I know my "box' contains something, and I assume that you know yours does, even though I cannot know that for sure. So, there is private experience, and we all know that, because we can emetertain thoughts and feelings that others cannot know about. — Janus
What I would like is an argument, or observation, or evidence, that shows the emergence of consciousness from human bodies is conceptually possible. — bert1
I agree with you about using language to express thoughts and feelings that are otherwise hard to express. On the point quoted though, I think we can just as easily explain in the other direction. We can think of mentalistic language evolving within a larger system of signs exchanged by cooperative and competitive organisms. For instance, it's more efficient to be lenient on those who harm the tribe 'accidentally.'This language is only possible on account of the commonalities of private experience as I see it. — Janus
I am becoming less impressed with chat GBT, :lol: It certainly would not pass my Turing style test! — universeness
So you like to misquote AI systems, as well as favour misquotes of Churchill.
I begin to understand why you defend those who love biblical satire.
You prefer the ridiculous to the accurate. :roll: — universeness
And what is a "fact" verses "belief". I believe facts. That belief is a fact. See what I did there? So there is a connection and interplay. — Benj96
If everyone unanimously believed in something objectively untestable. — Benj96
I have no significant issue with you. — universeness
I apologise — universeness
I will always prefer your ire over your silence, when I have posted to you. — universeness
to try to have control over who we think we are and what we say—philosophy created the idea of "consciousness" — Antony Nickles
Taking "me" as given and special and building our understanding around that desire is an attempt to remove the unpredictability of people, the vagueries of communication, and our ongoing responsibility to make ourselves intelligible and to respond to the claims of others. — Antony Nickles
This language is only possible on account of the commonalities of private experience as I see it. — Janus
I agree with you about using language to express thoughts and feelings that are otherwise hard to express. On the point quoted though, I think we can just as easily explain in the other direction. We can think of mentalistic language evolving within a larger system of signs exchanged by cooperative and competitive organisms. For instance, it's more efficient to be lenient on those who harm the tribe 'accidentally.' — plaque flag
A self is something like the training of a body into a [temporally stretched] thing that can make and keep promises, generate and modify and criticize claims about the world it shares with other such bodies. — plaque flag
:up:My claim would be that both philosophers and scientists are prone to the desire for certainty. — Antony Nickles
I guess the “costume” would be the hats we wear in pushing an agenda (of predetermined universality, overlooking our ordinary criteria). — Antony Nickles
I agree; it is weird that people seem to be able to convince themselves on some imagined "objective" basis, that their inner experience is illusory. I think it's also kind of sad. — Janus
:up:I imagine you mean that we are fated to be held to all of our acts in relation to our (one) self. So when you say we “can’t disagree with ourselves” you are underlining that who we are is subject to all our acts in our, or others’, desire to put us together as a coherent self. — Antony Nickles
The responsibility one undertakes by applying a concept is a task responsibility: a commitment to do something. On the theoretical side, what one is committed to doing, what one becomes liable to assessment as to one’s success at doing, is integrating one’s judgments into a whole that exhibits a distinctive kind of unity: the synthetic unity of apperception. It is a systematic, rational unity, dynamically created and sustained by drawing inferential consequences from and finding reasons for one’s judgments, and rejecting commitments incompatible with those one has undertaken. Apperceiving, the characteristically sapient sort of awareness, is discursive (that is, conceptual) awareness. For it consists in integrating judgments into a unity structured by relations of what judgments provide reasons for and against what others.
That's a misunderstanding though, of my own case anyhow. The point is an awareness of a certain logical sloppiness that's difficult to point out or to have pointed out. I suspect that one way to get there is to try very hard for a final clarity and come up against the limit, which isn't a definite limit but more like a vision of fog. I think this is something of what Heidegger was trying for with 'the forgetfulness of being.'
A Cartesian bias might be transforming the problem of the meaning of being into the hard problem of consciousness. — plaque flag
I don't know what you mean by "logical sloppiness" — Janus
Can you give some more detail about how you think a Cartesian bias could transform the problem of the meaning of being into the Hard Problem? — Janus
Ordinary mentalistic talk is fine, but something weird happens as it's made absolute. — plaque flag
semantics — plaque flag
An 'impossible' semantics gets taken for granted, all the way back to Aristotle, who just took it as obvious (like the flatness of the earth) and therefore gave no justification. — plaque flag
Something is given. — plaque flag
The orangeness of its flame is not just a token in a system of differences. This pure orangeness, that which exceeds the sign, overflows conceptuality altogether. It is there. But I cannot refer to it except negatively as that to which I cannot refer. — plaque flag
Methodological solipsism and its endlessly dubious seems-to-me is taken for granted, because the nature of that 'me' is taken for granted. The unity of the voice that doubts and hears itself doubting at the same time is taken for granted. If you think of existence as being-in-a-world ('prior' to subject and object), then you can talk about (or try to talk about, without speaking nonsense) the same transconceptual or subconceptual thereness without subjectivistic bias, without the sediment or plaque of the Cartesian tradition. Back to Parmenides ? — plaque flag
So, what everyone is searching for to either know by science or explain through philosophy is a bogey created by our need for (mathematical-like) certainty or ownership of something that makes us special by default. — Antony Nickles
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.