So when of comes to deep causes you disagree with the first premise? — Fooloso4
Responding to you is time-consuming and seems to provide little benefit to either of us or to anyone else. I need that time to work on my articles for publication. So, I have decided to spend it there.
With kind regards,
Dennis Polis — Dfpolis
I think we also agree that is not something we should argue about since neither of us knows — Fooloso4
Not your intention, but that does sound like elitist, status seeking dogma. — Tom Storm
It's incompatible with democratic liberalism. That's why most of the exponents of the various forms of the perennial philosophy are hostile to modernism — Wayfarer
The question is how can we tell if someone has the right virtues or attributes? — Tom Storm
Not your intention, but that does sound like elitist, status seeking dogma. — Tom Storm
That seems like a rather cynical take. Are you of the opinion, then, that everyone is equally virtuous? Equally reasonable? Equally knowledgeable? — Leontiskos
As I said, the the wave function collapses because the detection process (used in measuring) is nonlinear and cannot sustain superposition.But it definitely has something to do with the act of measurement, does it not? “No phenomena is a phenomena until it is observed”, said Bohr. — Wayfarer
Knowledge of deep causes comes through experience, but mediated by a fair bit of reasoning. — Leontiskos
But the point here is that Aristotle's theological claims, such as the one about thought thinking itself, are conclusions and not premises. — Leontiskos
Pierre Hadot's, whose interpretation varies considerably from yours, — Wayfarer
We agree.I agree with what you say, but I see imagiation as involved in both interpreting or undertsnding something as something and in imagining something that does not actually exist. Note that this latter function of imagination relies on the combining of preformed images of objects that do exist. — Janus
My point was that I chose what to read and, implicitly, what to think about, even though I was not yet neurally informed by the printed word. So, my later neural state was, to a degree, a result of my prior intentional state.Of course, if I read other authors I will be moved to agree or disagree depending on how what they say accords with that experience or not. — Janus
Suppose that your experience leads you to a fork in the road. On one fork is said to be a place of great natural beauty, on the other a person you have texted with and are interested in, but not met or made any commitment to. I am saying that your choice of which fork to take is based on how you choose to value these incommensurate goods. On your theory, how is this valuation made?I don't experience myself as being able to freely decide what to value or agree with; I experience that as being determined by what I have, through my own experience, been led to think. — Janus
Thank you for the kind words.Anyway, despite my criticism I do like your work. As a novel variety of science based metaphysics, it's like a breath of fresh air. That's why I'm quick to engage you when you post a thread, I like you. — Metaphysician Undercover
Quantum observations are completely explainable without invoking the "particle" concept. Modelling the physics using the concept of particles works in many, but not all cases. Modelling it in terms of waves works for all the observations.how the particle gets from A to B, etc., and this is represented as a wave function. — Metaphysician Undercover
Mind was a well know and frequently discussed topic in the Academy and Lyceum. It is not as if it was a reasoned discovery. — Fooloso4
Why doesn't he teach it to us? — Fooloso4
I think this rather misses the point. — Tom Storm
I am outlining how certain elitists can employ an elusive criteria of value to exclude certain folk from being seen as fully human or fully sentient. — Tom Storm
I have never understood what "modernism" means, because I have never seen it precisely defined. As I read it, it seems to mean whatever recent changes the author does not like. Instead of discussing them pro and con, they are labeled and dismissed.It's incompatible with //some aspects of// democratic liberalism. That's why most of the exponents of the various forms of the perennial philosophy are hostile to modernism. — Wayfarer
Descartes categorically "divided" Soul from Body ; which in more modern terms might translate to a conceptual distinction between Mind and Brain. So it does seem possible to think of them as two different but inter-related Things. Since we can and do "divide" the world into conceptual categories, from what perspective do you conclude that we "cannot divide" Res Extensa from Res Cogitans?Any well-grounded theory of mind has to take that into account. So, we cannot divide extended reality from human mental reality. — Dfpolis
I agree that we can reason from sensory evidence (specific things) to non-sensory conclusions (generalizations ; principles). But Aristotle's "Self-Thinker" sounds like a dis-embodied Mind, and for a Materialist, would fall into the same nonsense category with Ghosts and Circular Logic.It's obvious that Minds are always Embodied ; unless you give credence to invisible intangible ghosts. — Gnomon
No, one need only give credence to logical analysis such as that by which Aristotle established the existence of an immaterial unmoved mover, described as "self-thinking thought." — Dfpolis
No, "thought thinking itself" in chapters 7 and 9 of Metaphysics 12. — Leontiskos
(97b)One day I heard someone reading, as he said, from a book of Anaxagoras, and saying that it is Mind that directs and is the cause of everything.
One must also consider in which of two ways the nature of the whole contains what is good and what is best ...
I was delighted with this cause and it seemed to me good, in a way, that Mind should be the cause of all. I thought that if this were so, the directing Mind would direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that was best.
I would suggest that you try actually reading him. As in, beyond the first few sentences of the Metaphysics. — Leontiskos
Relevant here is Aristotle's distinction between what is better known to us and what is better known in itself. We only come to the latter through the former. — Leontiskos
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.