As far as subjectivism is concerned, Kant was indeed concerned to avoid the charge of “subjective idealism,” but that’s why the Critique insists that the forms of sensibility and categories of understanding are not personal idiosyncrasies but universal structures of human cognition. — Wayfarer
Come on people. We all know what essence is. — Fire Ologist
What does mind deal in, if not essential form? — Fire Ologist
There's a real problem with the naturalist account of human nature, which is that it doesn't or can't acknowledge the sense in which we're essentially different from other animals. — Wayfarer
Then we have bleak future ahead of us then. — Punshhh
But if this structure weren’t there no one would be able to determine who was who and where one person ended and another began. Also we would all know each others thoughts all the time. The whole world would just be a chaotic mess. — Punshhh
For example, in our day it is commonly believed that a social reality constituted of persons is reducible to persons. So someone in our day might say that a "family" is a fiction, and all that really exists in a family are the individuals.
On that assumption the Trinity is "illogical" (precisely because it contradicts the metaphysical doctrine of (2)). But a negation of (2) is not implausible. Families are arguably multi-hypostasis realities, and not mere fictions. The "superorganism" of a beehive is another example, where the hive is more than the sum of its parts. The Trinity will be seen as possible so long as we see unities which are more than the sum of their parts as possible. The Trinity is a bit like a beehive where the hypostases are in such elegant concert that it is hard to tell where one begins and another ends, and where the bees are nonplussed about this fact. This extreme unification is precisely why Christianity holds that Trinitarian activity ad extra is not differentiable from standard monotheism. — Leontiskos
The brain might be a kind of interface or transceiver, not the sole producer of consciousness. — Sam26
That's interesting, but can you tell me specifically what else is needed apart from the brain in order to think or have thoughts? — punos
Lois Lane believing Clark Kent can or cannot fly is not a property of Clark Kent. It's not a property at all. — T Clark
The best, though most unfortunate, explanation is simply that there's never really continuity. It's an illusion. — Mijin
The Voynich manuscript is an illustrated codex, hand-written in an unknown script referred to as Voynichese.[18] The vellum on which it is written has been carbon-dated to the early 15th century (1404–1438). Stylistic analysis has indicated the manuscript may have been composed in Italy during the Italian Renaissance.[1][2] The origins, authorship, and purpose of the manuscript are still debated, but currently scholars lack the translation(s) and context needed to either properly entertain or eliminate any of the possibilities. Hypotheses range from a script for a natural language or constructed language, an unread code, cypher, or other form of cryptography, or perhaps a hoax, reference work (i.e. folkloric index or compendium), glossolalia[19] or work of fiction (e.g. science fantasy or mythopoeia, metafiction, speculative fiction).
Your biological body replaces its cells periodically. Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, yet you still perceive yourself as the same person you were eight years ago. — punos
So neurons use 20% of bodily energy to pulsate in stroboscopic fashion, in order to taste up i.e. sense the state of neural centers & give rise to the aware consciousness when in range of 7-80 Hz. Cerebellum activity can never be sensed (made aware) in qualia, as it pulsates at ca 350 Hz, so the thalamus-entrained consciousness can only influence and receive within its frequency range - another proof that it is all field-based & works as an active antenna. — Ulthien
What we know is clear: There is a world independent of our own minds.
That is a fantastic example of a belief. Plenty of self-consistent views deny this. — noAxioms
well, dear colleague, have a go at TIQM seminal paper (in hope you are not too young to have had quantum mechanics curriculum on study years): it opens the eyes directly :)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M6tTbR_rt0sWjlrlKEXAcg0xzZK2QRSb/view?usp=drive_link — Ulthien
What this means to me is that the ability to engage in langauge games does not require an inner state. — Hanover
?? How nuh? You have to really want to disagree with me to find these disagree. — Fire Ologist
I thought that might be the response. But AI is an instrument which has been created by human engineers and scientists, to fulfil their purposes. It's not a naturally-occuring object. — Wayfarer
We believe that's very unlikely, but how do we know? — RogueAI
At present, I tend to believe that the idea that the universe “behaves in an orderly way” reflects a human tendency to project patterns and impose coherence where there may be none inherently. — Tom Storm
These frameworks are always provisional or tentative, useful for communicating, and predicting, but not revealing some deep, necessary structure of the universe. — Tom Storm
I am coming to this from the perspective that people who are following this course are only partly aware and in charge of what is going on. That it is a more esoteric (putting the baggage of that phrase to one side) process and the pupil and teacher are developing on an underlying unconscious, or soul( baggage accepted) level and may be unaware of what is going on. Also that there are people living ordinary lives going through these processes entirely unaware of it and may have no interest at all in anything religious, or spiritual. — Punshhh
But the point at issue is, whether time is real independently of any scale or perspective. So a 'mountains' measurement of time will be vastly different from the 'human' measurement of time.
Sensory information doesn't really come into it. Clearly we have different cognitive systems to other animals, but the question of the nature of time is not amenable to sensory perception.
Anyway - I can see we're going around in circles at this point, so I will leave it at that. Thanks for your comments. — Wayfarer
So touching to see the camaradie amongst the forum positivists. — Wayfarer
Why? — Banno
If we start with that assumption - and call it the "ontolgoical ground" (OG), we can then entertain some possibilities. — Relativist
Basically, who cares what they think? — Fire Ologist
That's what the anti-religious are required to do if they want to engage in philosophy. — Leontiskos
What is the LNC about? What is it a law of? What domain does it govern? — J
Simply consider the possibility of us being irrational. If there is a possibility of that, we were not purposefully directed. If there isn’t, we were purposefully directed towards rationality. — PartialFanatic
But I would assume that it would be somewhat inconvenient for a physicalist to admit that, say, the 'laws of thoughts' are actually an essential aspect of that physical world which is assumed to be totally 'mindless'. — boundless
