I agree with Wayfarer. Nobody is wooing any gaps. — frank

The issue here might be that one man's woo is another's dogma.

The issue here might be that one man's woo is another's dogma. — Tom Storm

Or it's a clash of dogmas.

Correct on the part of him saying that we aware of our brains, through experience. But, as I understand it, Neutral Monism is not so much that mind and matter are indistinguishable. Neutral Monism is the idea that world is neither mental nor physical as we understand these terms. — Manuel

:100:

In Spinozistic terms, nature or God (as substance) is neither mental nor physical, but mental and physical are distinguishable attributes of substance.

Or it's a clash of dogmas. — frank

No question. But I wonder if some expressions of dogma are preferable to others. I would rather wrestle with a Catholic dogmatist than one from Islamic State.

I agree with you that there needs to be something which grounds the phenomena we are interpreting. It's just that we can't go directly to these grounds. — Manuel

We don’t need to go directly to those grounds. They come to us, as undetermined, but determinable, somethings, by means of perception. We can’t know the thing represented by its phenomenon directly, that’s true, but it is nonetheless directly presented to us.

:up:

I agree with Wayfarer. Nobody is wooing any gaps. — frank

"Panpsychism" isn't woo? "Substance dualism"? :roll:

Your continual invocation of 'woo of the gaps' only illustrates that you're not grasping problem at hand. It's a hard problem for physicalism and naturalism ... — Wayfarer

And again, you prove my point by incoherently (in this case) invoking philosophical criteria when referring to a problem even an idealist like you, Wayf, acknowledges is empirical. Oh I grasp this topic – which is outside your supernatural ("new age") ambit – just fine. :sweat:

:100:

We can’t know the thing represented by its phenomenon directly, that’s true, but it is nonetheless directly presented to us. — Mww

Or it could be said differently as "there is nonetheless a direct presentation (as in "a making present) via us".

That's a very sensible way of thinking formulating the problem, actually. :up:

We can’t know the thing represented by its phenomenon directly, that’s true, but it is nonetheless directly presented to us. — Mww

What do you mean by directly presented?

I see a tree, it's a representation. It's grounds are unknown to me, I follow this far.

What's directly presented here?



This makes more sense.

A list of the uninvited?
————-

We can’t know the thing represented by its phenomenon directly, that’s true, but it is nonetheless directly presented to us.
— Mww

Or it could be said differently as "there is nonetheless a direct presentation (as in "a making present) via us". — Janus

Perhaps, but then comes the notion that we are necessary causality for empirical realities. And if subjectivity is true, there can be no account for why a dog isn’t sometimes a ‘57 DeSoto.

There is a making present via us, but it isn’t perception.

You can't comprehend color just as I can. — GraveItty

Well, your experience happens to you (as also set out above). They're part of your (ontological) makeup when occurring.

Another aspect: I can't (even in principle) experience your self-awareness, since then I'd be you instead. Self-awareness is indexical. This stuff is pervaded by self-reference. And happenings (temporal).

We can still chit-chat about the world, though, including self-awareness. Meaningfully, too. Or we'd have no forums. :)

No question. But I wonder if some expressions of dogma are preferable to others. I would rather wrestle with a Catholic dogmatist than one from Islamic State. — Tom Storm

That's probably because Catholics don't burn heretics at the stake anymore.

Panpsychism" isn't woo? "Substance dualism"? :roll: — 180 Proof

Substance dualism is Descartes. How did that enter the conversation?

Is panpsychism woo? I don't think so.

Is panpsychism woo? — frank

Existence is woo as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry! I meant that you can comprehend color... Just as I can. It's blue.

Would you contend that it is absolutely impossible for phenomenal consciousness to be an emergent property of the brain? — Tom Storm

I think that is a meaningless expression. It transposes the discussion into an inappropriate frame of reference.

Existence is woo as far as I'm concerned. — Marchesk

Right on. We're made of it.

I see a tree, it's a representation. — Manuel

Depends on your chosen epistemological theory. Your eyes don’t tell you there’s a tree, they only tell you there’s an object. If your eyes don’t tell you anything but that there is an object, it is up to the cognitive system to render that something into that which can be known as one thing. And that rendering is called phenomenon. Platonic knowledge that (there is a thing present), not yet epistemic knowledge of (what the thing is).
———-

You'd say that we (see) a tree directly? — Manuel

Nope. We see.....sense..... something directly. It isn’t a tree until the intellect gets done with it, somewhere downstream in the mental process. Even get a tickle on the back of your neck, and sometime between energizing your arm to swap it, you flash on a big fat bug you’re about to splatter all over yourself? Same conditions for any and all perceptions; you perceive the sensation, but have no immediate knowledge of its cause.

Perhaps, but then comes the notion that we are necessary causality for empirical realities. And if subjectivity is true, there can be no account for why a dog isn’t sometimes a ‘57 DeSoto.

There is a making present via us, but it isn’t perception. — Mww

I agree, it is a collaboration between us and the world (which are not separate except per conceptual distinctions) so yes the making present via us is not merely perception.

Existence is woo as far as I'm concerned. — Marchesk

Good point.

Nope. We see.....sense..... something directly. It isn’t a tree until the intellect gets done with it, somewhere downstream in the mental process. — Mww

I think it makes sense, in different senses, to say it both is and is not a tree prior to the cognitive workings.

Gotcha.

Good stuff. :up:

so yes the making present via us is not merely perception. — Janus

But if you follow this out to its logical end, that which is present via us, can only be because of us, which makes the collaboration internal, eliminating the world from it entirely. Entirely, post-perception, that is.

Existence is woo as far as I'm concerned. — Marchesk

That's a bizarre comment. Existence is the very most commonplace. It is the attempt to answer the ill-formed question: "what is existence" that leads to all kinds of woo.

Nope. We see.....sense..... something directly. It isn’t a tree until the intellect gets done with it, somewhere downstream in the mental process. — Mww

Yes, and the notion of a tree is an intersubjective agreement, unlikely to be a concept we would acquire unassisted.

I think it makes sense, in different senses, to say it both is and is not a tree prior to the cognitive workings. — Janus

Before cognitive workings, yes, we could say that. But if the prime human pursuit is knowledge, to say that and include the cognitive workings, we must abandon the principle of identity. There may be two senses, but only one ends in knowledge. Possible knowledge.

But if you follow this out to its logical end, that which is present via us, can only be because of us, which makes the collaboration internal, eliminating the world from it entirely. Entirely, post-perception, that is. — Mww

I don't think the notion of internality is helpful here. Certainly the presencing or presenting of the world to us would not be without us, but it would not be without the world, either. So, the conclusion would seem to be that it is neither internal nor external or it is both internal and external; one or other of that dialectical pair is deployed alone usefully only in certain local contexts, not globally. That's my take anyway.

That's a bizarre comment. Existence is the very most commonplace. It is the attempt to answer the ill-formed question: "what is existence" that leads to all kinds of woo. — Janus

“It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein

It isn’t a tree until the intellect gets done with it, somewhere downstream in the mental process.
— Mww

Yes, and the notion of a tree is an intersubjective agreement, unlikely to be a concept we would acquire unassisted. — Tom Storm

Agreed. WE would not require an unassisted conception, but somebody did. Which reduces to, every conception was somebody’s unassisted baby.

Conscious minds.

Does a Conscious Mind actually exist? Yes. A conscious mind exists physically as a material object. You can see it. I see my conscious mind every day when I shave.

A conscious mind exists in space and time and exists in the form of arrangements or patterns of brain cells inside of a human head. It is lodged in that big, wide bump just above the eyes which is called "a pre frontal lobe".

That bump is a conscious mind.

The conscious mind is bone encased, The conscious mind is made of human brain cells or more accurately as patterns of brain cells.

A conscious mind can be cut out of a person's head with a scalpel and thrown into a waste basket.

It is a well known fact that there are men who are alive today that have had their conscious minds amputated and the enclosing skin pulled back and sewn together again. This surgical operation is a last resort operation used to save the lives of people who have brain disorders like brain cancer inside the cells of their prefrontal lobes.

Afterwards these men can live happily but can no longer use words.

I am not speaking figuratively. I am speaking literally. I am stating well know facts.

But the following may be original.

Please look at some of the words I just spoke. Look at the word "figuratively". Look at the word "am". look at the word "speaking".

Where did I find these words? I found them in a big word storage box located somewhere inside of my prefrontal lobe called "my vocabulary".

They were detected and stored and turned into sound waves or typed words by my conscious mind. That's what my conscious mind is there for. To work with words.

When I was born I had a word box but it was empty. The first word I learned and stored in that box probably was the word "Mama".

Part of my growing up was the learning of new words. Since I love reading books, usually for pleasure, and I also speak Spanish I have stored well over a thousand words in that box.

Only humans have conscious minds. No animal has that bump.

What do conscious mind cells look like?

They look like bloody lard. The cells themselves are made largely of fat with some carbohydrates and proteans.

I have eaten such brain cells with lots of lemon and salt in Calf Brain recipes.

Well, so what have I done here??

I have asked my conscious mind to tell me what a conscious mind is and it did. Great!

Conscious minds were evolved in the human race (and only in the human race) very recently, perhaps less that a half million years ago.

But that is another story. For later.

Consciousness. That is another, and far more difficult question. I tend to agree with Leteltty. Later.

There may be two senses, but only one ends in knowledge. Possible knowledge. — Mww

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that it is knowledge of a tree (tree of knowledge :wink: ) only because of us? Again there would be no knowledge without us, granted, but there would be no knowledge without the tree, either, no? Or perhaps I have misunderstood?

That's a bizarre comment. Existence is the very most commonplace. It is the attempt to answer the ill-formed question: "what is existence" that leads to all kinds of woo. — Janus


“It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein — Marchesk

I don't see any inconsistency there. Existence is commonplace until we try to explain it; at which point ti becomes mystical. Woo is the attempt to make the mystical commonplace, or the indeterminable determinate as I think I said earlier. The mystical is the indeterminable. In another sense the mystical, the indeterminable, is already commonplace, but not the commonplace of the determinable.