I think this particular thread is doing fine. I was thinking that if you did begin another one on consciousness being an illusion, then I'd think one can already anticipate what disputes will arise and I doubt people would modify their positions.

I'm only saying that I think it doesn't make sense anymore to think of mind as separate from matter. So they must belong together.

Supernaturalism is hard to even articulate — Manuel

Aaaaaeoeeeiiorgggghhrrfrŕrrrrhum!!!

Clearly.

Clearly. — Manuel

See that it can be done?

I amazed at the amount of comments and threads you have created in the last few days. So, in connection with my thread, I am interested in further elaboration on the spectrum of naturalism and supernature, with regard to the mind and body problem. I hope that I am not setting an impossible area of questioning but I am a bit taken aback by the nature of your interaction on the site in the last few days.

but I am a bit taken aback by the nature of your interaction on the site in the last few days. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I can understand. But llease dont get me wrong. Its not the quantity that counts. And please dont get me wrong (Im not psychotic or anything like that; just wanna express myself; exercise for a book)
And dont get me wrong when saying that its like the universe has revealed itself. Finally. That MF universe...And its a beautiful sight. It feels as if I have full understanding. No knowledge but understanding (of course knowledge is involved; quantum fields, curved spacetime on a higher dimensional substrate, magic content of matter, information whirling around in my neoron network, etc. Seems there has fallen in place a cohierent whole. To be written up in a book, as one small part of it. :wink:

I figure Wayfarer and 180 have shown the "mind /body problem" as the child of metaphysics, so it is connected to it by default. I agree with 180 that Spinoza provides the most elegant surpassing of it. By emphasizing that there is more than one kind of phenomenology, I meant to wonder if the mind body problem exists outside of framing it as one. Is it a component of the human condition that needs to addressed like death and taxes?

So, my own framing of the mind and body problem is in to put it back to the area of metaphysics. — Jack Cummins

Right where it belongs.

Whether or not there is an actual problem, the concept of mind, taken in its irreducible sense, is at least part of the question. That alone is sufficient to justify the claim the extent of the mind/body problem is entirely metaphysical.

For the time being.

You have probably written so much in the last few days that you could almost have written a book. I have only been writing on this thread in the last few days but in the last year I have written so many, and I am trying to slow down a bit.

I think that my own thread is intended to open up questions of the mind, including quantum fields and the widest spectrum of possible considerations of mind and body.

I agree that reading the importance philosophers is important and I do wish to put Spinoza on my agenda. You also ask about the framing of the mind and body problem and one aspect which I am thinking of is how dualism made it easier to think of life after death because it gives a division between the physical and material, with a view to the non material element being able to survive. I am not saying that I agree with this division and way of thinking, but I do believe that it has been prevalent in many Western philosophical approaches to life and death.

I think that an underlying problem of many perspectives on the psychology and philosophy of mind, is the vague and elastic nature of the concept. We could ask what is 'mind' exactly?

I found Spinoza addressed the problem as I was having it. It seems like your question regarding duality involves something else. Wondering if the fear of death shaped the divisions formed in metaphysics is a project of psychology and a formidable one at that.

vague and elastic nature of the concept. — Jack Cummins

That’s certainly half of it, and true enough in itself.

But the concept of mind can be unambiguous if the theory of which it is a constituent is logically consistent and internally complete. Then, of course, with respect to the other half, we have a plethora of theories, so we don’t gain much from a rational perspective, and gain not a damn thing from an empirical perspective.

Same as it ever was......

We could ask what is 'mind' exactly? — Jack Cummins

Well, I don't think it's controversial to begin with this fact: 'mind is what (primate, elephantidae, cetacean, cephalopod ...) CNS-brains do' – adaptively coordinate behaviors with perceptions of the environment by generating predictions and plans of action.

I bet you're "pretty sure" your eyes 'see things directly as they are' too. — 180 Proof

Do you have doubts about whether you're conscious or not? Do you think it's possible you might not be conscious?

Why do you ask? I've not claimed or implied that I "doubt" I'm conscious. As for whether it's "possible" I'm not conscious, clearly I am not conscious most of the time, or continuously, just like everyone else.

Because you said this

I bet you're "pretty sure" your eyes 'see things directly as they are' too. :roll:

In response to this:

What does it mean to say consciohsness is an illusion? Im pretty sure that Im conscious.

It sounded like you were mocking Prishon's surety about being conscious.

I was. Your question of my mockery, therefore, doesn't follow.

I'm not questioning your mockery, I'm wondering if you doubt whether you're conscious or not. Do you?

Asked and answered.

As for whether it's "possible" I'm not conscious, clearly I am not conscious most of the time, or continuously, just like everyone else. — 180 Proof

Do you think it's possible you're not conscious when you're typing your reply to me?

You've quoted me saying as much, so why ask? The link in the post leads to a bit more elaboration on this point.

I meant to wonder if the mind body problem exists outside of framing it as one. — Valentinus

Yes, I've often wondered about that.

As you've suggested, how one goes about answering this can lead directly to opposed forms of metaphysics and especially that hoary old conundrum of physicalism versus idealism.

It's interesting to me that amongst sophisticated religious scholars, like David Bentley Hart, the mind is still taken as a disproof of physicalism. There's a lot still at stake in this matter.

I should add that Sellars can be quite useful here. He can be and often is rather obscure in exposition. But his distinction between manifest image and scientific image is quite accurate.

What to make of this distinction, depends on one's views of course.

Why are you having trouble answering a very simple question? Either you're sure you're conscious when you're typing replies to people or you're not. I'll answer it: I'm sure I'm conscious.

Do you think it's possible you're not conscious when you're replying to people? Yes/no

There is still a lot at stake in the matter.
I don't want to suggest I have a greater understanding by wanting to approach the problem through specific arguments rather than accept it as a self explanatory condition. Perhaps the limitation is mine and mine alone.

You ask three different questions, then say answer "a very simple question". Wtf are you on? :sweat: Whether or not I am / you are "sure" about being conscious doesn't make any difference in practice, now does it? Subjective reports are notoriously unreliable. Am I conscious typing this? I have no apparent reason to say I'm not – this is what a p-zombie would say too. You see how absurdly irrelevant this line of questioning is? Of course you don't.

Philosophy has explored subjectively, and objectively, as well as intersubjectively, in so much detail, — Jack Cummins

intersubjectively?
Can a person have multiple consciousness? or share consciousness with other minds?

I have no apparent reason to say I'm not – this is what a p-zombie would say too. You see how absurdly irrelevant this line of questioning is? Of course you don't. — 180 Proof

:heart:

Im not sure though that subjective reports sre notoriously irreliable. Should I trust your writings?

:broken:

I have no apparent reason — 180 Proof

Could it also mean "you have possible reason"?
"no apparent" sounds like suggesting possibility.