Just a world of material things bound to the necessity of casual sufficiency, — Constance
something epistemological that carries the object, the cat, to my interior world. — Constance
Causality doesn't do this. — Constance
can carry, if you will, the "ofness" that eventually becomes my knowledge OF the cat — Constance
there is no model beyond this that can be brought in for comparison. — Constance
this is what I'm affirming, neural networks that have learned are causally epistemological.If you cannot affirm that causal networks are analytically epistemological, — Constance
. If you take electromagnetic fields to be in their exhaustive analysis about what is "out there," independent of experience, then you would be committing the metaphysical fallacy of positing things unseen. — Constance
We can now proceed to construct a new model of the world, one in which values are not subordinated the "metaphysics" of science, and the subjective/objective division at the ontological level simply vanishes. — Constance
Science needs to know its place, however. — Constance
What is material Constance? I think you're very reductive or do not understand contemporary physics if you think as material world as bounded to the necessity of casual sufficiency.
I could understand you say this 100+ years ago... not after relativity and all the rest... — Raul
Of course, as I say those causes are the mental objects you learned during childhood. Your chilhood is when you internal world gets built. — Raul
Yes it does. — Raul
We call it memory, neural-traces that keep our memories and form our memories as the memories of the computers but in the brain and with neural networks. (have you watched the second Blade Runner?).
Artificial Neural Networks do it as well. — Raul
Yes, there is a model, the one you build during your childhood as your brain interacts with the world. — Raul
Pragmatics do not only refer to the world you see. Your comment is quite naif. Electromagnetic fields are part of nature, are natural. This is why I tell you you should stop using materialism or physician because you have an obsolete understanding of matter (materialism); better if you talk about nature.
Blind people are humans too :grin: — Raul
It has been built: heterophenomenology. I see you haven't watched the videos of Dehaene I proposed you. You're too concentrated trying to show you're right — Raul
It's my standard grudge against theists, it has nothing to do with Kierkegaard specifically. — baker
At some point, I could recite by heart passages from De Imitatione Christi ... it seemed so right, so true ...Okay. But K is by no means typical. His Attack on Christendom rails against the banality of middle class Christianity. He thought the medievals has it right with their singularity of devotion. — Constance
I have never heard that this can apply to bridge the gap between objects and the perceptual equipment of an epistemic agency. — Constance
How is it even possible to conceive of it such that objects as independent of perceptual conditioning can be the objects in perception? — Constance
One has to admit that there is something to this otherness of objects, they are not me, — Constance
Oh, thank God! Please tell me how this works so I can call the newspapers. — Constance
All that you can say is composed IN the very mind that is supposed to be the object of your explanation!! — Constance
You cannot reach out of phenomena to affirm this natural world, for every utterance, every observation you make is phenomenal! — Constance
These are all pragmatic determinations, not ontological — Constance
provisional theories. See Kuhn, who was a Kantian) have to say. I am an adherent and an admirer. — Constance
It is understood that the horizon of our phenomenological gaze is both confined to interiority and inclusive of others that are not us, for in the phenomenal presentation, we witness otherness; otherness is IN the interiority of the perceiving agency, and this is confirmed by no more than its presence. Phenomenology is a descriptive "science" (Husserl called it this). — Constance
The Other, therefore, comes to us embedded in our own interiority — Constance
This Other is transcendental, as are all things not me; it is just that this "outsideness" of things occurs within, and this sets the stage for a great deal of post modern philosophy. Levinas holds that the Other is beyond our Totality, which is Heidegger's dasein; the other intrudes in the face that reveals an ethical obligation to respond that issues from transcendence, which religiously is construed as God. — Constance
This Other is transcendental, as are all things not me; it is just that this "outsideness" of things occurs within, and this sets the stage for a great deal of post modern philosophy. Levinas holds that the Other is beyond our Totality — Constance
which is Heidegger's dasein; — Constance
the other intrudes in the face that reveals an ethical obligation to respond that issues from transcendence, which religiously is construed as God. — Constance
there is a transcendence, and transcendence is defined by what escapes our totalizing reach that wants to integrate all things into itself. — Constance
lies with the more fundamental and irreducible value qua value. — Constance
What about the superposition principle? Incoherent state of particles? — Raul
I have to insist here, I see this happening in other artificial systems we humans create. In engineering and physics we call them complex systems. Complex systems have the capacity of new properties and capabilities to emerge within them. Properties and capabilities impossible to predict. One good example are the Convolutional Networks that learn to recognize objects in images. Nothing metaphysical but just physical, physics of information. And those complex systems are heuristic and stochastic as our brain is. — Raul
But this "otherness" and the "me" is another mental object, maybe the highest level one but as any other that emerges during childhood. If you would grow up in the forest (like Frederick II in 13th century did with many children) without any contact to other humans, no contact to human language it is very likely you idea of the others, your "self", would be very very different and you would not have the instruments to make the questions you are making here. This is to say that it is the culture and the environment you grow up that determines your Self and how you are in the world. So this example illustrates as well that this "otherness" and this "me" is a reflexion, a literal mirror-reflexion of the "other" humans that your brain recognize being like you (same body, same gestures, capabilities...). 2 mirrors opposite one to the other. No surprise they generate the idea of infinite like it happens in the infinite images reflected in 2 confronted mirrors. — Raul
No need, professionals in this field have already explained it and earn their lives explaining and making research to better explain how concepts are caused by external objects interacting with our brain. It is not yet digested by the pop-culture but it will come and as always in history, this paradigma-shifts happen in silence. Stanislas Dehaene (who works for French ministry of education) and Georg Northoff are good ones doing this. — Raul
No, here I think you make a fundamental mistake. What I can say is the result of scientific+philosophical studies of the subjective narratives of people, studying their subjectivity. Heterophenomenology successfully studies the subject as an object — Raul
Sorry but yes we can and we do, again through heterophenomenology. Another way is looking at cases where the brain system breaks due to accidents or illness. Those case-studies are so helpful as well to kill so many prejudices about what we're. Good reference here is Ramachandran.
Do you know we can know your decisions before you know them (Libet)? Do you know we can induce a brain to be a religious brain (Ramachandran)? Do you know Capgras syndrome? Did you see in youtube the man with only 7-seconds memory? We can induce you the sense of presence of someone else just with some drugs altering you state of consciousness. A tumor can make you a pedophile (you can google it, real story).
These are cases that allow us to exit from our interior as these are like doors that open to what we're really are and how our brain cheat us :grimace: — Raul
Ontological :-) I understand you use it here in its full metaphysical sense so I have to say nice metaphysical word but not epistemic value outside virtual illusive metaphysical systems. Sorry, here we diverge fundamentally. For me metaphysics is like an invented philosophical religion. I know it sounds strong, but it is how I see it. Well and many other philosophers. I do not subscribe to any meta-something view of things.
You can call me pragmatic. I would not accept this either. All this for me is completely obsolete terminology. I subscribe to naturalism that I'm quite sure you're not familiar with (see Daniel Andler and Sandro Nannini). — Raul
Yes agree, but science does paradigm shifts, progress, what ensures continuous and concrete progress. Philosophy has always had to follow, they go hand-to-hand but science dictates the reality. It is not the other way around. — Raul
And I subscribe to this, while I think Husserl and subsequent followers have gone too far with phenomenology. I'm anyway not an expert on this topic. — Raul
Yes I subscribe to this. — Raul
Wonderful!
Just to say, yes, religiously as God, and not religiously as the "existential delusion" — Raul
Agree. But would you agree that science and technology is the only successful way to scrutinize the trascendental world?
Philosophy's role is that of consolation (Boezio's), about dealing with our inner needs of further existential explanation but most of the epistemic value comes from science. Well, nowadays philosophy is important as well to articulate what human civilizations want to become with all this science and technology challenging the foundations of our ethics, laws and politics. — Raul
Value qua value... yeap!.
It is hard to build the bridge... but I think I'm almost there, thinking that value can be reduced to the homeostatic principle. Or, like I like to do, the other way around... Homeostasis importance has to be expanded as the main driver of existential value.
I know one could say... but homeostasis describes a biological thing, this is materialism... yes and this is the purpose of "naturalism" to get rid of materialistic prejudices and expand the powers of nature! A very much unknown nature that we are discovering is beyond any existential-human claim. — Raul
What is basic is the construction of thought and the world at the level of original generative description; — Constance
This account reduces reality to an aggregate problem solving, — Constance
his is Kierkegaard, — Constance
are not in or of such systems is really what metaphysics is — Constance
Phenomenology allows the world as it is to "speak" and prioritize, allowing meaning to dominate rather than empirical science paradigms in which meaning is localized as one event under the general rubric "the natural world". — Constance
Such researchers do not care about phenomenology — Constance
Moore was a Kantian, then one day just asked, am I raising my hand? Looked at his hand and said, of course! following Diogenes who walked across the room to disprove Parmenides. — Constance
If you really think you can "exit" your interior you have two choices. — Constance
contemporary technical language — Constance
speculative science: — Constance
full naturalization of the mind delivered by cognitive science remains a distant prospect. — Constance
Philosophy is an apriori discipline. — Constance
"science and technology is the only successful way to scrutinize the trascendental world"?? — Constance
that through discussions about what our working concepts can mean and can "hold" in terms of novel theory. — Constance
Philosophy has reached its end, in fact, it "reached" this when Buddha found enlightenment. — Constance
he self and its world is not cognitive; cognition is a tool that seeks out value. — Constance
Using just words? Quite herme-tic as well, isn't it? — Raul
Your intuitions and language are aggregates of problem solving that you learnt while you grow up during your childhood. I would even say more, you would never be able to talk or conceive the linguistic categories if you are not exposed to a family context where people talk. Language is not trascendental and the categories we use are contingent and relative to the problem solving of our lives. — Raul
Would be interesting to see what he would say about superposition states of particles and about bosons and fermions. For me it looks like Kierkegaard's thinking has been overestimated. He was pushed by the christian religions as he served their purposes. But this is another discussion. — Raul
This is you saying those things I talk about are not in those systems. I of course disagree. — Raul
But phenomenology can be conceived within empirical world thanks to heterophenomenology. It is a branch of cognitive naturalism. — Raul
Heterophenomenology is not "existing my interior". It is working under the assumption that your brain and my brain functions the same way so I can study yours to make conclusions about mine. — Raul
No technical language, but the naturalistic presumption. Yours is metaphysical, mine is naturalistic. — Raul
We're all doing speculative thought... it is philosophy :wink: ... but his naturalistic approach is a winning one. — Raul
We're all doing speculative thought... it is philosophy :wink: ... but his naturalistic approach is a winning one. — Raul
Of course, he is humble and realistic, but he follows what I think is the right way... philosophy but with science. Not a philosophy that tries to positioned itself above everything as the king of the world with their anthropocentric views of things (meta-things are good examples). Andler puts nature above anything, being humble pays off. — Raul
Don't you think this is a "religious" absolutist way of defining philosophy? it appears toas your position your capabilities of thinking above any real, above nature. As Daniel Andler and naturalists say, many philosophers position themselves above nature. This simple thing is what naturalism fixes, putting below nature, approach nature in a humble way. Same way science does. — Raul
Yes, together with philosophy, naturalistic one. Are you telling me a phenomenology conceived as only using human reasoning is more powerful? No, quantum mechanics experiments could never be understood using any phenomenological reasoning... goes beyond naif human intuitions. — Raul
Are you serious or being cynic here? — Raul
The where does one go from here? Here, being the starting point for any meaningful inquiry at all: right here, in the midst of the world when one makes the critical reductive move into the present. I am referring to Husserl's phenomenological reduction, the suspension of extraneous "naturalistic" knowledge claims in order liberate "the world" from their presuppositions, then discover the actuality that has been there, always, already, but ignored because one was too busy.
I want to know about what it means for the "present" not to be a nonsense term. I think the path to a discovery of what a self is, lies here, in a discovery of the present. I've been reading Husserl, Heidegger, post Heideggarians and then John Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Wittgenstein's Tractatus, and others (Levinas!) and I have come to the conclusion that the self is not illusory, but my strategy is not a familiar one: the self, the genuine self "behind" the empirically constructed self, if affirmed through ethics, that is, metaethics, the very thing Mackie denies. — Constance
Have you considered this question from the point of view of the "Great Chain of Being"?
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Great_Chain_of_Being
The Great Chain of Being describes the hierarchy of being and its many levels. Man is a microcosm. Man's being is structured like the universe. Plato described our higher and lower natures in the chariot analogy suggesting that the corruption of the dark source is the source of all our difficulties.
Regular ethics tells a person what to do but metaethics describes what we ARE: But it requires a person existing as the three parts of the tripartite soul to become inwardly balanced. Man exists out of balance so cannot experience metaethics but responds to indoctrinated or acquired ethics.
The goal of metaethics is conscious evolution; the evolution of our out of balance level of being into a higher quality of conscious evolution or inner unity along the Great Chain of Being where metaethics or objective conscience would be the norm. — Nikolas
We only know self in juxtaposition to the world and also as part of it. The self has no known material existence that inside or outside the world. Many will provide component parts to show existence of self, this is not relevant. Only you can know self as you do. you cannot know others 'self' because you cannot be other anything. Hence 'self' is the unique you and inclusive of all. . — Peter Paapaa
First, there is the experience and then there is the question! The question opens possibilities. For me, I first look to the actuality of an ethical problem, and determine its parts. I find at the center there is the defining Real: the value. then Wittgenstein, Mackie, and others make their contribution. THEN one may be tempted to draw conclusions about the "meta" nature of evolution, its teleology, perhaps. — Constance
Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful! — Nikolas
Since the acorn is a metaphor, the merit of acornology lies with its borrowed explanatory powers, and to me, it doesn't really capture the analysis of the self. True, cultivating better acorns is roughly like improving oneself, but the devil is in the details and this is not brought out by, well, acorns.
"Chemical analysis" of acorns? What are you (or he) suggesting? This is what needs to be explained. — Constance
The problem is order and value. how do you value a moment compared to an eon or infinity. how do you value a quark compared to a planet. For us humans we have to be able to quantify and qualify things and put them in order to understand some form of algorithm or story that makes sense to us.
What I'm calling existence is outside our conscious awareness (self) and hence cannot be valued within existence or our value systems.
The problem may be (relating to Constance's issue) that your looking for meaning where their is none. Existence doesn't present questions or answers, it just 'is'. What it is everyone and anyone will question but there is no substance or temporal 'fix' we can put on it because it is outside our knowledge and perhaps our understanding of what it is, so it does not fit into the categories, orders and values we have for all other things, there is no interconnective or relational connection to it as compared with all other things within it. It is as definitive as we have got, it is the base of our being the base of our universal understanding.
What is in the world and the interaction of self in the world, everything we do, feel ,think and be is another story of dissection, division, definition, purpose and reason. This is where the complexity of uniqueness, individualism, ism's, social beliefs, systems of belief, and just being in existence itself lies. — Peter Paapaa
The husk of the acorn is analogous to human personality. We are not born with it but it is acquired in life. It is the source of the OPINION of ourselves. We re born with what we ARE. The healthy kernel of life within the husk is analogous to the seed of the soul which has the chance to develop and become an oak or in this case, to become evolved Man. — Nikolas
The seed of the soul is connected by a vertical line to its source. Where our personality is guided by appearance as with materialism, the seed of the soul is nourished by the experience of vertical truth. — Nikolas
As we are, our personality is the dominant part of our lives while the inner man remains in the background and doesn't grow. It is possible that a person can consciously strive to awaken the inner Man containing the seed of the soul by weakening the reactive dominance of our personality. Instead of being limited to animal REACTION they can become capable of conscious ACTION. They can become conscious of the forest rather than being fixated on the trees. — Nikolas
It's not that I disagree with all of this, rather, I don't know its foundation beyond the arbitrary positing of the soul. To argue the case, one has to begin with what is there, present and "at hand" so to speak. From this, one moves outward. — Constance
This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning. — Nikolas
I think for all us soul searchers the relentless seeking for answers has prevented us all to look at 'what is' and claim 'there must be more to this than "what is"'. This notion will always have those who seek beyond and believe there is always more.
Simply, we know too little to say we know so much. Thus there may be more, but our capacity it limited to understanding what we can know.
There has to be a point or points of origin. A point so fundamental that further questioning can only project from it, around it or despite it. It is hard to exclude existence from this base line, and trying to define it is an interesting exercise. Either way it appears to be a 'what is' from which we launch all our everything. — Peter Paapaa
This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning.
— Nikolas
Attention of the heart? You mean emotional attention, to regard the world in a loving way. Self questioning leads to this? I think it requires a certain kind of self questioning. The question opens up possibilities and violates familiar thinking. What happens in self questioning, the "Who am I, really? and Why do we suffer? and so forth? It sounds like you think the question at the basic level presents something, but you cannot yet call it a soul, I don't think. You first have to be more descriptive: what is it one's encounters in inquiry that warrants positing the soul? Here one has dropped standard thinking altogether and entered a relatively alien world, relative, that is, to our everydayness.
Can you confirm such a thing, and explain it keeping faithful to what the world actually presents itsel;f as Being? This is where things get philosophical. Eckhart, remember, wrote of how he prayed to God to be rid of God. He wanted to be free of this everydayness that a lifetime of conditioning imposed on his thoughts and feelings, and, especially, his baseline intuitions. — Constance
I think for all us soul searchers the relentless seeking for answers has prevented us all to look at 'what is' and claim 'there must be more to this than "what is"'. This notion will always have those who seek beyond and believe there is always more.
Simply, we know too little to say we know so much. Thus there may be more, but our capacity it limited to understanding what we can know.
There has to be a point or points of origin. A point so fundamental that further questioning can only project from it, around it or despite it. It is hard to exclude existence from this base line, and trying to define it is an interesting exercise. Either way it appears to be a 'what is' from which we launch all our everything.
— Peter Paapaa
This "what is" has a philosophical history that is not altogether antagonistic to, if you will, reclaiming something deep and primordial about being a self. But it takes some serious reading. I am reading the French post Heideggerians who take the moment of inquiry that sets one apart from mundane thinking very seriously. See Levinas, Michel Henry, Jean luc Marion, and others. Fink's Sixth Meditation hs always been a favorite, but one needs Kant and Husserl for clarity, I think. — Constance
the self, the genuine self "behind" the empirically constructed self, if affirmed through ethics, that is, metaethics, the very thing Mackie denies. — Constance
If you want to begin to understand the origin of NOW have you considered Plotinus' idea of the ONE? — Nikolas
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.