Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
It's like you don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.Tamminen wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 11:46 amAgreed. Did I say something like that? Idealism is something much more profound, and should be discussed on the level it has been discussed through the history of philosophy. But I think this is not the place where we can mount on that level.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 11:19 am We all know that the universe did not come into being the day YOU were born.
Try and write more carefully.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
I have tried my best. In philosophy it is not easy to get a grip of another's views if the horizons of thinking are very different. The expressions cannot always be very accurate, depending on the subject at hand, especially in metaphysics.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 12:41 pm It's like you don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.
Try and write more carefully.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
On the contrary. The Philosophical lexicon comprises of very precise terms.Tamminen wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 12:59 pmI have tried my best. In philosophy it is not easy to get a grip of another's views if the horizons of thinking are very different. The expressions cannot always be very accurate, depending on the subject at hand, especially in metaphysics.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 12:41 pm It's like you don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.
Try and write more carefully.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
Do you think Heidegger's terms are precise in your definition? Or do you think he was not a genuine philosopher? Or Kierkegaard? Our language is very limited, and we must sometimes use metaphorical expressions and create new language games.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:03 pm On the contrary. The Philosophical lexicon comprises of very precise terms.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
You might like to cut the flim-flam and tell me what you think you meant by this;Tamminen wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:14 pmDo you think Heidegger's terms are precise in your definition? Or do you think he was not a genuine philosopher? Or Kierkegaard? Our language is very limited, and we must sometimes use metaphorical expressions and create new language games.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:03 pm On the contrary. The Philosophical lexicon comprises of very precise terms.
"The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties."
REALLY?
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
That is BigBango's text. Wrong address.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:21 pm You might like to cut the flim-flam and tell me what you think you meant by this;
"The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties."
REALLY?
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
And yet you defend the statement and add this "my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible.'Tamminen wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:43 pmThat is BigBango's text. Wrong address.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:21 pm You might like to cut the flim-flam and tell me what you think you meant by this;
"The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties."
REALLY?
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
I do not defend that BigBango's statement, but I stand behind the latter statement.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 7:23 pm And yet you defend the statement and add this "my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible.'
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
On what grounds?Tamminen wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2018, 3:00 amI do not defend that BigBango's statement, but I stand behind the latter statement.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 7:23 pm And yet you defend the statement and add this "my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible.'
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
I do not know if you have read my conversation with Fooloso4 above, but I suggest you read it so that we don't have to repeat the same arguments here again. If you draw the same conclusions as Fooloso4, that is fine with me, and if you have fruitful ideas on the matter, that is better still.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
It's just "comprises" not "comprises of".ThomasHobbes wrote:The Philosophical lexicon comprises of very precise terms.
Tamminen wrote:I claim that a universe where flying unicorns are a usual sight is a possible universe, but a universe without subjects is not possible, if we speak of an alternate universe, so that this universe does not exist but the alternate universe exists instead. Because I claim that the subject-world relationship is the "Archimedean point" of reality, a universe without subjects does not fit into the logical space defined by this basic ontological structure. Ontology precedes logic in this sense.
I suggest that the discussion will never lead to agreement so long as it consists of propositions about "what is" rather than propositions about "what is useful" and further discussions about the goals with which that utility is associated.Tamminen wrote:I have discussed this with others many times, and I only repeat: my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible. And I know intuitively that it must be so. But I think this discussion cannot lead to agreement any more than it has led so far with anyone else.
You're discussing a version of the old, old philosophical cliche about trees falling over in empty forests. I think that discussion is futile. I think you should instead ask yourself: "what set of beliefs are most useful to me in making something of what I see using my senses?" Personally, there are various reasons why I find it useful to believe that the world continues to exist when I close my eyes. There are related reasons why I find it useful to believe that the world existed before I was born and will continue to exist after I die. The fact that I have life insurance is testament to that second one. Do you have life insurance? If so, why?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
The reason is that I think both of those propositions make category errors. I think an example of a better proposition would be: "Matter is one of the concepts that is useful to me for achieving my goals. Others are available." I don't know if that corresponds to an "-ism", but I'm not really much of a fan of "-isms" anyway.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).
It always comes to this, I am not as stupid as you think I am. I agree on all of what you say. If you had read the many conversations I have had on this, you would not have made those assumptions of what I think. My view about reality does not have the slightest effect on my need for a life insurance. It is an ontological standpoint on the relationship between the subject and the world.Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 6:12 am Personally, there are various reasons why I find it useful to believe that the world continues to exist when I close my eyes. There are related reasons why I find it useful to believe that the world existed before I was born and will continue to exist after I die.
I would have expected less lazy reading from you.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023