Ironically enough, times two:


And any answer to that is going to be definitional and problematic because bespoke, and thus not one-size-fits-all.
— tim wood

Indeed. Just like the explanation of consciousness itself; problematic.

In human terms, pragmatically, what would one's quality of life look like if one didn't wonder?

Just not to be confused with the real, which I suspect you're zealous to do.
— tim wood

What is real about consciousness?

Not what you hold it to do, but what you hold it to be. — tim wood

I would exercise caution against use of the false dichotomy. Dialectically, it's both/and. In this case, a synthesis between the two. Not too dissimilar to the synthetic a priori.

Just not to be confused with the real, which I suspect you're zealous to do. — tim wood

What is real about consciousness?

Wonder," your word used perhaps a hundred times. Time for you to say what you hold wonder to be.
21m — tim wood

Causational.

Did anyone say that? As ideas, sure they exist. As more than ideas, then what are they? — tim wood

They (intellect/wonder) are kind of like mathematics. They exist. It's another form of reality.

And any answer to that is going to be definitional and problematic because bespoke, and thus not one-size-fits-all. — tim wood

Indeed. Just like the explanation of consciousness itself; problematic.

In human terms, pragmatically, what would one's quality of life look like if one didn't wonder?

My stream of consciousness? And yours and everyone else's? — tim wood

Yep, in layman's terms, it's called everyone's sense of wonderment. It comes from self-awareness.

My point, and imo the salient point, is that cause-and-effect is an invention of reason - and a pretty good one - but that it's existence is as an idea. — tim wood

And where does reason come from?

Cause-and-effect, then, used substantively as foundation for anything else, that else substantively no stronger than its foundation, has in terms of cause and effect no substantive strength at all.
17m — tim wood

Does that mean intellect and wonderment don't exist?

Personhood is irrelevant in the sense there never is a person or irrelevant in the sense that there always was a person? — TheMadFool

That there was always a person. Because we're time-dependent, it's just an aspect of "person-hood " as it were.

Quick and simple question: you do understand, yes?, that causation doesn't exist — tim wood

Causation exists as a metaphysical reality from your stream of consciousness. Otherwise you would have to explain why/how you wonder about causation to begin with. Think of it as self-awareness, and what that means.

I’m not going to pretend that this kind of discussion is simple. — Possibility

It is simpler (not an intellectual concept that you keep arguing) than what you make it out to be; don't conceptualize it. You're trying to make metaphysical will and intention into an intellectual exercise that determines the emotional experience.

The will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know. In that sense, the will determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Think of it as a contextual sense of the will to live and not die. It's an innate desire to be.

In contrast, you seem to be giving the intellect primacy in that the choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as potentially or intrinsically good; the will itself is determined. And I'm saying the will is indetermined, much like Kant's emotional experience for aesthetics'.

The will itself being indetermined just is. Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason" argued that humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality. In this case, it is truly both an existential and phenomenological thing-in-itself. And that thing is the subjective-object; you. Yet we apperceived joy from viewing the object. We simply don't know why or how our own physiology is impacted by both the observer and the observed. We just know it feels good (or bad) upon initially viewing the object.

I could refer to them collectively as ‘phenomena’, but it doesn’t do justice to the distinction between aspects of experience that are in accordance with concepts, and what transcends them. — Possibility

It would be considered a phenomenon, yes. Don't deny that. The will itself is the transcendent experience. Think of it as the will to paint on the canvas, or write the music. The physical medium is the means to the end.

That those feelings are attributed to ‘physical objects’ in the way you describe is neither objective nor necessary — Possibility

No. the object itself is logically necessary for the aesthetic experience to occur.

We rationalise the attribution of feelings as suits our understanding of purpose or meaning, but we are capable of simply delighting in the pleasure of the experience without necessarily attributing those feelings to any concept, object or physical aspect. — Possibility

No we don't. You're subordinating feelings to concepts. You're giving the intellect primacy. Think of it like computing laws of gravity before dodging falling objects. One doesn't compute gravity to evade danger, fear and death. Our will to survive takes primacy, just like the cognitive energy from our sentience and metaphysical will to be.

Our capacity for this delight is dependent on relation neither to physical nor to cognitive aspects of reality: it merely requires a relation. — Possibility

It merely requires the object; the observer and the observed.

There is no necessary nature/purpose to pure aesthetic beauty, except that which we arbitrarily attribute to aspects of our experience. This is what Kant points to. Potentiality itself is just as conceptually indeterminate. — Possibility

False. Otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to create a mini-me.

1.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 3017amen
Subjective interpretation. Just because people do this, does not mean it’s definitive of human nature. This is not all we’re capable of. First impressions are rarely accurate, — Possibility

It has no relevance as to whether they are accurate. They can be arbitrary, inaccurate and subjective. The feelings themselves exist and are real. The ability to reject or accept a subject's aesthetics is a real phenomenon.

Subjective interpretation. ‘Just because, period’ is an insufficient answer (weren’t you told this as a child?). Just because you can’t explain it, doesn’t mean no information is available. — Possibility

Yep. It's a Subjective truth that exists. And an existential phenomenon that just is.

I’ll admit that I have preferences with regard to appearances, but I don’t think I’ve ever considered any of them a deal-breaker. — Possibility

But other people do. I challenge you to make romantic passionate love to an physically abhorrent undesirable Being that you've known as intellectually compatible through your 'concepts' only.

It’s just another example of judgement from predictions based on atemporal aspects of experience, more than present empirical data. — Possibility

If I understand that correctly...I agree. See, that wasn't so hard was it... ?

I'll get to items 4-8 in a subsequent post. Thanks Possibility!

BTW, ironically enough, a co-worker just showed me his newborn litter of pigs. we both felt happy seeing the little piglets next to their mom, and how so very cute they were. Subconsciously, we probably appreciated their aesthetics' (beauty or ugliness) for its own sake. We appreciated the object for what it is. And we received joy from the experience of looking at it (the object itself).

I'll get to your other points shortly!

In either case, there is no reasonable alternative to some form of independent noumenal world that's out there around us. — magritte

If I understand that correctly (which I may not be), the one problem with that would be causation. If causation didn't exist, then the argument for a non-noumenal realm is stronger. But causation exists, whether it's a unending string of turtles or one super turtle, etc.. Likewise, other reasonable alternatives to noumena could be the concept of other possible worlds (Multiverse) and the world of mathematical abstracts.

How does one have a mathematical experience?

You seem to be saying that personhood is irrelevant to the abortion issue because a person is a time-dependent entity. — TheMadFool

Yes, that would be correct.

you seem to be implying that not enough time elapses in a pregnancy for a fetus to become a person. — TheMadFool

No. The logic behind time-dependent Beings make personhood irrelevant because to get to point B (birth), you must have a point A (conception). As soon as conception begins, the clock starts (from beginning to end), and ends whenever the end of one's life occurs.

Metaphorically, you could say that there are different seasons to one's life. When fall begins, if one were to stop time say, halfway through, would you still have fall? And if you did, you would have half-fall. Or if you planted a seed, and at some point the seed stopped growing, would nomenclature (plant-hood) make a difference to its identity as a plant?

I would say TMF, you were 'wrong' to conflate the illusion of time with the personhood argument.

Thanks I'll check it out when I get time, no pun intended. In the mean-time :smile: , my gut tells me that it's worthy of a completely different thread title.

Accordingly, when you get time, pun intended, you may want to consider the irrelevance of the OP and the personhood argument :smile:

At the very least, it raises doubts regarding the existence of ghosts. Are they real or not? Is time real or not? — TheMadFool

Are you suggesting somehow that a person during the procreation process is a ghost?

Where does time figure in all of this though? — TheMadFool

In our context, the act of creating another human being (human's procreating) in our world of temporal time, we in effect become time-dependent beings. Even whether time/change in itself is illusionary, it still doesn't preclude our requirement for the dependence on same.

And so if the dependence on temporal time, and change, is required for the existence of human beings, how does personhood affect the process of procreation? In other words, in what part of the process does a person become a person?

First, time isn't real - as you said it's value reduces to zero at light or a faster speed which essentially means time no longer exists. — TheMadFool

Does this mean that a person is not real? Meaning if I have sex, and create a person, that that person is not really real.

I'm not following that... ?

Time would come to a stop but would I cease to be a person or would you say that a person is moving at the speed of light? — TheMadFool

How is that germane to personhood?

Doesn't that imply that time isn't real? I — TheMadFool

I'm not following that, are you trying to imply that personhood is not real?

don't think time and the physical are so deeply connected that the latter can't exist without the former. As an example of existence being independent of time I'd like to point you in the direction of theism which has god existing but outside of time [and space]. If theism has any relevance here, it's that existence doesn't need time. I maybe wrong. — TheMadFool

TMF happy Saturday!

You and I both can appreciate the concepts of eternity, timelessness, mathematics, Platonic ideals, abstracts, etc.. Unfortunately, our particular 'existence' relates to temporal time.

For example, relativity has taught us that in principle, at the speed of light time stops. The concept of time stopping is what is known as the concept of timelessness or eternity. In cosmology, the theory that creation requires a force existing outside of time, that creates temporal time, is a logical consequence in trying to rationalize creation ex nihilo.

However, in our context, the act of creating another human being (human's procreating) in our world of temporal time, that analogy or concept of timelessness would not be germane. We are time-dependent beings. Even whether time/change in itself is illusionary, it still doesn't preclude our requirement for the dependence on same.

And so if the dependence on temporal time, and change, is required for the existence of human beings, how does personhood affect the process of procreation? In other words, in what part of the process does a person become a person?

Real is relative to what is not real. Now there's a revelation :smile:

Doesn't this mean that time too, being a relative concept, is not objective? — TheMadFool

Your example seemingly wants to speak to dualism. And your latter question speaks to metaphysics, the nature of time itself.

Succinctly, I would say you are parcing subjective time, which is an experience. And Objective time meaning it's determinable and measured.

I'm talking about change viz personhood. Your argument, is really not germane.

Perhaps let's try to start from the beginning, refute the statement: Human beings require time for [to maintain] their own existence. (Would it make a difference if we replace time with change from the forgoing statement?) Human beings require change for their existence.

True, false or something else? You seem to be saying it's false because time is an illusion. What follows then is that personhood must also be an illusion? Even so, personhood similarly becomes irrelevant, and abortion and procreation an illusion too. Hence making you yourself an illusion because you don't exist in time.

Pragmatically, politically, or even philosophically, I'm not convinced that square's the circle of personhood.

(I happen to believe that human beings require change for their existence. Personhood then becomes a non-issue.)

It seems like a metaphysical issue? — Pantagruel

Nice! The experience of the color red comes to mind as the infamous metaphysical quandary :smile:

That’s the way I see it. Humans have this propensity for “what if...”, for no apparent reason, other than some arbitrary question simply presents itself. At the immediacy of “what if...”, all is a priori. Thereafter of course, pure reason becomes practical. — Mww

But reason does, because in order to answer a question with absolute certainty, it must not be met with merely another question — Mww

Mww!

If only Schopenhauer and Kant could have a sit-down! An Existentialist and arguably a Phenomenologist have a summit meeting!

This all reminds me of philosophical Voluntarism. My translation or interpretation of your forgoing quote suggests concepts like stream of consciousness and metaphysical Will.

As an example, if in my stream of consciousness, through no volition of my own, my Will causes me to wonder about causation, and I put those thoughts into judgements and propositions regarding questions (synthetic sentences/synthetic a priori) about how I got here (my existence), what kind of logic is that? In other words, that entire process of thinking or process of thought become what, a phenomenon of sorts(?).

What shall we consider as its purpose, when it confers no Darwinian survival advantages(?). I believe these questions are part of why they are considered or associated with Kant's metaphysics. Why ask why, and how do we ask why. What comprises those means and methods within consciousness...

And that all speaks to things like Kantian innate intuition, the questions about noumena, so on and so forth.

Well, in the case of a thing being both beautiful and ugly, that beauty and ugliness are not contradictory properties, in the context of the OP — Pantagruel

Gotcha, no worries. That seems to suggest some sort of physical complimentary existence, (or even the unity of opposites principle) ... , not sure what you mean... .

I suppose the question remains, what means or method should be used to uncover or discover its truth value?

If the same thing has different properties from different perspectives, it is still the same thing. — Pantagruel

What would that mean then?

From the last discussion I had with you, I'm beginning to think time isn't an objective part of reality. Consider an object and suppose it appears red to you, blue to me, and yellow to someone else. From this fact alone - that the color of the object differs from person to person - I can draw the conclusion, on pain of contradiction, that color isn't an objective property of give object - objective properties don't change like that. Similarly, as the theory of relativity entails, my time is neither your time nor anyone else's i.e. it changes with perspective, or with what physicists call "frame of reference". Doesn't that indicate that time isn't an objective part of reality? — TheMadFool

TMF!

You are referring to attributes of the object. We are parsing the existence of the physical object itself, the fetus.

In either case, the distinction there is that you are highlighting manifestations of time. Meaning, the manifestation of time is demonstrated by being, whether it has a color and whether it exists or not. Using strict definitions of Being, we know time is logically necessary for its existence. The manifestations of color, presumably also requires time for its existence. Time is essential to either property of existence. There is no escape, is there?

From memory, I think in our discussion about time, we concluded that time itself wasn't an illusion, it was only the concept of change presenting the illusion and paradox. Like time zones, time travel, relativity, mathematics, etc..

You guys made me think of something...would like an opinion.

Concerning beauty and ugliness, If our perceptions of it, using objective reasoning uncovers contradiction (whether it's Bivalence/Vagueness in this case of something being 'beautifully ugly',or simple unresolved paradox/liar/self reference paradox, etc.), and Subjectivism uncovers contradiction or presents completely different subjective views of the same object, how do we discover or uncover the truth there? What means or method is the appropriate way to seek its truth, or understand its truth value?

Is there such a thing as beautifully ugly? Does the logic of language limit us here?

Ah! I see what you're getting at but I don't think time is necessary to make sense of coming into being.

A fetus begins its journey in the plane of existence when sperm & egg unite into a zygote. Nowhere in the preceding sentence did I employ the concept of time. — TheMadFool

TMF!

Not sure I'm following you there. Again, for the sake of 'logic', if time is required (logically necessary) for human existence, the personhood argument becomes irrelevant. Think of it as an existential argument.

(Your "journey" requires time. Time is necessary to make sense of Being.)

Which is working towards a philosophical point - Christianity appropriated a good deal of what was critically important in ancient philosophies - Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus especially. As their ideas then were used to form the philoosophical scaffolding of Christian theology, then to reject theology is also to reject many of those ideas - without ever having really understood what they were. But then, try to explain what they were, and it's rejected, because it sounds too close to religion! — Wayfarer

Point well taken Wayfarer.

Point well taken.

That's yet another example of the false paradigm that theologians, philosophers, lay people tend to propagate. Meaning, the false narrative of a perfect book---the Bible.

It's worth repeating the reality of human finitude. We know the following circumstances: lost Gospels, Spinoza's forbidden texts, early church politics precluding certain controversial subject matter and interpretations, religious-based exclusions (the book of Sirach from the Wisdom Books is omitted from the King James Bible but included in the American standard Bible), metaphor, allegory, interpretation errors et.al.

Does that mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater(?). If one's disposition should adopt such attitude, what are the broader implications in our world of information(?). Philosophically, perhaps it begs the questions about what kind of truth should Christianity represent...is it pragmatic & utilitarian, is it objective, is it subjective, is it phenomenal, inspirational, existential, etc.etc.. .

Early Greek philosophy and Christianity borrowed ideas from each other (OT/wisdom books).

Confirmation that others perceive the lack of depth there...well said Gus.

:up:

However, time doesn't [seem to] figure in this equation. — TheMadFool

Correct...and that's my point. If logically it did figure into this thinking, it would (in principle) make abortion 'logically impossible' (loosely). And that's if the conclusion of ' human beings require time for [to maintain] their own existence" is sound. Make sense? ( In other words, 'personhood' becomes irrelevant because anywhere along/within the process of time it's still 'a person'.)

And the scientific method, hence the physicalists, always start from observation, so I agree, synthetic qua contingent propositions cannot be rejected. Actually, I don’t think a priori synthetic propositions are rejected either; it’s just that they are not recognized as such. — Mww

Agreed, they really can't because then no real novel discoveries would take place at all (?). Meaning in principle, you would just speak in terms of tautologies all day long, which would not make sense in an experiential world that we live. (In science, synthetic statements are used because they can be tested.) Otherwise, I suppose it's like speaking in tongues, as it were.

I think of synthetic a priori examples in a couple easier ways:

1. That structure uses math to describe it (and arguably explains its existence-metaphysical).
2. Could that structure be described in mathematical terms(?)
3. Could that galaxy have mathematical properties for its existence(?)
4. He used abstract math to calculate the laws of gravity.

Those are easy examples of a synthesis of a priori concepts in themselves (abstract mathematical knowledge) that don't require experience (using a calculator), along with physical phenomena that requires sensory experience to perceive, apprehend, and advance an understanding of.

I think Kant used the sentence : A straight line between two points is the shortest. as an example in his CPR. An interesting interpretation is that the truths of arithmetic and geometry aren't true in this way, they are true in a "once you realize they are true you realize that they always-already HAD to be true" kind of way.

But back to the metaphysics part. Having an innate (a priori) sense of wonder becomes logically necessary to posit such synthetic judgements, no? Meaning, it seems a priori knowledge has inner necessity and also true universality.

But generally speaking: Synthetic Statements: A synthetic sentence is a sentence, which may or may not be true. It would need non-linguistics, information about the subject the speaker is referring to. Synthetic statements are based on our sensory data and experience.

And so as an aside, I have this so-called sixth-sense (a priori) that 'all events must have a cause' and as a physicist, I'm going to advance that theory through similar a priori mathematical abstracts. And if that little scenario seems cogent, what then even causes one to posit such judgments (about causation in that case) to begin with? I think those are some meaningful synthetic metaphysical questions relative to consciousness. (In other words, why do I care whether all events are causational, and what causes me to wonder about cause?)

No, because its logically necessary that our existence starts at conception. In other words, contingent, time dependent beings require a sense of time (for them to exist), regardless of whether its illusionary.

And so I think I already have my answer: Personhood becomes moot, no?

Those who reject the a priori synthetic domain reject transcendental epistemological philosophy, hence cannot call themselves Kantian enough for anything. — Mww

Not to interject into the wonderful discussion, but since physicists (cosmology) start with synthetic propositions, wouldn't those who reject them not wonder at all (no advancement of a theory is possible)? And if there is no wonder, there is no advancement in science and humanity (?).

Thank the secular contemporary world that has all its basis and foundations in Christianity. — Gus Lamarch

Yep, facts is facts. Or they're at least borrowed inferences. Just take a look at the OT/Wisdom Books; the proof of pragmatism. Is it just coincidence(?).

Millions of people around the world (such as our friend 3017) consider it to be either totally or substantially true. — EricH

Never said that. Like any account of history (book), it's fallible. To that end, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim here:

1. Provide substantiating evidence to support your claim that the Christian Bible is fictitious.
2. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct it's all fiction, a. Explain its popularity in detail from a sociological, psychological, philosophical, and scientific view. b. Would your claim be considered your own subjective truth or an objective truth?

You made the claim now it's your turn. Let's see how you respond... .

The ”philosophy now forum” is a little better, but there people are angry all the time and make politics of everything. — Ansiktsburk

Some say that's a sign of a budding (wet behind the ears) intellect.

1. It's a history book
2. What is your definition of 'inspired'?
3. Paul was just a man/preacher