[To] know any [Object X]…or form any intelligent opinion about X I must ultimately think X as it would be for a [Subject] which was consciously aware of it as a present fact though there may never be or have been such a [Subject]…Thus ultimately we can only think of unperceived physical things in terms of a possible observer in the sense that we must think of them as if they were objects [for a Subject] (Ewing, 1934, pp. 56-57).
Not at the same time. See Quantum Mechanics.P2) All aspects of Objective states can become an Object(s)-for-a-Subject. — PessimisticIdealism
Yes and no. The house you see through the window is hit by photons if you look there or not. If you shoot photons at electrons to see them you know how an electron shot by photons looks like.P3) Physical states are Objective states. — PessimisticIdealism
Therefor one of the mental states has elecrodes pinned at his head.Therefore, the Subjective and Objective character of Conscious mental states can be given an exhaustive Objective explanation iff all aspects of a Conscious mental state’s Subjective and Objective character can become an Object(s)-for-a-Subject. (From P1 and P4) — PessimisticIdealism
But to be an object it cannot be a subject. It just has to be there to be an object. An object is per definition what is not-the-subject. So what are your speaking of?Whatever is an "Object" is merely something that is either known or knowable by a "Subject. — PessimisticIdealism
There even are philosophers who actually explain the objective aspect from the subject itself. Although coherent in themselves none of them could be used for a "proof" of this kind I guess.Why haven’t u considered the subjective aspect of consciousness originating from the objective one — Vanbrainstorm
Why haven’t u considered the subjective aspect of consciousness originating from the objective one, thus rephrasing the first premise roughly:
A phenomenon can be given an exhaustive Objective explanation iff all its aspects can be related to an Object(s)-for-a-Subject. — Vanbrainstorm
P1) A phenomenon can be given an exhaustive Objective explanation iff all its aspects can become an Object(s)-for-a-Subject. — PessimisticIdealism
A phenomenon can be given an exhaustive Objective explanation iff all its aspects can be related to an Object(s)-for-a-Subject. — Vanbrainstorm
P6) The “Subject” is unable to become an Object-for-a-Subject (i.e. an Object for-itself). — PessimisticIdealism
All "Knowledge" is a relationship between a knowing "Subject" and a known "Object." — PessimisticIdealism
The Subject as Subject cannot be described in Objective terms because that which would be described is going to be an abstraction (such as an Object of thought or reflection) in the Subject's consciousness. — PessimisticIdealism
Wouldn’t it have to exhaust something, in order to circumvent such infinite regress illusions as the dreaded homunculus argument? — Mww
Yeah, I see what you're saying, but if there is an aspect of the subject that cannot become an object-for-a-subject, this would imply we could never know it. — Theorem
The model you have laid out in your argument implies that the claims in your argument (including the conclusion) can never qualify as knowledge. — Theorem
It is known as the form of it's perception. There is always the perceiving and the perceived. But this only establishes it's mere existence. If it was felt, this would belong into the realm of the perceived.The Subject is felt, it is not known as one of the Objects present to-and-for-itself. — PessimisticIdealism
while there is no given term or phrase in the English lexicon for this mode of awareness that I know of (...) In my own work I’ve termed this form of awareness “autological”. — javra
a state of affairs in which the subject of conscious awareness is simultaneously the object of which it is aware. — javra
one here doesn’t feel oneself to be X (.....) but, instead, one here is X: “I am thirsty”, “I am sad”, etc. — javra
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.