So tell us what you think ...The issue which I am trying to think about is how these concepts emerged and inform thinking, especially in relation to human consciousness. — Jack Cummins
Tell me how do you know that any other human being than yourself has "inner experiences". None of the concepts in the OP make clear how you (or anyone) can know that.... the inner experiences of human beings — Jack Cummins
Yet if another didn't have "inner experiences" but acted or spoke as if she did, you wouldn't – couldn't – know. It seems to me, Jack, that's not a reliable way of knowing.We know that other people have inner experiences because we are able to talk about them in a comparative way. — Jack Cummins
If by "inner experiences" what you mean is subjective, then I don't see what about them can possibly be called "common" (i.e. public, objective). :chin:... common aspects of such experience.
You take it as a given but you don't know. I agree it's a handy heuristic, and maybe that's all it is.Of course, we have subjective experiences. — Jack Cummins
... and your / my own "mind" too – since it's also "subjective" – perhaps an introspection illusion ...We can make some guess at others' minds ...
I'll quibble with your term "requires equilibrium". The thesis merely accepts as a fact of life, that this world is not perfect for human needs & desires, so it's necessary for us humans to work within the physical constraints of the natural world. In that case, equilibrium would be like a Mexican Standoff, in which nobody wins. Despite the odds stacked against us, we "teleological" people tend to aim for perfection (Heaven). But a fatalistic "happiness" is to settle for stable equilibrium. Yet, in the Hegelian dialectic, notice the dashed arrow down the middle of the zig-zag path of evolutionary progress. That is an interpolation of the average path through history. It's neither Good nor Evil, but acceptable, it's OK..↪Gnomon
It seems your Enformationism, since it requires an equilibrium between negentropy/Enformy and entropy, is fully compatible with evil (re BothAnd) and there you rock religion's boat (religion dedicates itself to uprooting evil from society).
True, we're teleologically-oriented people and we work towards an ideal - we want, sensu amplissimo, a long (eternal), happy life, but this is exactly what The Architect and Agent Smith say we rejected in The Matrix. Hence, I suppose, me question. — Agent Smith
Technology to the rescue ... again? Yep, I concur, it seems possible to turn earth into a paradise, but then when yin peaks, yang is just around the corner. — Agent Smith
I suppose what you're implying is that "pain is a necessary evil". Hence Evil is not optional for a learning & growing process. Positive & negative feedback are how we learn in a heuristic (trial & error) process. But a nudge in the right direction should be sufficient, so why the torment of cancer? What do we learn from pain without a lesson? Maybe bad things happen to good people, simply so we can learn that "God is no respecter of persons" (Romans 2:11). Without experience of Evil (Satan), we would not recognize Good (God) -- life would be meaningless. "No awareness, no subjectivity", no cognizance, no knowing. . . . no progress, no growth, no maturation. :smile:Anyway, in relation to Gnomon's dialectic there is no memory of the life in the womb as such; there is no event, nothing much happens; "there's absolutely no strife, living the timeless life". Birth is the antithesis of life in the womb, the first event, and awareness is the first synthesis. Thus is the problem of evil easily answered: without the pain and terror, there would be no awareness, no subjectivity. — unenlightened
so why the torment of cancer? — Gnomon
“Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is optional.” – Roger Crawford — Gnomon
:death: :flower:Life is the dialectic. Bliss plus torment produces awareness. Again and again; more and more. Take the heroin and ease the pain at the cost of your life. — unenlightened
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.