I see. So what determines levels of hierarchy is priority and generation? Is generation synonymous with causation there? — numberjohnny5
So if the physical generated the non-physical, would you then say that the physical would be at the top end of the hierarchy? — numberjohnny5
Of the mind. "Objective" or "extra-mental" would refer to everything that is not of the mind. — numberjohnny5
Because your "intrinsic to our experience" isn't clear to me. — numberjohnny5
Note that by "mental apparatus" I don't mean some static object; rather, I mean a dynamic, mental processing structure. In other words, experience is a mental process. — numberjohnny5
Is generation synonymous with causation there? — numberjohnny5
It's hard to parse through, but I do think of it as both subjective and objective because that dichotomy tends to be misleading. — Noble Dust
These experiences are all subjective, and yet, through the experience itself, the possibility of something objective being experienced through the lens of subjectivity becomes apparent. — Noble Dust
Your abstract reasoning won't bring you to this conclusion, so if you rely solely on that faculty, you won't arrive at the same conclusion. The experience of beauty is like mysticism, or sex, or grand cru Burgundy; you have to experience it to know — Noble Dust
Thanks for sharing that stuff about your personal, meaningful experiences btw. — numberjohnny5
How are you using "subjective" and "objective"? — numberjohnny5
Nothing determines levels of hierarchy per se; what would be the thing that actually determines them in the first place? — Noble Dust
If I said "yes, priority and generation determine hierarchy", that would assume that priority and generation have some kind of agency in the way that we anthropomorphically think about agency. — Noble Dust
But if generation has no agency, no cause, no beginning, then generation is a process without origin, per se, through which the non-physical gives birth to the physical. So there's no determinate function; there's only generation. — Noble Dust
No, because I'm not conflating "non-physical" with "consciousness". — Noble Dust
It's a tough distinction for me, because, as I said, I find it to be often an erroneous distinction. — Noble Dust
Now, is there an objectivity to my words? — Noble Dust
There's an objectivity to what I am trying to communicate to you. — Noble Dust
But language itself is subjective, not objective. — Noble Dust
Subjectivity, then, seems hard to get away from! But have we still sufficiently out-run it? No, we haven't. — Noble Dust
When you post on this forum, you are saying something, that to you, represents an objectivity. — Noble Dust
But the paradox and the tragedy is that you can only say it subjectively. — Noble Dust
Well, you have to specify what exactly you mean by "know"? Knowing something has a multitude of different senses, and one of the things that annoys me about even this forum, is that people talk in extremely vague ways which render the discourse effectively incomprehensible - I just cannot understand what this man is trying to tell me as Borat said...Does a bird know that it's beautiful? — Noble Dust
Well, I think the bird is definitely conscious, in that it reacts to stimuli, and probably projects a world for itself the same way us humans project a world for ourselves. What I think you might mean is that a bird lacks the self-awareness of human beings, and the reflexivity of our thought. In other words, the bird does not think about what it is thinking. It does not think about why it is singing, why it is flying, etc.(figuratively in the sense that conciousness is a mirror in which we reflect on ourselves) — Noble Dust
You might pause a moment and think about just what value is. And please keep in mind my remark about this not being a discussion about practical matters thought of in a practical way. The thing can't value. Only a person can value. The person may well value something about the thing, but that is not the same as saying that the thing somehow has value.It's not clear to me whether you're (a) saying that objects don't have intrinsic value, or (b) you're saying that gold has intrinsic value, and this intrinsic value we/minds value as "precious". Which in other words means there exists both intrinsic (objective) and subjective value. — numberjohnny5
All right, you choose something and list some qualities of that something, and we'll see whether or not if we can establish whether or not the things have in themselves those qualities. Or maybe better you try reading some of George Berkeley's dialogue's between Hylos and Philonous - or google them.I view qualities as phenomenal properties of some x that the mind experiences. Essentially, I buy quale.
In any case with respect to the context, your remark is at best a non sequitor.You brought up Aristotle's matter and form as (probably) being different than my concept of matter and form. I intended to clarify my position to help clear things up.
Here's the context, post on p. 2.Ok, could you explain how it's a non-sequitur?
11 hours ago ReplyShareFlag
The idea is that if you try to attribute things like colour to a thing, you find you cannot (except as a practical matter). All the qualities and accidents supposedly attributable to things prove similarly problematic (see Berkeley's dialogues) . Pretty soon all you've got left is matter and form - and they're problematic in their own way. So far you're arguing (if I may call it that) by opinion and personal definition: you don't agree with Aristotle and you "view qualities as phenomenal properties of some x." You can do that, but it doesn't make for productive discussion.Does the thing itself contain in itself that which satisfies the criteria? Think this one down and you get close to Aristotle's matter and form — tim wood
You might pause a moment and think about just what value is. — tim wood
And please keep in mind my remark about this not being a discussion about practical matters thought of in a practical way. — tim wood
The thing can't value. Only a person can value. The person may well value something about the thing, but that is not the same as saying that the thing somehow has value. — tim wood
All right, you choose something and list some qualities of that something, and we'll see whether or not if we can establish whether or not the things have in themselves those qualities. — tim wood
Or maybe better you try reading some of George Berkeley's dialogue's between Hylos and Philonous - or google them. — tim wood
You brought up Aristotle's matter and form as (probably) being different than my concept of matter and form. I intended to clarify my position to help clear things up.
In any case with respect to the context, your remark is at best a non sequitor.
— tim wood
Ok, could you explain how it's a non-sequitur?
11 hours ago ReplyShareFlag
Here's the context, post on p. 2.
Does the thing itself contain in itself that which satisfies the criteria? Think this one down and you get close to Aristotle's matter and form — tim wood
The idea is that if you try to attribute things like colour to a thing, you find you cannot (except as a practical matter). — tim wood
All the qualities and accidents supposedly attributable to things prove similarly problematic (see Berkeley's dialogues) . — tim wood
Pretty soon all you've got left is matter and form - and they're problematic in their own way. So far you're arguing (if I may call it that) by opinion and personal definition: you don't agree with Aristotle and you "view qualities as phenomenal properties of some x." You can do that, but it doesn't make for productive discussion. — tim wood
Well, you have to specify what exactly you mean by "know"? — Agustino
Well, I think the bird is definitely conscious, in that it reacts to stimuli, and probably projects a world for itself the same way us humans project a world for ourselves. What I think you might mean is that a bird lacks the self-awareness of human beings, and the reflexivity of our thought. In other words, the bird does not think about what it is thinking. It does not think about why it is singing, why it is flying, etc. — Agustino
Does poetic mean vacuous?Well, you need to specify what you mean by "specify", right? :-} But in all seriousness, I stated at the beginning that it was a poetic concept; that should make clear what "know" means in that context. — Noble Dust
The higher form would look down on us as we look down on the bird. Then the concept of beauty comes in, which I've gone into at length. — Noble Dust
Yeah, like that.There is a sense in which both bird and man may not know of their (full) beauty - and that's in-so-far as they are unaware of how they fit into the larger picture. If you are unaware of the greater purpose, then you may not see why X Y Z happened the way they did. That's also why man's greatest happiness is knowing God.
"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20. — Agustino
Does poetic mean vacuous? — Agustino
When you're making music, don't you follow a method? Don't you think about some guiding principles? About how different sounds are interconnected? What effects minor and major scales create? etc.? Clearly you must. Any craft, even poetry, takes honing, which is done methodically and deliberately. — Agustino
Yeah, like that. — Agustino
Yeah, a metaphor can certainly be vacuous, depending on the context.Give me a break. (Oh, look, a metaphor within the context of common usage! Must be vacuous.) — Noble Dust
The idea is that if you try to attribute things like colour to a thing, you find you cannot (except as a practical matter).
— tim wood
I disagree. Colour is the interaction between the properties of some object and the (properties of the) mind via qualia. — numberjohnny5
No. I mean that their ideas, their arguments, have to be dealt with. If you dismiss them out-of-hand, well, you can, but your arguments can't.Anyway, I take it you mean that I'm not agreeing with a conventional or traditional definition of "matter and form". — numberjohnny5
It seems to come down to the fact that you're taking an analytical approach, while I'm not. I think your analysis would probably indicate that you're more correct from an analytical standpoint. But the whole concept that I presented is both aesthetic/artistic and intuitive (as well as open to analysis, as everything of course is); so the same goes for my intuitive approach; I've gone into detail about it from that angle, and you haven't responded within an intuitive approach at all, whereas I've attempted to interface with your analytical approach. My approach begins with intuition, not with analysis. Good discussion though, I'm not trying to shut it down, feel free to continue. — Noble Dust
I can't imagine how you could have. — Noble Dust
Or rather, the destination (instead of route in my reply) — Noble Dust
Correct. Within the context of this thread, the destination would be "a view of the beauty of humanity which humans themselves cannot see, in the same way that humans see a certain beauty in bird which birds themselves cannot see." — Noble Dust
No. It looks like you're missing the point of taking an intuitive approach. You seem to be assuming that only an analytical approach could warrant disagreement. — Noble Dust
Question: what exactly do you mean by qualia? — tim wood
The book is red. Completely ordinary and unremarkable statement, but the way we're looking at it we have to question it. Where is the red? What is (the) red? There are three questions to be asked and not just the third one that you ask. Is it? What is it? And qualia, what kind is it? — tim wood
Red seems to be a something. I, myself, have no idea what. What do you say red is? The question is, is it something in itself? Does red exist? I think maybe it doesn't. — tim wood
What are properties? — tim wood
How do you know there are properties? — tim wood
And it doesn't do to just "disagree" with the planet's greatest thinkers. — tim wood
No. I mean that their ideas, their arguments, have to be dealt with. If you dismiss them out-of-hand, well, you can, but your arguments can't. — tim wood
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.