The line between "dispassionate, rational inquiry" and "rationalization" is so blurry as to be often invisible. Also, rational inquiry need not be "dispassionate".GE Morton wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 11:30 am
There is also the question of what one thinks philosophy is. I take it to be a dispassionate, rational inquiry into some of the central concepts of thought, relying on demonstrable evidence and the rules of logic. Others here seem to regard it as a method for rationalizing their idiosyncratic, "intuitive" beliefs and sentiments.
What philosophy offends you most?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Hey Lucky!LuckyR wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 4:26 pmTo my mind the reason to legally opposé the denial of the Holocaust is not because of the victims, rather to thwart the re-emergence of the Nazis, thus why it makes sense in Germany, but less sense elsewhere. There is nothing special about the victims of the Holocaust when compared to the victims of the too numerous other historic human atrocities.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 3:14 pmHey Consul!Consul wrote: ↑August 28th, 2022, 8:56 pmTo deny that the Holocaust happened is not only to deny a historical fact but also to violate the human dignity of the Holocaust victims; and this is the main reason why denying the Holocaust is a punishable act in Germany (and other countries).Ecurb wrote: ↑August 28th, 2022, 6:34 pmThat's my objection to criminalizing Holocaust denial in Germany. It is of course incorrect to deny that the Holocaust happened. But are we really going to call people criminals if they are incorrect about some matter of fact? Isn't that a dangerous precedent?
By the way, there is an article (§189) in the German penal code titled "Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener" ("denigration of the memory of the deceased").
"Sixteen European countries and Israel have laws against Holocaust denial…"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... ust_denial
Not to be a debbie-downer, but news flash, there are many who deny 'historical fact', unfortunately. One reason why Continental philosophy had emerged or flourished was that it saw the limitations of analytics' and a need for calling attention to psychoanalysis and the cognitive sciences. The meaning of words and intentionality were seen as subjective phenomena... . Existentially, self-reflection of those kinds of things revealed much paradox, finitude and angst corresponding to the human condition and its pathology. Nothing really new under the sun there.
Well yes and no. I agree that while life is more or less an enigma beyond the ability to solve (the existential causes of violence and death that continue to overshadow the human condition/behavior ), remember that Germany is apparently, still making reparation payments to Holocaust victims. And while that's a whole nother discussion when attempting comparisons, we nevertheless still live in a world of violence, brutality, wars, power, greed, ad nauseum. Very sad indeed.
― Albert Einstein
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
I truly hope you are not implying that #s 1, 3, 4 and 5 are anywhere close to unique to the Holocaust and many, if not most would agree #2 is unimportant.Ecurb wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 5:35 pmDespite believing that outlawing statements about historical fact is unjustly repressive, I disagree about the Holocaust. It (and its victims) are uniquely horrifying (for us Westerners, at least). Here's why:LuckyR wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 4:26 pm
To my mind the reason to legally opposé the denial of the Holocaust is not because of the victims, rather to thwart the re-emergence of the Nazis, thus why it makes sense in Germany, but less sense elsewhere. There is nothing special about the victims of the Holocaust when compared to the victims of the too numerous other historic human atrocities.
1) It happened in Europe in the 20th century. Therefore, it is closer to us in time, space, and culture than many other atrocities.
2) It was "modern" -- in other words it used modern techniques of identifying and killing people, which both maximized efficiency and demonstrated how little modernity represents moral growth.
3) It was racist. The other most notorious and murderous atrocities of the 20th century were the communist purges. But they are at least understandable. People were "eliminated" for being (ostensibly) enemies of the State. (The Khmer Rouge killed people based on their education and social class, which is almost as bad, but not as "Western".)
4) Children were murdered as well as adults. To anyone who is a parent (and many who are not), this is clearly horrifying and inexcusably evil.
5) The extended fear and suffering of the victims was extreme.
I'm sure I could think of some more reasons, but these (especially #4) should suffice. The proper response to lies and errors is the truth -- not the repression of the lies and errors. I'm guessing that outlawing Holocaust denial in Germany is useless in terms of thwarting neo-Nazis, but protects the more mainstream Germans from the embarrassing truth about their past and present. Hence the law.
At the end of the day, dead is dead.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
We will all be dead,one day. It's not the death that's so horrifying, but the evil (banal though it may be acc. Hannah Arendt). And, yes, I would blame modern people who own slaves or stage gladiator fights to the death more than ancient Romans who did the same. We should know better.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
I have no idea what you are talking about. My comments reflect the fact that we are all conditioned by our cultures. Although slavery and gladiator fights may be objectively immoral, they were not considered so by the ancient Romans. Therefore, an individual Roman who owned slaves or attended the Arena cannot be blamed as much as a modern American who did the same. It would be ethnocentric to think otherwise. People conform to their own cultural norms, not to ours. We can (I suppose) make judgements about the norms, but to hold people from other cultures in contempt for conforming to their own norms is unfair and ethnocentric.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
The non-woke ideologies do exactly the same. Basically, those with intense ideologies are manipulative. It doesn't matter whether they are woke left or their opposite, the neocon right. Usually, the most fanatical are young and clueless, too inexperienced in life to appreciate that they are not changing the world but using ideology as an excuse to bond with their pals. Some young people use sport, movies, music or video games as a conduit for bonding. Others use politics.Consul wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 12:04 pmWoke ideologues often pretend to protect sexual or ethnic minorities when what they actually protect is their ideology.GE Morton wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 11:30 amWell, philosophy does involves "attacking others," in the sense of challenging their view and claims. But are you claiming there that refusing to adopt "politically correct" but incoherent, ungrammatical language regarding sex, sexual dysphoria, etc., proffered by "woke" ideologues is tantamount to "attacking" gays, "trans" people, etc.?
They cannot imagine being dispassionate, simply considering the opinions of their peers without necessarily adopting them, and instead running their own race and minding their own business. That's lonely work and many young people are not up for it. It's easier to go nuts with your pals in the street over some lost cause that ignores pragmatic concerns.
This is a generalisation because some young people today are mature beyond their years and, with the benefit of easy learning online, a number are extraordinarily, intelligent, perceptive, balanced and learned. Sadly, many of their peers are air-headed twits, prone to shrill outbursts about BS causes. On both sides of the political fence.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
I agree. But is not speech which threatens them, but the actions of bigots (perhaps including the State).Consul wrote: ↑August 28th, 2022, 4:55 pm
I agree with you that everybody is vulnerable in some respects. Nobody is Superman/Superwoman!
Alternative terms such as "imperiled" and "threatened" can be used. For example, homosexuals living in predominantly homophobic countries such as Russia are highly socially (& legally) imperiled and threatened people.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Er, no. I challenge you to find any such claim in any biology text book or academic paper. "Transmutation" is a term from alchemy. It has no scientific use or meaning.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 9:10 am
Transmutations in biology are where conscious organisms emerge from completely different state/entities of self-organized (in)animate matter.
No "mutation" is involved in that process either. How life arises from inorganic matter is well understood. It is a biochemical process fully explained by current physical theory.In principle, this captures all of the complexities relative to that mutation from combining completely different elements like changing inert matter, from the inanimate to the animate.
There is nothing "metaphysical" about any of that. Consciousness (and all the contents thereof) is a physical phenomenon, a product of certain dynamic neurophysiological processes. It exists nowhere except in the presence of those processes, and nowhen until those processes produce it. And there are no "first principles of Being." "Being" doesn't need any "principles." The term "being" is merely the gerund form of the verb "to be," which means "exists." It does not denote any cosmic or "transcendental" entity, process, substance, etc., whose nature and origin mystify some confused philosophers still enthralled by the concept of "God." "Being" (in that sense) is a conceptual phantasm with no explanatory power or use.You know, emergent things like one's own stream of consciousness, the Will, self-awareness, sentience, intellect, and other Metaphysical phenomena or first principles of Being.
"Pure reason alone" has never produced any useful theory, and never will. Useful theories proceed from empirical evidence, and reasoning anchored in that evidence. Their validity and utility derive from their ability to integrate that evidence and predict future observations. Any "theory of the world" which is not anchored in observations which can confirm or falsify it is just idle wool-gathering, a waste of neural energy.From physics, maybe think of trying to develop a theory from a ToE model, where everything is self contained, through the use of pure reason alone.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Well, yes and no. Pure reason is basically mathematics. The rub is abstract mathematics describes the physical universe, yet mathematics itself is a non-physical, abstract entity, or more or less just an idea. Too, mathematics doesn't change with time but the universe does. And of course, analytical propositions/deductive logic is considered 'pure objective reason' like math. So yes, this is one of many reasons why that theory about neuron's doesn't work. It's not the exclusive cause of conscious phenomena or experience, nor does it capture the reality of experience and change. At best, it supports the notion that opposite's need each other. Again, like the physical needing the meta-physical to manifest its truth (conscious feelings, wind/air, gravity/particles, time/change, etc.).GE Morton wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 10:20 pmEr, no. I challenge you to find any such claim in any biology text book or academic paper. "Transmutation" is a term from alchemy. It has no scientific use or meaning.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 9:10 am
Transmutations in biology are where conscious organisms emerge from completely different state/entities of self-organized (in)animate matter.
Sure GE. That's why your 'talking neuron's' idea is considered only a half-theory. Neuron's themselves can't mutate into biological conscious organisms who experience intellect, self-awareness, thoughts and feelings, and so on. Transmutation is not a well known theory either, you know, kind of like yours. Think of neuron's as a piece of wire that carries electrical current to the brain.
No "mutation" is involved in that process either. How life arises from inorganic matter is well understood. It is a biochemical process fully explained by current physical theory.In principle, this captures all of the complexities relative to that mutation from combining completely different elements like changing inert matter, from the inanimate to the animate.
Unfortunately, science hasn't fully explained consciousness yet. Keep trying though GE! Have you considered a new thread?
There is nothing "metaphysical" about any of that. Consciousness (and all the contents thereof) is a physical phenomenon, a product of certain dynamic neurophysiological processes. It exists nowhere except in the presence of those processes, and nowhen until those processes produce it. And there are no "first principles of Being." "Being" doesn't need any "principles." The term "being" is merely the gerund form of the verb "to be," which means "exists." It does not denote any cosmic or "transcendental" entity, process, substance, etc., whose nature and origin mystify some confused philosophers still enthralled by the concept of "God." "Being" (in that sense) is a conceptual phantasm with no explanatory power or use.You know, emergent things like one's own stream of consciousness, the Will, self-awareness, sentience, intellect, and other Metaphysical phenomena or first principles of Being.
Think of Metaphysics like a things-in-themselves that needs the physical to produce the meta-physical. Things like the feelings associated with perceptions of colors, music, love, anger, time, gravity, abstract mathematics, and so on. You know, things that are not concrete. You can't really touch those things, but they're out there being perceived and experienced.
Take the Will for example. In our discussion of talking neuron's, they would need a Will to communicate incitement of violence. A will that incites them into doing some-thing. I think we had here, a recent past president who lost an election that had a similar problem over hurt feelings. His feelings caused him to act irrationally and/or in an aggressive manner. Anyway, in the alternative, neuron's are otherwise just floating around just being neuron's. They need a Will to provide a sense of purpose, in this case, to get angry enough to incite violent behavior.
Of course, beyond this, traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter (the hard problem, etc.) and the existence of the Will.
"Pure reason alone" has never produced any useful theory, and never will. Useful theories proceed from empirical evidence, and reasoning anchored in that evidence. Their validity and utility derive from their ability to integrate that evidence and predict future observations. Any "theory of the world" which is not anchored in observations which can confirm or falsify it is just idle wool-gathering, a waste of neural energy.From physics, maybe think of trying to develop a theory from a ToE model, where everything is self contained, through the use of pure reason alone.
To that particular end, back to other things-in-themselves that are meta-physical. Think of a structural beam that is physical. The actual design of it can be (mass) produced using simple mathematics'. You run the calc's to size-up the beam based on live loads, dead loads and so on. Much like the partly-physical universe (we say partly because things like time and gravity, Higgs-Boson waves, quantum tunneling, and other cosmic phenomena aren't really physical in-themselves), there is yet another mathematical formula that describes its structure, behavior and existence. Just like gravity needs physical particles to manifest movement, the Will needs neuron's to cause a person's conscious need for experience. You know, back to human thoughts and feelings, one's own independent stream of consciousness, human needs, motivations, having a sense of purposeful existence, so on and so forth. Cognitive science kinds of stuff.
Don't give up GE! Have you thought about doing another thread? There is still a lot of stuff to unpack!!
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
A "rationalization" is an unsound argument (either its premises are false or it commits a logical error) usually offered to obscure some truth. If the argument is sound it refutes that "truth."
"Dispassionate" does not mean the proponent is without passion. It only means his passions don't lead him to deny or ignore evidence or to commit logical errors.Also, rational inquiry need not be "dispassionate".
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Webster:GE Morton wrote: ↑August 30th, 2022, 12:14 pmA "rationalization" is an unsound argument (either its premises are false or it commits a logical error) usually offered to obscure some truth. If the argument is sound it refutes that "truth."
"Dispassionate" does not mean the proponent is without passion. It only means his passions don't lead him to deny or ignore evidence or to commit logical errors.Also, rational inquiry need not be "dispassionate".
Based on this definition, rationalization is indeed a defense mechanism, but is not necessarily unsound. If someone wants to believe something, he may "rationalize" his belief with either sound or unsound arguments (I'll grant that the definition is unclear, but so is the distinctions between rationalization and rational inquiry.)Rationalization : the act, process, or result of rationalizing : a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.
A theorist can make sound arguments even if influenced by strong feeling or emotional involvement. My arguments in favor of freedom of speech are something I feel strongly about (as perhaps do you). That doesn't invalidate my arguments in its favor. My disgust with the Holocaust and other atrocities is far from dispassionate; that may or may not lead me to ignore evidence or commit logical errors.Dispassionate: : not influenced by strong feeling
especially : not affected by personal or emotional involvement
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Ecurb!Ecurb wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 5:42 pmThe line between "dispassionate, rational inquiry" and "rationalization" is so blurry as to be often invisible. Also, rational inquiry need not be "dispassionate".GE Morton wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 11:30 am
There is also the question of what one thinks philosophy is. I take it to be a dispassionate, rational inquiry into some of the central concepts of thought, relying on demonstrable evidence and the rules of logic. Others here seem to regard it as a method for rationalizing their idiosyncratic, "intuitive" beliefs and sentiments.
Just thought I'd chime in. You'd be pretty accurate in your 'proposition' of those so-called lines being blurred (GE has been struggling a little bit there). A common example is during everyday cognition, one experiences feelings of both will and intellect; an insoluble mix of ideas, thoughts and feelings. Too, there are many real-world examples like the feelings about experiencing different numbers, or the words yes or no, or aesthetic properties/qualities of objects (people or things), and a variety of other conscious phenomena relative to perceiving a thought, a thing, or an idea. More often than not, people make decisions based on feelings of objects.
With respect to a logical proposition, the synthetic a priori is the archetype of an innate sense of curiosity and wonder that causes one to posit the proposition: all events must have a cause. A 'some-thing' beyond pure reason is causing a person to utter those words, which are coming from self-awareness, and/or self-organized ideas (one's stream of conscious thoughts). The will to posit such 'logic' is more or less a metaphysical need for understanding reality. Yet, needs to understand reality, wonder and curiosity, in-themselves have no biological survival advantages compared to other instinctive survival needs. Its primary effects relate to our 'quality of life' (Qualia, etc.) stuff. Existentially, it's like feelings that cause us to either live or die. Or the (metaphysical) Will to commit suicide when one's quality of life is suffering or unsatisfactory. A big distinction between animal instinct there.
We can't touch these things-in-themselves, like logic or the Will and so on, but its there to experience. It's all part of parsing quality v. quantity determinations.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
"My idea"? STOP imputing that silly "idea" to me.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 30th, 2022, 9:15 am
Sure GE. That's why your 'talking neuron's' idea is considered only a half-theory.
They sure can't. That is another silly claim of yours. BTW, you should look up the meaning of "mutation" as used in biology. Neurons are components of some biological organisms --- the component that endows that organism with consciousness.Neuron's themselves can't mutate into biological conscious organisms who experience intellect, self-awareness, thoughts and feelings, and so on.
If that's what you think neurons are I'm not surprised you're so confused about their role in consciousness.Think of neuron's as a piece of wire that carries electrical current to the brain.
Scientific explanation consists in finding causes for effects. The role of neurons in causing consciousness is beyond question. It is not necessary, and not possible, to "reduce" "mind talk" to "brain talk" to confirm that relationship.Unfortunately, science hasn't fully explained consciousness yet.
No, they're not "out there." They're "in here." What is "out there" is the physical system which causes what is "in here," via mechanisms understood in considerable detail. All of those colors, emotions, thoughts, etc. are the "tags" the brain creates in order to represent itself, its various states, and the world to itself.Think of Metaphysics like a things-in-themselves that needs the physical to produce the meta-physical. Things like the feelings associated with perceptions of colors, music, love, anger, time, gravity, abstract mathematics, and so on. You know, things that are not concrete. You can't really touch those things, but they're out there being perceived and experienced.
Your use of "things in themselves" to describe consciousness phenomena, BTW, is a misuse (and no doubt a misunderstanding) of that Kantian term ("dinge an sich"). It refers to things "as they are," as distinguished from, "as they are observed." Conscious phenomena have no existence except as observed; their existence consists in being observed, or otherwise experienced. For them, "esse ist percipi."
And, of course, there is no percipi without neural processes.
Er, no. You have the cart before the horse. The "will" is itself a product of neural activity, activity which precedes the felt "will" to do something. By the time you recognize a "will" to pour a cup of coffee your brain is already preparing to initiate that action, and "tagging" that activity with the feeling you call "will" in its self-model, which constitutes your "mind." That "will" represents, betokens, that activity; it doesn't cause it.Take the Will for example. In our discussion of talking neuron's, they would need a Will to communicate incitement of violence. A will that incites them into doing some-thing.
Er, no. Now you're "reifying" mathematics. Mathematics does not "describe the physical universe." WE describe the physical universe, mathematics being part of the language we have invented for that purpose. Mathematics does not precede us or have any existence outside the conceptual and linguistic structures we've invented to represent and communicate about what we take to be an "external world." It, like all the other contents of "minds," are products of neural activity.Well, yes and no. Pure reason is basically mathematics. The rub is abstract mathematics describes the physical universe, yet mathematics itself is a non-physical, abstract entity, or more or less just an idea.
In general, you're mistaking the result of a process for the cause of the process, which then leaves you with no cause for that result. So you invent a mystical realm of "transcendental," or "fundamental" entities to explain it --- an imaginary and superfluous realm with no explanatory utility.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: What philosophy offends you most?
Actually, there is much cash-value from one's pragmatic use of the metaphysical will, along with our stream of consciousness of course. From our discussions thus far, unfortunately we've uncovered some horrifying (causes and) effects of human violence and other deleterious or dysfunctional human condition kinds of stuff. Speaking of which, is there such a thing-in-itself called a dysfunctional neuron? You know, like some people claim that their genetics causes them to do bad things. Or wait, that's just a human pathology, no?GE Morton wrote: ↑August 30th, 2022, 1:34 pm"My idea"? STOP imputing that silly "idea" to me.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 30th, 2022, 9:15 am
Sure GE. That's why your 'talking neuron's' idea is considered only a half-theory.
I know it's must be frustrating, but how else should we make sense out of your theory? Please advise, if you can!
They sure can't. That is another silly claim of yours. BTW, you should look up the meaning of "mutation" as used in biology. Neurons are components of some biological organisms --- the component that endows that organism with consciousness.Neuron's themselves can't mutate into biological conscious organisms who experience intellect, self-awareness, thoughts and feelings, and so on.
Sure. One could say that those distinctions go back to quality v. quantity determinations. Your theory only captures quantity (physical stuff like neuron's, etc.) No?
If that's what you think neurons are I'm not surprised you're so confused about their role in consciousness.Think of neuron's as a piece of wire that carries electrical current to the brain.
Sure. Your theory put us in this position. Please clarify if you are able!
Scientific explanation consists in finding causes for effects. The role of neurons in causing consciousness is beyond question. It is not necessary, and not possible, to "reduce" "mind talk" to "brain talk" to confirm that relationship.Unfortunately, science hasn't fully explained consciousness yet.
Sure. Cognitive science uncovers things like the purposes of thoughts and feelings, that also include one's will, in our discussion, to incite acts of violence. And of course, things like the Will, you can't really touch or see them (except for your neuron's) but they exist metaphysically. You know, kind of like air, gravity, time, and other conscious phenomena that one either observes, senses, feels or experiences.
No, they're not "out there." They're "in here." What is "out there" is the physical system which causes what is "in here," via mechanisms understood in considerable detail. All of those colors, emotions, thoughts, etc. are the "tags" the brain creates in order to represent itself, its various states, and the world to itself.Think of Metaphysics like a things-in-themselves that needs the physical to produce the meta-physical. Things like the feelings associated with perceptions of colors, music, love, anger, time, gravity, abstract mathematics, and so on. You know, things that are not concrete. You can't really touch those things, but they're out there being perceived and experienced.
There you go again dichotomizing the nature of perceiving reality and experience. Shame on you GE! The experience of reality/consciousness is both 'out there' and 'in there'. Much like the subject-object dynamic.
There's a lot to unpack, and there are many way one can describe phenomenon. I'll start by saying it's out there because it's an un-willed or uncontrolled brain state. Or 'out-there' in the form of a self-organized world of both animate and inanimate matter. Like the self-organized independent flow of thoughts and feelings one experiences at rest. Or, like driving while daydreaming, so on and so forth. These brain states often happen to us, not by us. We can't control them. Our will is the 'in here' that happens by us stopping that flow of ideas through volition. Like the will to cause our neuron's to act violently, etc.. But, it's also 'out there' because of things like self-organized, genetically coded propagation of stuff. An informational coding that breath's fire into the Hawking equation's if you like. Once again you have an insoluble mix of reality, experience and phenomena, both physical and metaphysical.
Your use of "things in themselves" to describe consciousness phenomena, BTW, is a misuse (and no doubt a misunderstanding) of that Kantian term ("dinge an sich"). It refers to things "as they are," as distinguished from, "as they are observed." Conscious phenomena have no existence except as observed; their existence consists in being observed, or otherwise experienced. For them, "esse ist percipi."
Things-in-themselves refers to much Existential phenomena, including the Metaphysic's of perceiving one's own reality. Or if you prefer, the nature of existence, time, consciousness, intentionality, and the other why's or purposes of existence, etc.. Again, neuron's in-themselves can't begin to explain those kinds of things... . Certainly, things 'as they are' are different from things that are observed or experienced. Think of it like you were God and you had all the things logically necessary to make a universe, with the emergence of conscious Beings, and other self-directed biological creatures and things, ex nihilo. That's the basic premise behind things-in-themselves. Or, once again, that which breath's fire into the Hawking equation's.
And, of course, there is no percipi without neural processes.
Indeed.
Er, no. You have the cart before the horse. The "will" is itself a product of neural activity, activity which precedes the felt "will" to do something. By the time you recognize a "will" to pour a cup of coffee your brain is already preparing to initiate that action, and "tagging" that activity with the feeling you call "will" in its self-model, which constitutes your "mind." That "will" represents, betokens, that activity; it doesn't cause it.Take the Will for example. In our discussion of talking neuron's, they would need a Will to communicate incitement of violence. A will that incites them into doing some-thing.
It's actually the other way around. The will to act violently causes violence. Otherwise we're back to your 'talking neuron's' again. Right?
Er, no. Now you're "reifying" mathematics. Mathematics does not "describe the physical universe." WE describe the physical universe, mathematics being part of the language we have invented for that purpose. Mathematics does not precede us or have any existence outside the conceptual and linguistic structures we've invented to represent and communicate about what we take to be an "external world." It, like all the other contents of "minds," are products of neural activity.Well, yes and no. Pure reason is basically mathematics. The rub is abstract mathematics describes the physical universe, yet mathematics itself is a non-physical, abstract entity, or more or less just an idea.
Sure. Neural activity helps produces ideas in the mind like abstract metaphysical structures. And our will to 'invent' them is an abstract metaphysical idea. Like the ideas associated with mathematics, music, feelings of love , hate and violence.
In general, you're mistaking the result of a process for the cause of the process, which then leaves you with no cause for that result. So you invent a mystical realm of "transcendental," or "fundamental" entities to explain it --- an imaginary and superfluous realm with no explanatory utility.
Don't' give up GE! Did you finally decide to scrap your idea (or theory about neuron's) and/or start a new thread?
― Albert Einstein
2023/2024 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