Philosophy Now Forum

I made it as clear as I could. You claimed to have great knowledge of philosophy so I assumed you came across the nondualist stance before. Or if not, you would look it up. And what you find is: Nondualism is a fuzzy concept, for which many definitions can be found. I was unaware that this was stri...

Atla wrote: Nondual thinking: we realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" are not-two, not-one. Dualistic thinking: we don't realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" really are things, in themselves. "We"? Concepts of differentiated en...

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:52 pm

Am I talking to a wall?

Don't be so bloody rude

Well don't call me coy after I just spent 10 pages of explaining the differences between the two ways of thinking. And you come and say I never even named my stance.

Atla, if you subscribe to an alternative body of knowledge that runs parallel to the mainstream body of knowledge, doesn't that mean you are simply trapped in a different box to the one in which Belinda allegedly resides? Where is the middle ground? I can jump back and forth between the two thinkin...

Atla wrote: Yes, I see these two as the two major categories of human thinking. By and large I haven't heard of a third one yet. Maybe there are, correct me if I'm wrong. Please name those two major categories according to your preferred nomenclature , or mine, or someone else's. Why so coy? Nondua...

Atla wrote: And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it. Only two? Yes, I see these two as the two major categories of human thinking. By and large I haven't heard of a third one yet. Maybe there are, correct me if I'm wrong. Sure, there are some "anom...

Atla, if you subscribe to an alternative body of knowledge that runs parallel to the mainstream body of knowledge, doesn't that mean you are simply trapped in a different box to the one in which Belinda allegedly resides? Where is the middle ground? I can jump back and forth between the two thinkin...

Atla wrote: Your understanding of philosophy is quite incomplete. There indeed exists a completely different way of looking at the world, which is distinct from idealism/monism/dual aspect monism etc. even though this is probably in your lexicon. You are trapped in a box, stop criticizing me for it...

Londoner wrote: But the different theories of existence would have different notions of what 'substance' means, and 'existence' for that matter! But that was not the case for the two great Continental rationalists Descartes and Spinoza. They shared the same idea of what ontic substance means. Howev...

And what separates the circle from infinity, considering this circular nature makes the beginning cause ever-present, as it circles upon itself without end? Our universe may be circular, but outside this universe everything else may exist too. An infinity of other universes and non-universe-configu...

Again: monism is based on dualistic thinking. I am not a monist. "Substance" is a thought that we project onto the world. We normally percieve our thoughts like they would come in units. But in truth, they do not come in units at all, they just appear to. So when we project a thought onto ...

I thought I was following Chalmer's categorization of "hard problem" vs "easy problems". Maybe I wasn't. The individual "I", and self-awareness, and sleep vs awake, and conscious vs unconscious, and conscious vs subconscious, and alive vs not-alive etc. are easy problem...

And considering that you guys are the ones using the word "consciousness" for like at least 5 different things and don't notice it.. This whole thread is about the "Hard problem of consciousness", therefore we're concerned with only those aspects of consciousness that entail the...

Atla wrote: And how would you like it if someone with no acquaintance with the lexicon or frames of reference tried to reasonably discuss a scientific topic with you ? Also, you don't seem to understand that your philosophical lexicon of dualistic thinking IS the main problem here. Everyone's lexic...

Atla wrote: Almost no one ever understands my position so I'm used to that actually. And how would you like it if someone with no acquaintance with the lexicon or frames of reference tried to reasonably discuss a scientific topic with you ? Also, you don't seem to understand that your philosophical...