apokrisis

But psychological science gives us good reason to question "primal experience". What is the status of the yellow we see? Judging by dreaming or sensor...

But I don't accept that because I don't agree that experience - of this kind - is primal. My position is that "pure experience" is just a lack of diff...

Yep, so back to the Ancient Greek recognition of the transcendence of mathematical truth. The world has seem capricious, whimsical, the product of rat...

But that is only the tale one would tell having formed a conception of existence in terms of "my mind". Sure, I see that the "tale of me" has a birth,...

But there is something in the Kantian position that to get the ball of inference rolling, an abductive leap has to be made. So the strenuous way you a...

It becomes a metaphysical issue if you decide that the "way to live" requires an ontic-strength foundation. I think in practice, people realise that "...

But the point is that there is no perception without also conception. Perceiving presumes "a world" for a start. So the exact mechanism is very releva...

OK, I hear your assertion and await the supporting counter-argument. What could be more accurate than saying the past constrains the future? It is ina...

Yeah sure. Different argument. So now you show you don't get that to be constrained just means to be constrained, not to be determined? Saying the pas...

Of course the past constrains the future in terms of what is possible. If you break your leg, you won't be running any races. History is the accumulat...

That’s a bunch of assertions. I don’t see any supporting arguments.

You’ve told me who has written about it, who has rejected it, and that measurement is problematic. Oddly you have avoided any attempt to define it as ...

So do you have some defensible description of this "higher state of being"? If you can't yet count it, then can you say what it looks like. Is it goin...

Perhaps you can define what you mean by a higher state of being. What are its measurables exactly?

That is more how you require science to be so that it can be clearly wrong in your lights. You gravitate to the sort of science rhetoric that is easy ...

Easy to claim, but now let's see the evidence. Is naturalism terminally confused? How are you to explain away 2500 years of success then? Uh, yeah. I ...

History has a way of constraining possibility. So it is true that the world seems to be fundamentally causal in this fashion. We can describe some gen...

I dunno. As I've just described, I think physics is doing a good job of advancing the ontological project of metaphysics. Greek metaphysics - if we da...

That's a good reply. Clearly when we are talking about actuality or being, it is always concretely substantial, always in-formed materiality. So mater...

Did that happen or didn’t you say it was a fantasy? So let’s get back to miracles. Usually they are things that happen. Then intelligent folk would ha...

But that is just a modern atomist/reductionist notion of causality. It is far from an Aristotelean account. So are you trying to do anything other tha...

Why wouldn't you say that the particular, the substantial, the entified, is the ultimate resultant? This interpretation of Aristotle's hylomorphism ma...

Yet still, my position sees the top-down causation in terms of naturalistic emergence. It is the constraints part of the deal. And you are claiming so...

What? We both agree that maths talks about limiting principles, but where I stress their natural immanence, you want to claim their supernatural trans...

I would say rather that scientists correctly realise that the forms of nature are emergent. So everything does get tied back to the "corporeal" for a ...

Mathematical objects would seem to express something true about the limits of corporeality. So they speak to the reality of constraints. And they are ...

Don't you mean, why do some "highly intelligent folk" believe in miracles rather than coincidence?

So you mean that "raw feeling" is about the division that gets made in terms of self vs world? It is the primal distinction between self and other? I ...

I would indeed claim that non-linguistic animals can't have "raw feelings" as they don't have introspective awareness. Animals would just be aware "di...

Claim or description, same point. The raw feelings are socially constructed. They are not primary in the sense being claimed/described. We have to lea...

Can you make this claim in a way that feels meaningful without asserting the presence of a witnessing self. Can there just be "the immediate experienc...

So this "me" is directly aware of this "me"? This "me" can perceive its perceptions and perceive its self? I agree that "me-ness" develops as a habit....

Suspect away. If you have an actual argument, that might be interesting. Exhibit A would be that philosophy is entirely founded on dialectical reasoni...

You are arguing that the seeing is done by the "me". I am arguing that the "me" is produced by the seeing. Perception (or cognition) is about the prod...

What exactly do you mean to say here? If it only seems direct, then your position appears to be that it is not direct - it just seems so. Or are you s...

But you say both that your experience (of the world? of qualia? of appearances?) is direct AND that that fact is an intractable mystery. So perhaps I ...

Sure, there is something that in the end (ie: in the deconstructed limit) there is something which it is like to be you experiencing. But it ain't dir...

I realise that. But epistemology has to be founded on some logical abstraction if it is going to "see" what is going on "objectively". Well the object...

The key is that the self arises within perception. It is part of the whole act. Perception involves making a self~world discrimination. So the self an...

Well hardly. Time remains physics biggest problem really. Note how these are all spatialised concepts of time. Whether it is the rotation of a clock h...

I was arguing that the Aristotle's hylomorphic story on substance can be read two ways. And the radical one here would be the "top-down" individuation...

Hah. Yes you are right. Complete brain fart to call it radioactive decay. I was meaning the radiative decay of electron transitions in atomic clocks.

Maybe a sundial then. That would obviously work any time, any place.

You’ll have to try harder than that if you’re wanting to troll me MU.

What alternative did you have in mind? Chinese water clock?

Yep. Sounds legit. Can't imagine anyone not believing that. Snore...

That confident assertion would be more believable if it were backed up by some reasons to show science has been failing to make continual progress. On...

Nope. We need the single best process that could be used at any time and any place. Radioactive decay would be that. Or some similar "free" quantum pr...

It should give far more pause to the peddlers of metaphysical stories that "can't even be wrong". What you are saying is science knows that the Big Ba...

SX is wrong if he suggests the clocks could be used to check each other in this fashion in any absolute sense. But in a relative fashion, that's fine....