Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:04 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:46 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:50 pm Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought.

A concept is either meaningless (and therefore just an empty symbol) or has cogent referent, something one can actually identify. Infinity identifies all those cases in which a measurement has no limit. It is not a, "thing," or, "entity," and does not exist independently of human reason.

Just like 'time'.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:46 am Sans human reason, there is no such thing as infinity. "Infinity," only exists as a concept and only in individual human minds.

And, just like 'time' and 'infinity' the 'human mind' is not a 'thing', nor 'entity', and does not exist independently of human reason.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:00 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:46 pm In 1802 William Paley in his book ‘Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity’ used the watchmaker analogy as evidence of a designer. For Hume, who had died 26 years prior, existence of an intelligent designer would require explanation, every bit as much as the existence of the world and unlike the watch there were no witnesses. His argument focuses on sense experience as opposed to internal logic and rationality. For Richard Dawkins in 1986 the watchmaker was blind and his design was unconscious and automatic, without foresight or purpose. Pilo 220 B.C. had raised the problem of animal and human suffering allowed by an infinite power when only what it wills is executed.

The conflict lies between that which can be comprehended by sense experience, or by internal logic and rationality, and what is beyond the province of either. Between finite intelligence and infinite intelligence, if it exists, there is a gap that some claim can be bridged. The Rishis; sages, who when enlightened, supposedly realized supreme truth and eternal knowledge and is thought to have consequently made it out of the plane of TIME, thus achieving what Gilgamesh did not; immortality. Human intelligence used pi to calculate the duration of the universe based on its multiples. Short of immortality a lot can be achieved by humans.

The Sumerians were advanced enough to have composed the Gilgamesh Epic in the 2nd millennium B.C. which is interpreted as just a story; a myth. If it is a parable, then the wild man, the snake and all involved were intended to be aspects of Gilgamesh’s own psyche. Although his psychic evolution redeemed, humanized him, it fell short of his desire for immortality.

The watch has evolved since 1802 from mechanical to A.I. with the ability to change automatically in sync with different time zones. It may, or it may not, have reached the apex of watch evolution. Even A.I. evolves.

If like Gilgamesh humans evolve to uniting animal, human and god they may find redemption if not immortality. If as the Rishis they become enlightened they could, unlike Gilgamesh, achieve immortality and the Design versus Evolution argument would be a non-issue. Other than that resolution it is likely to continue.

Evolution is design as evolution is the reformulation of x within a new form; the reformulation of x is the same thing as design.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:32 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:41 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:46 am
A concept is either meaningless (and therefore just an empty symbol) or has cogent referent, something one can actually identify. Infinity identifies all those cases in which a measurement has no limit. It is not a, "thing," or, "entity," and does not exist independently of human reason.

Sans human reason, there is no such thing as infinity. "Infinity," only exists as a concept and only in individual human minds.

In a dual system we cannot say that only part of the equation is valid; the rational is valid, the non-rational; what is currently not accessible or comprehensible to human reason, is not. If what is valid is determined by human reason; a function of the mind, reality is limited to what human reason determines it to be.



Infinity has been a topic for both philosophy and mathematics. Aristotle defined it in all its aspects. In mathematics it is approached as infinities within the system; infinite sets and other concepts. They are not dismissive of what is not easily accessible to reason. Pi is a non-rational number and its importance is not undervalued. George Cantor discovered infinite sets and introduced the concept of transfinite numbers, working with irrational numbers. Irrationals are uncountable, integers are and must be conceived as finite.

Per Aristotle if motion does not end it cannot be finite, it is a potential infinite. When motion does end only the finite ends, as when the waves dissolve in the sea and their motion ceases the sea is unchanged, not affected by their motion or by the absence of their motion. That would be a way to think of infinity, as the absence of motion; not requiring motion for its existence.

You write: "Design vs Evolution, is there a solution?

But, if you really want to find if there is A 'solution', then you just have to propose THE 'problem', first.

See, there is NO 'problem' at all in just saying; "Design vs Evolution".


In fact, there is NO actual case of 'one' OR 'the other', as BOTH exist.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:52 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:24 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:01 pm Of course, every motion ends (or changes into a different one) whenever there is acceleration. Acceleration is, "change in motion," either it's velocity or it's direction. Nothing can move in the same direction at the same rate perpetually.

That all depends.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:01 pm You and Aristotle share that ignorance of physics.

Could it actually be the case that it is 'you' who could be ignorant here?

No.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:52 pm The reason Aristotle was ignorant is because he thought reason alone, without evidence, could sometimes establish what is true.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:52 pm That's why he thought something had to force something to continue to move (he didn't understand momentum) and why he thought Mrs. Aristotle had fewer teeth then he did (because he didn't bother to ask Mrs. Aristotle to open her mouth so he could count her teeth.)

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:52 pm You make the same mistake when you say there is anything that is infinite.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:52 pm Correctly understood, the word, "infinite," only pertains to what can be known about something, not to the something itself.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:52 pm A thing is called infinite when some limit or dimension about something cannot be known. The thing itself cannnot have the attribute, "infinite."

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:56 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:50 pm

Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought. In the Gilgamesh epic there was an expansion of intelligence and empathy from that of the prior state. Which indicates that an expansion of consciousness beyond prior states or limits is possible. Little is known about consciousness and what, if any, its limits are. As expansion is possible, to what extent is it possible; if there is a limit.

Why assume that there is a limit?

Could it be assuming itself, which is what is creating a limit to what is actually possible?

“ As expansion is possible, to what extent is it possible; if there is a limit” was not meant to imply there is a limit.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:07 pm Just expressing what is not known about consciousness at the present time. Consciousness could be infinite, without boundaries, for all we know.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:15 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:04 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:46 am
A concept is either meaningless (and therefore just an empty symbol) or has cogent referent, something one can actually identify. Infinity identifies all those cases in which a measurement has no limit. It is not a, "thing," or, "entity," and does not exist independently of human reason.

Just like 'time'.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:46 am Sans human reason, there is no such thing as infinity. "Infinity," only exists as a concept and only in individual human minds.

And, just like 'time' and 'infinity' the 'human mind' is not a 'thing', nor 'entity', and does not exist independently of human reason.

If human reason is a function it must exist, as a function, in relation to something.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:30 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:32 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:41 pm

In a dual system we cannot say that only part of the equation is valid; the rational is valid, the non-rational; what is currently not accessible or comprehensible to human reason, is not. If what is valid is determined by human reason; a function of the mind, reality is limited to what human reason determines it to be.



Infinity has been a topic for both philosophy and mathematics. Aristotle defined it in all its aspects. In mathematics it is approached as infinities within the system; infinite sets and other concepts. They are not dismissive of what is not easily accessible to reason. Pi is a non-rational number and its importance is not undervalued. George Cantor discovered infinite sets and introduced the concept of transfinite numbers, working with irrational numbers. Irrationals are uncountable, integers are and must be conceived as finite.

Per Aristotle if motion does not end it cannot be finite, it is a potential infinite. When motion does end only the finite ends, as when the waves dissolve in the sea and their motion ceases the sea is unchanged, not affected by their motion or by the absence of their motion. That would be a way to think of infinity, as the absence of motion; not requiring motion for its existence.

You write: "Design vs Evolution, is there a solution?

But, if you really want to find if there is A 'solution', then you just have to propose THE 'problem', first.

See, there is NO 'problem' at all in just saying; "Design vs Evolution".


In fact, there is NO actual case of 'one' OR 'the other', as BOTH exist.

I did not mean to imply that both do not exist. I did not literally spell it out as “Design vs Evolution Argument, is there is solution?” It was meant in reference to the argument however, not to one or the other being valid or invalid.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 2:31 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:56 pm

Why assume that there is a limit?

Could it be assuming itself, which is what is creating a limit to what is actually possible?

“ As expansion is possible, to what extent is it possible; if there is a limit” was not meant to imply there is a limit.

What, exactly, is 'consciousness' that 'it' could actually expand?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:07 pm Just expressing what is not known about consciousness at the present time. Consciousness could be infinite, without boundaries, for all we know.

But what is NOT known about 'consciousness' to some of 'you', people, is just what the word 'consciousness' means or refers to, exactly. Also, what 'consciousness' is, exactly, is already known, at the present time, to us. Come to an agreement on 'what' 'consciousness' is exactly, then you can successfully discuss the rest as well, but what, exactly, has any of this got to do with 'if there is a 'solution' or not to Design AND Evolution?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:36 pm Chalmers. David Chalmers.

And check this out. Chalmers and Searle actually made a brief appearance at 'philosophy forums dot com' like fifteen years ago, and maintained a debate for like five whole posts. Eventually Searle wuz like ooookay, gotta run, bruh. Take care now, bye bye then', and wuz never heard from again. Five whole posts, man. I watched the whole thing.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 2:52 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 2:31 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:07 pm

“ As expansion is possible, to what extent is it possible; if there is a limit” was not meant to imply there is a limit.

What, exactly, is 'consciousness' that 'it' could actually expand?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:07 pm Just expressing what is not known about consciousness at the present time. Consciousness could be infinite, without boundaries, for all we know.

But what is NOT known about 'consciousness' to some of 'you', people, is just what the word 'consciousness' means or refers to, exactly. Also, what 'consciousness' is, exactly, is already known, at the present time, to us. Come to an agreement on 'what' 'consciousness' is exactly, then you can successfully discuss the rest as well, but what, exactly, has any of this got to do with 'if there is a 'solution' or not to Design AND Evolution?

The purpose of the topic was to have a dialogue, not so much a debate based on opinions, on the dual perspectives of design versus evolution, or both. A sort of Socratic dialogue that may evoke some insight that might lead to some clarity. If not to a solution or to the truth which at this stage of human evolution would be rare.

Consciousness is perceived as ‘the hard problem’ for philosophy. Simply put it is awareness of existence. The issue was first raised by David Chambers in a presentation he gave at a philosophical conference. We could say that our consciousness is confined to us and other people’s consciousness is confined to them, to their forms. We hear of consciousness that is universal, as experienced by Sages or the Buddha. Extending beyond nature, as Cosmic Consciousness when totally Enlightened.

Of course all that, or any of it, is not experienced by the average human who like everything that is sentient has a level of consciousness. Plants or animals not self-consciously aware of their existence within nature. Humans both in nature and self-consciously outside it, having a subject/object relationship to it. Having the ability through rational thought to draw inferences from experience and from perceptions based on abstract thoughts and ideas.

The topic of consciousness came up and a response was made to it. What it may have to do with the topic for discussion is, if we were sages or enlightened the topic would not be an issue. We would know. For the rest of us the topic is an issue. We can approach it from opinion and take a stand with one perspective or another, based on opinion. Or as Aristotle advised choose a middle way between opposites. And as Socrates would advise have a dialogue. Though it may not lead to enlightenment it might shed some light on the topic.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:36 pm Chalmers. David Chalmers.

And check this out. Chalmers and Searle actually made a brief appearance at 'philosophy forums dot com' like fifteen years ago, and maintained a debate for like five whole posts. Eventually Searle wuz like ooookay, gotta run, bruh. Take care now, bye bye then', and wuz never heard from again. Five whole posts, man. I watched the whole thing.

Spelling of Chalmers name noted. The topic he raised has not gone away because the nature of consciousness is still unknown, as is the nature of mind.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Is philosophy about letting a topic die because material science has not made it factual yet?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm There are many forums where the topic of consciousness is raised as well as on twitter. Original ideas are tenuous as they come up against programmed thought and the certainty of a ‘this is the way it is’ mentality. That is not new. Ideas such as panpsychism, the term first coined in the 16th century, meet with skepticism, if not outright dismissal.

Still the question remains, as consciousness is a fact, just as much as existence is a fact and its laws will continue to be studied.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Both sides; physicalist view and primacy of consciousness view have prominent voices, to dismiss either side is flippancy.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm So Searle is not convinced, he does not have to be. Five discussions were a lot on one topic. Searle probably would not have said “gotta run” to Socrates either until he had attended at least five dialogues, respectfully listening before he went back to what he did for a living. It behoves scientists and philosophers to think outside the box, even if they mostly settle for one perspective, as everything is necessarily specialized.

In fact Chalmers’ view is not dismissive of brain processing, which reductionists love, so that should garner him some attention. It may answer why “A rose is only a rose because man sees it as such; without him it would be only a pattern of energy vortices.”

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm This topic was supposed to be about the opposing views of Design vs. Evolution.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Design, not necessarily meaning a Deity, as that would be a non-starter.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Rather a discussion in light of all that is known since Darwin’s day about what is primary in and to cosmic evolution which had been under way for quite some time before as Darwin saw it: ‘life emerged from a body of water on land.’

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:39 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 2:52 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 2:31 am

What, exactly, is 'consciousness' that 'it' could actually expand?



But what is NOT known about 'consciousness' to some of 'you', people, is just what the word 'consciousness' means or refers to, exactly. Also, what 'consciousness' is, exactly, is already known, at the present time, to us. Come to an agreement on 'what' 'consciousness' is exactly, then you can successfully discuss the rest as well, but what, exactly, has any of this got to do with 'if there is a 'solution' or not to Design AND Evolution?

The purpose of the topic was to have a dialogue, not so much a debate based on opinions, on the dual perspectives of design versus evolution, or both. A sort of Socratic dialogue that may evoke some insight that might lead to some clarity. If not to a solution or to the truth which at this stage of human evolution would be rare.

Consciousness is perceived as ‘the hard problem’ for philosophy. Simply put it is awareness of existence. The issue was first raised by David Chambers in a presentation he gave at a philosophical conference. We could say that our consciousness is confined to us and other people’s consciousness is confined to them, to their forms. We hear of consciousness that is universal, as experienced by Sages or the Buddha. Extending beyond nature, as Cosmic Consciousness when totally Enlightened.

Of course all that, or any of it, is not experienced by the average human who like everything that is sentient has a level of consciousness. Plants or animals not self-consciously aware of their existence within nature. Humans both in nature and self-consciously outside it, having a subject/object relationship to it. Having the ability through rational thought to draw inferences from experience and from perceptions based on abstract thoughts and ideas.

The topic of consciousness came up and a response was made to it. What it may have to do with the topic for discussion is, if we were sages or enlightened the topic would not be an issue. We would know. For the rest of us the topic is an issue. We can approach it from opinion and take a stand with one perspective or another, based on opinion. Or as Aristotle advised choose a middle way between opposites. And as Socrates would advise have a dialogue. Though it may not lead to enlightenment it might shed some light on the topic.

Just about every thing you have written here is exactly what I talk about and do since coming into this forum. That is; I do NOT do 'belief', I do NOT do 'disbelief', and I do NOT do 'debate'. I prefer to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what is ONLY ACTUALLY True and Right, instead. In fact in the one and only thread I have started here this can be CLEARLY SEEN. I also express how, EXACTLY, 'you', human beings, can FIND and also come to SEE and UNDERSTAND what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS as well.

Now, if you REALLY want to have a dialogue, and not a debate based on your opinions, about the 'design' AND 'evolution', then i suggest you STOP with the opinion that this discussion is a 'versus' discussion. It is because of this 'one' OR 'the other' view WHY this type of discussion has been going on for millennia, and has gotten NOWHERE, hitherto the days when this was being written. If, and when, 'you', human beings, START discussion what COULD BE true, instead of what you ASSUME or BELIEVE is true, then this WILL lead to some insight and to some clarity. But what leads to FULL insight and FULL clarity is just being Truly and FULLY OPEN while just remaining CURIOUS. This is what is needed for the so-called "socratic dialogue" to ACTUALLY WORK. This method although has ALREADY been PROVED True, to some, for the rest to find out and SEE that this method ACTUALLY WORKS also just needs them to do it, and just find out and see what the outcome is. Thee ACTUAL 'solution' to ALL of human 'problems' can be, and HAS ALREADY been, uncovered and found.

The WHOLE evolution/design discussion can be and WAS ended with the realization that 'free will' refers to 'just having the ability to choose', which EVERY adult human being has, and, 'determinism' just refers to 'EVERY thing is the way it IS and WILL BE because of previous events'. And, although there is an APPARENT obvious contradiction here there is ACTUALLY NO contradiction at all, that is; when LOOKED INTO and DISCUSSED FULLY OPENLY, without opinions being presented.

You used the right word when you said 'perceived' in relation to 'consciousness' and so so-called "hard problem". To me, there is NO 'problem' AT ALL, let alone ANY 'hardness' here AT ALL. 'consciousness' just refers to 'awareness', of which there is 'individual awareness' and there is 'collective awareness'. To distinguish between the two one is expressed with a little 'c' and the other is expressed with a capital 'C'. Which one is which, hopefully, is self-explanatory. But, considering the way some individuals actually BELIEVE their own views should overshadow EVERY one else's I wonder sometimes. And, when I say 'collective' here I mean ALL and not just SOME. Also, becoming TOTALLY Enlightened is about one of the SIMPLEST things to do in Life, as this IS thee True Self, Itself, anyway. "buddha's" way to reach becoming and being thee Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment (SAGE) is one way, there is also the other way of just being truly Honest, Open, and Seriously Wanting/Willing to change for the better. HOW is, literally, HOW thee Truth of 'things' can be and IS SEEN, almost instantaneously. Also, the so-called Cosmic Consciousness does NOT extend beyond Nature, Itself, as NOTHING can go beyond Nature. Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is a part of Nature. Consciousness is just Aware of EVERY thing and Everything, with the ability to access is within 'you', human beings.

'your', adult human beings anyway, level of 'consciousness' will only remain at the individual (or group of individual) level while you continue ASSUME and/or BELIEVING you already know what the truth is. Only when you obtain the ability to KNOW what IS irrefutably True do you move up to the level of Consciousness, Itself. And, to obtain the level being able to KNOW what is IRREFUTABLY True from what is just PERCEIVED to be true is done by just KNOWING EVERY could agree with the 'view' one is having. 'truth' and 'Truth' are different just like 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' are different. The capital letters refer to what is collectively KNOWN, AGREED UPON, and ACCEPTED by absolutely EVERY one, as One.

Human beings are also NOT self-conscious beings until they are able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly AND correctly, or IRREFUTABLY.

Thee True One within EVERY human being is thee SAGE (thee Spirit, Allah, God, and Enlightenment). 'you', human beings, are just ANOTHER part of the evolutionary stage of Existence leading up to Life, Itself, coming to Know Thy Self. 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were NOT YET at the stage of FULLY UNDERSTANDING ALL-OF-THIS but 'you' are that close 'you' could not really be any closer. VERY, VERY SOON enough 'you', human beings, will come to LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW living in Peace AND in Harmony with one another as One is REALLY just Truly very SIMPLE and very EASY indeed. And, this is achieved through KNOWING and NOT through THINKING. As you said above Consciousness, nor even consciousness, is an issue AT ALL. One just has to LEARN and UNDERSTAND what they ARE, EXACTLY, and ANY 'perceived' issues just FALL AWAY or DIMINISH completely.

What will be found is that ALL of those 'this' OR 'that' discussions like, for example, creation OR evolution, nature OR nurture, free will OR determinism, et cetera are ALL just a wast of time as in EVERY one of them BOTH EXIST. Which is VERY CONTRARY to most of 'you', human beings. Even though "socrates" was advising on choosing a middle way between opposites, 'you', human beings, since then have been TAUGHT to pick A SIDE, and fight/argue for THAT SIDE. 'Debating', which is STILL TAUGHT within the so-called "education system" in the days when this was being written, encourages 'you' to PICK A SIDE and 'argue' for THAT SIDE, "to the death", as some say. And, this PICK A SIDE and FIGHT/ARGUE for 'it' can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way human beings converse with one "another".

I advise, and suggest, to NOT just choose the middle way between opposites for the same reason I SEE choosing either SIDE or absolutely ANY 'thing' BEFORE obtaining thee ACTUAL Truth and PROOF as choosing things in this way is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS to say the least. No matter what one 'chooses', they then inevitably fight or argue for that 'thing', and to do so without PROOF is obviously completely and utterly USELESS. So, instead I suggest just becoming and remaining Truly OPEN, ALWAYS, and then, and only then, what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct can 'come-to-light'. And what is usually True, Right, AND Correct is the so-called 'middle ground' and NOT one SIDE, AT ALL.

By the way, being ALWAYS Truly OPEN and Honest leads to Enlightenment, Itself, and sheds LIGHT on ALL 'things'.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:18 am

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:36 pm Chalmers. David Chalmers.

And check this out. Chalmers and Searle actually made a brief appearance at 'philosophy forums dot com' like fifteen years ago, and maintained a debate for like five whole posts. Eventually Searle wuz like ooookay, gotta run, bruh. Take care now, bye bye then', and wuz never heard from again. Five whole posts, man. I watched the whole thing.

Spelling of Chalmers name noted. The topic he raised has not gone away because the nature of consciousness is still unknown, as is the nature of mind.

The so-called 'nature of consciousness' may not be known, by you. But this does NOT mean that the 'nature of consciousness' is still unknown.

As for the 'nature of mind' this is ALSO ALREADY KNOWN, by some.

Human beings REALLY do have such a narrowed or closed way of LOOKING AT 'things' that they ACTUALLY think or BELIEVE that because they have NOT YET been exposed to some 'thing', then that 'thing' is "still unknown".

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Is philosophy about letting a topic die because material science has not made it factual yet?

It can be. The word 'philosophy' can be about absolutely ANY thing of one's choosing. Just like absolutely EVERY word can be about whatever one so chooses it to be about.

But I found using words more closely to how they once meant, and as long and that usage still works with 'current' usages, then that to be far more helpful in being about to UNIFY absolutely EVERY thing together as thee One Everything.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm There are many forums where the topic of consciousness is raised as well as on twitter. Original ideas are tenuous as they come up against programmed thought and the certainty of a ‘this is the way it is’ mentality. That is not new. Ideas such as panpsychism, the term first coined in the 16th century, meet with skepticism, if not outright dismissal.

Still the question remains, as consciousness is a fact, just as much as existence is a fact and its laws will continue to be studied.

What, exactly, again, is 'the question' that, supposedly, remains?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Both sides; physicalist view and primacy of consciousness view have prominent voices, to dismiss either side is flippancy.

And to NOT be ABLE to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, is because 'two' SIDES have been 'created'. Even you talked about "choosing the middle way of two opposites" but now continue on about how there IS 'two sides'. But there IS NOT ACTUALLY 'two sides' AT ALL. There is just a human being created PERCEPTION that there are 'two sides'.

There are ACTUAL Truths, and ACTUAL Falsehoods, within "BOTH, perceived, SIDES" or versions. And, like just about EVERY 'one' OR 'other' perceived 'things' thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' lays somewhere in about the middle, with a part of BOTH 'sides' existing somewhere, in 'there'.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm So Searle is not convinced, he does not have to be. Five discussions were a lot on one topic. Searle probably would not have said “gotta run” to Socrates either until he had attended at least five dialogues, respectfully listening before he went back to what he did for a living. It behoves scientists and philosophers to think outside the box, even if they mostly settle for one perspective, as everything is necessarily specialized.

In fact Chalmers’ view is not dismissive of brain processing, which reductionists love, so that should garner him some attention. It may answer why “A rose is only a rose because man sees it as such; without him it would be only a pattern of energy vortices.”

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' just exists, that EVERY 'thing' is just labelled and provided with a name is because human beings see 'it' (that 'thing') as such. And, without a human being 'it' (that 'thing') would only be a pattern of ....

Even the word 'thing' is just another label/name of what you say, and see, here as being 'only a pattern of energy vortices'.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm This topic was supposed to be about the opposing views of Design vs. Evolution.

AND, if there is a solution or not, correct?

Also, when you say this topic was, "supposed to be, about the opposing views of Design verses Evolution", what do you propose this topic is about now?

And, the opposing views of Design/Creation and of Evolution have been discussed for millennia, so WHY make another discussion thread about those OBVIOUS opposing views?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Design, not necessarily meaning a Deity, as that would be a non-starter.

WHY would that supposedly be a "non-starter"? This just sounds like you just are wanting to express your OWN opinion, and NOT really wanting to have a dialogue at all, which may evoke insight or clarity.

Do you have some sort of BELIEF that a 'Deity' (whatever that means or refer to, to you) is an IMPOSSIBILITY?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Rather a discussion in light of all that is known since Darwin’s day about what is primary in and to cosmic evolution which had been under way for quite some time before as Darwin saw it: ‘life emerged from a body of water on land.’

LOL
LOL
LOL


It is this SIMPLE, absolutely EVERY 'thing' is in Creation, through an evolutionary process. And, EVERY 'thing' was created, and will be created, besides thee Universe, Itself.

What does 'Design' even mean to you?

And, 'Life', Itself, IS 'emerging' ALWAYS. There was NO 'start'.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:39 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 2:52 pm

The purpose of the topic was to have a dialogue, not so much a debate based on opinions, on the dual perspectives of design versus evolution, or both. A sort of Socratic dialogue that may evoke some insight that might lead to some clarity. If not to a solution or to the truth which at this stage of human evolution would be rare.

Consciousness is perceived as ‘the hard problem’ for philosophy. Simply put it is awareness of existence. The issue was first raised by David Chambers in a presentation he gave at a philosophical conference. We could say that our consciousness is confined to us and other people’s consciousness is confined to them, to their forms. We hear of consciousness that is universal, as experienced by Sages or the Buddha. Extending beyond nature, as Cosmic Consciousness when totally Enlightened.

Of course all that, or any of it, is not experienced by the average human who like everything that is sentient has a level of consciousness. Plants or animals not self-consciously aware of their existence within nature. Humans both in nature and self-consciously outside it, having a subject/object relationship to it. Having the ability through rational thought to draw inferences from experience and from perceptions based on abstract thoughts and ideas.

The topic of consciousness came up and a response was made to it. What it may have to do with the topic for discussion is, if we were sages or enlightened the topic would not be an issue. We would know. For the rest of us the topic is an issue. We can approach it from opinion and take a stand with one perspective or another, based on opinion. Or as Aristotle advised choose a middle way between opposites. And as Socrates would advise have a dialogue. Though it may not lead to enlightenment it might shed some light on the topic.

Just about every thing you have written here is exactly what I talk about and do since coming into this forum. That is; I do NOT do 'belief', I do NOT do 'disbelief', and I do NOT do 'debate'. I prefer to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what is ONLY ACTUALLY True and Right, instead. In fact in the one and only thread I have started here this can be CLEARLY SEEN. I also express how, EXACTLY, 'you', human beings, can FIND and also come to SEE and UNDERSTAND what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS as well.

Now, if you REALLY want to have a dialogue, and not a debate based on your opinions, about the 'design' AND 'evolution', then i suggest you STOP with the opinion that this discussion is a 'versus' discussion. It is because of this 'one' OR 'the other' view WHY this type of discussion has been going on for millennia, and has gotten NOWHERE, hitherto the days when this was being written. If, and when, 'you', human beings, START discussion what COULD BE true, instead of what you ASSUME or BELIEVE is true, then this WILL lead to some insight and to some clarity. But what leads to FULL insight and FULL clarity is just being Truly and FULLY OPEN while just remaining CURIOUS. This is what is needed for the so-called "socratic dialogue" to ACTUALLY WORK. This method although has ALREADY been PROVED True, to some, for the rest to find out and SEE that this method ACTUALLY WORKS also just needs them to do it, and just find out and see what the outcome is. Thee ACTUAL 'solution' to ALL of human 'problems' can be, and HAS ALREADY been, uncovered and found.

The WHOLE evolution/design discussion can be and WAS ended with the realization that 'free will' refers to 'just having the ability to choose', which EVERY adult human being has, and, 'determinism' just refers to 'EVERY thing is the way it IS and WILL BE because of previous events'. And, although there is an APPARENT obvious contradiction here there is ACTUALLY NO contradiction at all, that is; when LOOKED INTO and DISCUSSED FULLY OPENLY, without opinions being presented.

You used the right word when you said 'perceived' in relation to 'consciousness' and so so-called "hard problem". To me, there is NO 'problem' AT ALL, let alone ANY 'hardness' here AT ALL. 'consciousness' just refers to 'awareness', of which there is 'individual awareness' and there is 'collective awareness'. To distinguish between the two one is expressed with a little 'c' and the other is expressed with a capital 'C'. Which one is which, hopefully, is self-explanatory. But, considering the way some individuals actually BELIEVE their own views should overshadow EVERY one else's I wonder sometimes. And, when I say 'collective' here I mean ALL and not just SOME. Also, becoming TOTALLY Enlightened is about one of the SIMPLEST things to do in Life, as this IS thee True Self, Itself, anyway. "buddha's" way to reach becoming and being thee Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment (SAGE) is one way, there is also the other way of just being truly Honest, Open, and Seriously Wanting/Willing to change for the better. HOW is, literally, HOW thee Truth of 'things' can be and IS SEEN, almost instantaneously. Also, the so-called Cosmic Consciousness does NOT extend beyond Nature, Itself, as NOTHING can go beyond Nature. Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is a part of Nature. Consciousness is just Aware of EVERY thing and Everything, with the ability to access is within 'you', human beings.

'your', adult human beings anyway, level of 'consciousness' will only remain at the individual (or group of individual) level while you continue ASSUME and/or BELIEVING you already know what the truth is. Only when you obtain the ability to KNOW what IS irrefutably True do you move up to the level of Consciousness, Itself. And, to obtain the level being able to KNOW what is IRREFUTABLY True from what is just PERCEIVED to be true is done by just KNOWING EVERY could agree with the 'view' one is having. 'truth' and 'Truth' are different just like 'consciousness' and 'Consciousness' are different. The capital letters refer to what is collectively KNOWN, AGREED UPON, and ACCEPTED by absolutely EVERY one, as One.

Human beings are also NOT self-conscious beings until they are able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly AND correctly, or IRREFUTABLY.

Thee True One within EVERY human being is thee SAGE (thee Spirit, Allah, God, and Enlightenment). 'you', human beings, are just ANOTHER part of the evolutionary stage of Existence leading up to Life, Itself, coming to Know Thy Self. 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were NOT YET at the stage of FULLY UNDERSTANDING ALL-OF-THIS but 'you' are that close 'you' could not really be any closer. VERY, VERY SOON enough 'you', human beings, will come to LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW living in Peace AND in Harmony with one another as One is REALLY just Truly very SIMPLE and very EASY indeed. And, this is achieved through KNOWING and NOT through THINKING. As you said above Consciousness, nor even consciousness, is an issue AT ALL. One just has to LEARN and UNDERSTAND what they ARE, EXACTLY, and ANY 'perceived' issues just FALL AWAY or DIMINISH completely.

What will be found is that ALL of those 'this' OR 'that' discussions like, for example, creation OR evolution, nature OR nurture, free will OR determinism, et cetera are ALL just a wast of time as in EVERY one of them BOTH EXIST. Which is VERY CONTRARY to most of 'you', human beings. Even though "socrates" was advising on choosing a middle way between opposites, 'you', human beings, since then have been TAUGHT to pick A SIDE, and fight/argue for THAT SIDE. 'Debating', which is STILL TAUGHT within the so-called "education system" in the days when this was being written, encourages 'you' to PICK A SIDE and 'argue' for THAT SIDE, "to the death", as some say. And, this PICK A SIDE and FIGHT/ARGUE for 'it' can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way human beings converse with one "another".

I advise, and suggest, to NOT just choose the middle way between opposites for the same reason I SEE choosing either SIDE or absolutely ANY 'thing' BEFORE obtaining thee ACTUAL Truth and PROOF as choosing things in this way is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS to say the least. No matter what one 'chooses', they then inevitably fight or argue for that 'thing', and to do so without PROOF is obviously completely and utterly USELESS. So, instead I suggest just becoming and remaining Truly OPEN, ALWAYS, and then, and only then, what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct can 'come-to-light'. And what is usually True, Right, AND Correct is the so-called 'middle ground' and NOT one SIDE, AT ALL.

By the way, being ALWAYS Truly OPEN and Honest leads to Enlightenment, Itself, and sheds LIGHT on ALL 'things'.

There is no conflict over the dualities of nature from the strong and weak forces to heat and cold night and day.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am Conflict is over concepts and opinions.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am Philosophy and religion advises a middle way: neutrality in human affairs.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am Universal principles, what is universally true and applicable to all, should be defended.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am What is experienced or conceived of generally has something that is fundamental to it.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am The ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is what is it that is fundamental to it.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am Or is itself fundamental, representing only itself.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am Incidental to that is whether it is universal, unconsciously active universally as well as consciously experienced subjectively.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am If it were Design and Evolution there would not be a problem requiring a solution.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:11 am ‘Versus’ denotes difference of opinion and conflict on any number of things from religion to politics which are increasingly polarized. That is the problem in need of a solution. Why is it so difficult to understand that?