|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 1, 2017 22:09:35 GMT
You are also playing devil's advocate by twisting around something that has obviously pushed a button with you, by claiming it has noting to do with what is being discussed. It has plenty to do with it. This is a philosophy discussion forum, not a superficial dime-store self-improvement discussion forum. You've veered completely away from the content of the opening post. Whatever! This specific thread is about consciousness, and that is what comprises our living being and self-awareness. That is what is being discussed. Within my original question\statement I made about "purpose", you have shied away from acknowledging the absolute truth of our being and reason for living this human form. It is all "purpose". If that is not erudite or intellectual enough for you to hang your pseudo-intellectual pretense and obstinance onto, then I suggest you get your head out of your backside. I'm not impressed with what you think you know. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 1, 2017 22:22:20 GMT
And it doesn't change the "spiritual"— for want of a better term—aspects of your inner being, that many dismiss due to attachments of this physical realm. Attachment to the physical, is all about fear and desperation, and brings forth the conflict and suffering that is perpetuated onto the billions of lives living on this planet. It is after all impermanent, so what is a physical fact anyway, perhaps just a construct of the ego mind? Our beliefs and so-called facts come from this mind and how is that physical? Your mind is your brain functioning in particular ways. And yes, facts are impermanent. Your mind is not your conscious awareness. This goes way beyond the ego mind. The brain functions the motor responses in our "physical" body and caches the experiences and memories within that physical experience. But what are these experiences and memories? When you don't think of something or someone, does it or do they even exist? Yes, facts and knowledge provide us with the ego ability to achieve and move forward, but this is all just an impermanent transition phase. You are forever, our bodies and memories aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 1, 2017 22:31:35 GMT
My only real issue is this insistence that physicalism should be accepted over alternatives because it is coherent and they are not.
There is nothing incoherent about physicalism. You can actually do something with it (i.e., science). Idealism or any other alternative just lets you sit in the safety of your armchair imagining that you've learned something when you've done nothing but spin your tires.Well, whatever it is you appear to think you are doing, other than spin your tires, doesn't appear to be offering much insight. It is coming from a sequestered mind set. All you and Terrapin appear to be spouting, is transparent and confounded rhetoric. If that's not spinning ones tires, then what is? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 0:29:39 GMT
It doesn't have to exclude sense data. The idea is that normally you can be aware of something other than sense data. It's similar to the realism/idealism distinction in ontology. Realists aren't saying that you can never have or be aware of ideas, that you can't imagine things that don't exist, etc. What they're saying is that not everything is just an idea, an imagining, etc. so how come sometimes we are aware of sense data and sometimes not? How do you account for secondary ualities? It's not that there's always sense data and sometimes you're aware of it and sometimes not. It's that certain situations will produce illusions, say. Whether the illusion should be called "sense data" or not is another issue, but we can just bypass that. It's fine if we say that it's "sense data." |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 0:34:16 GMT
The difference is that the different properties from different reference points in no way hinge on there being a being with a mind to receive perceptual data. But surely reference points imply an observer? Ah yes, you said that before. Still not sure I grasp what you mean. But I imagine it's probably too complex a sidetrack for here. How can you know that since qualia can't be tested for scientifically? And would your stance mean things with brains of different matter and configuration (robots, octopuses and aliens) wouldn't have qualia? Hmm but then if my brain came to the conclusion that 1+1=3, would I be right? Since there is no mathematical truth beyond our brain states. "But surely reference points imply an observer?" Not at all. It's just a spatio-temporal point. "Still not sure I grasp what you mean." -- The issue is what counts as an explanation or not, and why that counts as an explanation or not. "How can you know that since qualia can't be tested for scientifically?" Not that something has to be "tested for scientifically" for us to know it, but there's plenty of evidence that qualia are brain states. The evidence arrives via medical situations where persons' brains have been injured or otherwise compromised and we receive reports from them about their subjective experience. "Hmm but then if my brain came to the conclusion that 1+1=3, would I be right? " It's not right or wrong. It's a way of thinking about relations on a very abstract level. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 0:37:12 GMT
Your mind is your brain functioning in particular ways. And yes, facts are impermanent. Your mind is not your conscious awareness. This goes way beyond the ego mind. The brain functions the motor responses in our "physical" body and caches the experiences and memories within that physical experience. But what are these experiences and memories? When you don't think of something or someone, does it or do they even exist? Yes, facts and knowledge provide us with the ego ability to achieve and move forward, but this is all just an impermanent transition phase. You are forever, our bodies and memories aren't. "Your mind is not your conscious awareness." Yes it is. There's no good reason to believe otherwise. "Ego mind" is just garbage Freudianism. The brain does things that aren't mental, sure. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 2, 2017 1:38:30 GMT
"Your mind is not your conscious awareness." Yes it is. There's no good reason to believe otherwise. "Ego mind" is just garbage Freudianism. The brain does things that aren't mental, sure. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought. You are grounding yourself only in the physical organism and wonder that this is, just only getting half of the picture though. "Ego mind", is what holds us back and Freud was very self-aware Yes, the brain is our own little pc and has energy points connected through it. In fact, it is all energy and everything in the universe operates by it. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought or "projection". You are so powerful, that you create what is perceived as the physical. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 2:10:05 GMT
"Your mind is not your conscious awareness." Yes it is. There's no good reason to believe otherwise. "Ego mind" is just garbage Freudianism. The brain does things that aren't mental, sure. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought. You are grounding yourself only in the physical organism and wonder that this is, just only getting half of the picture though. "Ego mind", is what holds us back and Freud was very self-aware Yes, the brain is our own little pc and has energy points connected through it. In fact, it is all energy and everything in the universe operates by it. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought or "projection". You are so powerful, that you create what is perceived as the physical. What would a nonphysical thing even be? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 2, 2017 4:47:58 GMT
You are grounding yourself only in the physical organism and wonder that this is, just only getting half of the picture though. "Ego mind", is what holds us back and Freud was very self-aware Yes, the brain is our own little pc and has energy points connected through it. In fact, it is all energy and everything in the universe operates by it. When you don't think of something or someone, it doesn't exist as a thought or "projection". You are so powerful, that you create what is perceived as the physical. What would a nonphysical thing even be? If something is non-physical, like consciousness awareness, then it would be transcended and pure energy. Everything in the universe operates on vibration and energy. It all transmits. Better be careful what you wish for then.  What we perceive as physical, is only our own creation, projection or even delusion. Perhaps then, our current life is all but a dream within a dream, and when we die we wake up. Some are just more connected and wake before death, though not many. |
|
|
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 2, 2017 7:32:23 GMT
so how come sometimes we are aware of sense data and sometimes not? How do you account for secondary ualities? It's not that there's always sense data and sometimes you're aware of it and sometimes not. It's that certain situations will produce illusions, say. Whether the illusion should be called "sense data" or not is another issue, but we can just bypass that. It's fine if we say that it's "sense data." I never said there's always sense data so I am not sure why youI saiD think that. What I meant was when I am looking at a straw submerged in water and it looks bent what is stopping me from seeing the world directly besides the illusion obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 10:01:16 GMT
What would a nonphysical thing even be? If something is non-physical, like consciousness awareness, then it would be transcended and pure energy. Everything in the universe operates on vibration and energy. It all transmits. Better be careful what you wish for then. What we perceive as physical, is only our own creation, projection or even delusion. Perhaps then, our current life is all but a dream within a dream, and when we die we wake up. Some are just more connected and wake before death, though not many. The problem with that is that I believe that consciousness/awareness is physical, so that doesn't help me understand what we'd be referring to, and I think that the idea of "pure energy" and at least unqualified "transcendence" are incoherent. Energy only works if you have something that is in motion relative to other things, and transcendence unqualified just doesn't seem to refer to anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 10:09:49 GMT
It's not that there's always sense data and sometimes you're aware of it and sometimes not. It's that certain situations will produce illusions, say. Whether the illusion should be called "sense data" or not is another issue, but we can just bypass that. It's fine if we say that it's "sense data." I never said there's always sense data so I am not sure why youI saiD think that. What I meant was when I am looking at a straw submerged in water and it looks bent what is stopping me from seeing the world directly besides the illusion obviously. Well, the straw in the water example isn't an example where you're seeing things incorrectly first off. It's an objective fact, not dependent on perception, that from particular reference points, reflections of light waves from a transparent glass/liquid/straw system are such that the straw looks bent within the liquid compared to outside of the liquid. The misconception there is a theoretical misconception, it's not a perceptual problem. And that theoretical misconception is one where reference point property variance facts are taken out of the picture, and we conceptually interpret data to be telling us or not telling us "what the straw is really like from a reference point-free perspective." There are no reference point-free perspectives, though, and from particular perspectives, what the straw is really like in terms of light waves at that perspective is that it is bent below the water. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jun 2, 2017 10:14:47 GMT
The problem with that is that I believe that consciousness/awareness is physical, so that doesn't help me understand what we'd be referring to, and I think that the idea of "pure energy" and at least unqualified "transcendence" are incoherent. Energy only works if you have something that is in motion relative to other things, and transcendence unqualified just doesn't seem to refer to anything. You sound like you feel that if you can't see it, it's not there. The whole universe and world was created on energy and cohesion of the five elements. These elements comprise everything and everything within us. How is "transcendence" unqualified? Why people live their lives believing it is all just a once around astounds me. No wonder there are those, who are many, who feel they are entitled to grab and take whatever they want, be arrogant and stomp all over others just to get a bigger slice of the pie because they believe it's not going to be there later. It's all about appeasing and pandering to their own decadence and self-serving means. How is responsibility then taken for our lives and state of being, if they don't care about the consequences of what is being put out? What we say and do is all action and our contribution is the "purpose" of our being. The work needs to be done on a much deeper and more evolved and resonant level. The resonance means operating at a higher vibration level. Feel the vibe man!  It's not life that is the problem, but ignorant humans who are deeply asleep. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 2, 2017 10:51:19 GMT
Do you have to presume physicalism to do science though? Yes. I don't see a single historical instance of any successful scientific program run under the assumption of anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 2, 2017 10:59:14 GMT
Within my original question\statement I made about "purpose", you have shied away from acknowledging the absolute truth of our being and reason for living this human form. I'm not shying away from anything. I'm calling these claims complete and utter bullshit unsupported by anything that resembles logic or reason. This is pseudo-philosophy at its worst. "Absolute truth of our being and reason for living this human form?" That phrase literally means nothing. It's just babble pretending to be philosophy. And no, nothing about this has anything to do with the content of the opening post, which is actually about a very complex and legitimately deep issue in philosophy of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 2, 2017 11:02:04 GMT
But surely reference points imply an observer?" Not at all. It's just a spatio-temporal point. Ok, well in your conversation with Saoradh you say "It's an objective fact, not dependent on perception, that from particular reference points, reflections of light waves from a transparent glass/liquid/straw system are such that the straw looks bent within the liquid compared to outside of the liquid." - How can it make sense to speak of something looking a certain way without there being a looker? What do you reckon counts as an explanation? That's the whole P-Zombie issue though, right? Someone can tell me they have the phenomenal experience of smelling burning toast when I fiddle with their brain but I can't know what they mean by this phenomenal experience is anything like what I mean by it. I can give them the benefit of the doubt and say because they are physiologically similar to myself they likely have the same experience. But then what if a sophisticated robot also says he has the phenomenal experience of smelling toast? If I take him at his word then I am admitting qualia are not brain states as his "brain" is materially and constructually different from mine. If I refuse to accept he is really experiencing qualia then I am question-begging because I am only accepting the testimony of those I already think truly experience qualia. Interesting - would you be a formalist as regards mathematics then? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 11:04:42 GMT
The problem with that is that I believe that consciousness/awareness is physical, so that doesn't help me understand what we'd be referring to, and I think that the idea of "pure energy" and at least unqualified "transcendence" are incoherent. Energy only works if you have something that is in motion relative to other things, and transcendence unqualified just doesn't seem to refer to anything. You sound like you feel that if you can't see it, it's not there. The whole universe and world was created on energy and cohesion of the five elements. These elements comprise everything and everything within us. How is "transcendence" unqualified? Why people live their lives believing it is all just a once around astounds me. No wonder there are those, who are many, who feel they are entitled to grab and take whatever they want, be arrogant and stomp all over others just to get a bigger slice of the pie because they believe it's not going to be there later. It's all about appeasing and pandering to their own decadence and self-serving means. How is responsibility then taken for our lives and state of being, if they don't care about the consequences of what is being put out? What we say and do is all action and our contribution is the "purpose" of our being. The work needs to be done on a much deeper and more evolved and resonant level. The resonance means operating at a higher vibration level. Feel the vibe man! It's not life that is the problem, but ignorant humans who are deeply asleep. "You sound like you feel that if you can't see it, it's not there. " That's an incorrect interpretation, because I don't agree with that view. What I'd say instead is, "if (a) there's not at least indirect evidence supporting it, and (b) it doesn't make conceptual sense, then there's no good reason to believe it." Which brings us to this: what would be a good reason to believe "The whole universe and world was created on energy and cohesion of the five elements . . . These elements comprise everything and everything within us"? Re "unqualified" re "transcendence," that's simply noting that we're not saying what is transcending what. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 2, 2017 11:22:12 GMT
Do you have to presume physicalism to do science though? Yes. I don't see a single historical instance of any successful scientific program run under the assumption of anything else. Can you give me an example of a scientific program that was only successful because the scientists assumed physicalism was true?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 11:22:51 GMT
I'm not talking about inaccuracies (many of those can be explained away by distorted light or whatever) but that there appears to be an intermediatory between the retina and what is consciously (re)presented. It's important to remember that naive realism is a theory of perception. Perception requires a brain. It's something our brains do. Naive realism isn't a theory of non-perception. Then how would you discern naive realism from indirect realism? What is the core difference between them? |
|
|
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 2, 2017 11:22:57 GMT
I never said there's always sense data so I am not sure why youI saiD think that. What I meant was when I am looking at a straw submerged in water and it looks bent what is stopping me from seeing the world directly besides the illusion obviously. Well, the straw in the water example isn't an example where you're seeing things incorrectly first off. It's an objective fact, not dependent on perception, that from particular reference points, reflections of light waves from a transparent glass/liquid/straw system are such that the straw looks bent within the liquid compared to outside of the liquid. The misconception there is a theoretical misconception, it's not a perceptual problem. And that theoretical misconception is one where reference point property variance facts are taken out of the picture, and we conceptually interpret data to be telling us or not telling us "what the straw is really like from a reference point-free perspective." There are no reference point-free perspectives, though, and from particular perspectives, what the straw is really like in terms of light waves at that perspective is that it is bent below the water. It is an optical illusion dependant on an perciever. The straw is not bent so it must be incorrect. It is caused by refraction. |
|
