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.
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.
I don't know how to say things any more clearly that I have been doing. Sorry if I'm a crappy writer, but I'm doing the best that I can do.
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.
Ok You got me I was talking Plato, not Aristotle. I would accept that the defining characteristic of a thing, whether in reality or imagination ceases to exist if everything ceases to exist, since the essence is defined, i would suppose, by the characteristic they have in common, and I won't even beef about different kinds of triangle and midways points where a triangle becomes like a pentagon (check out the Bent pyramid (1). I might argue that the concept of the principle (characteristic) still exists as long as human imagination exists, but I'll leave that to the savants since, as Tzaph says - this is not a philosophy forum and even the subject of the failure of Materialism to explain qualia is a bit remote from the idea mooted by some that only some new even mysterious, power can account for it.
I don't mind if you discuss philosophy for another 100 pages, provided the Mods allow it. Since the only concern I as an atheist have with the qualia problems (Hard or squashy) is this 'something more' as a gap for God frankly, which i believe Mystic was arguing and I thought you were, but I learn that you are not. The rest such as subjectivity, the Aristotelian principle or red, triangles or an angelic ballloom fitted onto the head of a pin doesn't seem to be a problem for atheism nor, so far as i can see for materialism.
So at last, I'll be able to get to sleep at nights.
(1) that it was so called because in Sneferu's day the Gay community used to meet there, is jut an Egyptological joke.
I don't know how to say things any more clearly that I have been doing. Sorry if I'm a crappy writer, but I'm doing the best that I can do.
no one is saying you're a crappy writer. but someone who relies heavily on quoting scripture to get their point across is restricted and crippled in their ability to express their views and ideas to anyone who does not share that very narrow particular limited framework of beliefs and reference. It is a barrier to conversation, clarity, understanding, communication and discussion.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-09-2018 at 07:45 PM..
no one is saying you're a crappy writer. but someone who relies heavily on quoting scripture to get their point across is restricted and crippled in their ability to express their views and ideas to anyone who does not share that very narrow particular limited framework of beliefs and reference. It is a barrier to conversation, clarity, understanding, communication and discussion.
Maybe if you understood yourself better, you'd have an easier time understanding others.
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.) .
Except right here you do say subjectivity is a brute fact of life. And that the underlying foundation of consciousness is qualitative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
..
....Subjectivity is a brute fact of life, and the logic of subjectivity puts certain limits on the types of knowledge that can be conveyed by objective concepts and data.
...help us uncover the underlyingqualitative structures of consciousness - i.e., the foundational conditions for possibility of consciousness, including its subjective/qualitative nature.
And you say this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
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.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-10-2018 at 03:10 AM..
If there is a problem i have with Gaylenwoof, it is a problem with my ignorance in this area. I have to read any post of his with "A Glossary of Philosophic Terms" to hand.
Ok lets try this again, in small sections at a basic level. For clarity in understanding and to identify common ground.
there is a "basic stuff" that everything is made of. I agree.
that "basic stuff" which is the fundamental element back of everything in the Universe is "qualitative." I agree.
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."
The thinker, the act of thinking, and the thought appear to be "separate" and distinct. However they are also "one." The giver, the gift, and the receiver appear to be "separate" however they are also "one."
The same basic stuff makes up these different forms, listed in order of "increasing complexity:"
Mineral
Vegetable
Animal
Human
The same basic stuff that comprises a diamond also comprises a thought.
How is that for common ground so far?
And for this purpose of identifying "common ground" there needs to be "common language" used. Otherwise ideas "in common" can't be identified.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-10-2018 at 07:48 AM..
Except right here you do say subjectivity is a brute fact of life.
Yes, here I am probably guilty of some equivocation and/or carelessness.
I would certainly say these things:
The possibility of subjectivity is a brute fact of life.
Subjectivity is a fact of life.
Whether I really want to say that "subjectivity is a brute fact of life" is less clear to me, but at the moment I'm thinking probably not. One thing I surely want to do, for myself as well as for you, is to be as specific as I can be about what I mean by "subjectivity." I've been using it as a way to get at the idea of "1st-person perspective" or "a necessarily unique perspective" - specifically, the perspective of being a particular physical system. The word 'subjectivity' has a variety of other connotations in common language, but I think they are probably all ultimately grounded (at least implicitly) on this core idea, even if people are not always explicitly thinking in these terms.
The term "1st person" could be a bit misleading if taken to literally mean that the perspective has to be the conscious perspective of a literal person. I don't know if an amoeba "feels" anything, but if it does, I would say that the qualitative character of what it feels is subjective, but in saying this I don't want to necessarily imply that the amoeba is conscious, or that it is a literal "person." So, in my more lucid moments, I think I ought to be more careful about saying "from a necessarily unique perspective" rather than "1st-person", just to avoid unnecessary confusion. Someone else might want to insist that an amoeba is a person, and that is fine, but personally don't want to say that. To me "personhood" implies a more cognitively complex type of life narrative than an amoeba it likely to have.
Quote:
And that the underlying foundation of consciousness is qualitative.
Yes, I do say this, but I'm not sure what your point is. Does this contradict something else I have said? As I said earlier, I believe that possibilities can be qualitative, even tho they are mere possibilities. When it comes to characterizing the precise nature of "possibilities" we are in one of the greyest of grey areas in all of philosophy. Do we really want to go there? I could do it, but I'm not sure you'd want me to. For the moment I will just say that, as I see it, possibilities are always grounded in actualities. (For those who like to sing along at home, this is another move made by Aristotle that is contrary to Plato.) But the actual entities upon which any particular possibility is based do not, themselves, need to share all qualities of the potentially-to-be-actualized entity. Atoms, themselves, don't have to be "liquid" in order for liquidity to emerge from their collective behaviors. But there does have to be some combination of properties "built in" to the concept of "atom" such that the emergence of liquidity is logically conceivable. In the case of liquidity, the nature of atomic bonds plays this role.
The 64-trillion dollar question is: In the case of conscious experience, what properties of atoms play the role of explaining how it is possible for conscious experience to emerge? The short answer is "We don't know." But my on-going claim has been that atoms - as currently conceived by physics - simply don't have the right kinds of properties to do the job because all of the properties of atoms, as assigned by current physics, are purely objective/quantitative with no reference to any properties that could account for the qualitative feelings felt from the subjective perspective. (Some help might come from QM, but that's vague and basically inadequate at the moment.)
My proposal is to employ the methods of phenomenology to help "reverse-engineer" the conditions-for-the-possibility-of the emergence of subjective qualitative experience from "atoms" (or whatever the fundamental elements have to be in order to get the job done). For those who like to sing along (or google along) at home, this is a "transcendental" approach, in the Kantian sense of the term, following the lead of Edmund Husserl in identifying the logically necessary and certain (as opposed to merely probable) truths of subjective experience.
Ok lets try this again, in small sections at a basic level. For clarity in understanding and to identify common ground.
there is a "basic stuff" that everything is made of. I agree.
that "basic stuff" which is the fundamental element back of everything in the Universe is "qualitative." I agree.
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."
The thinker, the act of thinking, and the thought appear to be "separate" and distinct. However they are also "one." The giver, the gift, and the receiver appear to be "separate" however they are also "one."
The same basic stuff makes up these different forms, listed in order of "increasing complexity:"
Mineral
Vegetable
Animal
Human
The same basic stuff that comprises a diamond also comprises a thought.
How is that for common ground so far?
Excellent. As long as people keep in mind what I said about "atoms" and the emergence of conscious experience in my previous post, all should be well. Basically the "stuff that comprises a diamond" has to be re-thought to some extent. Our current conception of "carbon atoms" is incomplete insofar as all of the properties of our current conception are purely objective/quantitative, but if the "one basic stuff" idea is literally true (as I believe it is), then there must be something in the nature of carbon atoms that accounts for the emergence of conscious experience. Currently there is nothing of that sort built in to our conception of carbon atoms.
We've identified may aspects of atoms (e.g., mass, volume, velocity, half-life, quantum energy levels, etc.). Our job now is to extend our understanding further so that we can find some aspects of atoms that could, in principle, account for the eventual emergence of subjective experiences when there are large numbers of atoms doing their little dances in really complex ways.
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.
