Comments

  • Philosophy and Metaphysics


    Okay guys, let's have some fun!!! I've got some time now to address the peanut gallery :gasp:
    But be quick!!!

    ...let's see, isn't it ironic, that in a Metaphysic's thread, religion, once again rears its head!? No wonder that over 75% of philosophical domains posit EOG. As an atheist (from memory, I think you indicated that you were-perhaps even a Einsteinian fanatical one) do you need to know what EOG stands for too? LOL

    To that end, care to share any theories? After all, the thread is about Metaphysics you know~. Did you watch the video?

    Surely you're not just trolling (like your fanatical atheist friend ) this thread... :joke:
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    I'm not sure I'm following that. If we could create something from nothing, to posit meaninglessness, frankly, would not even be an issue or concern.

    Ex nihilo creation is logically absurd. Thus if it is true the universe is logically absurd. It would then be incomprehensible and mysticism would not exist. If the idea is that God created it from nothing then this is not an ex nihilo theory.
    FrancisRay

    FR! Sorry for the piece meal, but your thread was a bit long, and for cogency sake, I'm allowing for each subject matter to stand on its own merits as it were:

    What then, would be your creation ex nihilo theory? Consider then, metaphysically, one would have to reconcile timelessness with temporal time. Meaning, an agent who/that exists outside of time (think relativity, speed of light, eternity) would have to, in theory, come into time to create time as we know it. In other words, in layman's terms, (from our sense of logic) an eternal truth or Being or force with mathematical properties (like those of mathematical structures) would somehow have to exist to create creation itself ( as we know it).

    And so my point is there, if we do not have the capacity to understand that (premise) then it is conceivable that (as part of the cosmological argument) the nature of our existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of human thought. Enter, mysticism, revelation, etc. etc. all aided by Kantian intuition.
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Just curious as to your take on this. Do you think Kantian intuition, noumenon, etc. is closely related to Christian Revelation (revelatory knowledge about a novel thing)? — 3017amen
    Yes! The underlying idea is that Reality is a Unity as described by the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Kant got most of the way there but we have to go beyond Kant for an understanding of the noumenal. .
    . .
    FrancisRay

    FR! Thank you for your response. I agree that there are gaps (some of which obviously having to do with recent discoveries over time...) but what is your take on that notion of DDS?
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Unfortunately, using logic, the subconscious and conscious mind would transcend common logic. Like the law of bivalence, one cannot clearly delineate the object perceived as being unitary, or describe it in a unitary fashion without contradiction. For instance, driving while daydreaming, then crashing and dying, provides for the phenomenon of the mind performing two functions simultaneously. In that case, either the conscious or subconscious mind was driving, not dreaming of a beach in the Med.. And so in that strict sense neither the conscious nor the subconscious was driving, there was some combination of both at work.

    And that suggests, although a great description (yours!) in its own right, a self-organized mind or entity is nonetheless incomplete, in a strict logical sense. And accordingly, we know Heisenberg and /Gödel demonstrated the flaws in logic's completeness and resulting randomness, which perhaps leads us to this... . — 3017amen
    Good point. I guess this is based on Kant's pure reason? This is applicable to all and every thought. It is really a criticism of dualism.
    Pop

    Thanks Pop, I think I missed this. No, it's my own philosophy, but it is inspired by Kant; existentialism, cognitive science, theoretical physicist Paul Davies, and other's. Coming back to Kantian metaphysics, and the critique of logic, it is worth noting a distinction here.

    The main tenants of Logical Positive (LP) was that there are only two types of knowledge; logical reasoning and empirical experience. While experience and testing is most definitely helpful in all walks of life, it doesn't account for things that are fixed, innate and intrinsic to cognition. For example, the aforementioned LP's analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori (respectively) does not consider the reason why we wonder about causation (synthetic a priori judgements/propositions). Synthetic a priori propositions are almost always used to poisit a theory so it can be tested. And accordingly, this is why much of science debunked LP (vis-a-vis synthetic propositions like all events must have a cause) in that it does not complete the 'metaphysical picture' of the nature of reality-why/how we are here. (Or what's behind our intrinsic need need to know.) And that is part of consciousness. It's more of a complete picture of human reason. Kant saw the deficiency there.

    So, all are good, depending of what we're parsing. We must know which hats to wear when questions are posed. Ironically enough, being reasonable essentially means treating like cases likely, different cases differently.

    To this end, can you describe your thoughts and interpretations relative to dualism v. monism?
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics


    Mr Wood,

    I'm so sorry.

    Please be well my friend.
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?Pop

    Pop! That's a great question! I'll certainly defer to 180 sharing his thoughts, especially concerning human sentience, but wanted to assist in another possibility ( though I don't think Schop. posits sentience here):

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Can you kindly explain in what sense religion is a "natural/physical science"? Thank you.EricH

    Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    If I am self aware one way and you are self aware in another way, can it be said we are self aware?Pop

    This makes me think of the distinctions between objective truth and subjective truth. We can assume objectively that we all have self-awareness, but we know with a higher degree of certainty that our own truth is pure subjectivity.

    But since we're discussing metaphysics, there are two opposing views from Berkeley and Hegel. The former known as subjective idealism and the latter objective idealism. Are you familiar with Hegel? Your philosophy of consciousness/metaphysics seems to parallel his...
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics


    Mr Wood,

    Sorry, I've hit the pass and go button. Not sure what else to tell you....

    Be well my friend!
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    I like both being in and getting out.Manuel

    Yep, me too! Well said.

    Another Maslonian mantra assoc. w/the dangers of dichotomizing things. Life is not like engineering, where if its not A, the building falls down. But rather, living life, more often than not (*consciousness/subconsciousness) is both A AND B!

    (*And an illogical mix of same LOL)
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    I think that, in many instances such as "meaning questions", Louis Armstrong's phrase can be applied:

    “If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know.
    Manuel

    Ha, love it! (Gee , btw, what is love-don't get me started LOL)

    Back at-cha:

    If it sounds good; it IS good-Miles Davis

    (That btw, was in response to too many musicians getting all twisted-up over music theory; diatonic scales/harmony, chords used for different/wrong key signatures. You know, analyze till you paralyze… .) Another Gee, is that what we're doing here, I wonder?
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Tell me more about Kantian intuition, and perhaps I can add more.Pop

    In keeping with your theme of self-organization (logic), here's a simple example of Kant's (and Socratic) intuition that many of us can relate to... .

    Say you're wanting to know what 786 x 452 is. By sense experience we can look at a math equation or be asked about a math problem and intuitively know that, in this case, a large number will result. Kids, supposedly learn very early before pre-school to add and subtract seemingly based on their sensory perceptions of spatial relationships with visualizing things. So that is something not really novel.

    It's not novel because it can be argued that we already intuitively know those math answers generally speaking. Which would be different than a mystical or revelatory experience that presents something to us that is entirely or truly novel. However, the metaphysical explanation concerning the former form of intuition, is that we have a fixed, innate (computer hardware v. software metaphor) hardwired aspect from our consciousness that allows for intuition to even occur. But again, some argue that's all just memory recall.

    Then to consider the questions about why or what that represents, or what the nature of that ability is, remains a mystery. And so we obviously know that lower life forms have a rudimentary ability to compute math, but not at the higher levels that we do. Why? How did that develop? Why can't lower life forms develop their evolutionary math skills into those of homo sapiens? Is it because we are self-aware Beings (lower life forms have little so-called self-awareness v. pure instinct)? What is self-awareness? Is it something to do with metaphysical Will? An intrinsic need to know something? A sixth sense?

    I think that much can be said about synthetic a priori propositions about the world in which we live. As I've said many times, without this hungry need to know things, even our technological advances from building cars, buildings, and the like, to improving a curriculum in college, art or music, would suffer tremendously.

    As an important ancillary note, please know that music theory and mathematics confer no biological survival advantages. Alternatively, it seems we must ask meaning of life questions when discussing the nature of reality (ontologically speaking-in this case our forms of intuition) because we can't help it. Are we here by accident? Those/these fixed metaphysical features of consciousness (will, mathematics, musical ability, ad nauseum) we don't need to survive in the jungle. And we certainly don't need the laws of gravity to dodge falling objects.

    Is ignorance bliss? Why should we care? Sorry I got carried away :joke:
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics


    I think if one were to split hairs, the esoteric definitions or distinctions you posit would still not preclude the most obvious interpretation of his substances, and the concrete things as found in nature.

    Albeit in a different context (contingency and determinism) his most salient distinctions incorporate pantheism as his so-called axiomatic means and methods used in his philosophy:

    Ip29): " In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way."
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics


    180!

    Thanks for your input! As you pointed out, there are two camps:

    "Other scholars have argued that Spinoza is a pantheist, just because he does identify God with the whole of nature."

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    do you think that non-mental being exists? That is existence that has no mental properties whatsoever?Manuel

    In a word no. Of course that assumes we're referring to metaphysical ontology (see video). The theory closest to I think what you're referring to that I embrace is something known as panentheism (not pantheism although I do like Spinoza's versions). In the former instance the universe is thought of being a part of God's cosmological body, as it were. To me, these ideas aren't any more absurd than a platonic reality (Demiurge).

    Does science tell us about things in themselves generally? Can we have an idea of what they could be?Manuel

    Great question Manuel. This is the crux of the issue at least for cosmology and theoretical physics anyway. And in trying to make a consistent cogent argument, the easiest answer goes back to a Platonic reality and how unbelievably effective mathematical structures explain the universe.

    Once again behind (unseen) the pyramid, the skyscraper, the superstructure of a building, lies obvious mathematical formulas that allow designers to create material beams, trusses, xcetera. Speaking of that, one question could be, can a bridge be built between the existence of abstract mathematical structures and an abstract cosmological God, from which abstract consciousness produces innate Kantian sense of wonderment and causation ?

    One common theme or take away there is that the foregoing has one thing in common; metaphysics. Consciousness, wonderment, the will (the world as will-schopenhauer) mathematics... .
  • Time as beyond a concept.
    Could you describe what you mean by being and becoming?unintelligiblekai

    In the context of the metaphysics of time, eternity etc , thinking is a process but being is a state. When I think my mental state changes with time but the me to which the mental state refers remains the same (paradox 1)

    When we look at logic, particularly a priori mathematical structures, we know that the regressive nature of physical existence (neurons protons sub atomic particles etc) can ultimately be described mathematically, in an unchanging abstract form (math). That a priori truth does not change with the passage of time, but the world and the things in it are constantly changing.

    The only thing constant is change itself (paradox 2).

    (In philosophy, abstract mathematics is directly associated with a platonic reality, and mathematics itself has incredible effectiveness in describing our reality, hence we find ourselves facing the paradox of an unchanging truth --math/a priori/eternal truths-- and a temporal/changing world in which we live.)
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics


    Gotcha, I get it now, thanks for the clarification! FYI- there is very little Mr. Wood and I agree on, but that's ok!! If we didn't have differences, it would not provide for the actual practice of discourse itself... .

    But to your point, and at the risk of redundancy, to me, Metaphysical world views are no less challenging than that of 'consciousness explained' :joke: It's fun to take the basic tools of exploration in order to see where it leads us or what the possibilities could be...
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Well said. My apologies. A trap I often fall into indeed. Be well.Xtrix

    Apology accepted!
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Paul Davies' book The Mind of God' is an excellent introduction to metaphysics.FrancisRay

    Agreed. I have the book and find it an indispensable reference!

    Just curious as to your take on this. Do you think Kantian intuition, noumenon, etc. is closely related to Christian Revelation (revelatory knowledge about a novel thing)?

    Not at all, If ex nihilo creation was the case then the universe would be absurd and meaningless, and we could never know much about it.FrancisRay

    I'm not sure I'm following that. If we could create something from nothing, to posit meaninglessness, frankly, would not even be an issue or concern. There would be no human need to posit same. In other words, we would already know the nature of reality (time, matter, etc..). But it's precisely that we cannot create a universe (Paul talks about mini universes) that is at the heart of the mystery. And even if there was always something (think eternity) we still do not have the tools to create same... .

    ...or is understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?

    A subtle issue. The Truth would be beyond thought, much as Kant surmises, but this is not to say we cannot usefully think about it. An intellectual understanding would be possible, but only for those who have explored what lies beyond the intellect
    FrancisRay

    Sure, no exceptions taken. But that assumes other 'logically' possible worlds existing. Thus the point that Paul makes about the fact that our sense of logic and math may not suffice here.

    In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole other metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed.

    I think not. But we have to be much more careful than usual with our use of logic. ... .
    FrancisRay

    That would be in conflict with the interpretation of the [Paul's] aforementioned proposition... .
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism


    ...we need more moderate's in both our political and religious institutions... .
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics


    Mr Wood,

    Sorry, I've hit the pass and go button. Not sure what else to tell you....

    Be well my friend!
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    It is generally assumed that metaphysical questions take the form 'A/not-A', but the mystics deny this. . .FrancisRay

    Good point, I wonder why?

    If logic cannot explain existence ex-nihilo, could it be that he universe is absurd and meaningless, or is understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought? In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole nother metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed... .

    Otherwise, mysticism seems to have some popularity in Physics:

    ...mystical thought lies at the opposite extreme to rational thought, which is the basis of the scientific method. Also, mysticism tends to be confused with the occult, the paranormal, and other fringe beliefs. In fact, many of the world's finest thinkers, including some notable thinkers such as Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Eddington, and Jeans, have also espoused mysticism...some scientists and mathematicians claim to have had sudden revelatory insights akin to such mystical experiences...Roger Penrose...Gödel...-Paul Davies

    Perhaps one consistent theme there is revelation and Kantian intuition. Thoughts?
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Mr. Wood,

    Thanks again for your question(s). I would suggest you, at the very least, start here (that way you might find you'll have to reformulate most of your questions): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science ↪3017amen And you found a reference to religion there where exactly? ....under life science.
    3017amen
    Fifth time asking.tim wood

    Third time answering?
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    which is devoid of meaning.Xtrix

    In the spirit of Metaphysics, explain for us what it means to you to apperceive meaning?

    This response is as coherent as anything else you’ve said.Xtrix

    “The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
    — Philosophim
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    What you say makes some sense. But for me metaphysics is a matter of logic and reason and it makes no difference who's doing it or what we want from it. It's just cold, hard logic.The facts of metaphysiis are demonstrable. It makes no difference whether we're a physicist, a mystic or a plumber.FrancisRay

    Point well taken. As the video suggested, the part of metaphysics that's intriguing is that it uses logic to arrive at illogical conclusions which in turn, comprise consciousness and Being (itself), which is another reason why I posited the analogy to the concept of a God. In other words, using logic, we can't even explain our own conscious existence, so how are to explain a cosmological God's(?).

    But perhaps more importantly, that may return us back to causation ex nihilo (turtle power), which seems to be analogous to Kant's synthetic a priori judgements/propositions that have pragmatic, quality of life implications. So we indeed can't overlook this innate sense of wonderment that has enhanced our quality of life in so many ways ( our ability to ask questions/critique and make improvements)...thanks for your continued contribution FR!
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a word used to explain another word, and this is supposed to be interesting. It’s really the incoherent ramblings of someone on the Internet. Even if it were true— who cares? Maybe everything is organization. Yes. Maybe everything is God, nature, energy, will, reason, objectivity, etc etc. Just add it to the list and then we can feel like we’ve accomplished something.Xtrix

    You're in a Metaphysic's thread, not a uninformed political one. Not sure why you're even participating in this one because in either case, you're certainly not doing philosophy. You seem to have an axe to grind...
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    And so if we were to use this logic, our own sense of logic, it would not be able to explain the nature in this case of [your] self-organization. For that reason it transcends our sense of logic. (The conscious and subconscious mind all working together of course is a whole nother discussion/distinction.) — 3017amen
    The conscious and the subconscious are not necessarily in conflict. Recent research shows brain structure changes in response to new ideas.
    Pop

    Unfortunately, using logic, the subconscious and conscious mind would transcend common logic. Like the law of bivalence, one cannot clearly delineate the object perceived as being unitary, or describe it in a unitary fashion without contradiction. For instance, driving while daydreaming, then crashing and dying, provides for the phenomenon of the mind performing two functions simultaneously. In that case, either the conscious or subconscious mind was driving, not dreaming of a beach in the Med.. And so in that strict sense neither the conscious nor the subconscious was driving, there was some combination of both at work.

    And that suggests, although a great description (yours!) in its own right, a self-organized mind or entity is nonetheless incomplete, in a strict logical sense. And accordingly, we know Heisenberg and /Gödel demonstrated the flaws in logic's completeness and resulting randomness, which perhaps leads us to this... .

    Complexity theory would have it that self organization arises fundamentally from fluctuating patterns of energy. Is this all there is to it? Is it arbitrary?Pop

    QM (and to some degree double slits and PAP-see John Wheeler) has also taught us that there is such a thing as an open system in the universe. An element of determinism and randomness. In our discussion I analogize randomness to a Maslonian stream of consciousness that allows for random thoughts to present themselves. But what do these thoughts represent? Are they images, and intellectual concepts (among other things) from sense experience only coming back to 'haunt us'? Or are they innate features of consciousness (novel synthetic a priori knowledge), where in this case, they may simply be both. Does the hard drive represent Kantian intuition?

    For example, I used the computer metaphor of the software consisting of sense experience, and the hardware consisting of a fixed, innate operating system of self-awareness, or as you may refer to it as, self-organization. The hardware operating system is a type of Kantian blank canvass, that has the logically necessary functions to be able to receive and compute sense data.

    I think you raise some wonderfully intriguing questions about the self-organized mind. I will continue to ponder your other questions, thank you Pop!
  • Time as beyond a concept.
    Is time merely a concept or the interpreted signals of what the world may be like to the senses? and by the world I mean experiences of physics in motion.

    Then again with my own word. The concept of time, how would one best describe it?
    unintelligiblekai

    I think it's both, much like the notion that time is eternity, eternity is time. Time has a paradoxical element(s) to it. Consider simple time travel from east coast to west. When one loses 4-hours, they don't get it back. It is lost in time.

    Also, consider the common definition of time; past, present, future. What slice or sliver of time does the present actually represent, atomic/planck time? The present only seems to suggest a separation between past and future. Also remember, it takes time to cognize a something. Being and becoming are not in unison.
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    recent years Heisenberg's uncertainty has been challenged by decoherence - this story is yet to pan out, imo.
    By transcendent I assume you mean subconscious. Self organization is largely subconscious, but this doesn't mean its totally beyond understanding.
    Pop

    Pop! Just two clarifications on that point:



    1. The point I'm making is that if we consider consciousness a self-organized being, then it implies Kantian pure reason. In our discussion, pure reason has its limitations viz. Heisenberg, Godel, etc..

    2. And so if we were to use this logic, our own sense of logic, it would not be able to explain the nature of, in this case [your] self-organization. For that reason it transcends our sense of logic. (The conscious and subconscious mind all working together of course is a whole nother discussion/distinction.)

    If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?

    In constructivist psychology, holding two contradictory concepts as being equally true is the model for mental illness.
    Pop

    Interesting. What is constructivist psychology?

    In the alternative, using logic, that could basically be interpreted as violating the law of excluded middle/bivalence. However in that case, it has more to do with the conscious and subconscious mind working together during the cognitive process, not necessarily subjective-objective truths, unless of course you wanted to parse the differences ( had an interest in that particular area of apperception.

    In any event I was wondering if you were going to try to link subjectivity and objectivity (in every sense) to some sort of dualism mind-body problem. You know, making a connection between the physical world which is inanimate, purposeless yet determined, whereas the mental world involves consciousness, self-awareness, planning, willing, desiring, etc..
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    consciousness, which we don't understand, happens because of the "will," which we also don't understand.Xtrix

    No. The Will, using pure reason, is one unexplained feature of consciousness.

    They're both abstract. Whatever an "a prior syllogism" is, I don't know. But if it's a syllogism, it's abstract.Xtrix

    You may want to take a refresher on the basics of logic. As mentioned earlier a basic syllogism/propositions of all men are mortals, Socrates is a man, bachelor's are unmarried, ad nauseum, is a priori.

    Either define your terms or stop wasting everyone's time.Xtrix

    Backatcha ☺ you may want to take the time and watch the OP video.

    Be well
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    The study of metaphysics reveals that all extreme metaphysical theories are logically absurd.FrancisRay

    Which of course is no different than the logical explanation of human consciousness itself. And so one can say it is beyond/transcends logic.

    Quite why so few people see it is a comlpex question, but I think mainly it is because professional philosophers don't do their job properly.FrancisRay

    Mr. Ray! If we did not wonder about causation our quality of life would not be what it is today. Among many other humanities science would suffer...

    The irony is we are barred from ultimate knowledge and explanation by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek an explanation in the first place. But without the self-aware curious mind, philosophy doesn't exist...
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    That neat & tidy Black & White worldview allows him to make concise & emphatic comments on the ambiguous & equivocal concepts that frivolous philosophers concern themselves with.Gnomon

    Ahhh, could not be further from the truth! Much like time itself, metaphysics is not so neet and tidy. ☺ You may want to review the video...

    Heisenberg, accepted the challenge of their baffling "facts", and attempted to reconcile their ambiguous quantum calculations with the mysticism of Eastern PhilosophyGnomon

    And that's because those who consider life being neat and tidy have to face the harsh reality that it's not. Heisenberg/Godel proved that.
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.Xtrix

    Sure it seems that human consciousness itself is abstract, mysterious and illogical... much like (and not any different than) the concept of God.

    However, for the sake of logical discussion, what makes that question incoherent?
    — 3017amen

    Because it’s like asking about the molecular structure of ectoplasm. Or like asking “Why do things happen?”
    Xtrix

    That wouldn't meet the definition standards of incoherence. To ask why do things happen vis-a-vis consciousness one of many answers would be the Will.

    No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.

    Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.
    Xtrix

    How do you reconcile the fact that a simple a priori syllogism is not abstract yet the nature of such is abstract (formal logic equals mathematics)?

    No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean.Xtrix

    I'm not exactly following that can you provide an example?
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    This gives us the 'One ' of Plotinus and the claim that Reality and Consciousness are the same unitary phenomenon.

    Thus while the rejection of mind-body dualism opens the door to various other ideas, the rejection of all dualism leads ineluctably to mysticism and the single, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. .
    FrancisRay

    Hello Francis Ray! Thank you for your contribution.

    That is a very intriguing supposition. What do you mean by, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non dualism?

    If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?

  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    It's a great topic, but I agree with Xtrix in that it lacks definition. We are considering one indefinite term ( metaphysics ) as it relates to another indefinite term ( Philosophy ), as it relates to another indefinite term ( consciousness ). The result is frustratingly vague for me.Pop

    Thanks Pop!

    If we try to put logic to consciousness obviously we encounter many problems that are vague, as it should be. For example, considering how the subconscious and conscious mind work together (not to mention unconscious), we find that more often than not it violates the logical laws of bivalence/excluded middle.

    The words consciousness and self - organization are interchangeable -Pop

    This again assumes the there's nothing that transcends the logic associated with the mind, or Being. In other words, if we say the essence of consciousness is self-organization then we can easily refer to say Heisenberg uncertainty principle and see that it is something beyond pure reason.

    Accordingly Kant was still ground breaking in his theories hence:

    ...the mind is viewed as something like a vast blank form which determines the kinds of answers that can be given, but not the specific content which only experience can determine. The forms of intuition, the logical functions of judgment and the categories, fix the necessary conditions of both experience and knowledge but the actual content arises only from something independent of us

    So what is independent seems to be much like how the computer works. Consider a computer with hardware and software, your software being your sense experiences, and your hardware being a fixed design comprising intuition, which is something, in part, that seems to be hardwired into the cognitive processes/consciousness. The extended manifestation of the hardware analogy returns us back to the 'nature' behind our sense of wonderment (why do we have this need to wonder about things like causation, etc.), the Will, and other fixed,/innate/intrinsic abstract features of consciousness and self-awareness.
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    Are you basically saying consciousness is a mystery?
    — 3017amen

    Yes, in a scientific sense. In a practical sense, it's the most obvious thing in the world.
    Xtrix

    In that same sense as we know metaphysics includes all that which is behind reality, does this mystery you & I refer to also relate to the Christian (Jesus who had a consciousness) or Cosmological God?

    To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd
    — Xtrix

    Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal?
    — 3017amen

    This is baffling. What's abstract about syllogisms? It's like saying "What's abstract about 2+2=4?"

    Logic is usually called a "formal science." It's very similar to mathematics. Both are grounded in abstractions. I don't see how this is difficult.
    Xtrix

    This seems to be a little confusing, are you saying the nature of conscious existence is abstract like mathematical structures?

    1. What are feelings?
    2. What are my experiences made of?
    3. Where do my needs reside? For example, is that some sort of metaphysical Will (Schopenauer)? Are the manifestations of the Will itself abstract?
    4. Are junk thoughts a euphemism for Maslonian stream of consciousness, and if so, does the law of non-contradiction/excluded middle logically apply to the conscious and subconscious mind?

    Maybe just pick one, if you care to... I'm trying to understand your assertion that consciousness is not abstract.
    — 3017amen

    I'm saying the sentence "consciousness is abstract" is completely meaningless. Abstraction is a cognitive process -- conceptualizations, symbols, words, etc., are all involved in abstraction. Consciousness -- in the ordinary use of the word -- is simply human life, human experience. Abstraction -- like thought, like language, like vision, like hunger -- is one feature of human experience.

    So to make a wild statement like that is equivalent, in my view, of saying "experience is hunger," or "consciousness is vision." It's just confusion through and through.
    Xtrix

    Pardon me but I don't think you answered the question concerning Item 1, which was the complete understanding of human sentience/feelings?

    Question 2 is completely incoherent, as I've pointed out before. It assumes there's a materialist explanation for something we have no concrete understanding of, apart from our own subjectivity.Xtrix

    Generally, I agree, thus no exceptions taken. However, for the sake of logical discussion, what makes that question incoherent?

    It's what goes on all day long when you're talking to yourself.Xtrix

    You seem to be referring to self awareness or self-consciousness is that correct? To that end what do you actually mean by saying basically one chooses to engage in cognitive " talking to yourself" ?
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    think most of what you said is rife with confusion, to be honest.Xtrix

    Gee, I'm glad you're being honest. I wouldn't want it any other way :smile: Allow me challenge you.


    The difference between what’s abstract and what’s logical isn’t that clear.Xtrix

    Okay. Can you make it clear?

    To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurdXtrix

    Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal?

    say “consciousness is abstract” to me is utter nonsense. I think you’re just confusing yourself with semantics—a common occurrence.Xtrix

    Can you provide an example to your exceptions taken? You seem to be saying, on the one hand, that you understand consciousness, yet on another you don't. Are you basically saying consciousness is a mystery?

    We’re alive, we see and hear things, we have experiences, feelings, emotions, needs, etc., and much of our lives consist of junk thought, phatic communication, and unconscious activityXtrix

    Ahhh, now I think you're getting it:

    1. What are feelings?
    2. What are my experiences made of?
    3. Where do my needs reside? For example, is that some sort of metaphysical Will (Schopenauer)? Are the manifestations of the Will itself abstract?
    4. Are junk thoughts a euphemism for Maslonian stream of consciousness, and if so, does the law of non-contradiction/excluded middle logically apply to the conscious and subconscious mind?

    Maybe just pick one, if you care to... I'm trying to understand your assertion that consciousness is not abstract.
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics


    Sure, good question....truth itself is both subjective and objective. Both are good. Both are necessary in themselves... .
  • Philosophy and Metaphysics
    And so we don't actually see the math that is unseen, behind the design of the structure. Yet its essence is abstract and can be replicated/built/created through math and material. — 3017amen
    This is like saying we don't see the "words" behind things. Mathematics is something humans do. There's little reason to think the structure of everything is essentially mathematical. That's a projection.
    Xtrix

    Xtrix!

    No, I'm not convinced that it's a projection. Why would you surmise such?

    Words are logical, not abstract. Consciousness is abstract, just like mathematics. Sure, mathematics is logical in the a priori sense, but it accurately explains how things work. That's all the point I was making on that subject. It's abstract nature is similar to our own abstract nature(?). If you agree, which I think you might at least to some degree, what about metaphysics itself, isn't that abstract?