...the judgment unlike a taste, brings with it the feeling that it is the way it ought to be judged. Taken together, one would think that theoretically, anything, and everything could be seen as beautiful... — Wosret
I would best describe the experience as a connection to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient presence that perpetuates every part of my being, it doesn't "linger" over it, it completely transcends my physical body and connects me with a part of everything else. — stonedthoughtsofnature
No idea how I would be able to prove this since it's subjectively experienced, but I believe everyone can harvest the same experience within themselves through the process of introspection and deep insights into the center of the psyche. — stonedthoughtsofnature
I wonder if this effect could be psychologically described as imagination enhancement. In other words, could entheogens be considered to be a crutch for those who lack imagination? — Galuchat
It might be true that someone who is brain dead is simply gone from this world, and certainly will no longer be counted as a person if 'person' is defined as 'someone who acts in the world'. But again that defining person entirely in terms of function and you haven't given an argument for why that would be right. Also the crucial word "observable" is missing in what you quoted. You must have been responding as I was editing. — John
The point is that not everyone agrees that intentionality is real; we infer it and attribute it to others and ourselves on account of the illusion we have that we are in control, according to this argument. I'm not saying I agree with that, but there seems to be no directly observable phenomenon that can be identified as intentionality. We either rightly intuit it in ourselves and others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly intuit it in nature; or we rightly intuit it in ourselves and merely infer it of others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly infer it of nature; or we are completely deluded about it, and there is no real intentionality anywhere. — John
that it even makes sense to categorise the world as belonging to the same set which includes persons like you and I. — Sapientia
huge difference between inferring intentionality from a person and from nature. — Sapientia
I haven't ever suggested that any such thing makes sense. — John
So, the question is really as to whether there is any intentionality operating 'behind' phenomena. And the answer to that question is not obvious at all, and is not even conceivably attainable by empirical enquiry or 'pure' reason. — John
We either rightly intuit it in ourselves and others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly intuit it in nature; or we rightly intuit it in ourselves and merely infer it of others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly infer it of nature; or we are completely deluded about it, and there is no real intentionality anywhere. — John
On the other hand you have completely failed to cite any empirical evidence for the [huge difference between inferring intentionality from a person and from nature]. How about outlining it for us? — John
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 ā just fascinating conversations.