A photograph is a copy of what exists in the world, and therefore depicts what is necessarily true. — RussellA
If I've got it right, the prefrontal cortex doesn't stop developing until around 25. So that ship sailed long, long ago. — Ludwig V
Is there a category which painting and drawing share? — Moliere
Historically, the original Empiricists were skeptics. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Your suggestions are more problematic because they impose potential voting tests, enfranchising only those that meet certain criteria beyond just age and citizenship. — Hanover
It's certainly a leftwards slant. Could it be that all of our values come from our heart, and our heart hardens with age? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Additionally, another problem with ethical naturalism is its non-deterministic nature. In any natural science, the laws or theories established are deterministic. — Showmee
The effects of gravity, for example, will always be measured regardless of the number of trials. — Showmee
Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so that anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith: for only in infinite resignation does my eternal validity become transparent to me, and only then can there be talk of grasping existence on the strength of faith.
- Fear and Trembling, p. 75, Penguin Classics
I believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced. — Patterner
No, that is not my view. A clockwork machine would not have made skyscrapers, computers, nuclear bombs, or the Hoover Dam. It would not have written Shakespeare's works, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Bible, or Gilgamesh. It would not contain the works of Bach, The Beatles, or Steely Dan. I'm saying the universe is not a clockwork machine because consciousness is a part of it. — Patterner
Could you please provide a few short quotes from him? — MoK
Yes, it is problematic, because I'm suggesting something very different from what isbso commonly assumed. i'm saying that, without consciousness being there from the beginning, things would simply exist. And, even beings with our mental abilities would not be conscious. We would be automatons. — Patterner
Can you elaborate on this idea of consciousness morphing? — Patterner
Dogmatism, however, deprives the possibility of becoming and it may be good as a temporary solution, but in the long term it is unviable. For a neighbor will come and become your master due to greater development, which ensures pluralism. — Astorre
An existential choice is possible precisely because humans do not know the ultimate purpose of life or the consequences of their decisions, and the awareness of mortality (finitude) spurs them to act. — Astorre
Today, authenticity is going beyond the boundaries of today, but in the past, although these boundaries were narrower, going beyond them was also something authentic. — Astorre
What if we view the premodern era as a time of faith in oracles, in contrast to modernity’s faith in objectivity? The belief in objectivity has undoubtedly led to significant advancements in comfort and safety, but, as you rightly noted, it has failed to deliver personal happiness. On the contrary, the expansion of the horizon of choice in modernity—from selecting weapons to adopting worldviews (religion or atheism)—has made life less predetermined but not necessarily more fulfilling. A premodern person didn’t choose between a spear and a rifle because rifles didn’t exist, nor did they contemplate atheism in the absence of that concept. This limitation narrowed the scope of choice but may have also reduced existential tension. — Astorre
Returning to the topic of existential versus algorithmic choice, I would argue that existential choices existed in the premodern era, albeit within a narrower framework: choosing a partner, deciding whether to engage in or avoid conflict. — Astorre
The weight of responsibility for these choices was no less significant, as a wrong decision could lead to death or exile. — Astorre
Belief in an oracle might have alleviated some doubts by prescribing a “righteous” path, but it did not negate the nature of choice itself. — Astorre
I agree with you that modernity has broadened the range of options, but I disagree that the nature of existential choice has changed. It remains rooted in uncertainty and finitude, not in the number of available options. It is this uncertainty, rather than the illusion of control, that continues to fuel the authenticity of our decisions. — Astorre
To do this, a basic training in the fields of science and art is required. — MoK
However, all things, living and non, experience. — Patterner
Ehen I die, there will still be consciousness. But there will no longer be any mental activity to experience. Just the physical body. No more interesting than a rock's consciousness. At least in my opinion. Others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's. In there timeframes of human life, there is certainly nore going on in a dead body than there is in a rock. A typical body will decompose much faster than a typical rock will erode. Both will experience their deconstruction, but neither will have any thoughts or feelings about, or awareness of, it. — Patterner
In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "felt experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it feel like to be a bat?" Not how does it feel physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how does it feel emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being.
Really, that's it. If you want detail, then you don't understand this idea. There is no detail to consciousness. The consciousness of different things is not different. Not different kinds of consciousness, and not different degrees of consciousness. There's no such thing as higher consciousness. — Patterner
Isn't this the Frankfurt school response, meaning we should impose ways to disrupt the capitalist takeover of technology for its malevolent purposes as opposed to traditional Marxists who would advocate removal of technology from private ownership and placing it back into the hands of the citizens? — Hanover
This really resonates with my recent readings (Schiller on aesthetics, Byung-Chul Han on technocapitalism, and John Gray on Utopian engineering), and it represents just the type of thinking we need now with the gap between ideological "freedom" and actual freedom becoming ever wider. — Baden
Of course, we are as much physical objects as rocks are. — Patterner
These things are not human consciousness. Rather, these things are what humans are conscious of. — Patterner
I would like to try to explore the idea that consciousness is fundamental. — Patterner
In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. — Patterner
Approaching ethics from my own perspective, I find the field deeply problematic. Unlike other branches of philosophy, a systematic and formal treatment of ethics seems impossible. — Showmee
If, in a branch of knowledge, being intuitive is more significant than being logical, then such a branch is substantially flawed, especially if it seeks to describe objective facts. Quantum physics is unimaginably more counterintuitive than Newtonian physics; this does not affect the former’s dominance over the latter. Similarly, in the field of mathematics, Gabriel’s Horn, which states that a shape (formed by rotating y = 1/x, for all x≥1, around the x-axis) could have infinite area yet finite volume, is not rendered invalid due to its counterintuitive nature. — Showmee
Establishing a robust non-cognitivist stance requires not only destructive arguments, but also constructive ones—something current accounts fail to deliver satisfactorily. — Showmee
What I mean by that is one's taste in philosophy. — Moliere
Do you have a sense of your own taste? — Moliere
Why are you more drawn to particular philosophers, schools, styles, or problems? — Moliere
Do you think about how to choose which philosopher to read? — Moliere
While this could include the prose -- is it elegant or turgid? -- what I want to focus on is the aesthetic judgment of the philosophy itself. — Moliere
So the complaints are just anti-intellectualism, or laziness, or both. — Jamal
