Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:12 am How would you know I was in a rush, even long ago, and haven't considered it already? Is it my use of metaphors?

Well maybe you really understood it and I'm just getting the wrong impression, but then why did you go back to panpsychism?

To me, that's like: intentionally splitting my own thinking, and then make myself forget that I did that.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 3:33 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:12 am How would you know I was in a rush, even long ago, and haven't considered it already? Is it my use of metaphors?

Well maybe you really understood it and I'm just getting the wrong impression, but then why did you go back to panpsychism?

To me, that's like: intentionally splitting my own thinking, and then make myself forget that I did that.

Ah, so it was the metaphors.

Veritas,

All meaning is the property of a conscious subject/read individual, and never the property of the object/read physical world. Understanding this, one has to realize there is nothing meaningful in the physical world until a conscious subject bestows that meaning upon a meaningless world. Prepositions, facts, and states of affairs are all meanings and the fuel of consciousness. All meaning is derived by the effects of the physical world upon the body of a conscious subject and enables the survival of the organism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:46 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 3:33 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:12 am How would you know I was in a rush, even long ago, and haven't considered it already? Is it my use of metaphors?

Well maybe you really understood it and I'm just getting the wrong impression, but then why did you go back to panpsychism?

To me, that's like: intentionally splitting my own thinking, and then make myself forget that I did that.

Ah, so it was the metaphors.

"panpsychism" is a metaphor for what?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 4:31 am Veritas,

All meaning is the property of a conscious subject/read individual, and never the property of the object/read physical world. Understanding this, one has to realize there is nothing meaningful in the physical world until a conscious subject bestows that meaning upon a meaningless world. Prepositions, facts, and states of affairs are all meanings and the fuel of consciousness.

I agree with the above in general.
However, it is not "until a conscious subject bestows .." which imply conscious subjects acting upon a pre-existing meaningless world.
In my case, it has to be more subtle to avoid treading into philosophical realism, so whatever the realization and meaning of reality it is an emergence that implied the entanglement of the human conditions.

All meaning is derived by the effects of the physical world upon the body of a conscious subject and enables the survival of the organism.

Same point above. The "upon" above implies there are two separate things, i.e. the physical world and the conscious subject where both are independent of each other.

Why I raise the OP in this Ethic section is to counter
Peter Holmes' OP i.e.
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
therein he insisted dogmatically "there are no moral facts" period! based on his narrow and shallow views of what is morality and supporting his claims with the typical definitions of what-is-fact, prepositions and states-of-affairs which I show in the OP are groundless.

[/quote] I agree with the above in general.
However, it is not "until a conscious subject bestows .." which imply conscious subjects acting upon a pre-existing meaningless world.
In my case, it has to be more subtle to avoid treading into philosophical realism, so whatever the realization and meaning of reality it is an emergence that implied the entanglement of the human conditions.

All meaning is derived by the effects of the physical world upon the body of a conscious subject and enables the survival of the organism.

Same point above. The "upon" above implies there are two separate things, i.e. the physical world and the conscious subject where both are independent of each other.

Why I raise the OP in this Ethic section is to counter
Peter Holmes' OP i.e.
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
therein he insisted dogmatically "there are no moral facts" period! based on his narrow and shallow views of what is morality and supporting his claims with the typical definitions of what-is-fact, prepositions and states-of-affairs which I show in the OP are groundless.
[/quote]

Veritas,
Part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts. Subject and object can never be two entities but only one holds the property of meanings the subject, which it bestows upon its outer world as the meaning of apparent reality.