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
Well, apparently you're too lazy to think — 180 Proof
(a) 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
↪Sam26 Thank you. :yawn: — 180 Proof
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 — 180 Proof
Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. If this wasn’t the case we would be reduced to silence. This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge. This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable. — Sam26
Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. — Sam26
What does sensory experience have to do with NDEs? Do you think that people 'seeing' things when their brain is in a very abnormal state is a matter of light striking their retinas, nerve impulses propagating up their optic nerves, and their occipital lobes forming images that are a function of the pattern of light striking the retina? — wonderer1
Don't you think it makes sense to distinguish between sensory experience that involves the operation of sensory organs that provide us with information about the world around us, and 'seeing things' in a sense that doesn't involve the operation of sensory organs? — wonderer1
Isn't it quite reasonable to be skeptical of such 'seeing things'? — wonderer1
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.