After death or the eternal debate on if there is or not anything afterwards.

But I guess that philosophical puzzle could be included both on "Consciousness" and "The nature of meaning/rationality/intelligibility"

What are the biggest puzzles in philosophy to you? — Andrew4Handel

Another puzzle, perhaps overriding all of these, is why it is believed that humans will ever be capable of solving these puzzles.

What reason is given that humans will ever be able to solve these puzzles.

Looks like a quickly-written list mon ami. Were you in a hurry to get somewhere?

I suppose I would add Time to my list. It is an elusive concept more in the realm of physics.

You can ask if there is anything before as well.

I am friendly to the notion of the persistence of consciousness.

I think that death is a topic in the meaning of life as well. Meaning in the face of potential personal oblivion.

The problems of philosophy are reducible to the problem of reason:

“….. These unavoidable problems of mere pure reason are God, freedom (of will), and immortality. The science which, with all its preliminaries, has for its especial object the solution of these problems is named metaphysics—a science which is at the very outset dogmatical, that is, it confidently takes upon itself the execution of this task without any previous investigation of the ability or inability of reason for such an undertaking.…”

If these puzzles are ultimately insoluble by humans, then why not also add "World Peace" to the list.

My "puzzle" ...
(yin) the impossible is X
(yang) the unthinkable is Y

My concerns are not on if we have conciousness afterwards but understand the meaning of death. Western world tend to have a very poor/negative view in both death and suicide.
Nonetheless, I am reading books of Japanese witters for the last two years and their vision is different. More pure, clear, without mysticism. They accept it in a poetic/heroic manner. I want to approach that feeling one day.

Or, when will we realize that these “puzzles” are not meant to be solved, but to be dissolved away by reflecting on how we use our language.

I can measure the length of a box, but what am I measuring when it comes to time? And so begins the puzzling….

What are the biggest puzzles in philosophy to you? — Andrew4Handel

The point of philosophy is playing with the puzzles, not solving them. There aren't really any solutions.

To come to a universal consensus regarding the definition of metaphysics.

Al-haqq (The Truth), what is it?

What does it mean to solve the puzzle of consciousness. In what sense can we ever understand consciousness. In what sense do we understand anything. How do we understand what it is to understand. What do we think we understand and how do we understand them.

For example, as regards science it is said we understand the following: Big Bang Theory, Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Universal Law of Gravitation, Newton's Laws of Motion, Laws of Thermodynamics, Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle, Evolution and Natural Selection, Theory of General Relativity and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Yet such understanding is metaphorical, in that we understand the start of the universe as a "big bang", something we have experience of in our daily lives, whether fireworks, an explosion or a door slamming.

As regards society, it is said we have a good understand of the following: government, religion, education, economy, language, politics, culture, ethnicity, gender and recreation. Yet such understanding is of concepts that only exist in the mind, in that governments don't exist in a mind-independent world.

Our understanding is therefore based on either metaphor which only exist in the mind or concepts which again only exist in the mind. Even if we did better understand consciousness, such understanding can only ever be a better understanding of the concepts existing in our mind and can never be an understanding of what in a mind-independent world caused these concepts in the mind.

So, to better understand the nature of consciousness, the best we can do is look for better metaphors to explain it. The Truth only exists in language.

The point of philosophy is playing with the puzzles, not solving them. There aren't really any solutions. — T Clark

:up: How to answer unanswerables? How to eff ineffables? How to comprehend incomprehensibles? How to explain inexplicables? How to prove unprovables? How to ... basically ... do the impossible?



Good luck! If I'm not back in 3000 years, I'm dead!

I'm mostly interested to understand why a given matter is thought to be a puzzle.

I'm mostly interested to understand why a given matter is thought to be a puzzle. — Tom Storm

What do you mean by a given matter?

A puzzle is something that is hard to understand. Maybe you are overconfident in your perceived understanding of reality?

The first philosophical puzzle I encountered was as a young child when I imagined going out into space. Hitting a brick wall and realising there must be something behind that wall that there was a conceivable infinite. I also thought about the concept of God creating the earth and realised there must have been an infinite time before God randomly decided to create the earth (The puzzle of the infinite past)

It wasn't until later on when I started to think about consciousness in my early 20's but I didn't have a name for it because nobody at any stage until I was 23 to 24 had mentioned the word consciousness. It wasn't mentioned in school or college.

Bizarre really that the source of all my experiences was never talked about as if it was irrelevant.

Strangely nobody I have randomly met ever seems to have spontaneously thought about these things including family members. it is like they have a lack of curiosity or don't like ruminating.

What does it mean to solve the puzzle of consciousness. — RussellA

I think our best understanding may be mechanical where we can see how A causes B.

At the same time we are good at predicting humans behaviour and the behaviour of things in our environment.

That may be partly to do with the idea of constant conjunction where things co-occur reliably and we become good at predicting or inferring.

Our capacity to understand is itself something of a mystery. It may be shared by a few other animals to some degree who seem able to predict their environment. But in a mechanical world view there doesn't seem to be room to reflect on the truth of something or to use symbols. So The behaviourist tried to model everything with stimulus and response learning. But that was trumped by the cognitive revolution.

The biggest philosophical puzzle I’ve encountered is the people who are trying to solve them. :wink:

Our capacity to understand is itself something of a mystery. — Andrew4Handel

If understanding is knowledge about a subject, our understanding and knowledge can only go so far, until reaching an inevitable barrier beyond which they cannot pass. There is no topic that does not hit such a barrier beyond which is unknown and not understood.

We can infer what will happen through observing constant conjunctions, that because the sun rose in the east for the previous 100 days there is the inference that tomorrow it will also rise in the east, but this does not mean that we understand why the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

We may understand and know the rules of algebra, such that 5 * 3 + 2 = 17 whilst 5 * (3 + 2) = 25, or we may understand the rules of language, in order to know when someone says "that's OK", whether they are praising me, criticizing me, expressing exasperation with me, encouraging me, or even saying you’re disgusted with me. Yet such understanding and knowledge is founded on rules that we must accept and not question if wanting to keep on playing the social game.

Beyond the knowable is the unknown, which can only understand in terms of metaphor, figure of speech, myth, parable, fable, etc.

All our understanding and knowledge is thereby founded on metaphor, figure of speech, myth, parable, fable, etc.

What do you mean by a given matter?

A puzzle is something that is hard to understand. Maybe you are overconfident in your perceived understanding of reality? — Andrew4Handel

Not at all. By a given matter I meant matters of philosophy that people consider to be a puzzle, eg, the nature of consciousness, and questions in epistemology, etc. Should I have not used the term 'given matter'? I joined this site to develop a better understanding of what some of the key questions and debates in philosophy are. I never assumed reality is knowable.

I never assumed reality is knowable — Tom Storm

I'd always assumed so because our minds seem – must be? – inseparable from reality (pace Kant, Descartes, Plato) but I'd also realized that we only ever 'know reality' – orient ourselves – approximately, or superficially, via myths, metaphors, maps & models.

I'd also realized that we only ever 'know reality' – orient ourselves – approximately, or superficially, via myths, metaphors, maps & models. — 180 Proof

Nice. That's my provisional position at the moment. I think being here helped me to modify my thinking, and soften my earlier dogmatism. How often do you change or modify your views on philosophical questions?

How often do you change or modify your views on philosophical questions? — Tom Storm

Less and less the older I get. (Old dog vs new tricks paradox?) IIRC, the last major change was over fifteen years ago – a radical shift in my thinking about and comprehension of metaphysics (thanks again, @Tobias) – and subsequently lots of minor tweaks and refinements, mostly of my conceptual vocabulary. I've also discovered many and developed a few new arguments which I'm always trying to improve. The path itself is the destination, right?

That's very interesting, thanks. I need to work on my conceptual vocabulary.

:up:

Less and less the older I get. (Old dog vs new tricks paradox?) IIRC, the last major change was over fifteen years ago – a radical shift in my thinking about and comprehension of metaphysics (thanks again, Tobias) – and subsequently lots of minor tweaks and refinements, mostly of my conceptual vocabulary. I've also discovered many and developed a few new arguments which I'm always trying to improve. The path itself is the destination, right? — 180 Proof

Rigor mortis is postmortem mon ami! I'm done trying to find the true view (satya drishti or orthodoxa): my stance (view) is no stance (no view) - there's a war going on (thesis vs. antithesis) and like a stray dog, I visit both sides - sometimes I'm fed well, sometimes I'm shooed away. I'm a happy dog. Woof, woof!

:smirk: You're a kynic, I'm an epicurean.

You're a kynic, I'm an epicurean. — 180 Proof

:grin: I'm surprised that a man of your caliber isn't a Pyrrhonist/skeptic.

Just so you know, your memory is exceptional. I wonder if others have noticed.

I was a pyrrhonian back in my wayward youth and still have great regard for that form of skepsis (incorporating its praxis, along with fallibilism, in my epicurean-spinozist-absurdist 'framework' :cool:)