Obviously, I meant that I'm familiar with his ouvre.
1h — bongo fury
I don't see any paradox here. Can you explain? — SophistiCat
If you accept the brain as the generative source of consciousness and its phenomena, you are also a brain doing the accepting, so the question goes to where the authority of the accepting lies, for one simply can't get beyond the brain-itself-as-phenomenon, for to affirm a brain as not a phenomenon, one would have to stand apart from a phenomena. — Constance
Or: How can consciousness position itself to "see" consciousness in order to discuss what it is?
There's a big difference between saying that introspection is potentially a valid form of evidence, and having actually accepted any incidences of introspection as valid evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover
You may have something akin to aphantasia so that you have no frame of reference for understanding qualia. — frank
She is one of the smartest people I know. — T Clark
We just 'classify' those particular states and momentums as 'audio' and 'video'. — Isaac
This is an obstacle to creating a theory of consciousness: we're not all the same. Cognition can vary radically from one human to the next.
I think it's a real possibility that people who favor Dennett's view really are different somehow. — frank
I thought Hagel said becoming is primal and being and nothing emerge from it on analysis. — frank
I am not following your argument. I am stuck at "one simply can't get beyond the brain-itself-as-phenomenon, for to affirm a brain as not a phenomenon, one would have to stand apart from a phenomena." Can you expand on this? — SophistiCat
This is an excellent point. Not only is it different, but everyone presumes that their own cognitive makeup is universal. Which leads to some incredibly frustrating discussions on consciousness. — hypericin
The original meaning of "noumenal" was derived from the root "nous" (intellect) - hence "the noumenal" was an "object of intellect" - something directly grasped by reason, as distinct from by sensory apprehension. It ultimately goes back to the supposed "higher" reality of the intelligible Forms in Platonism. — Wayfarer
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.