Janus

Do you believe there are any "a priori cognitions in general" which do not have their genesis either in experience or in rules that are at their basis...

Exactly, ideas about the brain and whatever it is understood to do is part of an empirical understanding, not a transcendental.

I'd be interested if you could succinctly explain the difference between the two.

Right, that knowledge is had only by minds is a vacuous truism, and hence "not so useful". Why wouldn't they be? As to Kant, he didn't question their ...

Yes, that was what I had in mind: all conditions being exactly the same including oneself. What I meant with that is if in that 'rewind' scenario we c...

For what it's worth, although I haven't read the article, I believe I get the argument, which seems very simple. If it were somehow possible to repeat...

For us God is a belief, positive or negative. Or a name for a kind of experience. So, what I said could be translated as "the belief in, or experience...

To reverse the usual formulation: God may be sufficient, but not necessary, for madness.

:up:

Does that mean it was intended to be so. God fooling with our minds?

It probably doesn't matter because, as you say, and as @"Banno" said, we grasp the concept.

True. Nothing that we know about anyway.

Do you mean Banno is alright just as he is now?

Memos? I thought it was @"frank" mentioned them.

You're right, we can perhaps know some things completely. But we cannot know everything. so 'everything' should have been there instead of "anything c...

I shouldn't think you would need a memo.

Wasn't it already obvious that we could never know anything completely? Pi is not the lynchpin it seems, just another symptom of our limitations.

:up: Yep, seems on the money to me!

:up:

What difference to you would it actually make if it was "for real"?

OK, I get it now. My disposition on this is similar to yours—I don't find myself concerned about oblivion either. The concern about the quality of one...

Do you mean something like influences we might have had on others, or our works that survive us or our physical components reconfigured after dissolut...

Yep, so I guess for some the idea of being out of the game will be disturbing, even though when you are out of the game nothing will disturb you becau...

Exactly...eternal oblivion is not to be (rationally speaking at least) feared. Perhaps it can be, on an arational level, troubling because the idea of...

I agree, yet I do think death, as opposed to being dead, is very much part of our lives. We experience the death of loved ones, including our beloved ...

Yes, and I see little reason to doubt that people in general will not vote for anything they think will have a negative effect on their prosperity, as...

:rofl: Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

Ho Ho Ho, off to fantasyland we go...

I agree; "universal subjective field" is something we can say, but we don't really know what we are talking about, and so it has no explanatory power....

I think it's fair to say that 'field' is used in many contexts: different disciplines in science and the humanities are commonly referred to as fields...

Rubbish, I say what my views are and defend them, with a great deal more argument than you do. Most of what you do consists in quoting your "authoriti...

I don't share your reverence for authority figures, and I said "perhaps" because it's a while since I read Husserl, I don't want to assume that your i...

Nonsense you don't know they're not "out there"...how could you when such knowledge is impossible in principle according to your own arguments? That's...

You are blithely assuming that. How do you know it's true? From the point of view of science that question doesn't matter. It may well be unanswerable...

What is your explanation for that? don't suffice. Well then what was your point?

I think that is wrong or at least incomplete: you are leaving out the things which are actually in the world. Species, language-group, culture cannot ...

Social processes such as general changes of worldview are real, but they only exist in the individuals, books, computers and other media and so on, in...

Right, it's an abstract entity, an idea, not an ontologically substantive being then. Commonalities of conceptual schemas and worldviews, which do of ...

:ok: No worries...at least it's been a polite exchange.

You think you see something which looks like a pink elephant. I don't understand the question. I don't read that in the passage. Please quote directly...

You think you see a pink elephant. You have whatever you are experiencing, and you have whatever judgements you are making about it. Nothing in what y...

Depends on how reliable you think memory is. Seeing a house in a waking state is easy enough to verify. Having seen one not so much. Although that sai...

Quantum physics is a physical, not a metaphysical science...it is the paradigmatic physical science. What is observed is the behavior of putative micr...

No, very easy to follow...just very difficult to agree with.

A meaningless comment...or is it just more appeal to supposed authority. Poor form for a would-be philosopher either way. More argument from authority...

The difference is that inferences about what is the case and scientific inferences are testable. I find this difficult to believe, but perhaps it's ju...

As far as we can tell there are only Indvidual minds. When are you going to wake up to the fact that I understand Kastrup's 'arguments' perfectly well...

The reasoning is easy enough to understand, it's the premises which are not believable. Apparently, you cannot fathom the idea that people can readily...

I disagree for all the reasons I've already given. I don't believe in "intrinsic intellectual understanding" I don't even really know what it could me...

Right, you're just repeating what I've already said above (I think it was in this thread) so I agree. Although in the case of religious experience one...