Every time I open an OP containing the words ''consciousness, emergent, fundamental", there's this weird pattern. Basically, ↪180 Proof comes and says ''This OP is nonsense." It's like this all the time. None of you or other people on my other OPs seem to have this issue except him. — Eugen
You ask mostly uninformed, nonsensical, and often trivial, questions. Go do your own homework — 180 Proof
Trying to make it look like I'm asking you to back me up against him is a serious one. So where do I exactly try to do that?Trying to get us to back you up with 180 Proof won't work. — T Clark
Well, if you like pain in the ass, go for it. I personally don't have this kind of fetish.He's a pain in the ass, but he's our pain in the ass. — T Clark
write a good, well supported OP. — T Clark
But if it’s emergent wouldn’t it also be fundamental? In the sense that its existence was inevitable. — invicta
- I see two options:But if it’s emergent wouldn’t it also be fundamental? In the sense that its existence was inevitable. — invicta
But you’re right some people can seem like they’re smarter than you with their abrupt replies, but really they’re not they’re just condescending fools. — invicta
For me, it doesn't presuppose anything. It's quite generic and can include anything: any thing whatever, something, no matter what. You can even break "anything" it into its components: "any thing". The meaning will be the same.1. Does ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity"? — Eugen
(See above)2. If ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity", does this make my question nonsense? — Eugen
(See my comment at start.)3. Be super-honest guys: is my question nonsense or ↪180 Proof opinion is simply wrong? — Eugen
It is conceptually incoherent to even ask whether or not embodied mind (synonymous with "consciousness" in the absence of any shred of dis-embodied minds) is "fundamental" if only because embodiment is composite and perdurant. This nonsense – the OP – is what you get, Eugen, from trying to reduce a scientific problem (re: seeking a hypothetical explanation for 'how things are or work') to a philosophical question (re: positing a categorical idea or supposition). — 180 Proof
Interpreting (explanations of) e.g. "consciousness" is, at best, philosophical; using testable models in order to explain "consciousness" is, also at best, scientific. However, conflating them, as too many contributors to this forum tend to do, is bad philosophy (i.e. obscurant nonsense (e.g. idealism)) and often pseudo-science (i.e. untestable and/or unparsimoniously explaining "too much").
I think, Eugen, one should seek adequate grounds for ontologizing "consciousness" (or any idea) before, as you do in the OP, interpreting "consciousness" as this or that kind of entity. In other words, what do we know (or do not know) about "consciousness" that presupposes it is an ontic entity? Nothing as far as I (& neuroscientists as well as e.g. Hume, Spinoza, Buddhists) can tell but I'm open to be shown otherwise. — 180 Proof
I can perfectly understand what you're saying. Complex, but not obscure. — Eugen
But when one claims I'm wrong but isn't willing to show me exactly where I'm wrong and clarify, I'm starting to think that person's trolling me. This is why I'm asking your help. — Eugen
- I do trust my own logic, but I'm also trying to remain open because I don't want to lie to myself. So I have a particular interest in those opinions that contradict my views. 180 Proof doesn't contradict my view, he contradicts my questions! Firstly, he calls them nonsense. Secondly, after a long insistence, he says my question presupposes this or that and he uses language against me. I don't think I presuppose anything and I also think words like ''anything or everything" imply concrete things, like tables and chairs. Thirdly, and this is important, he has a totally different view. I've never heard philosophers (materialists, panpsichists, idealists, etc.) saying that a question like ''Is consciousness fundamental or emergent?" is nonsense. Never!I wouldn't care about 180 Proof. — Alkis Piskas
I feel that emergent properties must already be dispositions of reality. — Andrew4Handel
So I think things can only emerge if a prior disposition is exists. Which does suggest reality is complex from the begining. — Andrew4Handel
Neither case is much reason to say "you're wrong, im right. Because i said so!" — Benj96
what do we know (or do not know) about "consciousness" that presupposes it is an ontic entity? Nothing as far as I (& neuroscientists as well as e.g. Hume, Spinoza, Buddhists) can tell — 180 Proof
1. Does ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity"?
2. If ''anything you could think of" presuppose "ontic entity", does this make my question nonsense?
3. Be super-honest guys: is my question nonsense or ↪180 Proof opinion is simply wrong?
I really need to know that, so I can fix things. — Eugen
You are taking @180 Proof's critique of your efforts too personally. In the world of on-line public debate, You need a thick skin, and plenty of personal humility.Here's the right approach - write a good, well supported OP. Layout what you want to discuss. Have good arguments at hand. Listen to what other people have to say and be responsive. — T Clark
So is he suggesting that assuming ''anything you could think of" has properties is wrong? Does he want me to formulate a question about something with no properties? I don't really understand. Of course we're talking about properties.For 1. Yes, because whatever 'anything' you choose, you will need to go on to "encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse." to provide any kind of logical argument that your 'anything' is fundamental, emergent or indeed and emergence that is a 'by-product' of fundamentals interacting as combinatorials. — universeness
What does my question have to do with theism?!?! My question is about a simple model that people use to debate consciousness. My question is if there are alternatives to this model. I can't see how this simple question can make no sense.repeated BS claims of theism or antinatalism. — universeness
Here's the right approach - write a good, well supported OP. Layout what you want to discuss. Have good arguments at hand. Listen to what other people have to say and be responsive. — T Clark
Also watch out for his bum chum universeness I have no doubt they’ve been fantasising about future robots in their PMs so they’ve really started to get close. — invicta
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.