:up: :up:Radical non-dualisms like that of Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity, rather than elevating consciousness to supreme status. — Joshs
:roll:It's a fact. — Wayfarer
Yes, (i.e.) the unbounded void of uncountable, endlessly swirling atoms ... natura naturans.In other words, ultimate reality is not an alternative to conventional reality; it is the insight into the emptiness (śūnyatā) of inherent existence in all phenomena. — Wayfarer
Well, the alternative is 'to live carelessly', no?My somewhat crude question is, why should we care? — Tom Storm
:sparkle: :eyes: :sweat: :lol: :rofl:Is this frame[work] really just for people who enjoy 'wanking about oneness'
Perhaps these reflections are used by some as a prophylactic against superstition, magical thinking, ego-fantasy, zerosum games, etc.... or does it have a tangible use in daily living?
Ontological immanence¹.What is non-dualism? — Sirius
Misunderstanding, or ignorance-denial, of the fundamental inseparability of everything from nature is "the nature of illusions" (i.e. superstitions) such as "non-contingent facts", "transcendent values", "supernatural entities", etc.What is the nature of an illusion?
I think (A) refers more broadly to eliminativism (e.g. D. Dennett, P. Churchland, et al) than specifically to Metzinger's 'representational-functionalism'.Does A equate with Metzinger's 'self-model theory of subjectivity'? — Tom Storm
Well, I prefer (A) speculatively but (D) empirically; however, I find both (B) & (C) are incoherent (e.g. compositional fallacy & appeal to ignorance, respectively).Which seems more reasonable, or likely, to you, @Wayfarer (or anyone): (A) every human is a zombie with a(n involuntary) 'theory of mind'? or (B) every entity is a 'conscious' monad necessarily inaccessible / inexplicable to one another's 'subjectivity'? or (C) mind is a 'mystery' too intractable for science, even in principle, to explain? or (D) mind is a near-intractably complex phenomenon that science (or AGI) has yet to explain?
— 180 Proof
B is closest to the truth I reckon, but we can know other minds by inference ... — bert1
Behold the *Jihad of Estrogen* :strong:Politics... it isn't about logic and intelligence, it's a religion. — ssu
My preferred example is 'the principle of noncontradiction' (PNC).I hold that some concepts are primitive and absolutely simple [ ... ] the best example I have: being (viz., ‘to be’, ‘existence’, ‘to exist’, etc.) — Bob Ross
non-circular definitions — Bob Ross
:up:all definitions are essentially circular — noAxioms
Maybe you missed the link posted by @ "wonderer1" ...the counterintuitive phenomenon of "blindsight", in which patients behave as-if they see something, but report that they were not consciously aware of the object — Gnomon
There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun. — Gerry O'Driscoll, doorman at Abbey Road Studios
I wouldn't want to live an 'unexamined life' or without ever wholeheartedly loving anyone else. I also wouldn't want be a coward or servile. (I'm sure there's more ...)With this in mind do you think there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them even if you’re the only person affected? — Captain Homicide
Yes, we are 'beings-in-media-res'. I prefer Jasper's notion of 'Existenz' as conditioned, or grounded, by what he calls the encompassing¹ or even better, more concrete, Spinoza's/Deleuze's 'radical immanence' (i.e. eternal and infinite substance²).I wonder if we forget our place if we don't sometimes remind ourselves of the middle. — Fire Ologist
"Determinism" is a thought-experiment, not a truth-claim – a supposition, not a proposition.Is determinism true? — Truth Seeker
We cannot "know" it, only imagine it.How can we know for sure?
:100: :up:My statement was that there's no reason to believe Biden is any better.
— boethius
Exactly. Which is absurd and, I’ll repeat (accurately); if this is your conclusion, then you’re not paying attention. Plain and simple ... My suggestion is to read less philosophy— it’s not doing you any good here. — Mikie
:smirk:Now everything else can toss the coin (or when you do metaphysics, the coin can toss everything else). — Fire Ologist
Interesting. I agree with "the coin ... logic". However, suppose "everything else ... objects of science/philosophy" instead tosses the "coin", so to speak, again and again again dialectically. :chin:I would say the two sides of the coin include science and philosophy together on the one side, keep the coin as the connector logic, but put everything else on the other side as the objects of science/philosophy. — Fire Ologist
You believe the goal of physicists' "T.O.E." is to explain "everything"? that it's not just physics but some final (super-natural) metaphysics? I thought the aim was to produce a testable unification of the fundamental forces of nature – to demonstrate they are aspects or modalities of one another – that's formulated into a G.U.T. (which would include QG). What does "everything" have to do with it? That's not physics. How is it even possible to test a purported explanation for "everything"?I hope the T.O.E. fails. — ucarr
:up:I read Robert Alter's biblical translation — BitconnectCarlos
AFAIK: no, it cannot.The scope of science includes more th[an] nature? — ucarr
Yes (e.g. facts, subjects).The scope of nature includes more than material things and their attendant physics?
I agree, but for a different reason: reality itself is the negation of impossibility (e.g. facts in contradiction to one another or to themselves; things with inconsistent properties), or that the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) is the coin of the real(m) with complementary faces: Philosophy (roots, heads) and Science (branches, tails).I argue for the vanishing point of difference between science and philosophy through the essential linkage connecting brain and mind.
Not so, not even close ...Many[none] of these circumstances applied when Hillary ran and she lost. — Benkei
So what accounts for "qualia" other, or more efficacious, than "physical/functional properties"?... qualia (the subjective feel of experiences) cannot be accounted for purely by physical/functional properties ... — Matripsa
This is incorrect even for today's neural networks' and LLMs' generative algorithms which clearly exhibit creativity (i.e. creating new knowledge or new solutions to old problems (e.g. neural network AlphaGo's 'unprecedented moves' in its domination of Go grandmaster Lee Sedol in 2016)). 'Human-level intelligence' entails creativity so there aren't any empirical grounds (yet?) to doubt that 'AGI' will be (at least) as creative (i.e. capable of imaging counterfactuals and making judgments which exceed its current knowledge) as its makers. It will be able to learn whatever we can learn and that among all else includes (if, for its own reasons, it chooses to learn) how to be a moral agent.But AGI is limited to knowledge, and so, structurally, it can only decide and choose based on information already made explicit that it is told or learns. — Antony Nickles