Liminal Meanings

PhD candidate in philosophy at UWA. Post-traditional yogi & meditator (since 1995).

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

Repost. Major milestone achieved: because it's my *first* peer reviewed journal publication, wading into a debate on comparisons between mindfulness & phenomenology. I turn to Gendlin's work on implicit understanding & traditional notions of prajñā.

https://t.co/vwFponnS2v

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@TVachaW From my (now in long hiatus) substack:

TLDR: these too can be experienced.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

Eugene Gendlin

[Phil Hoyeck @PAHoyeck]

Since everyone is sharing their favourite American authors, who is the best American philosopher?

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

Materialists (or physicalists) are, without exception, still dualists in disguise. By virtue of their own assertions they make an anomaly of themselves.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@ArtemisConsort @growing_daniel Again, you're begging the question. The charge of unfalsifiability only works if one starts by assuming that 3rd-person evidence suffices to establish 1st-person experience. But that is precisely what is at issue.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@ArtemisConsort Your whole argument presupposes 1st-person experience can be inferred from 3rd-person performance. But that is precisely the assumption the Pope is disputing. Claiming that formally emulated behaviour proves consciousness shows you've just baked your conclusion into the premise.

[Jakob Ziguras @noonessleep]

@SimonSimplicio @FeserEdward A significant part of the confusion about LLM's seems o arise precisely because people treat intelligible content as something that is just there, like an externally property, overlooking their own contribution, and projecting it onto the LLM instead.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@TVachaW @_space_punk_ Yes, materialists believe that from fundamentally mindless formal operations, meaningfulness somehow springs forth, such that it's felt by a *resultant* subjectivity. They thus attribute the mechanism with subject-like capacities to explain the subject it supposedly produces.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@Grimezsz @dash_eats "Emergence" is doing lots of work here. From fundamentally mindless formal operations, *meaning* somehow arises such that it's meaningful-for a *resultant* someone. Curiously, the subject arrives at the end of the explanation, but seems to be needed from the outset.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@2Philosophical_ 💯
It's furthermore astonishing how much he completely misunderstood Ryle's 'ghost in the machine' argument, now routinely misused to score cheap points against 'spooky' consciousness.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

Clocks don't literally *tell* you the time, ergo...

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

Saying this can't be proven/disproven assumes already that consciousness is an extra property that awaits empirical detection upon examining an object. But the very act of 'proving', 'disproving', 'detecting' & 'examining' already presupposes it. Before the question, there it is.

[𝖦𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 ⏳ @Grimezsz]

@dash_eats You literally cannot prove or disprove this. Because we cannot prove or disprove it, we shud take the matter seriously, because if it can be tortured, there will be serious consequences for humanity and for the minds we're creating

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@Grimezsz @dash_eats Saying this can't be proven/disproven assumes already that consciousness is an extra property that awaits empirical detection upon examining an object. But the very act of 'proving', 'disproving', 'detecting' & 'examining' already presupposes it. Before the question, there it is.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

What materialist scientists say: "It's all about the scientific method!"

What materialist scientists mean: "It's all about our unexamined, non-empirical presupposition!"

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@KennethFolk 💯

Up to book 16. But stopped a while ago in order to stretch out the time between that and finishing the series!

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

and cell is a little different. Only humans make graph paper. Where do you ever see it in nature? The larger process is creative, and generates among other things the wild and world-shaking production of graph paper." — Gendlin, A Process Model

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

"So convinced were thinkers that nature is graph paper. How odd! Logic, math, and graph paper are quintessentially human creations—nothing natural comes in equal units that can be substituted in logical slots. Every leaf...

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

"Since we humans are here, we can be certain that we are not impossible. A conceptual model of “reality” that makes us seem impossible has to have something wrong with it." — Gendlin

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@O1A2S3D @realitymap Furthermore, the modern worldview embeds a form of thinking/perceiving absent from earlier epochs. Inner life & outer world weren't experienced as rigidly distinct realms. What we now dismiss as 'supernatural' was a taken for granted reality; woven into everyday perception.

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

@WystanTBS Re: irreconcilability. The Silk Road traditions (Manichaeism & Tang era Nestorians) beg to differ. Dharma infused with Christ. For all its rational presentation at heart Buddhism is a *living* mystery tradition.

Visiting the monasteries: with stillness sense the Presence 🙏

[Liminal Meanings @_beyondwithin_]

Related to the latest contention: A common trope of secular disenchantment is dividing the world into natural/visible/rational versus supernatural/invisible/irrational. 'Explaining' super-sensible experience in the reductive terms of physical or mental processes.