/lit/ - Literature

>>5550072
So the hard problem is beyond science. It's still a problem.

>>5550075
>How redundant. Everyone is a "philosophical zombie".
You must be fun to hang out with.

>>5550041
>unscientific
I mean unreasonable or absurd.

>>5550033
I've never used the phrase 'phenomenal consciousness.' That's your baggage.
What I associate with 'consciousness' is the quality that makes someone not be a philosophical zombie. Unless you think everyone you know literally doesn't have experiences, you believe that people have the thing called consciousness. Presuming otherwise is unscientific.
I can't show you the tests or observations, but I can tell you that nothing speaks against the existence of consciousness.

I think it exists.

>>5550006
Only if you think consciousness is untestable, unobservable, and unfalsifiable, which flies in the face of the existence of cognitive science.

>>5549988
>The law of identity, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of noncontradiction are axiomatic
Those are a posteriori psychological constructs by which you understand the universe. They aren't external to your organization of experience. This is basic stuff.

>>5549969
What makes you think it can't be approached empirically?

>>5549953
>because logical is what defines sense is what defines possibility of existence
>Implying quite a few things

>>5549945
>but the hard problem of consciousness does not ask for the observable mechanisms which are correlated with "subjectivity" or "point of views" arise,

The problem, if solved, will produce a subject. It's as simple as that.

>>5549930
There are people who think the hard problem can't be solved.

>>5549911
> "qualia" cannot be observed, they are a feature of observation itself.
They can't be observed, but the mechanisms that give rise to them probably can be. There's no scientific reason to assume otherwise.

>>5549854
Qualia are part of the objective. They aren't an obstacle.

>>5549845
It' obfuscates.

>>5395870
I meant 'cognitive bias.' I made a mistake.

>>5395857
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

>>5395830
Know what he's aiming to do in the book.
He's trying to draw a limit to what philosophy is and isn't by expressing the limits of language.
Keep that in mind as you read it and it'll make more sense than if you went in thinking 'top kek this guy thinks everything's made of words what a depressing autistic faggot'

>>5395830
>>5395833
What is cognition bias?

I've been browsing /lit/ since the day it first went up.
It's always been like this. It's just been faster than usual lately.
No board ever changes. Only the interests of the userbase and the userbase itself do.

>>5387629
>I am afraid the pure expression of Ideas is impossible, at some point silence is the only way to avoid trampling on the delicacy of the inviolable
Yes, and the problem is that the inviolable demands that it be expressed.
I am doing a terrible job of expressing my half-formed ideas, most of which are metaphysical. Like I said, my 'project' is an ontology, which I'm writing mostly as a personal expression of how I see the world & the problems people face in it. It draws on Hegel and Wittgenstein, but it is neither of them. It also isn't limited to them. It is also far from complete; not that any such thing is ever complete.

I've just read & thought too much not to write something, even if that something fails to say what I want to say. Like I said, I finished reading Wittgenstein's work today, and what I got out of it was basically what you attribute to Heidegger: sorting out the difference between metaphysics from the philosophy that is grounded in our physical reality.
I have been dwelling poetically, but poetic dwelling is not independent existence, and circumstances in my life have made me want to write down my thoughts to see what they look like.

I don't know what they look like yet. I'm hoping to find out.

>>5387501
It's central to what I was talking about in the post he was responding to.

>>5387406
Are you that formation of particles?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
^that might help^

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_dialectic

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)

Those 3 Wikipedia articles should be of some use to you.
>>5387429
I know what the philosopher knows, which I think is nothing.
I'm not trying to measure Hegel by Wittgenstein, that wasn't really a proper way of saying it. I'm trying to synthesize them, more than destroy one by the thought of the other.
My point is precisely that philosophy is not the love of knowing.
My interpretation of Hegel is that his philosophy requires the existence of God (or the Absolute) in order for what he says to be valid, and the goal of his system is the union of God and Man in the form of Absolute Knowledge. Although I like this idea, it seems to me like it doesn't have a place in thought about the real world. That being said, I'm still reading the Phenomenology of Spirit, so I can't really be sure about everything in it; what I'm currently doing is as much pure expression of Ideas as it is genuine philosophy, so I'm definitely not anywhere near knowing what exactly I'm trying to say about anyone I'm writing about.

You know what Zizek does with Lacan to get at Hegelian thought, i.e., using the 'Absolute' as the master signifier within a psychoanalitic semiotic network to get at the real meat of Hegel's dialectic outside of the Hegelian system? That last bit is what I'm trying to do.

>The philosopher(read:Hegel) knows the real can never touch the ideal completely.
His goal is to create a science whereby Man will be able to consult Absolute Knowledge and be unified with it, from what I've interpreted. Like I said I'm still attacking the Phenomenology so I'm probably wrong.
>>5387453
I'll be sure to look it over again.

>>5387404
> You are made of protons and electrons that obey the laws of physics, that includes your brain
>that includes your brain
Hmm

>>5387398
Knowledge isn't a way to happiness, and happiness isn't the master signifier, anyway.