Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 23rd, 2018, 5:12 pm

Tamminen wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 2:12 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 1:51 pm
You are basically saying the same thing.
as '"The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties.""
This sentence is a bit ambiguous and I am not sure what BigBango means by it. I would say that because the being of experiential states needs a material basis, the physical evolution precedes those experiential states in physical time, but what really happens is the evolution of consciousness, not matter in itself which would produce consciousness as a kind of side effect or accident.
I think they are both misguided ideas; both your comment and his, and for much the same reason.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 23rd, 2018, 5:14 pm

Consul wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 5:05 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 1:50 pm

You are WRONG.
I'm a Cambridge boy and an advanced thinker.. Is English a second language to you?
"The Oxford English Dictionary regards the construction "comprised of" as incorrect,[1] while Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary do not regard it as such, mentioning "comprised of" among the examples.[2][3]"
That "compriseD of" is correct doesn't mean that "compriseS of" is correct too.
Do you get your kicks taking the piss out of dyslexic people?
Did you realises that s and d are close to each other on the keyboard?
Have you heard of a typo?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 23rd, 2018, 5:20 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 5:14 pm
Consul wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 5:05 pm


That "compriseD of" is correct doesn't mean that "compriseS of" is correct too.
Do you get your kicks taking the piss out of dyslexic people?
Did you realises that s and d are close to each other on the keyboard?
Have you heard of a typo?
If you accept "comprised of", perhaps you can explain in grammatical terms why you think "comprises of" is incorrect? As I do not see why referring to a relationship of part to a whole would be different in terms of the tense of the sentence.
But I am willing to discuss your problem.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 23rd, 2018, 5:21 pm

Consul wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 5:05 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 1:50 pm

You are WRONG.
I'm a Cambridge boy and an advanced thinker.. Is English a second language to you?
"The Oxford English Dictionary regards the construction "comprised of" as incorrect,[1] while Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary do not regard it as such, mentioning "comprised of" among the examples.[2][3]"
That "compriseD of" is correct doesn't mean that "compriseS of" is correct too.
If you accept "comprised of", perhaps you can explain in grammatical terms why you think "comprises of" is incorrect? As I do not see why referring to a relationship of part to a whole would be different in terms of the tense of the sentence.
But I am willing to discuss your problem.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1307
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Consul » September 23rd, 2018, 8:40 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 5:21 pm
If you accept "comprised of", perhaps you can explain in grammatical terms why you think "comprises of" is incorrect? As I do not see why referring to a relationship of part to a whole would be different in terms of the tense of the sentence. But I am willing to discuss your problem.
I think it's bad English, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

"Usage: Comprise primarily means ‘consist of’, as in the country comprises twenty states. It can also mean ‘constitute or make up a whole’, as in this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population. When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense (the country comprises twenty states). This usage is part of standard English, but the construction 'comprise of', as in 'the property comprises of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen', is regarded as incorrect."

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/comprise

"comprise + of. Not least because it is a verbal tic beloved of estate agents (i.e. this property comprises of hall, living room…), this is probably the most widely reviled, or at least ridiculed, use. It may well offend not only died-in-the-wool purists, but ordinary mortals with a residual sense of written style."

(Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 4th ed. Edited by Jeremy Butterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. p. 172)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 24th, 2018, 11:45 am

Consul wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 8:40 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
September 23rd, 2018, 5:21 pm
If you accept "comprised of", perhaps you can explain in grammatical terms why you think "comprises of" is incorrect? As I do not see why referring to a relationship of part to a whole would be different in terms of the tense of the sentence. But I am willing to discuss your problem.
I think it's bad English, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.
You are welcome to your (second hand) opinion.
But language is about praxis and understanding, not rules. If we stuck to rules we'd still be speaking pig Latin or Anglo Saxon.

Post Reply