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

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello Philosophers!

I have two questions up for consideration:

Mr. Nicholas Humphry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Humphrey was asked whether consciousness is an illusion and he replied: "Yes", that he believed it was. Nicholas is a self proclaimed Materialist, and a cognitive scientist. As such, it begs the question: is his belief in the concept of 'illusion' self-refuting, ironic, and paradoxical? The philosophical reason why this belief may be paradoxical is because the definition of 'illusion' in itself, is a 'metaphysical phenomenon' (or is it)?

Essential Meaning of illusion

1 : something that looks or seems different from what it is : something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real
//The video game is designed to give the illusion that you are in control of an airplane.

//They used paint to create the illusion of metal.

//She says that all progress is just an illusion.


2 : an incorrect idea : an idea that is based on something that is not true
//She had/harbored no illusions about how much work the project would require. [=she knew the project would require a lot of work]

//He was under the illusion [=he mistakenly believed] that he was a good player.

Full Definition of illusion

1a(1) : a misleading image presented to the vision : optical illusion

(2) : something that deceives or misleads intellectually

b(1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature

(2) : hallucination sense 1

(3) : a pattern capable of reversible perspective

2a(1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension

(2) : an instance of such deception
b obsolete : the action of deceiving

One ancillary question to the foregoing is, how does he use logical concepts to arrive at the conclusion of consciousness being illusionary, I wonder? Well, this is one possibility:

2. Philosophically, does the explanation of consciousness itself break the rules of formal logic (a priori) and other logical axioms such as Bivalence and LEM? I would submit yes it does. It does by virtue of the infamous 'driving while daydreaming' scenario where both the conscious and subconscious mind is perceived to be operating independently of each other. This suggests that consciousness cannot be explained/described logically in the formal sense. Alternatively, should one be also prepared to embrace other absurdities about the perceptions of reality (Subjective Idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism ) and conclude that consciousness itself (which is apparently 'logically impossible' by formal definition standards, yet exists) is all that we know exists?

Other philosophical concerns resulting from the limitations of 'pure reason' might include the questions about the paradoxical apperceptions of reality. Is "I think therefore I am" proof of a reality that exists only in one's mind? How can logic and rationality save us from this nightmare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

[JackDaydream]

@3017Metaphysican

This question is one which I have got into in my discussion of the holographic model of consciousness, but you may not be aware of this. BF Skinner and Daniel Dennett came to this view, and it is a particular way of thinking and interpretation and may be rather limited. It is inherent in some psychology models and basis of thinking about the nature of consciousness. It is a particular approach to the philosophy of mind, but a matter of emphasis and importance. How important is the inner world regarded at all, or is seen as arbitrary and irrelevant?

However, when I have sent replies to you on various threads on the site you appear to have no interest in reading them, or engaging in any critical discussion with me at all. So, it is highly likely that you will not be interested in my reply at all, and would prefer to engage with those who you see as having 'ability' in philosophy and metaphysics, in preference to someone like me. I am interested in the fields in between philosophy and psychology, and how this relates to consciousness, for anyone who is interested in discussion about this.I hope that I am not seen as totally inadequate for the debate . Perhaps, my ideas and consciousness is not worthy of consideration at all, and this may even be part of the debate. Whose consciousness is seen as important, and how is this ranked, within larger hierarchies and contexts of meaning?

[philthepill]

Example Questions Short Response
1. Explain Hume’s argument for epistemological skepticism.
Hume argued against the idea of viewing things with certainty. He approved skepticism as a way of navigating through life (Fosl, 2016). Essentially, he defended the view that we do not have any rational justification for anything that we do.

- Skepticism is based on assuming the future based on the past. Knowledge is based on experience.
- Can’t claim what is going to happen.
- Epistemology is defined as a branch of philosophy that is defined as the study of knowledge. An example of epistemology is a thesis paper on the source of knowledge.
- For example, a lie cannot be truth because it is not factual and false. Secondly, belief is the state in which someone accepts something as true.
- He argues, though, that we must reject such skepticism since “no durable good can ever result from it.” Instead, he recommends a more moderate or Academic skepticism that tones down Pyrrhonism by, first, exercising caution and modesty in our judgments, and, second, by restricting our speculations to abstract reasoning and matters of fact.

2. Is the metaphysical status of free-will a necessary condition for James’ argument for indeterminism? Explain.
According to William James, the metaphysical status of free-will is a necessary condition for indeterminism. James believed that free-will and choice are core components of human existence. As such, he posited that indeterminism could not outlaw free will.

- Metaphysical status – outside of our senses. Not reality. Try to prove existence of spirt or soul. [not compare free- will to God]
- Indeterminism asserts that not all events are predetermined. Example: born to a poor family you don’t know how your future and it is not determine that you will always be poor.
- He believed free will and choice are components of human existence. He asserted choice only ceases to be choice once a choice is made.
- a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes. b : a theory that holds that not every event has a cause. 2 : the quality or state of being indeterminate especially : unpredictability.
- No free will

3. Layout either of Xeno’s Paradoxes, and in one sentence tell me what it aims to
Illustrate????????
In the Dichotomy Paradox, Xeno wishes to show that humans should always separate their daily activities with their rest time (Kong, 2012).

- Example: if you cut a square not matter how you cut the area always be 1.
- He is saying the answer is always finite.
- Two objects cannot touch.
-
4. Choose one of the disciplines of descriptive philosophy and explain the main
problems.
- One of the disciples of descriptive philosophy is Franz Brentano. He initiated intentionality in philosophy. He affirmed the essence of considering the power of minds and mental states in philosophical context.
- Descriptive ethics is a form of empirical research into the attitudes of individuals or groups of people. In other words, this is the division of philosophical or general ethics that involves the observation of the moral decision-making process with the goal of describing the phenomenon.
- A description is just what you think it is: It describes a situation or what a philosopher might call a state of affairs. For example, “The car is red,” “The river is flowing quickly,” “I'm sad that my juicer is broken,” “Brutus killed Caesar.” A normative statement is a claim about how things ought to be
- No one knows what happens after death.
- Study of people Views about moral beliefs, claims, behaviors. --> Psychology, sociology . [To explain and to describe]

5. Label the dividing line and explain how it relates to empiricism and rationalism.
- The dividing line is the distinction between two related things. Between empiricism and rationalism, the dividing line is senses, which are now applied to the real world, as opposed to only being subjected to intellectual reasoning (Hossain, 2014).
- empiricism - Construction of knowledge only from experimental and mathematics reasoning. Posits that primary and secondary sensory experiences do not count.
- rationalism - Induces the use of sufficient reason, such that everything has an explanation
- Divide line – is how we experience the world.
6. Explain the relationship between truth and knowledge.
- The relationship between truth and knowledge is in that the truth is a condition of knowledge. Evaluated; thus, truth is a foundation of knowledge.
- knowledge - In epistemology, this counts as the familiarity, awareness and understanding od someone or something, with regards to facts and skills.
- truth - True beliefs portray the world as it is; false beliefs portray the world as other than it is.

7. What is the name of the idea that if mind and body are separate substances that
causal relationships become difficult if not impossible to identify or explain?
Explain a possible solution to this problem.
- The name of this Mind-Body distinction. The solution to this is dualism that posits whole the mind is physical, the mind is non-physical but the two work together to yield a complete human existence.
8. Identify a piece of understanding that you took for granted as knowledge, stating
why it fails to qualify as proper knowledge.
- I failed to understand why the mind and the brain are considered as different in states. I thought they are one and the same, hence that to me did not qualify as proper knowledge.
9. What is the allegory of the cave meant to show us about our senses?
- The allegory of the cave issues that our senses are activated by education.
10. Explain the pragmatist solution to free-will?
The pragmatic solution to freewill is seeking consent.
11. Describe the character of consciousness according to Dennett.
- Dennett considers consciousness as an account of all the calculations that occur in the human brain that one can account for.
12. What problem does monism give rise to?
- Monism gives rise to distinct duality such as God and man.
- Monism vs dualism – difference is between god.
- Dualism is exactly the opposite of monism in the sense that although it speaks of the existence of the Almighty, it does not approve of unity in diversity. It does not see the oneness in all the beings. Man cannot be as powerful and potential as the God. Man has his limitations. Only the Almighty is all-powerful and all-pervading. He is omnipotent and omnipresent. Man cannot be omnipotent and omnipresent as long as he is mortal. Man
Dualism
◆ Mind and body are distinct and non-identical entities
Dualism
◆ Plato
◆ Aristotle
◆ Rene Descartes
Dualism
◆ All existence is separate and distinct. Individuals are clearly different from the concept of supreme self, i.e. body and soul are two distinct entities, and upon the death of the body the soul remains a distinct entity.
Dualism
◆ Interactionism – If in case you want to hug someone, the mental decision to hug someone causes you to hug a person. The physical event of being hugged by you brings about a mental reaction of warmth and happiness in that person.
◆ Epiphenomenalism – Your hug was translated from a physical event into a mental one by the person, but it wasn’t his/her mental decision that brought about the hug.
◆ Parallelism – The act of hugging is a purely physical process regulated by mechanical movements, and the mental experience of joy and warmth were purely mental as there is no physical basis for such emotions. is man, and God is God. Dualism is as simple as that.
Dualism
◆ Interactionism – Mind and body are separate but they interact to induce events in each other.
◆ Epiphenomenalism – Only physical events can induce mental events, and not vice versa.
◆ Parallelism – Both mind and body function in a parallel manner in harmony, but do not interact with each other.
- Monism
- Mind and body are manifestations of a single entity.
- All individuals exist as one and have the same potential. Upon the death of the individual, the consciousness merges with the common supreme self (individual becomes one with God, so to speak).
◆ Materialism – Only physical matter exists, and all perceptions are a result of physical processes only.
◆ Idealism – Everything exists as mental thoughts and ideas, and non-mental matter is an illusion produced by the mind of God.
- Idealism – George Berkeley’s philosophy that claimed that all perceivable entities were due to the mental imagination of them in God’s mind.

13. Why isn’t existence a predicate according to Kant?
- He indicated that existence cannot be considered an essential property of anything; hence, not a predicate.
14. How is math synthetic apriori?
-Math is a synthetic apriori since the outcomes are known and factual.
- before we were taught someone else experience it.
- We never experience #2 , we have seen it but never experience.[like a symbol]
Apriori- Involves previous knowledge and experience

15. 1. What is compatibilism?
It is some form of soft determinism, which induces that while we act as moral agents, we are only free in the absences of external constraints, where our actions are then guided by our desires.
- Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free.
- A compatibilist can believe that a person can choose between many choices, but the choice is always determined by external factors. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is saying that he does not know what he will choose—whether he will choose to follow the subconscious urge to go or not.
16. Explain the cause of existential angst.
It is the negative feeling that manifests from the experience of responsibility and freedom that humans generally have.
17. What is the difference between methodological skepticism and epistemological skepticism?
Methodological skepticism subjects all knowledge to scrutiny while differentiating between truth and false while epistemological skepticism only questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge (Fosl, 2016).
18. To what extent can true justified beliefs be considered knowledge.
True beliefs may not be considered knowledge as there are possibility of errors, and the beliefs may not be subject to perfect scrutiny.

Example Long Responses.
1. Explain Kant’s argument for the Transcendental Aesthetic and how synthetic Apriori
propositions prove that knowledge is possible. Furthermore, Kant setout not only to prove
that Knowledge was possible, but also, to “set limits of reason, to leave room for faith,”
explain how Kant argues that he achieves these ends.

Kant’s argument in Transcendental Aesthetic focuses on space as time as the basic forms or outer and inner intuitions. Though they are external, Kant argues that they form part of human knowledge. Perception of the two appears to be a leading factor in creating understating, through which people make meaning (Melamedoff-Vosters, 2021). However, Kant also introduces reason as a phenomenon that is worthwhile while interrogating knowledge as it allows us to focus on the pertinent aspects. However, I believe that Kant considers the possibility of human reason not being able to comprehend certain aspects, where he now considers faith imperative.
Definition
Phenomenon - in philosophy, any object, fact, or occurrence perceived or observed. In general, phenomena are the objects of the senses (e.g., sights and sounds) as contrasted with what is apprehended by the intellect.
pertinent aspects –
imperative
Transcendental Aesthetic - It was developed by Immanuel Kant, and it is a doctrine that space and time are a priori intuitions
Apriori - Involves previous knowledge and experience
Posteriori – knowledge obtained through experience.
Priori - knowledge obtained independent of experience
Analytic [propositions] – predicate is contained within the concept of the subject. [example: All bachelors are unmarried males. Since Bachelors means all males are unmarried, they may not be true.]
Synthetic – predicate is not contained within the concept of the subject but is related to it. [example: All swans are white. Because the concept of swan does not meant white.]
- (Note: synthetic statements are statements whose negations are not logically contradictory. Synthetic statements are not “true by definition,” but purport to say something substantive (non-trivial) about how the world is.
- Knowledge is gain is independent of experience.
- Though never a skeptic (for example, he was always committed to scientific knowledge), Kant came to limit knowledge to objects of possible experience and to regard ideas of metaphysics (including theology) as matters of rational faith.
- Faith – believe in faith but cannot prove god. [leave room for god, have some room for faith]



2. Explain why DesCartes argued that we needed to begin anew with the discipline of
philosophy. Layout his argument and method for achieving clear and distinct first
principles of philosophy and what substances his method leads him to argues for. I told
you that his argument is about metaphysics as the First Philosophy but it uses an
epistemological method, explain what this means. What impact does his first principle have on the philosophy of consciousness?

Descartes argues for a new discipline of philosophy, which agrees with his views as he presents in his first philosophy. Within it, he induces that his own mind exists. Then he provides for the existence of a perfect being that is called God (Descarte, 2010). In epistemology, justified beliefs are measured against opinions. Therefore, the first philosophy distinguishes the mind as existent and capable of making decisions. The first principle, by affirming the existence of the mind, strengthens the philosophy of consciousness.

3. Layout Baron duHolbach’s argument for hard determinism. To what extent does this
position violate your intuitions? To what extent must we concede the validity of his
argument? Is his argument a violation of Ockham’s Razor or is it bound by that principle?
In what ways are you opposed to hard Determinism?

· According to Baron duHolbach, determinism is true, thus, free will is an illusion.
· Baron, informs that a human being is simply physical and they submit to the universal and immutable laws of nature.
· To a great extent, Baron overrules human intuition, presenting that it is not practical. However, we must consent the validity of his argument because most of the times, human beings are guided by laws, where even if they think otherwise, they cannot act that way (Hämäläinen, 2018). The argument does not conflict Ockham’s Razor, which postulates that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
· In this case, the necessity is nature and its laws. However, Baron’s principle is opposed to determinism as it presents the ability of human beings to control some circumstances.
· Everything is predetermined therefor we are not able to choose that. That choice is not a choice. Free-will is an illusion.
· Example: having your birth parent, you did not have a choice to be a male or female.
· Ockham’s Razor – don’t over complicate something. Have proof of your belief.
· Determinism
The view that every even is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions in tandem with the laws of nature (Kane, 2016).

4. It has been said that philosophy is characterized by dialectic disagreements that expand
our understanding of how the world works and what we should do within it. Give 4
examples of such dialectic contradictions. Provide a convincing argument, whether or not
the watershed syntheses of these positions satisfied the requirements for knowledge.

· Capitalist system and working class
· Mental and manual labor
· The capitalist state and the capitalist economy
· Consumption and distribution

§ Altogether, these dialectic contradictions satisfy the some of the requirements for knowledge, which are truth and justification. They can be truthfully argued and justified on philosophical grounds.
o Dialectic means debate

[JackDaydream]

@philthepill
I am reading your reply in the middle of the night and it is interesting, but I am not sure to what extent you are arguing for or against consciousness being an illusion, although you mention dialectic.So, perhaps you are seeing the issue as involving some kind of paradox, involving a mixture of determined aspects of life, and some freedom connected with the way in which humans have an experience of consciousness, appearing as a choice, but you may be questioning whether this is in itself illusion. In other words, how 'free' is consciousness, as it feels as an experience, or is it bound up with the many aspects of existence which appear to be our own minds working independently? To what extent can philosophy, including the ideas of a priori logic of Kant or the skepticism of Hume untie this complex knot? Perhaps our minds are interconnected to larger patterns, but with each individual mind having some determining role in making choices through the role of consciousness in its own right as a part of the process.

[stevie]

Hello Philosophers!

I have two questions up for consideration:

Mr. Nicholas Humphry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Humphrey was asked whether consciousness is an illusion and he replied: "Yes", that he believed it was. Nicholas is a self proclaimed Materialist, and a cognitive scientist. As such, it begs the question: is his belief in the concept of 'illusion' self-refuting, ironic, and paradoxical? The philosophical reason why this belief may be paradoxical is because the definition of 'illusion' in itself, is a 'metaphysical phenomenon' (or is it)?

Of course making such assertive statements about consciousness should at least take into account that either the statements as such are fabrications of this illusory consciousness or the statements as concepts are no different from the alleged illusory consciousness (depending on whether one takes 'consciousness to be an agent or the self-display of a conscious object). To insist that the statements are or represent truth but are either fabricated by what one calls "illusion" or are the same may lead to the paradox concept of "illusory truth" ... why does one make such kinds of statement nevertheless? And why do I say this here when my consciousness and its display might be illusory?

From my perspective "illusion" is the reciprokal concept of "truth" and "reality", both sides depend on each other and are impossible to utter or 'speak about' without consciousness. So what might be called 'illusion' is the intuition that anything at all that is verbally expressible might be proven to be grounded on something independent of consciousness because we cannot leave the sphere of consciousness when we verbally express something. But whether consciousness as such is an illusion or true reality is beyond judgement and therefore both judgements have to be suspended.

[3017Metaphysician]

@3017Metaphysican

This question is one which I have got into in my discussion of the holographic model of consciousness, but you may not be aware of this. BF Skinner and Daniel Dennett came to this view, and it is a particular way of thinking and interpretation and may be rather limited. It is inherent in some psychology models and basis of thinking about the nature of consciousness. It is a particular approach to the philosophy of mind, but a matter of emphasis and importance. How important is the inner world regarded at all, or is seen as arbitrary and irrelevant?

However, when I have sent replies to you on various threads on the site you appear to have no interest in reading them, or engaging in any critical discussion with me at all. So, it is highly likely that you will not be interested in my reply at all, and would prefer to engage with those who you see as having 'ability' in philosophy and metaphysics, in preference to someone like me. I am interested in the fields in between philosophy and psychology, and how this relates to consciousness, for anyone who is interested in discussion about this.I hope that I am not seen as totally inadequate for the debate . Perhaps, my ideas and consciousness is not worthy of consideration at all, and this may even be part of the debate. Whose consciousness is seen as important, and how is this ranked, within larger hierarchies and contexts of meaning?

Happy Friday Jack!

To speak to your concern, here of late, I didn't see where you took to a strong protagonist/antagonist role in that you didn't seem to specifically challenge certain arguments. However, your statement below is insightful to the extent of capturing at least one of the OP suppositions:

Jack said: "...as it feels as an experience, or is it bound up with the many aspects of existence which appear to be our own minds working independently? To what extent can philosophy, including the ideas of a priori logic of Kant or the skepticism of Hume untie this complex knot?"

We can let that question 'simmer' or incubate for now. You are spot-on in your interpretation of that particular 'philosophical' quandary.

Thank you Jack!

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello Philosophers!

I have two questions up for consideration:

Mr. Nicholas Humphry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Humphrey was asked whether consciousness is an illusion and he replied: "Yes", that he believed it was. Nicholas is a self proclaimed Materialist, and a cognitive scientist. As such, it begs the question: is his belief in the concept of 'illusion' self-refuting, ironic, and paradoxical? The philosophical reason why this belief may be paradoxical is because the definition of 'illusion' in itself, is a 'metaphysical phenomenon' (or is it)?

Of course making such assertive statements about consciousness should at least take into account that either the statements as such are fabrications of this illusory consciousness or the statements as concepts are no different from the alleged illusory consciousness (depending on whether one takes 'consciousness to be an agent or the self-display of a conscious object). To insist that the statements are or represent truth but are either fabricated by what one calls "illusion" or are the same may lead to the paradox concept of "illusory truth" ... why does one make such kinds of statement nevertheless? And why do I say this here when my consciousness and its display might be illusory?

From my perspective "illusion" is the reciprokal concept of "truth" and "reality", both sides depend on each other and are impossible to utter or 'speak about' without consciousness. So what might be called 'illusion' is the intuition that anything at all that is verbally expressible might be proven to be grounded on something independent of consciousness because we cannot leave the sphere of consciousness when we verbally express something. But whether consciousness as such is an illusion or true reality is beyond judgement and therefore both judgements have to be suspended.

Happy Friday Stevie!

Great question(s).

To answer the first concerning "....why dies one make such kinds of statement nevertheless?", I would have to agree with physicist Paul Davies:

"...human rationality, that it is legitimate to seek 'explanations' for things, and that we truly understand something only when it is 'explained'.


I bring him into the mix for several reasons, one of which related to Mr. Humphries 'Materialism' (it would be nice if somehow he were able to stumble on this thread-wishfully thinking on my part of course-or maybe yet another kind of illusion ). And, I also bring him into the mix because he doesn't deny the possibility that "...the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense?...only that an understanding of [universe] existence and [its] properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought."

That all speaks to the limitations of human reason and observation. Existentially, it speaks to the specifics of finitude.

To your second paragraph/point, yes, I think your interpretation is quite Existential. To embellish a bit, we somehow feel as though something is not right (existential angst), and we continue to seek logical explanations for things and feel good only when they make sense. Our minds seem to crave logic, only to realize its own futility. In cosmology, its kind of like repeating/saying the infamous metaphysical judgement of the synthetic a priori: all events must have a cause. We can't help to advance these thoughts and subsequent theories to seek the answers to those suppositions/theories in the first place. And in some cases, its like the circular analogy to the liars paradox.

As an aside, ( and in the Continental/Post Modern tradition) that human condition provides for further analogy relative to sentience. After all, who understands the phenomena of Love? Is it physical/material, meta-physical, or both? We don't understand it, yet we seek to have it (some semblance of the feeling) in our lives. Another paradox, I wonder?

[3017Metaphysician]

Example Questions Short Response
1. Explain Hume’s argument for epistemological skepticism.
Hume argued against the idea of viewing things with certainty. He approved skepticism as a way of navigating through life (Fosl, 2016). Essentially, he defended the view that we do not have any rational justification for anything that we do.

- Skepticism is based on assuming the future based on the past. Knowledge is based on experience.
- Can’t claim what is going to happen.
- Epistemology is defined as a branch of philosophy that is defined as the study of knowledge. An example of epistemology is a thesis paper on the source of knowledge.
- For example, a lie cannot be truth because it is not factual and false. Secondly, belief is the state in which someone accepts something as true.
- He argues, though, that we must reject such skepticism since “no durable good can ever result from it.” Instead, he recommends a more moderate or Academic skepticism that tones down Pyrrhonism by, first, exercising caution and modesty in our judgments, and, second, by restricting our speculations to abstract reasoning and matters of fact.

2. Is the metaphysical status of free-will a necessary condition for James’ argument for indeterminism? Explain.
According to William James, the metaphysical status of free-will is a necessary condition for indeterminism. James believed that free-will and choice are core components of human existence. As such, he posited that indeterminism could not outlaw free will.

- Metaphysical status – outside of our senses. Not reality. Try to prove existence of spirt or soul. [not compare free- will to God]
- Indeterminism asserts that not all events are predetermined. Example: born to a poor family you don’t know how your future and it is not determine that you will always be poor.
- He believed free will and choice are components of human existence. He asserted choice only ceases to be choice once a choice is made.
- a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes. b : a theory that holds that not every event has a cause. 2 : the quality or state of being indeterminate especially : unpredictability.
- No free will

3. Layout either of Xeno’s Paradoxes, and in one sentence tell me what it aims to
Illustrate????????
In the Dichotomy Paradox, Xeno wishes to show that humans should always separate their daily activities with their rest time (Kong, 2012).

- Example: if you cut a square not matter how you cut the area always be 1.
- He is saying the answer is always finite.
- Two objects cannot touch.
-
4. Choose one of the disciplines of descriptive philosophy and explain the main
problems.
- One of the disciples of descriptive philosophy is Franz Brentano. He initiated intentionality in philosophy. He affirmed the essence of considering the power of minds and mental states in philosophical context.
- Descriptive ethics is a form of empirical research into the attitudes of individuals or groups of people. In other words, this is the division of philosophical or general ethics that involves the observation of the moral decision-making process with the goal of describing the phenomenon.
- A description is just what you think it is: It describes a situation or what a philosopher might call a state of affairs. For example, “The car is red,” “The river is flowing quickly,” “I'm sad that my juicer is broken,” “Brutus killed Caesar.” A normative statement is a claim about how things ought to be
- No one knows what happens after death.
- Study of people Views about moral beliefs, claims, behaviors. --> Psychology, sociology . [To explain and to describe]

5. Label the dividing line and explain how it relates to empiricism and rationalism.
- The dividing line is the distinction between two related things. Between empiricism and rationalism, the dividing line is senses, which are now applied to the real world, as opposed to only being subjected to intellectual reasoning (Hossain, 2014).
- empiricism - Construction of knowledge only from experimental and mathematics reasoning. Posits that primary and secondary sensory experiences do not count.
- rationalism - Induces the use of sufficient reason, such that everything has an explanation
- Divide line – is how we experience the world.
6. Explain the relationship between truth and knowledge.
- The relationship between truth and knowledge is in that the truth is a condition of knowledge. Evaluated; thus, truth is a foundation of knowledge.
- knowledge - In epistemology, this counts as the familiarity, awareness and understanding od someone or something, with regards to facts and skills.
- truth - True beliefs portray the world as it is; false beliefs portray the world as other than it is.

7. What is the name of the idea that if mind and body are separate substances that
causal relationships become difficult if not impossible to identify or explain?
Explain a possible solution to this problem.
- The name of this Mind-Body distinction. The solution to this is dualism that posits whole the mind is physical, the mind is non-physical but the two work together to yield a complete human existence.
8. Identify a piece of understanding that you took for granted as knowledge, stating
why it fails to qualify as proper knowledge.
- I failed to understand why the mind and the brain are considered as different in states. I thought they are one and the same, hence that to me did not qualify as proper knowledge.
9. What is the allegory of the cave meant to show us about our senses?
- The allegory of the cave issues that our senses are activated by education.
10. Explain the pragmatist solution to free-will?
The pragmatic solution to freewill is seeking consent.
11. Describe the character of consciousness according to Dennett.
- Dennett considers consciousness as an account of all the calculations that occur in the human brain that one can account for.
12. What problem does monism give rise to?
- Monism gives rise to distinct duality such as God and man.
- Monism vs dualism – difference is between god.
- Dualism is exactly the opposite of monism in the sense that although it speaks of the existence of the Almighty, it does not approve of unity in diversity. It does not see the oneness in all the beings. Man cannot be as powerful and potential as the God. Man has his limitations. Only the Almighty is all-powerful and all-pervading. He is omnipotent and omnipresent. Man cannot be omnipotent and omnipresent as long as he is mortal. Man
Dualism
◆ Mind and body are distinct and non-identical entities
Dualism
◆ Plato
◆ Aristotle
◆ Rene Descartes
Dualism
◆ All existence is separate and distinct. Individuals are clearly different from the concept of supreme self, i.e. body and soul are two distinct entities, and upon the death of the body the soul remains a distinct entity.
Dualism
◆ Interactionism – If in case you want to hug someone, the mental decision to hug someone causes you to hug a person. The physical event of being hugged by you brings about a mental reaction of warmth and happiness in that person.
◆ Epiphenomenalism – Your hug was translated from a physical event into a mental one by the person, but it wasn’t his/her mental decision that brought about the hug.
◆ Parallelism – The act of hugging is a purely physical process regulated by mechanical movements, and the mental experience of joy and warmth were purely mental as there is no physical basis for such emotions. is man, and God is God. Dualism is as simple as that.
Dualism
◆ Interactionism – Mind and body are separate but they interact to induce events in each other.
◆ Epiphenomenalism – Only physical events can induce mental events, and not vice versa.
◆ Parallelism – Both mind and body function in a parallel manner in harmony, but do not interact with each other.
- Monism
- Mind and body are manifestations of a single entity.
- All individuals exist as one and have the same potential. Upon the death of the individual, the consciousness merges with the common supreme self (individual becomes one with God, so to speak).
◆ Materialism – Only physical matter exists, and all perceptions are a result of physical processes only.
◆ Idealism – Everything exists as mental thoughts and ideas, and non-mental matter is an illusion produced by the mind of God.
- Idealism – George Berkeley’s philosophy that claimed that all perceivable entities were due to the mental imagination of them in God’s mind.

13. Why isn’t existence a predicate according to Kant?
- He indicated that existence cannot be considered an essential property of anything; hence, not a predicate.
14. How is math synthetic apriori?
-Math is a synthetic apriori since the outcomes are known and factual.
- before we were taught someone else experience it.
- We never experience #2 , we have seen it but never experience.[like a symbol]
Apriori- Involves previous knowledge and experience

15. 1. What is compatibilism?
It is some form of soft determinism, which induces that while we act as moral agents, we are only free in the absences of external constraints, where our actions are then guided by our desires.
- Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free.
- A compatibilist can believe that a person can choose between many choices, but the choice is always determined by external factors. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", he is saying that he does not know what he will choose—whether he will choose to follow the subconscious urge to go or not.
16. Explain the cause of existential angst.
It is the negative feeling that manifests from the experience of responsibility and freedom that humans generally have.
17. What is the difference between methodological skepticism and epistemological skepticism?
Methodological skepticism subjects all knowledge to scrutiny while differentiating between truth and false while epistemological skepticism only questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge (Fosl, 2016).
18. To what extent can true justified beliefs be considered knowledge.
True beliefs may not be considered knowledge as there are possibility of errors, and the beliefs may not be subject to perfect scrutiny.

Example Long Responses.
1. Explain Kant’s argument for the Transcendental Aesthetic and how synthetic Apriori
propositions prove that knowledge is possible. Furthermore, Kant setout not only to prove
that Knowledge was possible, but also, to “set limits of reason, to leave room for faith,”
explain how Kant argues that he achieves these ends.

Kant’s argument in Transcendental Aesthetic focuses on space as time as the basic forms or outer and inner intuitions. Though they are external, Kant argues that they form part of human knowledge. Perception of the two appears to be a leading factor in creating understating, through which people make meaning (Melamedoff-Vosters, 2021). However, Kant also introduces reason as a phenomenon that is worthwhile while interrogating knowledge as it allows us to focus on the pertinent aspects. However, I believe that Kant considers the possibility of human reason not being able to comprehend certain aspects, where he now considers faith imperative.
Definition
Phenomenon - in philosophy, any object, fact, or occurrence perceived or observed. In general, phenomena are the objects of the senses (e.g., sights and sounds) as contrasted with what is apprehended by the intellect.
pertinent aspects –
imperative
Transcendental Aesthetic - It was developed by Immanuel Kant, and it is a doctrine that space and time are a priori intuitions
Apriori - Involves previous knowledge and experience
Posteriori – knowledge obtained through experience.
Priori - knowledge obtained independent of experience
Analytic [propositions] – predicate is contained within the concept of the subject. [example: All bachelors are unmarried males. Since Bachelors means all males are unmarried, they may not be true.]
Synthetic – predicate is not contained within the concept of the subject but is related to it. [example: All swans are white. Because the concept of swan does not meant white.]
- (Note: synthetic statements are statements whose negations are not logically contradictory. Synthetic statements are not “true by definition,” but purport to say something substantive (non-trivial) about how the world is.
- Knowledge is gain is independent of experience.
- Though never a skeptic (for example, he was always committed to scientific knowledge), Kant came to limit knowledge to objects of possible experience and to regard ideas of metaphysics (including theology) as matters of rational faith.
- Faith – believe in faith but cannot prove god. [leave room for god, have some room for faith]



2. Explain why DesCartes argued that we needed to begin anew with the discipline of
philosophy. Layout his argument and method for achieving clear and distinct first
principles of philosophy and what substances his method leads him to argues for. I told
you that his argument is about metaphysics as the First Philosophy but it uses an
epistemological method, explain what this means. What impact does his first principle have on the philosophy of consciousness?

Descartes argues for a new discipline of philosophy, which agrees with his views as he presents in his first philosophy. Within it, he induces that his own mind exists. Then he provides for the existence of a perfect being that is called God (Descarte, 2010). In epistemology, justified beliefs are measured against opinions. Therefore, the first philosophy distinguishes the mind as existent and capable of making decisions. The first principle, by affirming the existence of the mind, strengthens the philosophy of consciousness.

3. Layout Baron duHolbach’s argument for hard determinism. To what extent does this
position violate your intuitions? To what extent must we concede the validity of his
argument? Is his argument a violation of Ockham’s Razor or is it bound by that principle?
In what ways are you opposed to hard Determinism?

· According to Baron duHolbach, determinism is true, thus, free will is an illusion.
· Baron, informs that a human being is simply physical and they submit to the universal and immutable laws of nature.
· To a great extent, Baron overrules human intuition, presenting that it is not practical. However, we must consent the validity of his argument because most of the times, human beings are guided by laws, where even if they think otherwise, they cannot act that way (Hämäläinen, 2018). The argument does not conflict Ockham’s Razor, which postulates that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
· In this case, the necessity is nature and its laws. However, Baron’s principle is opposed to determinism as it presents the ability of human beings to control some circumstances.
· Everything is predetermined therefor we are not able to choose that. That choice is not a choice. Free-will is an illusion.
· Example: having your birth parent, you did not have a choice to be a male or female.
· Ockham’s Razor – don’t over complicate something. Have proof of your belief.
· Determinism
The view that every even is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions in tandem with the laws of nature (Kane, 2016).

4. It has been said that philosophy is characterized by dialectic disagreements that expand
our understanding of how the world works and what we should do within it. Give 4
examples of such dialectic contradictions. Provide a convincing argument, whether or not
the watershed syntheses of these positions satisfied the requirements for knowledge.

· Capitalist system and working class
· Mental and manual labor
· The capitalist state and the capitalist economy
· Consumption and distribution

§ Altogether, these dialectic contradictions satisfy the some of the requirements for knowledge, which are truth and justification. They can be truthfully argued and justified on philosophical grounds.
o Dialectic means debate

PTP!

Thank you for your contribution! Awesome stuff! I'm going to parse one of them shortly, so that we can perhaps uncover some intriguing concepts to this dilemma about conscious existence.... .

Thanks and welcome!!

[JackDaydream]

@3017Metaphysican

When you refer to the 'I ' of which Descartes speaks in saying, 'I think therefore I am', in does depend how the 'I' of consciousness is seen, and presumably the materialists don't see it as being of that much importance. In doing so, the ability to have reflective awareness is being seen as of little value. In contrast, Ken Wilber, the transpersonal philosopher, sees the 'I' as being an intermediate form in between body and mind, as a 'witness'.

This idea of there being a witness may be important because even if the entity of the self is seen as open to question, as a specific entity the witnessing consciousness is something which continues in life as an underlying narrator. This narrator is able to interpret and reflect on experiences, in the processes of self awareness.

[3017Metaphysician]

I'll start with the easier one's first:

13. Why isn’t existence a predicate according to Kant?
- He indicated that existence cannot be considered an essential property of anything; hence, not a predicate.

Because in metaphysics, we do not know the true nature of existence, or in the same Kantian terms, the thing-in-itself. In cosmology, the criterion or standard for existence is the concept/axiom of God.


14. How is math synthetic apriori?
-Math is a synthetic apriori since the outcomes are known and factual.
- before we were taught someone else experience it.
- We never experience #2 , we have seen it but never experience.[like a symbol]
Apriori- Involves previous knowledge and experience

Can you elucidate a bit more on that? The classic synthetic a priori metaphysical judgement/proposition is : All events must have a cause. It's a priori because we have a metaphysical/innate sense of wonder and feeling that there is a first cause. It's synthetic because we don't know for sure ( we try to empirically test it), yet paradoxical because without wonder itself (which is metaphysical/Qualia) we would not be able to advance the theory itself in order to determine its truth value.


11. Describe the character of consciousness according to Dennett.
- Dennett considers consciousness as an account of all the calculations that occur in the human brain that one can account for.

To his credit, Dennett, has identified the metaphysical phenomena of Qualia, but unfortunately, has not explained consciousness logically (which is predictable and not necessarily a bad thing of course).
As an aside, another paradox reared it head since in the spirit of deconstructionism, he uses the concept of "calculations" to explain/describe all mental events, for which the use of mathematical calculations is a metaphysical thing-in-itself.

1. Explain Hume’s argument for epistemological skepticism.
Hume argued against the idea of viewing things with certainty. He approved skepticism as a way of navigating through life (Fosl, 2016). Essentially, he defended the view that we do not have any rational justification for anything that we do.

I agree with Hume in that : "Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behaviour, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." As an ancillary question, this sounds much like Metaphysical Voluntarism, no?



6. Explain the relationship between truth and knowledge.

Subjectivity and Objectivity

[3017Metaphysician]

@3017Metaphysican

When you refer to the 'I ' of which Descartes speaks in saying, 'I think therefore I am', in does depend how the 'I' of consciousness is seen, and presumably the materialists don't see it as being of that much importance. In doing so, the ability to have reflective awareness is being seen as of little value. In contrast, Ken Wilber, the transpersonal philosopher, sees the 'I' as being an intermediate form in between body and mind, as a 'witness'.

This idea of there being a witness may be important because even if the entity of the self is seen as open to question, as a specific entity the witnessing consciousness is something which continues in life as an underlying narrator. This narrator is able to interpret and reflect on experiences, in the processes of self awareness.

Jack!

The "I" refers to being self-aware. The nature of self-awareness itself cannot be physical. Self-awareness itself is a component of Subjectivity, which includes sentience. Think of it like the metaphysical Will ( Schopenhauer). The feeling (and even Hume might agree) exists as a real phenomenon (not instinct but part of Qualia) and basically precedes intellect ( Voluntarism).

I have not studied Ken, but I think the concept of 'witness' can be also interpreted metaphysically, much like the Will. No exceptions taken there... .

Thoughts?

[JackDaydream]

@3017Metaphysican

I understand that Wilber is using the term 'witness' as a metaphysical construct. The nature of self awareness and whether it includes the physical is open to question. Schopenhauer speaks of the will and this is a useful way of thinking. However, self awareness is an embodied self. So much of it comes down to the brain but, also aspects of the entire body.

This is particularly drawn out in the philosophy of mindfulness. In techniques and meditation based on mindfulness the emphasis is upon the experience of aspects of bodily awareness. In addition, in mindfulness practice, there is focus upon the experience of thoughts, and rather than simply a focus upon the 'I', and the role of the ego, there is an emphasis on the flow of thoughts, as in the way thoughts flow, and of observing them, rather than grasping and analysing the specific thoughts. It does come from Eastern thought, but it is becoming more of an accepted part of Western thinking, especially in psychology, but also has bearing upon the philosophy area of phenomenology.

[3017Metaphysician]

@3017Metaphysican

I understand that Wilber is using the term 'witness' as a metaphysical construct. The nature of self awareness and whether it includes the physical is open to question. Schopenhauer speaks of the will and this is a useful way of thinking. However, self awareness is an embodied self. So much of it comes down to the brain but, also aspects of the entire body.

This is particularly drawn out in the philosophy of mindfulness. In techniques and meditation based on mindfulness the emphasis is upon the experience of aspects of bodily awareness. In addition, in mindfulness practice, there is focus upon the experience of thoughts, and rather than simply a focus upon the 'I', and the role of the ego, there is an emphasis on the flow of thoughts, as in the way thoughts flow, and of observing them, rather than grasping and analysing the specific thoughts. It does come from Eastern thought, but it is becoming more of an accepted part of Western thinking, especially in psychology, but also has bearing upon the philosophy area of phenomenology.

Yes. That latter thought seems akin to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_of_consciousness where unending thoughts and feelings flow through the mind without being able to stop them as one feels alive. These thoughts and feelings come from conscious and subconscious 'things' (Freud would include the a third concept of 'unconscious') and these 'things' can be perceived as objects, but are not objects in-and-of-themselves. They are images of objects. And those images are apperceived as:

an artifact that depicts visual perception, such as a photograph or other two-dimensional picture, that resembles a subject—usually a physical object—and thus provides a depiction of it.


Depiction: may be factual or fictional, literal or metaphorical, realistic or idealized and in various combination

That may also include the concepts of illusion. And that takes us back to the OP and the definition standard/concept of same. Are we capable of experiencing this sense of the 'metaphysical' in various forms of consciousness, I wonder?

[3017Metaphysician]

Is the metaphysical status of free-will a necessary condition for James’ argument for indeterminism? Explain.

Huge question. I'll go in a similar but slightly different direction. First, free-will can easily be analogized to quantum indeterminism that Gödel/Heisenberg talked about. We have at its core, I think, there are at least two components up for consideration:

1. The nature of the Will itself, which exists (forget about the concept of 'free' for a moment) is it material or immaterial? I vote for the Meta-physical of course.

2. Being free can mean simply choosing (Subjectivity-volitional existence) from a list of existing alternatives. Those alternatives can present themselves indeterminably, much like in James' description of one's own stream of consciousness.

[3017Metaphysician]

Is the metaphysical status of free-will a necessary condition for James’ argument for indeterminism? Explain.

Huge question. I'll go in a similar but slightly different direction. First, free-will can easily be analogized to quantum indeterminism that Gödel/Heisenberg talked about. We have at its core, I think, there are at least two components up for consideration:

1. The nature of the Will itself, which exists (forget about the concept of 'free' for a moment) is it material or immaterial? I vote for the Meta-physical of course.

2. Being free can mean simply choosing (Subjectivity-volitional existence) from a list of existing alternatives. Those alternatives can present themselves indeterminably, much like in James' description of one's own stream of consciousness.

Forgot to add the logical analogy to indeterminism:

"This statement is a lie."

Or:

Socrates: 'What Plato is about to say if false."
Plato: "Socrates has just spoken truly"