That's not what "coherent" means at all. That's just a bidirectional implication. — flannel jesus
Thanks for the references. I don't need them though since I know what I mean by coherence. — MoK
You already mentioned what you mean with coherence and I mentioned that that is not what I mean by coherence.When someone is pointing out on the the possible misuse or unclarity of the concept in use, they are not necessarily seeking for help. They were looking for your opinion on the point supported by reasoning and evidence. But your replies seem lacking the rational explanations, and trying to rely on the pointless denials and even making up as if the questioner was needing help. — Corvus
Well, I already defined and gave examples of what I mean by coherence. None of that helped you. I also asked whether you could give an example of an incoherent experience that you ignored. So I cannot help you further.Sure, you can use the concept under whatever definition you set up, but it would sound too subjective and unclear which lacks objectivity in the meaning. — Corvus
As you wish.Anyhow as said, I have exited from this thread, so will not be progressing any further in this thread. — Corvus
Thoughts are not the same. — Patterner
I've been listening to a new audio book, a so called "audio documentary" that touches on this. It's called Lights On by Annaka Harris. Perhaps not up your street because she's an unabashed physicalist, but she explores concepts of fundamental consciousness because she's become increasingly convinced that that's more the right approach to talking about experience. — flannel jesus
we know what the meaning is, because we put it there, and it's only to us that there is meaning. — Patterner
When we use a word for “consciousness”, we are... automatically led astray, because conscious experience is not something over there to be meant in any way. Once again consciousness is plainly here ; this “here” that submerges us ; this “here” that is presupposed by any location in space. Trying to mean consciousness is self-defeating, since what is allegedly meant is nothing beyond the very act of meaning it. It is radically self-referring. — On the radical self-referentiality of consciousness, Michel Bitbol
I meant it's only to us that there is meaning in that specific situation. The meaning in any computer coding ultimately reduces to binary. We arranged the system so that the computer, without the capacity for understanding meaning, would mechanically do things that have meaning for us.we know what the meaning is, because we put it there, and it's only to us that there is meaning.
— Patterner
Not only did we 'put it there', but we enabled the worldview which allows us to think that the universe as a whole is devoid of it. — Wayfarer
...science was born from the decision to objectify, namely to select the elements of experience that are invariant across persons and situations. Its aim is to formulate universal truths, namely truths that can be accepted by anyone irrespective of one’s situation. Therefrom, the kind of truths science can reach is quite peculiar : they take the form of universal and necessary connections between phenomena (the so-called scientific laws). This epistemological remark has devastating consequences. It means that in virtue of the very methodological presupposition on which it is based, science has and can have nothing to say about the mere fact that there are phenomena (namely appearances) for anybody, let alone about the qualitative content of these phenomena. — Michel Bitbol
interesting distinction, to call yourself a monist but not a physicalist. — flannel jesus
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.