I think it's factual, and there's an interesting history behind this. Granted everything I say is my opinion, unless I'm quoting someone else.

The debate about "mind" and "body", these days are mostly terminological. It was substantive in Descartes time, and prior to that, but not so after Newton.

One can assert that "consciousness is not part of body". That's fine.

Now I ask the question, why? Because consciousness is "non-physical"? That doesn't make sense. Or maybe consciousness is unlike the rest of the world? Yeah, so is gravity.

Maybe you have something else in mind.

It might be interesting to discuss in some fashion, but as stated it's not coherent.

Consciousness is part of body, like lungs are or feet.

I'd say contained within rational idealist doctrine. It's not as if it's an established school like Rationalists and Empiricists, but I think Lovejoy's label is accurate.

It's a very long story, but worth sharing:

He's the guy Chomsky always references instead of Kant, because he says he finds his ideas to be "richer" (the ideas, not the theoretical side), which people rarely ask about and nobody reads. Me being astonished with Kant and Schopenhauer, simply had to find out why he says this and if it was true that someone said what Kant did before him.

I believe I may be one of the 5 or so that did bother to read him, maybe less.

His main work is a mostly unreadable theological-laden trilogy, which, with some effort, sections and pages of pure gold can be found. Luckily, after he died, he left an unpublished manuscript called A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality, which is mostly about epistemology, and is amongst the richest books in innatist epistemology in the history of philosophy.

Far more than Descartes or Leibniz, in my opinion.

The name "rationalistic idealism" is given by historian Arthur Lovejoy referring to Cudworth and Henry More, in his Kant and the English Platonists, I believe. I think you've read that. I can't really think of a better label.

Defies categorization? In some respects, sure. But he certainly in the rationalist camp.

Haven't tried it?!?

I am shocked frankly. It's so much more efficient... :halo:

I'm not a fan of reductionism.

I'm a rationalistic idealist, like Descartes or Cudworth or Chomsky - along those lines, though not metaphysically dualist.

We probably agree on like 90%+.

Now that I have been informed that I am getting a Christmas card, I have to do one for you...

Sigh.

Fair enough. :cool:

Yep! Can count on you to put it in that sophisticated formulation.

Once a dualist always a dualist, right? — Mww

Hah.

Well man, what can I say? We eliminate as much as we reasonably can. Whatever remains, call it what you will, is what we have to work with.

I take it to be the notion that beyond this postulate (negative noumenon, thing(s)-in-themselves), we cannot know the nature of reality.

We can study representations, not noumena.

Edit:

In fact, Kant goes so far as to argue against Leibniz' monads, precisely because Leibniz was introducing these as positive noumena (not that Leibniz used these terms), the fundamental and complete nature of reality.

And Kant argues, correctly, in my view, that we don't have access to this type of knowledge.

I believe it does. All I'm claiming, is that I believe the idea of the "thing-in-itself" is more coherent, for the type of limiting notion Kant was introducing.

It could be that "behind" or "supporting" the representations, there are a plurality of things. That's an additional thought, that is, it adds an extra notion to the idea of "thing-in-itself", which as stated, is singular.

Granted, saying this "solves" almost nothing, there is still stuff left to iron out, that is what kind of grounding relation exists, how does multiplicity arise, are we postulating the simplest possible thing, etc.?

I believe Kant would say that we can't answer these questions, as we would be entering the idea of "positive noumena", and fair enough.

My intuition (in the non-technical sense) is that this idea can be worked on at the margins anyway.

He's an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist. Kant has some very acute and critical things to say about common sense, incidentally, though the comments I have in mind appear in his Prolegomena, not the Critique.



We might think it or think it and perceive it or maybe imagine it - this is terminological, which is not to say it does not matter, it does.

The point is that individuation is an extra step, as applied to the concept of "things-in-themselves", it adds something to what would otherwise be singular, the thing-in-itself.

If we want to attribute only what is strictly necessary to such an idea as the negative noumenon, then it is simpler to assume the existence of a single "thing", than to attribute many things, and say all these several things each have a thing-in-itself as the grounds of the representation.

Maybe plurality is correct. It's not so clear to me.

As for the specific page in Schopenhauer, I do not recall, he probably does mention it in the Appendix, but I believe he also mentions it in both volumes, more so in the second one.

My memory isn't pristine either, though it's not an age issue. Limited "software" as it were... :wink:

That's right, I think on this point Schopenhauer was correct.



I think you are starting from the wrong end. We see plurality, much the same way we see color, we can't help but see them in objects. Doesn't mean the object has color, or that the objects are in fact separate from something another object.

We identify a tree from the surrounding ground (both as representations, of course), but that's something we apply to the environment, it could be considered a single thing.

I meant to say that isn't he making an assumption that things in themselves, are plural? The fact that he is referring to plurality by speaking of "things" adds individuation, which is an additional attribution to the general idea of the "thing-it-itself".

I'm not questioning that something like the thing in itself exists, I think such a postulate is quite necessary.

Thanks for the clarification.

Nevertheless, isn't Kant making an assumption by saying there are "things in themselves"? This includes plurality, how do we know if there is such a thing?

Yes, that is my understanding too. That doesn't mean that positive noumena are impossible, just that we can't comprehend how they could exist, or even if they could exist at all, but the possibility of such a thing remains open.

Kant sometimes oscillates between the "thing-in-itself" and "things in themselves", and these, obviously, are different in an important respect, in that one presupposes individuation, the other does not.

When what's being discussed is far from clear, we should withhold trying to find a reference relation until we have a better idea of what kind of thing we are talking about.

Do we have in mind noumenon in a negative sense or in a positive sense? Are we to think of noumena in singular or in plural? Are we to think of them as grounding relations or mere epistemic postulates about the limits of reason?

All of these are hard questions, which merit discussion and clarification. Absent this, we may be acting somewhat prematurely in attempting to find a reference relation.

In what sense do you intend to define it? Real, in English, is an honorific term; if someone says to you "here's the deal" or "here's the real deal", or if they say, "this is the truth" or "this is the real truth", they aren't implying there are two kinds of deals or two kinds of truths, they are just emphasizing the word.

There are things in the world which have a certain appearance and utility, which we call "chairs" and use accordingly, likewise we do something similar for mathematical formulations, within a specific framework of understanding. Same with fictional entities, people, history and cities, etc.

The substantive question, it seems to me, is the issue of mind-independence, is the thing you are describing as "real", something which exists in the extra-mental world, or is it a solely a mental construction, with no external anchoring?

What do we measure knowledge with if not with our lifetime? There was no possibility of knowledge prior to birth, nor will there be after death.

I suppose, if forced to speculate, that if I really attempt to focus on what happened the few instances prior to the spark of consciousness arose, there was just total "darkness", for want of any word whatsoever.

If I extrapolate that state prior to being conscious, to a future state in which I will no longer be conscious, then I suppose the best "knowledge" I have, is that there will be "darkness" for a very long time.

Assuming there is no afterlife, or reincarnation and so on.

I have skimmed the essays a bit and have read one essay of his not directly related to physics per se, but related to the topic of "realism".

My own view is that his output tends to be more helpful to the moderately advanced student than to a lay educated audience. However, ymmv.

"But as for those other Objects of Cogitation, which we affirmed before to be in themselves neither the Objects of Sense, nor Objects of Fancy, but only things understood, and therefore can have no Natural and Genuine Phantasms properly belonging to them; yet it is true, notwithstanding that the Phantastic Power of the Soul, which would never willingly be altogether idle or quite excluded, will busily intend itself here also.

And therefore many times, when the Intellect or Mind above is Exercised in Abstracted Intellections and Contemplations, the Fancy will at the same time busily employ itself below, in making some kind of Apish Imitations, counterfeit Iconisms, Symbolical Adumbrations and Resemblances of those Intellectual Cogitations of Sensible and Corporeal things.

And hence it comes to pass , that in Speech , Metaphors and Allegories do so exceedingly please , because they highly gratify this Phantastical Power of Passive and Corporeal Cogitation in the Soul, and seem there by also something to raise and refresh the Mind itself, otherwise lazy and ready to faint and be tired by over - long abstracted Cogitations, by taking its old Companion the Body to go along with it, as it were to rest upon, and by affording to it certain crass, palpable, and Corporeal Images, to incorporate those abstracted Cogitations in, that it may be able thereby to see those still more silent and subtle Notions of its own, sensibly reflected to itself from the Corporeal Glass of the Fancy."

- Ralph Cudworth

The Secret History by Donna Tart

Second (and final, for a while) reading The True Intellectual System of the Universe by Ralph Cudworth

That's interesting, will have to wait and see how this pans out, but this is a promising avenue.

I can't guarantee you'll like it; some aspects can be subject to (probably) fair criticism.

It just hit me at the right time I suppose.

Spent three days reading:

The 7½ Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle by Stuart Turton.

That was a masterpiece.

It's been a good while since I've been engrossed in a book like that. Heck, I don't want to rush into my next book just to savor and think about what I just read.

Books like these are the reason literature is so fascinating, giving us a privileged peak into human nature.

Well this last offensive has been mentioned a few times, notably by Col. Macgregor, who has been pretty good in his predictions so far.

So it's not a surprise that NATO is also on the reaction, because if there is no big push from either side this summer, then we are in for an extremely long and ever more dangerous stalemate.

It's going to be a rather tense couple of months...

Nobody really knows right now what Prigozhin was really thinking, he says it was a protest of kinds. But is that the actual reason?

Maybe what you say is right, but then why stay in Belarus? Might take some time to figure out what was going on.

Haruki Murakami... — T Clark

He's fantasy or, magical realism. Not much sci-fi, a little in his Hard Boiled Wonderland...

Al Jazeera spoke to Daniel Hawkins, a journalist based in Moscow, who said that Yevgeny Prigozhin is still under investigation by Russian authorities for mutiny.

“Initially Putin said the charges will be dropped but that seems to be on the table again,” Hawkins said. “A lot will depend on the Kremlin’s response to his statement, and how that relationship will develop if there will be one at all.”

“[Prigozhin] said the whole incident was simply a demonstration of the weak spots of the Russian security forces, a demonstration of how – according to him – Russia’s so-called special military operation in Ukraine could have gone if given to the hands of the most professional fighting force in the world.”

But how exactly that would look like is hard to say, Hawkins said.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/6/26/russia-ukraine-live-news-shoigu-meets-troops-after-wagner-mutiny

Apparently this was meant as a kind of wake up call to the Kremlin. Strange way to do so...

Ayyye. We idealists, probably. :halo:

Ahhh, that was Penrose's idea. If I remember correctly, there are a few others that believe in similar things.

I think you would very much enjoy Cosmosapiens by John Hands, he goes over these theories, and a few different ones, other than the Big Bang Model and much, much more. Though not pop-sci, it's not too bad to read at all.

It's quite exciting to see the JWST shake up our model of Cosmology. We still need more and better analysis, but, something needs modification. Took longer than I expected, honestly.

All in all, very cool. :up:

Well, I would hope not. That would be outrageous if it were unethical or if somehow people could see our thoughts.

It's the one place in which we can see how far our ideas and intuitions go. Being a human being is not just about being good and moral and so wonderful, it's about dealing with the dark, disturbing and outright evil aspects of life.

Evil is just as much a reality as the good and requires exploration. So, no, I don't think it should follow that ethics applies to thoughts.

Predictions? I mean, so far as I know they (dark matter, dark energy) are postulates made in order to render serviceable the 5% of the universe we can make predictions of.

These six galaxies might end up having a solution and thus be rendered consistent with what we currently have, but there's beginning to be sufficient data that indicates that we are going to need to change our cosmology quite a bit. How drastic this will be is an open question.

Maybe we need to adjust the age of the universe a bit, or we discover that galaxies can be formed significantly easier than what we first thought. Or what you posted could turn out to be right, that would be most exciting.

Interesting times...

Welp, gotta see more professionals try and make sense out of this. Getting rid of dark matter and dark energy would be helpful.

If the universe is indeed eternal, then the question of our existence is less puzzling, given that in an infinite amount of time, almost anything can happen, and here we are.

It will be interesting to see how they fix these Six Galaxies that appear to be older than the Big Bang allows them to be, in terms of time for formation.

"Because although some analyses indicate that these six galaxies aren’t as massive as first thought, others suggest that they might be even bigger. This indicates that, depending on follow-up observations, we may yet have to remake cosmology – most likely by throwing new cosmic ingredients into the mix to explain the apparent paradox.

“It basically means you’re seeing galaxies before they have time to assemble,” says Charles Steinhardt, an astrophysicist at the Cosmic Dawn Centre in Denmark. “If this is really true, this does mean the standard model of cosmology is broken.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25834433-200-what-the-huge-young-galaxies-seen-by-jwst-tell-us-about-the-universe/

It's paywalled, unless you have a way around it.

This is a very good summary.

Thanks for sharing.

Do you see what he's doing there? He conflates two totally different problems. The problem of movement doesn't claim to have any logical issue, it's just a mystery, while the hard problem is a totally different animal. The hard problem claims to be a logical problem, not a mystery.

By raising empirical evidence over logic, Chomsky faces problems with the latter. So his only way is to strawman things, conflate terms, and remain in a grey area. This is exactly what he's doing.

If he were intellectually honest, he would say: yes, there might be logical issues with consciousness arising from non-consciousness, but we should still do what empirical evidence is telling us. Instead of that, he either denies them or conflate them. — Eugen

Yep, I am well aware that motion and consciousness are quite different, in terms of phenomena and emergence. But this issue here is of intelligibility.

I don't agree on consciousness being a logical problem, we don't know, how matter could give rise to consciousness, that is to say, within current science, we have no way of capturing experience and submitting it to experimental procedures, such as are used in biology or any other field.

That's not logical, that's conceptual.

And it's not only Chomsky, but also Raymond Tallis, Colin McGinn, Steven Pinker, but more importantly Descartes and Locke (and others) argue in a quite similar vein, each emphasizing different aspects of the "hard problem". It's a mystery too.

And it's fine if you think he is conflating something, but it is a whole different thing to imply that he is being intellectually dishonest.

He quotes Locke many times, when Locke says:

"We have the ideas of matter and thinking, but possibly shall never be able to know whether any mere material being thinks or no; it being impossible for us, by the contemplation of our own ideas, without revelation, to discover whether Omnipotency has not given to some systems of matter, fitly disposed, a power to perceive and think, or else joined and fixed to matter, so disposed, a thinking immaterial substance: it being, in respect of our notions, not much more remote from our comprehension to conceive that GOD can, if he pleases, superadd to matter a faculty of thinking,
than that he should superadd to it another substance with a faculty of thinking; since we know not wherein thinking consists, nor to what sort of substances the Almighty has been pleased to give that power, which cannot be in any created being, but merely by the good pleasure and bounty of the Creator."

(Chomsky's emphasis)

We would substitute "God" for "nature" and get the "hard problem". He says we don't know how consciousness arises from matter, even if we are sure that it does.

But he further adds that we don't understand how motion works, something that seems to be quite a deal simpler than consciousness.

In other words, he believes consciousness arises from non-consciousness via weak emergence. — Eugen

Yeah, he does, I even provided the Priestely quote which shows that.

He doesn't believe in strong emergence and what he calls radical or brute emergence is just a matter of our ignorance, not a real fact. — Eugen

There is something about the underlying properties which must give rise to the "higher order" phenomenon, but we don't know what it is. As I've said several times, we have theories in the case of liquids, we understand the theories, not the phenomenon. Unless you say that theories are the phenomenon, that's a different conversation.

No, strong emergence is not bonkers, it happens all the time, with almost everything.

But, I think we've exhausted what can fruitfully be said on this topic - at least I have. Maybe someone else can engage with you on the topic.

Thanks for the conversation though, it was interesting.

I don't personally recall him using that term ("weak emergence) to describe anything, and the reason he even used the term "radical emergence" at all, was to address a point raised by Galen Strawson. He doesn't use these terms.

He uses the word "reduction" and speaks about it in relation to chemistry being reduced to physics, in the quantum theoretic revolution.

But he does not speak nor think about the issue in terms of weak or strong reduction, unless explicitly talking about it in relation with Strawson's arguments.

See page 186 of the article I sent.

There's nothing in matter that suggests consciousness, true, at the same time, there is nothing in matter that suggests lack of consciousness. It's as Bertrand Russell says (whom Chomsky agrees with here) we don't know enough about the nature of matter to say if it like or unlike the world of mind.

He'd say the case of liquids is the same as consciousness, you disagree and call it weakly emergent. OK, then you disagree with him.

I suppose this would be my last recourse: this interviewer has quite similar concerns to you, maybe you'd get something out of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuONgFbsjw&t=3089s

If that doesn't help a bit, I don't know what else could help.

The idea that consciousness is somehow special in some sense that makes it radically different from other parts of nature.

He takes it that all aspects of nature should occasion the same astonishment as consciousness does.

I didn't add that liquidity would also be above its constituents, or life, or bipedalism. So it's either property pluralism, or it's natural monism, which is studying aspects of nature. While the aspects are different as life is different from liquids, it's all a study of nature.

But now it becomes terminological...

I'd guess he'd say something to the effect of: "yes" on consciousness being over and above its constituents, though it wouldn't be the only property that fits that demand.

No on property dualism, he calls himself a "methodological monist." If you want more information on what that view entails, you might want to read some chapters in his New Horizons in The Study of Language and Mind.