You were right when you said this. — Questioner

Yes, that seemed the basis of what you were saying. I think NOS4A2 is quite quick to create schadenfreude, in his view.

You were wrong when you said this. — Questioner

Mate, you are not reading clearly and I have requested that you do read more clearly. Please do so, to avoid these situations. I said nothing about what you think, feel or care about. Point blank, period. I said you come across this way. If you feel I said anything but this, please quote it. I will apologise.

And you do. There is no argument, because this is a subjective opinion of mine wholly divorced from whatever you actually think. You come across this way. If you don't want to, alter your posting style.

Don't know where you got that idea. — Questioner

I quite literally did not suggest you did. If you do not like how I see your posts, that's not actually for me to do anything about.

Consciousness makes our reality — Questioner

Is this like a new-agey thing? If not, where is this deriving from for you?

As far as I know, there's nothing to suggest that this is at all the case except (forgive the use of the word) immature kinds of spirituality. I don't think we know enough about consciousness to make such a claim, either way. Consciousness is just the basis of sentient experience, not reality. Well, on currently available information. The world exists without us.

I am currently reading The New Science of Consciousness: Exploring the Complexity of Brain, Mind, and Self — Questioner

Ah right, nice. Nunez. Happy to receive your updates - But he leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. He seems ignorant to most of the philosophical underpinnings of the questions he asks, and make some wild non sequiturs to conclude, for instnace, from social networks, that hte brain acts that way. Like... what, bro? But again, happy to receive your updates. Just giving disclosure, i guess lol.

I do not accept that there is a "science of mind" currently. I get the inkling he's taking from Ernest Holmes - an overtly spiritual thesis which relies on an assumption that God is at the core of everything (and essentially equates God with consciousness). Very weird reading, i have to say.

My simple structure is system (existence) - sub-system (sentient-based reality) — ucarr

The non sequitur here is probably making it impossible to understand what you're talking about.
"sentient-based reality" doesn't represent anything anyone recognises, I suggest.

A totally unfounded assumption, and I take offense to it — Questioner

I made no assumption. I described how you can come across. You do come across that way. Not comment on what you actually think. If that's uncomfortable, that's okay. You can behave differently to stop that impression if you want. I'm not complaining about it, anyway.

Please read more clearly before getting your pants in a twist :) Offense is taken, not given.

You are describing choices on your part and I am sympathetic to that. You are compulsively choosing to examine your life in a self-destructive way. What you describe essentially meets the criteria for addiction.

But the crux is that these things don't magically occur in your mind. You need to exercise restraint and care over your mental hygiene. Again, It is not so easy - It took my years to come out of that space. But it is that simple. My recommendation is accepting at least some of what you've been given across your few threads, and sit with it. Essentially, "act as if" you believe it's true and see if you can adjust your mental behaviour in light of it. Truly, many of your conclusions will be irrational and "wrong" in principle if they hurt you.

Everything Mikie said is great advice. I would have probably have left off medication due to anecdote, though lol.

When was the era of America/s 'greatness" to which the acronym refers? And weren't the pictures of the Obamas as apes posted on Trump's Truth Social by MAGA supporters? — Ecurb

This is absolutely nothing to do with the previous two comments.

You've claimed MAGA want to go back to a segregated society. It is vanishingly rare to find anyone asking for this, except in the Black community. And I'm not admonishing that here (although, I am of the mind that its extremely distasteful and hypocritical - and infantalizing fwiw). I am just pointing out that the Black community is far more likely to fight for segregation than MAGA, albeit from totally incommensurate/orthogonal angles.

Philosophers have been concerned with the questions surrounding consciousness for hundreds thousands of years. — Questioner

All those questions really boil down to the nature of reality itself. — Questioner

This seems a total non sequitur. Can you make the connection, in context rather than in abstract?

Science may have something to contribute and to limit one's investigation solely to philosophy ignores a large body of knowledge. — Questioner

No one is doing this. That's largely why you're frustrating people: you're relying on an erroneous assumption to reject points being made. No one is saying science has nothing to say about consciousness - we're saying it doesn't, currently, have a line on this particular issue. The talk about brain structure and function doesn't get to the point we're on, though, you have been right about all that. This is why we're still trying to tease it apart.

Any serious exploration of consciousness concerns itself with both the philosophy and the science of mind. — Questioner

I'm not sure what you mean by 'science of mind' - i'm unsure there is a science of mind - precisely because science doesn't have the line on the subject we would like it to have.

To be clear, I'm not even rejecting that neural correlates of consciousness will be found. Many researches, such as Sam Harris, make that an optimistic, but not sanguine, hope. I am merely pointing out that we have no warrant to claim that this is the case, or make sweeping statements about hte nature of consciousness. We simply don't know what it is or how it works, at base.

The wording I like is - How can we be certain this is how it works if we don't have any idea how it works? — Patterner

That is fantastic lol. Thank you.

You may think so, and have intended this. The post, itself, is not coherent or capable of reasonable reply. Again, I am sorry - this is probably causing a huge disconnect between you and other posters. I think it would be more prudent to accept that this is the case and work on making clearer statements which can be apprehended fully.

Like I just recalled something someone else told be about how there are no "levels" to reality, it's just reality. And then something about nonduality. I didn't really get it. — Darkneos

This is rambling, gives me nothing to talk about and doesn't adequately explain anything about your earlier comments. It just tells me you get upset when some people tell you some things.

In any case, this fits squarely with the initial suggestion:

Instead of trying to mentally control everything - or, as it seems, searching for and soliciting ways to control everything.

Just stop doing that; stop reading philosophy looking for an answer and just sit in silence. — AmadeusD

It doesn't make any sense to any of us that people saying things to you would send you on this whirlwind upon which you come onto a philosophy forum searching for existential answers.

Please have a review. Don't respond immediately. Sit with it.

Hmm, that's fair prima facie. I think you're overworking what is being said on the otherside. No one is saying "science" is wrong, or rejecting the scientific information you refere to. But you have squarely accepted the disconnected here implicitly:

Clearly, science has not solved the hard problem — Questioner

I agree. As would anyone but Dennett, RIP, really. That is what we are asking you about, as I see it. How is it possible that those processes, none of which are conscious or contain consciousness, can result in it? You're right - there is no scientific explanation. That's why these questions keep cropping up :) I hope this clarifies somewhat.

You seem to be confused between philosophical reasoning and religious dogma. — Corvus

I agree, largely.

Not sure what you mean by that. That is not what Kant said, is it? — Corvus

That is just the definition of apperception. For Kant, this was explained as the existence of the thinking "I" viz the fact of the "i" existing in perception is apperception - perception of one's self and it's place among sensation. Kant's is just an abstract/large-grained description of the process above to me. Is there any real daylight between them to you?

legal segregation of schools, busses etc. still existed in many states in the '50s and '60s. Is that the era MAGA longs for? It seems so. — Ecurb

This is far from the case. The only calls for segregation recently (serious ones, anyway, rather than social media schlock) have been from the Black community.

I don't understand how one cannot be pleased at this kind of disclosure. — NOS4A2

I think her point, and it's a decent one, is that this whole situation sucks. It's not exactly good that there's a load of pedophiles and enablers in the US government. Having them convicted is justice, but it's indicative of the exact problem we shouldn't be happy about. It's more that the whole thing is morbid, rather than its bad they get dealt with, i think.

That said, I can understand how Questioner comes across as someone who might think its sad Clinton got caught, in the sense that its damning to the social divide one lives under the impression of.

Including Jerusalem, from what I can make out, yes.

Apperception is not related directly to a priori or experience as such, but it is the foundation of the a priori concepts. — Corvus

Apperception is the process of interpreting information in the context of existing information.

Brain mechanisms integrate, synchronize and model information, transforming individual mental processes into a coherent “stream of consciousness” — Questioner

How, Questioner? You're giving an opinion which is not well supported. How could that process result in conscious, first-personal experience? There is a massive, massive gap in your attempts to explain your position.

That looks like a difference between males and females. — Athena

I do not think there is any evidence for this.

this is not a coherent post capable of reasonable reply. I’m sorry

I maintain based on the evidence that it’s 3-7 degrees. But fair enough If it was looking at extremes, in concrete jungles. ‍♂️

no. That is an incredibly uncharitable straw man.

I explained myself completely. Have another go.

I appreciate the charity!

While I understand how you have read this, that is not a judgement about you. Maturity is not solely a personal attribute. I think the theory is immature - as in, hasn't been fully thought through/doesn't take all relevant issues into account. It is not a comment on you. I imagine this happens often? Please just ask me to clarify whenever you get that impression. I can almost guarantee it's not a personal judgement.

I have addressed the issue there, in this light. The attitude is an immature one that I think needs a bit more consideration. Science-derived information can be murky, messy, contradictory etc.. etc.. "settled science" is quite rare. But we need to know things all the time - and we certianly don't defer to labs and journals for most knowledge we have day-to-day.

My feet are at the bottom of my legs *shrug*.

I think that attitude while explaining a lot, isn't particularly mature. Understandable though

But those are all human observations - no part of science isn't anthropocentric in terms of what it tells us.

I guess also different traditions or even labs can give conflicting answers to important questions. I think deferring to science generally is admirable though - just testing some assumptions. I think it may not be as helpful as you take it to be overall.

This doesn't seem to mention or indicate any specific temperature increase? 12-15C is an absolutely catastrophic change that I've never seen claimed...

I think it might be best that if you see yourself having typed out more than 50 words you just put it in you drafts :lol: You do not seem capable of reading clearly, understanding context, understanding that your vitriol is boring and unhelpful or many other things that make you a precisely unproductive and combative member of this forum who rarely wades into substantive philosophical discussion. You may be incapable of understanding, But i've actively tried to come to terms with you several times. You want the drama. That's shit.

Take care Mikie. Let's hope hte new site has a block function

Ok - and in principle, yep. But there's no chain of reasoning for me to respond to in your OP (or, imo a coherent narrative even). So i'll stay with the original questions rather than moving on to further statements and questions that obscure the initial objection.

Why should I accept a theory of consciousness produced by that very same human consciousness? — Questioner

Now that's a good question - but this would apply to your own, no?

Yes, i understand. I doubt it was particularly moving besides your first point - finally having access to the fact that there are pre-civilised (as it were - horrid term) societies must have been a real upheaval.

I wasn't just an observer in my life. — Questioner

That wasn't suggested, but what Outlander is saying to you is a factual narrative of how morality comes about (in the absence of the type of claim you're explicitly not making: God made me moral).

I don't think you provided anything which I would call a chain of reasoning. I can't quite pull apart what I can't see is there.

Right-o.

they test whether you'll honor your conviction or yield to please them — RadicalJoe

This seems a surefire way to invite parasites into your life.

With this name swap effected, does my OP present a coherent chain of reasoning you can track from premise (Reality is a socially-embedded interpretation of physics.) to conclusion (Meaning is sentience dependent because its value exists in reference to the live or die fork.)? — ucarr

No.

No need to apologise - it seemed interesting, I just am not grasping it. Could be me!

Both about voter fraud — Mikie

Well, I'm telling you, point blank, it wasn't. You came into it late, and I am telling you that wasn't what was being discussed.

which are both exceedingly stupid. And being used to justify stupid new regulations. — Mikie

There is no end to your inabilities.

interested in facts — Mikie

Hehe.

Can you provide something that might support such an egregious claim?

The reasons are that you consistently crowd your mind with the concerns you are posting about, almost non-stop. The reasons are not those you list. These are excuses for not doing the toughest part of hte work, which is to just stop. Look. Listen. Instead of trying to mentally control everything - or, as it seems, searching for and soliciting ways to control everything.

Just stop doing that; stop reading philosophy looking for an answer and just sit in silence. Enjoy the sunset. Just shut up (internally, I mean). Its not that easy, but it is that simple. Everyone has said similar things to you. I can't see how you continuing down this path is anything but irrational self-destructive.

Sincerely, someone who was clinically, chronically depressed for years and has attempted on their life several times.

I can't understand what you're getting at, sorry.

What if we try through the "other"? In other words, the other is the one who confirms the fact of our existence. — Astorre

This doesn't seem to be something one can respond to intelligibly. I do not mean at all to be rude, but I can't understand this.

The "liberal" individual rights proponents the modern right admires (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, etc.) borrowed "liberally" from Native American philosophers. — Ecurb

This is.... not the case. there's some vague, unfounded assumptions in Braeber among others, that travel reports were somehow assimilated as philosophically serious, and adapted to enlightenment thinking. That doesn't seem to be particularly well supported, although, the previous denial of any influence is also apparently not well supported.

Now, you claim, we don't know what consciousness is. Upthread, I already mentioned - we all know what it is, since we all have it — Questioner

Tell us then.

[q

But I’m guessing you won’t share it. — Mikie

Well, no. I'm not having a substantive debate here, and again, it isn't about those claims anyway (and, unless you're about to admit bad faith, its clear I don't take them too seriously or support some campaign to 'sort it out' or whatever). It is about the concept of unverified voting - which responses seem to indicate most people aren't happy with anyway, it's just that they aren't occurring. That's fine.

But what about Trump and Rogan? They couldn’t be screaming about these things for nothing… — Mikie

They certainly could.

literally repeated what you said — Mikie

You "literally" did you. You suggested, in your own words, an uncharitable claim i didn't make and didn't intimate would be my position. Check yourself.

Anyway, my advice to you elsewhere stands: why repeatedly embarrass yourself by wading into topics you know nothing about, like US voting? Stick to fluff. :up: — Mikie

You don't take my advice. I am loathe to take yours. You constantly comment on things you're clearly not up to. Apparently, so do i.

Onward we go Mikie. Smoke a joint and calm down.

You don't have to get the special ID to vote in my state. I don't think you can get a passport without it, though. — frank

That's cool. Can you vote upon some standard ID doc?

There is a rage growing in women. — Questioner

Speak for yourself, Questioner.

ancient instincts awake — Questioner

To attend protests? LOL.

Stop reading philosophy and go and enjoy a sunset.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

By all means attack the connection I have made, but please don’t imply that I haven’t attempted to make one. — Herg

While I appreciate your elucidation, with respect this is not what I asked for. You made a connection between two conceptions of one assumed fact (which falls back on the previous objection).

What I want is something like:
Kicking puppies causes them harm =
It is wrong to kick puppies.

I cannot conceive of this, other than just claiming (as ethical naturalists often do) supervenience. That's fine if so, I just wanted that clarified. Please do not feel attacked. These are discussions about ethics and its best we stay away from taking things personally. I feel you havent clarified yourself or provided the baove. That's all.

torturing B is painful for B, that pain is intrinsically bad, that T is therefore instrumentally bad, and that if A is exercising free will when he performs T, then T is morally bad. I am not simply associating the facts in my mind, I have argued that they are connected in fact. — Herg

Fwiw, it wasn't sufficiently clear to me that this was your fundamental form of claim. Apologies I missed it.

I can see that you're trying to make that connection, but the second bold collapses into my prior objection. Why is pain intrinsically bad? I think, unfortunately, this is just wrong. There are plenty of counter-examples. Enough to make it a little silly, don't you think?

My claim is that pain is intrinsically bad. Where pain is beneficial, it is instrumentally good, which does not contradict my claim. — Herg

That's fine and i fully take the point. There's no logical incoherence in that. What i'm claiming is incoherent is making the claim that pain is intrinsically bad. But that's somewhat for another time, tbh.

The issue is that instrumental value is basically all we can actually assess. "intrinsically bad" begs a question. That means there is a basic, fundamental disconnect between what you'd call a natural fact "pain is bad" and the moral claim "it is wrong to cause pain". Far too much contingency in that for it to be a fact in any sense, imo.

evidence that (a) she was in a great deal of pain and (b) she had a strong negative response to the pain, which supports my contention that pain is intrinsically bad. — Herg

It absolutely does not. It supports the facts that a) she was in pain, and b) she had a strong negative response to the pain. This is personal discomfort, writ large. It does not follow, in any way, that pain is intrinsically bad. You've illustrated a single instance which cannot be extrapolated to every other instance. It says a lot more about your wife, than it does about the intrinsic nature of pain.

But why did she see it as bad? If you don’t think it is because it was intrinsically bad, then what was her reason? — Herg

Because she didn't enjoy it. People get the same feeling from eating food they don't like.

There is genuinely no connection in your posts between the claimed natural fact, and the moral claim such that
A. Pain is intrinsically bad; can be supported through to;
B. Therefore, do not pain.