We can already so this. Basically you just record the brainwaves and then apply that ‘thought’ to an action. It is more like programming a computer to respond to your brainwaves.

Some Aussie set up a company selling the hardware some years ago - not crazy expensive (around $500-700 I think).

I’m certain know the rules for tic-tac-toe.

Phenomenology isn’t about ‘representations’. The aim was to create a science of subjectivity - science of consciousness. Husserl’s concern was that psychologism would destabilise philosophy and the natural sciences.

There is nothing to change. You’re in a position of refuting goal posts exist.

People have already offered examples of irrefutable knowledge - it is quite, quite simple. We define set parameters of play and call anything operate outside of these parameters ‘false’/‘wrong’/‘rule-breaking’.

Knowledge is dependent upon set limitations. A triangle has three straight sides because that is what we call a triangle (Euclidian space). Given we don’t know of ‘rules’ for human life and the universe we don’t seem to be able to talk of ubiquitous truths (which I gather is what you mean by ‘perfect’)..

If you don’t know what you mean why should we bother. You seem to be leaning toward absurdism.

I meant everything is phenomenon ‘of’ subjective consciousness. I was talking about phenomenology - where ‘existence’ of objects isn’t of direct concern (because the aim of phenomenology is specific).

Define perfect knowledge. The same argumentation goes against you too. If you don’t make explicit what ‘perfect knowledge’ is how is anyone to argue for or against your point ... whatever it is?

Rewrite.

misquote. I still don’t know what you’re talking about. Better to leave it I think.

Thanks

I’m afraid whatever you’re talking about bears no relation to phenomenology then. Semantics and linguistics are no the direct concern of the phenomenological investigation.

For what it’s worth it doesn’t make any sense to me to say we can understand the function of a box yet not know what a box is. If the box is not it’s use then what exactly is the intersubjective naming of ‘box’ giving that wasn’t already present?

My subjective experience of 'box' is inextricably tied up with the language community. — Isaac

Why is it? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to understand what a box is without the word box?

Words are intersubjective. Anyone can experience a box without sharing a common worded representation of box. It is the subjective of a box that matters.

It is a tricky subject because many people go for Heidegger’s Phenomenological Hermeneutics rather than referring back to Husserl’s Transcendental Reduction.

You cannot NOT be subjective. It isn’t a choice. You don’t need worded language to interact in the world of things. Much like an ant doesn’t need to understand it is on a table to be on a table - or us on a planet.

The term horizon is probably of better use. All there is is the horizon of subjective experience. I am certainly not saying we don’t bring past experiences along with us, that’s clear enough.

This isn’t quite what phenomenology is about. It’s not merely a matter of words that gives an object.

Subjectivity isn’t a give or take. Without subjectivity there is no phenomenon to initially apply worded thought.

Seriously. Skype?

That’s been done well enough others above. Circles etc.,. If you mean something more like ‘prefect organism’ you’d still have to establish the parameters of judgement.

In society, at large, we mostly try and make things a little better - and fail often enough. I’ve always liked the idea of ‘setting an unattainable goal’ rather than settling for something easy to achieve, thus giving a false sense of ‘perfection’/‘greatness’ ... even if the source of the quote is none other than a certain Mr. Crowley!

You seem to agree? Don’t understand

I was expecting a definition of perfection? I can take a test and get a perfect score. Perfection is basically dependent upon the parameters it operates within.

Given we don’t know the parameters of ‘existence’/‘the universe’ we can only really talk of Perfection within our own defined parameters (like a mathematics test score).

Many systems are deeply complex and fluctuate a lot. A ‘perfect’ entity within such a system would, I assume, need to veer ‘off target’ from time to time in order to know where things work ‘best’. The idea of a ‘perfect’ human is simply that. There is no one size fits all, no perfect medium or workable mean. In this sense I’d say ‘perfect’ - in the day-to-day world - is more about coping with intrinsic imperfections than taking on what I would call a delusional stance of some obtained ‘perfection’.

It’s worth listening to people who use more venom in their speech. Judaka can be direct and doesn’t veer from offending in order to make a point.

We all get carried away sometimes. Consider the words in cool calm manner and then move forward. If you’re not taking ‘the bait’ then why respond? Maybe it isn’t actually bait, just a subjective observation of your attitude in this thread that may at least be worth considering (or maybe not?).

I try to practice not responding to remarks. It isn’t a sign of weakness. It is polite to let someone know they’ll be wasting their time speaking to you on x matter though. I used to think a private message saying so would help protect egos, but it was used as ammunition about my apparent ‘harassment’ so I’d lean toward making it public and civil - always leave the door open for future consideration too and try to judge the posts as posts not as posts by such and such (of course this has limitations in application).

Can you be harsh to your friends and kind to adversaries? If I agree with someone I go for the throat - not to ‘win’. I mean I actively look for a means of conflict.

If there’s a rabid beast at your door don’t kick it. If there is a docile beast at your door kick it into life. I have a feeling it is these kind of approaches that get mixed up that bothers you? Insisting on humility does more to kick a rabid beast than placate it. Walk away and don’t be tempted to put the boot in on leaving.

GL

The further point being that it can be easy to fall into a pit of blind speculation. Simply seeing what is and isn’t doubtful adjusts our perspective and allows for a more rigid investigation into phenomenon.

It is even more problematic untangling ourselves from linguistic presuppositions - like with the tame example I gave with ‘hour’.

I’m denying that you can speculate about some extradimensional box, but you cannot ‘see’ it.
— I like sushi

Exactly, so where's my role in this phenomenal investigation? You say "let's just investigate what it is we actually experience, let's use that as our measure...", I say "I experience a feeling of being able to imagine such a box", and your immediate response is "no you can't!". — Isaac

Sorry, typo. I’m NOT denying ...

It is irrelevant if this is or isn’t a dream. The experience is subjectively present. We do generally act in the natural mode of being rather than pondering every subjective presentation and turning it over continually in our heads in a state of paralysis ... but we can, and do, alter our modes of thought.

I didn’t say ‘no you can’t’. You said you can’t and I agree.

The point is noticing the modes of intentionality: speculating, thinking, feeling, saying, suggesting, reasoning, etc.,. And I don’t mean this in a language based hermeneutical sense only; hence my point about Heidegger doing Husserlian phenomenology in part. You may find that approach more to your liking though.

You can ‘feel’ something about a box. That is a mode. I could have said any 3-dimensional object of perception. There are certain - forgive me I get these Husserlian terms backwards sometimes - ‘aspects’ of a given object of experience (‘object’ in a loose sense of the term) and certain ‘parts’. I think it is the aspects that cannot be removed, but parts can, ie. removing the ‘shape’ of a table being impossible if we wish the table to be concrete object of experience, yet we can remove a leg and the table remains a table.

There are numerous ways to weave this. They are the modes of intentionality at work.

You can interpret it that way if you wish. I never said any of that specifically.

Note: the ‘you’ is a universal ‘you’ - inclusive of myself. I wasn’t, and try not to, attack what someone says like that anymore. It just makes the discussion go awry in my experience.

You may very well imagine the letters B-O-X, I’m not telling you what you imagine, I’m asking you to question the validity of the questioning and assumptions not offer up your hermeneutic interpretation of what I’ve said.

Can you imagine a box with no sides? As in create an image in your head of a physical box. The answer is no, as you said. I’m denying that you can speculate about some extradimensional box, but you cannot ‘see’ it.

To take this more in the direction you were steering, we could then ask if I could imagine a day with no hours? On the face of it most people would be inclined to say ‘of course not!’ But with a little thought it doesn’t take long to realise that an ‘hour’ is an empirical measurement and that time passes regardless of how we do or don’t account for it. The ‘mode’ of thought - the intentionality - is how we subjectively align ourselves.

That’s a pretty poor stance to take as you can, even if you accepted box in the most obvious way (which I don’t need to point out), then you could then make other suggestions about ‘side’ and ‘volume’ pretending some imagined - yet undefined - principle that doesn’t occupy subjective consciousness.

That is precisely the point of the phenomenological approach. It doesn’t have a dog in the ‘possibility’ race of some extradimensional existence or with semantic word play (or rather they are in and of themselves ‘modes’ of intentionality; one which Heidegger set his fancy too rather than the broader project of subjective experience).

None of this is in denial of accumulated experiences of some said experience (maybe ‘box’ has some personal meaning to you outside of facility of the item ‘box’?). An ant never crawls on a table, it crawls on an object of subjective experience we call ‘table’ - there is a difference, yet there isn’t a difference. It’s the perspective that matters to subjective experience.

What are you talking about?

For the love of god and baby jesus and all who sail in him, use a term NOT already in use. It’s a headache reading around the definition of ‘subjectivity’ and taking on your personal use of the term - especially when you splash it across the post several times.

Subjective experience. What can you and can’t you imagine? What do you merely believe you can imagine rather than actually imagine? It is really easy to get caught up in ‘thinking words’ to approach this task.

Example ... Imagine a box with no sides or volume

I don’t see jumping straight in at ‘do Chimps have justice’, and such questioning, as reasonably grounding for a progressive discussion. It is like expecting five year olds to behave like experienced adults. Meaning it’s usually counterproductive to start from a multilayers and complex problem (and assume there is a problem that can be tackled).

To be clearer, there is no assuming in phenomenological approach and no empirical measurements. A ‘box’ is a ‘box’ because it has sides (in the physical mode of intentionality) yet it can have other meanings (in the metaphorical mode of intentionality).

Time is certainly a huge problem as all phenomenon is unique. The ‘essence’ is getting to what always remains in some said experience - universal terms whose abstract meanings don’t alter within set parameters (the number ‘one’ is such a universal term when it comes to basic arithmetic and adding up a number of items).

Some neuroscientific research favours the phenomenological approach, some doesn’t.

What you say above is mostly irrelevant to the subjective experience because you’re dealing with the naturalistic approach - phenomenology isn’t concerned with that (at least not directly).

I’ve never offered this before on a forum. Skype?

The point of it is not to get drawn into what is ‘real’ or ‘existent’ - to ‘bracket out’ those questions as it doesn’t matter beyond experience in terms of subjectivity.

There are then ‘modes’/‘intentionality’. I can ‘view’ a box as an object, a tool, a vessel, a metaphor, etc.,. I can also think of a box (mode of ‘thinking about’).

We can then start to ask questions about items of experience. What ‘aspects’ or ‘parts’ of a box can be said to be the ‘essence’ of boxes? How many sides does a box need? Do we have to necessarily observe every side or edge of a box to appreciate it as a box (can we observe a box from every angle - the eidetic givenness of a box regardless of our limited perspective).

The primary mode of human understanding and philosophical thought stems from the phenomenological principle.

I think Husserl thought Kant used the term ‘transcendental’ to mean ‘thing in itself’ yet I’m not convinced Kant meant this dualistically - Husserl had a go at him about that (mistakenly I believe).

From the subjective day-to-day lived life we don’t act as if the world is phenomenal. Our world is materiality for the most part.

Husserl (aka ‘the father of Phenomenology’)

Everything is phenomenon. I don’t even believe Kant meant there were two worlds? I guess you’re referring to the ‘phenomenal world’ and ‘negative noumenon’ - ‘noumenon’ is merely a limiting factor NOT some dualistic separation.

That said I haven’t read all of Kant’s work and I hear he may well have said something different in his later works. I talking purely from the COPR

I don’t think you understand. It is simply a philosophical position working from subjectivity - that is it is about subjective consciousness only.

I believe that Mww is arguing from such a position. I do not. It denies direct perception the actual role it plays in rudimentary level thought, belief, and experience. — creativesoul

It does no such thing. Anyway, I’ll just keep at eye out and jump in if I can. Probably not though tbh

Thanks

So it is a phenomenological approach then? There was some theory crafting regarding neuroscience. I don’t seem to be able to find a way in here :(

Is anyone interested in talking about the phenomenological approach (Husserlian)?

I just don’t really see where this discussion is going? There appears to be a lot of emphasis on ‘concepts’ and ‘naming concepts’ ... why?

We have very different ideas about what evidence philosophy works with and our general view of the world.

Thanks for expressing yourself.

Maybe I’m a bit less ‘hippy’ though. The term ‘love’ seems a bit overused and ambiguous for my liking.

So, what's Russia's goal here? Obviously, they vehemently hate NATO and want to see what little is left of it in ruin and disarray. — Wallows

Hardly surprising given that NATO was mainly set up to protect against the ‘Red Menace’. Would Russians invade and reclaim land if the heavy military presence on their borders disappeared?

The US and Russia have been fighting proxy wars for some time. The Cold War is over though. I’d call what we see today ‘amicable hostilities’ :D

We also see left and right, hot and cold and numerous other flavoured antonyms (gradable, relational or complimentary). I am assuming you don’t consider them all aspects of Good and Evil, but I’d love to hear more if you do.

Thanks