• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
smcder said:
meant to expand on this a bit ... but my wife had to take the laptop to the hospital last night
Click to expand...

I haven't yet followed the links in that discussion and have been distracted by other things the last few days, so I'll read back to posts related to the moral realism issue. I'm not actually familiar with the concept of moral realism and would like to explore it if that's okay with you and Pharoah.
 
Moore doesn’t know he is not a brain in a vat.

What of double negatives from this:

1. Moore knows that he has hands.
2. Moore doesn’t know he is not a brain in a vat.
3. If Moore doesn’t know he is not a brain in a vat, then he doesn’t know that he has hands.
 
Hello all. I've been out of town the past three weekends and been otherwise occupied throughout the weeks despite my best efforts to combat such evilness.

I've been casually following along to the current discussion of philosophy in general. I've also been reading Mind in Life as I get brief opportunities.

I have been listening to the Expanding Mind podcast. The last several episodes have been awesome. I came to share one in particular that I can all here would love. The topic involves the nexus of religion, philosophy, and physics. What not to love?

Syntheism Now! - 04.30.15 at Expanding Mind

But in a remarkable instance of synchronicity, as I went to gather the above link, I see the latest episode's topic is none other than speculative realism. Wow.

The Mind of Rocks - 05.07.15 at Expanding Mind
 
Welcome back, Soupie. The Expanding Mind podcast is new to me and I will pursue the material at the links you've provided.
 
Soupie said:
Hello all. I've been out of town the past three weekends and been otherwise occupied throughout the weeks despite my best efforts to combat such evilness.

I've been casually following along to the current discussion of philosophy in general. I've also been reading Mind in Life as I get brief opportunities.

I have been listening to the Expanding Mind podcast. The last several episodes have been awesome. I came to share one in particular that I can all here would love. The topic involves the nexus of religion, philosophy, and physics. What not to love?

Syntheism Now! - 04.30.15 at Expanding Mind

But in a remarkable instance of synchronicity, as I went to gather the above link, I see the latest episode's topic is none other than speculative realism. Wow.

The Mind of Rocks - 05.07.15 at Expanding Mind
Click to expand...

Expanding Mind is good, was one of my regular podcasts on long commute - Erik Davis, Techgnosis good book
 
Pharoah said:
Moore doesn’t know he is not a brain in a vat.

What of double negatives from this:

1. Moore knows that he has hands.
2. Moore doesn’t know he is not a brain in a vat.
3. If Moore doesn’t know he is not a brain in a vat, then he doesn’t know that he has hands.
Click to expand...

coincidence, just listened to Dreyfuss on Searle and BiaV scenarios - acid test, can you deny the outside world, puts Searle and Husserl together, and the whole history of substance ontology - Descartes, man as a thinking substance
 
Something that is not knowable is not the same as something not known.
Bith negative statements about knowledge... does this impact on the validity or usefulness of the 3 assertions
 
Pharoah said:
or do statements in logic distinguish between diuble negatives and positives
Click to expand...

The distinguished linguistics professor said:

"Every language recognizes the double negative as a positive. No known language employs the the double positive as indicative of a negation."

From the back a grad student was heard to opine:

"yeah ... yeah"
 
for something to be the negative of knowable, is to say that it is possible for it to be known.
When this is not the case (as demonstrated through the double negative), then the term knowledge is inadmissable for it is outside the realm of knowledge and the knowable.
Is this a metaphysical epistemological mix up?
 
Pharoah said:
for something to be the negative of knowable, is to say that it is possible for it to be known.
When this is not the case (as demonstrated through the double negative), then the term knowledge is inadmissable for it is outside the realm of knowledge and the knowable.
Is this a metaphysical epistemological mix up?
Click to expand...

Can't we legitimately say that something that is unknowable for us now might be knowable for others elsewhere in the universe and also by our species in time, with development of understanding?
 
Constance said:
Can't we legitimately say that something that is unknowable for us now might be knowable for others elsewhere in the universe and also by our species in time, with development of understanding?
Click to expand...
https://www.umass.edu/philosophy/PDF/Aune/ETK3.pdf
p.14-15
is it ever knowable that we are a brain in a vat?
If it were shown to me that I was a brain in a vat, I could use the same standards of measure (skeptical standards) to equally question tthe validity of the revelation.
Consequently, to be unable to know or not know whether something is knowable, is to make the assertion (the skeptical assertion) absurd and inadmissable as an argument.
Just a thought...
 
This 60 min lecture by Harman was very helpful for me. He discusses OOOs and relational approaches versus in-themselves approaches.

 
smcder said:
Being and Number in Heidegger's Thought // Reviews // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame

"One reason to welcome a book on Heidegger on mathematics is that it should help retire a pair of stale falsehoods: that Heidegger's philosophy, and so-called continental philosophy more broadly, is inimical to rationality, science, logic, and mathematics; and that commentators on Heidegger revel in and propagate such a rift."
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that review, Steve. Has the reviewer himself pursued a clarification of Heidegger's thinking concerning the truth value of mathematics for an understanding of being? I'll do a search to see what else has been published in this line since the book reviewed. The reviewer's last statement is intriguing:

" we still have to wait for an interpretation of Heidegger's philosophy of mathematics; it will turn out to be a metaphysics of quantity that shows the numerical to be a necessary, yet derivative, articulation of the understanding of being."
 
Pharoah said:
https://www.umass.edu/philosophy/PDF/Aune/ETK3.pdf
p.14-15
is it ever knowable that we are a brain in a vat?
If it were shown to me that I was a brain in a vat, I could use the same standards of measure (skeptical standards) to equally question tthe validity of the revelation.
Consequently, to be unable to know or not know whether something is knowable, is to make the assertion (the skeptical assertion) absurd and inadmissable as an argument.
Just a thought...
Click to expand...

It's not quite clear yet to me what you are thinking and writing in these last few posts, Pharoah. I don't think that rules of logic derived by philosophers in the past (when 'science' understood less than it does now about the nature of even merely physical 'reality') can help us in the present. It sometimes seems in what you have written recently that traditional semantic logic constitutes one of the philosophical 'boxes' you were referring to in one of your posts yesterday as categorizations you resist. It seems that your attitude toward the logic box shifts. Can you clarify?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top