Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:33 am

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:29 am
Not 'of' but all things are just emergent, without the consideration of 'emergent from'.

Mindlessly you mean?

See my post to Bahman above,
viewtopic.php?p=499090#p499090

Not mindlessly in the general sense like a drunkard and the likes.

It is 'mindless' in the sense there is no physical or mental mind-in-itself.

So "a drunkard and the likes" is still somewhat mindful...but not this? Completely mindless?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:28 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:45 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:23 am

If one was all there was and there was no thing else existing, probable one would create stuff with/in ones mind in which to interact with. Thus "Creation" {let there be and there was}

How a mind could possibly do anything when there is nothing to be conscious of?

You are too presumptuous in this case and begging the question that there is already a mind in existence, then trying to prove it in a ridiculous manner.

The most effective sense of reality is to observe the fact of the actions done and track how such actions emerged.

• Let say you are eating an apple.
  What is not debatable is the fact you are eating the apple.
  What enable you or any person to eat an apple is the existence a normal human brain and all the other necessary physical features.
  How your brain is capable to move you to eat an apple is due to certain specific set of neuronal activities.
  As a matter of convenience for communication purpose this specific set of neuronal activities and other sets of mental activities are categorized as the "mind".

From the above, there is no pre-existing 'a mind' in the brain.
What is mind is a matter of convenience for communication purposes.
There is no pre-existing mind-in-itself.

Note the common saying, the swarm of locust or any large group is moving as if it has a mind of its own. There is no mind-in-itself in this case.

Why you jump to the conclusion there is a mind-in-itself in the brain and body is due to a psychological drive to relieve cognitive dissonance, effects can be without cause.

Because there is no emergence. Because consciousness perse is passive. Because causation correlates with consciousness. Because of all these materialism fails.

How a mind could possibly do anything when there is nothing to be conscious of?

We know it is possible because we do it ourselves in a sense....

We can place ourselves into 'nothing' and understand one solitary thing in relation to that nothing. We understand that we still exist. We exist as "something".

In that position we also understand that by the fact that we exist, we have actually made something out of nothing and we call that something 'nothing - or - no thing'.

Thus we are something which calls something no thing, if there is no 'other' thing except no thing.

But here is the interesting part...we cannot imagine 'nothing' without a backdrop to it. It is either completely 'dark' or completely 'light' and that effectively acts as a curtain concealing everything else...

That is because we are doing so from the perspective of our human forms and the makeup of our brains.

So IF there were an actual "absolute nothing" we would likely not even notice it or comprehend it so would not be able to acknowledge its existence...and how can "Absolutely nothing" actually exist?

It can only exist if absolutely everything did not exist.

But since things exist...well then there is 'the mind'...

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:36 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:49 pm
Look at it this way: how are you even getting to "this is what the scientific 'FSK' says"? Is that something your mind is fantasizing?

How come you coming up which such a low standard question?

Such a "low standard" question should be easy to address rather than just completely ignore, no?

You're doing the latter.

Given the topic and your comments on it, we probably shouldn't just ignore the "low standard" question.

The thing-in-itself [and related ontological issues] a very notable philosophical term from Kant who is regularly polled as one of the greatest philosopher of all times. How that be related to a low standard question.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:24 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:28 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:45 pm
How a mind could possibly do anything when there is nothing to be conscious of?

You are too presumptuous in this case and begging the question that there is already a mind in existence, then trying to prove it in a ridiculous manner.

The most effective sense of reality is to observe the fact of the actions done and track how such actions emerged.

• 1. Let say you are eating an apple.
  2. What is not debatable is the fact you are eating the apple.
  3. What enable you or any person to eat an apple is the existence a normal human brain and all the other necessary physical features.
  4. How your brain is capable to move you to eat an apple is due to certain specific set of neuronal activities.
  5. As a matter of convenience for communication purpose this specific set of neuronal activities and other sets of mental activities are categorized as the "mind".

From the above, there is no pre-existing 'a mind' in the brain.
What is mind is a matter of convenience for communication purposes.
There is no pre-existing mind-in-itself.

Note the common saying, the swarm of locust or any large group is moving as if it has a mind of its own. There is no mind-in-itself in this case.

Why you jump to the conclusion there is a mind-in-itself in the brain and body is due to a psychological drive to relieve cognitive dissonance, effects can be without cause.

Because there is no emergence. Because consciousness perse is passive. Because causation correlates with consciousness. Because of all these materialism fails.

You could be defining 'emergence' in your own way.

For me that there is a real apple and a real person eating it is an emergence that is possible to be experienced by any normal person.

As above, I am starting with the emergence that are real and can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system as REAL.
From I proceed from 1-5 into within the real person and discover there is a real mind
as defined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

There is no other type of mind other than the one defined above.

In your case, you are not starting from what is real but rather begged there is a real mind than proceed to prove it whereby you failed.
In your case, you are leaping from no-man's land into la la land.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

What you need to present is like, there is a mind because this is the empirically and philosophically verified and justified evidence for it.

'Things in themselves' is ambiguous.

There be things for themselves, and there also be extramental things.

Things for themselves is you and me and all sentient or sentient and conscious things. It can't be denied you and I and other conscious and sentient things are subjects of experience. Moreover it is not only counter intuitive it is also useless to claim there is nothing 'out there'.

Absolutely extramental things are things that are neither sentient nor conscious (if such there be).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:27 am The thing-in-itself [and related ontological issues] a very notable philosophical term from Kant who is regularly polled as one of the greatest philosopher of all times.

Gee, well that's certainly a good justification for you to simply ignore it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:42 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:24 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:28 am
You are too presumptuous in this case and begging the question that there is already a mind in existence, then trying to prove it in a ridiculous manner.

The most effective sense of reality is to observe the fact of the actions done and track how such actions emerged.

• 1. Let say you are eating an apple.
  2. What is not debatable is the fact you are eating the apple.
  3. What enable you or any person to eat an apple is the existence a normal human brain and all the other necessary physical features.
  4. How your brain is capable to move you to eat an apple is due to certain specific set of neuronal activities.
  5. As a matter of convenience for communication purpose this specific set of neuronal activities and other sets of mental activities are categorized as the "mind".

From the above, there is no pre-existing 'a mind' in the brain.
What is mind is a matter of convenience for communication purposes.
There is no pre-existing mind-in-itself.

Note the common saying, the swarm of locust or any large group is moving as if it has a mind of its own. There is no mind-in-itself in this case.

Why you jump to the conclusion there is a mind-in-itself in the brain and body is due to a psychological drive to relieve cognitive dissonance, effects can be without cause.

Because there is no emergence. Because consciousness perse is passive. Because causation correlates with consciousness. Because of all these materialism fails.

You could be defining 'emergence' in your own way.

For me that there is a real apple and a real person eating it is an emergence that is possible to be experienced by any normal person.

As above, I am starting with the emergence that are real and can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system as REAL.
From I proceed from 1-5 into within the real person and discover there is a real mind
as defined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

There is no other type of mind other than the one defined above.

In your case, you are not starting from what is real but rather begged there is a real mind than proceed to prove it whereby you failed.
In your case, you are leaping from no-man's land into la la land.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

What you need to present is like, there is a mind because this is the empirically and philosophically verified and justified evidence for it.

Hard problem of consciousness is still unresolved...

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:42 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:24 pm
Because there is no emergence. Because consciousness perse is passive. Because causation correlates with consciousness. Because of all these materialism fails.

You could be defining 'emergence' in your own way.

For me that there is a real apple and a real person eating it is an emergence that is possible to be experienced by any normal person.

As above, I am starting with the emergence that are real and can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system as REAL.
From I proceed from 1-5 into within the real person and discover there is a real mind
as defined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

There is no other type of mind other than the one defined above.

In your case, you are not starting from what is real but rather begged there is a real mind than proceed to prove it whereby you failed.
In your case, you are leaping from no-man's land into la la land.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

What you need to present is like, there is a mind because this is the empirically and philosophically verified and justified evidence for it.

Hard problem of consciousness is still unresolved...

That is the reason why you must not jump ahead to insist there is a "mind" of your definition.

I would not predict the hard problem of consciousness will be resolved with certainty in the future, but it is promising and we are progressing steadily to understand much about how the components of our brain-hardware are workings in relations to its output.
Btw, are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project?

http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
The objective here is to map the path and connectivity of every neurons in the human brain. If our present 'infancy' knowledge of how the neurons are connected to their output is say X, then if when we increase that to 5X, 10x or more in the future that would definitely give humanity a greater understanding of human consciousness and its hard problem.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:27 am The thing-in-itself [and related ontological issues] a very notable philosophical term from Kant who is regularly polled as one of the greatest philosopher of all times.

Gee, well that's certainly a good justification for you to simply ignore it.

I am seriously interested why you think that is so.

To Kant, the thing-in-itself is a metaphysical nonsense and illusion, while you are ignorantly reifying and clinging to the thing-in-itself as something objectively real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:49 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:27 am The thing-in-itself [and related ontological issues] a very notable philosophical term from Kant who is regularly polled as one of the greatest philosopher of all times.

Gee, well that's certainly a good justification for you to simply ignore it.

I am seriously interested why you think that is so.

The laugh icon wasn't a clue that I was being sarcastic?

You won't address something you're trying to characterize as simple to address, via a lame argument from authority excuse that isn't even itself addressing what I'm asking you.

That's because you're incapable of addressing it and you're hoping you can just dismiss it instead.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:42 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:42 am
You could be defining 'emergence' in your own way.

For me that there is a real apple and a real person eating it is an emergence that is possible to be experienced by any normal person.

As above, I am starting with the emergence that are real and can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system as REAL.
From I proceed from 1-5 into within the real person and discover there is a real mind
as defined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

There is no other type of mind other than the one defined above.

In your case, you are not starting from what is real but rather begged there is a real mind than proceed to prove it whereby you failed.
In your case, you are leaping from no-man's land into la la land.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

What you need to present is like, there is a mind because this is the empirically and philosophically verified and justified evidence for it.

Hard problem of consciousness is still unresolved...

That is the reason why you must not jump ahead to insist there is a "mind" of your definition.

I would not predict the hard problem of consciousness will be resolved with certainty in the future, but it is promising and we are progressing steadily to understand much about how the components of our brain-hardware are workings in relations to its output.
Btw, are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project?

http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
The objective here is to map the path and connectivity of every neurons in the human brain. If our present 'infancy' knowledge of how the neurons are connected to their output is say X, then if when we increase that to 5X, 10x or more in the future that would definitely give humanity a greater understanding of human consciousness and its hard problem.

I don't think that mapping the human brain resolves the issue of the hard problem of consciousness. It cannot be resolve since there is no strong emergence.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:49 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:36 pm
Gee, well that's certainly a good justification for you to simply ignore it.

I am seriously interested why you think that is so.

The laugh icon wasn't a clue that I was being sarcastic?

You won't address something you're trying to characterize as simple to address, via a lame argument from authority excuse that isn't even itself addressing what I'm asking you.

That's because you're incapable of addressing it and you're hoping you can just dismiss it instead.

I am very serious with the issue re the 'thing-in-itself' else I would have wasted 3 years full time [up to a max 8 hours in some days] researching Kantian philosophies. Note this is why I raise it as a specific thread.
I believe the bottle-neck is your understanding not mine.

Note this latest post in this Philosophy Now;

Perception & Reality
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=32243

The idea of an uncontaminated appearance revealing the world as it is in itself nevertheless still haunts those philosophers for whom reality as the object of thought is superior to the lived shin-barking push-and-shove existential reality of daily life. We are teased by Parmenides’ idea of a realm lying beyond the reach of our senses.

It was this realm which Immanuel Kant – the greatest and most influential philosopher since Plato – called the featureless ‘noumenal’ realm – by which he meant the world as it is in itself, grounding our experiences of the world but not revealed in them. We should be grateful perhaps to this self-contradictory idea for giving humanity permission to develop world pictures at odds with sense experience – notably those of science – which have mysteriously proved so fertile in transforming our understanding and enhancing our experiences.

What you are ignorant of is the psychological factors within you that is driving you to reify the illusory thing-in-itself as a real thing. Suggest you research into this paradigm why it is so.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:27 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:42 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:37 pm
Hard problem of consciousness is still unresolved...

That is the reason why you must not jump ahead to insist there is a "mind" of your definition.

I would not predict the hard problem of consciousness will be resolved with certainty in the future, but it is promising and we are progressing steadily to understand much about how the components of our brain-hardware are workings in relations to its output.
Btw, are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project?

http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
The objective here is to map the path and connectivity of every neurons in the human brain. If our present 'infancy' knowledge of how the neurons are connected to their output is say X, then if when we increase that to 5X, 10x or more in the future that would definitely give humanity a greater understanding of human consciousness and its hard problem.

I don't think that mapping the human brain resolves the issue of the hard problem of consciousness. It cannot be resolve since there is no strong emergence.

"Since there is no strong emergence"??
You have no basis for this argument especially when you have such a low understanding of what is going on inside your brain.

The question of strong emergence will also be resolved reasonably when the human brain is fully [or mostly] mapped.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:32 am What you are ignorant of is the psychological factors within you that is driving you to reify the illusory thing-in-itself as a real thing. Suggest you research into this paradigm why it is so.

How about telling me the psychological factors within you that are driving you to reify the illusory "other people with an FSK" as a real thing?