Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gaylen and Trans both have mentioned or wondered about, where on the "spectrum" does "non life" phase into and become "life." it doesn't go from "non life" to "life" because back of it all is the "basic stuff" which is "life."
However the life can express in varying levels of complexity, ranging from for instance:
inanimate - rocks, minerals, periodic table of the elements
plant - vegetables, trees, plants, vegetation
animals - insects, animals, birds, rodents, reptiles, fish
humans - human beings
so they don't go from "non life" to "life" they go from "less complex" to "more complex" but it is all "life" because it is all made of the same basic "stuff."
That's how I see it. And to relate to your above, the qualitative aspect is always there in that everything has its' characteristic identity, which may change or may not and slowly or quickly according to genetic encoding or the efet of the sun, like ice to steam. And the Aristotelian principles are useful indicators but hardly more than that.
And consciousness, I suggest is also a characteristic phenomenon like life, which is little more that genetic -signalled survival reactions in bacteria and amoebas and viruses even more like animated replicating crystals than a living thing. And the development of consciousness parallels the evolution of creatures where dinosaurs' brains were in two parts - the biggest bit at the back to drive the thing about and the smaller bit at the front to do the sensory stuff and whatever sensory perceptions and feelings of self that the critters had.
The pack animals like Veloceraptors had some of the greatest mental capacity to handle tribal relationships. Without extinction, they might have ended up leading to something filling the niche that humans occupy now.
But to address Mystic's point, the illusion of Self is not delusion in that it is there, like the universe is. But like the universe, it is an illusion brought on by how our minds present the perception of reality to us. And we interpret what's on our mental radar screen, which the analogy of 'Mary' really is about and not the Aristotelian identity of 'red' which is a herring indeed.
Mystic persistently represents (since I believe he is clever enough to understand it) this idea as denial that the 'self' is a real phenomenon and thinks we say that it doesn't exist. Probably in terms of what he thinks it is, I suspect that it doesn't.
I don't deny the possibility that there is a "Self" or "God" who does the thinking, but even if I fully believed that such a brute-fact "Being Who Thinks" exists, then I would still question the "mechanics" (in a manner of speaking) of the Thinking, as opposed to simply accepting, at face value, some miraculous (fundamentally inexplicable) non-physical "thinker" who thinks. In other words, even if there is an ontological ground-level Thinker, I'd still want to investigate the logical conditions for the possibility of such a Thinker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
isn't that what you are already doing though when you accept at face value subjectivity as a "brute fact" ?
I would say that the possibility of subjectivity is a brute fact. That is, in fact, a trivial belief, given that I accept the actuality of subjective experience. (Basically: If X actually exists, then it is logically certain that X is possible. The only catch is that if someone insists that subjectivity does not actually exist then, for them, my claim that subjectivity is possible will not seem so trivial.)
I'm skeptical (agnostic) about the brute fact existence of any actual experiencers. I am not convinced that every possibility has to be actualized, so the brute fact that subjectivity is possible does not necessarily imply that actual experiencers exist. Generally speaking, I think that the actualization of any given possibility is always logically contingent. My actual existence proves the possibility of my existence, but the fact of my existence is still a contingent fact. I am not a necessary being. (Although, in a certain way, I might be a necessary being. If I am correct in saying that "I"/"self" is an Aristotelian universal, and if the evolution of sentience is naturally inevitable given the laws of nature, then there is a sense in which "I" am a necessary being.)
Quote:
Do you question the "mechanics" of qualitative experience...
I suspect that every actualized qualitative experience is complex - probably requiring a level of complexity more or less like the nervous system of an animal. So, yes, I am curious about the nature of this complexity. I put "mechanics" in scare quotes because "mechanics" generally implies objective quantifiable deterministic properties of a system, and I suspect that the "mechanics" of qualitative experience involves holism in a way that ordinary conceptions of mechanics can't quite convey.
Quote:
Thinking is a qualitative experience. And you have said numerous times that qualitative experience is a brute fact for you.
Hopefully I have not said "qualitative experience is a brute fact," but if I did, that was a mistake. What you probably have in mind are statements of this sort:
The possibility of qualitative experience is a brute fact.
The qualitative aspect of Reality is a brute fact.
Qualitative experience could be a brute fact.
Qualitative experience is a fact.
If I did actually say "qualitative experience is a brute fact" then I was being careless, or maybe in a certain context it made sense, but taken out of context it is not quite correct. In any case, I believe that the above 4 expressions are true, but I do not believe that qualitative experience is a brute fact. I believe that any given actual qualitative experience is a contingent fact of Reality.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-09-2018 at 07:55 AM..
since the basic stuff is qualitative that means it can think/feel/perceive.
that means it is sentient. that means it has consciousness.
This is tricky, and I could be wrong, but I make a distinction between "qualitative" and "sentient" or "conscious." I believe that some possibilities can be qualitative in their essential nature, but sentience and conscious experience imply actualized qualitative possibilities. So being qualitative does not necessarily imply being sentient because a given moment of sentient experience is always an actualized event. As I said earlier, I don't believe that all possibilities are actualized, so I believe that there can be unactualized qualitative possibilities. E.g., The qualitative feel of thinking about my Pixel II smart phone was a qualitative possibility many years ago, before smart phones even existed. That particular qualitative feel did not have to be actualized. I think the qualitative feel of what it is like for me to win the Presidency is also a qualitative possibility, but I can say with high confidence that that qualitative possibility will never be actualized.
Quote:
bringing in what you said about holism, everything is connected. I agree.
If everything is connected, then it is all "one." There is "unity."
Things "look separate" but they are actually all interconnected and "one."
That "one" is sentient, alive, and has consciousness.
Yes, although I would re-phrase the last sentence to avoid potential misunderstandings of my beliefs. To me, saying "the One is conscious" implies a God's-Eye perspective that I am not sure exists. Given my proposal that "self" is an Aristotelian universal, and given the holism of Reality, I would reformulate you last sentence like this:
For any given moment of conscious experience, the One is the Self that is conscious in that moment, from the perspective of a physical entity with a sufficiently complex nervous system.
In this moment right now, I am the One experiencing "being me" via the perspective of this particular physical body. The feeling that I am a separate individual entity/soul is an illusion that stems from the limited particular nature of the nervous system of this particular body. There might or might not be "higher levels" of consciousness or "God's-Eye" perspectives from which I can remember "being a 17th century farmer" or "being Tza on her 21st birthday" or being "the Earth", or being "the Milky Way galaxy", or being the entire universe, etc. At the moment I don't know of any good physical mechanisms by which those types of perspectives could actually exist, but given my notion of self as a universal, I can't rule out the possibility that somehow those perspectives do exist, so I have to simply say "I don't know" about those.
so they don't go from "non life" to "life" they go from "less complex" to "more complex" but it is all "life" because it is all made of the same basic "stuff."
To me this seems like a misuse of the word "life". The word typically refers to complex systems with certain minimal properties such as metabolism and self-reproduction. Prior to the time when living organisms appeared on Earth, I would not say that the Earth was "alive." I would draw a distinction between potential for life (the pre-biotic Earth had that potential) and being alive.
Life isn't just "more complexity" - it is a set of very specific types of complexity.
...I would say that the possibility of subjectivity is a brute fact. That is, in fact, a trivial belief,given that I accept the actuality of subjective experience.
...Hopefully I have not said"qualitative experience is a brute fact," but if I did, that was a mistake. What you probably have in mind are statements of this sort:
The possibility of qualitative experience is a brute fact. The qualitative aspect of Reality is a brute fact.
Qualitative experience could be a brute fact. Qualitative experience is a fact.
If I did actually say "qualitative experience is a brute fact" then I was being careless, or maybe in a certain context it made sense, but taken out of context it is not quite correct. In any case, I believe that the above 4 expressions are true, but I do not believe that qualitative experience is a brute fact. I believe that any given actual qualitative experience is a contingent fact of Reality.
So you are saying you believe "Qualitative experience is a fact" and you "accept the actuality of subjective experience" and "The qualitative aspect of reality is a brute fact." However you are also saying you "do NOT believe qualitative experience is a brute fact."
And Aristotle is irrelevant. We are discussing ideas in our own words in a general forum. No pet gurus, no quoting scripture, no name dropping.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-09-2018 at 10:13 AM..
So you are saying you believe "Qualitative experience is a fact" and you "accept the actuality of subjective experience" and "The qualitative aspect of reality is a brute fact." However you are also saying you "do NOT believe qualitative experience is a brute fact."
Yes. Actual qualitative experience is a fact, but it is a contingent fact, not a brute fact. (Contingent facts are the sorts of things that might have explanations. Brute facts are, by definition, not the sorts of facts you can explain in "more fundamental" terms. Brute facts are the givens upon which the explanations of other things depend.)
Quote:
And Aristotle is irrelevant. We are discussing ideas in our own words in a general forum. No pet gurus, no quoting scripture, no name dropping.
The qualifying term "Aristotelian" in my use of the phrase "Aristotelian universal" is not just name-dropping, and it not irrelevant. If I thought that "Self" was a Platonic universal, then I would be drawing different conclusions. A platonic universal (aka, a platonic Form) is an essence unto itself that exists in a "non-physical realm of Forms" - sometimes referred to as "Plato's Heaven." If red is a Platonic universal, then "red" will continue to exist, even if all actual red things vanish from the universe. Aristotelian universals, in contrast, only exist via their instantiations (i.e., actually-existing physical things). If red is an Aristotelian universal, then "red" ceases to exist if all actual red things cease to exist. If "Self" is an Aristotelian universal, then "Self" will cease to exist if all physically instantiated instances of selves cease to exist.
Well, yes, but that's an irrelevant truism. An Aristotelian principle of a transformer that can change into a car (and back) would cease to exist is everything was wiped out, but that doesn't mean it was anything existing apart from human identifying of an idea or concept while humans were there to apply labels.
Well, yes, but that's an irrelevant truism. An Aristotelian principle of a transformer that can change into a car (and back) would cease to exist is everything was wiped out, but that doesn't mean it was anything existing apart from human identifying of an idea or concept while humans were there to apply labels.
I suspect that, if you were familiar with the philosophical terminology, you would probably feel most comfortable with the category called 'nominalism.'
Very brief simplistic overview:
Universal: A property or quality that a set of particular things have in common.
Platonist: Universals exist as independent non-physical essences. The essence of a triangle would exist, even if, as a matter of contingent fact, there were no particular/actual triangles in the world. (BTW: Many mathematicians are platonists about numbers. So, for example, they'd say the number 5 exists, even if there happens to be no one who comprehends the number 5. Two of the most famous modern platonists I can think of at the moment are Roger Penrose and Kurt Gödel. Technically, the term 'Neo-Platonism' is probably more accurate for them.)
Aristotelian: Universals exist, but they exist implicitly in the actual entities that instantiate each universal. As long as there are triangles, all triangles have something in common, namely, they are all instantiation of the universal category of "triangularity." But if triangles cease to exist, then there is no "triangularity."
Nominalist: Universals do not exist. There is nothing that all triangles have in common other than the fact that humans have put them into a category. (And, even then, there is really no "thing" that they have in common.)
For brevity, I'm leaving out tons of subtle distinctions and arguments that blur the lines, etc., and people tend to be inconsistent. They might be platonist about some types of universals, Aristotelian about others, and nominalist about others. Things are way more complicated that I can quickly explain here. I believe that selves are Aristotelian universals, but I tend to be more Platonist about numbers and the truths of mathematics and logic.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-09-2018 at 02:01 PM..
....The qualifying term "Aristotelian" in my use of the phrase "Aristotelian universal" is not just name-dropping, and it not irrelevant. If I thought that "Self" was a Platonic universal, then I would be drawing different conclusions. A platonic universal (aka, a platonic Form) is an essence unto itself that exists in a "non-physical realm of Forms" - sometimes referred to as "Plato's Heaven."....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I suspect that, if you were familiar with the philosophical terminology, you would probably feel most comfortable with the category called 'nominalism.'
Very brief simplistic overview: Universal: A property or quality that a set of particular things have in common. Platonist: Universals exist as independent non-physical essences..... Aristotelian: Universals exist, but they .... Nominalist: Universals do not exist. There is ....
.
this is not a philosophy forum.
it is a religion and spirituality forum.
you are using specialized jargon.
you need to say whatever you are trying to convey without using specialized jargon that is not relevant or appropriate in this general forum setting.
this is not a philosophy forum.
it is a religion and spirituality forum.
you are using specialized jargon.
you need to say whatever you are trying to convey without using specialized jargon that is not relevant or appropriate in this general forum setting.
Nonsense. When did you become a moderator, Tzaph?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
