Sure you are wrong. That is the reason that most of the outdated philosophers are wrong.Science needs philosophy. Philosophy doesn't need science. — Corvus
Philosophers need to read about science if they want to do good philosophy!No philosophers will go out in the white gown, and conduct experiments and tests and measurements. They just read, think and speculate for analysis and reasoning pursuing truths on the universe. — Corvus
It is not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to accept his outdated philosophy now.Hume is one of the most important philosophers in western philosophy. To say Hume is false is like saying, philosophy is false and all knowledge is false. Nonsense. — Corvus
Where did you get that from? Why don't you study psychology a little before commenting on the conscious and the subconscious mind?The conscious mind means that you woke from sleep. Subconscious mind means that you have a part of mind which sleep all the time, but you think it doesn't. — Corvus
Where does all your knowledge reside when you are asleep? It cannot disappear into oblivion! How are you informed about a specific knowledge when you are awake? You are not aware of all your knowledge at once. Are you?Perception only happens when you are fully awake and alert. All your knowledge on the universe comes via perception. — Corvus
I think by perception Hume means the conscious mind. It is a very important part but it is not all things that define a person with the capacity to think rationally.Perception is also backed by reasoning and logic. Without perception, you don't have knowledge. — Corvus
Philosophy doesn't get outdated. We still go back to the ancient philosophy and the Renaissance times for referencing on what they said. Science outdates. Did you read Popper?Sure you are wrong. That is the reason that most of the outdated philosophers are wrong. — MoK
Philosophers read everything not just science.Philosophers need to read about science if they want to do good philosophy! — MoK
Problem with nonsense is that it doesn't know it is nonsense.It is not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to accept his outdated philosophy now. — MoK
They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities.Electrons for example exist and move around the nucleus. They can be found free as well. Quarks exist within protons and neutrons. The conscious and subconscious minds refer to different parts of the brain. — MoK
Philosophy does get outdated! Consider the case of Hume.Philosophy doesn't get outdated. We still go back to the ancient philosophy and the Renaissance times for reference on what they said. Science outdates. Did you read Popper? — Corvus
Good for them. You should do the same.Philosophers read everything not just science. — Corvus
Exactly!Problem with nonsense is that it doesn't know it is nonsense. — Corvus
It is a common sense knowledge. You don't need to study psychology to know that.Where did you get that from? Why don't you study psychology a little before commenting on the conscious and the subconscious mind? — MoK
The knowledge is kept in memory when asleep. When you awake from sleep, they can be accessed via reasoning. Conscious mind means that you are just awake. Dogs and cats are conscious, and some plants can be conscious, but they don't have knowledge because they are only conscious but nothing more.Where does all your knowledge reside when you are asleep? It cannot disappear into oblivion! How are you informed about a specific knowledge when you are awake? You are not aware of all your knowledge at once. Are you? — MoK
No. It sounds like you haven't read Hume. Read above. Thinking rationally requires more than being conscious.I think by perception Hume means the conscious mind. It is a very important part but it is not all things that define a person with the capacity to think rationally. — MoK
So you are denying all the body of knowledge that was created by scientists! That is not a good habit since you are denying all the things that you are using daily as well! — MoK
It is not common sense knowledge at all and that is why you are wrong. We are only aware of the conscious mind's activities. The term the subconscious mind was first coined by Freud before that we didn't know anything about it.It is a common sense knowledge. You don't need to study psychology to know that. — Corvus
Do you have access to your memory? The memories are stored in a part of the brain so-called synapses. Do you have direct access to synapses? If not how can you recall a memory?The knowledge is kept in memory when asleep. When you awake from sleep, they can be accessed via reasoning. Conscious mind means that you are just awake. — Corvus
Yes, thinking also requires the subconscious mind. That is something that Hume was not aware of in his time!No. It sounds like you haven't read Hume. Read above. Thinking rationally requires more than being conscious. — Corvus
You said it here:No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake. — Corvus
They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities. — Corvus
No. Why is it relevant to our discussion?Have you read any Popper? Yes or No? — Corvus
Freud's theory of sunconscious mind is subject to debates, because it is not something which can be proven objectively. If you think it is some holy grail principle of psychology, then you haven't read much psychology, it appears.It is not common sense knowledge at all and that is why you are wrong. We are only aware of the conscious mind's activities. The term the subconscious mind was first coined by Freud before that we didn't know anything about it. — MoK
Philosophy don't care about where the content of memory gets stored in brain. It just knows that we have memory, and memory is in the chain of many mental operations.Do you have access to your memory? The memories are stored in a part of the brain so-called synapses. Do you have direct access to synapses? If not how can you recall a memory? — MoK
Again, please read the top reply here.Yes, thinking also requires the subconscious mind. That is something that Hume was not aware of in his time! — MoK
I said it to remind you keep saying it, not me.No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake.
— Corvus
You said it here: — MoK
Popper said that all science gets outdated and replaced with the new theories all the time. If science cannot be proven false, then it is not science. It proves your point were all wrong so far.Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?
— Corvus
No. Why is it relevant to our discussion? — MoK
I am not defending Freud's theory of subconsciousness here. I just said that the term subconsciousness was first coined by him. There has been too much research on the topic of the subconscious mind since then. Anyway, I was pointing out that Hume was not aware of the subconscious mind at his time so he could not possibly have a correct theory of minds. I think that the subconscious mind is very smart. The current research indicates that the subconscious mind is smarter than what we think. You might find this article interesting.Freud's theory of sunconscious mind is subject to debates, because it is not something which can be proven objectively. If you think it is some holy grail principle of psychology, then you haven't read much psychology, it appears. — Corvus
That is a part of the philosophy of the mind. You cannot simply ignore it! Could you?Philosophy don't care about where the content of memory gets stored in brain. It just knows that we have memory, and memory is in the chain of many mental operations.
Talking about biological aspects of memory in brain is a strawman fallacy in philosophical debates. — Corvus
So are you denying that there are things like electrons, quarks, etc.? Are you denying that you have a brain? You don't have direct access to your brain either.I said it to remind you keep saying it, not me. — Corvus
No, I think there are limits that each theory works well, so I don't think that we can replace the outdated theories since the outdated theories have their own use at the proper limits. For example, the Newtonian theory works well in macroscopic limits but it cannot account for the quantum force which only becomes important at the microscopic level. That is why we need quantum mechanics to describe quantum phenomena. We however don't use quantum mechanics when we want to design a car. We use it only when we want to design a quantum device. So every theory has its own use.Popper said that all science gets outdated and replaced with the new theories all the time. If science cannot be proven false, then it is not science. It proves your point were all wrong so far. — Corvus
Technically, those are mathematical definitions which are not the same thing as the 'ontological' connecting tissue of the universe they refer to. — substantivalism
You brought Freud into the discussion suddenly, hence I was giving out my opinion on Freud.I am not defending Freud's theory of subconsciousness here. I just said that the term subconsciousness was first coined by him. — MoK
Subconscious mind is unverified esoteric idea, Hume wouldn't have had been interested in it, even if he was alive now.Anyway, I was pointing out that Hume was not aware of the subconscious mind at his time so he could not possibly have a correct theory of minds. — MoK
Subconscious mind cannot be verified, or used as basis for reasoning. It is just a postulated character of mind. It is hidden or sleeping most times, hence it cannot give you any knowledge on the world.I think that the subconscious mind is very smart. The current research indicates that the subconscious mind is smarter than what we think. You might find this article interesting. — MoK
The classic philosophy of mind doesn't include physical brain as its topic. It is more a topic for cognitive science, neurology or clinical psychology.That is a part of the philosophy of the mind. You cannot simply ignore it! Could you? — MoK
You are back to keep repeating "denying". I never said anything about denying.So are you denying that there are things like electrons, quarks, etc.? Are you denying that you have a brain? You don't have direct access to your brain either. — MoK
I was recommending you reading Popper, because you seem to think science knowledge is eternal.No, I think there are limits that each theory works well, so I don't think that we can replace the outdated theories since the outdated theories have their own use at the proper limits. — MoK
But are the continuous movements possible without perception? — Corvus
This produces the issue of whether our senses deceive us when we perceive motion as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover
A clarification and explicit declaration of the sorts of things that you are using to be skeptical of being 'ontological connective tissue'.That there is an "ontological connective tissue" to be referred to remains undecided. What we have is an accurate description of what happens. What more could you want? — Banno
I'll phrase it differently then. If I put a gun to a pyrrhonian skeptics' head all of a sudden they aren't so skeptical and handwavy in many of their responses. The same in high stress situations.I've no idea what that post says. — Banno
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.