What seems clear to me is that the mental world is somewhat more extensive than mere thoughts and is closely associated with brain activities that can be approximately located and even measured in some cases in the form of electrochemical impulses. — David Mo
Once the thought is formed a qualia arises. — Pop
Our holistic, referential world of significance is what is most basic for Heidegger. It is does not involve awareness, thought, or subject-object duality. This is the same type of holism described by panpsychists. — Mickey
An empirical inference is not logically included in the data that serve as a premise. It is a knowledge that advances synthetically on those data by providing new knowledge. Because we are not talking about a judgment that proves itself true, but a reasoning based on experience that produces a conclusion where before there was a hypothesis. That synthesis is the discovery of unity from diversity, so to speak.There’s a vicious circularity in that which I don’t think can be overcome even in principle. — Wayfarer
I would like you to defend the idea that the mind is like a spiritual or mental entity, which is what I think panpsychism stands for. That is hard enough for me to find traces of a mind in some of the recent US presidents, but even less so in a volcano or a supernova explosion. I don't see them emitting thoughts, or speaking, or expressing emotions, or any of the properties that are usually considered in a mind.
The idea of a platform I don't know that makes things better. A platform that complains about the futility of life or how much it costs to pour lava through the crater? I don't see it, honestly.
But if the universe doesn't do anything of the things that a consciousness do, why do you call it a "consciousness"? — David Mo
Right. I think this draws on Husserl’s understanding of ‘umwelt’ and ‘lebenswelt’ which are likewise very basic or foundational and for that reason very difficult to discern. And why? Because ‘to discern’ is to bring into focus, to make of it the figure against a background, where the lebenswelt is the background against which we discern particulars. So in that sense, to speak of it is already to misunderstand it. — Wayfarer
Once the thought is formed a qualia arises.
— Pop
It may be a question of terminology, but this does not seem right to me. You can have sensations (called in philosophy impressions or qualia) whether you think about something or not. Not only the reception of sensations, but the formation of perceptions is a spontaneous procedure that can precede or follow the formation of a thought based on them. A simple example: you bite into the fruit, feel a strange taste and at the time or later you think "This cherry is over-ripe". Of course, what there is not is first a thought and then an impression/qualia. — David Mo
From the data that we have about the functioning of the brain, we can infer that the mind is its product. Whether this inference is more or less solid is a matter for debate. — David Mo
There is a logical flaw with Husseri's statement. — Pop
I am a materialist — Vladimir Krymchakov
As far as ‘theories of consciousness’ are concerned - that’s really what we’re talking about here - I think we need to situate the whole discussion in relation to some school, approach or domain of discourse, rather than trying to develop an entire system de novo. — Wayfarer
This -more or less:It depends on what you mean by mind. — Mickey
I call this empty substrate that you speak of "consciousness" and it consists simply of realizing my position in the world. I can only directly capture my consciousness and infer other consciousnesses because their attitude is similar to mine. (Some philosophers say that this capture of other subjects like me is immediate. I won't argue with that, if it's not necessary for your argument). If I have to infer a consciousness of the universe it will have to be because the universe acts in a similar way to mine. This is absurd for two reasons:let us call it pure awareness without content, — Mickey
it’s conflating the physical relations between synapses, with the logical relations between terms. — Wayfarer
In my experience on this forum, the prevailing view of the ‘mind-matter’ question is still largely shaped by Cartesian dualism and its consequences. But I think many of the implications of that have been absorbed by our culture, and therefore by us, without us being necessarily aware of what they mean. — Wayfarer
As far as ‘theories of consciousness’ are concerned - that’s really what we’re talking about here - I think we need to situate the whole discussion in relation to some school, approach or domain of discourse, rather than trying to develop an entire system de novo. — Wayfarer
The mind is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion.
let us call it pure awareness without content,
— Mickey
I call this empty substrate that you speak of "consciousness" and it consists simply of realizing my position in the world. I can only directly capture my consciousness and infer other consciousnesses because their attitude is similar to mine. (Some philosophers say that this capture of other subjects like me is immediate. I won't argue with that, if it's not necessary for your argument). If I have to infer a consciousness of the universe it will have to be because the universe acts in a similar way to mine. This is absurd for two reasons:
Because the universe does not have a body similar to mine and cannot gesture its consciousness, as other consciousnesses in the world do.
Because to claim that the universe can realize its position in the universe is a contradiction. It would be like realizing the position I hold within my "I". This proposition is impossible because a position with respect to oneself is an identity and consciousness is a relational term, that is, it establishes a relationship between two types of entity. — David Mo
I don't see why it doesn't apply to the relationship between the brain - or an area of the brain - and the act of talking or getting excited. — David Mo
When you're looking at neurological data and interpreting the meaning, then you're using the very faculty you're trying to explain. And that faculty operates on the symbolic and logical level, the level of logical necessity. — Wayfarer
So what faculty did you use to come up with those two assertions then? What are you using to tell us all about how reason and logic work. It can't be reason and logic because apparently a faculty cannot analyse itself. — Isaac
Whenever we deploy a reasoned argument, we’re using a faculty that is internal to the nature of reason. And that is not something given in any data, it is deployed to interpret data and to say what it means. — Wayfarer
The question is, how do you know that this is the case? How did you find this fact about our faculties and how they work? — Isaac
is that it's just assumed that science has an in-principle grasp of the relationship, — Wayfarer
So the argument I’m deploying is that the nature of logical necessity — Wayfarer
I’m saying that in order to even begin to explore the neuroscience, you already need to use reason, you need to reason by inference from cause to effect and so on. So in doing that, you’re deploying the very faculty that you are claiming neuroscience can provide an account of. That’s where the circular reasoning or question-begging comes in. — Wayfarer
the use of an inductive method that has proven itself millions of times. If you want to say that believing that what has been proven millions of times is true is an assumption, true: a very effective assumption. — David Mo
The very conclusion that reason cannot analyse itself is a property of the faculty 'reason'. How did you discover this property if one cannot use reason to analyse itself. — Isaac
Of course I do not believe that spiritualism can be demonstrated with logical necessity. I'd like to know how this is done. — David Mo
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.