Comments

  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    Why would you expect this?Dfpolis

    I not sure if I would. I think I was replying to @flannel jesus who might expect it and did give an answer. See above.
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    Oh, I see. Didn't understand that when I wrote my previous answer. So where is the boundary between the layers?
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    We've crossed the language-level boundary when we say "My thoughts about consciousness caused my fingers to move the pen which wicks ink up from the ink-cartridge according to physical laws x,y,z", for example.
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    Sorry I don't understand. Writing things involves moving physical objects around, pens, keyboards etc. What am I missing?
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    It's casual at it's own lever of abstraction.flannel jesus

    Oh, OK. Can you give an example of consciousness causing something in a way that doesn't tread on the toes of any physics?
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    Interesting article. It's extremely dualistic, in a way, isn't it? It seems to suggest a fairly radical disconnection between the two 'levels'. Is he saying that the levels exist in language alone, perhaps, and not physically? And nowhere is there an explanation of, say, how consciousness came to be, or even if he thinks consciousness is real.

    EDIT:

    This is a nice quote from the article:

    I really do think that enormous confusion is caused in many areas — not just consciousness, but free will and even more purely physical phenomena — by the simple mistake of starting sentences in one language or layer of description (“I thought about summoning up the will power to resist that extra slice of pizza…”) but then ending them in a completely different vocabulary (“… but my atoms obeyed the laws of the Standard Model, so what could I do?”)Sean Carroll
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    It doesn't have to be either/or.flannel jesus

    Maybe. I think that would make a great topic for a thread. Does psychological causation compete with physical causation?
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    I heartily agree. EDIT: you may be interested in @apokrisis posts on the forum about complex systems and top-down causation. Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    It would. But it leaves no evolutionary role for consciousness to play, which was @wonderer1's point.

    EDIT: my own tentative view is that only consciousness is causal.
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    Suppose miraculously I was able to produce an accurate account of every detail of the evolutionary path leading to humans. Would it then be unreasonable to conclude with, "So that's just the way evolution went?"

    BTW, Do you think Chalmers is an evolution skeptic?
    wonderer1

    When philosophers like Chalmers ask questions like "Why doesn't all this information-processing go on "in the dark", free of any inner feel?" they don't really mean 'why' in the sense of "what evolutionary benefit has it?" They're looking for a 'how', as in "Explain how, exactly, that information processing (or whatever function) somehow produces/causes/is-identical-with consciousness?"
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    So what reason do we have to think human behavior in general could be as it is without consciousness?wonderer1

    Because of the causal closure of the physical
  • An Argument for Christianity from Prayer-Induced Experiences
    Sure, I agree. That's a good point, but one @180 Proof didn't make. There were a number of things that @180 Proof could have meant, I was just wondering which one it was. I respond to 180's posts quite a lot because his style is ambiguous, and when people miss his point, he invariably blames the reader, something no good writer should ever do. And 180 is a very good writer some of the time.
  • An Argument for Christianity from Prayer-Induced Experiences
    If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.180 Proof

    Do you think there is something wrong with that?
  • The essence of religion
    A pointless comment.Janus

    That's exactly what someone who was teased by their sister as a child would say.
  • The essence of religion
    Sure, let's do that on the psychology forum.
  • The essence of religion
    When we say "transcendence", don't we usually mean something metaphysical like 'X transcends, or is beyond, Y' (e.g. ineffable, inexplicable, unconditional, immaterial, disembodied, etc)? This differs from "transcendental" which denotes 'anterior conditions which make X epistemically possible' (Kant, Husserl). I usually can't tell from their posts what most members like Wayfarer or @Constance intelligibly mean by either of these terms.180 Proof

    I tend to avoid the term as it can very quickly tend to irresolvable dualisms or obscurantism as you suggest. It might be salvaged as a concept by identifying the transcendant with the subject and the worldly with its actions, in the sense that the sea transcends its waves, or I transcend my walking. The world is the actions of spirit.

    @Tom Storm
  • The essence of religion
    With apologists it always comes down to "you must not understand" if you disagree with them and/or present arguments they can't cope with. Also, they argue from the mindset of wanting something to be true and ignoring anything that doesn't confirm their wishes, rather than seeking to discover the truth with an unbiased disposition.Janus

    Could you teach me how to read minds?
  • The essence of religion
    My thinking is this: Religion rises out of the radical ethical indeterminacy of our existence. This simply means that we are thrown into a world of ethical issues that, in the most basic analysis, are not resolvable. Yet they insist on resolution with the same apodicticity as logical coercivity. Meaning, just as one cannot but agree with something like modus ponens or the principle of identity in terms of the pure logicality of their intuitive insistence, so one cannot resist the moral insistence of moral redemption. This latter is the essence of religion, and I further claim that in proving such a thing, I am giving the world and our existence in it exactly the metaphysical satisfaction is seeks.Constance

    I think there is probably a lot to this. But if you are correct, doesn't this mean that everyone is religious in some way, even the atheist, who also has to grapple with these issues, and in some way yield to the moral insistence you describe? Do you want to modify your concept to exclude atheists and those who identify as irreligious? Or do you want to say that everyone is religious in the sense you mean it, whether they like it or not?

    Atheists tend to base their irreligiosity on the grounds that an essential element of religion is a set of beliefs about the world that there is no reason to think are true. But you've explicitly said that's not the feature of religion you are talking about.
  • An Argument for Christianity from Prayer-Induced Experiences
    (1) Evidence is a correspondence between some proposition and some observation of reality.

    (2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true.

    (3) If praying induces experiences for a biological reason, then prayer-induced experiences are not observations of reality but hallucinations.

    (4) Prayer induces experiences for a non-biological reason, therefore prayer-induced experiences are observations of reality.

    (5) There are prayer-induced experiences of observations that correspond to Bible-specific propositions, therefore they are evidence Christianity is true.
    Hallucinogen

    Is this intended to be an argument?

    Is (4) an assumption?

    Granting (4), doesn't this apply to other religions as well? Are you as happy for this line of thinking to support other religions than Christianity? Perhaps you think that all religions are culture-specific approaches to one spiritual reality?
  • ChatGPT 4 Answers Philosophical Questions
    Well, at least Sam26 got the sarcasm.180 Proof

    'yes' doesn't work either.
  • ChatGPT 4 Answers Philosophical Questions
    I can ask the question ainy clearer If you don't get it, then I assume the answer is "no". LLMs are still just sophisticated toys. Never mind, carry on.180 Proof

    In a fit of your famous clarity, I think you may have meant 'can't'. And 'no' cannot be an answer to the question you asked:

    So what, if any, philosophical questions does ChatGPT# ever raise (without begging them)?180 Proof

    no180 Proof

    See? It doesn't work.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    The answer depends on the argument.180 Proof

    Indeed. The argument seems to be some kind of Pascal's wager. But if I were God I would likely look more favourably on atheists who made some effort to figure things out than someone who confuses the American constitution with the Bible.
  • Rings & Books
    Are you married? Have you made a life-long commitment to another adult?Banno

    That's two different questions. Which do you want answered?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Indeed. I think power is important. I'm less concerned about who is evil and who isn't (like orcs vs elves) and more about who has power and what are they doing with it.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Well so are Israelis which are subject to a genocidal neighbor which refuses to accept theirn autonomy.BitconnectCarlos

    Responsibility sticks to power. I rather suspect anti-Israel sentiment, and the relative downplaying of Hamas's nastiness (at least in this thread - it's not the case in most the media I've come across) has to do with the fact that Israel can, and indeed is, killing a great many people and destroying all the buildings and infrastructure, and Hamas is not. If the boot were on the other foot, I rather suspect we'd all be slagging off Hamas. But each cunt has its day, as someone famous might have said, and today it's Israel who is the cunt.
  • The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness
    My point has only been that we care about what we care about, and we can't just magically decide to care more about something we previously cared less aboutJanus

    I think that may be the most difficult and important issue in philosophy - can we change the orientation of our will, at will?
  • Is it really impossible to divide by 0?
    I'm just an idiot who knows nothing about maths, but I'm just wondering what dividing by 0 might mean in terms of pizzas.

    If you divide a pizza by infinity, the pizza is annihilated, presumably, it becomes one with the quantum field.

    If you divide a pizza by 1, it is unaltered. Is that right?

    If you divide it by 0.5 you get two of them, bizarrely.

    If you divide it by the 'opposite' (reciprocal?) of infinity, you get the whole universe, and then some, full up with pizza. Is that right?

    So we've gone from absolutely nothing, to the totality of everything. What other options are there that dividing a pizza by 0 will get you? We need something more extreme than either nothing or everything.

    Am I talking out of my arse?

    EDIT: I've probably made this thread many times worse - delete away.
  • Currently Reading
    "A long way down" by Nick Hornby. Funny. I lol'd.
  • Proofreading Philosophy Papers
    Proofreading is checking for grammar and spelling usually, not really content. It sounds like you are looking for feedback on your ideas. If so this forum might be useful. A certain thickness of skin helps here but it's not too bad. Most people are helpful. If you want someone to read your whole essay and offer detailed feedback you may have to pay someone. But you can get it for free if you post up interesting snippets to the forum and it grabs people's interest.
  • The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness
    Well duh! The issue should not be whether animals have consciousness, but do we give a toss? But this is better than nothing i guess. Hasn't the scientific community got this far ages ago with fish? Jury is still out regarding Palestinians and Africans.
  • What is the true nature of the self?
    Because a capacity is a function? Or feeling is a verb, which means something has to be doing something, which is a function?
  • What is the true nature of the self?
    Okay, so then what is "consciousness"?180 Proof

    The capacity to feel.
  • What is the true nature of the self?
    Ergo the implication is that subjects are not conscious (or impersonal)?180 Proof

    Not by virtue of their structure and function, no. But they are conscious. Consciousness is not structure and function. But a person has both structure and function and is conscious.
  • Are there primitive, unanalyzable concepts?
    So, do you agree that some concepts are absolutely simple, and thusly unanalyzable and incapable of non-circular definitions, but yet still valid; or do these so-called, alleged, primitive concepts need to be either (1) capable of non-circular definition or (2) thrown out?Bob Ross

    I think I probably agree with you. I think consciousness might be one of these - it gets defined by synonyms which suggests it may be unanalysable. Do you think there is a difference between a word and a concept?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Poor ol' Germans seem doomed to be on the wrong side of history again.