But how could I when NONE has?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:08 amQuote a philosopher who has explained the nature of mind or of consciousness.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:18 amThe so-called 'nature of consciousness' may not be known, by you. But this does NOT mean that the 'nature of consciousness' is still unknown.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm
Spelling of Chalmers name noted. The topic he raised has not gone away because the nature of consciousness is still unknown, as is the nature of mind.
As for the 'nature of mind' this is ALSO ALREADY KNOWN, by some.
Human beings REALLY do have such a narrowed or closed way of LOOKING AT 'things' that they ACTUALLY think or BELIEVE that because they have NOT YET been exposed to some 'thing', then that 'thing' is "still unknown".It can be. The word 'philosophy' can be about absolutely ANY thing of one's choosing. Just like absolutely EVERY word can be about whatever one so chooses it to be about.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Is philosophy about letting a topic die because material science has not made it factual yet?
But I found using words more closely to how they once meant, and as long and that usage still works with 'current' usages, then that to be far more helpful in being about to UNIFY absolutely EVERY thing together as thee One Everything.
What, exactly, again, is 'the question' that, supposedly, remains?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm There are many forums where the topic of consciousness is raised as well as on twitter. Original ideas are tenuous as they come up against programmed thought and the certainty of a ‘this is the way it is’ mentality. That is not new. Ideas such as panpsychism, the term first coined in the 16th century, meet with skepticism, if not outright dismissal.
Still the question remains, as consciousness is a fact, just as much as existence is a fact and its laws will continue to be studied.
And to NOT be ABLE to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, is because 'two' SIDES have been 'created'. Even you talked about "choosing the middle way of two opposites" but now continue on about how there IS 'two sides'. But there IS NOT ACTUALLY 'two sides' AT ALL. There is just a human being created PERCEPTION that there are 'two sides'.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Both sides; physicalist view and primacy of consciousness view have prominent voices, to dismiss either side is flippancy.
There are ACTUAL Truths, and ACTUAL Falsehoods, within "BOTH, perceived, SIDES" or versions. And, like just about EVERY 'one' OR 'other' perceived 'things' thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' lays somewhere in about the middle, with a part of BOTH 'sides' existing somewhere, in 'there'.
Absolutely EVERY 'thing' just exists, that EVERY 'thing' is just labelled and provided with a name is because human beings see 'it' (that 'thing') as such. And, without a human being 'it' (that 'thing') would only be a pattern of ....owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm So Searle is not convinced, he does not have to be. Five discussions were a lot on one topic. Searle probably would not have said “gotta run” to Socrates either until he had attended at least five dialogues, respectfully listening before he went back to what he did for a living. It behoves scientists and philosophers to think outside the box, even if they mostly settle for one perspective, as everything is necessarily specialized.
In fact Chalmers’ view is not dismissive of brain processing, which reductionists love, so that should garner him some attention. It may answer why “A rose is only a rose because man sees it as such; without him it would be only a pattern of energy vortices.”
Even the word 'thing' is just another label/name of what you say, and see, here as being 'only a pattern of energy vortices'.AND, if there is a solution or not, correct?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm This topic was supposed to be about the opposing views of Design vs. Evolution.
Also, when you say this topic was, "supposed to be, about the opposing views of Design verses Evolution", what do you propose this topic is about now?
And, the opposing views of Design/Creation and of Evolution have been discussed for millennia, so WHY make another discussion thread about those OBVIOUS opposing views?
WHY would that supposedly be a "non-starter"? This just sounds like you just are wanting to express your OWN opinion, and NOT really wanting to have a dialogue at all, which may evoke insight or clarity.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Design, not necessarily meaning a Deity, as that would be a non-starter.
Do you have some sort of BELIEF that a 'Deity' (whatever that means or refer to, to you) is an IMPOSSIBILITY?
LOLowl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:44 pm Rather a discussion in light of all that is known since Darwin’s day about what is primary in and to cosmic evolution which had been under way for quite some time before as Darwin saw it: ‘life emerged from a body of water on land.’
LOL
LOL
It is this SIMPLE, absolutely EVERY 'thing' is in Creation, through an evolutionary process. And, EVERY 'thing' was created, and will be created, besides thee Universe, Itself.
What does 'Design' even mean to you?
And, 'Life', Itself, IS 'emerging' ALWAYS. There was NO 'start'.
Some things ARE ALREADY KNOWN, but which have NOT YET been explained.
If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST be so, correct?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:08 am I am not aware of any. A belief in a Deity is just that. If someone is enlightened they know. They likely have little to say as what is beyond quality and thought cannot be described by concepts limited to qualities and thought.
And, some of 'you', human beings, view and do things differently. But so what?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:08 am Darwin was not an abstract thinker he found mathematics repugnant. Still abstract thought flourishes in mathematics and theoretical physics. Many think of themselves as rational beings with the power to choose and the ability to eventually know the nature of reality. Others view themselves as biological entities bound by natural law which sociobiology views as responsible for morality and ethics. Which would be alright so long as it is not the law of the jungle.