But I still like my armchair. — Banno
Since it's predicated of those concrete things, it is abstract, not concrete. — Andrew M
So I agree it would be lunacy to give primacy to what's between our ears when we have no clue what that is other than by treating it as an object 'out there'. — Isaac
what we have between the ears IS indeed primary, as a matter of fact, because it is necessary for any knowledge to accrue. — Olivier5
You can do nothing to escape from the fact that you have no more privileged access to your original thought processes than a suitability dedicated third-party has. All you have is your memories of those processes, which can be put into words and transferred to a third party with no less fidelity than that with which they were stored (which is, not a lot). — Isaac
an intuition by Kitaro Nishida that our effort toward objective knowledge comes from consciousness and subjectivity but turns its back to it, while looking at its objects. — Olivier5
Another way ro say this is that looking at consciousness as an object necessarily introduces in consciousness a distance with itself. — Olivier5
I also explained above how knowledge always stems from subjective experience, and therefore experience is primary to knowledge — Olivier5
Just want a point out that our ancestors evolved the ability to see color prior to language and public models. You can't quine color away without consulting evolution first. — Marchesk
Hmm. It seems like wavelengths of light aren't necessarily required either. Maybe we should consider the implications of what Sara Walker was saying in Marchesks other thread in that biology is ontological and physics is epistemological. Colors would be ontological and wavelengths epistemological. After all, wavelengths of light is an explanation for the experience of colors, mirages, bent straws in water, etc.No, our ancestors evolved to respond to wavelengths of light, prior to language. Had they not then they would not all have picked the ripe berries (which are united in the wavelength the reflect, not the experience they produce). If you want to have wavelengths of light as 'colours' I'm happy with that, but qualia aren't required here either. — Isaac
For you, the grocer is an object and his subjectivity is irrelevant to you. For the grocer, you are the object and your subjectivity is irrelevant to him.
— Mww
I realize this remark is partly in jest, and in response to a mind denier. I don’t think people treat other people as pure objects, without ever thinking of other people’s opinions — Olivier5
what we have between the ears IS indeed primary, as a matter of fact, because it is necessary for any knowledge to accrue. That’s the purely logical aspect of the problem, the easiest aspect to fathom.......
Agreed.
.......The really tricky part is to realize what we do when we try to think of consciousness — or of phenomena as they ‘appear’ to our consciousness, (...) as an object of knowledge, when we study it as another phenomenon, as another object ‘out there’ as you put it. — Olivier5
It extends to the need for the subject trying to understand himself to remain connected with his own subjectivity, to include himself as part of his description of any experience. — Olivier5
don’t even start to get it. — Olivier5
If it is the case that we are both objects in the world and subjects taking account of it and/or ourselves, then the dichotomy cannot be used as a means to draw a distinction between us and our accounts... — creativesoul
Yep. But what we're talking about here is your memories of the experiences which preceded knowledge, not the actual experiences themselves. You no longer have direct access to those seconds after you've had them, so their causal primacy is irrelevant. — Isaac
While there are all sorts of language less creatures incapable of drawing correlations between different things, those aren't of interest here, for such creatures aren't capable of attributing meaning, and consciousness is the ability to attribute meaning. — creativesoul
But when I tell him to give me two apples, his opinion is completely irrelevant to me. — Mww
Interesting. See how you fall on both sides of the paradox here? You start by assuming that ‘the subject is absolutely indissoluble from himself’, and end with the idea that ‘subjects don’t include themselves at all, but are that which includes’. Hence when subjects try to understand subjectivity as an object, they must try to take a distance with their own subjectivity, which tends to lead to logical paradoxes.If the subject is absolutely indissoluble from himself, how could he NOT include himself? Ever notice the absence of the first person personal pronoun “I” when you think to yourself? You never think “I think.....”, “I am....”, I want.....”, “I feel....”. If that first person personal pronoun is a representation, and in some cases there is no use of the representation, then all thinking IS the subject itself that thinks. Then it becomes the case that subjects don’t include themselves at all, but are that which includes. — Mww
Indeed, a description, a report, is always ‘removed’ from what is reported. The map is not the territory. The word ‘apple’ is quite removed from real apples. Ceci n’est pas une pipe.To include himself as part of a description of any experience, on the other hand, because all descriptions carry objective implications, requires a representation of the subject that is describing experience as an object, and here the “I” stands as that representation. The description of the going, re: “The other day, I went to the grocery store to get two apples”, is very far removed from the going. — Mww
The poverty of Kant is the supposition that there is stuff we have to have before we can do the things......
Yes, the stuff we have to have is the categories.
.......We make the stuff by doing the things.......
No. Backwards. The stuff of categories make the doing of things possible.
.......Drop meaning, look to use. — Banno
For you, the grocer is an object and his subjectivity is irrelevant to you. For the grocer, you are the object and your subjectivity is irrelevant to him. You want two apples, the grocer must understand you want two apples, or he isn’t going to do anything, or he will do what doesn't conform to your ask. — Mww
what you remember of an experience is yet another form of experience. — Olivier5
experience still precedes any report, and can never be fully described by reporting. — Olivier5
You also need to understand that he wants money in exchange of the apples — Olivier5
I'm attempting to provide an adequate evolutionarily amenable account of all conscious experience from non linguistic through metacognitive. — creativesoul
consciousness is the ability to attribute meaning. — creativesoul
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.