This makes me think of the distinctions between objective truth and subjective truth. We can assume objectively that we all have self-awareness, but we know with a higher degree of certainty that our own truth is pure subjectivity. — 3017amen
So, all are good, depending of what we're parsing. We must know which hats to wear when questions are posed. Ironically enough, being reasonable essentially means treating like cases likely, different cases differently.
To this end, can you describe your thoughts and interpretations relative to dualism v. monism? — 3017amen
Can it be said that to be truly self-aware means to recognize, itemize, hence understand the necessary grounds of one’s mental activities? And can it be said that a theory of everything would limit itself to the exposition of those grounds, sufficient for any human, rational self to compare against?
If so, I submit Kant’s tripartite critique fits the requirements.
Keyword, of course....theory. — Mww
8 With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness? — 3017amen
Perhaps I should have said a theory of everything , that everybody agrees on — Pop
I think, in present times this a priori knowledge would be DNA data forming brain structure. — Pop
Most of my knowledge is derived from outside of philosophy. — Pop
FR! Thank you for your response. I agree that there are gaps (some of which obviously having to do with recent discoveries over time...) but what is your take on that notion of DDS? — 3017amen
Also, this is not a criticism of religion or people being religious. It is merely to make clear that religion is not a natural science. Please limit your response to this one narrow topic only. — EricH
As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts? — Pop
Warranted criticism is not "belittling", you fuckin' half-wit. :snicker: — 180 Proof
And if you continue to send me private messages to harass me I will report you to the moderators. — 3017amen
I have asked you more than ten times to respond to a question about something you wrote, which you have wriggled away from like a weasel from fire, refusing to respond. So I won't ask. I will simply observe that when you imply that religion is akin to a "natural/physical science," you're simply making clear that you do not know what religion is, you do not know what science is, that in short you do not know what you're talking about nor are interested in knowing. And your persistent evasion reveals itself as an ultimately vicious pathology. So I'll leave you for now, as the weasel you have revealed yourself as. — tim wood
Since "consciousness" is not a fundamental process and "emotions" are components, so to speak, of "consciousness", I fail to discern any grounds for assuming that "emotions" operate at a "fundamental level" even in monist ontology. Only magical thinking, it seems to me, assumes otherwise.As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. — Pop
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.