You're proving my many points. Thanks to oblige.
EB
You're proving my many points. Thanks to oblige.
You totally misunderstood my last 4-5 comments, but that's normal. The whole point of my position is that it lacks dualistic thinking, which is pretty much inherent to all of Western philosophy.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:28 pmYes, that's exactly what I said.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:09 pm As I see is it you take the split-minded cognition and project it onto the dawn of mankind and before, arriving at the wrong picture. The Neanderthal didn't notice that there is a mind realm because there wasn't anything to notice. There was just existence. Later humans developed a strong sense of self-awareness, and then they could turn to an "inner world", and then they arrived at the split cognition of inner world/mind vs outer world/material world.
Except that people had a mind already even before developing self-awareness.Yes, it's exactly what I said.
But young children are not normally self-absorbed. They are essentially paying attention to what seems to be going on around them at least as soon as they can have some kind of thought process.You mean, like science is wrong because of all those theoretical complications? Let's do God. So much more simple.
My own kind of dualism isn't an assumption.So, you don't know pain and what is pain whenever you are in pain?!Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:09 pm And ultimately nothing is provable, but if we aren't trying to find the best guess then there is absolutely no point in any kind of philosophical debate. It's also not a fact that we know our mind, for that matter, that's just a rather suspect belief. Strictly speaking there is no "we", "know" or "mind", all we can say that there is something rather than absolutely nothing. Well let's agree to disagree then.
Whoa.
EB
That is not how Bayesian inference works.
Sure, it's the natural position to evolve as you develop self-consciousness. We don't know how to explain the material world in terms of our subjective experience and we don't know how to explain our subjective experience in terms of the material world. The two at least seem very different. Subjective experience is only what we experience when we experience something. We think of the material world as existing independently of our perception of it. We suppose the Moon to exist even when we're not looking at it. We don't think our mind exists if we're not thinking or dreaming. I'm not sure that's anything peculiar to Western thought.
How would you know?!
How could you possibly know it's baseless? You're not inside my mind.
Clearly you didn'tSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:28 pm
I don't think I did. I certainly understood what you wrote.
I think I did understand that.
What makes you think it's the natural position when the ideas of material world and subjective experience are unnatural? What is there to explain, when the two are the same thing said twice? What seems different when we don't deliberately talk about two different things? They are just the same period. So many baseless assumptions.Sure, it's the natural position to evolve as you develop self-consciousness. We don't know how to explain the material world in terms of our subjective experience and we don't know how to explain our subjective experience in terms of the material world. The two at least seem very different. Subjective experience is only what we experience when we experience something. We think of the material world as existing independently of our perception of it. We suppose the Moon to exist even when we're not looking at it.
That's the most baseless claim I've heard lately. Who is crazy enough to think that their mind doesn't exist when not thinking or dreaming?We don't think our mind exists if we're not thinking or dreaming. I'm not sure that's anything peculiar to Western thought.
You don't know how little you understand and how obvious that is to someone who was already there like 10-20+ years ago.How would you know?!
What exactly did I say that motivated your claim here?
You don't even have a mind separate from the rest of the world. That too is a baseless assumption, and we share the same world.How could you possibly know it's baseless? You're not inside my mind.
What physical world. Totally baseless assumption, there's just the world. You don't even know what "we" means.We could meet somewhere in the physical world and have a coffee or something.
What minds couldn't meet? What are you talking about? We can meet and we bring our heads with us, with our "minds" inside, why is that not a meeting?But as far as I know, there's no way our minds could meet.
What "unless"? You are making a long list of Cartesian nonsense claims and I'm supposed to argue otherwise? I'm out.Unless you could argue convincingly otherwise.
How any idea could possibly be unnatural if there's no difference between mind and nature as you claim?
There is no assumption. There is a natural belief human beings are most likely to develop given enough time.
Sure, I already said so. Everything we know is subjective experience and we know nothing else.
Again: your cognitive system works like this now, mine doesn't work like this now, and even for you it wasn't always like that. The rest is a trap of projection and circular reasoning, and you don't understand your own question, the one I should answer. I'm out, to me when we get rid of the standard Cartesian confusion, is when philosophy begins at all.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:13 pmHow any idea could possibly be unnatural if there's no difference between mind and nature as you claim?
Me I think we get to develop the two distinct notions of material world and subjective experience because there is a difference to begin with. So, it's natural.
I don't mean that the material world and subjective experience would be two distinct substances à la Descartes, only that they are distinct, for example like a model is necessarily distinct from what it represents.There is no assumption. There is a natural belief human beings are most likely to develop given enough time.
Nobody gets to conceptualise the notion of a material world. It's already intuitively worked out by our brain well before we could even think in the rational way necessary to conceptualise anything. It's a natural belief.Sure, I already said so. Everything we know is subjective experience and we know nothing else.
The distinction between subjective experience and material world is an epistemological one: we know our subjective experience, we only believe in the material world. There's nothing we can do about this distinction. That's just the way the brain works and how any cognitive system would have to work. It's the natural distinction between what the model is onto-logically and what the model represents epistemo-logically.
And by the way, you haven't answered my question yet: don't you know pain and what is pain whenever you are in pain?
EB
At least it's as if you could explain yourself.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:13 pm Again: your cognitive system works like this now, mine doesn't work like this now, and even for you it wasn't always like that. The rest is a trap of projection and circular reasoning, and you don't understand your own question, the one I should answer. I'm out, to me when we get rid of the standard Cartesian confusion, is when philosophy begins at all.