Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2017 - 09:36pm PT
|
nothing
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2017 - 10:00pm PT
|
MH2: A kind of suicide?
It’s a reach but not one made upon measurable data.
I understand this declaration requires that you “read” as more than one person. (Personality is kind of limitation: people usually feel some kind of devotion to who and what they think they are. Of course, there are arguments on both sides.)
All inventive writers “cough up” nonsense. That’s the focus . . . non sense: that which is not of the senses.
jgill: Proven theorems pretty much settle issues, . . .
Is it possible that you could not be a mathematician for just a little while? That’s what we could all be up to on this thread. I hope people are not here so that they can preach to the converted.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2017 - 10:19pm PT
|
MH2: As far as individual aggrandizement, if you can achieve that in the adversarial world of academic philosophy, more power to you.
I know this sounds completely silly, but this innocuous statement really got me involved enough to return to notes on political philosophy. I’d say about half of the philosophers we refer upon regularly think this is not a good way to go. I have to read another day’s worth of reading to get though my notes.)
I guess what I’m feeling these days about these things relates to issues of great passion, nobility, heroism, saintliness, genius, etc. What you write strikes me as bourgeois, and it seems to call for a response.
The humanities led to great mysteries. Science and rationality have simply led to those things yet unanswered. We are diminished when we killed God.
No matter what I might come to in the conversation, I *am* required to say that none of it matters.
Does fun matter?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2017 - 10:21pm PT
|
We are diminished when we killed God.
It's never ever been done nor can it ever be done nor will it ever be done.
Stoopid to even say anything as stoopid as that .......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 09:00am PT
|
MH2 pointed out long ago the evolutionary "innovation" of fine-motor-control that brings along with it refined perception of "space-time."
All this long before the behavior we are ascribing to "consciousness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 10:16am PT
|
If man is special, then he can have dignity. If he is materialistic and deterministic (a la science), then he is no different than the animals. It appears to be impossible to respect the dignity of man and be scientific.
Man lost God without the possibility of resurrection once The French and English Enlightenment cut natural science free from philosophy. Science and reason were supposed to take us to the Good, but without theological or political oversight, rationalism had nothing to say about how to deal with the soul (man’s essence) or his cultures. Reason tells us that all cultures are founded on gods, that there must be religions, but reason itself cannot found them.
If we recognize historical consciousness that arises from primitive folk societies and cultures, then there would seem to be an inner necessity for us to question reason on rational grounds. That is, there cannot be objectivity as we claim it. The discovery of historical (unique) culture and folk mind means there are not universal principles of understanding. “Mind” is historically based. Here in this thread, the question of Mind tends strongly to be scientific and material.
For some people, philosophy is not a doctrine but a way of life. Philosophy for some is the experience of what it is to be uniquely human: a definition of man. Socrates said philosophy’s task was to learn how to die. All of Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet was oriented to preparation for the moment of death.
Poets speak to people who are inclined to see a world full of benevolent and malevolent deities who take their cases seriously, and some newer philosophers seem to be more allied with poets than with science. Certain philosophers demythologized and demystified man in his world, but in doing so, they disenchanted, uprooted, and dropped him in a void of floating meaninglessness with nothing to grasp on to for the meaning of life. Nietzsche, Rousseau, Goethe, for example, made myth-making and world-making central concerns. They recognized and created the sacred. They seemed to imply that God didn’t matter for man nearly as much as religious experience.
The concept of identity for Freud, Nietzsche’s concern for the unconscious, the truth of God for evangelists, etc. are great mysteries that are unfathomable but which are capable of producing world interpretations and cultures. Only the most extreme artists, saints, geniuses, people of great passion and nobility can find their bottom points from which they can move worlds. This is not the realm of objectivity. It is a realm of great subjectivity. These people originate new values, good, evil, new horizons, great dreams, and great thoughts. Nietzsche said such people are not equal. (There goes the democracy—see Toqueville.) The very truth of their thinking is not nearly as important as their capacity to create cultures and values that are life-preserving and life-enhancing.
"What a people bow to tells us what it is."
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 10:59am PT
|
The concept of identity for Freud, Nietzsche’s concern for the unconscious, the truth of God for evangelists, etc. are great mysteries that are unfathomable but which are capable of producing world interpretations and cultures. Only the most extreme artists, saints, geniuses, people of great passion and nobility can find their bottom points from which they can move worlds. This is not the realm of objectivity. It is a realm of great subjectivity. These people originate new values, good, evil, new horizons, great dreams, and great thoughts. Nietzsche said such people are not equal. (There goes the democracy—see Toqueville.) The very truth of their thinking is not nearly as important as their capacity to create cultures and values that are life-preserving and life-enhancing.
The above represents some very serious Gotterdammerung
Lol
Could be read with Wagnerian timpani booming forth in the uncharted atmosphere somewhere above.
The reference to Freudian identity concerns is a definite non-starter and inscrutable in this context, to say the least.
A profound indictment of today's rationalistic democratic order, I'll wager.
And it's all much ado.
Don't worry overmuch MikeL, no need to contort oneself into a pretzel-- subjectively-based irrationality is not going anywhere real soon. In my lifetime irrationality has always proven itself stubbornly much more common and persistent than rationality. Rationality of whatever stripe. ( And of course the same can be said of laziness versus ambition)
In fact, if the chief progeny of irrational subjectivity are life-preserving, life-enhancing cultures (and values) then the much awaited Nietzchean reign of the ubermensch , instead of Uber the car app, might be just around the historical corner. Or at the very least, just like an uber driver, right down the proverbial street, waiting.
Nietzsche said such people are not equal.
I love this line. And it does correctly reflect his thinking in this context.
Gotta love the Nietzche-meister.
Of all the notable philosophers he was the least likely to be rendered memorable in just about every conceivable way. And yet his influence continues to fascinate and perplex; justifiably so
Lol.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 12, 2017 - 12:18pm PT
|
In one of the links Ed provided, the man wrote: "...This article explores the overall geometric manner in which human beings make sense of the world around them by means of their physical theories; in particular, in what are nowadays called pregeometric pictures of Nature. Despite its claims to the contrary, pregeometry is found to surreptitiously and unavoidably fall prey to the very mode of description it endeavours to evade, as evidenced in its all-pervading geometric understanding of the world. The question remains as to the deeper reasons for this human, geometric predilection--present, as a matter of fact, in all of physics."
Like the article I cited, where the Imperial College physicist opined how the concept of space/time is so hard-wired into him that he struggles to imagine how he might ever do physics without them. The challenge, to the author of Ed's cited paper, was to acquire "a sounder comprehension of the physical meaning of empty spacetime."
The question could also be phrased: How do I get a peak behind the discursive veil, which transmutes what is "out there" into forms and phenomena that I can in some way see (including with instruments, which are really just big eyes and means of processing what big eyes "see"). The problem, of course, is that most any description or concept I use will likely be phrased in the language and mind set of Newtonian space-time.
This conundrum has been raked over the philosophical coals for centuries, notably by Kant, with his confounding "noumenon."
"The noumenon is a posited object or event that exists without (independent from) sense or perception.
"The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with or in relation to phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be apprehended by or is an object of the senses.
"Modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable through human sensation.
"In Kantian philosophy, the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable "thing-in-itself" (in Kant's German, Ding an sich), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy.
That's a mind f*#k indeed. But that's not to say we are entirely blocked from this milieu. Maybe we actually live in it, but just don't recognize it, since something in our normal way of recognizing automatically transposes the noumenon into the familiar mental terrain of space-time.
An interesting thought experiment in this regards is to sit in your own consciousness for a spell and while keeping an open focus, notice how content comes and goes in awareness - memories, thoughts, feelings, sensations - and see what sense you can get in terms of an arising thought or feeling, say, and the concept of its location WITHIN awareness.
Also, the arrival and exit of a thought or feeling.
In the classical world we seem to live in, the movement of external objects can seemingly be plotted on an X/Y axis as a baseball, say, moves from here to there. We can see it moving from A to B, just as we can see it first appearing in our awareness, and also see it leaving. And we take it for granted that it was located at some unknown X before we saw it and it will be located at some unknown Y as it leaves us. And if we have enough data, we can possibly predict where it might go in space and time, once we lose sight of it, based on trajectory, mass, atmosphere, velocity, etc.
In short, when looking into consciousness, do you find it the case that you can "see" or sense the arrival or exit of any thought or feeling etc. And once it is in your awareness, in what sense is it specifically "located" within?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 12:43pm PT
|
Humans are animals
No animals are animals.
When people remain in material only consciousness they remain as animal consciousness (animals).
When people transcend animal consciousness then they become human beings ......
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 05:07pm PT
|
Is it possible that you could not be a mathematician for just a little while? That’s what we could all be up to on this thread. I hope people are not here so that they can preach to the converted.
Well, I would rather preach to the unconverted, but in the future I will try to concentrate on my feelings and my existential dilemmas and how they may be perceived through the lens of post-modernism.
"Modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable through human sensation.
Is it possible you could not be a philosopher for just a little while, JL?
Rather, explore the inner dimensions of your consciousness as witnessed through Zen meditation. Does a thought have a cause? It certainly may have an effect.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 05:15pm PT
|
The spirit soul is the noumenon of all the phenomenon objects.
The gross material body is the phenomenal manifestation of the noumenon soul acting through his agent the mind.
This post is not approved by the gross material science mental speculators .....
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 06:08pm PT
|
non sense: that which is not of the senses.
Not the same as nonsense.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 06:14pm PT
|
In short, when looking into consciousness, do you find it the case that you can "see" or sense the arrival or exit of any thought or feeling etc. And once it is in your awareness, in what sense is it specifically "located" within?
Don't understand the question.
How is looking into consciousness meant, above?
Internal illumination, rumination, reflection, analysis, non-discursive direct perception, or what?
Located in what sense?
Anatomically, subjectively, metaphorically, or what?
Within what?
The mind, the brain, sphere of awareness, or what?
Please ask better questions.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 06:32pm PT
|
It might also be good to remind ourselves that Chalmers' Hard Problem is only the hard problem of consciousness, and solving it would not feed the hungry, clothe the poor, or find housing for the homeless found not far from you.
Consciousness is a hard problem mostly because it is a wishy-washy word with many meanings. Chalmers borrowed from Nagel, who used bats to illustrate a supposed distinction between subjective and objective concepts.
Nagel could equally well have said, "There must be something it is like to be a vampire." Right?
And Chalmers is one of those Largo referred to:
Those insisting that we come up with some answer that will settle the matter
But he also insists that no mere physical substrate could underlie consciousness.
“[We must] take consciousness seriously. … [To] redefine the problem as that of explaining how certain cognitive or behavioural functions are performed is unacceptable.”
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 12, 2017 - 06:36pm PT
|
In short, when looking into consciousness, do you find it the case that you can "see" or sense the arrival or exit of any thought or feeling etc. And once it is in your awareness, in what sense is it specifically "located" within?
Don't understand the question.
Don't overthink it. Simply do it. How?
You know you have thoughts and feelings. How do you know? Probably because they are present in your experience. What is also present is the certainly that the furniture of your mind keeps moving. Unless you're obsessing on something.
So the thought experiment is an exercise in watching the furniture, so to speak, coming and going. Once you get some sense of that - it might take a while because few people are used to watching their own mind - you can start trying to see the stuff arise and fall away, and contrast that with watching a car pass on the road - from not there, to there, to not there once more.
Then the harder part, try and see your thoughts and feelings in terms of location, just as you would locate a city on a map.
This is an especially telling drill for those considering internal content as "things" that exist in space and time. Like cars or baseballs.
And most of all, have fun with it.
Like the Hard Problem. Someone should write a book some day about the multifarious ways people try and wiggle out of even looking at it, attacking the messenger, or the newest one, saying that since solving it won't put food on someone's table, it's disqualified from having value. Fact is, not everyone is cut out to wrangle the issue at the level of the question. No harm in that. Tastes differ. Everybody didn't climb, either. Or play bridge. Or listen to jazz.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 07:15pm PT
|
Consciousness is a hard problem mostly because it is a wishy-washy word with many meanings.
No it isn't, it's very well defined word,
Except to clueless mental speculators, who only constantly try to interpret everything in regard to their defective material senses .....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 - 08:52pm PT
|
Hiya, Ward.
We (MH2 and I) were talking a little bit about philosophy, and Ed had said to us on this thread that philosophy is nigh useless. Sycorax demurs, and I’m sure that Paul would have something elegant to say. Above I had said that nothing I could report about philosophy would lead me away from finally saying that none of it matters.
But the arguments are interesting. I wrote my last post that philosophy has had some good points to make, a few against a strict scientific, material, and rational view of being (i.e., humans and the worlds they live in). As arguments go, this one seems quite credible.
If you read strum and drang in my post, I wouldn’t see it as a criticism. (BTW, I am German.) A dispassionate rational scientific view on living lacks verve, IMO.
Not all philosophers are in love with the outcomes of the Enlightenment, Ward. I’d say it’s another example of unintended consequences. Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Smith, and the rest had good intentions, but the three pillars of the Enlightenment project (never-ending Progress, objective Nature, and unrestricted Reason) haven’t solved Man’s ills or discontents. Instead our ills and discontents have wiggled-out from underneath those solutions and morphed into other ills and discontents. Everything is the same, even though everything is different.
My point is that every thinker and feeler and perceiver has something to say, more often than not seemingly relevant. I think philosophy serves about as much as any other investigation. Let us give each other some leeway.
Artistic “being” is something that I’ve fallen into, and it has been immensely rewarding for me. Every movement, every task, every thought, every feeling seems accompanied with great mystery, awe, and indescribable.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2017 - 07:07am PT
|
DMT:
I neglected to add an important qualifier to that post. It would be: “. . . if I take the time to notice.” I don't do that as much as I probably make out. But it always seems to be there, lurking in the background of everything.
I should assume that my awareness of experience is not other people's, but being involved in painting projects over the last year has been really interesting. I get an idea, I try to implement it, it won't work, and then the process becomes mysterious to me. Some kind of non-verbal conversation ensues between the artifact and an awareness (?--woo??), and I become an observer that's taking dictation (as it were). And I like what comes out of that in terms of the effect on the artifact and as an experience. I'm no Picasso, surely, but it's been a wonderful (albeit frustrating or challenging) experience in creativity.
A curiosity has arisen, however, and the question lies in the back of my brain percolating: why hasn't that artistic / unconscious experience happened with everything else in my life . . . like, let's say, my old consulting work, or in those meetings with other faculty members, or in some academic research studies, or in working on that long list of "honey-do's" that my wife gives me?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!