I have no reason not to believe you. and in the past few minutes I have found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory which does describe alternatives.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:18 pmThat's what I've been doing all this time: telling you that there is another "conceptual frame" if you will, nondual thinking. Not just for theories of existence but also for pretty much everything else. Thinking without divisions. It is fundamentally incompatible with theories of substance.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:54 pm Atla wrote:
I did wonder if perhaps I am trapped in a box. If you or anyone else knows of another conceptual frame for theories of existence ,mediated by a specific vocabulary, please tell.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.
I did not say you are trapped in a box I said you have not examined a box . A box is not a set of disconnected ideas but is an integrated heuristic system.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/substanc/
As far as I know it doesn't have a well-established specific vocabulary yet, especially not in English, I tried to use words that they usually seem to use when explaining nondualism.
Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
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?
Where is the middle ground?
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
I can jump back and forth between the two thinking modes. Actually I mostly tend to be a dualist in my everyday life too, no one has an idea that I think differently because I don't show it.
But there is no middle ground, the two ways of thinking are fundamentally incompatible. And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it.
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
Atla wrote:
Only two?And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it.
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
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 "anomalies" though, especially considering that some people have split minds in various ways. (Maybe I'm saying too much now, but I suspect that Dennett is a classic example of this.)
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
Atla wrote:
Why so coy?
Please name those two major categories according to your preferred nomenclature , or mine, or someone else's.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.
Why so coy?
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
Nondual thinking: we realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" are not-two, not-one.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:52 am Atla wrote:
Please name those two major categories according to your preferred nomenclature , or mine, or someone else's.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.
Why so coy?
Dualistic thinking: we don't realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" really are things, in themselves.
Am I talking to a wall?
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
Later ...Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:58 amI can jump back and forth between the two thinking modes. Actually I mostly tend to be a dualist in my everyday life too, no one has an idea that I think differently because I don't show it.
But there is no middle ground, the two ways of thinking are fundamentally incompatible. And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it.
I was referring to alternative bodies of knowledge, not modes of thinking.
Still, it's not ideal to embrace both of the above modes of thinking since the latter is unaware of basic philosophical tenets. Since Kant, what you refer to as "nondual thinking" is well established in scientific and philosophical circles, and Einstein made clear that all is relative so there already is strong awareness that the divisions and classification used for various phenomena are as based on our evolved senses as the actual things being observed.
Often this is not stated for the sake of economy, but is widely understood by scientists and philosophers.
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
If it's as understood as you claim then why can't you solve the Hard problem of consciousness?Greta wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:35 pmLater ...Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:58 amI can jump back and forth between the two thinking modes. Actually I mostly tend to be a dualist in my everyday life too, no one has an idea that I think differently because I don't show it.
But there is no middle ground, the two ways of thinking are fundamentally incompatible. And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it.I was referring to alternative bodies of knowledge, not modes of thinking.
Still, it's not ideal to embrace both of the above modes of thinking since the latter is unaware of basic philosophical tenets. Since Kant, what you refer to as "nondual thinking" is well established in scientific and philosophical circles, and Einstein made clear that all is relative so there already is strong awareness that the divisions and classification used for various phenomena are as based on our evolved senses as the actual things being observed.
Often this is not stated for the sake of economy, but is widely understood by scientists and philosophers.
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
Don't be so bloody rudeAm I talking to a wall?
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
Atla wrote:
However there is no proof that thingness is substantially real in the sense that thingness transcends social reality. So I think I agree with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence
PS It's the responsibility of the transmitter in this case, you, to make yourself clear to the receiver, in this case, me.
Coy is not pejorative is it? I did not mean to hurt your feelings.
"We"? Concepts of differentiated entities are socially mediated. There may be life- supporting reasons for crystallising in conceptual language a specific thingness.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.
However there is no proof that thingness is substantially real in the sense that thingness transcends social reality. So I think I agree with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence
PS It's the responsibility of the transmitter in this case, you, to make yourself clear to the receiver, in this case, me.
Coy is not pejorative is it? I did not mean to hurt your feelings.
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
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.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:04 pm Atla wrote:
"We"? Concepts of differentiated entities are socially mediated. There may be life- supporting reasons for crystallising in conceptual language a specific thingness.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.
However there is no proof that thingness is substantially real in the sense that thingness transcends social reality. So I think I agree with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence
PS It's the responsibility of the transmitter in this case, you, to make yourself clear to the receiver, in this case, me.
Coy is not pejorative is it? I did not mean to hurt your feelings.
Besides why would anything really be my responsibility here. I was unaware that this was strictly a Western-modern-philosophy forum.
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
And what you find is:
Nondualism is a fuzzy concept, for which many definitions can be found.
This thread is about two things that arise in modern-ish Western Philosophy. In as far as they concern 'dualism', then it is the dualism of that tradition. Same word, but nothing to do with Nondualism in a religious or mystical sense.I was unaware that this was strictly a Western-modern-philosophy forum.
Re: Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"
It is somewhat fuzzy so I made it clear that I'm talking about its essence, thinking without divisions, percieving the world without divisions. That doesn't mean that my stance doesn't exist. Nor was I talking about anything religious, you are just making these things up now.Londoner wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:33 pmAnd what you find is:
Nondualism is a fuzzy concept, for which many definitions can be found.
This thread is about two things that arise in modern-ish Western Philosophy. In as far as they concern 'dualism', then it is the dualism of that tradition. Same word, but nothing to do with Nondualism in a religious or mystical sense.I was unaware that this was strictly a Western-modern-philosophy forum.
We can't solve the Hard problem of consciousness using the same dualistic means that created it. You don't have to accept this, of course.