My pleasure...

Pretty much. As mentioned before in my first reply to you, it's a terminological quibble. However, removing that bit will sharpen the position as well as eliminate any justified objections based upon it, such as I raised and the underlying anthropomorphism.

...Is mediating something not 'part of'? The mediator in a discussion is part of the discussion, no? — Isaac

1.) Mediation requires a worldview. The biological structures under consideration have none.

2.) The mediator in a discussion is not necessary for the discussion. The biological structures under consideration are necessary for seeing red.

3.) A mediator has the expressed purpose of overseeing and/or governing the conversation to ensure the respective parties successfully reach agreement/consensus through thoughtful negotiation and compromise. The biological structures under consideration are not doing that.

You might have to unpack that a little. I'm not really sure what you might mean by 'divorce'... — Isaac

As above, so below...

4.) Mediators do not mediate themselves.

If there is no meaningful distinction between internal and external... — Janus

That's not what I said.

If the experience is considered to be an affect of the biological machinery insofar as it is the biological machinery that experiences red and not the leaves or the light, then it follows that we are thinking of the experience, by your own definitions, as internal. — Janus

That does not follow from what I've written. It is contrary to it.

Of course it needs the stimulus of external elements (light and leaves) but it does not follow that the experience is both internal and external on that account, Of course if you define experience as the whole process, then of course it, tautologically, is both internal and external, so these are just different ways of speaking, different ways of conceptually dividing and/ or sorting things.

There are different terminological frameworks and methodological approaches used as a means to attempt to take proper account of the same things; each framework and/or approach with their own set of logical consequences as well as explanatory power, congruence with current knowledge, and amenability to evolutionary progression. In this case, we're taking account of the experience of seeing red. Seeing red is a meaningful experience.

We're talking about exactly what sorts of things meaningful experiences are.

Due diligence holds that there are necessary elemental constituents of all meaningful experiences such that all meaningful experiences include them, and if any are removed what remains does not have what it takes. Hence, these basic ingredients are rightfully called the necessary elemental constituents of all meaningful experience. Seeing red is but one.

Seeing red leaves includes leaves that emit/reflect the wavelengths of light we've named "red", a light source, and a creature endowed with certain biological structures capable of not only detecting the light and leaves, but also of somehow isolating and/or picking out the color itself as significant and/or meaningful(attributing meaning to the color). That task(attributing meaning) is successfully performed by virtue of drawing correlations between the wavelengths and something else.

In the complete absence of light and leaves there cannot be any experience of seeing them. In the complete absence of the biological machinery, there cannot be any experience of seeing them. Thus, the experience consists of both internal and external things. It most certainly follows that the experience is neither internal nor external for it consists of elements that are both.

The only notable difference seems to be that you divorce the biological machinery from the experience of seeing red when you claim that the machinery "mediates" the experience. The summary you just agreed with does not. Rather, it talks about it as a necessary component thereof; the machinery is a part of the experience, not a mediator thereof.

My point is only that complex thought is impossible without language.
— Janus

Ok, maybe. What is a complex thought, such that that kind of thought is impossible without words, but carries the implication that simple thoughts are possible without words? — Mww

Roughly: Complex thoughts consist of correlations including words by a creature so capable. Simple thoughts would be correlations drawn or being drawn between things not including words.

Thinking that a mouse ran behind a tree requires no language. Thinking that "a mouse ran behind a tree" is true does.

I thought all along that our views dovetailed nicely.

Interesting book summary. Seems right up my alley, so to speak. Wish I had more time...

...to understand how to make sense of a scientific conception of nature as itself part of nature...

...for that quote is worthy of attention.

You missed the point of the ontological consideration
— creativesoul

Could you perhaps repeat it for me? — Isaac

In all fairness, I haven't made it clear. That's one of my personality flaws... assuming others are already on the same page as myself, so to speak. Put differently, I assume others have interpreted the bulk of the conversation the same way I have. Mea Culpa. In retrospect, that was the exact opposite of what was warranted.

A common phrasing concerning forests and trees comes to mind. As it applies here, I'm rendering the forest, as a general outline with ambiguous enough edges to do both, effectively set out the basics(of all meaningful experience) in as simple a manner as possible and subsequently extrapolate with and/or in terms of evolutionary progression in such a way as to be capable of taking account of meaningful human experience as well. Whereas, on the other hand, you're rendering the biological structures of the individual trees within the forest, doing so at the micro level - with respectable precision.

It's that pesky little notion of internal/external that's the problem.

Simply put:Seeing the wavelengths we've named "red" is a meaningful experience that consists, in part, of those wavelengths. They are being emitted/reflected by something other than our own biological structures. Thus, the meaningful experience of seeing red leaves requires leaves that reflect/emit those wavelengths. Leaves are external to the individual host of biological machinery. As is the light being emitted/reflected from the leaves. The experience also consists of things that are internal, such as the biological machinery itself. So, the leaves and light are external, and the biological machinery is internal. It takes both(and more) to have a meaningful experience of seeing red. If we remove either, what's left doesn't have what it takes to produce a meaningful experience of seeing red. This tells us that both are necessary elements of the experience. The experience consists of all the necessary elements. If some of it is internal and some is external, then the experience can rightly be called neither, for it is not the sort of thing that has such spatiotemporal location.

How those wavelengths become meaningful is imperative as well. However, the above is enough for now...

Whenever a terminological framework has the purpose of explaining human consciousness(meaningful human experience) and/or other kinds of consciousness(such as non-human meaningful experience), and it is based upon either internal/external, or physical/non-physical, or even perhaps both, then those practices are doomed to fail as a result of not having the explanatory power to be able to take proper account of that which consists of both internal and external things, physical and non-physical things.
— creativesoul

I can see how that might be the case, but I don't think dividing states into internal and external suffers from that problem as it still retains the possibility of modelling something which is both (a person in their environment for example). The division doesn't prevent both sides from being in the model.

Meaningful experience exists in its entirety, in simpler forms, prior to our knowledge. <-------That's the pivotal ontological consideration which ought inform the selection/creation of our terminological framework.
— creativesoul

I think you're making a mistake in assuming that because something exists prior to our accounting for it, it must be that our accounting is wrong if it doesn't represent it fully. You're making tow unwarranted assumptions. Firstly that {that which exists in its entirety prior to our accounting practices} can be represented with only one 'true' model, that there's only one 'true' way to account. There may be many, hundreds. Secondly that our accounting practices must capture the entirety of the thing they're accounting for. I see no reason why they should. — Isaac

The mistakes you think I'm making are ones I'm not. We need not know everything. Our models need not be able to account for everything.

However, if we are to place confidence in a model of meaningful experience(consciousness), it ought be that the model is amenable to terms of evolutionary progression. It ought be simple enough to be able to account for the simplest meaningful experiences while having the richness of potential to be able to account for our own highly complex meaningful experience, as well as all other meaningful experiences in the meantime.

You missed the point of the ontological consideration, and neglected to address the elucidation of the issues raised that followed from my initial reply to you. All good though. No worries.

Multiple models can all be useful and contradict one another. They cannot all be true and contradict one another. Not sure why truth has been invoked here...

Seeing red...

The color red cannot be properly taken into account when and if the practice itself involves situating the result of biological machinery within the biological machinery. Seeing red is a result of biological machinery working autonomously. The result is not equivalent to the machinery necessary in order for it to happen anymore than it is equivalent to the wavelengths we call by the name "red".

The experience of seeing red consists of all the individual things causing us to see red. The biological machinery is but one of many. The wavelengths we call "red" are another.

The colors we see are not in the head. They are not outside the head. They are part of a larger whole(light). Where there is no biological machinery capable of detecting light(parts of the spectrum anyway) there are no individual colors(ranges of wavelengths) being filtered from the rest. That filtering happens and must in order for them to become meaningful by virtue of becoming part of a meaningful correlation drawn between them and something else by a creature so capable. That's how everything becomes meaningful. Light is no exception. There are certain biological structures that do parts of that job; that autonomously detect some wavelengths which has the unintended consequence of isolating them from the rest. However, seeing red requires more than just isolating/detecting the color. In order for it to become meaningful and/or significant to creatures, they must be endowed with the machinery required for detection as well as correlation.

That is not to say that seeing red is something that happens in the brain, for the biological machinery - while necessary for seeing red - is not exhaustive of the meaningful experience. Seeing red requires more than just adequately evolved biological structures capable of isolating certain wavelengths of light. It first requires light being emitted and/or reflected from things other than the host of biological machinery, being detected, and becoming part of a meaningful correlation(which requires the previous biological machinery, and other structures as well).

All seeing red consists of the wavelengths we call "red", an emission source, and a creature with adequate biological machinery to detect(isolate) and subsequently draw correlations and/or associations between the color and something else. That is how all red things become meaningful to all creatures so capable. The richness of the individual experience is directly proportional to the sheer number of correlations drawn between the color and other things by the creature having the experience.

All experience is meaningful to the creature having the experience<---------that's just a common-sense core tenet/guiding principle.

A creature cannot be said to see red if the color is not meaningful to them. The color red must be meaningful to any and all creatures capable of seeing red, unless all detection of those wavelengths counts as seeing red. Seeing red is a meaningful experience, afterall. Some things completely lacking biological machinery are capable of detecting those wavelengths. Surely we aren't going to demolish our understanding of meaningful human experience by virtue of equating it to color detection devices, are we?

Besides, there are some things with adequate biological machinery capable of detecting those wavelengths, but there is neither good reason nor adequate evidence to warrant subsequently claiming/believing that the color is somehow significant and/or meaningful to machinery host for they do not have the other biological structures that seem to be required for drawing correlations between the color/wavelengths and other things. The structures serve as benchmarks for certain complexoty levels of meaningful experience, should our knowledge of them be robust enough. This all lends itself well to evolutionary progression.

....you're still operating within the science paradigm. Philosophy is a different way of thinking or being — Wayfarer

Methodological Naturalism.

It seems that you want to say that we do not directly perceive anything at all. That seems to be based upon current knowledge regarding how our relevant biological machinery works. Good stuff, by the way. It's as though the denial is based upon the fact that so many different autonomous biological structures are necessary and involved in a timely(albiet virtually negligible increments) fashion.

That's only a problem for accounting practices(notions of mind/consciousness/meaningful experience) when and if they are based upon one of the aforementioned dichotomies. — creativesoul

I'm not really sure what you mean here? — Isaac

Just a general overview of what we're all doing here. We are attempting to take proper account of something that existed in its entirety in some form or another prior to our awareness and especially prior to our accounting practices(naming and descriptive practices).

Whenever a terminological framework has the purpose of explaining human consciousness(meaningful human experience) and/or other kinds of consciousness(such as non-human meaningful experience), and it is based upon either internal/external, or physical/non-physical, or even perhaps both, then those practices are doomed to fail as a result of not having the explanatory power to be able to take proper account of that which consists of both internal and external things, physical and non-physical things.

All meaningful experience consists of internal and external things, physical and non-physical things. Categorizing all the elements of meaningful experience into those dichotomies guarantees misunderstanding of that which consists of both, and is thus neither. Seeing red is a meaningful experience.

Meaningful experience exists in its entirety, in simpler forms, prior to our knowledge. <-------That's the pivotal ontological consideration which ought inform the selection/creation of our terminological framework.

As best I can tell, there's no problem with someone accepting most, if not all, of your explanations and simply noting that you've done a great job of teasing out all of the nuance regarding how biological machinery works autonomously as an elemental part of all meaningful experience(consciousness; thought; belief; etc.). — creativesoul

Are you perhaps suggesting that some parts of meaningful experience are not mediated by how the underlying biological machinery works? — Isaac

You've highlighted the role that the biological machinery plays in seeing red. I've a couple of quibbles with certain phrasing but those terminological choices may not be important to your position. In other words, I do not think your position hinges upon the idea that autonomous machinery like biological brain structures "mediate" in the same sense that people do. I could be wrong, but if I take you to mean that the underlying biological machinery directly influences and/or determines every part of meaningful experience, then you would be correct. I am suggesting that some parts of meaningful experience are not "mediated" by the underlying biological machinery, if by that we mean "mediated" in the sense of directly influencing and/or determining everything that meaningful experience consists of.

An individual's biological machinery, while facilitating their meaningful experiences, does not have any determinative influence whatsoever upon that which exists in its entirety prior to becoming a part of an individual's meaningful experience.

...modern philosophy has miraculously broken free of ten thousand year old shackles. — Isaac

Internal/External. Physical/Non-physical. Physical/Mental. Material/Immaterial. Noumenon/Phenomenon. Subject/Object. Mind/Body. Direct/Indirect.

The dichotomies above, and undoubtedly several more like them that didn't immediately come to mind, are the problem. All fail to be able to take proper account of meaningful experience. No one seems to have figured out how to escape them, stipulate a simpler but richer terminological framework that is amenable to evolutionary progression; a taxonomy that retains their usefulness but improves upon explanations where they have failed. No one well-known enough yet, anyway. This first bit is just a general set of remarks involving one aspect of the recent discussion.




To your account...

I'm in agreement with most if not all of your criticisms here. The special pleading, in particular, that the mod has been guilty of. That said, there is one thing that struck me as needing attention. It has to do with(seems to based in and/or upon) your uncertainty regarding the concepts(philosophical positions) of direct and indirect perception. Direct realism vs. indirect realism. I'm with you on the skepticism about those notions- their muddled. Ill-conceived frameworks as best I can see. Both of them. For the same reasons, no less. That said...

It seems that you want to say that we do not directly perceive anything at all. That seems to be based upon current knowledge regarding how our relevant biological machinery works. Good stuff, by the way. It's as though the denial is based upon the fact that so many different autonomous biological structures are necessary and involved in a timely(albiet virtually negligible increments) fashion.

That's only a problem for accounting practices(notions of mind/consciousness/meaningful experience) when and if they are based upon one of the aforementioned dichotomies.

As best I can tell, there's no problem with someone accepting most, if not all, of your explanations and simply noting that you've done a great job of teasing out all of the nuance regarding how biological machinery works autonomously as an elemental part of all meaningful experience(consciousness; thought; belief; etc.).

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!!
— creativesoul

Are you God?
Else, on what grounds can you fret about what they do or don't do? — baker

Seditious conspiracy. Conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States of America. It's illegal to know about a planned attempt at sedition and not notify the proper authorites. It's illegal to help another implement either of the two clearly defined illegal behaviours above.

On the ground that I am an American citizen, and as such I expect all elected officials to do what's in the best interest of the country.. Seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the United States of America is never in the best interest of the country. Nothing excuses the inaction of those who knew what was happening and did nothing to prevent it. In times of strife, character is not built. Rather, it is shown.

Each and every individual who knew about and failed to report, and/or actively participated in either has committed a crime worthy of the most severe punishment, including removal from public office and being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law(according to the crime).

On what ground can you justify arguing otherwise?

:brow:

"Are you God?"

Pffft. Fucking morons around here.

I'm sorry you don't like reality, but closing your eyes to it — Streetlight

The irony...

Your lumping all Americans together as supporters of what's happening is akin to each and every stupid fucking gross generalization out there underwriting the political speech atmosphere. The very bipartisan outlook is part of the deeper problems with American government. You know. Oligarchy with different actors.

This is who and what the US is... — Streetlight

Gross overgeneralization. Ironically similar to one of the underlying(but not spoken much about) issues with current political speech patterns.

That which exists has an effect and/or affect.

Broadening your brush only reveals the lack of precision you had prior to.

You know better than this.
— creativesoul

Meaningless. — Streetlight

I can see how that could be true for you based upon what you've said here.

No. I do not give one shit about daddy syndrome that Americans have. The framers were rapists and slave owners and what they thought means nothing. America is shaped by those who govern, and those those govern are quite happy to let Americans eat dirt so long as they accure power and wealth — Streetlight

The broadened brush reveals the lack of precision prior to. It does not make up for it.

You know better than this.

It means that anyone wanting to run needs lots of money. That places restrictions on who can run... — Isaac

Yes. That's a problem, not because it costs so much. How current campaigns are financed is the problem. That means violates the Constitution.

Again, not a problem with the system, but rather with improper implementation.

No, it's the result of the American system working exactly as intended, regulation or not. — Streetlight

In order to know that you'd have to be privy to the framers' thought and belief. That's quite a presupposition.

Unaware of this case.
— creativesoul

Assange.
— Isaac

Not clear of the actions he performed or the charges he faces. — creativesoul

I for one, am thankful for the DNC leak regarding the deceptive practices in the 2020 primaries. I knew it all along. Clinton Obama season had 29 or so public debates. Clinton Sanders had 4 or 5. The debates showed that Sanders' support increased and Clinton's took a tumble afterwards.

I'm not naive. I'm vested. I am doing everything in my power to improve and/or help what I can, when I can, and how I can. The framework has been ignored when it comes to safeguards against the bribery of elected officials. The Constitution has been violated. The results of those violations are what you seem to be railing against. I'm suggesting a sober look at how those issues arose. You seem bent upon damning America for it. I'm bent upon fixing it, and I'm nudging and/or gesturing towards how to do it.

Freedom of speech is not unfettered. Especially when so few have so much power over what gets put into the public sphere for it's political consumption.
— creativesoul

Restrictions on freedom of speech are not the issue, the issue is who wields that power. — Isaac

Who gets to be the final arbiter of truth?

Unaware of this case.
— creativesoul

Assange. — Isaac

Not clear of the actions he performed or the charges he faces.

The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies? — Isaac


IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION
— creativesoul

No. It's the result of exactly the right amount of government legislation to achieve that state of affairs. — Isaac

American elections are expensive. We agree there. I'm not seeing the relevance that the above has to that agreement.

:brow:

THIS WORLD

The one where the government are actively instructing social media platforms on what content to ban? — Isaac

Freedom of speech is not unfettered. Especially when so few have so much power over what gets put into the public sphere for it's political consumption.

The one where a journalist is currently facing inhumane imprisonment for his media coverage? — Isaac

Unaware of this case.

The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies? — Isaac

IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION

It's not clear it's a belief. It could also be simply strategy, a claim they repeatedly make (even though they know it isn't true) because it serves their purpose to do so (to obtain high positions of power).

Which also explains why they seem immune to facts. They know the facts, they just have different plans. — baker

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!!

Let us grant that the deliberate perpetuation of the falsehood was Trump's; still the belief of others cannot be based simply on that. The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

Trump was outspoken about these things long before the election. He put that idea into the public sphere when doing so. He openly claimed that the only way he would lose the 2020 election would be if it was "rigged". Everyone knowing about the DNC's simultaneous abject failure to provide the people with a free and fair election reminded everyone of the possibility. The Assange leak was shocking in that what everyone already suspected became undeniable.

He fostered, fomented, and perpetuated the very idea successfully partly as a result of recent history.

You're an avid reader. Read for yourself. It's not too long. Very plainly stated.

Liberals — Streetlight

You had me entirely captivated by your wry wit...

...all the way up to there...

What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest.
— creativesoul

Well, yeah, but that opportunity has already been headed off by having such a high threshold of expensive and tightly regulated media coverage required to even stand a chance of being elected. — Isaac

There is no "tightly regulated media coverage" of an American election. Elections are most certainly expensive, but that fact is not due to an inherent flaw in the American system of government.

It's another of those systematic failures.

To quite the contrary, that fact(that American elections are expensive) counts as prima facie evidence that the rules to safeguard the country against government bribery have been broken. If those rules were enacted they would serve their purpose to prevent wealthy private citizens from rewarding the lawmakers for writing laws that would ensure the wealthy donors made even more money while knowingly quantifiably injuring huge swathes of American citizens.

Emoluments. Campaign finance. Conflicts of interest.

The system guards against government bribery; the accumulation of against excessive power in too few hands; inadequate representation; abuse of power; and usurpation of the people's power to freely choose between individuals who have what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans in mind during any and all deliberation/discussion about potential bills(legislation) or any other potential government action effected/affected the American people.

When preventative safety measures deliberately built into the system are blatantly ignored, it is not a flaw inherent to the system if the neglection of the rule results in exactly what the rule guards against.

The sheer volume of people whom a national politician needs to persuade means that both finance and media are absolutely essential.

How elections are currently funded goes against the system's safeguards mentioned heretofore. Campaign finance. Conflicts of interest. Emoluments.

Shedding light on these failures of governmental implementation is crucial, but you asked for a mechanism...

Sanders was the best chance I've seen in my lifetime...

Mechanism?

I do not know. All oversight has been rendered toothless by those needing it. What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest. The problem, as the judge articulated nicely, is that those folk may not even believe or recognize that they've ever been faced with such a choice.

...the trick is to emigrate with one's stash before the guillotines are activated. — unenlightened

Wisdom. Who would take such a sap as I?

:brow:

I'm not sure if all the problems with democracy are fixable, but I can't think of a better general system of actual governance. — Isaac

I'm impressed by American democracy.

American democracy is by it's very design, a republic with democratic tradition. It is a representative form of government that is remarkably different than a pure democracy in that rather than majority rule, the people choose from a selection of candidates, and those elected official's are responsible for acting on behalf of the country.

It was of the utmost importance to the framers to take intentional measures to ensure that they prevented too much power from being in too few hands. We can see that throughout the system.

Elected officials have certain duties and responsibilities bestowed upon them by design which help to prevent any accumulation of power. It is clear. It is plain. It is quite easily understood. No magic tricks. No doublespeak.

Emoluments clause, and how a campaign for office is to be funded and subsequently enacted.

There are some very clear rules being broken by different elected public officials across the spectrum. Breaking them has somehow and in some way become the norm. The emoluments clause has been being broken by countless elected officials, president notwithstanding for decades. Divesting one from one's own financial interests is not just a suggestion. It's not just an unspoken norm. The emoluments clause is codified. It remains an indispensable component of a carefully articulated system of checks and balances. Breaking it amounts to improper implementation, to put it mildly. The framers included it as a means to eliminate the conflicts of interest between the elected official's best interest when and if it is contrary to the overwhelming majority's.

Breaking it has been a secret kept out in the open. Most Americans already believe that there is a fair enough amount of monetary corruption influencing their elected officials. Most Americans believe it's some unspoken norm for a public official to seek office as the primary source of income. Most Americans believe it's the norm for public officials to enrich themselves as a result of being an elected official. Most Americans believe that elected officials make campaign promises that they do not intend uon keeping. They accept these as an incontrovertible fact; as if nothing can be done. It's not that way at all.

Something can be.

A vote is just one of many means by which we can influence society. Getting someone more amenable to our objectives in power is a very, very small part of politics.

Getting someone more amenable to our objectives is THE issue at hand as best I can tell. I

A system is only as good as it's implementation. It's not the system that's broken. It's the implemenation.
— creativesoul

I don't think the former supports the latter. That a system is only as good as its implementation means that a system which is failing might not be broken (only badly implemented) but it does not show that it is not broken (only badly implemented). — Isaac

Well, that's not supposed to be an argument. Rather, just stating the facts as I understand them. In order to know if the failure is inherent to the system or the implementation thereof we need to understand the system first in order to know whether or not it's being implemented properly.

It's not. In fact the sheer volume of revolutionary writings that very clearly show that the founders very well understood the danger that "pure capitalists" posed to the country by virtue of being loyal only to profit, and not to country or countryman(their words). Add to this the emoluments clause, the strict limit upon an individual's campaign contribution, the separation of powers, and well, an originalist interpretation could not escape the conclusion that there have been a number of direct violations against the constitution. The end result???

The best government money can buy.

I'm not sure if all the problems with democracy are fixable, but I can't think of a better general system of actual governance. A vote is just one of many means by which we can influence society. Getting someone more amenable to our objectives in power is a very, very small part of politics.

My objection here is over when the soap opera around who is in power is allowed to detract from those other, more important aspects of politics.

Indeed, the political theatre desensitizes... Shock sells. Intentional exaggeration for the purpose of selling something mundane, if done enough, causes harm. Boys and wolves come to mind...