I would like to have some sources for my own reading pleasure.
I don’t understand the question.
I’m basically inquiring information on a philosophical theory.
You want to know if someone argues that metaphysics preceeded consciousness? Sartre says that existence preceeds essence.
You want to know if someone argues that metaphysics preceeded consciousness? Sartre says that existence preceeds essence.
Not quite.
I want to know if there is a view that consciousness developed out of metaphysical propositions alone instead of that which is the popular view that natural genetics had everything to do with it.
You want to know if someone argues that metaphysics preceeded consciousness? Sartre says that existence preceeds essence.
Although since I love Paul Sartre, do you mind if I ask yourself what you think about that statement you brought up?
[b]Smears I am going to quote Someoneisathedoor from an old ancient post that first began my search for the question subject of this thread.
( Maybe he can come into this thread and give his own answers.)[/b]
Either the imagination is a process of the mind, which is physically developed via the mechanism of evolution, OR it is the result on the mind of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
I want to know if there is any philosophers out there who speak of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
Smears:You want to know if someone argues that metaphysics preceeded consciousness? Sartre says that existence preceeds essence.
Although since I love Paul Sartre, do you mind if I ask yourself what you think about that statement you brought up?
I think that it depends on what you grant existence and how you define essence.
[b]Smears I am going to quote Someoneisathedoor from an old ancient post that first began my search for the question subject of this thread.
( Maybe he can come into this thread and give his own answers.)[/b]
Either the imagination is a process of the mind, which is physically developed via the mechanism of evolution, OR it is the result on the mind of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
I want to know if there is any philosophers out there who speak of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
I think that it depends on what your standard of evidence is and how you interpret things into that standard. Thinking about it really, any philospher of metaphysics will speak of mechanisms which aren’t in empirical evidence.
[b]Smears I am going to quote Someoneisathedoor from an old ancient post that first began my search for the question subject of this thread.
( Maybe he can come into this thread and give his own answers.)[/b]
Either the imagination is a process of the mind, which is physically developed via the mechanism of evolution, OR it is the result on the mind of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
I want to know if there is any philosophers out there who speak of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
plato hume kant berkeley spinoza locke hobbes… all of them really…
-Imp
Joker:[b]Smears I am going to quote Someoneisathedoor from an old ancient post that first began my search for the question subject of this thread.
( Maybe he can come into this thread and give his own answers.)[/b]
Either the imagination is a process of the mind, which is physically developed via the mechanism of evolution, OR it is the result on the mind of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
I want to know if there is any philosophers out there who speak of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
plato hume kant berkeley spinoza locke hobbes… all of them really…
-Imp
Are there any recent writers?
Most people who believe in a metaphysical origin of consciousness speak of it in religious formulas but I on the other hand believe that the metaphysical origin of consciousness came about through accident.
I am looking form a theory which states a aciddentalism of metaphysical consciousness.
What is the popular name or title of such studies anyhow?
Free Will
Free Will
Free will in all reality is unrestrained not restrained.
Anyhow what does any of that have to do with the topic of this thead?
Impenitent: Joker:[b]Smears I am going to quote Someoneisathedoor from an old ancient post that first began my search for the question subject of this thread.
( Maybe he can come into this thread and give his own answers.)[/b]
Either the imagination is a process of the mind, which is physically developed via the mechanism of evolution, OR it is the result on the mind of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
I want to know if there is any philosophers out there who speak of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
plato hume kant berkeley spinoza locke hobbes… all of them really…
-Imp
Are there any recent writers?
Most people who believe in a metaphysical origin of consciousness speak of it in religious formulas but I on the other hand believe that the metaphysical origin of consciousness came about through accident.
I am looking form a theory which states a aciddentalism of metaphysical consciousness.
What is the popular name or title of such studies anyhow?
I think you would enjoy reading some analytic stuff. There’s a guy named David Kellogg Lewis who just died in 2001 so he’s pretty recent. If you want I can send you a good deal of .pdfs from him. I just read a thing from a guy named Hintikka or something like that which was pretty good called “Information Causality”. I can send you all types of recent analytic/metaphysical stuff if you’re interested. Some of it is pretty dense but it’s worth the read. Let me know if you’re interested.
Joker: Impenitent: Joker:[b]Smears I am going to quote Someoneisathedoor from an old ancient post that first began my search for the question subject of this thread.
( Maybe he can come into this thread and give his own answers.)[/b]
Either the imagination is a process of the mind, which is physically developed via the mechanism of evolution, OR it is the result on the mind of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
I want to know if there is any philosophers out there who speak of a metaphysical mechanism that is not in evidence.
plato hume kant berkeley spinoza locke hobbes… all of them really…
-Imp
Are there any recent writers?
Most people who believe in a metaphysical origin of consciousness speak of it in religious formulas but I on the other hand believe that the metaphysical origin of consciousness came about through accident.
I am looking form a theory which states a aciddentalism of metaphysical consciousness.
What is the popular name or title of such studies anyhow?
I think you would enjoy reading some analytic stuff. There’s a guy named David Kellogg Lewis who just died in 2001 so he’s pretty recent. If you want I can send you a good deal of .pdfs from him. I just read a thing from a guy named Hintikka or something like that which was pretty good called “Information Causality”. I can send you all types of recent analytic/metaphysical stuff if you’re interested. Some of it is pretty dense but it’s worth the read. Let me know if you’re interested.
I’m definately interested.
I want to prove that higher awareness or consciousness that we see in man is actually a accidental metaphysical anomaly which was started by some sporadic impression that somehow modified man’s momentary animal senses into that which we call sapience.
Does Marx or Hegel come anywhere near to such a position like that?
I don’t know about Marx or Hegel as far as that sort of stuff goes, but David Lewis is a bad mofo. Look him up on wiki if you want. I’ll send you those articles.
I don’t know about Marx or Hegel as far as that sort of stuff goes, but David Lewis is a bad mofo. Look him up on wiki if you want. I’ll send you those articles.
Alright send me his lectures then.
I am just looking for a piece that describes sapient consciousness as being accidentally formed by prolonged metaphysics through social construction.
Smears:I don’t know about Marx or Hegel as far as that sort of stuff goes, but David Lewis is a bad mofo. Look him up on wiki if you want. I’ll send you those articles.
Alright send me his lectures then.
I am just looking for a piece that describes sapient consciousness as being accidentally formed by prolonged metaphysics through social construction.
He’s not big on social stuff. Mostly analytical. But that’s where it’s at man!! You start that analytical shit pumping in your brain and suddenly it’s like everything you ever read has 10 new interpretations.
I just found somthing on wikipedia which can relate in some sense what I think about consciousness in my beliefs of accidental sapience:
An imaginary world is a setting, place or event or scenario at variance with objective reality, ranging from the voluntary suspension of disbelief of fictional universes and the socially constructed consensus reality of the “Social Imaginary”, to alternate realities resulting from disinformation, misinformation or imaginative speculation, and the subjective universe of altered states of consciousness, psychosis or dream sleep.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_ … _scenarios
Here is somthing else from another site:
[b]In a new theory published in New Ideas in Psychology, consciousness is suggested to be the result of discourse. In other words, consciousness is socially constructed. It would be interesting to know how the author avoids a circularity in how the learning of a common thought, e.g. in development. For example, a child pointing at something which is later named by the caregiver already presupposes a conscious thought. This problem is also known for theories of thought as the internalization of speech, e.g. in the early work of Lev Vygotsky.
Mind, self, and consciousness as discourse
Shi-xu
Institute of Discourse & Cultural Studies, Zhejiang University, Zijingang Campus, 310058 Hangzhou, ChinaNew Ideas in Psychology
Volume 24, Issue 1 , April 2006, Pages 63-81Abstract
The present paper argues for the essential relationship between discourse and the human mind. Drawing upon the critical insights from a range of social sciences including Cultural Psychology and Discourse Studies, I outline in the first part of the paper a discursive account of the mind—of cognition, emotion, self and consciousness and the like: the human mind is constituted in text and talk which are situated in cultural and historical context. The discursive account is based on a social constructionist view of the human cultural world as meanings constructed primarily through linguistic communication in order to accomplish interactional purposes. The central argument here will be that our thinking and feeling are discursive by nature and in origin. Specifically, our minds are (a) derived from, (b) constrained by, (c) utilized in (d) modelled upon, (e) distributed through, and (f) begun with discourse. In the second part, I try to show how, in modern Western linguistics, metaphors from the natural sciences have come to define, and become part of, “the human mind†itself.[/b]
I just found somthing on wikipedia which can relate in some sense what I think about consciousness in my beliefs of accidental sapience:
An imaginary world is a setting, place or event or scenario at variance with objective reality, ranging from the voluntary suspension of disbelief of fictional universes and the socially constructed consensus reality of the “Social Imaginary”, to alternate realities resulting from disinformation, misinformation or imaginative speculation, and the subjective universe of altered states of consciousness, psychosis or dream sleep.
Lewis’s big thing is “possible worlds”. Check your pms.
This looked kinda interesting discussing Marx’s view on consciousness.