3 ms·

No-one said anything about space, time or objectivity. Those are all weird, but external reality is something we know just as well as we know internal reality.

No-one said anything about space, time or objectivity. Those are all weird, but external reality is something we know just as well as we know internal reality. (Internalist conceptions of mind don't pan out). Saying mind and thinking can exist without any physical basis doesn't make it possible either, but I will point out that everyone I've ever met who was capable of thinking had a healthy living body. The arguments that have been deployed to show that incorporeal thinking is possible and the subjective knowledge is the only true knowledge have always been flawed in their theory of knowledge. They all treat geometry as the paragon of knowing. When, in fact, the rationalist mode of knowing is a rather peculiar and idiosyncratic form of knowledge that doesn't really generalize. In some highly reductive sense, you can argue that we don't really come into contact with an external reality, and people have. Though in the same sense we also don't come into contact with an internal reality except in an very unimpressive fashion. So while people have spun up plenty of complicated arguments to show that we know nothing about anything, in a very real sense we clearly know quite a lot about the world around us. We know that when someone is knocked unconscious they weren't off thinking great thoughts when their brain was flatlining (if/when they come back they confirm this). Our knowledge of this is, surprisingly more solid than our ability to accurately introspect our internal state of consciousness. As to what exactly changes when the innumerable pulses of neurons sprang back to life, that's a mystery. Something is happening. It is pretty clearly connected with thinking.

strogonoff 4y ago
> Saying mind and thinking can exist without any physical basis doesn't make it possible either It doesn’t need to be made possible because it logically is. (Both approaches are possible, that is not even an argument.) But not only is it possible, I’d argue that in fact it is less contrived because there is one less construct (that “physical basis”) to will into being from nothingness. > in a very real sense we clearly know quite a lot about the world around us This is a good illustration of how everything looks like a nail to the hammer of STEM. I am a little sleepy to continue this argument properly, but while we (with our minds) have created some models that enabled us to do some things (which things, notably, effect our minds in every instance) there is no knowing of even the basic fundamentals about the world around us. Physics cannot be a sole tool for achieving such knowledge because questions such as “what actually exists” are outside of its purview—e.g., the idea of mind as the territory and perceived time-space as a map/interface is not at odds with physics (which in this scenario, while not under spotlight anymore, would along with other natural sciences still be recognized as a tool for effecting desired changes in the territory). Sadly, core philosophy, which purview these questions do fall under, is currently on the sidelines.

strogonoff 4y ago

> Saying mind and thinking can exist without any physical basis doesn't make it possible either It doesn’t need to be made possible because it logically is. (Both approaches are possible, that is not even an argument.) But not only is it possible, I’d argue that in fact it is less contrived because there is one less construct (that “physical basis”) to will into being from nothingness. > in a very real sense we clearly know quite a lot about the world around us This is a good illustration of how everything looks like a nail to the hammer of STEM. I am a little sleepy to continue this argument properly, but while we (with our minds) have created some models that enabled us to do some things (which things, notably, effect our minds in every instance) there is no knowing of even the basic fundamentals about the world around us. Physics cannot be a sole tool for achieving such knowledge because questions such as “what actually exists” are outside of its purview—e.g., the idea of mind as the territory and perceived time-space as a map/interface is not at odds with physics (which in this scenario, while not under spotlight anymore, would along with other natural sciences still be recognized as a tool for effecting desired changes in the territory). Sadly, core philosophy, which purview these questions do fall under, is currently on the sidelines.