To say that the physical brain cannot be brought into the epistemological debate is to take the side of Idealism, thereby excluding the possibility of Realism. — RussellA

I am not denying the existence of the brain, or the involvement of the brain in mental events.  But dragging the brain into the Epistemic discussion has been always the same - nothing much in essence and nothing really fruitful to add into the conclusion apart from just muddling up the points. 

We all know it is the brain which is responsible for all the mental events. That is just common knowledge, but the rest is unknown how the brain state generates mental events or what are the mental states or events we have in nature.   We know we have mental events such as perceptions, feelings and sensations ... that is all we have to work with in Epistemology and Metaphysics. And there are plenty to investigate and discuss in the conceptual level of the topic.

There are some interesting theories by scientists that mental events may not be all 100% from the brain.  There are some Amoeba species, which don't have brains. Just visual sensors in their body, but they make movements towards their prey, eat the prey, and then return to their original location using the sensors. Knowing the preys and returning to their original location by their willed movement are looked upon as mental discernment by the Ecologists. If this is the case, then are all the mental events from the brain functions? Could brain then totally be eliminated in investigating mental events?

Most of the classic philosophers have been talking about the nature of the mind without mentioning brain. And the ancients used to think hearts are the source of mental events, not brain, and breaths are the minds and souls of the living.

The Indirect Realist would say that our perceptions of the external world are not directly of an external world, but are directly of an internal representation in our mind of an external world. Such a representation may or may not directly correspond with the external world that is causing such representations — RussellA

Indirect realist sounds like an idealist in disguise under the mask of the realist. If you say, it is just a representation of your mind, then it looks to me idealist, even if you say it is indirectly from the external world (it gave impression that the external world bit was added to try to assert you are a realist as well, not the disguised idealist :) ).

Do you believe that the external world objects are real, or just a representation of your mind? I mean do the external world and objects keep existing even if while you are asleep, or they don't exist anymore when you are out for the count?

I still think that these individual perceptions, sensations, emotions and feelings and all the mental events are not the self, but they are just a logical evidence that those mental events are under your own ownership.

The self is a special form of perception which looks inward into your mind, being conscious of all the mental events taking place in your mind. The self perception would be invisible or unknowable by all your outward perceptions. It can only be intuited via mediation or self introspection. In that sense, it is transcendental in nature.

But am I directly perceiving light that exists outside in the world, or am I directly perceiving a process happening inside my brain? — RussellA

I don't think it is  a good idea to bring the brain into Epistemology.  Brain is, of course, the essential organ for perception, thoughts, and all the mental events to exist and function in the mind.  But it is in the realm of Biology and Neurology. 

In Neurology and Biology books, they enthusiastically and excitingly talk about how the senses bring in the external data into the retina, and how they get  converted into electrical signals, and get fed into brain cells with all the colourful photos and diagrams and graphs in the illustrations.  But that's where the story stops. 

They all go mute, or say the hard problem explaining where the brain state and the perception binds must go back to 200 - 300 years of time of Kant or Hume.  So it is not very fruitful to bring the brain into the epistemological discussion yet until the sciences made some real progress on explaining the hard problems.

If you think your perceived images of the light exist only in your mind, and that is the real existence of the light, then you are an idealist.

If you say that your perceived image of the light is the actual existence in the external world, then you are a realist. 

What are you?

I think having all these different perceptions in the mind is evidence for the existence of self, but perceptions, sensations and feelings are not the self itself.

I feel that self is a special perception (apperception of Kant's term), that looks inwards into the mind, whereas all the standard perceptions look outwards into the external world. The mind has two sides, i.e. the inside (self) and outside (perceptions for the external world).

Because the self can only look inwards into the mind, it is invisible to the other perceptions. I am not 100% certain of Kant's idea of self, as I have not read it yet.  I did read the definition of Kant's apperception, and borrowed the idea to make up my own thoughts on the self. Could be wrong, but will keep on reading to further clarify and discuss. :)

IE, rather than certain ideas/concepts/mental objects pre-existing the self, these ideas/concepts/mental objects are the self. — RussellA

This idea is absurd in that, if all these ideas/concepts/mental objects are the self, then you end up having 1000s of different selfs.

I used to hang out on Twitters with the like-minded people years ago, but now it is totally transformed into a gigantic marketing arena with the new ownership and new name "X". I abandoned the sinking ship X, and just watch youtube these days.

Few year ago, I used to distrust information from Wiki or any online source, and the people who copy & paste the contents from the online sources into the forum posts. But now, I am more open minded on online information sources for their accuracy and quality.

I still tend to pass the copy and pasted contents from online sources in the posts unless it is vitally relevant to the points or topic.

I am assuming that for this exercise the self and the idea of the self are different, and the exercise is concerned with the idea of the self. — Daniel

How are they different?

It would be helpful, if you could clarify, whether your idea of self is purely mental, or physical in nature, or combinations of both.  In other words, is the self made of purely perceptions, feelings and sensations? Or is it a combination of body, brain and mental states? Or maybe could it be just functions of brain (There is no mental existence, but only the biological neural state of brain)?

I go by the concept that the idea of self is identical to self consciousness.  It seems to be a reasonably widely accepted opinion on the topic.  I was looking at "A Companion To Metaphysics" Edited by JG Kim and E. Sosa (1995, Blackwell Companion to Philosophy).  When searched for self or idea of self, it refers to Self Consciousness.

Idea or concept of self is a type of intuition or Apperception (in Kant's terms), that looks into the Mind.  It is embedded or based on all mental perception, feelings, sensations, and bodily and speech  acts too.

By that, I mean,  one cannot be unsure of one's own thoughts, feelings and sensations in one's own mind and body for them as one's own mental events (because it is, by necessity impossible, for one to have the mental events without the self).

But also when one says, "It is raining outside.", what actually it means is, "I perceive that it is raining outside."  "Philosophy is an interesting subject." means that "I think Philosophy is an interesting subject."  "Shall we meet for dinner?" is "I would like to ask you, if we shall meet for dinner. What do you think?" 

"Shut the bloody door!" would be "I ask/tell/order you to shut the bloody door."
There are implied "I"s in every sentence one utters.

why restrict yourself to a chatty robot? — Vera Mont

I wouldn't be interested in chatting to the robots at all. I prefer chatting to the real humans for sure. :)

Interesting that you mentioned Habermas, because I just bought a book by him called "Truth and Justification".

But for the OP questions, could it be the case that some interlocutors' judgements are overridden by their self-pride and emotions ignoring the rationality during the debates?

Even if their rationality tells their claims have logical flaws or not making sense, but due to their overriding emotions such as self-pride overshadowing the rationality, either the rationality is invisible to them, or they still maintain their claims even if it lacks rationality or truths in order to protect their self-pride, taking an ad hominem response. Therefore could it be the case, emotions are more forceful than rationality in the minds in some cases?

I will be keeping all my old textbooks, Encyclopaedia and the philosophy books.
At one point, I was thinking of getting rid of the old paper books, but they will come handy for reading, referencing and studying.

On this account of course there is no 'real' to penetrate to or to accept is forever out of reach, because there need be no ontology, like Collingwood's metaphysics. Epistemology might be all there is :) — mcdoodle

:cool: :up:

No, philosophy is about truth. Kant says philosophy speaks in a universal voice, as if for each of us, for us to see ourselves in it. Not everyone will have all the answers but there is merit in learning how they think to find what it is they do see. I take your responses here as not only obtuse but dismissive, condescending and disrespectful. Keep your opinions to yourself in the future please. — Antony Nickles

Sorry if you took it personally. I didn't mean to be disrespectful at all.  My point was all about your argument.  It had nothing to do with you personally.  I don't even know who you are.  All I see is arguments and writings in the posts.

But I was just being honest with your points. If I was blindly agreeing with your points when I don't, wouldn't the hypocrite attitude be more disrespectful to you?  

Anyway, yes I agree truth is important in philosophy.  But are you claiming that all your arguments and points  were the truth for the topic, and all my points were false?

I only joined in this thread to interact with the topic, because it was the topic I was interested in before, and was just giving my own argument on your points. And I concluded that we have different ideas on the topic, which cannot be agreed, and said that to you honestly. If that was judged by you as obtuse and disrespectful, it is not a fair and definitely not sensible judgement.

Philosophy is also about expressing one's own opinion on the subject with full honesty and sincerity. If you dictate others to keep their opinions to themselves in the open philosophy forums just because he didn't agree with your points, then you are treating your debaters with an arrogance and anti-philosophical attitude.

Imagination is an infinitely resourceful faculty. On the other hand, people do sometimes say they have encountered something, or something has happened to them, which was 'unimagineable' - 'I never imagined that would happen!' — Wayfarer

That sounds like a linguistic use of "imagine" (meaning he never expected that would happen). But I was meaning "imagination" as a creative visual faculty. Doesn't this faculty have central connection to the OP? - The Mind Created World ? If not, which faculty of the mind does the creating the world process?

Will the textbooks and Encyclopaedia will still be in demand? (6 votes) — Corvus

Yes, they will still be in demand. The good old paper books will always be with us, it looks like.

That wasn’t clear, sorry. I meant imagine as in fabricate; we fantasize that there is something to “know” about the other. That is the picture we create in order to have the universal timeless certain knowledge we want (“pure” “logical”, like math). Yes, we don’t imagine people’s thoughts, but also hypothesizing about someone only applies in certain situations (guessing at thoughts, is Wittgenstein’s example, as luck would have it). If someone expresses something we don’t guess and then are “right” (now we “know”), like their expression matches my “perception” of it (that’s not how understanding or misunderstanding works). If they are in pain, I don’t guess or know, I accept or deny them, I help them. — Antony Nickles

Do we fantasise other people's minds? I can't imagine ( By the way, imagine here is a linguistic usage, nothing to do with the epistemological use of imagine) doing it myself. :) Why do we fantasise other people's minds? We don't.

Normally, we don't think about other minds, because we just deal with others using language communication, texting and their attitudes and behaviours. It is when we are not clear about others' intentions, thoughts and feelings, we get puzzled, or anxious. That is the time we ask ourselves about the state of other minds. Sometimes it is obvious, you know it my common sense, and thinking, reasoning, but there are times it is not possible to know it. In that case, you would guess other minds, trying to find their unspoken or hidden feelings, intentions or thoughts about something that you were curious about.

Other people's pains? I don't accept, deny or help them. I am not a doctor. What privilege have I to accept, deny or skills to help ease other's pain? None !

If they asked me "Do you feel my pain?, then I would try to guess their pain. From my own experience of my own pain (if I had the similar pain myself), I could guess the other's pain. But it would be just guessing with no possibility of feeling the real pain by myself (thankfully :) ).

I don't accept or deny others' pain. If they asked me ""Do you accept my pain?" then my answer would be "Why do I have to accept your pain?" If they asked me "Do you deny my pain?" then my answer would be "I am not sure why you ask me to deny your pain. Could you please explain?"

I am not sure if we have different cultural backgrounds in responding to these cases in different ways, but it is clear that our thoughts are far away from each other.

Thinking does not work the way you (and classic philosophy) picture it, it is not judged as a mental activity. We manufacture looking at it this way because we want something certain, so we create a perpetual self that has and controls our constant individual “perceptions”—of “appearances” compared to an “objective” “reality”—or compared to someone else’s different “perceptions” that they have. — Antony Nickles

We don't agree on this point either. To me, thinking is a mental activity, which has intention and content.

Well I’ll just say that motive isn’t “internal”. The legal concept of mens rea (guilty mind) is not how we convict on 1st degree murder if the circumstances allow for only one reasonable explanation. We don’t infer whether they “meant to” or “intended to”. If they planned it, took steps beforehand, etc. there is no other criteria we use, or could, to judge—as we use other types of criteria to judge other things—but there is NOT a criteria that might ensure with certainty making it unnecessary that we be the judge**. And this is not the failure of knowledge, but why a juror must stand behind their decision (and why the law must absolve them). **The desire to avoid the responsibility of judging entirely is why people want something as certain as DNA, and why the success of science has cemented its standards in our culture for everything, creating this mistaken version of action and the self. — Antony Nickles

My point on the self perception embedded into all the motives of human actions was purely from the epistemological aspect. I don't know much about the legal side of affairs, nor am I interested in the legal, social or political topics.

Thanks for your replies to all my queries. It is clear that we don't agree on many points in this topic, but I believe that, it is natural that people have different opinions and thoughts on the philosophical topics. Realising and accepting this fact is also part of the study I suppose. :)

Let’s start with a simple thought-experiment, to help bring the issues into focus.

Picture a tranquil mountain meadow. Butterflies flit back and forth amongst the buttercups and daisies, and off in the distance, a snow-capped mountain peak provides a picturesque backdrop. The melodious clunk of the cow-bells, the chirping of crickets, and the calling of birds provide the soundtrack to the vista, with not a human to be seen. — Wayfarer

Would it be possible to imagine something that you have never seen or experienced in your life before, or places that you have never visited in real life? If it is possible, how does the imagination suppose to work for such cases?

I said that we imagine that. It might help to reread that paragraph in that light. It is not set up that we can’t “know” your “mind” “internally”, nor is it a matter that judgment is based on their expression (“behavior”) alone, but judged on the criteria of the activity happening in a particular context. And the self is differentiated not by a constant thing like “our perception” (which I have explained why we construct it this way, at least elsewhere here). As I have said, we don’t “know” the other (or don’t because there is something in them we could, but can’t), we “react” to their expression, as you don’t have a “self” by default, but in your differentiation (or defense of) the natural conformity to our culture. — Antony Nickles

I am not sure "Imagine" is the right word to describe what we do with other minds. Imagination sounds like free mind play on the mental objects when you don't have the physical object to perceive in front of you.

You imagine a beach in Brazil, when you are not in the beach of Brazil, somewhere in Europe in the winter months, when the weather gets horrible, rainy and windy. You imagine being somewhere on a Brazilian beach under the sunshine, lying down and drinking cold beer looking at the sea.

You don't imagine your friend's mind when she is sitting in front of you, talking to you in real life. You guess what she might be wanting for lunch, or what she might be wanting to do after dinner. Imagine doesn't have any reasoning or thinking involved, because it implies more free acts of the visual or auditory ideas in the mind.

Guessing is more mental activity which involves thinking and reasoning trying to find the hidden or underlying truths, answers, facts or contents.

This is a misconception of how thinking is judged and is recognized. “Nice thinking” as problem solving, “I am thinking I need to fight for this” which is a resolve to defy expectations. You are categorizing “think” as our self-awareness, our internal monologue, but these are just like everyone else. Descartes does desire certainty, which is why we project a requirement that this be rationally justifying or proving the conclusion that he wanted before it began (thus why we see it as logical), but he is still honest enough to recognize that the self does not work as a constant, thus the “when” of it. So we too are imposing that prerequisite which creates the picture polpularly taken from Descartes, which colors our interpretation of the workings of the self. — Antony Nickles

I don't quite understand this passage, what it is trying to say. Could you maybe reiterate just the main point only in the paragraph? Thanks.

We don’t take into consideration, nor do others judge us, based on the presence of the human body’s self-reflection or internal monologue, etc; these are not the criteria for motive and purpose, which are activities just like resolve or a decision on a goal. — Antony Nickles

Again, not sure what this quote is trying to say.

I am not sure on the exact information on ChatGPT myself, because I just discovered it a few days ago, and tried it. Yes, it would be relying on the information contained within encylopaedia and textbooks, but it would have more uptodate information due to the ability of frequent update, whereas the printed books get no update once published. The readers must buy the new editions, if the publishers decided bring out new editions with the updated content in the books, and if they want to buy the new edition books (I don't tend to unless there is need for me to buy the new edition copies).

I was on the impression, that ChatGPT might spew out gibberish at times, especially if the input content is more complicated ones. But for the simple concept searches might be handy resource to have for quick reference. With the A.I. technology set to improve in the future, it will get better I suppose.

So if we express a concept based on our common realities, they have more comprehensive validity. In my opinion, even the truth and falsity of propositions are based on accepted common realities (logical relations) and are only realities, not truth. — Ali Hosein

You call them "common realities", and I call them as "language, logic and reasoning".

Thanks for presenting your own argument on the topic. Yes we can keep discussing trying to improve our knowledge and understanding on the world and ourselves by continuous studies, readings and discussions.

My reality is my mental and physical world accessible to me exclusively.  Your reality is your mental and physical world accessible to yourself exclusively.  They are totally separate worlds, therefore there is no point talking about reality.

If I talk about my reality bla bla ... then it is just imaginative propositions I am making to you. If you talk about your reality bla bla ... then it is just imaginative propositions you are making to me.

I don't have access to your world.  So it is meaningless to talk about the reality which is inaccessible to other beings.

Truth, from my definition, only emerges after our judgement on some proposition, facts or perception.  It is not some entity existing in the external physical world. Truth is a concept emerged from judgement.  So if X is true, then X must be a content of your judgement in the form of a proposition.  So when you say God is truth, it is your proposition.  You judge it as true or false.  Is God is Truth true or false? The proposition lacks reasons and evidence why God is truth. So you cannot make a judgment yet either true or false.  It still stands meaningless.

Truth is an absolute concept, when we say that something exists, its existence is a truth shared by all of us equally.
Regardless of what a thing is, its existence is a common truth.

You say that something exists. What is the evidence that something exists? For example, have you seen it, touched it, heard it, smelt it? Where was it, on the mountain, hill, in your garden, or in your room? What did it look like? What shape was it? Were you able to communicate with the object that you say that exists? What was the conversation you had with the existence?

The truth is the judgment you make with your mind, when you have evidence for proving your claim is doubtlessly matching with the reality at investigation.

If I read the detail of the evidence or argument that you supply with your claim, and if I judged it DOES make sense, or it is correct, right beyond reasonable doubt, then I will agree that your claim is true. If not, I will judge it false.

Before that, I will regard your claim as not making sense, because I don't understand what it is that you say that exists. I don't know what it is that you say that exists, and why it has to be truth, and why truth is absolute. I am not sure even what you mean by absolute at this stage.

Feel it to prove it. — Ali Hosein

You made the claim, therefore you must prove it. :)
Please prove the claim using your argument with reasoning and logical evidence.

Of course, sometimes when we talk about logic we want to refer to the logic of the external world, not just thought. For example, we can talk about an organelle being shaped by "the logic of natural selection." In this case, "the logic of natural selection," might be described by numerous formal systems, but it is not the formal description itself we are talking about, but rather the way the series of causal events that appears to conform to the more general logic. That is, the formal system is itself merely an encoding of the principle we want to refer to. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Above point tells us Logic is not just simple symbolic formula manipulation.
Some people (not the OP) seem to think Logic is just a bit of formulas which has no content, and it cannot describe the reality. I feel it is too narrow and restrictive view of Logic. Logic is the way how the world and universe works, and how our reasoning and intuition works to discern right from wrong, the valid from invalid etc.

For instance it is a logical phenomena that it is likely to rain under the low pressure and high humidity in the sky. It is a logical statement describing a phenomena in nature.  

I am conscious of myself, therefore I exist.  Being conscious means, by necessity, having the conscious being.  This is a simple psychological logic based on the deductive reasoning describing how the self existence is deduced and proved.

If Age >= 20, then the client is an adult.
Writeln "OK, you are allowed to buy the ticket"
Do Issue Ticket
Print Ticket.
End.

This is a simple computational logic in computer programming algorithm snippet showing how the applied logic can work describing adult (set age >=20), and then picking out adult members in the business clientele.

God is the truth, — Ali Hosein

Prove it.

The "problem of other minds" is related to the differentiation of the self, as we also imagine there is something to "know" about the other (in the same way I imagine I "know" my "self") thus the creation of "their" special: experience, perception, sensation, etc., as always different from "mine". However, as Wittgenstein will point out (PI 3rd. p. 225), we do not "know" the other's pain, we acknowledge them being in pain--we accept them or reject them, e.g., we react to their pain by helping them. — Antony Nickles

Thinking about other minds in line with self perception sounds like a great idea. But as you say, it is impossible to see in the other minds internally. Only way we could know them is by facial expressions, language and behaviour. Maybe "knowing" other minds should be restricted to "guessing"?

"perceiving"
"perceive my existence"
"seeing"
"looking"
"know[ing] I am here"

All of these things have different, ordinary criteria of judgment for completion, appropriateness, etc.; and various expectations and implications in different contexts (they are not removed from a situation, abstracted, say, into: "me"). They are not all the same nor tied to "my experience" or "consciousness" (though that is not to say I don't have interests, focus, awareness, reflection, etc.). Another way to say it is that the conditions for these things (what makes them "possible") is not "me", but what we judge as seeing something (as something), looking for or at something, that I know where I am (I'm not lost), etc. As in these cases, the creation of the "self" works differently than imagining it as my self-awareness, inner dialogue; as with looking and understanding (which simply turn on my interest in different aspects of something than you). — Antony Nickles

I feel all those perceiving words prove the perceivers' self knowledge logically.  You see, perceive, know, look, imagine, experience, hear ... but whose perceptions are they if not the person who perceives, knows, looks, imagines, experiences and hears?

When Descartes said Cogito Ergo sum, I am sure it wasn't epistemological or ontological, but a logical reasoning.  A logical reasoning that he thinks, therefore he exists.  The thinking must have the thinker, who thinks, therefore the thinker must exist. It is not the conclusion he drew because he saw, sensed or perceived his existence visually, materially or spiritually.

Perceptions, thinking, knowing doesn't have to be tied to "my own experience" ostentatiously.  The self is already presupposed and based on all the mental events as far as I could see.

Imagine, you are told to come to the Health Centre for vaccination.  Your name, age, and all your details will be in the letter from the GP with the appointment time and date.  So you are heading to the place on the day for the time driving to the place.  Even that action is based on the self perception, that you are the one needing to go there, and get the vaccination. No one else.  So every action with motives and purposes are also embedded with self knowledge or perception.  In other words, the human consciousness is embedded with self perception.

p.s. - not sure what is meant by "attitude words in nature". — Antony Nickles

The word "assert" is an attitude describing type in nature. Because it describes the attitude of someone while speaking or putting oneself forward confidently and reassuringly. I just made-up the terminology out of my impromptu imagination. I am sure it is not an objective or accepted term.

"Consciousness" is a made up placeholder to give feeling, seeing, thinking, awareness, understanding, the quality of being unique to me ("private"), that I can "know" them and communicate that (or not, but then that is blamed by projecting an "appearance" or complicating agreement, requiring our "experience" match). Personal is to record the fact that we can keep feelings secret, not express them. I believe I went over this elsewhere in this thread in more depth. — Antony Nickles

Sure. Good definition. :up:

The word "assert" gives the impression that it is an act of speech or statement forcefully and confidently made with noticeable psychological intent towards other people. But suppose it could also be used for being assertive or putting oneself forward, which are attitude words in nature. It was not very clear to me. Anyways, both case of the usage of the word "assert" seem involve other minds with the speaker or actor, which felt inappropriate in the context.

I am in a room with my books and the desk with a lamp, clock and computer. I am perceiving them without any thought or feelings or emotions. At that moment, I could perceive my existence because I could point my intentionality of consciousness to my own self without having to assert anything or thinking that I am existing.

I am seeing my hands, and hearing the clocking ticking, and looking at the books, I know I am here. This consciousness and experience of me was identical with my existence. Without the experiencer (me), the experience is impossible.

When I am unconscious by falling asleep tonight, I will not perceive my existence during the time of my unconsciousness. Maybe I will have dreams in the sleep, but my existence in the dreams will not be concrete or vivid. In some of my dreams, I am NOT in even present. I just see other people or scenes that I am unfamiliar with. What appears in my dreams are totally out of my control of my will and intentionality.

I must return to my own consciousness again when I wake up, to perceive my doubtless and concrete existence through the experience in the reality.

It might be easier to read through my responses to other posts (say here) first for the sense of "assertion" here. I'll just say that this is not proposing an argument, it is asserting myself; as: claiming authority for me, against conformity (the social contract). — Antony Nickles

Why does one need to "assert" that he exists? I have never seen or heard anyone saying that in real life. Does it mean that when one is "not asserting", the one doesn't exist? That sounds nonsense.

Descartes wrote that to convince himself of the most ensuring knowledge with 100% doubt free. It was not as if he was "asserting" anything to anyone.

And this picture, here of "consciousness", is what I am claiming these authors are trying to get you to see past. "Consciousness" is a manufactured framework of the self as something that is mine, caused by the misconception that your "perception" is (perhaps) fundamentally different than mine (It might help to read this first). Now you will say, "but I feel this, and think, and am aware" and all that is true, but it is not the cause of the curfuffle. We are humans who have feelings and self-awareness and mental dialogue (which is not "thinking"; again, read the first post), but those are personal, not individual (we are not different by nature). The actual problem is that we sometimes just don't see eye-to-eye, but not that we can't. So if our "mental activities" are just there, without the need of their being "mine", as if special, than the need for the self as a constant thing goes away, replaced by the self as differentiated from our cultural expectations; i.e., I make myself me in relation to the past, our shared judgments, the implications of our activities and expressions, etc., or I am: a sheep, asleep, brainwashed, etc. (again, "existing" being a different matter). Good luck. — Antony Nickles

I am not understanding this paragraph. Could you please elaborate more?

Doesn't Consciousness cover all mental activities going on in the mind?  I am not sure why you are separating "personal" and "individual". How are they different in this context here?
Isn't consciousness private in nature, and by necessity, it has it's own bearer i.e. a conscious being? Isn't being conscious enough evidence of the self-knowledge for the conscious being?

My claim is that the self (that you) may not exist (in an ordinary way)--that the self exists at times, defined against the usual state of conformity (chains, asleep, silent consent). (I am cribbing this from Tracy B. Strong.)

I conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, must be true whenever I assert it or think it.
— Descartes, 1st Meditation (my emphasis added)

The popular summary of this quote: "I think, therefore, I am" has been read that my constant internal monologue demonstrates that I must constantly and knowably be me; that I "exist" as an ever-present thing. But what is lost is that Descartes says that it is only "whenever" he asserts the proposition, that he does exist; so, only at times (or perhaps not at all). And that I am contingent on the act of assertion; thinking in a particular, different sense than just talking to myself. — Antony Nickles

One only exists, when one asserts he thinks, therefore he exists. :roll: And other times, he doesn't. That sounds not valid.

Shouldn't Cogito be understood as a wider meaning such as consciousness which includes all the mental activities such as general mental awareness, perception, thinking and feeling ... etc rather than just think?

In that case, One is conscious (feels, thinks), therefore one exists.
As long as one is conscious (feels, perceives, thinks), one exists. Because consciousness requires, by necessity, the being who is conscious.

Energy as consciousness or mind?  A gigantic and unacceptable categorical mistake. Imagination gone wild in PhyFi (yet again). Energy lacks everything that is mental. 

Have you seen what direct contact with the high power energy (for example the high voltage electricity of 10k volts) does to animals or material objects?  Burning, breaking, exploding, melting and destroying.  There is nothing reasonable about it.

Hello Bob Ross

Then, what is your definition? I don’t remember you ever giving one (although I may just be misremembering) — Bob Ross

As I have said already, my definition is various. But I usually go by metaphysics is philosophy itself.

Could you please give me an example (so that we can go over it)? — Bob Ross

All my previous posts in this thread have been pointing out on this issue. But your replies seemed not relevant to my points.

Not very useful to who? The fact that logic is not about content, but about form stands whether you think it is useful or not. — Janus

Who? You raised the issue. Who else? Yes, I was saying because you never added content to logic, maybe that is your point on logic? My use of Logic was always full of content.

How about you present an example of a philosophical claim, from anywhere you like, and tell me what you think it is based on.

Otherwise, I have no further interest in wasting my time responding to your unargued assertions. — Janus

That is my own point on Philosophical methodology. If you want examples, read up on Philosophy of Language, or any Analytic Philosophy. In fact it is a character of all philosophy in general from the very ancient Greek Philosophy. Could you tell us which philosophy is based on imagination?
Same here, and I would have thought it was already clear from my last post.

The main operation of Philosophy is not about creating new ideas, but evaluating the existing ideas and claims with the critical analysis and reasoning, and judge them as valid or nonsense.

:cool: :up:

Logics determine the forms that contents must take. The point of the comment was to remind you that logic, as such, tells us nothing about the world. — Janus

You learn how to make use of Logic in real life applications by manipulating the formulas and filling the variables with your own data to apply to the real world.

The comment that Logic doesn't add any content sounds like the bowl is empty, it is not very useful. You must open the fridge door get some milk out pour into the bowl, and add some cornflakes in order to have your breakfast instead of shouting the bowl is empty, it doesn't give anything. :)

Yes, but I quickly added that it applies to all synthetic or speculative philosophy just as it does to the arts. It might be possible to make the case that it applies to any philosophy which is not simply repeating what others have already said, but I am not concerned with making that stronger claim. To put the point simply, if we are creating new ideas, imagination must be involved. How could it be otherwise? — Janus

Philosophy rarely uses imagination. It mainly uses intuition, reasoning and logic, even for discovering new ideas.

Hello Bob Ross

The OP's definition of metaphysics is too restrictive, so it seems the discussions will end up nowhere, even after months of circling around the points.

Also the OP conclusion that metaphysics is an illegitimate source of knowledge seems inconsistent with the content of the arguments in the OP's replies. The content of the OP's post is filled with both metaphysical and pseudo metaphysical concepts and comments, which are self contradictory and inconsistent.

My definition of metaphysics is broad, and sometimes I even define metaphysics as philosophy itself.
I feel that if metaphysics is eliminated, then there is not much to discuss in philosophy.

According to Locke, pictures are also ideas. Ideas are thoughts and memories.

Justification or judgment must be either from intuition or A priori reasoning ability comparing the idea of the perceived picture with the idea of the corresponding past memories.

Yes. Well put. — T Clark

Thanks :blush: :pray: