That's not the context where you exist as a collective entity. — Zelebg
Surely at this level there should be no confusion what is and how much it is different and separated from everything else at the same level. — Zelebg
Which are 'the forces of nature' and which are my movements, prior to identifying me as an entity?
Can you state the problem directly, with some example if possible? — Zelebg
becasue of a failure to feel satisfied with any objective criteria for distinguishing objects — Isaac
I find it odd when someone claims that they do not think other people exist. — creativesoul
Do you believe the following statement?
Other people exist. — creativesoul
Would the subjective criteria of space and time be sufficient for distinguishing objects? — Mww
The reason for separation are new emergent entities, properties, and meanings. So we can talk about things like wetness and acidity, or letters and words, or ball and wheel, or osmosis and chirality... Subjective, perhaps, so what? Decision is not arbitrary.I'm talking about objective existence, the 'context' in which we determine existence is subjective, it's a decision we make, there's no reason why we should determine objects on any given level of heirachy.
I don't see how that question relates to what I said. What problem you are talking about - who has that problem, when, why?We're we justifiably uncertain of our existence prior to having a model of molecules, cells etc?
In that case it wouldn't.How would our alien, who only senses weak nuclear forces, have any concept of a boundary at a cellular level?
Individual organisms are distinguished from the environment by connections and relations between entities that make up that organism, like shared circulatory system, synchronized motion of all the parts, shape constraints that make up the body...OK, so describe to me where 'you' end, and why there. Maybe some more detail will help me see where you're coming from.
Autonomy & independence, like you can climb a mountain and raindrop can not. Is there some point to all these questions?I'm asking what features of 'my' actions allow you to distinguish them from actions caused by 'the forces of nature'.
I'm asking what features of 'my' actions allow you to distinguish them from actions caused by 'the forces of nature'. — Isaac
Subjective, perhaps, so what? Decision is not arbitrary. — Zelebg
I don't see how that question relates to what I said. What problem you are talking about - who has that problem, when, why? — Zelebg
Individual organisms are distinguished from the environment by connections and relations between entities that make up that organism, like shared circulatory system, synchronized motion of all the parts, shape constraints that make up the body... — Zelebg
Independence, like you can climb a mountain and raindrop can not. — Zelebg
Is there some point to all these questions? — Zelebg
No member of Nature can act contrary to the forces of the Nature of which he is a member. None of my actions can be distinguished from forces found naturally, even if I am permitted to modify them to my advantage or interrupt their natural progression. Even the act of pure spontaneity, which we formerly considered the ground of pure thought, has its natural exhibition in random....a form of spontaneity.....nuclear decay, and theoretical quantum physics. — Mww
What I'm arguing for here is model dependent realism — Isaac
How does nature inform us of an error in our models when we have no direct access to nature against which to check them, only other models? — Isaac
I can't remember why we got talking about model dependent realism in a thread about the expression 'what it's like'. — Isaac
I claim dialectic license. — Mww
Nature doesn’t inform us so much as we inform ourselves, of errors in our models, when some model of ours isn’t consistent with another of ours — Mww
Still, models are useless without something to which they relate, wouldn’t you agree? — Mww
what it’s like to experience stubbing your toe is a lot like the experience of hitting your thumb with a hammer, which isn’t saying much, but what the experience of stubbing your toe is exactly like is .......well.....stubbing your toe, which isn’t saying anything at all, because we already knew that — Mww
I find it odd when someone claims that they do not think other people exist.
— creativesoul
Yes, but incredulity does not constitue an argument. I'm asking you what your argument is, not what your feeling is about mine. — Isaac
Do you believe the following statement?
Other people exist.
— creativesoul
I don't hold single beliefs about the subject. As I've said already, for me, a belief is simply a disposition to act as if. It is therefore contextual. In the context of thinking about reality, in the widest sense I can, I'm disposed to act (in this case actions are all talking/typing) as if people do not exist, as separate objects. In the context of my day to day life, I'm disposed to act as if other people do exist.
Neither of these dispositions tells me anything about what actually does exist. — Isaac
We appear to be talking past each other probably due to a difference in terminology/view of the question of knowing ‘the-thing-in-itself’. We cannot know the thing in itself. This is the idea of ‘pure objectivity’ - for me not refutable completely, but clearly unknowable. This harks back to the differentiation made by Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason. The ‘noumenon’ is only true for us in a ‘negative’ sense, as a limitation. — I like sushi
The objective stance I am guarded against is naive realism. There is no ‘knowing’ ice cream only subjective experience, an ‘object’ of experience. I don’t see how ‘knowing’ can possess unbounded universality. What is known truly is only known within set limits - been through exhaustively elsewhere I believe.
You don’t know by way of someone else’s knowing. You know only through you - which is subjectivity. The further issue is understanding that ‘objective knowing’ is ‘intersubjectivity’: the interplay of subjects not some item know as ‘the-thing-in-itself’.
Two subjects owning the same existence/reality are not ‘two’, that is maybe another point that causes confusion in this kind of topic? — I like sushi
What I'm arguing for here is model dependent realism. Not that nothing really exists, not any form of idealism, just that the only way we know reality is through our models of it and so (this is, for me, the important bit) no model can ever be shown to be more 'true' (where that means corresponds to reality) than any other, and no objects distinguished by those models really exist in preference to any other conceivable way of determining objects.
I can't remember why we got talking about model dependent realism in a thread about the expression 'what it's like'. — Isaac
I'm asking what you believe to be the case. — creativesoul
What claim and/or assertion are you asking me to argue for? — creativesoul
A rubber ball is disposed to bounce when dropped onto a hard surface. According to your definition, rubber balls have belief. — creativesoul
but we mustn't sublime consistency. It is only what it is, no holy grail, nor marker of truth — Isaac
I don't think proximity to reality measures the usefulness of the model. — Isaac
Nothing special about consciousness in that respect, as far as I can see. — Isaac
As I've said already, for me, a belief is simply a disposition to act. — Isaac
we in our human endeavors naturally seek to lessen our own confusion, the means to which we demand of logic, which in turn absolutely requires consistency. — Mww
I’d say an empirical model, or, a model constructed on empirical principles, should proximate reality as much as the principles admit. — Mww
I rather think belief is a judgement of relative truth. One’s disposition to act is every bit as much a judgement he makes relative to some truth he has already considered. Close enough? — Mww
What claim and/or assertion are you asking me to argue for?
— creativesoul
Implied (but I could be wrong). You're saying that you find it odd, but you're not saying that you'll cast out your old thinking and accept this new 'odd' way of looking at things. Yet you've not presented any justification for finding it 'odd', just the bare declaration. So what I get from that is that you find it odd, and that the mere fact that you find it odd is sufficient for you to reject the idea. So the assertion is that what I've said is not a good way of looking at things, yet the backing for this seems to be just that you find it odd. — Isaac
Of course, it's possible you're just declaring you find it odd as nothing more than a point of interest. In which case, noted, but do you have an opinion on how useful the idea might, odd or not? — Isaac
I'm trying to ground things like belief in the physical. — Isaac
What I'm arguing for here is model dependent realism. Not that nothing really exists, not any form of idealism, just that the only way we know reality is through our models of it and so (this is, for me, the important bit) no model can ever be shown to be more 'true' (where that means corresponds to reality) than any other, and no objects distinguished by those models really exist in preference to any other conceivable way of determining objects. — Isaac
I'm asking what you believe to be the case.
— creativesoul
As I explained, I don't think I 'believe' a single thing, I believe a range of different (possibly even contradictory things) in different contexts. So I simply can't answer your question. — Isaac
A disposition to act can be represented (theoretically) in neural architecture — Isaac
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.