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.
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.
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.
good stuff to discuss further here, and we will get to that. First I am setting aside Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Husserl, just as you would likely dismiss Cordovero, the Arizal, bar Yocahi, and Hillel. Because names "impressive" to some may carry no weight with others. I am only interested in discussing our own views in our own words. Of course you can post whatever you like and reference anyone you like, I only continue to point this out because I want you to be aware that it has the same weight and same effect as someone quoting scripture.
your ideas and your views are what is of interest in this discussion. not gurus, not scripture.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-10-2018 at 12:40 PM..
good stuff to discuss further here, and we will get to that. First I am setting aside Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Husserl, just as you would likely dismiss Cordovero, the Arizal, bar Yocahi, and Hillel. Because names "impressive" to some may carry no weight with others. I am only interested in discussing our own views in our own words.
Just for the record: I have absolutely zero interest in throwing out names or words just for the sake of impressing anyone or adding some obscure weight to my arguments. I reference these things because, if someone happens to know some basic stuff about these philosophical positions, they can very quickly get some deeper insights into what I'm saying with very little typing on my part. (And, as ya'll know, I do too much typing in these threads as it is.) Additionally, if someone does want to explore an idea in more depth, these are searchable keywords that can connect you to lots of other insights and opinions relating to the ideas I'm suggesting.
(And, BTW, although I'm putting ideas together in my own quirky ways, I'm not just making this stuff up from scratch on the fly. Most of what I'm saying has mountains of philosophical and/or scientific literature supporting it, and other mountains of literature criticizing it. Keywords are useful for further reading, just in case anyone wants to do that.)
Personally, I appreciate when people reference sources for their ideas, and/or support for their ideas. If other people feel like you do, then perhaps in this case "doing unto others as I would like to have done unto me" might be creating a problem.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-10-2018 at 12:45 PM..
Just for the record: I have absolutely zero interest in throwing out names or words just for the sake of impressing anyone or adding some obscure weight to my arguments. I reference these things because, if someone happens to know some basic stuff about these philosophical positions, they can very quickly get some deeper insights into what I'm saying with very little typing on my part. (And, as ya'll know, I do too much typing in these threads as it is.) Additionally, if someone does want to explore an idea in more depth, these are searchable keywords that can connect you to lots of other insights and opinions relating to the ideas I'm suggesting.
(And, BTW, although I'm putting ideas together in my own quirky ways, I'm not just making this stuff up from scratch on the fly. Most of what I'm saying has mountains of philosophical and/or scientific literature supporting it, and other mountains of literature criticizing it. Keywords are useful for further reading, just in case anyone wants to do that.)
And what is your response and reaction in general when people quote scripture to you and name drop personalities from the Bible? When they list all the scholarly experts in their religion who support their views, the mountains of religious literature exploring the topics. The most common expression we see on these boards when someone quotes scripture is along the lines of "can't think for yourself" or "can only parrot what others tell you to believe." What goes through your head when you see someone posting a link (or 2 or 10 or 19) to a bible lesson, to a sermon, to a religious speaker?
This is not a criticism. It is to create awareness of behavior.
And awareness of reaction or response.
And awareness of motivation or intention.
And awareness of reciprocity.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-10-2018 at 12:51 PM..
And what is your response and reaction in general when people quote scripture to you and name drop personalities from the Bible? When they list all the scholarly experts in their religion who support their views, the mountains of religious literature exploring the topics.
This is not a criticism. It is to create awareness.
And awareness of reciprocity.
Short answer: I appreciate it a great deal, insofar as it helps me to understand what's on their mind. Of course, for me, Biblical quotes don't carry much weight of evidence for the validity of most claims (unless the topic specifically is Bible study/interpretation). But I appreciate knowing what carries weight for them, in any case. (BTW: I would love to know more about the sources of ideas and inspiration for you and MPhD - what books, articles, videos, etc. have had the most impact on your way of thinking - and/or are best at expressing what you think? I would love, love, love some specific references.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-10-2018 at 01:04 PM..
Short answer: I appreciate it a great deal, insofar as it helps me to understand what's on their mind. Of course, for me, Biblical quotes don't carry much weight of evidence for the validity of most claims (unless the topic specifically is Bible study/interpretation). But I appreciate knowing what carries weight for them, in any case. (BTW: I would love to know more about the sources of ideas and inspiration for you and MPhD - what books, articles, videos, etc. have had the most impact on your way of thinking - and/or are best at expressing what you think? I would love, love, love some specific references.)
when sources have been shared in the past you have made comments along the lines that anything that turned out to "be true" was "just a lucky guess." You have said even if ideas expressed match what you express "not to take them too seriously," that the mechanics and process of order from chaos, for instance, were "not to be taken seriously" because they "didn't know what they were talking about" because "we know more now than they did then." in short you consistently dismiss sources, even if they contain the very ideas and views you yourself express and hold.
isn't that interesting!
a consistent opinion expressed on this thread is that if it is ancient wisdom it is deficient because "we are smarter now and know more." which would put Plato and Aristotle from 2,400 years ago firmly in the category of "don't have anything worthwhile to contribute" and if their views have followers today it's just because they made some lucky guesses.
when sources have been shared in the past you have made comments along the lines that anything that turned out to "be true" was "just a lucky guess." You have said even if ideas expressed match what you express "not to take them too seriously," that the mechanics and process of order from chaos, for instance, were "not to be taken seriously" because they "didn't know what they were talking about" because "we know more now than they did then." in short you consistently dismiss sources, even if they contain the very ideas and views you yourself express and hold.
If I don't agree with the claims made by a certain source, then I will say so. But that doesn't mean that I "dismiss" the source and, in any case, I still like to know what the source is. Also, I don't disagree with sources just because they are old. A great deal of ancient knowledge is extremely insightful. But if, given my own study, I come to believe that a claim is not well-verified, or is contrary to known science, or suffers from logical inconsistency, then I will voice my concerns about the claim - and being ancient is irrelevant to my estimation of its value. Being ancient does not, in itself, give it more or less weight. Each claim has to stand on its own feet in light of modern knowledge.
Quote:
a consistent opinion expressed on this thread is that if it is ancient wisdom it is deficient because "we are smarter now and know more."
Being ancient, in itself, does not make a claim deficient. But I will evaluate each claim in light of modern knowledge. E.g., Ptolemy's epicycles are not deficient because they are ancient. They are deficient because these days we know better. By way of contrast, most of the work of ancient mathematicians is just as relevant today as it ever was. Euclid's postulates are still used today - although, in light of modern advances, we have made some updates - e.g., non-euclidian geometry is useful in some cases.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-10-2018 at 03:11 PM..
If I don't agree with the claims made by a certain source, then I will say so. But that doesn't mean that I "dismiss" the source and, in any case, I still like to know what the source is. Also, I don't disagree with sources just because they are old. A great deal of ancient knowledge is extremely insightful. But if, given my own study, I come to believe that a claim is not well-verified, or is contrary to known science, or suffers from logical inconsistency, then I will voice my concerns about the claim - and being ancient is irrelevant to my estimation of its value. Being ancient does not, in itself, give it more or less weight. Each claim has to stand on its own feet in light of modern knowledge.
Being ancient, in itself, does not make a claim deficient. But I will evaluate each claim in light of modern knowledge. E.g., Ptolemy's epicycles are not deficient because they are ancient. They are deficient because these days we know better. By way of contrast, most of the work of ancient mathematicians is just as relevant today as it ever was. Euclid's postulates are still used today - although, in light of modern advances, we have made some updates - e.g., non-euclidian geometry is useful in some cases.
here are some recent examples. you go so far as to say even if the information turns out to be true and verified by science at some point, it was "just a lucky guess." oh and let's not forget your recent comment when a process was being discussed, that it belongs in a diary instead of online and it has no more merit than something a cat would generate walking across a keyboard. you also dismissed a source because you didn't like their name.
Those types of statements do not reflect any kind of "serious study"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-10-2018 at 03:57 PM..
here are some recent examples. you go so far as to say even if the information turns out to be true and verified by science at some point, it was "just a lucky guess." oh and let's not forget your recent comment when a process was being discussed, that it belongs in a diary instead of online and it has no more merit than something a cat would generate walking across a keyboard. you also dismissed a source because you didn't like their name.
When will you stop personally attacking and criticizing people and TRY to intellectually deal with their views???? This post adds nothing to the discussion and is nothing but whining about what you don't like about Gaylen. Grow up and stop whining. Discuss the issues or leave the forum. Gaylen adds immensely to the discussion. You just whine.
Here is the problem with looking only at "intellectual views."
According to the "encounter with the Divine" that the opening post person states they had, the singular message is "love God and love others." That focuses entirely on relationship. Not intellectual views.
So if a person focuses only on "intellectual views" they are ignoring altogether the entire message from the Divine.
Here is the problem with looking only at "intellectual views."
According to the "encounter with the Divine" that the opening post person states they had, the singular message is "love God and love others." That focuses entirely on relationship. Not intellectual views.
So if a person focuses only on "intellectual views" they are ignoring altogether the entire message from the Divine.
YOU are the one who said look ONLY at the intellectual views. The problem is you seem to be focused ONLY on the emotional and personal and ignore the intellectual. That is probably why you ASSUME that a desire to consider the intellectual must be "ONLY."
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.
