The notion of a reality-in-itself as ineffable is something that philosophers of a certain ilk will talk about ad nauseam, and apparently without seeing the irony. — Banno
If it's ineffable, don't try to "eff" it.
That is, don't pretend to use it in your metaphysics. — Banno
Related to 'anthropocentrism', object-oriented thinkers reject correlationism, which the French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux defines as "the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other".[12] Because object-oriented ontology is the realist philosophy, it stands in contradistinction to the anti-realist trajectory of correlationism, which restricts philosophical understanding to the correlation of being with thought by disavowing any reality external to this correlation as inaccessible, and, in this way, fails to escape the ontological reification of human experience.[13] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology
Are rocks conscious?
If not, and yet people are, then at some stage between rocks and people, consciousness emerges. — Banno
Yes. I am open to Panpsychism. But you should expect that some on this forum will be prejudiced against the concept of universal consciousness, due to its prevalence in New Age mystical & magical notions. Yet, there is growing acceptance of a more scientific understanding that the potential for mind & consciousness was somehow inherent in the Big Bang. William James came to his conclusion, long before New Ageism emerged, and it was based on pragmatic logic, not on empirical evidence. Psyche (Mind) is a metaphysical concept, so its existence in physical objects is counter-intuitive, and inexplicable, to those committed to a Materialist worldview.consciousness in some
shape must have been present at the very origins of things. — turkeyMan
And at some point a pile of dirt becomes a hill. Doesn't mean the hill "emerged," only the abstract concept. It would seem that electricity is an emergent property, but again, nothing is being created... only a concept.
Let's use "awareness," because consciousness is the ability to think. Awareness is simply the quality of experiencing. To use our level of consciousness as the standard to measure awareness is obviously not going to be effective. There's no reason to assume that a lack of intelligence signifies a lack of awareness. — Kev
What evidence do you have that rocks are aware? — Banno
Electrons are measurable, manipulable, adn calculable. The awareness of a rock, not so much. — Banno
I climb the hill, not the concept of the hill. — Banno
I agree that it's the appropriate response for a Physicalist. But for some of us the most important things in the world are non-physical. And Consciousness remains the "hard problem" for Physicalism : how does matter know anything?The incredulous stare is still the appropriate response. — Banno
As if anaesthetic did not exist. AS if one did not sleep. — Banno
A language game is just a family of rules around a group of words and deeds.
Problems arise with irregularities; such as when the words are moved to a different language game with insufficient care. — Banno
Yes, there are a few "hard" scientists out there who take the notion of Panpsychism seriously. It's not yet mainstream, but the "soft" sciences of Information Theory and Systems Theory are pioneering the study of Nature for clues to how & why Life & Mind emerged from the physical process of Evolution. Most of the research is based on Information & Computation theories. Hard physicists, who are still searching for the bottom line of physics by smashing particles, are not likely to encounter many signs of Life or Mind. But, softer Quantum Theorists, are dealing with much mushier aspects of reality, and may be more open to the idea that a potential for Life & Mind was inherent in the original Singularity program, in the form of non-physical Information. Since Life & Mind are not physical phenomena, but metaphysical functions, their study is often limited to "soft" Theory, rather than "hard" empirical Practice.Even one in the hard sciences would impress me. There are probably a few out there. — jgill
Yep, folk make stuff up. — Banno
Because object-oriented ontology is the realist philosophy, it stands in contradistinction to the anti-realist trajectory of correlationism, which restricts philosophical understanding to the correlation of being with thought by disavowing any reality external to this correlation as inaccessible, and, in this way, fails to escape the ontological reification of human experience. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology
That part is nothing to do with metaphysics, — schopenhauer1
That quote is appalling. At least I put some effort into my "smarmy quips". — Banno
Because object-oriented ontology is the realist philosophy, it stands in contradistinction to the anti-realist trajectory of correlationism, which restricts philosophical understanding to the correlation of being with thought by disavowing any reality external to this correlation as inaccessible, and, in this way, fails to escape the ontological reification of human experience. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology
the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other."[7] Philosophies of access are any of those philosophies which privilege the human being over other entities. Both ideas represent forms of anthropocentrism.
The minute you find "evidence" of folk not making stuff up, the stuff becomes part of the correlation circle of epistemology, not ontology. Any answer thus evinced through something akin to scientific data, would be just the human-to-object relation. — schopenhauer1
That part is nothing to do with metaphysics, just pointing to the circularity of correlationism and the ontological reification of human experience as "experience" projected to the universe. — schopenhauer1
Correlationism is the idea that you cannot get beyond the human mind's constructs of the world — schopenhauer1
You live "beyond the human mind's constructs of the world". You are always, already, embedded in the world. Stop pretending you need an explanation before you engage. — Banno
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.