Crickets!!!!
LOL

So I'll leave you for now, — tim wood

Gee, I was just getting started... Didn't The Rolling Stones have a song .... .

I'll anxiously await your response to my challenge. Let's check your knowledge of philosophy (Be careful what you ask for mr. Wood) LOL

This makes me think of the distinctions between objective truth and subjective truth. We can assume objectively that we all have self-awareness, but we know with a higher degree of certainty that our own truth is pure subjectivity. — 3017amen

Yeah, Its like within our belief system we have a self awareness, but belief systems are not fact / truth systems. They have a probabilistic validity, so that seems to imply we really have a probabilistic self awareness, which is not a true self awareness. It may be however, that this situation can never be improved upon given each individual consciousness is unique, and given the evolving / emerging nature of the universe.

So, all are good, depending of what we're parsing. We must know which hats to wear when questions are posed. Ironically enough, being reasonable essentially means treating like cases likely, different cases differently.

To this end, can you describe your thoughts and interpretations relative to dualism v. monism? — 3017amen

Yes, I think all consciousness is good :smile: provided it confers survival. To this end, some are better then others , but we wont know which are better for sure and why until some future time, when they have proven themselves, given the probabilistic nature of the future.

I cannot find a conceptual pathway for the existence of dualism that I can have faith in. Having a conceptual pathway that can, to some extent at least can be verified is important to me. Understanding consciousness as self organization, within a self organizing universe, seems like a viable monistic pathway towards a big picture understanding. Personally, its not quite there yet, but it seems close.

I would be interested in how you justify dualism?

Can it be said that to be truly self-aware means to recognize, itemize, hence understand the necessary grounds of one’s mental activities? And can it be said that a theory of everything would limit itself to the exposition of those grounds, sufficient for any human, rational self to compare against?

If so, I submit Kant’s tripartite critique fits the requirements.

Keyword, of course....theory. — Mww

Perhaps I should have said a theory of everything , that everybody agrees on, like E=mc2. :smile:

"Kant had a tripartite doctrine of the a priori. He held that some features of the mind and its knowledge had a priori origins, i.e., must be in the mind prior to experience (because using them is necessary to have experience). That mind and knowledge have these features are a priori truths, i.e., necessary and universal (B3/4)[1]. And we can come to know these truths, or that they are a priori at any rate, only by using a priori methods, i.e., we cannot learn these things from experience " - SEP

I think, in present times this a priori knowledge would be DNA data forming brain structure. At birth we have a certain DNA profile, which over time epigenetics changes ( turns some genes on, and others off ) in relation to experience, which in turn changes brain structure, which in turn changes the a priori knowledge, and so on, and on. ( to some extent ). ** This is also consistent with Piaget's theory of cognitive development - where perception improves in stages.

A theory of everything would explain why this self organization occurs. I don't see how Kant explains this? Most of my knowledge is derived from outside of philosophy. I have only read a little of Kant's views on Aesthetics, which seemed dated to me. So no doubt I am missing something?

I believe that we don’t liv in a world of objects. Not saying the objective world isn’t true but you liv in a pyramid of values(abstract reality) Without it you wouldn’t know which facts to take in as there would be too many. And you wouldn’t know where to go. And for A to go to B you need a value hierarchy.

I'll try a different tactic. Once again your point #8:

8 With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness? — 3017amen

The plain language reading of this is that you are claiming that religion is a natural science. If my reading of this is incorrect and, as @180 Proof hypothesized, you are simply making some sort of analogy? Then please explain what you actually mean.

BUT - if my plain language reading is accurate- that religion is a type or form or subset of natural science, then I disagree. Religion - all religions - are based on supernatural claims which are outside the realm/discourse of what science (let alone natural science) deals with. Science does not deal with supernatural claims.

Again, I'm only talking about your point #8. If you feel the urge to bring in anything from points #1 thru #7, please resist that urge and proceed directly to point #8.

Also, this is not a criticism of religion or people being religious. It is merely to make clear that religion is not a natural science. Please limit your response to this one narrow topic only.

I agree. there where no scientists at that time.

Not everything about religion is supernatural. I think they explained more how we should act in the world and different types of “truths”.

Like noah and the flood. Many people see it as a real boat. It’s more a truism for every human being. The flood is coming no matter who you are. And too be prepared for it (building the boat) is the “true” way.

*i know you where not talking too me

Perhaps I should have said a theory of everything , that everybody agrees on — Pop

Yeah, a TOE usually implies physical properties, whereas you stipulated a theory sufficient for explaining how one could be “truly self-aware”. I only responded as I did because my self-awareness is theoretically conceivable, but for me to imagine a sufficient a posteriori TOE, is not, under the same conditions.
——————

I think, in present times this a priori knowledge would be DNA data forming brain structure. — Pop

That’s fine. A physical theory predicated on observation with the same translation problem as extant metaphysical theory predicated on transcendental logic. The former starts at the top but cannot deduce the necessary mechanism for the human condition of “seemings”, while the latter begins at the bottom with “seemings” but cannot infer the internal mechanisms sufficient for creating them. Kant didn’t try to reconcile these, and neither does a DNA-based theory, with respect to a priori knowledge. Still, at this stage of the game, even a DNA-based theory of fundamental human nature remains metaphysical, insofar as repeatable empirical proofs are unavailable.
——————

Most of my knowledge is derived from outside of philosophy. — Pop

As is mine; as is everybody’s. Nevertheless, knowledge derived from is very far from knowledge acquired of.

Self-organization is a good place to start. Metaphysics has already been there with consciousness, perhaps DNA will get there eventually.

What then, would be your creation ex nihilo theory?[/quote]

I find ex nihilo creation to be a blatantly absurd idea.

Creation becomes a rather different idea in nondualism since metaphysically-speaking nothing would really exist or ever really happen. After all, it it did then we'd be unable to explain how it is created.

FR! Thank you for your response. I agree that there are gaps (some of which obviously having to do with recent discoveries over time...) but what is your take on that notion of DDS? — 3017amen

I don't know it well enough to say much, but what I see in it is the Christian version of the Perennial view. The simplest phenomenon possible is a Unity, so the DDS brings Christian teachings in line with the teachings of the Buddha and Lao Tsu, as were the Classical teachings of the early Church before the great purge of mysticism.by the Roman bishopric in the fourth century.. . .

Also, this is not a criticism of religion or people being religious. It is merely to make clear that religion is not a natural science. Please limit your response to this one narrow topic only. — EricH

This thread is about Metaphysics, first and foremost (The Video, Items 1 thru 7, 7 of 8). If you're interested in parsing these distinctions (even for those fanatical atheists espousing their belief systems) relating to science and religion, I will graciously offer you an olive branch.

However, it comes at a price. In the spirit of doing one's homework (and not just trolling/cherry picking/malicious ad hominem...), refer to the following document below, then present your case as to why you think Natural Science is incompatible with the Life Science (phenomenology, cognitive science, religion, etc.).

In addition, to use your words, I'll even take a "different tactic". If you care to open another thread on the subject matter, I would be more than willing to explore it. Because once again, this thread is about Metaphysics; not Religion. (Unless you want to argue otherwise in a new thread that Metaphysics and Religion should be compatible.) But just to worn you, since that topic is broad/comprehensive, it includes my influences from those of David Hume, William James, Freud (among many other's).

But just to stay focused here's my OP supposition in exploring consciousness:

"8. With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness?"


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

As predicted, you cannot answer this one simple question. Our discussion has now looped around three times with me asking a question and you giving me non-answers and/or attempting to switch the dialogue.

I don't have the bandwidth to engage you further, my real life activities are much higher priority. I give you the last word . . .

My last word, with all due resect, is that you have proved by default (or at least one can reasonably infer) to be just cherry picking/trolling this thread. I provided an opportunity to have real meaningful philosophical debate, and you declined. The subject matter is too comprehensive, unless of course you accept that your belief is the only one, or you are simply not sure what your position even is... . In any case, you seem to be pleading the 5th..

Should you change your mind, I still welcome the challenge. I would suggest, read the aforementioned attachment as it will only broaden your philosophical knowledge in that area...

As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts? — Pop

Pop!

Just going back through the questions in order to get caught-up, did 180 ever provide for a Metaphysical insight to that?

I guess you guys have some history and scores to settle. I think I'd rather stay out of it. Its been good to chat. :up:

Warranted criticism is not "belittling", you fuckin' half-wit. :snicker: — 180 Proof

And if you continue to send me private messages to harass me I will report you to the moderators. — 3017amen

I have asked you more than ten times to respond to a question about something you wrote, which you have wriggled away from like a weasel from fire, refusing to respond. So I won't ask. I will simply observe that when you imply that religion is akin to a "natural/physical science," you're simply making clear that you do not know what religion is, you do not know what science is, that in short you do not know what you're talking about nor are interested in knowing. And your persistent evasion reveals itself as an ultimately vicious pathology. So I'll leave you for now, as the weasel you have revealed yourself as. — tim wood

these three are at one another’s throats again...

@tim wood & I are never "at each other's throats". Ever. And I just rodeo clown 3017's bull**** for shitz-n-gigglz (comic relief aka "taking the piss") when I'm bored.

As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. — Pop

Since "consciousness" is not a fundamental process and "emotions" are components, so to speak, of "consciousness", I fail to discern any grounds for assuming that "emotions" operate at a "fundamental level" even in monist ontology. Only magical thinking, it seems to me, assumes otherwise.

Stop baiting, please. You're turning your own thread into a circus.

It's okay you can close the thread now.

Thanks Baden.