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
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
"Panpsychism" isn't woo? "Substance dualism"? :roll:I agree with Wayfarer. Nobody is wooing any gaps. — frank
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: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
We can’t know the thing represented by its phenomenon directly, that’s true, but it is nonetheless directly presented to us. — Mww
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
You can't comprehend color just as I can. — GraveItty
Would you contend that it is absolutely impossible for phenomenal consciousness to be an emergent property of the brain? — Tom Storm
Existence is woo as far as I'm concerned. — Marchesk
I see a tree, it's a representation. — Manuel
You'd say that we (see) a tree directly? — Manuel
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 think it makes sense, in different senses, to say it both is and is not a tree prior to the cognitive workings. — 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. — Mww
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
There may be two senses, but only one ends in knowledge. Possible knowledge. — Mww
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
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.