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

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?

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.

(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?

Can you explain his sarcasm?

Well, at least Sam26 got the sarcasm. — 180 Proof

'yes' doesn't work either.

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

no — 180 Proof

See? It doesn't work.

It's obviously totally possible.

Has to be satire, no?

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.

Are you married? Have you made a life-long commitment to another adult? — Banno

That's two different questions. Which do you want answered?

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.

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.

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 about — Janus

I think that may be the most difficult and important issue in philosophy - can we change the orientation of our will, at will?

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.

"A long way down" by Nick Hornby. Funny. I lol'd.

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.

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.

Because a capacity is a function? Or feeling is a verb, which means something has to be doing something, which is a function?

Okay, so then what is "consciousness"? — 180 Proof

The capacity to feel.

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.

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?

Poor ol' Germans seem doomed to be on the wrong side of history again.

What's the difference between self and consciousness? — Truth Seeker

The self is what is referenced in such various views as Hume's bundle, Metzinger's Ego Tunnel, Tononi and Koch's system of integrated information, systems' theorists predictive modelling of reality (a la @apokrisis), these things are instantiated by brains in humans and constitute a loose functional identity. When this functioning ceases, say in sleep or under anaesthesia, the self ceases for that time.

Consciousness is, at minimum, what makes doing all these functions feel a certain way. Recently I've starting thinking that consciousness may be uniquely causal, so that nothing at all could happen without it.

So then "consciousness" is impersonal? For instance, my awareness of being self-aware isn't actually mine? — 180 Proof

It's a good question, if I understand it, which I'm not sure I do. I'll take an awake, functioning human as being a central case of a person, and it seems to me that both the functioning complex referred to above and the presence of consciousness are necessary for personhood (although there are other senses of 'person' I'm glossing over). So a person aware of their own consciousness is an aware functioning-complex aware of their awareness. So, if I've understood your question properly, consciousness abstracted from any functioning system is indeed impersonal, in that sense.

(But, inevitably, sometimes people (particularly the religious or spiritual) use 'person' simply to indicate the presence of consciousness in the abstract. Sometimes the distinction between 'self' and 'Self' is made, which I guess corresponds to the difference between the functional-complex and consciousness, but I'm no expert on that.)

It's also the same idea put forward by Donald Hoffman's User Interface Theory of Perception. — Malcolm Lett

Yes I think that's right, the two seems very similar in terms of the functional story. But their claims about consciousness seem very different (but I haven't studied either properly - these are just first impression). Contrasting panpsychism with conscious realism is interesting, and something I haven't thought about enough.

I went for the first option. However I think the (correct) intuition of unity is derived from consciousness, not from the self. I think there is a persistent confusion between self and consciousness which messes up a lot of the discourse.

Overwhelmingly, we agree about more than we disagree. — Banno

By way of unhelpful digression, I like to use this principle in reference to arguments by analogy for other minds - we are similar to frogs, trees, viruses, rocks and possibly even Palestinians in many more ways than we usually pay attention to. Not that I want to derail the thread.

I think you are quoting 180 rather than me. :)

??? — 180 Proof

A and D are the only ones charitably characterised.

strawman

Same with us, no? There also is "no empirical way of knowing" (yet / ever) whether any person is "conscious or faking". Which seems more reasonable, or likely, to you, Wayfarer (or anyone): (A) every human is a zombie with a(n involuntary) 'theory of mind'? or (B) every entity is a 'conscious' monad necessarily inaccessible / inexplicable to one another's 'subjectivity'? or (C) mind is a 'mystery' too intractable for science, even in principle, to explain? or (D) mind is a near-intractably complex phenomenon that science (or AGI) has yet to explain? :chin: — 180 Proof

What a rotten lot of choices! B is closest to the truth I reckon, but we can know other minds by inference, and identities change constantly.

I think Metzinger's views are very plausible. Indeed his views on the self as a transparent ego tunnel at once enabling and limiting our exposure to reality and creating a world model is no doubt basically true. But as the article mentions, it's unclear how this resolves the hard problem. There is offered a reason why (evolutionarily speaking) phenomenality emerged but not a how. The self can be functionally specified, but not consciousness. But if Metzger were to permit consciousness as an extra natural property, and not set of functions, I would likely find little to disagree with him on.

Trying to understand the terminology. If full-on consciousness can be of not very much experience/very little content, is our consciousness also full-on, but with much more experience/greater content? — Patterner

Yes, that's my view. Experience is consciousness of something, whether that something is simple and uninteresting, or complex and interesting. In either case it's still experience. The content is different, but the consciousness is no different at all.

My thought is that there isn't any not having an experience. — Patterner

Yes, I pretty much agree with you. Just because I can form the idea of an object which doesn't experience anything, doesn't entail that I think there actually are any objects which don't experience anything.

Just that they have experiences. Just not of very much. Consciousness + very little content.

There doesn't seem to be any intermediate stage between having an experience and not having one.

Goff and Antony have written about it, and Eric Schwitzgebel I think. The non-vagueness of consciousness.

One way or another, the capacity for consciousness was always there in the first place. If the capacity wasn't always there, consciousness couldn't exist. — Patterner

We may have a conceptual disagreement, I'm not sure. I think you are suggesting some kind of phenomenality/proto-consciousness as a precursor to consciousness which isn't full-on consciousness, whereas I don't think such a thing is conceptually distinguishable from full-on consciousness.

How so? — 180 Proof

I take 'quale' to be another (somewhat unhelpful) word for an experience. An experience has two defining ingredients, consciousness and content. The content part is indeed explained (or perhaps better to say described) by physical/functional properties. The consciousness ingredient is not explicable (or describable) by physical and functional properties, and on that I know we disagree. Consciousness has no internal structure and function that is further explicable. It is its own explanation.

True. We just don't know how it comes about. — Patterner

Indeed. And the problems with trying to explain how it comes about leads to the idea that maybe it didn't come about at all, but was always there in the first place.

So what accounts for "qualia" other, or more efficacious, than "physical/functional properties"? — 180 Proof

Consciousness

Here's a link to the paper if anyone's interested:

https://www.academia.edu/40392630/Pansentient_Monism_Formulating_Panpsychism_as_a_Genuine_Psycho_Physical_Identity_Theory_PhD_thesis_Abstract_and_Contents_Pages_?email_work_card=title

There's a lot of panpsychism papers knocking around now.

For every (a implies b) it's always true that (not b implies not a), correct? Even if it's not always useful to bring it up, it's always true? — flannel jesus

It's always valid (if not true), and that's called modus tollens. You're right about that, but wrong about modus ponens.

EDIT: Sorry I seem to have misunderstood flannel jesus! I thought he was agreeing with Corvus, but after a PM exchange it's clear that he isn't.