No doubt.I feel like a asshole. — bert1
My questions were for @Pantagruel to clarify his specific statement which he cannot because it's gibberish. And your response, bert, isn't "paradoxical", just more semantic jugglery.I concede. — bert1
(a) How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective? :chin:The issue with consciousness, is that you must first be a conscious agent to create or provide any kind of explanation. — Wayfarer
The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. :roll:Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy... — Sam26
Yeah, like your posts ... care to try again?Life is largelyanecdotal[sophistry]. — Pantagruel
Life is largely anecdotal [sophistry].
— Pantagruel
Yeah, like your posts ... care to try again? — 180 Proof
Peirce is also careful to distinguish between the experimental endeavour, versus just "reading about" something, which I also endorse. — Pantagruel
Mary's room. — Lionino
I will make a philosophical point, in respect of the link you provided to the video ‘what creates consciousness?’ That point is that to understand what creates or gives rise to something, is to explain it in terms of something else. The issue with consciousness, is that you must first be a conscious agent to create or provide any kind of explanation. So in that sense, it’s extremely hard to avoid a non-question-begging account of consciousness (where ‘begging the question’ already assumes what the argument is setting out to prove.) In other words, any kind of reduction or explanation can only be offered by a conscious agent. We can’t, as it were, examine it from the outside, as an object to be explained, because we’re always already ‘inside’ it. — Wayfarer
The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. :roll: — 180 Proof
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/918584just dogmatism, mere dogmatism. — Pantagruel
:sweat: :lol: :rofl:How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective?
— 180 Proof
cogito, ergo sum — Wayfarer
Straight-forward, relevant questions are beyond you. Gotcha — 180 Proof
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.