Philosophy Discussion Forums

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑July 19th, 2018, 6:09 pm Mosesquine

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑
July 17th, 2018, 9:58 am
What was Billy's mind set when he threw the rock????


Mosesquine wrote;
It seems that you are confusing mental causation with the mind-body problems.

I am not confused, mental, Rationalization, illusions of Reality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge is the causation of the Mind-body problem, the Battle between the Spirit and the Flesh, mind and body, which leads to lunacy.

When the mind, rejects Materiality, the physical aspect of the mental, mind, the World of Reality, Individual begins to howl at the Moon.

Your question is not so clear. What you have in mind to ask is still confusing.

Tamminen;

The "here and now", or presence, is exactly what we mean by consciousness, and if that presence is removed from the whole universe, there is no justification of saying that the universe exists.

You are confused as meaning of consciousness.

The "here and now", or presence, is exactly what we mean by consciousness

Not so!

Our conscious is subject to our existence, in the Here and Now, but the Reality of the Moment, the Here and Now is not subject to our consciousness our existence.

Mosesquine;

Your question is not so clear. What you have in mind to ask is still confusing.

I originally said that Absolutely Bad Knowledge was the cause of Unnecessary suffering.
You said not so, the broken window was caused by billy.

I said what was billy's mind set? Meaning that billy acted upon Absolutely Bad Knowledge, that billy's mind was filled with
Absolutely Bad Knowledge.

That does not seem to be so difficult to understand.

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑July 24th, 2018, 2:28 pm Our conscious is subject to our existence, in the Here and Now, but the Reality of the Moment, the Here and Now is not subject to our consciousness our existence.

Ok. Shall we say that the present, the transcendental subject, is the subject of consciousness of the world? Because this is what I meant.

Tamminen;

To use a simplified metaphor: the universe can be thought of as a "thing" with consciousness as its essential property.

Your simplification of metaphors not only distorts the subject at hand but also the metaphor itself.

The Universe can be thought of as a thing.

True! However Consciousness is not an essential property of the Universe!!!

Potentiality is the essential property of the Universe which can also be said of consciousness, however the Universe is not conscious! Period!

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑July 24th, 2018, 2:53 pm The Universe can be thought of as a thing.

True! However Consciousness is not an essential property of the Universe!!!

Potentiality is the essential property of the Universe which can also be said of consciousness, however the Universe is not conscious! Period!

You and me and countless other subjects are conscious beings of the universe, and this is not accidental. For me there are no periods.

Gertie wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2018, 11:00 amEither we accept we can (roughly, imperfectly) know objective facts about the world, or we don't.

If we don't, then solipsism.

If we do accept we can know (roughly, imperfectly) objective facts about the world, through comparing notes, then we can start constructing a (rough, imperfect) shared model of the world which exists independently of each of our individual (rough, imperfect) observations.

I can point to a green apple, you can say yes you see it too, and we can agree that green apple apple exists independently of each of our independent subjective experience of seeing it.

Pointing to an apple is a subjective act. It makes the apple's existence a subjective (relative) fact, not an objective one. Bell's theorem says that one of two principles is wrong: Locality or counterfactual definiteness. Without the former, one can alter the past. Without the latter, the apple doesn't exist objectively. Choose your interpretation wisely.

It isn't strictly solipsism since to subjective viewpoints do effectively see a common apple. The pen suffices as a subjective viewpoint, even if the thing isn't aware of the apple in the same way we are.

It's an either/or state of ontological fact.

Which is why I'm not big on the whole ontological fact thingy.

Halc wrote: ↑July 24th, 2018, 6:58 pm Pointing to an apple is a subjective act. It makes the apple's existence a subjective (relative) fact, not an objective one.

A subjective viewpoint to an object does not necessarily make the object subjective, it only makes its appearance subjective. Each of us sees an object from a different perspective, but the object itself remains the same. Also we have some common ways of seeing things as Kant pointed out. But the noumenon is still there.

So I am not denying the objective reality. I am denying the possibility that there can be any objective reality without there being the subjective reality as necessarily related with the objective reality. An object is objectively there, but it needs the being of some subject for its being objectively there.

So whenever there is a subject, it sees the same reality, but if there were no subjects, which is impossible, there would be nothing, which is impossible and self-contradictory.

Reality does not care how we see it, but we must be there to guarantee its being. This is also how Wittgenstein saw it: the "metaphysical" subject must be there as an ontological precondition of the being of the world, whatever the world happens to be like.

Tamminen wrote: ↑July 25th, 2018, 3:43 amEach of us sees an object from a different perspective, but the object itself remains the same.

This is apparently not the case. Science says the object itself is probably similar to that as seen from the perspective of a second subject which happens to be an object from the perspective of the first subject. Sorry for the syntactic mess of that sentence, but that is technically how it works, even though nobody really thinks about it in terms like that most of the time. You see me looking at the apple, you can assume that I (second subject) see a similar apple. It is why the moon doesn't disappear when nobody is looking at it for a minute. It is probably still there, but still only relative to the subject, not as an objective noumenon.

o whenever there is a subject, it sees the same reality, but if there were no subjects, which is impossible, there would be nothing, which is impossible and self-contradictory.

Why is no-subjects impossible? In what sense? Seems to fall apart under the chicken and egg analysis. Subjects define things it seems you are saying, so I suppose it is contradictory that a subject not detect itself, but that does not itself preclude a lack of subjects. My definition allows a singularity subject to not detect itself, lacking a second existent (object) to measure. There would be no one-way subject-measures-object relationship.

I realize it is probably pointless to ask you to back up your claims, especially with our definitions so different.

Halc wrote: ↑July 25th, 2018, 6:59 am I realize it is probably pointless to ask you to back up your claims, especially with our definitions so different.

Our definitions of 'subject' are indeed very different. In my definition an ant may be a subject but a stone is not. A stone does not see, for instance.

If two subjects see an apple in the same way so that they can agree on what it is like, this is not only because those subjects are similar but primarily because the apple appears to them in the same way, and it appears to them in the same way because it is the same apple with certain objective properties. What those properties are can only be studied with increasing accuracy, by science for instance. But here we come to the question of what is true and what is not. There can also be false appearances. So things are what they are, not other things. But the being of things depends on the being of subjects. However, it does not depend on the being of any individual subject. If an individual subject dies, there are other subjects that make the being of objects real. If all subjects were removed from the world, which is impossible, the world would not change much, it would only lose its existence. And it must be expressed this way, even if it looks paradoxical.

I have found that this distinction between the subject's role in defining the object and the role that the being of the subject has in the being of the object is very difficult to see. I think this goes beyond the Copernican revolution of Kant.

Halc;

Why is no-subjects impossible? In what sense? Seems to fall apart under the chicken and egg analysis.

Your reasoning is a Rationalization, is not Rational.

Which came first the chicken or the Egg?

The Chicken came first of course, however, the Chicken was a mutation.
The first Chicken was not born of a Chicken Egg, the first Chicken was born of
some other fowl creature.

Tamminen

Our definitions of 'subject' are indeed very different. In my definition an ant may be a subject but a stone is not. A stone does not see, for instance.

Your reasoning is as bad as Halc's.


A Subject is the subject of the sentence.


All entities are a subject, being a physical subject is not required..

Halc:

6 : something (such as a spirit) felt or believed to be present

'Presence', as I use that word, has nothing to do with the above definition. It is just our everyday "here and now", being in the world as experiencing subjects, as opposed to our instruments and other objects that are at our presence or somewhere else in the universe as being in themselves, without a presence of their own.

Tamminen wrote: ↑July 25th, 2018, 8:31 am Our definitions of 'subject' are indeed very different. In my definition an ant may be a subject but a stone is not. A stone does not see, for instance.

As I said, I understand your definitions. My use of the word 'conscious' is a poor choice given the relationship I define for it, but it seems to be the relationship that gives objects their existence to the subject. I need a better word, and life forms are fundamentally no different than any other arrangement of matter in my book. That is where we differ. I gave what I see as the fundamental distinction, even if 'conscious of' is a poor word to describe the relationship.

I like the fact that you include ants. A lot of people say humans are conscious, rocks are not. No opinion about anything in between, or if they have one, then only humans period. How about a plant? How about a single-cell life form or a robot AI? Just curious. You probably include ET life if you include ants.

If two subjects see an apple in the same way so that they can agree on what it is like, this is not only because those subjects are similar but primarily because the apple appears to them in the same way, and it appears to them in the same way because it is the same apple with certain objective properties.

I pointed out why this isn't a true statement. Yes, they can agree on what the apple is like, but the properties of the apple are still subjective (relative to the subjects), and not necessarily objective.

What those properties are can only be studied with increasing accuracy, by science for instance. But here we come to the question of what is true and what is not. There can also be false appearances.

No, I'm assuming we're not being fed lies. An assumption, sure, but we have to go with what we experience.

So things are what they are, not other things. But the being of things depends on the being of subjects.

Agree there as well, but I don't assume the <objective> being of subjects.

If all subjects were removed from the world, which is impossible, the world would not change much, it would only lose its existence.

You mean it is impossible for all life to end after some time? You seem to consider life to make some ontological difference, and here you say it cannot be 'removed'. Not sure what you mean by that word choice.

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑July 25th, 2018, 11:38 am Halc;
Your reasoning is a Rationalization, is not Rational.

What claim did I rationalize? I've tried to stay away from just asserting claims as everybody else seems to be doing.

Halc wrote: ↑July 25th, 2018, 6:20 pm You mean it is impossible for all life to end after some time? You seem to consider life to make some ontological difference, and here you say it cannot be 'removed'. Not sure what you mean by that word choice.

I only wanted to describe, with the obvious paradox, the hypothetical and impossible situation that there are no subjects, no points of view to the world. No point of view, no world. If life ends some time, it has nevertheless been, and when it has been, there has been an objective world for it. Now we come to the difficult question of the relation between subjective time and physical time, and the question whether the subjective present is eternal. I think it must be, because else there would be a point when existence changes into nothingness, which is absurd. Being does not depend on time, so that now there is being and then there is no being. Time is one of the basic components in the structure of being, along with the triadic structure 'the subject is conscious of the world'. This means that there is always some manifestation of subjectivity, a presence in relation to which the world exists. But this reasoning leads us quite deep into metaphysics and to the theory of generic subjective continuity, which has been discussed elsewhere on this forum.