Philosophy Now Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 10:24 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 8:43 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 11:53 pm


Experience is the physical world altering a subject's biology in some way. It was Spinoza that pointed out that the body is the mind's first idea, and it is through the body and its alteration that one comes to know the world, this is as emergent as it gets, or you could call it biological readout; apparent reality is biological reactions. Causation is reaction directed outward, causation you might say is the subject bestowing meaning upon a meaningless world. The physical world is causation to all reactionary creatures and all reactionary creatures are causation in the physical world.

Spinoza was not aware of the hard problem of consciousness.

Spinoza was more aware than most about consciousness itself, but you are right science has avoided the topic until it realized it was playing an elementary role in what we call apparent reality; the quantum enigma changed all that.

What do you mean?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:19 am I think this is a double reification...

Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Entities are conscious [adjective]. It's one of their qualities.
Entities are not inert.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:13 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:19 am I think this is a double reification...

Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind

Entities are conscious [adjective]. It's one of their qualities.
Entities are not inert.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

Something has the quality/facet/attribute of being conscious.

There's no separate thing called consciousness.

That entity is also minding.

The entity is not inert.

There's no obervation: here's some conscousness, look it can't do anything, now it's attached to a mind, now it is no longer inert.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:04 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:13 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:19 am I think this is a double reification...

Entities are conscious [adjective]. It's one of their qualities.
Entities are not inert.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

Something has the quality/facet/attribute of being conscious.

True. Consciousness is not a thing by itself.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:04 pm There's no separate thing called consciousness.

True again.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:04 pm That entity is also minding.

What do you mean? Do you mean that that entity has mind?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:04 pm The entity is not inert.

True.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:04 pm There's no obervation: here's some conscousness, look it can't do anything, now it's attached to a mind, now it is no longer inert.

Now you are mixing things. When I say that consciousness is inert I mean two things: 1) It cannot move other things so It cannot cause and 2) I am attacking the materialist point of view that claims that consciousness is the result of the process in matter. Even if we accept this premise it does not follow that consciousness can cause things. In another word, materialist owes to explain how experience can turn into causation. So we are dealing with two gaps in here: 1) Emergence of consciousness and 2) Emergence of causation from experience.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:26 pm What do you mean? Do you mean that that entity has mind?

I might say...
that entity is a mind.
or (to keep even with consciousness)
That entity is minding (engaging in the process of being a mind)

Now you are mixing things. When I say that consciousness is inert I mean two things: 1) It cannot move other things so It cannot cause and

To me that's a bit like saying the red of an apple can't cause anything or even more so the volume of the apple can't cause anything. It makes it seem like you can have the volume without the apple. You have an apple and we can talk about it's volume. You have entity and it is conscious. An adjective. A person's bigness can't do anything. A big person can do things.

2) I am attacking the materialist point of view that claims that consciousness is the result of the process in matter.

Great, I am with you there.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:48 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:26 pm What do you mean? Do you mean that that entity has mind?

I might say...
that entity is a mind.
or (to keep even with consciousness)
That entity is minding (engaging in the process of being a mind)

Ok.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:48 pm

Now you are mixing things. When I say that consciousness is inert I mean two things: 1) It cannot move other things so It cannot cause and

To me that's a bit like saying the red of an apple can't cause anything or even more so the volume of the apple can't cause anything. It makes it seem like you can have the volume without the apple. You have an apple and we can talk about it's volume. You have entity and it is conscious. An adjective. A person's bigness can't do anything. A big person can do things.

I am not talking about the object, an apple for example. Whether there is a real object is the subject of further discussion. I am talking about the experience. I am saying that experience perse cannot cause anything in other words, one needs to explain how experience turns into causation. This is needed since experience and causation are two different phenomena.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:48 pm

2) I am attacking the materialist point of view that claims that consciousness is the result of the process in matter.

Great, I am with you there.

Cool.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:45 pm I am not talking about the object, an apple for example. Whether there is a real object is the subject of further discussion.

I'm not raising that issue, just using examples of the difference between saying something has a quality (adjective) and calling that quality a thing (reification).

I am talking about the experience. I am saying that experience perse cannot cause anything in other words, one needs to explain how experience turns into causation. This is needed since experience and causation are two different phenomena.

But there's no experience floating impotently in the air. There are conscious entities.

Experiencing is an aspect of being an entity. Entities have other aspects - such as being causal.

We can't talk about aspects with out the entity as if they are entities.

being three dimensional isn't causal either. But three dimentionality is not a thing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:54 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:45 pm I am not talking about the object, an apple for example. Whether there is a real object is the subject of further discussion.

I'm not raising that issue, just using examples of the difference between saying something has a quality (adjective) and calling that quality a thing (reification).

I am talking about the experience. I am saying that experience perse cannot cause anything in other words, one needs to explain how experience turns into causation. This is needed since experience and causation are two different phenomena.

But there's no experience floating impotently in the air. There are conscious entities.

Experiencing is an aspect of being an entity. Entities have other aspects - such as being causal.

We can't talk about aspects with out the entity as if they are entities.

being three dimensional isn't causal either. But three dimentionality is not a thing.

I think we are on the same page. You think that there is an entity with the ability to experience and cause so-called mind.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:20 pm I think we are on the same page. You think that there is an entity with the ability to experience and cause so-called mind.

I am not sure I would say the entity causes mind. It is mind/body.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:20 pm I think we are on the same page. You think that there is an entity with the ability to experience and cause so-called mind.

I am not sure I would say the entity causes mind. It is mind/body.

I didn't say that the entity causes mind. I said that entity is what I call mind.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:51 pm I didn't say that the entity causes mind. I said that entity is what I call mind.

You think that there is an entity with the ability to experience and cause so-called mind.

I bolded the parts I was responding to. From here...
viewtopic.php?p=619231#p619231

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:50 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:51 pm I didn't say that the entity causes mind. I said that entity is what I call mind.

You think that there is an entity with the ability to experience and cause so-called mind.

I bolded the parts I was responding to. From here...
viewtopic.php?p=619231#p619231

It is better that I rephrase my sentence "You think that there is an entity You think that there is an entity so-called mind with the ability to experience and cause.".

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:05 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:50 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:51 pm I didn't say that the entity causes mind. I said that entity is what I call mind.

You think that there is an entity with the ability to experience and cause so-called mind.

I bolded the parts I was responding to. From here...
viewtopic.php?p=619231#p619231

It is better that I rephrase my sentence "You think that there is an entity You think that there is an entity so-called mind with the ability to experience and cause.".

I don't know if the beginning's doubling is on purpose, but yes, the latter part of the sentence works for me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:10 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:05 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:50 am
I bolded the parts I was responding to. From here...
viewtopic.php?p=619231#p619231

It is better that I rephrase my sentence "You think that there is an entity You think that there is an entity so-called mind with the ability to experience and cause.".

I don't know if the beginning's doubling is on purpose, but yes, the latter part of the sentence works for me.

Sorry for the doubling at the start of the sentence.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:26 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:10 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:05 pm
It is better that I rephrase my sentence "You think that there is an entity You think that there is an entity so-called mind with the ability to experience and cause.".

I don't know if the beginning's doubling is on purpose, but yes, the latter part of the sentence works for me.

Sorry for the doubling at the start of the sentence.

No worries. I figured is was a pasting thing.