@paulhanke,
Thank you, thank you, paulhanke. I fully concur with your observation and outline there. Let me first here touch ground with salima, then evaluate the situation at hand on that matter, paulhanke.
I do appreciate your concern, salima, and your offered consideration for a 'win/win,' synergetic-like activity.
salima;89395 wrote:. . . but i can add a suggestion that there can be a discussion without evidence, etc-purely based on personal opinions or ideas or intuitions.
While I really think we'd all tend to agree with what you have said here in this part--since we usually do that through our daily routines anyway--I would also tend to think that upon careful thought, we'd all come to understand the value of the
learning process that can, and often enough does, mingle and twist right along with the entertainment element of talking about opinions, idea, or intuitions--
personal 'pet theories' or not. Additionally, I think we'd eventually all tend to acquiesce that encouraging accuracy of understanding, on whatever topic of discussion, presents no wrong doing.
It does therefore appear, nevertheless, that if we were to hold any desire of fruitful purpose, productive-in-outcome frame of mind, through all this talking--beyond simply that of entertainment--it would be in our greater interest to encourage discursive development of our ideas and concepts, and weigh them against the fair average of evidences. And that, in turn, would surely give rise to the atmosphere of the need for testing, for demurrability, for offering and requesting evidence, or 'reason-for-thinking-so' explanation. I agree that we can discuss, brainstorm, '
opinionate,' and imagine, yet would argue that we should harbor no qualms against being asked to provide reason, data, and evidence for either
why we may say so and so, or
how we may claim veracity for whatever it is we may say.
salima;89395 wrote:it is also ok if everyone just posts their ideas and presents their case to back up their conclusions-but this is more of a one-way affair, and might have less chance for innovative ideas to emerge
Which understanding, I would posit, is exactly why it would surely prove to be more positive, and productive-in-outcome, to allow as I have argued above.
paulhanke;89393 wrote:1. Jeeprs has mystical leanings (from previous thread)
2. However, it is BrightNoon's thread and post you are responding to
3. BrightNoon is not jeeprs
4. BrightNoon has solipsistic leanings (see OP)
5. BrightNoon has asserted multiple times in the past that experience is not 3rd-person observable
6. BrightNoon asserts in the quote that to require scientific/empiric evidence for everything is to shut down debate on this topic
Why? ... in part because phenomenological description is the logical starting point of this debate and BrightNoon's position is that there cannot be a science of phenomenology (#5) ... but also because at the very foundation of the practice of science is the unscientific assumptive belief that science can in fact be practiced (#4).
I have looked over, and over, and thought about and analyzed the demand in
BrightNoon's #135, and cannot help at all but to see something wrong with it.
In agreeing with the points of the presentation that you have carefully investigated, even, I understand there to be error. (in BrightNoon's position, as well as in jeeprs position) Now, how am I to demonstrate the conclusiveness of this counter understanding which displaces any given, and/or particular point of understanding they may have, if firstly, not allowed to present evidence
(and I realize that there has been no stipulation against any one's presenting evidence of any kind), then, not allowed to demonstrate faultiness in evidence or reasoning for the positions they hold? Also, I argue that we need not take the word 'empirical' to refer only to evidence that the discipline of science, in its strictest sense, provides.
Third person experience is
observable. It is presently not
experienceable; though in robustly demonstrated principle, it can be done (just as one with a fully working visual cortext but without signals from the eyes, can see through signals being directed to the visual cortex from input to the tongue). The solipsistic proposition is very faulty; I can demonstrate that clearly by showing that I am not a figment of BrightNoon's brain content alone, and that he is a totally different entity from either of us posting here (and we most clearly all have full consciousness by standard definition, or we wouldn't be posting when we are posting).
'To shut down debate on this topic?' I fully disagree, and in opposition, offer the statement, 'to reach a more realistic conclusion on some aspects of this topic.' I argue that for BrightNoon to be able to suppliment enough hard data on his numbers four and five (the more obvious kingpins behind his demand) to more clearly substantiate them, he will have to provide reason for thinking so, and he will have to provide empirical data (evidence) both supporting that and dislodging evidence to the contrary.
Science or no science, philosophy or no philosophy, when you apply for a scholarship, you have to show that you are real, when you apply for a loan, you have to show that you are you, when you come to in a hospital bed, you have to show that you know you are you, and that you know where you are and why you are there. This is a major and most important factor of
the total of subjective experience, and it is demonstrateable to a high degree as being based on the matter of having a brain--irrespective of any phenomenological explorations--and therefore, the basis of consciousness is arugably the underlying, and most chronologically first, basement starting point in any discussion on
consciousness. However, paulhanke, would you tend to reason that we should strive for a 'thread .vs. thread approach?
)
