Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 01:33am PT
|
Words will not get you there.
Deconstruct, deconstruct, deconstruct.
Or as old Jerry the well-digger says " No matter how New Age you git, Old Age gonna kick your ass."
You guys are a wordy mob. Try something simple.
The song of us
Is a simple song
Of action. Do.
And Reflection. Be
A simple song
Do Be Do Be Do.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 10:07am PT
|
Oh, yes, I've learned from my mistakes and I'm sure I could repeat them exactly. -- Sir Arthur Strebe-Greebling
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 11:25am PT
|
Madbolter, that's an excellent Kantian rundown. It deserves more than a slapdash reply, which is all the time I have to give it right now.
I honestly think that most of the seminal philosophers are so difficult that you need to study them under a recognized master to make sure you are correctly getting the drift. I had only limited exposure to such experts per Kant, and studied him as a kind of sidebar to Whitehead. But I have a few things to say once I have a few more minutes.
You better get braced for people to start insisting that Kant's synthesizer is nothing more than the brain itself. A few lines to sort out that out might be worth the effort.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 11:42am PT
|
you might want to consider your definition of "mind" (that is what this thread is about) or at least "consciousness" as both of these have been characterized as "beyond definition."
As I read your description of Kant, you (and Kant) are arguing that there is no "consciousness" which is an interesting twist on what I think you're trying to say. It is not unusual to pose a definition of a thing and find that that definition does not suffice to describe the phenomenon. Usually we'd go back and refine the definition.
On this point, it might be important to raise the caution that the assumed near universal subjective experience of consciousness which appears to make us all experts on the subject may be a poor place to begin trying to explain consciousness.
A demonstration of this point is easy to do, just imbibe a large quantity of an intoxicant of your choice and engage in the same philosophical discourse. One could also go to high altitude without the aid of oxygen if the consumption of intoxicants is ill advised. These physical alterations of the brain will greatly change your perception of the issues at hand and result in a discussion most likely at variance with the one you might engage in sitting sober in front of your monitor.
Although we take sober to be the "normal state" we have to still be cautious about generalizing our subjective impressions regarding that state as it informs our understanding of "mind" or "consciousness."
per Kant's argument, it fails to describe the range of human experience of "consciousness" by assuming that the description of Kant's experience of consciousness is universal (it is not by many accounts so).
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 12:31pm PT
|
So, whatever this "synthesizer" is, it is not itself the "stream of consciousness," because the stream itself logically presumes the existence of the synthesizer. (madbolter1)
Can Kant's analysis be compared to the idea of an homunculus?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 12:40pm PT
|
Those are good points, Ed.
For purposes of this thread, when considering consciousness in and of itself (NOT the brain believed to "create" it), "cannot define" should be thought of as synonymous with "cannot be captured with instrumentattion." Ergo we cannot ascribe our normal symbolic qualifiers (numbers, words) to consciousness in the standard way we do with people, places, things and phenomenon. But we can cdertainly measure brain functions.
The seminal philosophers realized this and dealt with consciousness on it's own terms - not as a supposed physical "thing," but as a first person subjective experience, something that to our knowledge, has no correlate in the entire universe.
What I have been saying is that the universal element is not content - which is what the philosophers have been haggling over for ages, rather sentience itself. Everyone's content is vastly different. Awareness, focus and attention, though functioning on a sliding scale, seem to be universal - with the accent on "seem."
More later.
JL
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
from: forests to tree farms
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 12:42pm PT
|
as a first person subjective experience ...has no correlate...
^^^ No, I disagree
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 01:23pm PT
|
The simple fact I've mentioned before: a self-referential investigation may generate a paradox.
Go Kant!
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:16pm PT
|
This is to say that to recognize empirical impressions as a "unified stream of consciousness," namely "experiences for me," there must be something "in the background" that is doing the synthesizing. (madbolter1)
Would this apply only to humans or could it be extended to other animals? Would Kant consider consciousness a uniquely human property?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
|
Oh, yes, I've learned from my mistakes and I'm sure I could repeat them exactly. -- Sir Arthur Strebe-Greebling
Streeb-Greebling was a fictional character created by the British comic satirist Peter Cook(1937-1995). The quote is therefore attributable to Peter Cook.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
|
Subjective experience has correlates if you move sideways in the same sphere. We all have loads in common, otherwise language, art, comedy, and so forth would never exist. My point is that in all the universe, there is nothing qualitatively like consciousness - not even close. Why do you think so many people want to just talk about brain function? Because the brain is a thing we can analyse with instruments. When left to our own devices, we typically either start speed wobbling or start grabbing after content - some impression, thought, feeling, SOMETHING to grok onto so our discursive minds can get back to work. This impulse is so strong that anything else is often considered a "waste of time."
The unknown has amazing powers over us.
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 03:47pm PT
|
This impulse is so strong that anything else [ZEN ?] is often considered a "waste of time."
I doubt meditation gets you any closer to understanding consciousness (which exists) than it does understanding The Divine.
Try metaphysics on the synthesizer if you doubt Kant. Bet you Kant!
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 04:01pm PT
|
Streeb-Geebling was a fictional character created by the British comic satirist Peter Cook(1937-1995). The quote is therefore attributable to Peter Cook.
Well technically, Streeb-Geebling or Peter Cook or both! :)
EDIT:
That is, given the premise that fictional characters are capable of making statements suitable for attribution. :):)
And of course let us not quibble about whether Sir Arthur Strebe-Greebling and Peter Cook's Streeb-Geebling do indeed share the indentity property/or relation.
It is certainly possible to envision a scenario whereby Mr. Peter Cook, knowing full well of the existence of Sir Arthur Strebe-Greebling and his statements and fully employing creative license created his own character Streeb-Geebling in his likeness, no? :):):)
Anyway, I got my copy from Harold Garfinkel and/or Harvey Sacks.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
from: forests to tree farms
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 04:20pm PT
|
Quesiton (pray tell): One practitioner of meditation, buddah, used it to realize a change in himself?, for others?, and society? in practice?
edit: change for himself?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
|
According to [Harvey]Sacks, the ability of a speaker to take a recognizably intelligible turn next, after a prior turn (given a sufficient degree of indexicality in the talk), guarantees they have understood. Thus, Sacks argued that
speaking in indexical fragments, which linguistically would appear to be a problem, is a highly efficient device
for ensuring mutual intelligibility. It ensures that all participants who take turns are fulfilling their listening and
hearing requirements and either understand what has been said or display their lack of understanding in their
next turn. That is why, according to Sacks, the person who fails to speak at all is so suspicious. Even speaking last demonstrates attention to a long sequence of turns. But not speaking at all or speaking to a different topic(as those we refer to as “mentally ill” often do) demonstrates nothing about one's attention and trustworthiness.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 04:55pm PT
|
Subjective experience has correlates if you move sideways in the same sphere. We all have loads in common, otherwise language, art, comedy, and so forth would never exist.
What you are implying here is that subjective experience can be said to begrudgingly contain definitive objective elements without risk of inherent contradiction simply because you say so ---or because you have failed to point it out.
How can a subjective experience remain subjective, by definition, when it contains just one objective element?
My point is that in all the universe, there is nothing qualitatively like consciousness - not even close.
Quantity versus quality in this context is becoming a wholly meaningless ,artificial distinction without a real difference; a constructed premise which has been going too long unexamined
I reject the premises that human subjective experience:
A) Is a form of human activity that does not measure or quantify .
B) Can be categorically defined strictly as "qualitative"---that is, operates solely by the imparting and organizing of purely affective mental states upon external objects in the field of awareness.
Why do you think so many people want to just talk about brain function? Because the brain is a thing we can analyse with instruments.
This is only very partly correct--- people have a native fascination with the brain second only to genitals ---because it is a source of , and recipient , of pain and pleasure. Add to that a condiment dash of genuine intellectual fascination with our biologic computer---and Voila!
I might add that an increasing number of people in recent years have been liberated from the medieval notion that consciousness resides elsewhere than the corporeal brain. The modern discovery that our awareness is produced by a perhaps synergistic pairing of the organic brain (including the nervous system) with the external world , has opened up a relatively new perspective on what neurobiology is and how it might work.
(There's more to say on this later)
When left to our own devices, we typically either start speed wobbling or start grabbing after content - some impression, thought, feeling, SOMETHING to grok onto so our discursive minds can get back to work. This impulse is so strong that anything else is often considered a "waste of time."
The above quote is yet another example of what I've recently criticized on the other thread:
Again, normal modes of thought and experience, producing the survival of our species , (and among other things the foundations of science ,literature, and art) is here marginally characterized as desperately "wobbling" about , impulsively clutching for a fix of some sort to reestablish, at all costs, a semblance of content or feeling or just anything ---in its exasperated flight from a threatening alternative and legitimate challenge to its authority.
How many of you would agree or accept that this description is what actually occurs in your intellectual life?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 04:56pm PT
|
My point is that in all the universe, there is nothing qualitatively like consciousness - not even close.
and you attribute hubris to me?
I can humbly say that, based on my experience, I could never make such a statement. It may not even have to require meeting extraterrestrial life to show this isn't true.
...in all the universe..., wow.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 05:11pm PT
|
The individual self (consciousness)(soul) is both qualitatively one in spiritual constitution and distinct from matter.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 05:23pm PT
|
Consciousness may be universal. As in, we are the universe witnessing itself, momentarily deluded into believing that we are unique and separate.
Having enjoyed a near-drowning, I would agree that " on your death-bed you will gain total consciousness." ( regain)
You may enjoy your ruminations but your effort is the equivalence of drying off while still in the water. The mind is a poser.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
|
May 12, 2014 - 05:24pm PT
|
Does matter shape it, change it, or constrain it in any way Herr Braun?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!