the term 'ontology' applies to the 'discipline of the study of Being' in a manner that includes, or at least implies, the first person perspective. And I think that is crucial to understanding what 'ontology' really is about. — Wayfarer
I doubt that very much. This conception is so prevalent in the west we take it as part of human nature, but there's no reason to assume it's universal. — Xtrix
Have you never experienced empathy, or observed it in the behaviour of others?
Any argument which denies empathy as fact is unsound. — Galuchat
What would it mean to say that there's no subject-object distinction? — TheMadFool
Same old pattern of avoidance: non-engagement with ideas that contradict your programme through obfuscation.You must have misunderstood what I was writing about. In no way was I 'denying empathy'. Maybe read through the previous comments in this thread to see what I was getting at. — Wayfarer
What about AGI in computers. Hypothetically. We can either presuppose that despite any behavioral characteristics machines are to rocks and planets different from what human beings are to them. Or otherwise, we can compare ourselves to rocks in our role of subjects by comparing them to machines first. Do we consider rocks as self-aware as ourselves? By many degrees of magnitude they lack the expressive, cognitive and reasoning parameters for that. But is the quality binary or is their sentience so insubstantial that it borders inconsequential by our usual standards. If the quality is binary, which side of the filter would AGI computers fall? And how different are computers from rocks then, fundamentally? A binary distinction I think already assumes an exosystemic component - i.e. a mind-body distinction.But not all objects are subjects it would seem, unless you attribute to rocks conscious awareness, which I doubt anyone would. — Xtrix
Over there, on the other side of the street, stands a highschool building. A being — StreetlightX
non-engagement with ideas that contradict your programme through obfuscation. — Galuchat
P.S.: Maybe only thoughts have subject and object proper. And the human being is a vessel that serves as a locus for a collection of coherent thought processes that give rise to a sense of identity. These "thoughts" interact coherently to form the role of a "subject". — simeonz
You and I are designated 'beings', and buildings are not. It's simple English. — Wayfarer
.....with philosophical implications. — Wayfarer
Maybe only thoughts have subject and object proper. — simeonz
I agree.I think we need to learn to value the objectivity of a human being, or else we’re left to apply value through a sort of linguistic trickery. — NOS4A2
I'm no Wittgenstein but check out language as Andrew M suggested. All languages I know of have a subject-verb-object structure and m — TheMadFool
What would it mean to say that there's no subject-object distinction? — TheMadFool
So in some ways, the term 'ontology' applies to the 'discipline of the study of Being' in a manner that includes, or at least implies, the first person perspective. And I think that is crucial to understanding what 'ontology' really is about — Wayfarer
It seems to be the philosophical basis for modern science, at least since Descartes. — Xtrix
You probably mean objects incapable of being subjects. They will be machines by definition, no matter what. Or do you mean, that we are not machines, or fundamentally distinct from machines? If so, how?I’d consider them machines. — Xtrix
It is not obvious to me what does it mean for something to "acquire" consciousness. Is this a behavior modification or substance change or some other metaphysical phenomenon? Because stated in this way, how does one challenge any claim that something has or hasn't acquired consciousness. Also, it isn't clear to me what consciousness denotes - a behavioral pattern, a type of experience, etc. If it is a type of experience, how can a person know that it exists outside of their own being - i.e. the solipsism style argument.Maybe in the future they’ll acquire “consciousness” of some kind — Xtrix
Is time relevant? Or do you mean that the emergence of such advanced AGI is suspect to you for some fundamental reason?but we’re a long way out from that. — Xtrix
I think it's more accurate to say that scientists will articulate justifications for scientific inquiry in the abstract in terms of something resembling the subject object distinction based on how common and pervasively applied a metaphysical intuition it is, rather than saying anything about whether the subject object distinction is really relevant to their work. — fdrake
I did not mean to say that all thoughts refer to the subject. In fact, I did not address (or honestly even think of) the distinctions between awareness, knowledge, self-awareness, etc. Indeed, only self-aware thinking incorporates the subject explicitly. Still, self-interest is present in most thought processes - even animal ones. So, although it is not formally present, the subject still emerges "organically", so to speak, from the coherent pursuit of personal advantage. Even if it is not directly expressed by the said thoughts.Thoughts, strictly speaking, are the one thing that does NOT have subject/object dualism proper. — Mww
Actually, this is exactly what I meant. That the subject arises in consequence from the coherent pursuit of self-centered objectives by the individual. This does not even imply self-awareness, unless the subject becomes the object of discussion itself.Internally, the thinker is the thought. — Mww
You probably mean objects incapable of being subjects. They will be machines by definition, no matter what. Or do you mean, that we are not machines, or fundamentally distinct from machines? If so, how? — simeonz
It is not obvious to me what does it mean for something to "acquire" consciousnesses. Is this a behavior modification or substance change or some other metaphysical phenomenon? Because stated in this way, how does one challenge any claim that something has or hasn't acquired consciousness. Also, it isn't clear to me what consciousness denotes - a behavioral pattern, a type of experience, etc. If it is a type of experience, how can a person know that it exists outside of their own being - i.e. the solipsism style argument. — simeonz
Is time relevant? Or do you mean that the emergence of such advanced AGI is suspect to you for some fundamental reason? — simeonz
It may not seem to matter, and it's often hard to care when modern science is so successful -- especially in terms of technology -- but the philosophical underpinnings are still worth questioning. I started this thread to see how many still question this particular notion, and as you can see, not many really do -- yourself included. That's interesting. — Xtrix
I don't give much weight to the distinction, at least whenever I think it's relevant. I think that it generates intractable access problems (how does a mind move a body?); — fdrake
To equate the subject with a "mind" is a different topic. — Xtrix
The dictionary is ample evidence for a simple point. — Wayfarer
Internally, the thinker is the thought.
— Mww
Actually, this is exactly what I meant. — simeonz
self-interest is present in most thought processes - even animal ones. So, although it is not formally present, the subject still emerges "organically", so to speak, from the coherent pursuit of personal advantage. — simeonz
Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this usage is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being").
There is no issue that they exist, but they're not referred to as 'beings', and this is philosophically significant. — Wayfarer
My argument is that the loss this distinction is a characteristic of modernity, generally, and the significance of the elision is more than semantic, but is a symptom of what has been described as the 'forgetting of Being'. — Wayfarer
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.