Consider that I've ripped a paragraph out of a systematic philosophy. — plaque flag
The producer is so different from the product it seems impossible that they are the same kind of thing. But maybe that's my failing. — bert1
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'm not talking about you being sure that you exist (though being self-aware is a pretty low bar to say you're not a sheep, or a puppet, or a dupe, or a "ghost of your former self". You "exist"?; if you are here but it wouldn't matter if it were someone else just as much as you, do "you" really exist? — Antony Nickles
You just contradicted yourself from start to finish. Not talking about being sure I exist and ending with do you really exist. — Benj96
The difficulty is discerning "self identity" or "human consciousness", "goat consciousness" "dog consciousness etc" from fundamental consciousness (the "I am" sensation). Don't conflate the 2. — Benj96
"[T]ranslational or philosophical efforts to favor or purge a particular signification of pharmakon [and to identify it as either "cure" or "poison"] actually do interpretive violence to what would otherwise remain undecidable." — plaque flag
I was trying to, but how can I know ? What was I referring to ? Is my orange your orange ? If this stuff is private and immaterial and transconceptual, all I have is my hunch that I referred to it and your agreement. But is that evidence or just us both being trained by the same circus? — plaque flag
This is actually quite relevant. A certain kind of philosopher might anchor the author's meaning to some immaterial intention present as they were written. Then hopefully the same immaterial intention is recovered by the reader. No one could ever check. But I think there's an ordinary sense of idea transmission that's fine, like passing along a tool (something like an equivalence class of utterances with roughly the same fitness for the same tasks.) — plaque flag
How does one end up feeling understood ? Deciding someone else 'gets' an idea ? — plaque flag
consciousness is a thing in order to make our part in the world more under our control than it is, more certain. It — Antony Nickles
I hope I didn't give the impression of disrespect. Is he not saying that we judge our acts by reasons for and against? — Antony Nickles
What could it mean to say that the word 'orange' in this sentence "I saw an orange after-image" didn't refer to the orange after-image I saw? What would the lack of reference there look like? — Janus
being able to take control and actually taking control are two separate things. This is a choice within consciousness. — Benj96
One can interpret things that way. I don't think it's obvious.ust taking the sentence alone without specifying that it was uttered, so that it wasn't in a context where the utterance is intended to refer to a particular experience of the utterer's, the word "orange" still logically refers to the colour of some fictional orange afterimage. — Janus
We might ask them to explain the idea to us and if their explanation matches our understanding, — Janus
Ah, "pharmakon" is close to my heart, since I love psychedelics. (although they are mostly not poisonous except perhaps in massive doses). I seemed to remember it was Paracelsus who said "The dose makes the poison"? I looked it up and he also said: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison." — Janus
Your "will" is not a thing either; you are free to pick your words if you like, you are then fated to them (the implications of having said them). — Antony Nickles
Consciousness is a phenomenon of the brain, which needs interaction with the environment to awaken its dispositional knowledge, which, if absent, doesn't lead anywhere. — Manuel
Correct, why questions are a slippery slope for...getting back in bed with Aristotelian teleology and enabling the pollution of our epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar
"aren't always" is the key word. Obviously I am addressing those which are injecting intention or purpose in Nature.'Why' questions aren't always about teleology. — bert1
The problem is NOT just with your questions but your previous answers which allow me to guess your intention behind those questions.We're not going to be able to have a conversation if every time I ask "why such and such" you say I'm looking for a teleological (or even just evolutionary) explanation. — bert1
-Ok but you need to understand the fallacy of your question.....when you hold responsible of Science not being able to experience YOUR experience thus concluding it has nothing to say about the processes responsible for the phenomenon.. What I'm asking for in this thread is an explanation in terms of physical processes. Similar to the question I'd ask of a mechanic with my car "Why won't my car start?" — bert1
Chalmer's questions have the same problem with your statement.I'm looking for an answer in terms of the structure and function of the car. It's odd that you impute this intention to seek teleological answers to Chalmers as well. — bert1
If my will is not a thing then how could I be free to pick my words? Again contradiction. — Benj96
What of it? — Benj96
It's supposed to be a gross play on 'black flag.' — plaque flag
The self is not a thing like an object. — Antony Nickles
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 1 - Stephen Mitchell version
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that the idea of "consciousness" as something specific, knowable in a "we-can-find-out-about-it" way, as if looking further (perhaps with science!) we could see it (me), as if it has agency or causality, this idea is created so that we can have surety, not about consciousness (its existence), or our self-awareness, but so we can be certain about what others are going to do, about our understanding of ourselves. — Antony Nickles
We don't have to prove we have a self by being responsible for what we say, because we have "consciousness" which handles intention and meaning and judgment, etc. for us. — Antony Nickles
Consciousness is the label we give to the re-telling of recent mental events with a first-person protagonist. — Isaac
It evolved to give a coherent meta-model to various predictive processing streams so that responses could be coordinated better in the longer term — Isaac
we use the term 'feels like' in conversations such as these as it's something we've learned to say in these circumstances from a particular position — Isaac
My point is that philosophy imagines that consciousness is a thing in order to make our part in the world more under our control than it is, more certain. It makes us seem like a given entity, the cause of action and the meaning behind speech. What would be an issue if you pictured a world without "consciousness"? We are aware of (part of) ourselves. We can talk to ourselves. We can focus on sensations. There is more, but why does it have to be consciousness? What are we missing without it? — Antony Nickles
I didn’t read 13 oages of posts. — I like sushi
The problem is NOT just with your questions but your previous answers which allow me to guess your intention behind those questions. — Nickolasgaspar
"Black flag" can mean a number of things. Are you aware it is a brand of bug spray in the US? — T Clark
It's hard enough when we try and respond to what people actually say. — bert1
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.