Comments

  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    They're talking about experience.frank

    So am I.

    Remember that pan-psychism is on the table as a possible explanation.frank

    So experience has to mean a ghostly extra layer, in the first place? Seems presumptuous.

    I've never heard of the glowing picture theory.frank

    Really? Dennett's Cartesian picture show?

    How would you paraphrase

    the felt quality of redness,
    — Nagel/Chalmers

    ?
    — bongo fury

    I wouldn't.
    frank

    I imagine they would be disappointed. Negotiating paraphrases is an obvious tool of constructive debate.

    if you aren't willing to read an essay or book by Chalmers,frank

    Oh, you.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Do you think that's what Chalmers and Nagel are suggesting? That a picture glows in the head?frank

    Pretty much. Do I slander them?

    mental images that are conjured up internally;Nagel/Chalmers

    Like those, but delivered from outside.

    How would you paraphrase

    the felt quality of redness,Nagel/Chalmers

    ?
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness,Nagel/Chalmers

    We prepare to point appropriate symbols at the stimulus: pictures of just the right shade, words selecting the right pictures. And we prepare to point other symbols at the biological activity that we infer effects the process of preparation. We find it useful, and generally harmless, to equivocate (in talk and in thought) between word, picture, stimulus, associated stimuli, and neural process. Unsurprisingly we often have to unpick an apparently reliable (because habitual) account alleging that a picture glows, somewhere inside our head.

    the experience of dark and light,Nagel/Chalmers

    The need to prepare to select pictures having the right luminosity when illuminated, so as to associate the stimulus with an appropriate range of stimuli, and of words and of objects.

    the quality of depth in a visual field.Nagel/Chalmers

    Pictures satisfying learnt pictorial conventions of perspective.

    Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet,Nagel/Chalmers

    Not another experience in the sense of another wonderful ghostly correlate of neural activity, but another (wonderful) physical process of readying to select among sounds to associate with the presented sound, thereby contributing to an ongoing classification and ordering of the world of sound events. A process soaked in the same multiple confusion of use with mention: reference to stimulus with reference to symbol; symbol with neural readying for use of symbol; stimulus with neural readying for use of symbol.

    the smell of mothballs.Nagel/Chalmers

    Where the associations may be especially deep and cross-modally disruptive.

    Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms;Nagel/Chalmers

    There is physiological trauma and convulsions, and there is interpretation of these through language and other symbol systems. And with the interpretation, endemic intellectual confusion, and habitual implication of an internal observer.

    mental images that are conjured up internally;Nagel/Chalmers

    In a manner of speaking, which benefits from translation into literal analysis, in terms of preparation to manipulate and interpret diagrams and visual talk.

    the felt quality of emotionNagel/Chalmers

    The physiological turbulence, and then the interpreting it through language and other symbol systems, especially (and usefully and often truly) with respect to social and physical threats and opportunities.

    and the experience of a stream of conscious thought.Nagel/Chalmers

    The tendency to confuse the continuity of actual scenery with the continuity of an internal picture show.

    what unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them.Nagel/Chalmers

    There is a topography of more and less appropriate linguistic (and otherwise symbolic) interpretations and reactions to the situation in which the organism finds itself.

    All of them are states of experience.Nagel/Chalmers

    But not of a ghost in the machine.
  • The "self" under materialism
    On the surface level, if we have a "self" in the materialist worldview, we inevitably run into the "Ship of Theseus" problem.tom111

    Yes, and I don't see any deeper issue.

    So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person?tom111

    Well, why is it that when you look back at photos of your ship from 5 years ago, you feel like it's the same ship?

    This is likely due to the fact that you have inherited memories from this person,tom111

    And likewise you have memories of the earlier ship.

    What we are (in the materialist view) are simply piles of carbon,tom111

    Or living flesh, why not? Does a materialist have to be exclusively a physical chemist?

    using past memories and ideas to compile a constant "self" that simply doesn't exist;tom111

    Agreed, if self is soul. But why can't it be the animal?

    a human being is empty of essence.tom111

    Agreed.

    Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object.tom111

    Wobbly, sure, with no solid foundation. But not entirely arbitrary, surely? You have the vehicle's service history?

    In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist worktom111

    Again, of course they do, at a coarser level of description.
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    In a nutshell: because correlation doesn’t explain consciousness.Art48

    But confusion might.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/433444
  • Cardinality of Infinite Sets
    2. Set A has a smaller cardinality than set B IFF set A can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with a proper subset of set B.Agent Smith

    No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality?wprov=sfla1
  • Can anyone help with this argument reconstruction?
    Yes, your parsing seemed right.
  • Can anyone help with this argument reconstruction?
    If A then not B
    If C then B
    [If] C then not A
    KantDane21

    A, B, C ---> P, M, S

    dhszi21wichcy8vk.png
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    Yes. Why is that?Shawn

    Touche! :lol:
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    But, Santa's ontology exists in the fictional realm. Why do people conflate the two?Shawn

    Why do people conflate existing in a realm with existing in a realm-diagram or a realm-description?
  • Brains


    Yes. So what (if not a Cartesian film show) is intermediate between what (if not a homunculous) and the world?
  • Brains
    apprehension of the world is mediated.180 Proof

    By a Cartesian film show?
  • Brains
    as [a] much more subdued version of the Cartesian theatre that is more plausible to current thinking.Moliere

    More plausible how? More subdued how? Different how?
  • Brains
    Maybe to sum up the thoughts in an unclear question: Is the brain a virtual reality machine?Moliere

    A Cartesian theatre, then?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    In other words, language. Stories. Words. That's all.busycuttingcrap

    Yes. Apart from real beardy old men, and the real north pole. And real charity workers, as @unenlightened rightly points out.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    As you say "people can and do use the same words or expressions for different purposes in different contexts".RussellA

    If I may help you to grasp the point here... People can and do use the same kinds of words (e.g. names) for the purpose of referring to people or objects in some contexts and for the purpose of non-referring word-use in others.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    'Real' does not always mean actually real; 'existent' does not always mean actually existent. That's just the way things are.Herg

    Does 'actual' always mean 'actually actual'? Perhaps Santa is the first but not the second?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    However, it's still a fiction.Sam26

    So, false?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    If you're referring to what's veridical, then they have no referent.Sam26

    Can we talk veridically about fiction?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    but not all concepts have referents in reality,Sam26

    Well we were talking about words failing to refer to things in reality. I'm interested to hear about other kinds of things failing likewise. Just wondered what they are, if not words.

    The only referent they might have is a fictional one,Sam26

    So they do have a referent or they don't?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    What? What's the brain shiver?Sam26

    The thought. The neurological activity.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    There are many concepts, especially in fiction and mythology, that have no actual or real existence or referent. The only thing that's real is the concept, or conceptual idea.Sam26

    Do you mean the brain shiver?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    My mistake was duplication: I shouldn't have used both 'fictitious' and 'supposed'.Herg

    Ok, but now you've done it again, with 'real' and 'existent'.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    'Fictitious supposed entity' does not accurately capture my meaning.Herg

    Ok, what does? What form of words is satisfactorily not an oxymoron?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    The fact that I have never seen Santa Claus is not proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist, as is the fact that I have never seen The North Pole [likewise not] proof that The North Pole doesn't exist.RussellA

    Typo, I presume.

    The question is, how do we know things without doubt that have only been described to us.RussellA

    @Shawn might agree that this is the question.

    I expect it's only the question if you are a foundationalist, and assume that some absolute kind of knowledge is required.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    Only when something is added to the propositional function to turn it into a proposition does the proposition become true or false,RussellA

    ... such as, some indication of which quantity (e.g. none, some or all) of the world's objects are to be denoted by each denoting phrase. Whereas, your suggested examples of suitable supplementation:

    ... such as "[it is said that] Santa Claus brings children gifts" or "[many believe that] The North Pole is the northernmost point on the Earth".RussellA

    are way off. This might not affect your stuff about knowledge. But it shouts a bit.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    points out that we merely suppose that there is someone called Santa who lives at the North Pole.Herg

    How is this different from saying that we merely entertain the fiction?

    A fictitious supposed entityHerg

    You might as well say, a fictitious fictitious entity.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    Can Santa be his own referent since he doesn't denote anything in the real world?Shawn

    Do you mean, can the name "Santa" be its own referent, since it doesn't denote anything in the real world?
  • is this argument valid but unsound? What is the form called? Help.
    Page number? I can't find the passage, and "besides from" sounds like a typo.

    Anyway, I don't know much about Kant, but I won't let that stop me...

    He's just fleshing out the quote from Kant.

    Kant says: you can decipher the nature of a thing without seeing all its aspects. From P don't infer Q.

    Guyer says: Kant does decipher the nature of the noumenon without claiming to see all its aspects. P, but we don't infer Q. And by the way, the nature thus deciphered is to manifest or objectify as human will. Whatever that means. But how this nature was deciphered isn't mentioned. You seem to be hoping the decipherment is argued or explained. It's just given, as part of P.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    "Santa wears a red hat" is true.Banno

    Sure. As fiction. Fictionally true. It's a fiction that "Santa wears a red hat" is true. So, it's false. Logic with oxymorons. Great fun!
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    Yet, we can instantiate him freely in movies,Shawn

    Do you mean, depict him freely?

    We can, but not in the sense of pointing his likenesses at him. Only in the sense of making Santa-pictures.

    See https://monoskop.org/images/1/1b/Goodman_Nelson_Languages_of_Art.pdf pp. 21.
  • Universal Mind/Consciousness?


    I was attempting a pun (hence the apology). Con artist. But I see now it doesn't work on the word pronounced properly.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    I can point to {"winged", "godlike", "stallion"} and give it the name "Pegasus".RussellA

    But Pegasus flies. Your set of words doesn't.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    I think that's quite stringent.Shawn

    The indirect reference to Santa stories and pictures and actual beardy old men is fairly free, isn't it?

    Santa isn't an individualShawn

    Do you mean there is no actual person answering to the usual descriptions and hence named by the relevant tokens of the word "Santa"? (Good.)

    and yet is in the domain of discourse.Shawn

    Well perhaps you are talking here about the name "Santa" (or relevant tokens of it), and not some corresponding person? "Santa" is a name appearing in a declaration of the domain of discourse?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    In the sense that fictional is not necessarily contradictory to entity.RussellA

    Fair enough. Do they say that non-actual is not necessarily contradictory to actual?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    But generally speaking, this distinction is more semantic than substantive.Manuel

    What distinction? That between a thought and what it's a thought about? You've lost me. My thought about Hitler isn't substantively different from Hitler?
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?


    I'm with Quine. And Goodman. Words often refer to (or are pretended to refer to, in acts of referring, which are only a game) actual things. Sometimes they fail to refer directly to actual things. Because there's no such thing. That doesn't stop them referring indirectly (but only indirectly) to other things. E.g. to actual Santa stories and pictures, and actual beardy old men.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    I don't see why Santa Claus would be a "non-thing". It's a mental construction of a person...Manuel

    So Santa is the thought? Or the person thought about? Or both, or neither?