Philosophical naturalism is the study of the window. — 180 Proof
I believe that the principal difference between Kant and Plato on this matter is that Plato believed that the human mind could have direct unmediated access to these independent intelligible objects (what Kant calls noumena), but Kant denied that the human mind could have any direct knowledge of the noumena. — Metaphysician Undercover
As a philodophical naturalist myself, I'm sure you're wrong about thst, sirPhilosophical naturalism is the study of the window.
— 180 Proof
No, that would be philosophy of science — Wayfarer
Well, I'm a physicist so I'm going to be biased toward the physicalist/materialist PoVs. I tend to think that property dualism explains things reasonably well, though. — tom111
Yes, and my point is that with physicalism, the question of whether x is conscious will always be open-ended. That suggests the physicalism framework is a dead-end. — RogueAI
Schopenhauer accused Kant of appopriating the term for his purposes without proper regard to its prior meaning for Greek and Scholastic philosophy — Wayfarer
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. — Wayfarer
You can build a simple neural network that classifies images of glyphs into the symbols they represent. Is such a system aware of the symbols? — hypericin
Suppose you create a machine that you believe is conscious. You can learn all the physical facts there are to know about the machine, and still not be any closer to answering the question of whether it's conscious or not. Since there are no new physical facts to learn about the machine, physicalism fails to provide any answer to the "is it conscious?" question. — RogueAI
This is also how Kant used the term. The noumenon for Kant is an object of intellectual intuition (non-sensible representation of reality).
The difference is that Kant argued that such intuition is a faculty we do not have. — Jamal
Is Kant saying we reason that the real world responsible for our senses is beyond our perceptions and reason? There is a real world responsible for us reasoning and perceiving, but it's unknowable and we can't say anything meaningful about it, only the one of appearances our minds shape from our sensory manifold? — Marchesk
I wonder what Kant would make of the modern consciousness debate. I suspect he would think it's beside the point with both sides making a fundamental error of mistaking the phenomenal physical for the noumenal. There's no point in arguing whether there's a hard problem if it's all phenomenal anyway. — Marchesk
I thought the analogy of logic clear. — Constance
I don't see how, at the level of basic questions, anything can be posited that is not phenomena. — Constance
That encountering is phenomenological. What isn't? — Constance
But I can't see how such things as logical and geometric principles can be construed in any way other than as objects of intellectual intuition. — Wayfarer
(Perhaps this ought to be a separate thread, but I'm more than happy to participate in one.) — Wayfarer
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
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
Chalmers is the source of several well known thought experiments that show that phenomenal consciousness and functionality are not identical, so proponents of aforementioned "function equals phenomenal" carry a burden of justifying that. — frank
Chalmers is the source of several well known thought experiments that show that phenomenal consciousness and functionality are not identical, — frank
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.