Following Kant the transcendental ego is the noumenal determination of that, which thinks. If there is thought, which we ought to know for sure, there must be something thinking. That's crystal clear. If it rains there must be something raining. — Heiko
I'm not quite sure why I wouldn't - without restriction - call a discussion on an internet-forum a human relationship. Look at this post - I'm not responding to you but to a statement. — Heiko
Whatever - I guess I understand pretty well if somebody tries to tell me something. It is not that I'd have to speculate much to understand it that way.The last response I made to you where I used the term “relationship” was in regard to yourself comparing yourself with another with mere assumptions about what an other could be assuming about you. — raza
I think you will tell me. As far as I understand, at least.Another way to put it: What is the “it” in the sentence “it is raining”? — raza
I would say that normally we do know that it's not an illusion. However, I maybe using the word know differently from you. What I mean, is that we are reasonably sure that such-and-such is the case. I don't have to know with absolute certainty to make the claim that "I know..." Furthermore, if you don't know that you're sitting at your computer doing X, viz., having that experience, then how would you know that you're having any experience? We can be reasonably sure that our sensory experiences generally don't mislead us, if this wasn't the case, then we couldn't be sure of much. — Sam26
Furthermore, if you don't know that you're sitting at your computer doing X, viz., having that experience, then how would you know that you're having any experience? We can be reasonably sure that our sensory experiences generally don't mislead us, if this wasn't the case, then we couldn't be sure of much. — Sam26
"I don't know that my experience of sitting at my PC writing is not an illusion, but I know that I am currently having an experience of some kind."
I question that you're really being honest with yourself here. I bet you really do believe that you are actually sitting at your PC writing, and that is not an illusion. Your issue is that you can't prove it, so you feel as if you ought to be skeptical of that. Please consider this. — Relativist
It is not at all irrational to believe that the world of experience is actually a reflection of the actual world. I suggest that this is actually a properly basic belief because it is innate (no one had to convince you of this through argumentation), self-evident, consistent with a rational world view, and the presence of such beliefs is consistent with everything else we believe about the world (e.g. it's consistent with natural selection). It would be irrational to abandon this belief solely because of of the conceptual possibility that it is false. You should not abandon a belief just because there is an epistemic possibility of it being false; rather - a belief should only be abandoned if it is rationally defeated - i.e. you acquire a new belief that contradicts this innate belief, and you have more reasons to believe the new belief true. — Relativist
Following Kant the transcendental ego is the noumenal determination of that, which thinks. If there is thought, which we ought to know for sure, there must be something thinking. That's crystal clear. If it rains there must be something raining. — Heiko
knowledge is (ontologically) mental phenomena based upon experience — numberjohnny5
I am being honest. As I mentioned to another poster, I don't believe that my experience of sitting at my pc is an illusion, even if I can't know that with absolute certainty. But I don't need to know that with absolute certainty. I think it's reasonable to believe the experience is accurate — numberjohnny5
But a super special kind of mental phenomena. — Srap Tasmaner
If you want to pick out some of your beliefs and call them "knowledge", you do that by saying something about the connection between those beliefs, the mental phenomena, and the content of those beliefs, what the beliefs are about, and what the beliefs are about is not (necessarily) mental. — Srap Tasmaner
I say the language is accurate “I am sitting at my pc” because it is accepted as the appropriate form of sentence structure for disseminating that information.
Just because it is accurate in that way does not mean that is what actually occurred. — raza
I therefore state that what “you” are during the “at the pc” experience is the entire experience thus it’s content. — raza
The “brain” engaged with the pc is, in effect, being also the pc. The pc is, during that experience, imbedded in the “brain” (for context, “brain” as awareness). — raza
Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "content". Secondly, in my view, "experience" is mental only. The boundaries of experiences are within the brain (in connection with the body). We experience stuff internally and externally though. — numberjohnny5
I disagree, and I think thinking about things like that leads to confusion and incoherency. Being aware of the pc is not being the pc, but maybe you're being poetic or something — numberjohnny5
“Experience” is mental only? What is therefore beyond the “mental”? — raza
“Experience”, in my view, is electrical. Some call it “chemical”. — raza
But I do not see where a boundary lies where “mental” is on one side and something else on the other. — raza
So what is the “something else” which apparently isn’t “mental”? — raza
What is it that is being aware of the pc? A “mental” something? — raza
Mind and brain, however, is an idea. A mental construct. — raza
They cannot be distinct from each other in any scientific way. — raza
Hence the contradiction above. — raza
They are distinct in that minds are a type of brain state, i.e. minds are conscious states (as opposed to non-conscious brain states). There is a ton of evidence to demonstrate this. — numberjohnny5
. There are actual organs that we call "minds/brains"--they're not just ideas, unless you're an idealist — numberjohnny5
Can you point out the contradiction? — numberjohnny5
What is clear is the form of the conclusion. It rains, so there is rain and rain is defined by raining. The most to-the-spot explanation of metaphysics is: Do not explain something, that exists, by something else, that exists.You, however, appear to know the answer and that it is Chrystal clear...
...
I will throw this out there, however... — raza
A non conscious brain state? You mean a dead mind or brain? — raza
Yes. One phenomena. Brain and mind, not brain and then, over there, a mind.
Just as a living body is essentially a body-mind. — raza
A thing (as in “every thing”) does not exist unless it arises within the mental. — raza
Is a severed human arm still an arm or is it a piece of human meat? — raza
A "chair" is a product of human work, manufactured for optimal comfort and/or low price in sweatshops for fat a**e* to be placed on.Consider what "chair" really stands for. — raza
No... my fat ass is my own work.So I argue that in that "sitting" moment or experience your arse is as much "you" as the chair is "you". — raza
No. Nonconscious brain states are involuntary brain processes that involve regulating breathing, hear rate, balance, sensory and motor functions, etc. — numberjohnny5
I'm not sure whether we're on the same page, but I'll just say that brain and mind are identical. They share the same location. — numberjohnny5
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.