jjAmEs

I agree with you on this. One of the things that always sticks with me from Hegel is his contempt for summaries. Philosophy doesn't offer some tidy re...

To me the 'purely rational' just is the cross-cultural. This is the God's eye perspective, contingently (and accurately, perhaps) associated with West...

I agree with your critique of strict dualism. I suggest that some philosophers have tried to transform a casual, loose distinction into a sharp, absol...

I agree. At the same time I'd include the notion of the 'purely rational' as itself quasi-spiritual.

I agree that it's useful in some contexts to think of the mind as a function of the brain. At the same time, note that you are arguing this point in l...

I agree that we 'don't know what we really mean' when we use the phrase 'don't know what we really mean.' The assumption I am questioning here is that...

I don't think what the blare of a trumpet sounds like is all that comparable to a ghost. As for the word 'real,' that's a can of worms in itself. Out ...

Sure. I know what you are getting at, and I agree. We have prediction and control, technology. Ordinary language deals with this stuff successfully, p...

What is this center? The center of a category? Let's say you want to sort examples into 10 categories. It's that notion of the category that would be ...

It's fine with me if you have no use for it. I suspect that dogma are functioning with your perspective as well. I find the idea of some perfectly neu...

I think you are missing the argument for the 'immateriality' of the sign. Let's record 100 different Americans speaking the word 'calculator.' No two ...

From my perspective, 'matter' and 'mind' are two more signs employed in our life-world or form of life. What you call 'reason' sounds like what I call...

That sounds like you agreeing! My point was/is that we use a finite set of signs. Perhaps re-read and see if it makes more sense. And I know about suc...

One last point worth mentioning I hope (and connected to the subject) is that, for Saussure, the sign is immaterial. Not just the signified but also t...

I understand your point, but expressing such a continuum would require an infinite number of signs. To be sure, individual human beings might have tro...

Fair enough. Fair enough. I think we agree on that point. But I don't see why there should be some kind of determinate physical stuff either. (I don't...

Here is more of the subject being 'spoken by language' (a 'product' of the sign system). From the same book:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8261/6adf...

As I understand him, I agree with you that symbolic communication cannot by purely idiomatic, and this is close to Wittgenstein's denial of private la...

I believe Wayf was criticized for not quoting Dennett. Perhaps you should quote Derrida to support your notion of his rejection of 'metaphysics and on...

If one insists on identifying what science deals with as the physical, then perhaps. I still find that too metaphysical, though I guess the 'physical'...

Awesome! I'm glad to understand you and to have provided helpful links.

I understand why someone might see it that way, but I don't. My dodge is to not insist on treating various useful distinctions as absolute. No need to...

Personally I don't find it that hard to grasp, but, like you, I've been reading crazy philosophers for a long time. In some ways, you yourself as sayi...

Consciousness understood in this way is like being itself. As someone once muttered, being is not itself an entity. Human existence is its there. Or (...

Thanks for the link. It encouraged me to find a pdf of Consciousness Explained --easily foundvia googling. Here are some clarifying quotes: On this po...

Perhaps you mean that a philosophical explanation unties knots. Or helps the fly out of the bottle. I like that. And a related idea is that philosophy...

You said that the mind was not objective. I'm saying that psychology is a objective-unbiased science of behavior and mind, including 'conscious and un...

I mostly agree with you. Note however that we are talking about the beetle. To me qualia serve that kind of goal. Maybe what I call 'red' is what you ...

But what about psychology? And even Husserl's phenomenology aimed at objectivity and freedom from bias. If we emphasize that aspect of mind that is mo...

Yes, I see your point. And I agree with you against the position that denies consciousness. I wonder if Dennett is half-trolling. No bad publicity, et...

But isn't your description precisely the eye seeing itself? The hand grasping itself? The mind is the meaning-grasper, the meaning-hand. Or the mind i...

I'm thinking you still don't see what I mean by that. There's a certain overlap in our positions, which is something like: Concepts are important. The...

I guess it depends on what one means by dualism. I had something in mind like indirect realism. The quoted article explores how indirect realism clash...

I agree that we have to already share a lifeworld and a language before we can do science. As Bohr put it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copen...

Perhaps someone will speak up for Dennett. If not, then he's a strawman in this context. I ask again what kind of explanation is sought? I accept the ...

I think you are missing my point. I'm not saying that minds are objects like balloons or clouds. I'm saying that 'the mind' is a publicly tradable con...

I'm not defending Dennett, since I don't think consciousness is an illusion. But I don't think that one can say that the mind is not objective. This i...

Is Hacker right? I'm sympathetic to where he's coming from, but perhaps the perspective matters. Metaphysically the hard problem is just a sub-problem...

While I think we mostly agree, I can't quite fit this outright denial of 'private, immaterial experiences' into my perspective. I think the phrase doe...

Thanks. I think we are aiming at saying roughly the same thing.

Here's a nice quote. Does it seem objectively unreasonable? What does that even mean? Is he just saying that it's strange that the right arrangements ...

I think this is because the quale (the beetle in the box) is more or less defined as what we cannot be objective about. I can't know what redness is f...

I look forward to your response.

I add this quote to the conversation for anyone who might find it useful. It's more difficult prose than that inSignature, Event, Context, but it touc...

We have this one word 'pain' for something that we are all supposed to experience privately. How do I know that what I call my pain is what you call y...

I think you failed to address the point. I wrote: You wrote: Indeed, and it's precisely this demotion of writing in the name of speech that is strange...

I agree. Wittgenstein's point is radical and yet often ignored (just as similar Derridean insights are ignored.) For me it's not as some in is thread ...

I'm sure you can find some writers out there who deserve that kind of lampooning. At the same time, the 'pomo' caricature also serves as wishful think...

I like science. But why do we call those assumptions 'reasonable'? Reasonable for you and me, but not for others. Without its technical results to bac...

Do rivers have mouths? Do needles have eyes? Do you see what I mean? (Is meaning literally visible?) Metaphor itself is a dead metaphor. A metaphor is...