I thought my argument was clear in my reply to you. All my actions and expressions are caused by my freewill. What else could it be? — Corvus

Oh, I would say your argument was fairly clear, but it was weak. There are many many, many ways for you to be deluded, or wrong. More than there are ways you to be right. That, alone, is a good reason your argument isn't. at least 'good enough', if not a bad one. It could be determined by prior causes, which are determined by prior causes, which are determined by prior causes. Either, you end up with a logical regress - whcih you either need to solve, or make peace with.

I have not seen the logical proof of that. Where is it? Or you could prove again here.
How do you know all events have prior causes? — Corvus

You asked for a logically sound argument.

P1. IfDeterminism is true, Free Will is not possible;
P2. Determinism is true.
P3. Your choices are determined.
C. Your concept of Free Will is an illusion.

As noted, I'm not too heavily married to this, beyond have no evidence otherwise currently. I assume (in some part of my mind) that we will find empirical evidence to defeat the above. But, the above is logically sound.
It seems that your argument against determinism is just that you like the feeling of Free Will and would prefer it was not an illusion.

What if what was said was exactly what the person needed to hear and the person didn’t even know they needed to hear it? — Fire Ologist

This doesn't seem to touch my question. I have often had this experience and never once even considered that it could be 'God'.
Defocalisation/derealisation/depersonalisation/drug use is a well-known tool for insight. Many people claim that they themselves are God, or that Eric Clapton is God, after undergoing such experiences as much as people receive genuinely helpful insight into their well-being or place in the world (or some such else as would be important to a given S). Simply spacing out having given you the impression of an omniscient all-pervading, personal force of Creation is... odd**.

The words become more important than how on earth the kid knew to say them. — Fire Ologist

I would hazard a guess that a religious person would think this, as communication with the dead isn't off the table (and, in fact, is somewhat sought after!). For a Hard Atheist, I cannot imagine giving a toss about the content more than that it had happened. The implications of the latter are immense in comparison to the first. I could also charge one who actually responded the way you seem to imply, as being perspectivally ignorant. The latter matters for everyone. The former only matters to you and yours.

But, this just speaks to biases.** The religious v the irreligious. Only cases such as Francis Collins give me pause here, and it is pause to consider what type of mental facilities are required for being a decent scientist. Gullibility seems to be involved..

The driving need for certainty is other people's foolish fear. — Chet Hawkins

This is certainly true, as I've recently found out in going through one commenter's religious feelings here. Their need for certainty has them forego even Empirical considerations.

Deleted but might be updated.

This isn't relevant at all to whether your current position on Free Will is (in this case, ignorance, but at base...) an illusion.

We hold that it is (though, intuitively, I am fairly open to the idea that something about consciousness to be discovered will shake this). If all events have prior causes, you don't have Free Will. You've not addressed any arguments at all.

We can come to a closure clarifying either your assertion has a validity with logical sound argument, or it was just your mental state. — Corvus

That's actually been done, several times. IFF all events have prior causes, Determinism is true.

There you go. Beat it, logically, if that's your game.

"Will To Power", some of "Genealogy of Morals" and (Ijke, when i was 12) "Thus Spoke..."

I can't quite grasp where the relevance is, or answer is, to my comment. Probably me. Sorry.

But can't I say that something might seem open ended now but who knows, in time it might not be? — Tom Storm

Yes, I think you can. I suppose this goes to whether or not that is a reason now for anything to be the case mentally.

simply say that there is no fool proof way to establish veridicality. — hypericin

This one certainly does. We can be approximate, even to a fine-grained statistical certainty, though.

why this relationship, while part of the perception, is not actually discernable as part of the perception. — hypericin

Hehehe.

put his trust in ChatGPT — Leontiskos

Neither did I trust, nor use ChatGPT. lol.

to believe logical fallacies. — Leontiskos

I didn't come to 'believe' anything.

“This is a philosophy forum, therefore everyone meets the minimum level of logical competence.” There needs to be better “handshaking”; a more cautious appraisal of the interlocutor’s competence. If this is not done then a great deal of time will be wasted on everyone’s part. — Leontiskos

No one thinks this. Half the people here(including me, even in this exact case) note clearly and honestly what they are not ept in various ways. I actually told you, categorically, I don't know formal logic and stand behind nothing i posted.

What I think the forum needs is a reduction in the onanist tendancies of the self-obsessed in talking down to other forum-goers just trying to figure shit out. The immense failure of your comprehension in these comments leads me to think I am talking to closed ears, though.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. When a non-scientist philosopher produces a breakthrough in quantum theory I will eat my beanie. — jgill

I'm unsure I agree with your framing of the two types of development, but I get your point. Thank you for clarifying!

Does not matter to me how many conjunctions are necessary.

I'm certain that my fridge will be there when I go grab a yogurt.

Unshakably. Absolutely. Certitude is worth keeping. It's temperance and judgment that need honed. In other words, sometimes it is wise to not expect a pattern to continue. Not all. — creativesoul

I have noted that in practical terms, this is a fine way to go about your life. But in fine-grained discussions It just doesn't survive as far as I'm concerned. There is nothign direct about a route that changes not only direction, but form, multiple times - whether it's temporal, geographical or conceptual *shrug*. I share your certitude because it works better, not because I actually think that certainty is warranted. Statistics are great indicators, but not guarantee-ers.

If God speaks to someone at all, that person is presented with two different questions, was it God and what is this God trying to say. If you look only at the question was it God, no one will ever know, because no one can prove the separate existence of any phenomena. — Fire Ologist

Why would it matter "what God had to say" if you aren't even sure it was God? Seems backward...

Then they might think, this dream couldn’t have come from me because I could not have understood that, yet I understand something new now because of what was said. — Fire Ologist

Yep, but they are almost certainly wrong.

if it was God, and so you had your evidence in the very content of whatever was making you wonder. — Fire Ologist

This is Akin to saying seeing a UFO could constitute evidence of a particular Alien race. That's kind of absurd, don't you think?

it was new, you might have to wonder about God. — Fire Ologist

I think if this is your reaction to novel forms of thought or conceptualisation, your first port of call might need to be a different kind of confidant than the Church.

But I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that I was under a very successful illusion. Everything around me is working too coherently and rationally, and there is nothing I can even doubt, that the world, perceptions and my decisions and choices were illusion. Can you? — Corvus

That's just you saying this. It doesn't entail that you've looked for, or understand what we're putting infront of you.

If every event has a prior cause, these are absolute facts. It is not possible to sit yourself outside of that lineage. If you reject that, you're in need of a rather strong and convincing argument that includes empirical considerations and logical cogency. I don't think you ahve either.

Hey mate, thank you for your thorough reply. Some of my utterances below will seem combative. THey are not - we just disagree in ways that look combative. But, your incredulousness at my position should at least allow you to understand that however we disagree, I simply do not care. You're giving me the time of day and I enjoy locking horns in this way.

I'm not quite sure you fully appreciate the implications of your position — boethius

I do. Sincerely apologies if, at any point, I seem a bit short. I have heard just about all of the infantalising responses to my position (despite recognizing they aren't intended that way!!). I have thought about this. I have read a lot on it. I have discussed it with laypeople and philosophers. I have fully embraced the consequences. They don't strike me the way they strike you. That's all. I still have good reasons to act or prevent acts, that I am sure you would, overall, agree with teh results of.

a surgeon could just walk out mid surgery leaving to slowly wake up in excruciating pain and a slow death, anyone could just randomly torture you death for their amusement, and they have done you no moral wrong — boethius

Correct. This is not a problem to my mind, other than because It makes me uncomfortable. Not sure how it could be 'wrong' in any other sense.

they had no duty to do otherwise — boethius

They do, but you've named instances that include the other reasons I've alluded to. Suffice to say at this stage that I formulate in these scenarios (though, I'm not yet at a fine-grained version of this view, so bear with) that hte actor has, in fact, chosen to accept hte subject's emotional position, rather than a moral obligation.

some obvious nuance to your position feel free to briefly clarify it. — boethius

Not at all. I just think you're making an obvious mistake.

That's why I mentioned the larger majority of people of whom "no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance", so we definitely agree that most people don't pay much attention to politics and have checked out from any political cause. — boethius

Which entirely invalidates the claims made above, so I'm unsure where to go from here. Your accepting this premise says to me you can't support your previous claims. Odd feeling, tbh.

Suffice to say:

The Western enlightenment project has failed. — boethius

This is seems laughably wrong, and nothing you've provided seems to move the compass. He's an impassioned writer that seems to ignore two or three fundamentally important aspects of what he's talking about (one, being the above - the vast majority of people (who consittute the culture!!!) simply are not involved in this side-show - it goes on, in spite of hte ridiculous Political stupidity. This seems true in most cultures, and the West is not unique in that way.

ot to mention both the foundation within and continuing practice of extractive colonialism. — boethius

I would point you toward Heydel-Mankoo for a perspective on this aspect that seems to me inarguable, and exposes the preening nonsense of anti-colonial sentiment in te 21st century. But we are likely to almost violently disagree here.

I hope it's clear that from this point of view ignoring politics altogether is a form of collective suicide as deranged as any cult — boethius

Not at all. It seems clear to me that these lines of yours are somewhat unhinged. *shrug*.

feeling is that best someone deal with that, well that's going to require soldiers who happen to feel bound to their duties as soldiers as well as sufficient discipline, fortitude, craftiness, bravery and self sacrifice necessary to win any battles. — boethius

I think the bolded in sufficient, but apparently you do not. That said, If no one in the country wants to defend it - Okay. That's the situation.

it won't be dealt with. — boethius

What's hte issue? That's the choice that Nation made. Forcing the populus into a War seems to be a much, much worse thing to do.

wage slaves pushed to the extreme they genuinely have not a moment or calorie to spare on considering the institutions that put them there — boethius

if you don't personally feel bound by any duties, and even view the great achievement of Western society as creating the condition for people so disposed to lazily go about their day contributing nothing to the general welfare — boethius

I can only roll my eyes at the baked-in biases here.

I have to be entirely honest in that the type of vibe your views encompass a little bit funny. I'm sorry for that coming through as I know you're good faith and being honest with me. It just seems childish and I have a hard time. This is likely a flaw in me, but wanted to be clear about why some responses might seem flimsy. I think that's what they call for. I mean no offense.

once there are too few of these people to hold in check the bad-faith and dishonest people with virtues only sufficient enough to execute on their vices, society will collapse in relatively short order — boethius

I think the idea that a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest, but their own relations in the world is far-fetched enough to simply not care about this potential. The West is not cogent (ideologically) enough for this to matter anyway. The only 'duty' the West actually imposes is to not interfere with others against their will. I'm quite absolute in this regard. People should be allowed to hurt themselves, and contract into self-disinterested behaviour.

How we deal with things like Mental Illness is where it gets interesting, imo. We might have something very interesting to discuss there.

you were under a very successful illusion. But your choices are not made consciously on this view and your experience of choice is like a mini experience machine. That you felt it doesn’t mean it’s what’s actually happening

The content of the visual experience and the rain are inseparable in the sense that it is the visible property of the rain that determines the phenomenal character of the visual experience. The fact that they are separate things is beside the point. — jkop

This is close to nonsensical.

The content of the visual experience is entirely separate from the rain itself. That much is clear. How one gets to the other is the question.

ots of biological phenomena emerge from bio-chemical events (e.g. photosynthesis), so you'd need a good counter-argument with which you could reject the idea that conscious experiences emerge from brain states. — jkop

You wouldn’t. They aren’t explaining the same things unless you take the evolution-only view of exprience (which is then post-hoc and hallucinatory). But if experience can be “real time” and veridical then I thinn the DR needs a better line.

All of what? — jkop

All of what you had just quoted. Which was a defense of DR. So your tone is odd here.

Furthermore, brain states are necessary for any conscious experience, veridical or hallucinatory, but this has little to do with the directness of perception, which is supposedly what you wish to reject. — jkop

It has a lot to do with it. If experience is to be veridical it must be directly caused by the objects it represents. But we know that’s factually not true. So ‍♂️

Heh what a thread.

I give it a B, in light of its timing. It would be pithy old news these days.

I do claim ignorance of many subjects - origin of the universe, idealism, gods, consciousness - 'I don't know' seems reasonable to me. Pretty sure no one on this site knows either. — Tom Storm

This is equivocal, though. Is it hte case that you don't know anything, or that you don\t know some things?

Who saysit is open ended? It might seem that way to you now, but who knows? — Tom Storm

referred to two different ideas, — Tom Storm

Oh, no you don't. Hehe.

Is your position not a case of a fallacy from ignorance? — Tom Storm

It's not really a case of anything. Intuitively, like 90% of people, I feel as if there are non-physical properties to my experience (and the world). I have never seen an adequate explanation of how many things are physical. I have no reason to commit to either, but I have plenty of reason to lean against physicalism, as it is. Its mild. Possibly insignificant.

Certainly could be good to discuss that in another topic. Nevertheless, you'd really hold the position that there is no duty, or then you are uncertain about it, to report evidence of child sexual abuse that you encounter? — boethius

I can confidently say I would report it, but not on moral grounds (assuming, as I think is warranted, that your/our use of obligation here is a moral term). I want it to stop. That's all. If I didn't want it to stop. my moral outlook wouldn't matter anyway. I can't get further than that. I don't have to do it. I don't think claiming I 'have to' or 'ought' to do it makes any sense. Based on? *insert any possible non-supernatural answer* Okay, thank you. Well, I reject that premise. I can't think of response to this which isn't a reiteration of the *insert..* portion.

The West, in creating and leading industrial civilizaton, is likewise unsuccessful, trading short term performance for long term viability. — boethius

I just cannot understand how one could think this about the West. *shrug*

Again, a discussion for another thread, but where it relates to Trump (and equally Biden for that matter) is in representing exactly why the West is unable to solve our long term problems; coherence doesn't matter and partisans are irreconcilable and political discourse is simply a short term power struggle and mostly, and most damning, no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance, much less do anything about it. — boethius

Given I think there isn't a duty, take this with a grain of salt - I think you're making a huge mistake.
The political sideshow, is a really bright shiny sideshow. It simply does not represent most people.

Regarding the balance of your post, firstly, thank you for illustrating a number of those ideas from MacIntyre. Interesting. Partially, i dismiss some of the heat in those passages due to the above (politics=/real life in some sense) but moreover, I don't think this is a bad thing.

Western Culture would, surely, allow for an adaptation and evolution of society following the, lets say, dismantling of a current paradigm. This seems to have happened several times in the last 500 years or so. Major, major changes in governance and infrastructure seems inevitable. We're in the midst of a Kuhn revolution!

If the answer to that question is deemed to be negative, then inverted-qualia arguments cannot get off the ground — sime

Huh? Why? Inverted qualia arguments are specifically about different S experiencing different things. The degree of difference is what seems to defeat certain theories.

doesn't adequately capture the form of the argument that someone made in this particular case. — Pierre-Normand

= fails.

You are saying that "the lawn is wet if and only if it rained" is a false biconditional statement. — Pierre-Normand

It is. They are obviously, patently, inadequate. They neither capture the nuance of reality, or justify their relation. It is a nonsense.

I didn't believe it then, or now. I have been quite clear I'm not across formal logic enough to make those types of claims. |

The only one I've been able to stand behind is that bi-conditional logic isn't relevant to real life, in most cases.

I do. You can prove just about ANYTHING like that. "Imagine we live in a world where <x is true>. This proves we live in a world where <x is true>.

As far as I can tell, this is a rather ungenerous way of reading hte passage, but one i understand.

It wasn't suggested that the thought proves the empirical. The point is that if we could show that disparate phenomenal experience can arise from identical brain states, then this would defeat physicalism as currently thought about. It seems to me reasonable that this is a live argument that will probably survive most attacks, given we cannot show one way or the other. As noted elsewhere, no two people have 1:1 Hardware to bear this out. Which is why it's a thought experiment, I would think.

But, i concede, it is not irrational to just say "yeah, well, so?" but its meaningful to me.
— flannel jesus

How so? I — Tom Storm

At risk of sounding like a dick, I did quite lengthily do this in the post you quoted.

While this is obviously nominally true, It cannot be the case that an open-ended "well something is likely prove it wrong, sometime, somewhere, for some reason" is a valid argument, or defeater. It is self-effacing speculation. — AmadeusD

(we will need to tease apart some things here, because you've quoted large parts of that explanation)

Who says it is open ended? — Tom Storm

but who knows? — Tom Storm

Oh my guy, come on now.

Open ended ignorance also seems possible. — Tom Storm

For sure. But my pressure, such as it was, was trying to get you to commit to this as it would require you to basically claim ignorance on everything.

Well, it is the case that science provides reliable but tentative models which are regularly the subject of revision, so there's a sense in which we never arrive at absolute truth. — Tom Storm

For sure, but again, would you commit to the above?

non-physical (apart from concepts). — Tom Storm

Seems like a plain contradiction to me ;)

Sure. — flannel jesus

Nice.

That's not how the thought experiment goes. — Michael

Not sure that's a reasonable response.

Yes, and that much is clear - Largely why I didn't say anything until this last couple of pages: You lot had it well-covered.

But that's not what I was saying was wrong. I entirely misspoke in my objection.

It is not entailed that hte denial of one requires the denial of hte other. I should have been clearer in my objection. It was clearly inadequate. — AmadeusD

This seems to me something I can claim without knowing much formal logic (at least, not conversant).

"It has rained, and so my lawn is wet"

It is plainly true that denying your Lawn is wet does not entail denying that it has rained and vice verse. They are conditionally distinct. The only thing that requires the truth values to align in P and Q here is so. It's possible that what I'm outlining, without hte requisite knowledge to discuss it adequately, is that bi-conditional statements aren't a logically sound tool because we can look at the logic of a bi-conditional statement that appears sound, and it can be wrong.

This is not my utterance. Here's an interesting further response I got:

"I apologize for the confusion. Let me clarify:

In a biconditional statement "P if and only if Q" (P ↔ Q), the truth values of P and Q must be the same. This means that if P is true, then Q must also be true, and if P is false, then Q must also be false. So, in the context of affirming the components, the truth values are indeed dependent on each other.

However, when we talk about denying one component not necessarily leading to the denial of the other, what is meant is that if we deny the truth of P, it does not automatically mean that Q is false (and vice versa). The components are logically connected in a biconditional statement in the sense that they must have the same truth value, but denying one component does not automatically imply the denial of the other."

I believe the difference I'm seeing is between assertion and assent. It seems fully wrong to me that you can assent as a result of assertion, without something (other than triangle of dots) between them.

Who is the author of the long paragraph between quotes that you posted above — Pierre-Normand

An AI. Which also, when i pushed further, said this:

"So, in a biconditional statement, if you affirm Q, then you must also affirm P, and if you deny P, then you must also deny Q in order for the statement to be logically sound. The truth values of P and Q are interconnected in a biconditional statement, so they cannot be affirmed or denied independently of each other. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in my previous responses."

So, my objection isn't to the logic, it seems. It's to the application. The logic clearly fails in many cases.

You've just said it proves that people with the same physical states can experience different things. Which is, indeed, the point being got-across in my view (and again, one with which I agree so perhaps I'm being a soft touch).

I do not see anything wrong with your passage being (rightly, a rehash of the quoted from M) totally sound.

If the claim is that the above isn't possible on account of experience being identical physical states, then we're good. You've shown it to be false (assuming you accept the above - but i figure that's what you're trying to ascertain - what does someone who accepts that read into it)

denying one component does logically allow us to conclude the denial of the other — Pierre-Normand

Therefore, denying one (saying it's false) does indeed allow us to conclude that the other is also false, which is a valid form of reasoning in this specific context. — Pierre-Normand

"This statement is logically incorrect because when one component of a biconditional statement is denied, it does not necessarily allow us to conclude the denial of the other component. In a biconditional statement "P if and only if Q" (P ↔ Q), denying one component does not automatically lead to the denial of the other component. This is because the truth values of P and Q are independent of each other in a biconditional statement, and denying one does not necessarily mean the denial of the other. So, it is not valid to conclude the denial of one component based on the denial of the other in a biconditional statement."

It is not entailed that hte denial of one requires the denial of hte other. I should have been clearer in my objection. It was clearly inadequate.

Fair enough.

Well, the way i'm reading it we have two distinct things 'in action':

1)

qualia (the subjective feel of experiences) cannot be accounted for purely by physical/functional properties — Matripsa

2)

Alice and Bob's qualitative states differ while their physical statesare identical — Matripsa

I understand that you read them as the same thing, and I can see why. I have, by way of formatting, linked the concepts I think need to be linked (and, by inference, that the two types of format (referring to the passages highlighted by each type of formatting) are not linked).

This is because 1. is a claim and 2. is exemplar. That is how supporting a claims works (not being facetious). IN this case, the two sentences seem very similar but their tenses and meanings are very different. "as" puts the latter into the empirical box (at least, on M's account) and the former into the conceptual box.

It is the specific, empirical instance in 2) of the concept discussed in 1) which gives rise to supporting the claim made about the concept in 1).

I happen to agree, so it's possible im reaching a bit but I'm having no trouble explaining this so i don't get the feeling i am reaching.

air enough. But I think you agree (are there people who don't?) we don't really judge these types of theories for there impact on history. . . wait, or is that exactly what we do but don't like to admit it, so when someone says, "I disagree with N because he ruined discourse," we call them out and remind them to judge the theory on the merits, as in, does it stand to reason? — ENOAH

I think this is true for most of the shallower readers (the teenagers I've discussed at times, for instance) so they're just as easily able to discard N as not 'worth reading' rather than 'Not a philosopher' which i think is probably the most scathing (reasonable) criticism of N.

But Philosophers (broadly speaking) who read N seem to read into his work philosophy even he didn't necessarily understand or think of while writing (also true for a lot of lyricists!!) He was writing for other reasons.

Deliberation is a human activity. — L'éléphant

And each incidence of deliberation is determined by the previous. Which is determined by its reasons. Which are determined by previous states of affairs, which consist in previous deliberations and reasons.

This is not avoidable without some novel element interloping.

This is meant to show that qualia (the subjective feel of experiences) cannot be accounted for purely by physical/functional properties, as Alice and Bob's qualitative states differ while their physical states are identical by premise.
— Matripsa

Seems like it assumes the thing it's meant to prove. Seems circular to me. — flannel jesus

Then i think you missed the bolded word.

But are you satisfied that it demonstrates the experience is non-physical? How would we demonstrate that conscious experience reflects a non-physical reality? Isn't it an inference based on a lack of data or knowledge? — Tom Storm

You're essentially asserting a no true scotsman here(which i note you do acknowledge at the end of this passage by suggestion). The only way I could agree with you, is if I believed that it was always likely further discovery would invalidate my current position[/i]. While this is obviously nominally true, It cannot be the case that an open-ended "well something is likely prove it wrong, sometime, somewhere, for some reason" is a valid argument, or defeater. It is self-effacing speculation.
It would be true for all but modal claims. Is that the case? Or can we - demonstrate - that certain things are almost certain, despite further discovery clearly being able to debunk that position?
I do not find that an appealing concept, or a valid way to approach claims. I believe we can demonstrate that something is not the case, only. I think this has been done, in the terms I've set out.

what is your explanation of consciousness? — Tom Storm

It seems clearly non-physical, to me. Otherwise, I don't think anyone saying they have a clue is being honest with themselves so i largely refrain from even speculating.

. Therefore, denying one (saying it's false) does indeed allow us to conclude that the other is also false, which is a valid form of reasoning in this specific context. — Pierre-Normand

This is clearly wrong. I'll leave it there.

Agreed. But that philosophy should be provided by the scientists. — jgill

Any bumper sticker you can provide for why? It seems odd to me. Like saying hydrologists need provide the engineering know-how for hydro-dams.

Is anything we experince non-physical? Can we demonstrate there is anything outside of brain states, physical processes? Asking for a friend. — Tom Storm

I don't really understand the question. The entire point is that we cannot demonstrate the physical-ness(sorry, there's not a better word I know) of certain things such as memories (no, nothing in neuroscience changes this position at the current time) or desires. They are non-physical properties of experience, even if there is a correlated brain-state. This does not demonstrate that the experience is physical. It is patent that some experiences at non-physical. A change of opinion. Being awake/being asleep (in the phenomenal aspect).

That is, unless you take the entirety of phenomenal experience as an evolutionarily-required post-hoc sense-making program. This seems wrong to me on plenty of levels but it does seem plausible, for sure. IF that were the case, I'd be able to take your inference fully. It seems obviously that if this is hte case, the only possible information is physical states to inform the 'sense making' apparatus/i. Given I find issue with the theory i unfortunately cannot take that as sound.

It strikes me as bizarre that you're not aware not responding is better for both of us at this point.

Parfit would be disappointed :snicker: Ah well. I'm here to talk philosophy. Do whatever you want i guess.

But he was a true artist of a writer. He said many wise things. These refute his exaggerations, to me, and allow me to still cherish what he did for these discussions. — Fire Ologist

This is a incredibly lucid take on Nietzsche to my mind. Nice.

You'd be a lot cooler if you weren't too cool.

Ah well. Horse to water and all..

or even conscious thoughts about a bike, being involved. — wonderer1

It just becomes a less conscious belief. — AmadeusD

;) I agree with what you're saying, but maintain this indicates you have retained the beliefs required to ride a bike.

Furthermore, I could point to the inroads that embodied/enactive/situated paradigms have made into psychological and neuroscientific research in recent decades and how they have made theses fields of inquiry, and some of their applications, more effective at accomplishing their aims. — Pierre-Normand

For everything preceding this: Yeah, good. Thank you. There are parts there I would have trouble answering without a sufficiently formal attempt, which I wont make.

The quoted: I don't deny the effectiveness you're talking about. But it is reasonable effectiveness. Results we would understand, from the first, would result IFF theory is true, as an example.

These do not explain to Subjects how their experiences come about. We don't have any working empirical theories for this. Nothing has brought us 'closer' to it, so far. This is because, I think, the aims there are not the aims my 'effectiveness' are aiming at. I do not think the success of neuroscience has much to say about ID/DR because I think both positions are able to explain the data. I don't see any daylight. It's not an empirical problem, apparently. The sciences are explaining what is. Not trying to figure out what to investigate. A thread here recently expounded this very well, imo.