thanks Tobias

Hi Alkis, your definitions are coming from ordinary-language ones, not the philosophical ones.
The sense and meaning of will for Schopenhauer has nothing to do with your definition above.
The same applies yo intentionality. Intentionality in philosophy is not coming from the ordinary use of intention.:snicker:
Read the comments from Tobias and Jack or study a bit more on Schopenhauer and Searles intentionality to better understand.

With new technologies like AI challenging justice, ethics, emotions, etc. it is necessary for humans to get a theory of consciousness and the Self asap.
Tomorrow we'll be talking what is consciousness for us?
When were you first conscious?
Is consciousness localized in the brain?
What are the boundaries and relationship between conscious and unconscious?
What is the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness?
This and much more tomorrow Nov 15th at 20h30 CET in the Discord's Philosophy Bookclub / Philosophy of Mind group.

As announced at the top of this thread, the first Tertulia is happening next Monday.
We already have a very good quorum of contertulios but if anyone still interested let me know.
We'll talk the definition of consciousness.

How? How am I using it in the wrong context? It seems clear to me. There must be more than a claim, you have to give me a reason that backs that claim. — Philosophim

It all starts on a more precise understanding of the Self, how the Self comes to mind and how we create categories and concepts. Happy to talk this in a Tertulia if you join us to Discord's Philosophy Bookclub.

As I said in my response to your OP, the entire argument, to the extent that I could make sense of it, hinges on an equivocation about the word "cause". Whatever meaning you prefer to use, if you use it consistently throughout, then it doesn't appear that you have managed to say much with your argument. My most generous interpretation of it is as an argument for the existence of brute causal fact(s), as opposed to the unrestricted principle of sufficient reason. But that is not novel, and could have been (and has been) stated much more clearly. — SophistiCat

:up:

But the math should not be confused as representing the quantum world as unpredictably random, but a predictable randomness based off of the knowledge we have, the the knowledge that we know we don't have. — Philosophim

I'm not saying cause-effect does not exist. We humans have created the words cause and effect to describe something. What I'm saying is that they don't work to properly describe reality. It is like Newton vs Einstein. We cannot say Newton was wrong but was incomplete.
I'm arguing the same, cause-effect is not wrong. Those 2 words and their use work (Wittgenstein pragmatism) but are incomplete and wrong to describe reality.
You yourself accept the "randomness".... so here you go. Randomness breaks the cause-effect link.

Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. — Philosophim

Not really, they talk about action-reaction and anyway my point is that cause-and effect is not enough to describe reality. I give you more examples (besides quantum stuff), concepts like emergence in complex systems (what causes the liquidity of water?) that show you reality cannot be thought as cause effect.

"What causes your keyboard to type words," — Philosophim

If this question is for you relevant to this discussion I think you're too biased by using a language in wrong context. This then becomes a linguistic or phil of language issue (Wittgenstein, Recanati....)... you will keep going in circles if you keep working with this language created to understand our daily life not reality...

Hume was talking about predicting the future. — Philosophim

This is incorrect, you missed the important part on Hume.
Hume challenges us to consider what we can know of the constituent impressions of causation. All we can come up with is an experienced constant conjunction of cause and effect. He points out that we never have an impression of efficacy. Because of this, our notion of causal law seems to be a mere presentiment that the constant conjunction will continue to be constant, some certainty that this mysterious union will persist. Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains.

But this is Hume, and Hume didn't know quantum physics. I gave you several examples that, in a way, confirm Hume's argument and my argument that cause-effect is a naïf-intuition. Check those out and you will get the answer to your question.

Feel free to attempt to show why cause and effect break down then. — Philosophim

I'm not physicists and I don't have the math tools to do it but it is easy to so the other way around, trying to break the cause-effect.
The cause-effect intuition (Hume was great explaining it) implies a cause of a cause in a infinity loop what is irrational in itself. That's it!
It works in certain situations (daily life scale) it doesn't in others (micro-quantum, macro-blackholes, etc)

an excuse for being unable to explain an idea in a way that fits with reality — Philosophim

You like to think that, up to you. Do you understand quantum mechanics?
Check the "quantum causal loops", try to explain the entanglement with causal-effect approach, try to think on a cause-effect way when trying to understand quantum decoherence... .
I think in the microscopic quantum world things don't happen in a lineal cause-effect way.
Why is Schrödinger equation full of probabilistic functions? Do you think it is because we don't know enough so we replace a "deterministic" function by a probabilistic one?
I believe the world, what we call the reality is much more complex than the naïf-intuition of cause-effect.
I guess I'm not the only one, let s ask the physicists ;-)

:up:

:up:
Agree, scientists have already overcome and shown that cause-effect is a naïf-intuition that works well in our daily life but it breaks as you go macro or micro...
Can we common-mortals understand and comprehend this? NO. It requires strong and strict study on physics as well as "playing" a lot with new technologies that allow you to interact and exercise with the counter-intuitive micro quantum world.
This reality is only accessible to few people in the world. It is ineffable using current language and is only represented by formulas and mathematical language that "represent" those counter-intuitive laws.
And this ineffable reality is as real as it is the mobile phone and the TVs you have today in your homes. They work thanks to scientists understanding this counter intuitive reality.

:wink:

:chin: ... Wuhhhauuu!
Hi Mww,
Metaphysics is not "speculative science", has nothing to do with science, speculative or not.
Agree it is pure speculation, but not a "scientific" speculation. I would rather say a naïf-anthropocentric-intuition kind of speculation.

Metaphysics is not "independent from experience". There is nothing in human cognition or possibility of though that is not influenced by or independent of experience.

Easy question:
If you put it on a metaphysical context, there are as many answers as metaphysical definitions of "reality" and "observer". You can get a lot of demagogical fun but, net, you get nowhere beyond your personal satisfaction that will depend on your speech-skills. (Wittgenstein's pragmatics, etc, etc....)
If you put it in an analytical context, the answer is NO, reality doesn't need an observer.

Do you think a farmer would consider wolves that kill his sheep innocent? The rights of wolves end where our human individual/community/social interest (security, wellbeing, etc.) starts.
We have created species that exist just to satisfy our needs, we'll never give them any right that goes against our own human interests.

If you tell me that we can afford feeding people and at the same time decreasing animal suffering, I don't think anyone will disagree as much as you keep our standard of living.
Our current technological means can allow us to do that and we're moving into this direction already.
But let's be honest.. and cynic (sorry), if the with-care-treated meat costs you double than the other one and we have to give up going on holidays because of that... would you do it?
Animals will become more innocent as we get to afford them to be.

The word natural has many connotations and in this case, in order to elucidate your confusion I strongly advice you to revise the importance of the field of study of Pragmatics within linguistics (later Wittgenstein).
Questions like the ones you make are linguistic traps. The concepts like natural and unnatural (artificial...) work depending on the context. If we do not take into account the context we can debate for ever and get trapped into sterile debates...

:up:

:up:

requires nature to care about us , given that the nature we encounter is partly a result of our own constructions and behaviors. This pragmatism is far removed
from a God centered thinking. — Joshs

So you say that enactivism considers "us" outside nature? Another kind of dualism? That is not what enactivism is about.

Smolen argues instead that time need to be seen as absolutely fundamental to physics — Joshs

Science fields feed each other. Physics helps biology and the other way around... I don't see what is your point within this discussion. Are you saying there is a kind of hierarchy of scientific fields? If this is the case, of course I disagree.

and Darwin is a translation of Hegel into empirical language — Joshs

I agree philosophy is the "mother" of science but this example you make is really unfortunate. What about Lamark? He copied Hegel as well? Nonsense.

One aspect which may be relevant to your debate is the role of participant observation in the social sciences, with the idea being that one had to become part of some social structure in order to enter into the understanding of it from an outside, distanced point of view. — Jack Cummins

:up: :up:

It has been more than a century since physics deserved the title of queen of the sciences. It has been usurped by the biological and social — Joshs

I don't think "usurped" is the right word. The whole science has usurped many philosophical fields... but biology and social science are just different fields than physics.

The best philosophy of the past century points to a future of thinking that today’s physics is still
far from grasping. — Joshs

We're talking "metaphysics" and "epistemology" not Philosophy in general. If we talk "Philosophy" of last century I agree if you refer to philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. These 2 branches of philosophy have been very prolific for new sciences during XX century, what is not the case of metaphysics.

In terms of Aristotle's original conception of metaphysics, — Manuel

Not only Aristotle's but Kant and any metaphysics. Philosophers just try to reinvent and redefine metaphysics again and again. It is like a philosophical religion, no progress, going in circles... inherited by continental traditions... well you know where I'm going to.

Do any of you know anything about topological quantum science? Try it and it will blow your mind on what is logical and illogical.
The more we talk to nature using a scientific approach the more we realize nature doesn't care about "us" and the more the idea of "God" loses any importance at all.
Whether we look at the macro or the micro, we realize we're a "collateral consequence" not the product, intention, of any kind of God.

In principle it makes sense to put together the branch of philosophy that tries to understand nature of things with the one that tells you what can be known, etc. But nowadays this is better done by scientists than philosophers.

If only people who actually do quantum physics understand it in any detail at all, should we even be able to talk about it at all, being that most of us aren't experts? How can human centric-knowledge be capable of applying to the world at all? Is there any evolutionary advantage to being able to do science as opposed to not? — Manuel

I agree Manuel. Physicians know already very profound facts and laws of nature that go beyond any philosopher's intuition. "Physics" has overwhelmed "Metaphysics" and no human intuition can add any value to the understanding of reality without a good understanding of present physics.
Epistemology is still interesting as much as it connects with philosophy of language and cognitivism...

If you want to join us you're more than welcome. :wink:

On November 15th we'll start with informal introductions and we'll start talking about our concepts, definitions of consciousness.
We'll close by agreeing on book chapters to read and date for next session.
Only passionate people accepted ! :-)

I haven't experienced this biases but with all the positive-discrimination that I'm seeing recently for women I would not be surprised.
I like to think it is a fashion that will pass sooner or later but nowadays I agree it pays-off a lot in politics and socially.

The Schrödinger equation is a wave equation. — Kenosha Kid

Right. And do you insist QM is not probabilistic?

Do you mean CERN? — Kenosha Kid

Yes, sorry, CERN.

"clicks" — Kenosha Kid

I insist, it is not about "click", but if you like to think on a "click", up to you.

we can't "see" photons without destroying them. — Kenosha Kid

Right, so when you say QM is phenomenological you refer to phenomenology as understood in physics, not the philosophical one.

Anyway, I think we're losing the point of the question, these theories do not explain everthing but are the closest ones to give an kind of ontological explanations of the real. Would you have other to propose?

express oneself by drawing art, to externalise and project emotion through art, to have artistic understanding, to have a sense of beauty / aesthetics, to be logical? — User34x

You're mixing up so many things here that I can tell you there is nothing else closer than aesthetics.
Breaking-up your points:
"externalise and project emotion through art" - maybe better to look at Art-therapy
"to have artistic understanding" - you need to study history of art or as well call in europe: Beaux-arts.
"sense of beauty / aesthetics" - aesthetics
"to be logical" - epistemology

No, that's not correct. The wave equations are completely deterministic. Probabilism enters via the Born rule. — Kenosha Kid

This mistake makes clear you haven't studied QM or don't understand it.
You're mixing up Schrodinger equations and wave equations. See wave function description here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function
In QM we use probabilistic everywhere.

What I mean is that a robust answer to a question like "What is a photon?" is "A click in a photon detector." QM doesn't justify a firmer position than this. — Kenosha Kid

A photon is not a click, but if you go to the laboratories like in the CRN you will see that particles are not clicks but probabilities everywhere, so many wave functions using probabilities to certify that a certain particle passed by a certain electromagnetic field. Go to CRN if you have a chance and take a tour I have friend physicien that showed me how it really works and is so far from what you can imagine.
Phenomenology cannot even grasp all the complexity that is behind.

There is no theory underlying probabilistic mechanisms: one moves discontinuously from a deterministic description to a statistical, phenomenological one. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, there is, formulas in QM are probabilistic in the base but can become deterministic depending on the value of the factors.

What makes QM different from the rest of science to say it is phenomenological?
I think QM is phenomenal :grin: ... but phenomenological :roll: ... does it even matter? It is maybe phenomenological for you, so what?

I recognize "ontology" is a metaphysical word but I use it on purpose to provoke a discussion :wink:

Regarding your comment, keep in mind that even metaphysicians are not clear on their definiton of being and even the nature of time. I remind you the different schools of though on presentism.
But you know, I'm one of those that think metaphysics is a philosophical-fever with no epistemic value. Sorry for being too direct, I'm not a diplomat, but it is what I think.

can assume that any undetermined reality is merely a result of the state of being confined to finitude. — emancipate

Right! and this is why science will never stop investigating :wink:
Researches do not have the intention of knowing anything. Actually scientists are becoming more and more specialized on very small areas of research. That's where philosophy has to help them to bring all together.

naturalism only says: "Everything is natural" — SolarWind

What is already something :wink:
Someone could say same thing of dualist or materialist, physicists as a reaction too simplistic to explain any of these philosophical paradigms.

Naturalism has a lot of to say about technology, ethics and politics (Ref. Daniel Andler or Sandro Nannini for example). I think successful governamental reactions to Covid19 have been done with a naturalistic approach in many western countires. Avoiding falling into scientism but using science as a reference and avoiding being dogmatic in political and ethical aspects of their decisions.
Could it we that we all like discussions and dialectics but at then end we're all naturalistic? Well, this is not the case of course of some states. There re states where religion is still embedded in their politics... what I think is a good example of consequences of a not-naturalistic approach that puts a God above everything.
Western politics have developed the brilliant and I would say transcendental idea of laicism and secularism. Could it be this idea is deeply anchored in a naturalistic view of the world and mankind?

so there's a built-in phenomenological limit. — Kenosha Kid

You do not conceive reality as being probabilistic? It could be a scientific certification that ontologically reality is undetermined. Science saying reality is not deterministic! ... isn't this breaking stereotypes of the "materialist reductive" science many think...
Naturalism is the way!

So saying that they are both the best descriptions of reality we have is incoherent. — counterpunch

you say that, I say they re not contradictory. Where is the judge, we need averedict :grin:
Nevertheless, who tells you that what our limited human intuitions tell us are paradoxes or contradictions are actually hiding the reality? Look at superposition states or quantum state of matter or entanglement. It is intuitively contradicting but we study it because it is how particles behave.

What is basic is the construction of thought and the world at the level of original generative description; — Constance

Using just words? Quite herme-tic as well, isn't it?

This account reduces reality to an aggregate problem solving, — Constance

Your intuitions and language are aggregates of problem solving that you learnt while you grow up during your childhood. I would even say more, you would never be able to talk or conceive the linguistic categories if you are not exposed to a family context where people talk. Language is not trascendental and the categories we use are contingent and relative to the problem solving of our lives.

his is Kierkegaard, — Constance

Would be interesting to see what he would say about superposition states of particles and about bosons and fermions. For me it looks like Kierkegaard's thinking has been overestimated. He was pushed by the christian religions as he served their purposes. But this is another discussion.

are not in or of such systems is really what metaphysics is — Constance

This is you saying those things I talk about are not in those systems. I of course disagree.

Phenomenology allows the world as it is to "speak" and prioritize, allowing meaning to dominate rather than empirical science paradigms in which meaning is localized as one event under the general rubric "the natural world". — Constance

Such researchers do not care about phenomenology — Constance

But phenomenology can be conceived within empirical world thanks to heterophenomenology. It is a branch of cognitive naturalism.

Moore was a Kantian, then one day just asked, am I raising my hand? Looked at his hand and said, of course! following Diogenes who walked across the room to disprove Parmenides. — Constance

Right! and then they opened the door and saw in a monitor that someone from outside, using electromagnetic fields raised his hand but his unconscious made him believe it was him to raise his hand. They would not think the same way with current understanding of the sense of agency and how consciousness is constructed.

If you really think you can "exit" your interior you have two choices. — Constance

Heterophenomenology is not "existing my interior". It is working under the assumption that your brain and my brain functions the same way so I can study yours to make conclusions about mine.

contemporary technical language — Constance

No technical language, but the naturalistic presumption. Yours is metaphysical, mine is naturalistic.

speculative science: — Constance

We're all doing speculative thought... it is philosophy :wink: ... but his naturalistic approach is a winning one.

full naturalization of the mind delivered by cognitive science remains a distant prospect. — Constance

Of course, he is humble and realistic, but he follows what I think is the right way... philosophy but with science. Not a philosophy that tries to positioned itself above everything as the king of the world with their anthropocentric views of things (meta-things are good examples). Andler puts nature above anything, being humble pays off.

Philosophy is an apriori discipline. — Constance

Don't you think this is a "religious" absolutist way of defining philosophy? it appears toas your position your capabilities of thinking above any real, above nature. As Daniel Andler and naturalists say, many philosophers position themselves above nature. This simple thing is what naturalism fixes, putting below nature, approach nature in a humble way. Same way science does.

"science and technology is the only successful way to scrutinize the trascendental world"?? — Constance

Yes, together with philosophy, naturalistic one. Are you telling me a phenomenology conceived as only using human reasoning is more powerful? No, quantum mechanics experiments could never be understood using any phenomenological reasoning... goes beyond naif human intuitions.

that through discussions about what our working concepts can mean and can "hold" in terms of novel theory. — Constance

Isn't this what your phenomenology does?

Philosophy has reached its end, in fact, it "reached" this when Buddha found enlightenment. — Constance

Are you serious or being cynic here? :chin:

he self and its world is not cognitive; cognition is a tool that seeks out value. — Constance

Right, human cognition is limited so isn't it womewhat true that we invent technologies that empower our limited cognition: computers, telescopes, algorithms, biological tools, large hadron collider, etc...

Ask about one or the other - but both? What's the supposed relationship between the two, — counterpunch

Because one is the basis to explains the very big things, the macro (general relativity). I tis the basis to explain the Big bang for example.
The other one explains the very small, the particles, (QM).
So looks like it makes sense to say those 2 are the best ontological theories we have. Isn't it?