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

[Steve3007]

For example:...

Discovering animals that previously existed but which hadn't previously been discovered is not the same as "new kinds of animals coming to existence".

[Steve3007]

Oh, btw. ignore my last sentence, I forgot to remove it lol (can't edit my post)

Yeah, neither can I. Annoying isn't it! . For some reason, it seems that some posters can edit their posts after posting them, but most of us can't.

[3017Metaphysician]

Before we loose site of this point (to your first paragraph about Qualia including how that might relate to the OP/Materialism), my view would be that in either or ANY case, one could not preclude Qualia itself, from the experience, itself. That notion of 'material things-in-themselves', (as I'll phrase it) being perceived as images (illusions), and those images being produced by consciousness which produces immaterial phenomena (the Will and other forms of sentient existence that is apperceived), implies a 'quality' (Qualia) of consciousness and not just a material 'quantity' per se. I think Kant spoke to an analogous 'medium' of the mind (a hard drive) that is fixed and innate (a priori) which fixes everything in our abilities to perceive (apperception) objects/things. To me, a similar analogy to a simple camera design being limited to its own design parameters determines the 'quality' of images, hence the reality that one perceives. A 35mm camera generally takes a better image than an old polaroid, or a black and white movie camera is different from a digital medium, analogue audio quality v. digital quality ('Qualia' metaphor), ad nauseum.

And so in many ways, one could embrace the old philosophical/metaphysical axiom of Subjective Idealism as a starting point/method of describing the nature of reality, since consciousness itself cannot be removed from the apperception process. In other words, the design or make-up of the 'camera' is not known (yet logically necessary), much less any objects that are being perceived by it, thus making the concept of illusion real. Actually, in deconstructionism, one can always ask how the initial or 'creation' or development of the original term/concept of illusion was first conceived(?). And that takes us back to the self-refuting part, among other things... .

This would be a good reference point to Apperception in the Kantian tradition:

Immanuel Kant distinguished transcendental apperception from empirical apperception. The first is the perception of an object as involving the consciousness of the pure self as subject – "the pure, original, unchangeable consciousness that is the necessary condition of experience and the ultimate foundation of the unity of experience". The second is "the consciousness of the concrete actual self with its changing states", the so-called "inner sense" (Otto F. Kraushaar in Runes[2]). Transcendental apperception is almost equivalent to self-consciousness; the existence of the ego may be more or less prominent, but it is always involved.[1] See Kantianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception

I think regardless of how we apperceive things-themselves viz the concept of illusion, this sense of one's 'ego', Freudian ID, or Schopenhauer Will, remains a quality of consciousness that can't be adequately described/explained physically or materially (its quantity). Yet, in itself, is logically necessary for any perception to take place at all since it is always involved. Perhaps that is another part of the 'quasi-phenomenal property' of conscious existence that you mention... (?).

* First of all, I agree with those who think that qualia aren't qualities of subjective experiences (experiential events/states) but of subjects of experience: For me to be a subject of experience is for me to have qualia = experiential/phenomenal qualities ("secondary qualities").

* I don't think the nonmental physical world is full of quantities but devoid of qualities; so I don't think the qualia of consciousness are the only qualities in the world. The "primary qualities" physics deals with are qualities just like the "secondary qualities" psychology deals with. Anyway, what is a quantity if not a "mathematizable", numerically representable, or measurable quality?

* Phenomenal consciousness is the medium of sensory perception, so there can be no conscious perception without it.

* Subjective idealism is certainly not "illusionistic" or "eliminativistic" about phenomenal consciousness itself (= the sphere of appearance). Extreme non-Kantian idealism denies the existence of a world of (mentally irreducible) physical noumena, but it doesn't deny the existence of a world of mental phenomena. However, if there is nothing physical or nonmental behind or beyond appearances, these are illusory or hallucinatory, because it does seem to me that there is a physical or nonmental world which is perceived by me through my sensory appearances.

* Apperception is self-consciousness, and according to Kant…

"There are two kinds of consciousness of self: consciousness of oneself and one’s psychological states in inner sense and consciousness of oneself and one’s states via performing acts of apperception.

Kant’s term for the former was ‘empirical self-consciousness’. A leading term for the latter was ‘transcendental apperception’ (TA). (Kant used the term ‘TA’ in two very different ways, as the name for a faculty of synthesis and as the name for what he also referred to as the ‘I think’, namely, one’s consciousness of oneself as subject.) Here is a passage from the Anthropology in which Kant distinguishes the two kinds of consciousness of self very clearly:

… the “I” of reflection contains no manifold and is always the same in every judgment … Inner experience, on the other hand, contains the matter of consciousness and a manifold of empirical inner intuition: … [1798, Ak. VII:141–2, emphases in the original].

The two kinds of consciousness of self have very different sources.

The source of empirical self-consciousness is what Kant called inner sense.…"

Kant’s View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/

Consul, thanks!

Just a couple quick thoughts. Subjective Idealism would be illusionary in the respect that the logically impossible 'driving while daydreaming' scenario/exercise involves the conscious and subconscious mind (Freud would also include the unconscious too) all working together. In other words, the question becomes which mind was on the beach, and which mind was driving the car(?).

To broad brush-it, Kant's view of noumena is simply what's behind the thing-in-itself. In metaphysical terms, he just offers an explanatory concept to capture the nature of existing things that are truly unknown to us (like how consciousness emerges, matter, gravity, time, etc. etc.) In other words all of existence, and the nature of reality, including consciousness, is not known (of course there are only 'theories' about same). So this idea of noumena was his way of describing a cause or a 'super-turtle' for those things-in-themselves. Otherwise, he embraced complete phenomenology in his metaphysics about the mind (apperception).

You said: I don't think the nonmental physical world is full of quantities but devoid of qualities; so I don't think the qualia of consciousness are the only qualities in the world. The "primary qualities" physics deals with are qualities just like the "secondary qualities" psychology deals with. Anyway, what is a quantity if not a "mathematizable", numerically representable, or measurable quality?




Great question. For one, we certainly have yet another paradox because a 'mathematizable' quantity is considered a metaphysically abstract description of existing-things in and of itself, at the same time, it is inclusive of both quality and quantity relative to existence. We have an objective description of existing things (mathematical models/theories) which are also abstract, similar to the description of consciousness/Qualia. But the rub is that math and formal logic (objectivity) cannot completely explain consciousness, much less describe it (Sentience/qualia; the will, intentionality, love, etc.).

Math= objective, abstract, metaphysical, confers no Darwinian advantages... .
Consciousness/self-awareness/intellect=objective, subjective, metaphysical, phenomenological, logically impossible, Qualia, the Will, confers little Darwinian advantages when emergent instinct is all that's logically necessary... .

[paradox]

For example:...

Discovering animals that previously existed but which hadn't previously been discovered is not the same as "new kinds of animals coming to existence".

Indeed, but let's not catch each other in words, that's why I gave an example to avoid confusion.

Maybe there is no proof when these new kinds of animals come to existence but there is also no proof they exist for thousands of years or since ever.
Surely biologists have some theories or even evidence, but I'm not in the mood to google out (that's why I said I don't follow or study that science)

As for my claim of new human kind not coming to existence today like animals is not entirely true, we did find humans in amazon forests recently, but unfortunate for evolution theorists these were just ordinary people like us, except they never saw a chopper in their life so they started to shoot arrows against chopper lol

Odd enough we never found any "relatives" except skull and bones, which even isn't a fact but just a theory of relative, so neither a proof nor disprove just like with animal world.

[Steve3007]

Indeed, but let's not catch each other in words, that's why I gave an example to avoid confusion...

To recap. You asked (Sculptor) this:

3. If your answer to evolution theory is that it takes a lot of time for evolution to manifest it self then why do we observe new kinds of animals coming to existence, but we do not observe new kinds of people?

If you're asking why we observe new kinds of animals coming into existence, you must have seen some evidence of that new kinds of animals do actually come into existence. When asked, you appeared to cite some proposed evidence. But it wasn't evidence of new kinds of animals coming into existence. It was an article about species being discovered which had not previously been discovered.

Before we move on, can we establish that we know the difference between discovering something and that thing coming into existence.

[Steve3007]

Let's assume we've established that.

Maybe there is no proof when these new kinds of animals come to existence but there is also no proof they exist for thousands of years or since ever.

You're right. There is no proof of any of this. It's possible that they sprang into existence the moment before they were discovered. It's possible that the entire world sprang into existence yesterday. It's possible that extinct species which we know about from fossil records never existed. It's possible that every person who I think lived before I was born, and know about from currently existing evidence, never actually existed. etc. All of these things are possible. We cannot prove whether they are true or not.

Do we consider it useful to entertain the above ideas?

As for my claim of new human kind not coming to existence today like animals is not entirely true, we did find humans in amazon forests recently, but unfortunate for evolution theorists these were just ordinary people like us, except they never saw a chopper in their life so they started to shoot arrows against chopper lol

Nobody seriously thinks that hominids of a different species to homo sapiens currently exist anywhere in the world. As I've said, the evidence suggests that they died out a few tens of thousands of years ago. DNA studies suggest some past interbreeding between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis. Discovering tribes (of homo sapiens) living in the Amazon rainforest, or elsewhere, that people from outside hadn't previously seen is as irrelevant as the article about the discovering of previously unseen flora and fauna that you cited.

Odd enough we never found any "relatives" except skull and bones, which even isn't a fact but just a theory of relative, so neither a proof nor disprove just like with animal world.

That's true. Finding evidence which exists in the present of things that happened in the past does not constitute proof that those things happened in the past. That goes for all things in the past. As I said, it's possible that nothing existed before we were born. As with the fossil and bone records you mentioned there ("skull and bones"), the physical evidence I have now of things existing before I was born doesn't constitute proof.

As I said, do we consider it useful to entertain these kinds of ideas?

[paradox]

Before we move on, can we establish that we know the difference between discovering something and that thing coming into existence.

Indeed, "discovering new being" is not the same as "new being starting to exist"

[paradox]

Do we consider it useful to entertain the above ideas?
As I said, do we consider it useful to entertain these kinds of ideas?

Indeed not, my original question wasn't about proofs vs no proofs but rather about one logic compared to another logic:

We can't prove either as we already established, therefore I think one logic is more likely than the other logic which depends on obvious facts.
But my main argument (in addition to other arguments) is that we are comparing 8.7 millions species vs only 1, where new kinds are discovered in animals (likely evolution) but not new kinds in human kind.

Since we have no proofs, you decide for yourself what makes more sense.

[Steve3007]

Indeed not, my original question wasn't about proofs vs no proofs but rather about one logic compared to another logic:

I doubt very much that you mean "one logic compared to another logic". I strongly suspect that you're not comparing alternative systems of logic here. I suspect what you mean is that you're weighing up the available empirical evidence for two empirical propositions to try to decide which of the two propositions is best supported by that available evidence. Is that right?

But my main argument (in addition to other arguments) is that we are comparing 8.7 millions species vs only 1

We're doing that whichever of those 8.7 million species we consider, right?

, where new kinds are discovered in animals (likely evolution) but not new kinds in human kind.

OK, so we established that new kinds aren't actually discovered, didn't we? We established that already existing kinds are discovered, yes?

Since we have no proofs, you decide for yourself what makes more sense.

First you'd have to clearly state the two empirical propositions the evidence for which we're weighing up.

[paradox]

Indeed not, my original question wasn't about proofs vs no proofs but rather about one logic compared to another logic:

I suspect what you mean is that you're weighing up the available empirical evidence for two empirical propositions to try to decide which of the two propositions is best supported by that available evidence. Is that right?

Tricky question my friend, because empirical implies some sort of evidence.

I have issues expressing my self in English and I think we both have issue understanding each other, and obviously we both have different views toward this problem influenced by some sort of belief for which none of us have any evidence.

So why don't we just scrap all this stuff and return back to topic? because even if we come to something it will likely be all just a subjective moot point.

It was me who started all this by questioning:

I always wondered whether consciousness isn't a biological phenomena?

Which is obviously a question that may lean toward animals vs humans but also toward whether consciousness has anything to do with an illusion or not which is the thread title.

Do we agree on that or do you believe circumvention might bear any fruit?

[Steve3007]

Yeah, sure, I'm happy to scrap all that stuff.

It seems obvious to me that consciousness is a biological phenomenon. What else could it be? It happens in biological entities. And it seems equally obvious to me that consciousness is not an illusion.

[3017Metaphysician]

Yeah, sure, I'm happy to scrap all that stuff.

It seems obvious to me that consciousness is a biological phenomenon. What else could it be? It happens in biological entities. And it seems equally obvious to me that consciousness is not an illusion.

Steve!

Remember, that Darwinism is only a theory that considers an existing ensemble of 'existence', not existence ex nihilo. As such, it doesn't account for emergence biological consciousness other than some notion of primortal soup.

Consciousness seems to be an illusion for some physicalists/materialists. Using the rules of formal logic (a priori) it would be an illusion upon one's attempt at an explanation (conscious, subconscious and unconscious mind all working together) of it. The driving-while-daydreaming exercise provides for that kind of 'evidence'.

[SteveKlinko]

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

No matter how hard I concentrate on that beautiful, High Def, Wide Screen, Multi Color, Conscious Visual Experience that is embedded in the front of my face ... I can't make it go away as long as my Eyes are open. It is there, it Exists, and it must be Explained. No amount of Incoherent Mumbo Jumbo will make it go away.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm sure someone else brought this up above, but the idea of consciousness being an illusion is a completely incoherent idea.

What would be having the illusion, aside from some consciousness?

What the heck is "illusion" supposed to refer to if there is no consciousness?

[psyreporter]

I'm sure someone else brought this up above, but the idea of consciousness being an illusion is a completely incoherent idea.

What would be having the illusion, aside from some consciousness?

What the heck is "illusion" supposed to refer to if there is no consciousness?

Is your argument intended to denote that meaning is necessarily applicable to subjective experience on the basis of which the concept consciousness is identified?

Some argue that that experience itself is not meaningful but bound by predictable laws. (determinism).

The main argument by Free Will Sceptics is the following:

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

As can be seen from the reasoning by Free Will Sceptics, only the idea that mind has a primary role in nature could prevent a belief in determinism.

You once mentioned that you believe that mind originates from the physical, which would be incoherent with your argument that conscious experience is evidence of meaning (i.e. 'not an illusion').

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

If mind originates from the physical, that implies that something that is physical determines who someone is (i.e. his/her thoughts and behaviour). From such a perspective it does not seem logical to maintain a belief in free will or to assign meaning to conscious experience.

Why should one hold a belief (assign meaning) in anything if one argues that the physical, something that can be defined, is the origin of the believing itself? It appears that such a conviction should naturally result in the abolishing of any form of believing, which includes the belief in free will (meaning).

I asked the following two questions, to which you both answered with Yes.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

Then, when I asked what the origin of existence is, you argued that there are just two logical options and that they are both counter-intuitive.

The question is whether the 'physical' can be the origin of the Universe and mind which was based on your argument that there are two logical options to explain an existent (being), 1) it either magically having sprung into existence or 2) having always existed.

"Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

It is seen here that you intend to explain away meaning in physical existence by limiting them to two possible logical options while in the same time maintaining that conscious experience is not an illusion (evidence of meaning).

Your defence of the Kalam cosmological argument by your denotion of time as Tn in topic Endless and infinite by which you argued that an infinite amount of time cannot precede a given Tn (impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’), shows that you consider the physical to be bound by causality.

There is a magical belief involved to consider an existent to be of a quality that requires the described limited frame of thinking (causality) to explain it.

The following provides an example:

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

How would a magical belief be a ground for the assertion that conscious experience is evidence that consciousness cannot be an illusion (i.e. that meaning is applicable)?

With regard your defence of the Kalam cosmological argument, the argument that time necessarily must have had a beginning, you specifically argued the following:

Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

It is clear that you considered an infinite amount relative to Tn (i.e. 6:38 p.m.) on the basis of which you concluded that time must have had a beginning.

When mind originates from the physical, how can consciousness not be an illusion?