Eugen

Ok, but it was just an example. It could be anything else.

I don't personally think they are, but either way... I don't think concepts can avoid fundamentalism or emergence.

Chairs is concept, it is language. It can also be a process. Everything is dynamic. A porocess IS totally reducible (i.e. weakly emergent) to interact...

But the question is: is it logically possible to have more than these options on the table?

It can exist in a fundamental way, like being the foundation of reality, or it can exist like chairs, processes, or concepts, i.e. emergent from a mat...

- how can it exist if it doesn't have properties? The property of being must be there at least. Being what it is is a property. - conceptions definite...

You don't consider consciousness as being an entity because you see it as fundamental or there's another reason? And by the way, who says something ca...

Ok, now I totally get it hahaha! It's funny because all this time I thought it was something super-sophisticated that I couldn't understand when in fa...

:up:

I'm not trying to turn anyone (on)/or against anybody. As for the rest of your last reply ... :up:

No, I didn't.

I agree with you, but my question is not if consciousness is fundamental or emergent. That's a different debate.

Thank you for your complex and articulate answer! I actually resonate with you, but my question was different :lol: Let me put it this way. I am not t...

I have this intuition as well. @180 Proof doesn't understand himself. It looks like he has a strong bias and he created this alambicated web of notion...

I have nothing against them as long as they don't appeal to obscuratism. "Make your point loud and clear!" That's my opinion.

see my private message :cool:

Have fun!

Guys, you are really helping me, I truly believe you're smart people. This beef is far too low for your intelligence. You both know that.

I don't want to lie to myself. So I need to interact with all kind of opinions. But I don't want to lose my time with non-sense either. That's why I'm...

You made me think. It's not about me or him being disrespectful. It's different. I think my questions touch some sensitive spots. Far from that being ...

I'm not assuming thay was a response. You made a parallel and I thought 180 Proof thought my qiestion was related to theism.

Thank you for your answer! So is he suggesting that assuming ''anything you could think of" has properties is wrong? Does he want me to formulate a qu...

The problem for me is that I don't understand him. And when I don't understand something, I don't want to label it. So I don't want to label 180 Proof...

- I do trust my own logic, but I'm also trying to remain open because I don't want to lie to myself. So I have a particular interest in those opinions...

Thank you two for your answers! I'm not trying to form an alliance here or to be against anyone. I only need sincerity. I don't want to lie to myself,...

I can perfectly understand what you're saying. Complex, but not obscure.

- I see two options: 1. it can be emergent but not fundamental - a chair 2. it can be both - if consciousness is fundamental and human consciousness i...

Trying to make it look like I'm asking you to back me up against him is a serious one. So where do I exactly try to do that? Well, if you like pain in...

I ask these questions on mulptiple forums and you are always the ONLY ONE who has this opinion. It might be the case my questions are wrong and you're...

I asked you clear questions. You ignore them, or you deviate. It's a lack of respect. You're not inspiring, you're annoying and ridiculous. So I'm sti...

I don't like obscurantism. I don't need to be enlightened or inspired. I want ''spoon-feeding" with clear, logical, and concrete answers. If you can r...

First of all, thank you for your beautiful answers! But again, I need your help on the following matter. I am not trying to criticize anyone, but I ne...

My point is that I don't understand you. So please answer my questions so I can make sense of what you're saying. I'm really making a strong effort to...

Would you agree if I said ''consciousness is a brain process"?

You have to understand that my philosophical vocabulary is not developed. What is an ''ontic entity" first of all? Use simple language, please.

If consciousness is reducible to brain processes as you say, then it isn't an ontic entity. Yes or no?

Actually, I do have some sympathy toward a part of what you're saying there. I believe we shouldn't ascribe too many properties to the fundamental rea...

His answer, but late.

Saw it. Thanks anyway :-)

Finally, I get your view. In your opinion, we shouldn't ask things about consciousness's ontology, we should just let science to deal with it and acce...

Thanks for your answer! It seems to me I need some clarifications. I. So there are no fundamental properties, only properties. There is no fundamental...

2 reasons actually: 1. I don't usually encourage topics unrelated to my OP 2. For you, I would have made an exception, but I simply have no answer to ...

- Romanian - Haven't heard philosophers using the term ''foundational" in regard to consciousness. Can you tell me the difference between fundamental ...

Thank you very much! So, in your opinion, I haven't left anything out.

For me, fundamental has to: 1. be irreducible 2. not created by a different substance - independent of the existence of other substance For example, l...

- Totally agree!

Allowing in principle is not the same with that being the case. It can be fundamental and eternal, thus not allowing for other eternals. Don't you agr...

Done! But now will come and say this is nonsense, because "anything" contains the word ''thing", and the fundamental reality is not a ''thing", and bl...

Actually, I agree with you. Just bear in mind I'm not a native speaker. Your advice is perfect. Thank you!

Thank you for your answer! But it seems to me you cannot accept a thing that could be eternal and fundamental at the same time. Why? I kind of agree. ...