The Correlation-Requires-Correlates Proof of Double-Aspect Theory

I here present my proof for Double-Aspect Theory - a theory endorsed by thinkers such as Spinoza and Schopenhauer.

It is worth watching my previous videos, 'Mind Transcends Brain' and 'Schopenhauer: Atheist, Idealist, Visionary', to gain a more comprehensive understanding if this topic is new to you.

Ultimately the point is that Materialism is insufficient for understanding consciousness and subjectivity.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• double
• aspect
• theory
• neural
• correlates
• of
• consciousness
• schopenhauer
• spinoza
• chalmers
• type-f
• neutral
• monism
• dualism
• materialism
• panpsychism
• philosophy
• neurology
• brain
• octopus
• squid
• nervous
• system
• qualia
• mind
• subjectivity
• objectivity
• cognitive
• neurons
• neuroscience
• epistemology
• ontology
• psychology
• ontologistics

[killer4hire]

@Ontologistics

Is this your view on the difference between neutral monism and double-aspect theory:

Neutral monism allows things to be mental, physical, both or none while double-aspect theory only allows irreducibility of the mental and physical while they still are distinct.

Or do you have differences things to add/remove in your view?

[Ontologistics]

@killer4hire

Watch my videos on Schopenhauer, and 'Mind Transcends Brain'. I can't explain it here in the comments' section. Then read Kant's first Critique, then Schopenhauer's magnus opus!

[meanlittledog]

I imagine you are not a fan of Dan Dennett. What do you think of Chalmers and his zombies?

[Ontologistics]

@meanlittledog

Well I have corresponded with Chalmers pointing out the similarities between his 'Type-F Monism' and Schopenhauer's philosophy. I do not agree with his zombie hypotheticals though.

Dennett's views are absurd. His is not an explanation but a denial.

[killer4hire]

This is not distinguishable from dualism.

Neurology predicts that we cannot know the subjective conscious experiences of others, human or octopus. This is not a problem as we know these experiences require the playback machine they where created on, the brain. As we do not have the brain of the individual that experienced the phenomenon it is expected that we cannot know their subjective experience.

No problem there at all, this is predicted and expected.

[Ontologistics]

@killer4hire

I'm afraid that if you don't understand the difference between dualism and neutral monism, you need to continue studying the issue. I'm afraid you've completely misinterpreted the video.

[in2dionysus]

What makes it knowledge, wisdom hides in salt production, salt is never the same; your looking for a predicate of knowledge, if it proceeds from a certain amount of energy anything is possible . . . All I am saying is that looking closer at the objective is needed - a term for power in knowledge. If reason has a optimum amount of cerebral context of a salt character map a visual is not proceding, it is showing predicament of terms of the context to which may or may not proceed - not purposeful!

[TheLawGiver42]

@Ontologistics Thank you for your videos I have subbed.

[JohananRaatz]

@Ontologistics "Dennett's views are absurd. His is not an explanation but a denial."

No it's not. He's just a p-zombie and doesn't actually have consciousness! Of course he can't believe the consciousness exists!

LOL

[JohananRaatz]

@Ontologistics Nice video.

[jesokingcryst]

youtu-dot-be/eUKgqtUJn-I

[killer4hire]

@Ontologistics

I have many other books to read before I will read a critique of pure reason (which I already bought) so thanks but it is not a practical suggestion for me.

[killer4hire]

@InvincibleNumanist

Yes I mistook neutral monism for dualism to but it says there is only one neutral substance that forms mind and body and that substance is not physical or mental but neutral. It is reductionist so mind does not emerge but is different from matter.

The mental and the physical instances of neutral substance are the same yet different. This seems contradictory but ontologistics should explain that as it is not my view of things.

[InvincibleNumanist]

@killer4hire

Dualism implies materialism aswel as a different substance, monism implies neither.