jacksonsprat22

Uh huh.

I did state my case. You clearly have nothing to say or you would have said something already.

I find you worthless. Maybe time to move on.

Not interested in kiddy stuff. Mostly undergrad punks trying to be competent. Might not be the right forum for me.

I teach college. I would ask you to leave my class.

Nous can be translated as mind, but also intelligence. For Aristotle, intelligence is as fundamental to the world as physical objects.

Panpsychism is the idea that the universe is structured as intelligent. Intelligence is not derived from anything.

An interest in how the world is. Arguing is for sophomores.

Seriously, are there any adults who use this forum? Is this place just for kids?

No. That's for undergrads who think they're masters because they know some names.

Why do people keep citing wikipedia? Most philosophers use the SEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I reported Banno to moderators.

Go back and read what I wrote. I stated my thesis. Go outside for a walk if you have excess nervous energy.

Don't believe it. I have no patience for smart alecks.

Right. I wanted to shift the discussion from consciousness to intelligence. Consciousness is an aspect of intelligence.

Banno is a troll.

2. Varieties of Contemporary Panpsychism 2.1 The Definition of Panpsychism The word “panpsychism” literally means that everything has a mind. However,...

Already did.

I find your childish insulting annoying. Do I need to report you to the moderators?

Right. I want to stay away from what having a mind is and simply describe it as the principle of intelligence.

Panpsychism is closer to the qbit. As Wheeler described it, no physical particle exists without information.

Another way of stating this is that the universe is inherently intelligent. This is an ancient idea that nous is everywhere in the world. Nous is mind...

I think they're similar. But my point is not to equate the two, But I never read about this "third ingredient" from Russell.

The fact that there is a world does not mean there has to be a world.

Right.

Generally I agree with what your position is. But it does seem that a language game has to convey something and not just be gibberish.

A game would require the concept of a successful performance. Does not have to mean winning.

One example of a game is chess. There are rules of chess which can be learned in an hour. But the game is about winning and knowing the rules does lit...

Okay. But that seems abstract. Plato asks what is common about a good shoemaker and good statesman. After we say they perform their tasks well, what k...

Wittgenstein is criticizing platonism, the idea that we cannot understand the good without understanding what all uses have in common. I think Plato h...

Yes. But that is not a problem of language.

If you say something and I understand it then you have used words properly.

I think Wittgenstein's argument is not that words have no referents but that our understanding is not a function of their references. The problem is n...

Right. You give a good analysis. The problem I have is using H2O as a universal. Is the lake and ocean both H2O? Not exactly. The ocean is salty and a...

Philosophical Investigations. Also, a great reference for philosophy is the SEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entri...

in·sti·tu·tion /?inst??t(y)o?oSH(?)n/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar pu...

ok

A building. That simple.

No, I meant, make your argument about the specific text. Are you new to philosophy?

Missing your point. A church, by definition, is an institution.

Okay, dude.

What case? You misstated what "noesis" means. Sorry, I really am not following.

Not sure what you mean. Noesis is intellectual apprehension of an idea.

Wittgenstein was attacking platonism. We have a red patch which is called "red." Problem solved.

The Philosophical Investigations is his own text.

The idea of a mulitiverse is to explain how the universe is. It implies no conception of causation of the universe.

Treating something as sacred is to establish value. You can value things without being religious. The mark of religion is a definable institution such...

Please cite the text of Wittgenstein where he says that. Thanks.

I would not read Wiki to learn about Wittgenstein.

I am correct. you are wrong. look, if you guys want personal attacks I can dish them out too. Okay, tough guy?