Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Wayne92587]

@Consul
The identity theory of mind has issues. For instance, it claims that brains without a certain type of hardware can't experience consciousness.

Very True!
The Singularity of Man having the dual quality of Mind and Body must be One in order to be Conscious.

From Emerald Tablet;

Squaring the Circle
That which is below is as that which is above, and that which is above is as that which is below, to perform the miracles of the one thing,
Consciousness!

1

[Wayne92587]

The Flesh Body is the Temple of the Soul, Consciousness.

[Wayne92587]

The Flesh Body is the Temple of the Soul, Consciousness, is the hardware of Brain.

The duality of 0/1 two as One is greater than the sum total of the two as Individual Singularities of Zero-0.

Squaring the Circle-0/

[BigBango]

Consciousness is not reducible to the physical, yet it is never apparent outside of physical manifestations. (Leibnitz)

The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties.

Tamminem has asserted this truth as an ontological extension of Descartes reasoning that " I think therefore I am" into its natural extension to "I think of me as an object therefore I am an object" and "objects" are something that are dependent on my awareness of them.

What this means is that reality has always been conditioned on our awareness of it, but our awareness never had to evolve from it.




.

[ThomasHobbes]

The Flesh Body is the Temple of the Soul, Consciousness, is the hardware of Brain.

I think you mean software.

[ThomasHobbes]

Consciousness is not reducible to the physical, yet it is never apparent outside of physical manifestations. (Leibnitz)

Where does he say this, and in what context?

The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties.

How can you have experience without mental properties?

Tamminem has asserted this truth as an ontological extension of Descartes reasoning that " I think therefore I am" into its natural extension to "I think of me as an object therefore I am an object" and "objects" are something that are dependent on my awareness of them.

What this means is that reality has always been conditioned on our awareness of it, but our awareness never had to evolve from it.

I do not think it means that at all. Most people take 'reality' as a thing we can only have partial perception of, and partial experience of. IT is not conditioned BY our perception, and human awareness had to evolve from it regardless of our personal solipsistic perceptions.
Since our birth did not allow the universe to come into being, reality provided for our very existence, and is the precursor of ALL experience definitively.
If Descartes observation is to be understood as positing ourselves as an Object, then that asserts also that reality is a thing into which an object is born.


.

[Tamminen]

If we think of the universe as a spatiotemporal totality, as I do, and as modern physics does, it is not difficult to think that the existence of the universe depends on the existence of subjects, so that the very being of the universe is based on the being of subjectivity. Time is only one dimension of this totality. The uninhabited past of the universe is in relation to the inhabited present, to us, whoever or whatever we happen to be. We do not know any other kind of being if we think of the universe as a whole, as a holistic structure. And there is no rational justification to extrapolate our thinking outside of this world of subjects. It would be an uninhabited alternate universe instead of this universe we live in, a universe without any subjective perspective, and to me that is an absurd thought, a thought that tries to eliminate itself out of being. So there is necessarily someone or something looking at the world if there is a world at all. This is the idea of the subject-world relationship being fundamental for all being, so that without it there can be nothing and everything that happens, happens within that relationship. This is why I have called it the Archimedean point of reality.

[BigBango]

Consciousness is not reducible to the physical, yet it is never apparent outside of physical manifestations. (Leibnitz)

Where does he say this, and in what context?

"Monadology and Other Philosophical Essays" pg 148 - 163

In these pages Leibniz explicates his analysis of the fundamental properties of nature with particular emphasis on the nature of "monads". It is quite startling how his analysis matches with Tamminen's description of the "subject". Leibnitz differentiates "composites" from "monads". Both these entities exist as components of "substance". Composites are infinitely divisible while monads are not.

While I admit Leibniz does not offer an argument as to whether or not the monads evolve from composites(matter) or composites are dependent on monads, he does make it clear that "substance" (matter) has both aspects. For that reason, we need to classify his theories as dual aspect theories of reality where both aspects are necessary yet not derivable one from the other.

While Tamminen elevates the "subject"/monad in importance Leibniz simply explains their role in what we call nature under God. Yet he makes it clear that monads are individually different and their nature depends on how they each perceive reality!

[quote=BigBango post_id=319927 time=1537334924 user_id=48146
The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties.[/quote]

How can you have experience without mental properties?

Content evolves within the "subject" but the fundamental nature of the subject does not change.

Tamminem has asserted this truth as an ontological extension of Descartes reasoning that " I think therefore I am" into its natural extension to "I think of me as an object therefore I am an object" and "objects" are something that are dependent on my awareness of them.

What this means is that reality has always been conditioned on our awareness of it, but our awareness never had to evolve from it.

I do not think it means that at all. Most people take 'reality' as a thing we can only have partial perception of, and partial experience of. IT is not conditioned BY our perception, and human awareness had to evolve from it regardless of our personal solipsistic perceptions.
Since our birth did not allow the universe to come into being, reality provided for our very existence, and is the precursor of ALL experience definitively.
If Descartes observation is to be understood as positing ourselves as an Object, then that asserts also that reality is a thing into which an object is born.

The precursor of all experience is dependent on the existence of the "experiencer".

.
[/quote]

[ThomasHobbes]

Where does he say this, and in what context?

"Monadology and Other Philosophical Essays" pg 148 - 163

In these pages Leibniz explicates his analysis of the fundamental properties of nature with particular emphasis on the nature of "monads". It is quite startling how his analysis matches with Tamminen's description of the "subject". Leibnitz differentiates "composites" from "monads". Both these entities exist as components of "substance". Composites are infinitely divisible while monads are not.

While I admit Leibniz does not offer an argument as to whether or not the monads evolve from composites(matter) or composites are dependent on monads, he does make it clear that "substance" (matter) has both aspects. For that reason, we need to classify his theories as dual aspect theories of reality where both aspects are necessary yet not derivable one from the other.

While Tamminen elevates the "subject"/monad in importance Leibniz simply explains their role in what we call nature under God. Yet he makes it clear that monads are individually different and their nature depends on how they each perceive reality!

[quote=BigBango post_id=319927 time=1537334924 user_id=48146
The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties.

How can you have experience without mental properties?

Content evolves within the "subject" but the fundamental nature of the subject does not change.

Tamminem has asserted this truth as an ontological extension of Descartes reasoning that " I think therefore I am" into its natural extension to "I think of me as an object therefore I am an object" and "objects" are something that are dependent on my awareness of them.

What this means is that reality has always been conditioned on our awareness of it, but our awareness never had to evolve from it.

I do not think it means that at all. Most people take 'reality' as a thing we can only have partial perception of, and partial experience of. IT is not conditioned BY our perception, and human awareness had to evolve from it regardless of our personal solipsistic perceptions.
Since our birth did not allow the universe to come into being, reality provided for our very existence, and is the precursor of ALL experience definitively.
If Descartes observation is to be understood as positing ourselves as an Object, then that asserts also that reality is a thing into which an object is born.

The precursor of all experience is dependent on the existence of the "experiencer".

.
[/quote]
[/quote]


You have answered ZERO of my points. Instead you have tried to divert and fudge your answer.
Where EXACTLY does Leibnitz say what you claim he said?
You notion of a monad is bizarrely dualistic; you must be joking!! The clues is in the word MONad implying ONE, not two.

You have not begun to address the false claim you made before.

I'll ask again. "How can you have experience without mental properties?"
Saying experience depends on an experiencer is not an answer since it does not address this problem in any sense, as an experiencer also requires mental properties so that they can experience.

I assume you are simply trying to wriggle out of your previous unconsidered comments.

[ThomasHobbes]

If we think of the universe as a spatiotemporal totality, as I do, and as modern physics does, it is not difficult to think that the existence of the universe depends on the existence of subjects, so that the very being of the universe is based on the being of subjectivity.

But you know intuitively that this is not so. The universe does not depend on the subject. It is only the perception of the universe that depends on the subject.
The universe did not spring into existence when you were born neither shall it be destroyed when you die.
If we all died the universe would abide and endure.
It is perfectly reasonable to take an idealist and/or subjectivist stance without the banal and solipsistic conclusion that everything depends on you experiencing it.

[Tamminen]

If we think of the universe as a spatiotemporal totality, as I do, and as modern physics does, it is not difficult to think that the existence of the universe depends on the existence of subjects, so that the very being of the universe is based on the being of subjectivity.

But you know intuitively that this is not so. The universe does not depend on the subject. It is only the perception of the universe that depends on the subject.
The universe did not spring into existence when you were born neither shall it be destroyed when you die.
If we all died the universe would abide and endure.
It is perfectly reasonable to take an idealist and/or subjectivist stance without the banal and solipsistic conclusion that everything depends on you experiencing it.

I have discussed this with others many times, and I only repeat: my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible. And I know intuitively that it must be so. But I think this discussion cannot lead to agreement any more than it has led so far with anyone else.

We must separate how the world appears to the subject and that there is a world at all, and also the latter depends on the being of subjectivity. For me this is obvious, but not for all, of which I am surprised.

And of course this has nothing to do with solipsism. The world is a community of subjects, and my personal nonexistence does not end the world. Only if there is no one, has never been anyone and will never be anyone, only in that case, which is in itself impossible, there would be absolutely nothing. And that nothingness, if it were possible, would have nothing to do with anything that physically happens to the physical world. This is a paradox, and it is solved by concluding that there must necessarily be a subjective perspective to the world for there being a world.

My view is a combination of epistemological realism and ontological idealism or subjectivism. The question of solipsism is interesting, but it has nothing to do with these considerations except for the metaphysical consequences of them, of which I have written elsewhere.

[Present awareness]

The idea that we are somehow seperate from the universe, is where the problem arises. We ARE the universe! All of our perceptions take place beneath our skin. Although we may consider that everything beyond our skin is the universe, and we are somehow a seperate entity, it is merely a projection of abstract thinking, which creates a separation where no separation exists.

We have always existed and it matters not whether we prefer our present form of existence or not, for nothing is permanent and will change continuously. We may not remember life as a sperm cell or egg, but we have all been there.

[ThomasHobbes]

But you know intuitively that this is not so. The universe does not depend on the subject. It is only the perception of the universe that depends on the subject.
The universe did not spring into existence when you were born neither shall it be destroyed when you die.
If we all died the universe would abide and endure.
It is perfectly reasonable to take an idealist and/or subjectivist stance without the banal and solipsistic conclusion that everything depends on you experiencing it.

I have discussed this with others many times, and I only repeat: my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible. And I know intuitively that it must be so. But I think this discussion cannot lead to agreement any more than it has led so far with anyone else.

I don't really care what you believe.
We all know that the universe did not come into being the day YOU were born.
In the face of such evidence your belief is not worth more than a damp sticky tissue in a teenagers bed.

[ThomasHobbes]

The idea that we are somehow seperate from the universe, is where the problem arises. We ARE the universe! All of our perceptions take place beneath our skin. Although we may consider that everything beyond our skin is the universe, and we are somehow a seperate entity, it is merely a projection of abstract thinking, which creates a separation where no separation exists.

We have always existed and it matters not whether we prefer our present form of existence or not, for nothing is permanent and will change continuously. We may not remember life as a sperm cell or egg, but we have all been there.

Yeah man, like we are all the Universe!!

Listen: I am not the same as you. Whilst that very useful distinction exists I'll prefer to use common sense and reason, and avoid the new-age platitudes and muesli-trousers wearing pseudo-philosophy. LOL

[Tamminen]

We all know that the universe did not come into being the day YOU were born.

Agreed. Did I say something like that? Idealism is something much more profound, and should be discussed on the level it has been discussed through the history of philosophy. But I think this is not the place where we can mount on that level.