Overheard of two people while waiting in line to buy groceries.
“The actuality of a situation is beyond anyone’s ability to be ethical.”
“That’s right. I pay someone through taxes and school fees to deal with the greater problems of the world. Right now I have a career to advance.”
When you think about it, You are really the only one thinking about it, you and then a few other people who like to think about things. when you think about all the other people you encounter that you don’t talk about these things to, probably a minuscule number of those people would have any interest at all, let alone the capacity to comprehend what you might be talking about.
That little conversation got me thinking about what I’m thinking about, and how what my little group of friends might be talking about, can’t really be addressing what we think we’re talking about.
And the reason is very philosophical. The challenge is this: Think of a scenario in a closed system or something in that closed system, some thing that came up only Due to that close system, by the mechanisms contained entirely and functioning within that closed system…
…Ponder how anyone of those elements would be able to do anything that isn’t inherently involved with all the other things in that closed system.
And this is to say, not that I am inherently involved with manifesting my own world including my involvement with other people and things.
Rather, it’s more to really think about what is actually happening when I think that is the case.
The facts of the matter is that— I don’t know, is there 4 billion people in the world?
4 billion things of a closed system only an incredibly tiny proportion of those 4 billion things that are supposed to be in intimate communication with one another, Let alone the multitude of other things that are in this closed system that somehow are “inanimate”, inert”, or “neutral”— that are attempting to address the problems that appear in this closed system.
It wouldn’t even be proper to say that human beings are just coming up with models of the universe, because again, that’s Just a minuscule amount of people that are Supposing to grasp the extents of the system for the sake of all the other multitude of constituents who are not addressing the system for its problems.
But then on the other side of it, to suggest
that it’s a closed system, if indeed it is, then we would have to say that all these other Constituents of the system must be addressing the problems of the system itself but in their own way, such that the small minority of great thinkers are really doing nothing more than solving their own problems in their own way, and are not really addressing problems to the whole of constituency of this closed system.
Further, we could not even say that as individuals we are addressing parts. For, the same conditions would apply, but with a post modern bent; that is, how could we possibly even be communicating with each other what these parts are to disassemble their meaning to the extent of the clothed system?
Hence, anyway we look at it we must assume, nay, we must realize at some point that something else is going on.
But more so, we would have to look at the very method by which we are attempting to address the universe and existence and the people around us and our environment.
If we are honest about addressing these problems, then we would have to indict the very method that we are going about conceptualizing the whole thing.
When we look around and have to live our day today, we have to go to work, we have to actually apply ourselves to very practical and immediate real circumstances, we then would have to realize that Philosophy. splits into two things: One which has to do with how we negotiate the real world, and the other one that Hass to do with how we actually exist truly in the universe.
I think the shorter version of what he is saying, so far as ‘the whole of correlations do not a mind make’, I think concerns my hard problem of consciousness as distinguished from Chalmers hard problem; Chalmers hard problem I think it’s just a very difficult problem, and not hard in the sense of the word that we understand hard beyond the meaning that is “very difficult”. My Hard Problem of consciousness actually indicates a significance of the problem of consciousnes that must be come to terms with before any other problem of consciousnessness has any skin in the game. Without addressing my Hard Problem, the rest become merely an idealized word game.
I keep saying it here in there in various posts of mine, but here it is again:
The hard problem of consciousness is that there is no way to absolutely be convinced that someone else’s brain has anything to do with one’s own consciousness, or consciousness whether or not it is mine or someone else’s. That is, I am only able to be convinced because I’m already convinced.
In other words, it is merely that I believe that I have a brain in which my consciousness resides and that when I look at another human being with a brain, what they find out goes on there, actually has to do with my consciousness.
It may, but then does it really have to do with a brain ? and then as well, does it have to do with my brain (do I have a brain)?
These are the hard questions because Typically They are answered with answers that have wiggle room, for a word, that are soft answers. ￼￼￼
We love soft questions and soft answers because it never requires us to really think, it never requires us to really reflect upon what is actually occurring. ￼On The contrary, it only requires of us to a stay one dimensional, that is to say, non-reflective. we get to have opinions, we get to argue all sorts of great ideas. It’s all really interesting.
There is plenty that people could say to convince me through various proofs that working on someone else’s brain, or doing anything to someone else’s brain has to do with my brain and by extension my consciousness, but the only way that I could understand the equation is to already believe that it is the case.
In other words, I have to already understand that there is a correlation between my consciousness and someone else’s brain that has to do with consciousness.
This hard problem that I am elaborating upon is no different than this authors post of the correlation between electrical activity in one’s brain, say, and consciousness itself.
I would also beg to differ in his use of the idea of “materialism”. For Sure I know what he’s talking about when he refers to materialism, but this materialism he refers to, and then also references it to a true Philosophy, (even as I tend to agree with his definition of philosophy) ￼it’s just one type of materialism, and in fact, it is an “Old materialism”. That is, the “new materialism” is of a different sort￼.
However, in so much as the correlation pointed out by my hard problem of consciousness is no different than the correlation he makes note of between brain activity and consciousness itself, I would then have to point to that problem in which he is inherently involved with is in fact an “old” materialistic problem.
But I like his argument so far is one adheres to the old version of materialism. ￼
The irony that never is resolved in the onto-taxonomy proposal itself, is how the content of the argument against an onto-taxonomy is withheld from its own semantic meaning?
I think this is the basic question Harman never deals with. Apparently, humans have a special ability to “withdraw from view”, just as every object has that same ability, but this ability is also exempted or withheld in the intellectual papers which propose the ideal or proposal. How does meaning itself occur precisely and yet withdraw?
In other words, the meaning of the proposal of OOO, namely, that objects withdraw from view, among the extended proposal, is supposed to not withdraw, but rather is proposed in its presentation to be fully present for the purposes of making its point.
It is this situation to which I refer The Two Routes. It concerns the material of the substance of Object Orientation more than its substance itself.
If indeed Triple-O is sound, that is true, then it answers to the two routes.
If it is merely another philosophical proposal, of idealistic argumentative dimentions, then it fails for what it means.