Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

[Soupie]

if you have property dualism you have to account for both sides of the puzzle, as the neurons are put together into a brain, phenomenal experience (carried as a property of the primal stuff the neurons themselves are made of) has to also be put together and in a coherent way so that our subjective impression of the world is accurate ... so subjective experience, the mental, constrains the formation of the nervous system as much as vice versa and both have to be functional and point to the same thing, I won't survive if I perceive that apple pie as green velveeta.

I'm not sure about this, actually. As I noted in a past post, I think qualia can actually be arbitrary. That is, you could perceive an apple pie as green velveeta so long as you always perceived it that way.

This may be an area ripe for phenomenological study, but it seems that many qualia (at first blush) could be arbitrary: taste, color, sound, even feelings. Why couldn't pain by pleasure and pleasure be pain.

On the other hand, at first blush, certain qualia strike me as being essential such as size and distance. Meaning, it wouldn't matter if a tiger was purple and smelled like roses, but if we perceived it as being far away when it was actually close, that might be a problem. (On second thought, we would just "learn" that when a tiger was "far away," that meant danger...)

Again, I haven't devoted much thought to this, but I'm not sure how much phenomenal experience constrains the material side of the coin, at least a priori (if I'm using that correctly).

However, once the physical puzzle started to come together - producing the subjective puzzle - the subjective puzzle couldn't all of the sudden go higgly piggly. If the subjective puzzle went bonkers, that would indicate that the physical puzzle was going bonkers too.

 

[Soupie]

How is the pencil example different, fundamentally from the artificial arm example? Both take some kind of ultimately physical input and in the end you have an experience.

So where and when does the physical "input" become or get "translated into" subjective experience? You seem to be suggesting that it does.

My contention is that the "pattern" of input is the phenomenal experience.

 

[Soupie]

So now you are a trinitarian? ;-) You're also going to need time and space for motion.

Not necessarily: Space may be a result of 3D matter. Especially if space is infinitely small and large. If there is no 3D matter, do we really have 3-dimensional space? Same with time: If matter existed but did not move and/or change, how might an observer know that time had passed, again assuming an infinite universe. We couldn't.

smcder: "information is immaterial" but it needs matter and energy, sin fact we can completely define it in terms of matter and energy in fact, but it's still immaterial? ... how does it differ from any other process? I can't get my head around this ... because I think this is language.

There are many people apparently who do not think information is physical/material.

One way of thinking about it is to think of the concept of five.

5, five, V, cinco

If we "look" for five in the symbols above will we find? Is "five" in the symbols? The pixels? The colors? The computer? Where is five? Five is immaterial. Five exists - it is real - but it needs something material or physical to "embody" it.

This is how I think of the mind: qualia, thoughts, and sense of self.

 

[Pharoah]

What's so scary about explanation?
I can understand why it was a problem for the early church; threatening the fabric of religious doctrine.
But in a secular society, what is the motivation for the denial of explanation? - perhaps hankering for something to believe in...
This forum excels in the art of avoiding critical analysis. Everytime it gets remotely close, it swerves off. It is like the footballer running toward the goal and missing because the excitement of trying is more compelling that achieving the aim. Is the bond of running around the pitch together excitedly greater than realising the purpose of the activity?
One of the techniques I have employed with myself is to ask questions with only a yes or no answer, and from that developed a train of thought from which there could be no divergence - a disciplined way of thinking about something to deny distracting vicissitudes. Where is this forum discussion going? In a way it is like a master mind group, but without a direction, a chair, a means of assessing or measuring progress. If it were an operating theatre, all the doctors would be slashing at the body in various places saying, 'here looks like a good place to operate... or perhaps here, or here... this bit looks interesting, look'. Yep... but the patient is going to be dead.

 

[smcder]

What's so scary about explanation?
I can understand why it was a problem for the early church; threatening the fabric of religious doctrine.
But in a secular society, what is the motivation for the denial of explanation? - perhaps hankering for something to believe in...
This forum excels in the art of avoiding critical analysis. Everytime it gets remotely close, it swerves off. It is like the footballer running toward the goal and missing because the excitement of trying is more compelling that achieving the aim. Is the bond of running around the pitch together excitedly greater than realising the purpose of the activity?
One of the techniques I have employed with myself is to ask questions with only a yes or no answer, and from that developed a train of thought from which there could be no divergence - a disciplined way of thinking about something to deny distracting vicissitudes. Where is this forum discussion going? In a way it is like a master mind group, but without a direction, a chair, a means of assessing or measuring progress. If it were an operating theatre, all the doctors would be slashing at the body in various places saying, 'here looks like a good place to operate... or perhaps here, or here... this bit looks interesting, look'. Yep... but the patient is going to be dead.

Lol

 

[smcder]

What's so scary about explanation?
I can understand why it was a problem for the early church; threatening the fabric of religious doctrine.
But in a secular society, what is the motivation for the denial of explanation? - perhaps hankering for something to believe in...
This forum excels in the art of avoiding critical analysis. Everytime it gets remotely close, it swerves off. It is like the footballer running toward the goal and missing because the excitement of trying is more compelling that achieving the aim. Is the bond of running around the pitch together excitedly greater than realising the purpose of the activity?
One of the techniques I have employed with myself is to ask questions with only a yes or no answer, and from that developed a train of thought from which there could be no divergence - a disciplined way of thinking about something to deny distracting vicissitudes. Where is this forum discussion going? In a way it is like a master mind group, but without a direction, a chair, a means of assessing or measuring progress. If it were an operating theatre, all the doctors would be slashing at the body in various places saying, 'here looks like a good place to operate... or perhaps here, or here... this bit looks interesting, look'. Yep... but the patient is going to be dead.

I've had some of the same thoughts myself and similar criticism has been leveled in the past, though not so politely!

What about starting a thread on HCT?

Onlinephilosophyclub has a good forum too, probably more suited to your interests - this thread is a niche on a paranormal site, so it's come down to just a few participants and I think we should be discussing the paranormal too.

It is what it is but there are some good exchanges and I can look back on a lot of info to follow up on, including your own work which I will try to stay up on.

 

[smcder]

What's so scary about explanation?
I can understand why it was a problem for the early church; threatening the fabric of religious doctrine.
But in a secular society, what is the motivation for the denial of explanation? - perhaps hankering for something to believe in...
This forum excels in the art of avoiding critical analysis. Everytime it gets remotely close, it swerves off. It is like the footballer running toward the goal and missing because the excitement of trying is more compelling that achieving the aim. Is the bond of running around the pitch together excitedly greater than realising the purpose of the activity?
One of the techniques I have employed with myself is to ask questions with only a yes or no answer, and from that developed a train of thought from which there could be no divergence - a disciplined way of thinking about something to deny distracting vicissitudes. Where is this forum discussion going? In a way it is like a master mind group, but without a direction, a chair, a means of assessing or measuring progress. If it were an operating theatre, all the doctors would be slashing at the body in various places saying, 'here looks like a good place to operate... or perhaps here, or here... this bit looks interesting, look'. Yep... but the patient is going to be dead.

I've also thought of this thread as a kind of bull session/brainstorming session - we all have very different interests and kinds of minds, for me much of the value happens offline when I take a piece of the thread and research it or play with it in my head. It may clarify something for me in Heidegger or give me an idea for a short story - or something for my blog, so for me the broad, rambling dialogue is of great value.

But I think you are looking for peer review for your theory.

"One of the techniques I have employed with myself is to ask questions with only a yes or no answer, and from that developed a train of thought from which there could be no divergence - a disciplined way of thinking about something to deny distracting vicissitudes."

I'm intrigued, do you have an example on your blog or something you could outline here step by step? I'd like to see the process in action.

 

[Constance]

. . . Where is this forum discussion going?

One of the techniques I have employed with myself is to ask questions with only a yes or no answer, and from that developed a train of thought from which there could be no divergence - a disciplined way of thinking about something to deny distracting vicissitudes.

I'm intrigued, do you have an example on your blog or something you could outline here step by step? I'd like to see the process in action.

It's good to have this discussion. Pharoah is correct in observing that this lengthy forum thread has been undisciplined. But like Steve I've found it to be useful in exploring key questions and issues involved in the field of consciousness studies, and especially useful in the many citations provided here to particular papers presenting different perspectives on those questions and issues. I'd also like to see an example from Pharoah of the kind of deliberation he undertakes by pursuing yes and no questions.

I'd much prefer that the forum operate like a seminar in which all participants read and then discuss one text at a time. As it is, we move too quickly from one topic to another rather than pursuing one topic at a time in a mutually intelligible and productive way. We also see quite a lot of repetitious posts restating the same point of view (which becomes no clearer with repetition). We can't even come to a mutual understanding on the basic terms employed here, particularly 'information', 'qualia', 'phenomenon', and 'phenomenology'. As Steve points out today, 'phenomenology' is a term used in often-inappropriate ways, and the SEP article he cites is one we should all read. 'Phenomenology' properly refers to both a sizeable and complex school of philosophy and a founding methodology developed by Husserl that has been productively applied in some other disciplines (e.g., psychology, archaeology, cultural anthropology, art), but the term is used vaguely and inappropriately in others fields -- for example when scientists and physicians use the term to refer to what they can describe as visibly apparent in the animal, person, biological function or disfunction, symptom, behavior, etc., of the subject under investigation.

The degree to which phenomenological philosophy is not understood by analytical philosophers is demonstrated in many of the papers we've read by specialists in 'philosophy of mind'. For example, the question Pharoah asked me to respond to yesterday in this post

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2 | Page 68 | The Paracast Community Forums

wouldn't be asked by someone who had read and understood phenomenological philosophy. I'll post next what I'm able to say in response to his question and my suggestion that he read the SEP entries on phenomenology and the major phenomenological philosophers to obtain a basic orientation to this school of philosophy and its founding methodology.

It's my contention that everyone interested in consciousness and the interdisciplinary field of consciousness studies needs to develop an understanding of the phenomenology of consciousness. I posted in Part 1 of this thread many links to and extracts from relevant sources with only one taker, Steve, who has developed an understanding of phenomenology and pursues his own investigation of Nietzsche and Heidegger in particular.

 

[Constance]

"information is immaterial"
"mind is imphysical"

And we, our lives, our world, time and temporality, nature as a whole might not be 'real'. We and our reality might merely consist in a 'virtual reality' running on some computer we cannot see, somewhere we can't imagine.

[Insert rolling eyes icon.]

 

[Pharoah]

I've also thought of this thread as a kind of bull session/brainstorming session - we all have very different interests and kinds of minds, for me much of the value happens offline when I take a piece of the thread and research it or play with it in my head. It may clarify something for me in Heidegger or give me an idea for a short story - or something for my blog, so for me the broad, rambling dialogue is of great value.

But I think you are looking for peer review for your theory.

"One of the techniques I have employed with myself is to ask questions with only a yes or no answer, and from that developed a train of thought from which there could be no divergence - a disciplined way of thinking about something to deny distracting vicissitudes."

I'm intrigued, do you have an example on your blog or something you could outline here step by step? I'd like to see the process in action.

Certainly this forum is a good brainstorming process and I too find the links to material useful in extending my knowledge.
I also feel good about the community spirit - that people are open to new ideas and will add value.
I just get frustrated sometimes because of the flitting from one thing to another: I prefer to close in on ideas and hack them till they can't move.

I have sought peer review. I was told by one reviewer to write a book because there was too much material for a journal article (I agree). I don't know how to write for journals really - as Peter Carruthers explained to me "you don't write like a philosopher". I am dyslexic - my brain won't write the way I need to and it takes me ages to read and write.

smcder: what is your blog address?

The yes no method:
If you had Dennett in a room, what you would do is ask a series of yes / no questions and try to find, over the course of many questions, a point at which he says yes and no to the same question and pin him down on it. In a way, my review of his Intentional Stance demonstrates inconsistency in this way. Ideally, I would want him to acknowledge that inconsistency, but he is hardly likely to do that. The best I got is an admission of irony which I do not consider a good defence nor a serious technique in philosophical method. I have now included part of his response in the blog post c.f. section 2 - Intentional Stance | Dennett | Representation | Philosophy of Consciousness

See Dennett, Hameroff, Hoffman interviewed and discussing at Consciousness Central • From TSC 2014 on USTREAM: AT 1PM PDT: A daily roundup of events at the Toward a Science of Consciousness conference, Tucson, AZ, Ap...
You guys and gall will most probably like Hoffman's interface theory a heck of a lot - It is approximately the last quarter of the video.

 

[Pharoah]

It's good to have this discussion. Pharoah is correct in observing that this lengthy forum thread has been undisciplined. But like Steve I've found it to be useful in exploring key questions and issues involved in the field of consciousness studies, and especially useful in the many citations provided here to particular papers presenting different perspectives on those questions and issues. I'd also like to see an example from Pharoah of the kind of deliberation he undertakes by pursuing yes and no questions.

I'd much prefer that the forum operate like a seminar in which all participants read and then discuss one text at a time. As it is, we move too quickly from one topic to another rather than pursuing one topic at a time in a mutually intelligible and productive way. We also see quite a lot of repetitious posts restating the same point of view (which becomes no clearer with repetition). We can't even come to a mutual understanding on the basic terms employed here, particularly 'information', 'qualia', 'phenomenon', and 'phenomenology'. As Steve points out today, 'phenomenology' is a term used in often-inappropriate ways, and the SEP article he cites is one we should all read. 'Phenomenology' properly refers to both a sizeable and complex school of philosophy and a founding methodology developed by Husserl that has been productively applied in some other disciplines (e.g., psychology, archaeology, cultural anthropology, art), but the term is used vaguely and inappropriately in others fields -- for example when scientists and physicians use the term to refer to what they can describe as visibly apparent in the animal, person, biological function or disfunction, symptom, behavior, etc., of the subject under investigation.

The degree to which phenomenological philosophy is not understood by analytical philosophers is demonstrated in many of the papers we've read by specialists in 'philosophy of mind'. For example, the question Pharoah asked me to respond to yesterday in this post

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2 | Page 68 | The Paracast Community Forums

wouldn't be asked by someone who had read and understood phenomenological philosophy. I'll post next what I'm able to say in response to his question and my suggestion that he read the SEP entries on phenomenology and the major phenomenological philosophers to obtain a basic orientation to this school of philosophy and its founding methodology.

It's my contention that everyone interested in consciousness and the interdisciplinary field of consciousness studies must develop an understanding of the phenomenology of consciousness. I posted in Part 1 of this thread many links to and extracts from relevant sources with only one taker, Steve, who has developed an understanding of phenomenology and pursues his own investigation of Nietzsche and Heidegger in particular.

"I'll post next what I'm able to say in response to his question" Cool... I look forward to your reply.
I have read the SEP on phenomenology a few times.
You are right in questioning my competence in phenomenological philosophy. I have tried, but find it's like eating sprouts. Even sprouts coated in chocolate don't do it for me. That is why I assumed you, being a phenomenologist, would like Mahler - not sure why I was wrong on that.
You say, "I'd much prefer that the forum operate like a seminar in which all participants read and then discuss one text at a time". I think I would limit it to very short passages of texts or to concepts. But for me, I would want to come away with concrete conclusions, which would be a challenge and would probably be not what others would want.
I have been in three mastermind groups and they are very difficult to structure in order to determine decisive actions let alone decisive thought. But I think that philosophical community, at its creative pinnacle, would function in this manner.

 

[Constance]

"I'll post next what I'm able to say in response to his question" Cool... I look forward to your reply.
I have read the SEP on phenomenology a few times.
You are right in questioning my competence in phenomenological philosophy. I have tried, but find it's like eating sprouts. Even sprouts coated in chocolate don't do it for me. That is why I assumed you, being a phenomenologist, would like Mahler - not sure why I was wrong on that.

What is it about phenomenology, or rather your impression of phenomenological philosophy, that suggests that a phenomenologist would like Mahler? And what phenomenologists have you tried to read?

You say, "I'd much prefer that the forum operate like a seminar in which all participants read and then discuss one text at a time". I think I would limit it to very short passages of texts or to concepts.

Even that would be an improvement for me. Perhaps you can start out with an example you would like to see discussed here?

But for me, I would want to come away with concrete conclusions, which would be a challenge and would probably be not what others would want.

It would be a challenge given the complexity of the subject of consciousness, but I'd like to see how, given a significant sample text, you would proceed to reach concrete conclusions from it. I hope you'll give this approach a try here. We do need to learn to focus on one issue at a time and engage it from the viewpoints/approaches we bring here.[/quote]

I have been in three mastermind groups and they are very difficult to structure in order to determine decisive actions let alone decisive thought. But I think that philosophical community, at its creative pinnacle, would function in this manner.

I think so too.

 

[Constance]

. . .
See Dennett, Hameroff, Hoffman interviewed and discussing at Consciousness Central • From TSC 2014 on USTREAM: AT 1PM PDT: A daily roundup of events at the Toward a Science of Consciousness conference, Tucson, AZ, Ap...
You guys and gall will most probably like Hoffman's interface theory a heck of a lot - It is approximately the last quarter of the video.

I've listened to parts of several of the video interviews at that link but haven't yet found the one where Donald(?) Hoffman is interviewed or discussed. I'd like to find out what he's bringing to CS. Can you link the video where this is best represented? Thanks.

 

[Constance]

@Steve, do you remember what first sparked your interest in phenomenology in Part 1 of this thead (some extract, or post, or linked paper)? I'm asking because I'm trying to think of a text that might draw Pharoah into phenomenology.

 

[Constance]

I have a problem with this statement: "Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view."
The problem I have can be expressed as follows:
In my opinion, you can explain why and how the first-person perspective must exist and have all the characteristics that it has including an individuated identity, without explaining anyone's first-person perspective.

I'm not aware that anyone has explained "why and how the first- person perspective must exist, etc." What have I missed?

Re the underscored clause, a phenomenologically trained psychologist or psychiatrist might be concerned to understand the nature of a particular patient's operative, characteristic, 'first-person perspective' on particular problems in his/her life and/or toward life in general. Such a practitioner would seek to explore the life experiences that have led the patient to take his/her dominant approach to others and/or to his/her own life situation. And such a practitioner would also be aware of the effects of subconscious ideations and issues influencing the patient's perceptions, understanding that many of our motivations, fears and anxieties, and dysfunctions lie beneath the level of waking consciousness.

By contrast, phenomenologists pursuing an understanding of the nature of consciousness through philosophical insights and deliberations are not in the business of analyzing the consciousness of particular individuals in order to 'explain' their first-person perspectives. Merleau-Ponty, the most brilliant and satisfying phenomenological philosopher in my opinion, wrote his dissertation at the Sorbonne on the subject of child psychology, opposing then-dominant Behaviorist psychology by employing the insights of Gestalt psychology. The diss. was published under the title Structures of Behavior. He then wrote the Phenomenology of Perception pursuing the nature of perception in a world in which we interact with the phenomenal appearances of things (and others) which provide our access to understanding the nature of lived reality, including the nature of consciousness itself. The works that followed developed all of his ideas more deeply and more intricately.

Put it this way... say that an atom could speak and were to tell us that 'life is just great being an atom' (probably in a squeaky high voice). Now... laws of physics are pretty good at explaining why certain types of atoms exist, behave as they do, react as they do etc. Say that there was a law of physics that explained that atoms had a first-person perspective, supported by the fact that they talk. We still wouldn't have an explanation of any given atom's first-person perspective. We would just know that they would have to have that perspective.

Right. We couldn't account at all for a given atom's first-person perspective or generalize at all about how atoms sense, feel {are affected by}, and 'think' their world and their being in it (if they have these capacities). By contrast, we have access to numberless representations/expressions of the ways in which humans have experienced their lived realities in the history of our species. As individuals we can comprehend the ways in which we personally experience our own lived reality and we can recognize both differences and similarities in the ways in which those around us experience the same or similar situations. The 'stream of consciousness' that arose in modern fiction developed alongside the development of phenomenology as a means of expressing the complex interior life of human characters carried out in relation to their embedded relationships with others existing in their social, cultural, political mileau. Phenomenology is as much about the lived worlds of humans as it is about their conscious (and subconscious) participation in them. Phenomenological analyses of consciousness as lived in the actual world we exist in have led to the ability to identify and distinguish 'authentic' behavior from inauthentic behavior. From this you might get an idea of the concerns of phenomenological philosophy, but for an understanding of the epistemologies and ontologies it has produced you would need to immerse yourself in some of the major texts.

So my point is this. Does the phenomenological approach sometimes confuse the problem of explaining the first-person perspective, with the problem of explaining their own personal perspective?

I hope my brief remarks above help to clarify why your question does not actually 'make sense' as applied to the philosophy and methodologies of phenomenology.

I just think that they are different problems leading to cross-talk... but this isn't something I hear mentioned very often. You could tell me why I am mistaken.

Would you restate what you see as "different problems"? You might have identified them in an earlier post but I'm not remembering where.

 

[Constance]

ps: one of the SEP entries concerning phenomenology presents its project as identifying 'structures of consciousness', which is a good orientation with which to begin a reading of phenomenological philosophy.

 

[Pharoah]

1. btw. I like this article on reductive explanation:
Serious Metaphysics and the Vindication of Reductions | Janice Dowell - Academia.edu
2. The video has about 13,000 views (all the others have up to 3,000 views only) Hoffman is at 29'08'' onwards.
3. The Mahler thing... I listen, thinking 'where is this going' (this phrase)... and it goes, and it goes, extending indefinitely, and doesn't end up going anywhere. And I think, 'what was the point of that?' But some people Love that 'not arriving' thing. It's the climax that never arrives. The great Hans Keller said Brahms was the great anticlimactic composer - but I don't get that with Brahms personally.
4. What have I tried to read?... Bits of lots of things, but most probably, the wrong bits. I can't remember what I have read. Nothing from beginning to end.
5. What would I like to see discussed? I don't think I should choose something because I am more peripheral that others and I am obsessed with HCT. I am intrigued by Soupie's idea that information is relevant to consciousness and it is something I feel strongly about. You Constance, most probably could find a phenomenology passage (or even one line) that would get the ideas and questions flowing. I am sure people on this forum have expressed ideas that have not been reviewed in the kind of detail that could be instructive.
6. reaching concrete conclusions?... I think the only way to find out if this is possible, would be to give it a go. If you give me some text, or a concept, I would look at it and make some suggestions about what could be done with it. I have not done this kind of thing with a group before but hey ho, I'd give it a go.

 

[Constance]

Pharoah wrote:

1. btw. I like this article on reductive explanation:
Serious Metaphysics and the Vindication of Reductions | Janice Dowell - Academia.edu

I'd seen that title and will read the paper.


5. What would I like to see discussed? I don't think I should choose something because I am more peripheral that others and I am obsessed with HCT. I am intrigued by Soupie's idea that information is relevant to consciousness and it is something I feel strongly about. You Constance, most probably could find a phenomenology passage (or even one line) that would get the ideas and questions flowing. I am sure people on this forum have expressed ideas that have not been reviewed in the kind of detail that could be instructive.

I'd like to see you try a post (a longish one if necessary) in which you summarize the reasons why you pursue a hierarchical construct theory rather than one of the other theories pursued in the CS field. It could clarify what you reject and what you accept relative to those other approaches. It would certainly help me out, for one.

Re the application of information theory to consciousness, no question it's relevant. But there's more than one kind of information theory and more than one interpretation of what constitutes 'information' and how information works in nature in general and specifically how it accounts for consciousness. This is obviously an approach that needs development and definition.

I've asked Steve if he can identify what citations or extracts I posted in part 1 of this thread that first interested him in pursuing phenomenology. I'm doing a personal brain search now to see if I can recall a passage/passages that first stimulated my own interest in phenomenology, but there's no guarantee that it would do the same for you or Soupie.

6. reaching concrete conclusions?... I think the only way to find out if this is possible, would be to give it a go. If you give me some text, or a concept, I would look at it and make some suggestions about what could be done with it. I have not done this kind of thing with a group before but hey ho, I'd give it a go.

I'd rather that you present an exemplary text from which you are able to draw the kind of concrete conclusions you look for.

 

[smcder]

Not necessarily: Space may be a result of 3D matter. Especially if space is infinitely small and large. If there is no 3D matter, do we really have 3-dimensional space? Same with time: If matter existed but did not move and/or change, how might an observer know that time had passed, again assuming an infinite universe. We couldn't.


There are many people apparently who do not think information is physical/material.

One way of thinking about it is to think of the concept of five.

5, five, V, cinco

If we "look" for five in the symbols above will we find? Is "five" in the symbols? The pixels? The colors? The computer? Where is five? Five is immaterial. Five exists - it is real - but it needs something material or physical to "embody" it.

This is how I think of the mind: qualia, thoughts, and sense of self.

There are many people apparently who do not think structure is mental.

One way of thinking about it is to think of the structure "chair".

If we "look" for chair in the "world", what will we find? Is "chair" in the memory? In the longing to sit? In the texture and color? Is chair in the "ah" at the end of a hard day?

Where is chair? Chair is immental. Chair exists - it is real - but iit needs to be thought of, it has to be brought to mind. Because where is "chair" when it's not thought of?

This is how I think of matter.

... Does that make the point?

 

[smcder]

"I'll post next what I'm able to say in response to his question" Cool... I look forward to your reply.
I have read the SEP on phenomenology a few times.
You are right in questioning my competence in phenomenological philosophy. I have tried, but find it's like eating sprouts. Even sprouts coated in chocolate don't do it for me. That is why I assumed you, being a phenomenologist, would like Mahler - not sure why I was wrong on that.
You say, "I'd much prefer that the forum operate like a seminar in which all participants read and then discuss one text at a time". I think I would limit it to very short passages of texts or to concepts. But for me, I would want to come away with concrete conclusions, which would be a challenge and would probably be not what others would want.
I have been in three mastermind groups and they are very difficult to structure in order to determine decisive actions let alone decisive thought. But I think that philosophical community, at its creative pinnacle, would function in this manner.

Can you tell more about mastermind groups? That sounds interesting. I was reading something on Socratic dialogue -

http://phiorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Examined-Life.pdf

Starting at the Fourth paragraph ... just describing the Socratic dialogue, the yes/no method you describe sounds like the "modified" Socratic method they used on us in law school. But not exactly ... the point is I'm also interested in methods and so I want to know more about mastermind groups as well as your own methods and I like the idea of focusing on one topic here on the thread.

"I prefer to close in on ideas and hack them till they can't move."

... sounds like the patient dies in this case too! ;-)

I can relate to the taking ages to read and write ... I struggle with this too and have long thought I have some kind of dyslexia or other difficulty.