When we look at the world at the scale of QM, we’re looking at pre-cognitive reality without the benefit of the formatting by reality’s boundary administrator, our consciousness. — ucarr
So - is there a connection between biosemiosis and this broader understanding of evolution? — T Clark
We are free to act on our will, but not free to choose our will.... We are our will, who would be the "we" apart from our will that wants to change the will. — ChatteringMonkey
I think the most compelling idea in the book is there there is a direct continuity between the "cognition" of the earliest animals and the cognition of complex animals such as us. — T Clark
(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
Well, apparently you're too lazy to think — 180 Proof
Straight-forward, relevant questions are beyond you. Gotcha — 180 Proof
Mary's room. — Lionino
Life is largely anecdotal [sophistry].
— Pantagruel
Yeah, like your posts ... care to try again? — 180 Proof
Of course it's relevant! It is not a "glaring issue" that Aristotle is avoiding. The question of the ethics of a species that is by its nature unethical makes no sense. It is asking how something bad is good. — Fooloso4
If so, then what makes "consciousness" mine? If it's not mine, then why should "consciousness" matter to me? If, however, "consciousness" is mine, then what does "trans-individual" mean and why should it matter to me? — 180 Proof
The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. — Sam26
Then you are not talking about intentionality as it is commonly and predominantly understood. So we are talking past each other. I am only interested in intentionality as it is largely understood. Your view of intentionality strips out the essence of intention and swaps it for causality; which of no use when we analyze the intentions of someone. — Bob Ross
To attribute the cause to some philosophical jargon that no one cares about except philosophy hobbyists seems far fetched. — Mikie
This is emotional reasoning. — Leontiskos
We ought to associate intentionality with the act itself, which is the means, rather than with the end. Intention is a cause, and what is caused is action. — Metaphysician Undercover
Intentionality is not just about what is aimed at, it is also about what is the reason for a certain type of action. — Pantagruel
Some people act carefully. Others act recklessly.
— Pantagruel
How would you know, given your curious claim that, "There is no 'standard' of foreseeability"? — Leontiskos
unforeseeable — Leontiskos
Just because something is caused by something done intentionally, it does not follow that that effect was intentional. You are forgetting or omitting that intentionality is about what is being aimed at---not what happens.
If I am aiming with a bow an arrow at a bullseye target, and I miss fire and hit a deer of which I had no clue was somewhere behind the target; then I did not thereby intentionally hit the deer even though it follows from the causal chain which derives back to an intentional action. According to you, it would be intentional. — Bob Ross
What do you think an “intention” is? If a consequence of something intended is accidental, then it was unintentional: that’s what it means for it to be accidental. — Bob Ross
The paradox here is that if someone has 'bad faith' how can we tell? This is because the very idea of 'bad faith' is a being-in-itself created by a being-for-itself. What one person may point at as a system of oppression or bad faith may very well be doing so in bad faith.
How can this gap be closed, if at all? — I like sushi
Could Karma be the expression of basic physical laws of motion emerging/permeating into the sphere of sophisticated societal dynamics? — Benj96
Perhaps free will and determinism both exist as a mutual duality/ neccessary dichotomy — Benj96
My main point is just that accidents, by definition, cannot be intentional. That's categorically incoherent to posit. — Bob Ross
I think this issue is good for revealing how people think and what biases they have. Notice how each participant in this thread has their own take on what it means. — frank
It sounds like you're equating freedom with potential. That's an interesting take. — frank
I guess you mean that if I have the knowledge to build a bridge, it makes it easier for me to cross the river, and so I'm more free? — frank
Doesn't that seem circular to you? The proof for free will is in the institutions predicated on the presumption of free will. — Vera Mont