You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

J

Comments

Yes, good analysis. As you point out, it comes down to 1) whether you think suffering can be anything other than subjective, and 2) whether my identit...
December 09, 2025 at 18:13
Not being a mathematician, I may be missing some of the nuances of what you're bringing up, but it reminds me of translation problems in general. Is i...
December 09, 2025 at 15:53
This is a good point. You're right to question whether "subject-object" might not, in some cases, capture a genuine metaphysical structure. Well, then...
December 09, 2025 at 15:33
You mean, a tone other than the root pitch? I would say, sometimes but not often. It's easier or harder depending on the instrument/timbre in question...
December 09, 2025 at 15:19
With respect, what you're not seeing is that this is only a logical contradiction if we define the terms in such a way that it is. Logic tells us noth...
December 08, 2025 at 23:36
Yes. And as I understand him, Nagel is acknowledging the difficulty but arguing that it's possible, at least in part. That's because, when he uses the...
December 08, 2025 at 13:41
And we can even put a highly skeptical slant on "real for us" and insist that this is a kind of bastard child of true Reality, consisting of illusions...
December 08, 2025 at 13:26
Yes. I strongly dislike using "real" in serious philosophy, but we can't simply erase hundreds of years of usage. We need it, or something like it, fo...
December 08, 2025 at 13:16
This is what is in question, I think. Nagel, in the passage I quoted in response to @"Wayfarer", doesn't think this follows. And I don't see why it mu...
December 08, 2025 at 00:00
Sorry, forgot to respond to this. Sider doesn't mean grounding in any physical sense. Rather, it's a question of what must be metaphysically fundament...
December 07, 2025 at 18:10
I don't think we're that far apart on this question. There may, as you say, be no answer at all to the question, which, just to jog our memories, was:...
December 07, 2025 at 15:58
The "we" is aspirational, I guess: I'm addressing those of us who think there is a problem about objectivity, but aren't willing to say that either it...
December 07, 2025 at 14:12
Whether the simultaneous experience of red/green perception can happen depends on how we understand "simultaneous," I think. I've had some very mild e...
December 07, 2025 at 13:49
So here are some reflections on “The Blind Spot”: Frank focuses on two “intractable problems,” scientific objectivism and physicalism. He’s very good ...
December 06, 2025 at 22:15
I think the question presupposes not so much that there is some way, but that the question can be meaningfully asked, and is important. We want to kno...
December 06, 2025 at 14:25
Yes, and that's different from actually changing the characteristic overtones. As you perhaps know, both pitch and timbre have objective and subjectiv...
December 06, 2025 at 14:12
Yes, glad you agree that this is crucial. Good questions. I think it's partially a matter of terminology, as is often the case when we're dealing with...
December 05, 2025 at 15:48
Thanks. I'm reading it now. So far, there are a number of important insights offered, and I can see why you value it. I also see a number of weak argu...
December 05, 2025 at 13:55
Right, but are you saying that the overtones themselves are affected by other frequencies being sounded by other instruments at the same time? Could y...
December 05, 2025 at 13:50
Yes, and this is why we still need a term to use that can refer to such facts, and differentiate them from opinions and mistakes. But how does "object...
December 04, 2025 at 23:42
Yes, good precis. So what do you think -- can we speak about "objective facts" in the post-Heisenberg world?
December 04, 2025 at 23:01
I'm fine with all of this, except I'm not sure that consciousness "accounts for" the higher level properties in the same way that micro properties and...
December 04, 2025 at 17:11
What I see in your response, and also in @"Janus"'s, is what I was hoping to see, namely an agreement that consciousness is not by definition somethin...
December 04, 2025 at 14:31
I understand what you're saying . . . but is it really so different? We are both "standing in front of" consciousness. We can point to its features. W...
December 04, 2025 at 02:07
Fair enough. Perhaps it's possible. I think synesthesia refers to experiencing a sensation in two different sensory modes, rather than two versions of...
December 04, 2025 at 00:09
This is a good point. But doesn't it apply to any attempt at an objective viewpoint, not to viewing consciousness especially? If I understand the poin...
December 04, 2025 at 00:06
Interesting. If two pitches can sound at the same time, that would be the aural equivalent of two colors appearing in the same space. What the colors ...
December 03, 2025 at 23:47
I always feel somewhat dimwitted when I read this objection. It's clearly cogent and important for many who think about consciousness. Yet I can't see...
December 03, 2025 at 13:59
Really interesting OP. All the questions you raise are good ones. Let me push back on one point: This is true, if the capacity in question is to ascen...
December 03, 2025 at 13:44
By "scientific realism," I meant to denote the common-or-garden-variety conception of science. It may be flawed or dead wrong at the quantum level, bu...
December 02, 2025 at 23:34
Kind of. Since there are players, and the players are conscious, then yes. But I meant to include that in saying that the lower levels include players...
December 02, 2025 at 15:28
It's the familiar problem of trying to find terminology that isn't hopelessly vague and/or controversial. "Actual feature" is fine with me, though "ac...
December 02, 2025 at 15:20
Just to be sure I'm understanding you: When, for instance, I have an ordinary conversation, and find myself using a sentence to reply to something tha...
December 01, 2025 at 23:30
Yes. This invites a couple of responses: First, are some truths more "natural" or "about the world" than others? It is true, for instance, that severa...
December 01, 2025 at 22:30
The problem, I think, comes when we ask which of these points of view (if any) reflect how the world really is. Is there any way to make the case that...
December 01, 2025 at 17:27
OK. We're saying similar things: Faced with what seems (to you) a nonsensical demand for an explanation of how consciousness could arise from the phys...
December 01, 2025 at 13:39
I think I understand the distinction you're making better than I did before. Am I right that the major reason for proposing this ontology is to avoid ...
November 30, 2025 at 21:47
Yes, we both start from there. I was noting that your "proto-consciousness" might also be an objective fact, though you're clear that we can't find an...
November 29, 2025 at 13:41
Yes, that would be a physicalist causal explanation. To be generous, we could say that the making-sense part is more than coincidental -- that it is w...
November 28, 2025 at 16:04
Exactly. It's easy to tell a causal story about what happens in the brain. But is that all we're talking about when we say that certain thoughts imply...
November 27, 2025 at 13:38
If by "same thing" we mean two phenomena in a supervenience relationship, then yes, though "same thing" probably isn't nuanced enough, given how weird...
November 26, 2025 at 23:26
Is there a post on TPF where you sketch out your view of consciousness? I'm curious . . .
November 26, 2025 at 21:33
I understand what you mean, but "based in" is tricky. If I have a thought of someone I love, and the brain fires up in all the ways we can now observe...
November 26, 2025 at 15:19
Yes, but the opposite is also the case: We can reliably induce chemical and electrical effects on the brain by subjective experiences.
November 26, 2025 at 13:55
Thinking more about this, I realize that it's important to emphasize the difference between a single, given brain event -- a firing of neurons that oc...
November 26, 2025 at 13:53
Yes, it's been a while, probably time for a reread. But if I may: To say "one thought does follow another thought" is only to restate the observation ...
November 25, 2025 at 15:50
Thank you, but I don't quite see how. Would Aristotle say that a thought does, or does not, cause another thought?
November 25, 2025 at 14:40
Yes. The football-game analogy captures one point of similarity -- that a mere physical description must be incomplete -- and perhaps hints at another...
November 25, 2025 at 14:38
The problem goes the other way too: We don't know how subjective experiences, such as thoughts, create changes in the brain (and then the nervous syst...
November 25, 2025 at 13:43
I can't help, but I hope you get some answers. It's an interesting point you're inquiring into. While we're waiting, here's another question: Can you ...
November 24, 2025 at 13:29