we are so far from being on the same page as to make responding pointless. — Janus
It doesn't stop there, though—the most salient question for me then would be "how best to live?" — Janus
The only potential universally held assumption (or is it a realization?) that I can think of is that we know and can know very little. — Janus
Once this is realized we still need to work with provisional hypotheses in order to live — Janus
I would include as rational persuasion both practical and pure reason — Janus
You speak as though that purported "end goal" is a given. — Janus
How would any philosophical truth ever be demonstrable such as to gain universal assent? — Janus
Discussion would still allow for folk to be influenced by others. — Janus
The question was posed to J. — Janus
Well, for those presupposed to doubt it, there are plenty of grounds for doubt. For those predisposed to believe it, there are plenty of grounds for belief. — Wayfarer
"To each there own philosophy" I say, because that takes proper account of human diversity. Would you have it any other way? — Janus
Science typically provides no such axis, as it is generally assumes that the universe is devoid of intrinsic meaning and/or value, so a claim to 'higher knowledge' is often challenged on the grounds that there is no objective justification for it.
For example:
what do you mean by "highest"? Most comprehensive or overarching. most critical, most meta-cognitive? Or most spiritual, most enlightening, wisest?
— Janus — Wayfarer
I don’t think Conze says or implies that. — Wayfarer
The purpose of my quoting the Edward Conze text was simply an illustration of the idea of there being a higher truth - something for which I am generally criticized for suggesting. But to get down to basics, this is because I don't think our culture possesses a vertical axis along which the description of 'higher' makes any sense. — Wayfarer
there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge — Plato, The Republic
That was an excerpt. The entire essay is Buddhist Philosophy and Its European Parallels, Philosophy East and West, 1963. — Wayfarer
Aside from Conze, the principle of monastic lineage in Buddhism and other spiritual traditions assumes the transmission of insight. — Wayfarer
I think you're very much viewing it through the lens of the rejection of dogmatic Christianity and its 'blind faith' — Wayfarer
Or in insight. That was, for instance, the basis of the Buddha's authority - one which was never imposed on others — Wayfarer
Those insights are communicated to the student by the teacher. As well as what is learned by their deportment and presence. — Wayfarer
Of course it's radically un-PC for liberal democracy — Wayfarer
It would be bleak if you take such a bleak view. If you were a piano student, presumably you would select a teacher who was an expert in teaching piano, and you would admire and hope to emulate excellent pianists. — Wayfarer
I recognise that it is something often exploited by the unscrupulous to exploit the gullible — Wayfarer
(...) true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Wayfarer
As if that is the sum total of our achievements…. — Wayfarer
I am not really sure what you're trying to to get at here. What counts as intuitive might be debated, but certain statements like "a line of points cannot be simultaneously continuous and discrete," or "2+2=4," can largely be agreed upon. Are you claiming we lack good warrant for believing these sorts of things?
Eliminativism, in its most extreme form, does violate these sorts of intuitions. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This would be the claim that "you don't actually experience anything, see blue, hear sounds, etc." But does anyone actually advocate this? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Dennett himself calls this type of eliminitivism "ridiculous," in "Conciousness Explained." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Something is intuitive, a noetic "first principle," if we cannot conceive of it being otherwise. 2+2 is intuitively 4. It is intuitive that a straight line cannot also be a curved line, that a triangle cannot have four sides, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But "things are only extension in space and motion," or "all that exists can be explained in terms of mathematics and computation," are not basic intuitions. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If our core intuitions can be this wrong, and there is "nothing to explain," then I have no idea why we should be referring to neuroscience for explanations in the first place. We only have a good reason to think science tells us anything about the world if our basic intuitions have some sort of merit. — Count Timothy von Icarus
And I'd would say that at the very least, higher order animals certainly experience fear as they attack when cornered. That is "self preservation" and as the term would suggest it would seem to necessitate a "self" in which to defend. A certain expectation or demand to survive. An "I" that wishes to live on. — Benj96
MUI theory states that "perceptual experiences do not match or approximate properties of the objective world, but instead provide a simplified, species-specific, user interface to that world." Hoffman argues that conscious beings have not evolved to perceive the world as it actually is but have evolved to perceive the world in a way that maximizes "fitness payoffs". — flannel jesus
The experience I call "blue", the qualia if you will, doesn't have to be assigned to the things I assign it to. The qualia you experience as blue, I could experience as green. My whole colour wheel could be rotated with respect to yours, and I would still have a fully in tact, self-consistent and useful sensory experience regardless. — flannel jesus
We can't both be experiencing smells "as they are" considering how viscerally different our experiences are. — flannel jesus
Ok, with this aside, let us define Direct Realism, the thesis that do indeed have direct access to the external world.
Now let me propose a few arguments for Indirect Realism that I run. Note that all the names I'm giving these are non-standard. — Ashriel
I would add that there are important ways in which consciousness is not an illusion. Emotional, experiential, rational, doxastic content, means something, points toward something true, is important. — NotAristotle
A lie is an illusion is it not? Well, what misleads more, the lie or the liar? — NotAristotle
Would you define the "consciousness" you say is not an illusion? (...) Maybe that is an unfair question because consciousness may be undefinable. — NotAristotle
why defend consciousness as not an illusion; what's at stake? Why is consciousness not being an illusion important to you? — NotAristotle
And the viewer of the illusion is the illusion itself. An illusion is fooled into thinking itself to be real. That's a heck of a magic trick! — Patterner
Negative thinking, patterns of thought, insofar as we identify these things with consciousness, it is easier to see how consciousness is an illusion; it is an illusion just as negative thinking and patterns of thought are an illusion, they are part of a script so to speak. — NotAristotle
if that's all there is to it, do you mean consciousness is functionality? — Patterner
I'm thinking the "what it is like to be..." is due to subjective experience. Kind of the same thing. If I did not have subjective experience, there would be nothing it is like to be me. — Patterner
Do you think consciousness is subjective experience, but it doesn't lead to "what it is like to be..."? If not, if you don't think consciousness is subjective experience, and you don't think it is the concept of self, then what do you think consciousness is? — Patterner
Apologies if you've told me this before. — Patterner
I agree. I like Nagel’s definition in What is it like to be a bat? — Patterner
I assume you mean taught while interacting with others, which i agree with. I doubt someone raised without the slightest human contact, or interaction from whatever machines kept it alive, would develop a sense of self. Perhaps hearing ideas from outside our own heads is key to noticing self. The idea that there is no self without other. — Patterner
A rock is moved only by external forces. But a living organism is self-moving and self-sustaining to various degrees. — Gnomon
You're asking the wrong person because I have the same question; I don't think consciousness is an illusion. — NotAristotle
I'm not sure I understand the question; I guess I take it as given that an illusion is necessarily differentiable from non-illusion . — NotAristotle
And, if consciousness really is an illusion, why the illusion? Wouldn't we be better equipped evolutionarily speaking to see the truth; reality as it really is. — NotAristotle
Take an example by analogy: Imagine I gave you a bucket of colored blocks and asked you separate them into piles by color. You pick up a red one, put it in the red pile; blue, in the blue pile; etc. — Bob Ross