Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:47 pm
All of Buddhism holds as a premise (usually assumed without being stated explicitly) that there is something behind or underneath the reality of the world we directly perceive, (see, feel, smell, taste, and hear) that is more real than the directly perceived world. That view, in all its forms, I reject.

Randy

Okay. Good luck with trying to understand metaphysics better than Nagarjuna, Lao Tsu and the writers of the Upanishads.

RCSaunders wrote:

All of Buddhism holds as a premise (usually assumed without being stated explicitly) that there is something behind or underneath the reality of the world we directly perceive, (see, feel, smell, taste, and hear) that is more real than the directly perceived world. That view, in all its forms, I reject.

If you reject that view how do you account for the inner life of a wild otter?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:38 am RCSaunders wrote:

All of Buddhism holds as a premise (usually assumed without being stated explicitly) that there is something behind or underneath the reality of the world we directly perceive, (see, feel, smell, taste, and hear) that is more real than the directly perceived world. That view, in all its forms, I reject.

If you reject that view how do you account for the inner life of a wild otter?

You're pulling my leg, right? What, "inner life of a wild otter," are you talking about, and how could you possibly know there is such a thing?

Perhaps a brief explanation is necessary. Reality is all there is the way it is whether or not anyone is conscious of or knows the nature of that reality. There are two aspects of that reality that make it knowable. The first is the physical aspects of reality which are all that can be directly perceived, that is, seen, heard, tasted, smelled, and felt. The second are those aspects of reality we call life, consciousness, and the unique consciousness of the human mind. These three additional attributes of reality are in addition to the physical attributes in that very small number of entities called organisms. Life, consciousness, and the human mind do not exist independently of the organisms they are the life, consciousness, or minds of. These attributes exist only in physical entities (organisms), but they are not physical attributes because they cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or felt). They are not supernatural attributes and do not cancel or contradict any of the physical attributes of organisms.

There is only one kind of organism that knows that it is alive and conscious--human beings. We cannot directly perceive our life, or consciousness, or even our minds, but we know we are conscious because we are. We know it in the same way we know we can see, not by seeing our seeing (or hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting it), but because we see. We know we are living, conscious, and have minds, because we do. It is the human mind and only the human mind that makes knowledge possible or to which knowledge possibly matters.

Otters do not know or care.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:43 pm You're pulling my leg, right? What, "inner life of a wild otter," are you talking about, and how could you possibly know there is such a thing?

How could you know there isn't?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:43 pm Otters do not know or care.

Philosophy is about proof.
Science is about falsification.

The middle ground is epistemic agnosticism where it all works 'on the balance of probabilities'.

On what evidence are you making this negative knowledge claim? Surely, "I don't know whether otters possess knowledge" is all that you can say?

RCSaunders wrote:

You're pulling my leg, right? What, "inner life of a wild otter," are you talking about, and how could you possibly know there is such a thing?

So do you think homo sapiens is the only animal that is not an automaton?Or do you not believe in other minds apart from your own?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:39 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:43 pm You're pulling my leg, right? What, "inner life of a wild otter," are you talking about, and how could you possibly know there is such a thing?

How could you know there isn't?

A little otter told me.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:16 pm RCSaunders wrote:

You're pulling my leg, right? What, "inner life of a wild otter," are you talking about, and how could you possibly know there is such a thing?

So do you think homo sapiens is the only animal that is not an automaton?Or do you not believe in other minds apart from your own?

Animal's are probably conscious, based on their behavior and nature as living organisms, but they are instinctive creatures that do not need to learn what they must and must not eat, or how to acquire it, or how they must live to be successful as the kind of creatures they are, and therefore do not have to choose how to live. Every animal, except most human beings, lives as its nature requires it to live to be successful and cannot choose otherwise. It's what instinct means. They don't need knowledge which is only needed by creatures required to choose how they live.

Only human beings have minds, because only human beings require knowledge with which to think (reason) in order to make right choices (which most don't).

But it's not possible to be directly aware of any mind, because the mind is not physical, and the only mind one can know is their own. Even if animal's had minds, you could not possibly know it. They certainly don't claim to, only other human beings make that claim, which is one good reason to suppose they also have minds.

The first time I see a treatise on the problems of mouse economy written by a mouse, or am stopped on the street by a dog saying, "listen here, I can think as well as you do and I vote Democrat," I will certainly give the possibility that other animals have minds consideration. Until then, there is no reason to.

(Belinda)So do you think homo sapiens is the only animal that is not an automaton?Or do you not believe in other minds apart from your own?

(RCSaunders)

Animal's are probably conscious, based on their behavior and nature as living organisms, but they are instinctive creatures that do not need to learn what they must and must not eat, or how to acquire it, or how they must live to be successful as the kind of creatures they are, and therefore do not have to choose how to live. Every animal, except most human beings, lives as its nature requires it to live to be successful and cannot choose otherwise. It's what instinct means. They don't need knowledge which is only needed by creatures required to choose how they live.

But there are millions of trained animals who have learned! All animals with central nervous systems learn; that is what CNSs are for. Animals , both trained and wild, are frequently observed choosing based upon a combination of their inherited instincts and what they have learned as living individuals.

Only human beings have minds, because only human beings require knowledge with which to think (reason) in order to make right choices (which most don't).

(RCS)
Then why has my dog learned new habits that date only since she came to be my dog? Why have the wild(!) wood pigeons in my garden learned that the new bird feeding centre sometimes works for them?

But it's not possible to be directly aware of any mind, because the mind is not physical, and the only mind one can know is their own. Even if animal's had minds, you could not possibly know it. They certainly don't claim to, only other human beings make that claim, which is one good reason to suppose they also have minds.

(RCS)

But there are regularly and frequently observed correlations between objectively observed brain events, subjectively reported mind events, and subject behaviour.

The first time I see a treatise on the problems of mouse economy written by a mouse, or am stopped on the street by a dog saying, "listen here, I can think as well as you do and I vote Democrat," I will certainly give the possibility that other animals have minds consideration. Until then, there is no reason to.

But there are variations in cognitive quality and quantity between one man and another. And there are variations in cognitive quality and quantity between one species and another. You imply, above, that 'mind' is solely evaluative. But 'mind' denotes an aspect of united brain-mind.

If you persist in using the word 'mind' to denote your subjective evaluation of one specified level and type of cognition you will be out in the cold especially as you present no evidence whatsoever.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:04 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:39 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:43 pm You're pulling my leg, right? What, "inner life of a wild otter," are you talking about, and how could you possibly know there is such a thing?

How could you know there isn't?

A little otter told me.

Many people communicate with other species.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:32 pm
The first time I see a treatise on the problems of mouse economy written by a mouse, or am stopped on the street by a dog saying, "listen here, I can think as well as you do and I vote Democrat," I will certainly give the possibility that other animals have minds consideration. Until then, there is no reason to.

This may qualify as the most inexplicable post I've ever seen on a forum.

Skepdick wrote:
Philosophy is about proof Science is about falsification

The middle ground is epistemic agnosticism where it all works on the balance of probabilities

Philosophy is not about proof but mathematics is

Falsification is a type of proof [ negative proof ] so there can be no middle ground between them

The middle ground is induction / abduction which exist between absolute certainty and absolute uncertainty

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:24 pm Philosophy is not about proof but mathematics is

Falsification is a type of proof [ negative proof ] so there can be no middle ground between them

The middle ground is induction / abduction which exist between absolute certainty and absolute uncertainty

Agreed in principle.

I am merely pointing out that Philosophers demand 'proof' (whatever the hell 'proof' is) hence why it's seen as a 'burden' of some sort.
There's never any talk about burden of disproof. In that sense, Philosophy is biased towards 'proof' and against 'disproof'.

The Bayesian point of departure, the default prior probability for learning is 'I don't know'. I am neither certain, nor uncertain.

I assign equal probability to all N hypotheses: 1/N

Hi Belinda,
Before I say anything else I want you to know I admire our standing by and defending what you believe and doing graciously. Thank you for that.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:14 am But there are millions of trained animals who have learned! All animals with central nervous systems learn; that is what CNSs are for. Animals , both trained and wild, are frequently observed choosing based upon a combination of their inherited instincts and what they have learned as living individuals.
...
Then why has my dog learned new habits that date only since she came to be my dog? Why have the wild(!) wood pigeons in my garden learned that the new bird feeding centre sometimes works for them?

I've already said why I do not agree with that. Adaptability and conditioning are features of instinct. Part of an animals instinct is the ability to adapt its behavior to changing conditions and develop patterns of behavior from experience. What an animal's instinct cannot do is choose to live as anything but the kind of animal it is. A carnivore cannot choose to live as a vegetarian, a grazing animal cannot choose to live as a predator, and a predator cannot choose to live as grazing animal. A parasite cannot choose to live as anything but a parasite, but no other creature can choose to live as a parasite.

A human being's nature does not determine how it must live. The only thing human nature determines is that a human being must choose how it will live. Human beings may choose to be carnivores, vegetarians, or omnivores, or live as parasites (like all those living on government largess). They can choose to be predators like gangsters and con men, or choose to be productive and self-sufficient, not preying on others, but their nature does not determine the kind of human being they will be.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:14 am

But it's not possible to be directly aware of any mind, because the mind is not physical, and the only mind one can know is their own. Even if animal's had minds, you could not possibly know it. They certainly don't claim to, only other human beings make that claim, which is one good reason to suppose they also have minds.

But there are regularly and frequently observed correlations between objectively observed brain events, subjectively reported mind events, and subject behaviour.

It would only surprise me if there weren't. If there were no relationship between the activity of the brain and consciousness that would be a genuine mystery. The fact that such relationships are discovered is not being conscious of another consciousness.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:14 am

The first time I see a treatise on the problems of mouse economy written by a mouse, or am stopped on the street by a dog saying, "listen here, I can think as well as you do and I vote Democrat," I will certainly give the possibility that other animals have minds consideration. Until then, there is no reason to.

But there are variations in cognitive quality and quantity between one man and another. And there are variations in cognitive quality and quantity between one species and another. You imply, above, that 'mind' is solely evaluative.

Then let me clear that up. The mind consists of three interdependent aspects: volition (the ability and necessity to consciously choose), intellect (the ability and necessity to acquire and hold verbal knowledge), and rationality, (the ability to think and make judgments). No other creature has a consciousness with those characteristics.

But 'mind' denotes an aspect of united brain-mind.

I cannot agree with that because I am not a physicalist and know that consciousness is not some kind of, "emegent," attribute.

If you persist in using the word 'mind' to denote your subjective evaluation of one specified level and type of cognition you will be out in the cold especially as you present no evidence whatsoever.

I can certainly live with that, although I have no idea what cold you are talking about.

I do not know what kind of evidence you might want beyond your own experience as a conscious human being and the nature of the world you live in. If you want something more, I cannot provide. In any case, I'm not trying to convince you of my view, I'm only telling what it is, and my own reasons for it. I only do it because your views are so different from mine I find them interesting.

Randy

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:15 am Many people communicate with other species.

You already know why I would disagree with that if you mean verbal communication. I'm sure there are many people of who believe that. There are people who believe they communicate with plants, rocks, spirits, and little men that live in their heads. (Please, I'm not accusing you of anything like that.) My point is, just because people believe they do something doesn't make it so.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:55 pm I cannot agree with that because I am not a physicalist and know that consciousness is not some kind of, "emegent," attribute.

Would you agree that the brain is a physical entity though?
So if the brain is physical, but consciousness is not - what kind of substance/medium might connect a physical brain to a non-physical consciousness?

How would consciousness have any causal effect on your reality e.g via choice/action?
How would reality have any effect on your consciousness e.g learning?

Or do you deny that there is a causal link between reality and consciousness?