Recent comments in /f/philosophy

iiioiia t1_izce0q3 wrote

Reply to comment by VitriolicViolet in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

> assuming anything 'discovered' via psychedelics is actually anything in the first place.

How might the two of us simultaneously be talking about something that has no existence? Us talking about it requires a kind of existence, and us coming to talk about it presumably requires a force of some kind (especially since it has happened simultaneously).

> apart from self-reflection there isnt anything there, as someone who has done a pretty large amount of a variety of hallucinogens ive never had an ego-death, met entities of any variety, felt any connection to nature or the universe or any of the other typical experiences (and ive done 1300ug doses of LSD).

Do you honestly think that the entirety of reality is what you have experienced (or, that you have experienced the entirety of reality)?

> personally i havent seen anything of any objective quality to psychedelics, they are interesting as hell but they cant tell you anything part of you didnt already know.

How did you determine that it is a fact that what you experienced was not objective? I will go way out on a limb and take a wild guess: was consciousness involved in the acquisition (and possibly manufacture) of that fact(?) in any way?

> > > > Edit: i am autistic, maybe thats why i have never had any of those experiences?

I dunno man, you seem quite neurotypical to me.

1

iiioiia t1_izcdbm6 wrote

Reply to comment by Gurgoth in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

> You will not invest in approaches based on reality?

One problem is with your demonstration here today of "what we know". Another is "backed by this style of thinking" - that you equate your thinking with reality itself is a big problem for me.

Also, dodging of questions is a black mark in my books.

−1

Gurgoth t1_izcb954 wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

I am sorry, had major surgery this morning and am recovering. Not on top of my game. Your link does support that this is poorly defined still.

I donl apologize, I won't be able to continue thus dialog, but it will reference your point.

2

Gurgoth t1_izc9ubh wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

You will not invest in approaches based on reality? Sounds like we done here.

It's not really the future of physics that is important here. It's the ability for us to inspect claims that were previously impossible to investigate. We have the ability, and increasingly so, to inspect how the brain functions. This path is likely to give us better answers then the last three millenia of speculation with deferrement to untestable metaphysical concepts - such as the soul.

3

VitriolicViolet t1_izc8it1 wrote

Reply to comment by testperfect in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

and? no one can prove any of their theories, at least emergent behavior makes rational sense (the rest basically require magic, souls or other non-materiel assumptions).

'you' are literally the sum of your genes, neurons, memories, experiences, society (as such you also make all your own choices, the entire free will debate hinges on human consciousness being 'special' when it isnt)

1

VitriolicViolet t1_izc81dj wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

assuming anything 'discovered' via psychedelics is actually anything in the first place.

apart from self-reflection there isnt anything there, as someone who has done a pretty large amount of a variety of hallucinogens ive never had an ego-death, met entities of any variety, felt any connection to nature or the universe or any of the other typical experiences (and ive done 1300ug doses of LSD).

personally i havent seen anything of any objective quality to psychedelics, they are interesting as hell but they cant tell you anything part of you didnt already know.

Edit: i am autistic, maybe thats why i have never had any of those experiences?

2

iiioiia t1_izc79k3 wrote

Reply to comment by Gurgoth in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

> Proof, not yet that's why we still deal with philosophy around this point. > > > > However, we know humans are rooted in reality.

What about this reality right here: "That is an incorrect statement. My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination."?

Are you "rooted in" that one (which disagrees with this one the one in the comment I'm replying to) also? Is it simultaneously, or do they/you switch back and forth?

> That is testable in many ways.

You can test that there is some shared reality. Beyond that, you're speculating.

> Just because we have not done it yet, doesn't mean that that it will not fall squarely into the realm of the physical

Great marketing, bad argument.

> On the second point. We have no indication that it is required to use metaphysics to explain it.

How do you see the future with physics? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but have there even been any experiments on this?

> That is where Occam's razor comes into play. Let's invest our efforts in what so know instead of positing ideas the dont exist without universal by definition.

I will not invest in anything backed by this style of thinking - worse, I will oppose it.

0

iiioiia t1_izc5wl4 wrote

Reply to comment by Gurgoth in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

> Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com

Can you please link to both (I want to check if those are the sole definitions for each)?

Which reminds me - you didn't answer this (or my other questions):

>> Are these the only two, consensus (non-controversial) definitions of metaphysics?

> Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com. if those are controversial then I think the field needs to properly define it.

Well, this also happens to exist:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

1

iiioiia t1_izc1dt3 wrote

Reply to comment by Ok_Meat_8322 in How to solve moral problems with formal logic and probability by beforesunset1010

I don't disagree, but this seems a bit flawed - you've provided one example of a scenario where someone has done it, but this in no way proves that it must be done this way. In an agnostic framework, representations of various models could have math attached to them (whether it is valid or makes any fucking sense is a secondary matter) and that should satisfy an exception to your rule, I think?

1