate and you think the other sides point is magic or woo,then what's the point of a real discussion? — Protagoras
How many debates have you seen where someone's mind was changed? — Protagoras
And to be a decent debate there should be a bit of charity and understanding. — Protagoras
What is the difference between the map and the territory, in your opinion? — Olivier5
If philosophy uses words differently than the every-day use of the words, is philosophy talking about a different world than everyone else when they use those words? — Harry Hindu
If philosphy is an attempt to explain the world and our relationship in it, you would think that we would all be using the same words in the same way - philosophically or not. — Harry Hindu
I completely recognize the object-subject distinction, I just don't think it's a distinction between kinds of stuff but rather roles in an interaction — Pfhorrest
You wouldn’t describe the interaction between minerals in those terms. — Wayfarer
The point about the dualism implied by signs and symbols, is that it comprises the relationship between signs, not the relationship between objects or any kind of 'stuff'. — Wayfarer
How do you define "physical substance" and "non-physical substance"?
— Hanover
Nature and imagined, respectively.
— 180 Proof
In chemistry we do that all the time: whether something is an acid or base, for instance, is defined by its role in an interaction with another substance. — Pfhorrest
The point about the dualism implied by signs and symbols, is that it comprises the relationship between signs, not the relationship between objects or any kind of 'stuff'.
— Wayfarer
Then it's not dualism in the sense under discussion here, and conflating it with that sense only causes unnecessary confusion. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.