Comments

  • Life is just a bunch of distractions
    Living, after all, is only a distraction from dying. My life distracts me (less with each passing decade) from my death. And so it goes. C'est la vie. Amor fati.
    :death: :flower:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Does 'unmediated experience' make sense to you?
  • The "self" under materialism
    Information is not the subject of physicsWayfarer
    :roll:
    Models + data = information (i.e. conjectures tested by deductions of experimental predictions); e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_physics
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    I don't believe experience is private, ala the private language argumentMoliere
    This is among the reasons why enactivism makes more sense to me than any other account of 'experience'. :up:
  • The "self" under materialism
    @Agent Smith
    I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things.Gnomon
    Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics?
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    If the so-called "hard problem ..." is not a scientific problem for neuroscience, as you admit,
    So "the hard problem .." is not a scientific problem like I've stated.
    — 180 Proof

    No not really ...
    Metaphysician Undercover
    then your point about a "blindspot" is merely a tendentious non sequitur, MU.
  • What are you listening to right now?

    Blow by Blow (44:35), 1975
    Jeff Beck


    Wired (36:51), 1976
    Jeff Beck

    1944-2023 :fire:
  • Deep Songs
    Jeff Beck 1944-2023


    "Come Dancing" (5:54)
    Wired, 1976
    Jeff Beck

    *


    "Cause We've Ended As Lovers" (5:17)
    Live at Ronnie Scott's, 2008
    Jeff Beck
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    So it's not that the neuroscientist has a "blindspot" as you stated here
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/771468
    and actually that it is only a "hard problem" for idealist (or subjectivist) philosophers '. I agree.
  • The God Beyond Fiction
    Personally, I refer to purposes, meaning the purpose of science is to tell me about the world. The purpose of religion is to tell me how to live in itHanover
    Once upon a time, when I was a high school junior, a priest had told me "Reason is for living in this world and faith is living for the world-to-come". (Some months later I recognized I'd not only lost "my faith" but also that I'd never had any "faith" whatsoever.)
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    [W]hat is lost is identity, not consciousness.bert1
    The "identity" of what is "lost"? And if this is the case, then what function does "consciousness" serve? What does it do (or what do we do with it)?

    How did you feel when you were unconscious?
    I do not remember.

    In my terms of consciousness being 'awareness of self-awareness', being unconscious is not to be aware of being self-aware or not to be self-aware.
  • The God Beyond Fiction
    [R]eligion and science don't serve the same human needs. Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures.Vera Mont
    :100: :fire: Excellent post.

    :clap:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    So you have never been unconscious? I know I have and that you do not have any grounds to doubt my subjective account of having been unconscious.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Consciousness is the capacity to feel.bert1
    So while unconscious one "lacks the capacity to feel"?

    Btw, is it even possible for a panpsychist to be unconscious?

    What is the hard problem, in your own words?
    My charitable reading of Chalmer's notion is, in my own words, 'the difficulty of scientifically demonstrating that human beings are n o t zombies'.
  • Should humanity be unified under a single government?
    It's more helpful if you just state your point clearly and not obscure it even more behind rhetorical questions. Thanks.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    I'll wait for you to state clearly your "concept" which you claim I and @Banno lack and then I may further elaborate on what I've already written here:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/771417
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    :ok: So "the hard problem .." is not a scientific problem like I've stated.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Tell me then in what way "the hard problem ..." is a scientific problem particularly in neuroscience.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    What is my concept?bert1
    I'm not a mind reader. Spell it out, sir.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    If you have the same concept I have ..bert1
    If that's what you mean, bert, I admitted that I don't. in the preface to that old post where I disuss my understanding of awareness. So what I or @Banno don't "have the same" conceotion of awareness as you – probably because we find "your concept" unsatisfactory for one reason or another. If that's all you're saying, it's a fairly trivial, unphilosophical statement. I'm prepared to make the most reasonable case I can for my concept of awareness. Are you prepared to do tthe same? It doesn't seem to me you are, bert. :chin:

    What do you think I mean by the word 'consciousness'?bert1
    I'm not a mind reader. Spell it out, sir.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    I'm saying, reluctantly, that you lack the concept of awareness. I think you are aware. But I don't know this for sure. You both seem to avoid the concept.bert1
    You're misrtaken, bert. I don't avoid the concept when it's relevant to clarifying or examining another concept. Unlike you, bert, folk psychological terms like "awareness" or "consciousness" are neither fundamental nor a priori in my understand of myself, others or nature; such concepts refer to emergent properties or processes. An example from an old post that just popped-up in a TPF search. A definitional sketch to somewhat disambiguate these fuzzy folk concepts:
    • pre-awareness = attention (orientation)
    • awareness = perception (experience)
    • adaptivity = intelligence (error-correcting heurstic problem-solving)
    • self-awareness = [re: phenomenal-self modeling ]
    • awareness of self-awareness = consciousness
    180 Proof
    We are embodied phenomenal-selves (i.e. metacognitive agents), riders on the storm :fire:
  • Logic and Evidence: What is the Interplay and What are Fallacies in Philosophical Arguments?
    Would I be correct if I said praxis is the stumbling block ...Agent Smith
    Aristotle uses the term akrasia instead. I think foolery is more apt.
  • Logic and Evidence: What is the Interplay and What are Fallacies in Philosophical Arguments?
    :up:

    Philosophy as persuasion may be shallow as it is with another end in mind rather than an open approach to where the philosophy quest may lead.Jack Cummins
    Socratics (e.g. Plato et al) called these persuaders "sophists". Today, I suppose, we call them "lawyers, politicians, preachers, propagandists, public relations agents, advertisers, influencers, brokers, pundits, gurus, psycho-analysts / therapists, fortune tellers, conspiracy theorists ..."
  • Should humanity be unified under a single government?
    I don't see the point you're making or how your post addresses my post from which you've quoted an excerpt (out of context).
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    That damn "blindspot" (abductive reasoning) must be why they also don't see "unicorns" or "pixies". :smirk:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    ... the obvious fact that first-person consciousness cannot be captured by third-person scienceWayfarer
    ... which is only a "problem" for philosophers and not for neuroscientists.
  • Economic, social, and political crisis
    I even quoted from it. Have you read mine?
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    I remember,” someone said, “how in ancient times one could turn a wolf into a human and then lecture it to one's heart's content.

    *

    In their effort to divorce language and experience, deconstructionist critics remind me of middle-class parents who do not allow their children to play in the street.

    *

    Poetry is an orphan of silence.

    *

    For Emily Dickinson every philosophical idea was a potential lover. Metaphysics is the realm of eternal seduction of the spirit by ideas.

    *

    At some point my need for a solution was replaced by the poetry of my continuous failure.

    *

    Making art in America is about saving one's soul.

    *

    Dear Friedrich, the world's still false, cruel and beautiful...
    — Charles Simic 1938-2023
  • Economic, social, and political crisis
    ... a system that supports a nefarious and privileged few, who live off the sweat and toil of the majority ...

    My own early life experience is one of the foundational reasons that I am a socialist and secular humanist.
    universeness
    I do not want to blame anyone for this economic disparity because I can not think of how things could have been done better.Athena
    So you believe DINO is the best we – humanity – can do? :chin:
  • Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed
    All he's got is his usual appeal to incredulity in the form of "my personal philosophical thesis". Critical, informed, engagement is not forthcoming because, as @Gnomon's vacuously rococo posts expose, there is no there there.
  • Logic and Evidence: What is the Interplay and What are Fallacies in Philosophical Arguments?
    "Questioning is the piety of thought."
    ~Martin Heidegger

    Forming questions is an important part of philosophy.Jack Cummins
    I think, instead, it is the most important part. Just as science is, overall, reasoning to better, more probitive (parsimonious) explanations, philosophy is reasoning to better, more probative (unbegged) questions. An answer, especially a speculative one, is just a question's way of generating (i.e. usually re-formulating it into) a new, or different, question. Thus, 'the gadfly's' examined life. :fire:
  • Bannings
    Gassendi1 his name was. He was a prick but I learned a lot from him. He really added argumentative quality to the forum as well as knowledge of hard nosed analytical philosophy, something that the forum lacks nowadays.Tobias
    :up: :up:

    @Bartricks – gfy, D-K troll! :victory:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    All this to say it's high time neuroscience takes thinking as seriously as musicologists take music. No musicologist worth the name would use orchestra heat scans to explore Mozart.Olivier5
    :chin: :smirk:
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Yes, we are very good at lying to ourselves.Olivier5
    :up: (i.e. metacognitive confabulists!)
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Some of us "don't have the concept" of what?

    Some of us "don't have the concept" of what?
    Now, when you reflect on your own mental events, you're not doing so real time, you're doing so milliseconds (sometimes more) after they happened. So you, in reflection, are just like the third party looking at a P-zombie. You don't know for sure what just happened and could be wrong about it. You tell a story.Isaac
    :fire: :up:
  • The God Beyond Fiction
    I'm not talking about religionsTheMadMan
    ... just the same old superstition.
  • The role of observers in MWI
    So what do you make of David Deutsch's arguments in favor of the MWI?

    (previously post here)
  • Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed
    ... to figuratively demonstrate the difference between 180's worldview and my own.Gnomon
    :sweat:

    What is an anomaly?Agent Smith
    I'm no Kantian but an "anomaly" revealed by our model represents a limit or an inconsistency of our model rather than an "anomaly in itself" (whatever that means).

    Why does it beg/demand for an explanation?
    It only "demands" that we update our model.

    ... why was the early universe in a low entropy state?Agent Smith
    Same reason, I guess, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs ... and ... (N+1) system-states > (1) system-state in a non/linear dynamic system. :fire:

    It's been speculated that "the Big Bang" is a white hole at the other side of a black hole and there is a dumbell-like symmetry between our matter universe and an antimatter universe so that the "low entropy" of our beginning is canceled-out, or balanced by, the "high entropy of the end of that anti-universe (i.e. the twist, so to speak, in a Möbius Loop-like torus that alternates – occillates back and forth – between entropy minimums and maximums) such that "the low entropy of our early universe" – it's asymmetry – is only apparent.

    NB: IIRC, I got this from a Sean Carroll article / youtube ... which I only grasp a little better than Roger Penrose's 'conformal cyclic universe' conjecture. (At least none of that "enformy" woo woo's needed.) :smirk: