Hello Mww, I am familiar with Transcendental Philosophy and do deploy the a priori vs. a posteriori distinction; however, I don’t agree 100% with Kant...
Hello Janus, I don’t see, upon looking at the empirical experiments of blindsight people, why one would conclude that they no longer qualitatively exp...
Hello Philosophim, No worries. You can think of it like this: The sense of sight (as a qualitative experience) has something it is like in and of itse...
Hello Philosophim, Let me clarify my terminology with more technical verbiage as, although I do think we are progressing, I think we are (1) using the...
Hello Mww, I agree and think this is true if we were speaking about what you can empirically know (but that’s just studying phenomena which tell us no...
Hello Janus, This is where the obscurity sets in with Kant (for me): what do you mean “logically speaking”? If you can’t point to your experience of t...
Hello Tom Storm, It is basically the golden rule but without Christian metaphysics per se. I don’t think most Christians agree with Kastrup, because h...
Hello Janus, I would say that they are still seeing the colour card, to some degree, if they can accurately guess them; and the fact that sometimes th...
Hello Philosophim, I think that, in hindsight, it isn’t helping our conversation to call qualia “subjective experience” (in your case) nor “qualitativ...
Hello Mww, I see. If this is true, then how is it inferred therefrom that there are multiple things-in-themselves and not a thing-in-itself? However, ...
Hello Tom Storm, There’s the answer Kastrup will tell you, and there’s a grimmer answer I will tell you. Kastrup’s: Morality stems from our understand...
Hello Janus, This concedes my point about Kant: he is using phenomena to reverse engineer that there are things-in-themselves while claiming that phen...
Hello Janus, I am unsure as to your point here in terms of your quote of me. I was saying that you were equivocating ‘seeing’ when referring to quanti...
Hello Philosophim, Firstly, I agree that “theory” does not refer to the same thing as it is used in colloquial speech in science, and I was using it i...
Hello Philosophim, The point is that I don’t. It is not a scientific fact that brains produce consciousness. It is a scientific theory, but scientific...
Hello Mww, If it never becomes a sensation, then it sounds like you are saying we never come in contact, even indirectly, with the things-in-themselve...
Hello Janus, I would argue that they do not “see” in the same manner (i.e., one is qualitatively seeing while the other is just quantitatively process...
Hello Janus, Sounds like a plan! I wouldn’t say that we should be idealists because we can “confidently extrapolate to a view of the nature of the cos...
Hello Philosophim, I thought you were arguing that minds emerge from brains? Am I misunderstanding you? Or you are saying that the objective vs. subje...
Hello Janus, Oh, I apologize: I must have misunderstood. If you would like, then I can resume our conversation by responding to your original post (th...
Hello 180 Proof, And this is why I would claim my thoughts are mine. We aren’t saying anything different, as far as I am understanding. This is just f...
Hello Mww, I appreciate the analogy: thank you! Here’s what I am trying to say in terms of that analogy: the idea that the box is a thing-in-itself wh...
Hello 180 Proof, This is just unparsimonious hard skepticism. How do you know that you aren’t a brain in a vat? You don’t. I know that I am having tho...
Hello Janus, Absolutely no worries! I can respond more adequately if you would like, but it seems like you are hinting that you would like to end the ...
Hello Philosophim, I appreciate you sharing those links with me: blindsight is, indeed, a very interesting topic. I read through the article and, long...
Hello Philosophim, Thank you for the clarifications: now that I have a better grasp (hopefully) of what you are saying, let me offer some worries/crit...
Hello Tom Storm, Those two statements contradict each other. Can you refresh my memory? What fallacious ideas? This is true of all metaphysical theori...
Hello Mww, I am sorry to hear that Mww! I hope you are all ok! Here is an example of where I am confused: if the phenomena don’t provide knowledge abo...
Hello Tom Storm, I did not come to say there is a universal mind on faith nor is it grounded in fallacious argumentation. What fallacies do you think ...
Hello 180 Proof, One does not have to have public evidence of something to know it necessarily. If that were the case, then you can’t know that you ha...
Hello Janus, It is the best, allegedly, the most parsimonious general account of what the world (i.e., reality) is. In contradistinction to its main c...
Hello Philosophim, Thank you for the elaboration, as I think I am beginning to penetrate into your terminology. However, I want to keep explaining it ...
Hello 180 Proof, Of course breathing isn’t reducible to lungs, but it is reducible to the total functions and parts responsible for it. Obviously ther...
Hello Philosophim, Oh I see: fair enough! Although I understand it better, I still don’t think I have completely pinned down your terminology; so let ...
Hello Philosophim, I know we terminated our conversation about consciousness on my thread because you felt there wasn’t much more that could be said, ...
Hello Wonderer1, Metaphysics is just as disciplined as science: they just use different criteria to determine their respective inquiries. Also, metaph...
Hello 180 Proof, How can mental activity be both weakly emergent and irreductive? That seems, to me, like a contradictio in adjecto. I see. I took a l...
Hello Janus, Abductive reasoning is the most speculative type of reasoning we have, and metaphysics is also engaged in abductive reasoning. Having spe...
Hello Janus, This is true that science uses testable hypothesis (and that doesn’t positively prove the theories) while metaphysics isn’t as engaged in...
Hello 180 Proof, Interesting: what would you say are the methodological distinctions between them? Fair enough. I am never gotten the opportunity to d...
Hello Janus, I somewhat agree, we are certainly in the business of plausibility and not certainty; but this is also true of scientific theories: it is...
Hello 180 Proof, Interesting. Let me phrase it a bit differently: what ontology of being/reality would you subscribe to (if any)? To me, I don’t mind ...
Hello Janus, Metaphysics is not science: it doesn’t posit a hypothesis that can be empirically tested. Metaphysics is in the business of trying to giv...
Hello Mww, My point is that under Kantianism, we don’t get knowledge of the world: we just get phenomenon; and, so, how can you claim that the world i...
Yes, in a sense, if you wanted to use that terminology, then fundamentally there is one Universal Spirit whereof there are derivate "spirits" (viz., a...
Hello Mww, If you can only have refined knowledge of representations, then how can you know that the world itself doesn’t change in its time as much a...
Hello Janus, For analytic idealism, consciousness does not reside in the brain: the brain is an extrinsic representation of aspects of mind. The mind ...
Hello Mww, Would you say that Kant thought we could gather knowledge of the world (which is being represented by us) or would you say he thought that ...
Hello Janus, Our “heads” which we experience phenomenally, in the sense of a physical head of our bodies within our conscious experience, are, under b...
Comments