It's magic that trees aren't chairs, or that cats aren't dogs, or that brain activity isn't a fusion reactor? — Michael
I think that the body is directed by the body. — Pseudonym
It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
...
The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive there is a whir of information processing, but there is also a subjective aspect.
There is just the information processing, and this can be explained by everyday neuroscience. — Michael
Would it be considered a panpaychism to theorize that what we consider unique about consciousness, its 'aboutness' and 'feeling of what it is like' , is not something inside a mind but the pre-condition for understanding any notion of existing things? — Joshs
You'll find this kind of thinking in its embryonic form in James and Dewey, and in Husserl.
It's been developed in many directions by enactive embodied cognitive scientists and philosophers who are incorporating the ideas of phenomenology. I particularly recommend the work of Shaun Gallagher. Also Francisco Varela and Evan Thompson. — Joshs
Yes, cause exists. It explains how a piece of matter affects another piece. — bahman
We separate two events in our minds and we use induction to conclude that one caused the other. But, it is my understanding, nobody has ever observed any such "causing" happening. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
But, it is my understanding, nobody has ever observed any such "causing" happening. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Me either. The same goes for "physical" processes. I asked what does it mean to be physical or non-physical.I don't know anything like non-physical process. — bahman
Me either. The same goes for "physical" processes. I asked what does it mean to be physical or non-physical. — Harry Hindu
To me physical is made of stuff and has form — bahman
I cannot comprehend non-physical thing such as mind. — bahman
A journal article I once read concerning the same topics as this thread--physicalism and epiphenomenalism--pointed out that we do not observe causation, we only observe relationships. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I have brought up before here the strong case made by even other sources against the existence of causes, causation, etc.
We separate two events in our minds and we use induction to conclude that one caused the other. But, it is my understanding, nobody has ever observed any such "causing" happening.
Again, if causes, causation do not exist, why does materialism matter? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
What do you mean by "stuff"? The mind is made of stuff too and has form. How else can you even talk about it and how it changes?To me physical is made of stuff and has form, such as chair. I cannot comprehend non-physical thing such as mind. — bahman
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.