Excerpts from Iain McGilchrist's TMWT regarding consciousness, the world and what we are doing here

[shunyadragon]

Obviously we have some pretty basic disagreements.

Yes, my problems and disagreements are reflected in the vagueness and lack of substance even from the philosophical perspective as far as the excerpts from the book provided such as:

"Rationality is exclusive: reason is inclusive, balancing rationality with intuition, emotion, and imagination."

From the objective or subjective perspective; rationality cannot be separated from reason. It is an artificial distinction.

 

[Whateverist]

Yes, my problems and disagreements are reflected in the vagueness and lack of substance even from the philosophical perspective as far as the excerpts from the book provided such as:

"Rationality is exclusive: reason is inclusive, balancing rationality with intuition, emotion, and imagination."

From the objective or subjective perspective; rationality cannot be separated from reason. It is an artificial distinction.

Rationality is never absent from reason (unless misapplied) but one can insist on nothing but evidenced facts and logic in which case ‘reason’, as a human endeavor, has been rejected in favor of the kind of calculus a machine can do.

 

[shunyadragon]

Rationality is never absent from reason (unless misapplied) but one can insist on nothing but evidenced facts and logic in which case ‘reason’, as a human endeavor, has been rejected in favor of the kind of calculus a machine can do.

Reason as defined in any language is a synonym, for rationality. The scientific approach to consciousness is not mechanistic and has nothing to do with calculus, except calculous is in the math toolbox of science,

 

[Whateverist]

Reason as defined in any language is a synonym, for rationality. The scientific approach to consciousness is not mechanistic and has nothing to do with calculus, except calculous is in the math toolbox of science,

It is a fine difference which will probably sail over your head. But rationality is generally what one engages in to support a conclusion they already hold as true. So it is past-focused and essentially an exercise in justification. Reason is forward looking, a search to find a truth you haven’t already signed off on. For what you seem most often to focus on, the first use is probably your go-to. I see you as in a fortress defending all the positions you’ve arrived at which you generally feel pretty strongly about. A challenge to your opinion probably feels like it is personal.

I on the other hand expect my opinions to stand on their own merits. I refuse to invest any effort in their defense. Take them or leave. It’s okay with me. I don’t think all opinions can or should be defended. I’m more interested in welcoming in a new and better truth than in defending what has all ready been let in. In this thread I’ve been sharing what I find to be some pretty interesting takes on a number of very subtle but interesting questions. I’m no more wed to them than those I’ve found on my own. If you’re looking for a debate, keep looking but I don’t enjoy them so no thank you.