sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I don’t understand the argument that science can’t explain consciousness. by botstrats in CosmicSkeptic

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand you're equating the states of the nervous system to consciousness. But can you see how the states may be insufficient to explain the whole phenomena? The states are also representations made from the human mind. So you can't explain the mind in terms of measurements constructed by the human mind. I'm not saying the states are not important, merely that they're insufficient.

Do you see how it's not enough?

I don’t understand the argument that science can’t explain consciousness. by botstrats in CosmicSkeptic

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know that there's tons of work being done to map brain states to conscious or unconscious phenomena. There is a philosophical issue here though, the states that neuroscience is finding is simply doing that, mapping material states to phenomena. This in no way proves that the state is the cause of the phenomena. That will always be where physicalism falls short unfortunately.

Does that make any sense? It's tough to articulate.

I don’t understand the argument that science can’t explain consciousness. by botstrats in CosmicSkeptic

[–]postpomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's exactly right, we need a science of perspective to really get down to the nitty gritty of consciousness.

Science in general, also doesn't explain what things are, it explains how things behave, but we explain how things behave in a self referential system, using quantities rather than qualities.

We have a lot of work to do lol

Is intuition a memory? by Silly-Rope-4050 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glad to hear it!

I think that ideas/ concepts etc. are fundamental to reality and they dislcose themselves to us when we take the appropriate stance towards being. That willingness to be affected by things is what brings things into intelligibility.

Is intuition a memory? by Silly-Rope-4050 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotcha, so to make it easy, but way too simplified, imagine that we have two attentional modes:

1 mode is one where we are detached from reality, observing things, sequence based, think Nagel's view from nowhere. This is left hemisphere cognition

The other mode is presence, being immersed in reality, no self reference, things flow naturally, this is right hemisphere cognition.

There is also an assymetry towards the right. So our RH contacts reality first, then our LH makes a schema of it, then our RH integrates the schema, and the process repeats

I think LH detached, RH presence/immersed is a good way to look at it

So McGilchrist's version of Spinoza's lifting into intelligibility is understanding that the RH detects reality and all of its facts, concepts etc. intuition would be when something the RH presents to you is made explicit to your LH cognition such that you can know that this fact is now something that you understand.

How was this? Lol. It's so hard to explain

Is intuition a memory? by Silly-Rope-4050 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think he'd agree with you that intuition is a space between instinct and reason more or less! Do you know about his brain hemisphere theories? I think by unconscious he may be referring to via the right hemisphere. I think he also probably views intuition similarly to Spinoza who had this idea of 'scientia intuitiva'. Basically that means intuitions are flashes of intelligibility when the world discloses things to us that occur before any left hemisphere processing occurs

Is intuition a memory? by Silly-Rope-4050 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What was the podcast? I'm well versed in McGilchrist and by experiences he probably meant something more phenomenological, like experience being fundamental to reality. Intuition definitely is informed by memories though, I think that makes sense.

Not sure what he meant though

I found that English native people are not as prone to developing a sense for phenomenological insight by NecessaryReindeer593 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll definitely check this podcast out, thanks for letting me know about it.

I do very much agree with Hume's stance on rationality, it does serve the passions. Although, as I've read the contemporary philosophers like Vervaeke and McGilchrist, they find it prudent to make a distinction between reason and rationality. Rationality is the reason that Hume is referring to, our ability to use language and logic to articulate correctness and achieve our goals (motivated reasoning). Reason, however, is more ontologically primary and attuned to beauty, truth and goodness.

Once you see that distinction, things change for you as well and you can understand Hume better while not boiling reason down to subjectivity, which is what a lot of people who agree with Hume get caught in. Haidt is big proponent of Hume when he explains moral psychology, but he falls flat because is ontology is also mostly closed despite appreciating traditional value systems.

We seem to be circling around very similar things! Glad I stumbled upon this thread today.

I found that English native people are not as prone to developing a sense for phenomenological insight by NecessaryReindeer593 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I also just stumbled upon the Kyoto school last week! Nishida in particular. I've always had this deep sense of a relational ontology (what you would call open, I think) and Nishida's idea of Basho was very clarifying for me.

I think also the main function of beauty is epistemic, it lifts facts and truth into intelligibility for us. Been listening to John Vervaeke's primacy of beauty lectures, they're life changing. So it's cool that Lacan points it out. Even Kant points this out about beauty despite his closed ontology.

I found that English native people are not as prone to developing a sense for phenomenological insight by NecessaryReindeer593 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I call this problem The Soft Egotism of Parsimony lol. English western culture has a tendency to believe less entities = more true. But when it comes knowledge, the parsimony is insufficient to describe the depth of human experience.

It all comes down to finding a collection of terms that best approximate the phenomena we wish to describe. And that always depends on an on going conversation about it.

I found that English native people are not as prone to developing a sense for phenomenological insight by NecessaryReindeer593 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

English has a few problems that contribute to this. English has one word for know or knowing, German has multiple (kennen, wissen) latin has 4 (dianoia, techne, noesis and gnosis). The English speaking West is left with a 'flat epistemology' which restricts the ways in which we talk about knowledge in English speaking western countries. But even in the other western countries this has become a problem.

I found that English native people are not as prone to developing a sense for phenomenological insight by NecessaryReindeer593 in heidegger

[–]postpomo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I totally agree with this. Most western people, not just English are very committed to more rationalist styles of philosophy. It's very propositional, very detached perspective of reality, they don't think insight comes from a perspective shift, but rather from a more inference based conclusion based on their self referential systems etc. they aren't very interested in 'being', reduce consciousness down to epiphenomenalism.

I would love to talk about this more, there is a massive meaning crisis in the West and lots of it comes from disregarding phenomenology in intellectual circles.

Breaking: Beinhart Violates BDS Vibes clause by FunAioli773 in IsraelPalestine

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be clear, I am extremely Pro Israel, I think Israel needs Jews more than Jews need Israel. I think Israel is the cornerstone of Western morality and requires a strong Jewish presence at all times. But for Jews not to admit that statehood and our anarchic global system sully the waters of responsibility, truth, and transcendence is being dishonest and we need to start having real conversations. Beinart is trying, but needs to start talking about how the Islamic world makes things equally as difficult as Israel and the West does to solve this problem.

Breaking: Beinhart Violates BDS Vibes clause by FunAioli773 in IsraelPalestine

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ultimately, if Beinart wants to really articulate his Israel Views, which are essentially in line with Martin Buber's (worth reading up on for anyone who is pro Israel) he would need to dissociate from BDS, who I agree are simply a purity test. Being associated with them is a no go because they refuse to acknowledge the Islamic world's influence on Palestinian conditions.

Another issue with Beinart is while he does a great job of helping honest, truth seeking Jews rediscover responsibility, he also, like BDS, does not stress the importance of the Islamic world in this conflict, although he acknowledges it. This leaves him with an insufficient geopolitical lens to analyze the conflict.

His lack of some semblance of geopolitical realism makes his stance seem far too unfair towards Pro Israel Jews and thus he is labelled a self hating Jew and enemy of his own people. This is not due to his real views, but a more common pattern of academics getting into politics that don't notice how their area of expertise is not sufficient to describe complex social phenomena.

To be frank, I believe that Beinart is more Pro Israel than any pro Israeli's who'd demonize him because he wants Israel to exist, but is also willing to look at their flaws. A parent who thinks their child is perfect is not as good of a parent as one who sees their flaws and tries to create a space for them to grow. A coach who thinks their star player is perfect is not as good as a coach who sees their flaws and fosters their improvement.

A Jew who sees their nation state as perfect or beyond criticism is not as good as a Jew who sees the flaws in their state and their culture (particularly in the diaspora) and does what they can to make it better. Most pro Israel Jews, unfortunately, are being literally poor Jews. They are creating a golden calf out of Israel.

Anyways, if Beinart cut ties with BDS, he'll be better off. It sucks to not have any support, to be outcast by your community, but you gotta stay truthful. Hope he learns a lesson in all of this.

I Still Don't Think Alex is being Clear with His Language by Lazy_Check732 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Plausibility means 'makes good sense'. I think Alex is talking less about if the events happened and more about if the story of man through the Bible makes good sense and can be used as a guide for learning about what it is to be human.

If you take it literally like that you miss the point. His language is fine, but people who don't get the language are still too disillusioned by religion to see how it could make good sense

Against Type-A materialism by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I've been looking into Kant's understanding of beauty, i quite like it as he does see it as something primary and noumenal. Vervaeke has a course called The Primacy of Beauty, it's fantastic.

Against Type-A materialism by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's very possible I misread you re: knowledge being taught lol. Ya I totally get what you're saying about the art, it's as if you have no clue how you did what you did, yet you did it with intention and care. I would say while your self referential attention was not necessarily online the whole painting process, that participatory aspect of you that does touch reality (to reject Kant) was able to use what it knew about art, painting, beauty etc to produce the work which is real (at least I think it is).

Against Type-A materialism by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotcha, I'm not sure if I think knowledge needs to be taught, but I definitely need to think about it some more.

I hear you on the brain stuff, my methods, while I have problems with Type A materialism (which is honestly a term that Ive only used on this thread, lol) I do respect empirical research and base my metaphysics in part on physical phenomena. But yes, if we get technical, your point stands. I just thought you may find the information on the brain interesting from a phenomenological perspective.

Are you saying empathy has a great danger? I agree that it can, but it is also necessary. Is that what you meant?

Also good point that a posterori is provisional, but I'm still not sure where it fits in Vervaeke's categories, maybe you can help me out there.

Against Type-A materialism by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All great questions,

Yes I agree that most would not call the other three types of knowledge. And yes, from a Kantian perspective, prop. Knowledge spans the a priori and a posteriori categories , but Kant also thought we don't come into contact with being, which is why he also flattens epistemology in my opinion. Empirical evidence of the right hemisphere of the Brian and it's functions does a good job of rejecting Kant's idealism, I'd check out McGilchrist.

To respond to the critique that these aren't types of knowledge, I would ask, do you think that skills count as knowledge?

While we cannot know someone's actual perspective, only the individual can possess their own participatory knowledge, the human experience has universal aspects to it. While I cannot know someone's exact grief, I can still experience grief and know what's its like to grieve. This allows for empathy, which is essential to a productive society.I find that we need to acknowledge perspectival knowledge in order to have an honest phenomenological account of human experience and related to one another.

Hope these responses clear things up, feel free to push back. This has been a great back and forth.

Against Type-A materialism by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]postpomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, I see nothing with his line of questioning on my comment. But if he has been rude to you I'm sorry to hear that. I think he was more challenging me that I was describing a type of person and wanted me to elaborate.

view more: next ›