| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 3 days, 17 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Many people accept that the source of Descartes' Visions is exterior to the body. Perhaps the process of the rectification of our perception and presentation also stems from a source separate from our consciousness. In that vein we might perceive progress as a battle of wills rather than a matter of conscience, and the spectacle of improvement an enjoyable one.
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Idealism is not the same as daydreaming, and saying that proves you don't understand it. 'i think therefor i am" is a logically consistent argument. The point of idealism; that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter; is logically consistent. You cannot prove through the brain sciences that this is untrue because all knowledge arises through consciousness and so is reducible to consciousness, not to the brain. Once you take the leap of faith that that there is something outside of consciousness, like a brain that brings consciousness into being, then there are better and worse leaps of faith e.g. some ideas require you to leap further than others. Buster Browns idea that conscious could somehow emirate from outside the brain is one leap of faith. It is a leap of faith that I think is further than your claim that consciousness is a product of the brain. But they are both leaps of faith. What is not a leap of faith is that I am conscious of myself thinking about Decarte, and this is the only thing that I can say with total certainty. I'm afraid that it is you that is daydreaming; dreaming about how your view of reality is the only logically consistent view and that all others are merely the rambling of lunatics. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The interesting thing about the tv antenna conception of the brain e.g.. like a tv the brain picks up a signal that it converts to consciousness, is that scientifically nothing would really change. The brain sciences would not have to alter at all to accomodate this view of consciousness. However, as I said previously I think it is a further leap than to just say consciousness is a product of neurochemistry alone. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,812 |
| ||||||
|
Nikola Tesla was in love with a white pigeon that visited him one night whereupon it's eyes began to glow brightly shortly before it died.
Quote: I like that part, the rectification of our perception. Perhaps that's a better explanation of how one can develop a sense or morality, by rectifying perceptions. I would think since will is, 'the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action', that morality is related or at the least influential in making those decisions. Quote:
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,812 |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: Tell me the difference then.. The brain and human nervous system is the faculty of sense and if you want to deny that then you are daydreaming. My position is more so saying that consciousness is a result of the bodies innate responses(heart/intestine/PNS), whilst a sense of morality, a conscience and overall sentience arises from the rectification of perceptions within the brain and spinal cord(CNS). Here's a question for you, I shit therefore I eat is logically consistent but what does that explain about the food I've eaten? Ergo, I think therefore I am, but what does that explain about the human condition or what a human is?
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Shitting is always reducible to eating, just as thinking is always reducible to consciousness, therefor knowledge (a form of thinking) is reducible to consciousness, consciousness is not reducible to matter as matter can only be perceived in consciousness, matter is a product of knowledge, knowledge of the sciences etc. which is reducible to consciousness as knowledge arises in consciousness.
I told you a few posts back that this would go round in circles What it explains about the human condition is that we are constantly in a state of doubt and so we should be, we would be fools to think otherwise. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,812 |
| ||||||
|
Thinking is not always reducible to consciousness, especially since innate and instinctive responses such as the fight or flight response are done without conscious thought.
Quote: Perception doesn't change matter. ![]() Invention is a product of knowledge. Your interpretations might make sense with a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics but definitely not in Pilot Wave theory. ![]() As far as I can see it you are the only one going in circles, so have fun daydreaming. ![]() Computers weren't invented in a constant state of doubt.
| |||||||
|
irregular verb Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 37,539 |
| ||||||
|
the advancement that blingbling illustrates over sudly here is
to be aware of going in circles. guess which one will eventually stop going in circles
| |||||||
|
Enlil's Official Story Registered: 10/31/04 Posts: 21,407 Loc: Building 7 |
| ||||||
|
Going In Circles
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
After the circularity is seen, formally the direct line to the conscious subject (through methodological doubt), is considered solipsism.
We know that Descartes doubting the world until he came to the one proposition that can't be doubted, "I think therefore I am" does not say that such a proposition of ideal or absolute mental existence/content, on its own, has any content that is actually relavent to the world as such. Solipsism is not a good proposition - although it is tempting enough. Whether it is considered a good proposition or not to lay out these terms, from external, to internal, is based on further formal arguments of a different character that are implied by Cartesianism. A hint is in that the line to the subject is formally maintained, in our world as sensible, but the generic idea (idealism) of doubt of the senses does not suffice, alone to maintain and regulate it. We do not just doubt the senses. We follow the lines to subjects, to question or interrogate them, asking them about their experiences of the objective world in front of them. Doubt of the senses formally has to be transposed to mean interrogation of the senses, which asks of content. How this world is formally propped up though, from Descartes' relatively straight forward idea (the method of doubt) is the interesting question. It seems to me we approximate the line drawn from object to subject, and create a geometrical relation of these lines. If one person stands in front of an object, and so does another, how do we know they see the same thing? It is not just through these relations, and yet aggregatively it is. If a "third pereon" is there (another subject) or implied in the situation, this subject can see that a subject in the first place stands in approximate relation to an object, (say a tree) and the other subject stands from a different perspective in front of a tree. We need the third person's objectivity to triangulate. The line between first and second relation has to be generalized and looked upon from another dimension. Each subject as point, (in relation to object) becomes another object of information, in the line drawn from subject to objects. Then we can once again call this relation, precisely what was doubted - a sense experience. The lines extend from subjects approximately as sense experiences. The key it seems to me, is that doubt of the senses, Descartes establishes in one formal way, has to become a specific interrogation of the senses, in interrelational geometry of affairs. This interrogation of the senses, (asking about their contents) is one solution that seems to be commonly used, anyway. Descqrtes' "Method of doubt" means both the former one dimensional argument and the latter by implication and extrapolation.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Descartes' extentionalism (res extensa "extended thing", world of physical bodies to the subject) would be better illustrated with geometrical pictures, but I think anyone can more or less follow the logic. Subjects are impelled forward to become objects of information, (to question in regards to their implied content) in a community of discourse conventionally upheld in their senses. Constructively, we work from the line to the subject, to many compounding dimensions of interrelated lines (of doubt/"sense") in a geometrical matrix.
![]() But I tend to like to deconstruct a bit too. To what extent is Descartes just begging the question of his mental existence? The world is falling away everything, to a solipsistic doubt. We are saved by the existence of the mind? I thought the mind was just what is most doubtable of all in this line of reason. And what if I just trust common sense in the first place, rather than conceptually implicate it?
| |||||||
|
irregular verb Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 37,539 |
| ||||||
Quote: You may wish to follow by an underlying linearity and logic, but that is a formalized artifice that hides the underlying association method which takes place in the mind: image or mind-form links to another 'associated' image or mind-form, not through a line but through several correspondences (usually the linkage between two mind-forms is because the two things happened together as part of a scene or happened in sequence; or they are intrinsically similar in form). In each case a plurality of joins make association functional, single joins (lines) hold nothing by themselves in the linkages between thoughts. each image is composed of the same raw stuff as sensation or more precisely mentation because all sensation happens in the mind (because of the body initially). Anyway what one thinks follows what one thought just a moment before through association; not one-dimensionally as in (logical) lines, but multidimensionally - flashing entire images and composites of images favoring the hardy linkages that are freshest or which have grown strongest by repetition over time. The formalized artifice of discourse winds around itself more easily than it provides enlightenment. In that way it is narcissistic. It is a style of thinking which is itself the topic of it's path. This is most circular.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Is it really anything more than the collective ie. "intellectual" ego we are talking about, as the conscious subject though? I wouldn't balk at the narcissism of it, because it seems to me that is what it is. The tricky thing is our intellectualism as such, is not something that mainly occurs at an individual level, or in the ponds of individual minds, but in mass, in the appeal to foundations of knowledge in cogito.
What would cartesianism in symphony "be" without the individual turn toward solipsism, the absolute doubt of the external world leading to the proposition "I think therefore I am" which is indeed if we observe, narcissus looking into his pond, psychologically interpreted? It is an essential feature of Cartesianism to arrogate the formal solipsistic claim, in the first place, and I am not sure how you would imply a cartesian could get around that. Formally, it has to come through, become acceptable by whatever interpretation, because it coming through (the "transcendental subject") is collectively to get out of the parasitic spiral. I wasn't saying that Descartes is not circular in logic here. I think therefore I am is a circular piece of work, merely associating and developing a mental content. We can ask two questions. One is whether this form of argument is worth indulging at all. Or we can ask, in the formal implication, how does this now established place of existing mental content relate to the world? It is clear that we do not perceive the world, through what is implied (as epistemelogically basic) as a subject-object relationship. That is not a cognitive function in you sense. What I don't understand, is why you or anyone would think that what Descartes is talking about as mind, cogito, or a structure of perception, is anything but something constructive and derived from that in this formal sense. Our world in the essentially cartesian sense (or in a certain conventional structure of our world) is these chunks of subject object, mind body relations, whether or not this has been fully analyzed. As I understand you are saying we can look closer at this. If somethint establishesn the aproximate place of res cogitans, the "affairs" of perception, and these cartesian chunks of content, can be described if you prefer, at that level, or as close to a neurological correlation as possible. A function of the mind through sense and memory, and associated brain functions draws a connection to objects, itself, you might say. But it seems to me, all that you are saying, is that the mind here mimics what Descartes actually talks about. You are right that there may be much going on in between the actual instance of perception and conforming to these states of affairs. Perceptioj is not just the construct, but seemingly happen pretty individually, or pretty well in the mind. If I stand here, at one point of space and time, a three dimensional object seems one way to me. Perhaps it is not too clear in its aspect. If I take two steps over to the right or to the left, there is suddenly a phenomenologically rich experience, more aspect to the dimensions and outline of what I am looking at. I remember and ascribe what I saw previously, the object "rotates", and now I have a three dimensional appearance, and an object-thing. This can all be phenomenologically beared as the first person relation to a second relata or point of reference, which sustains in different moments. On the other hand, this would just the normative matrix of conjecture in Descartes, as expressed, geometrically triangulating upon objects as well. You draw many lines, in Cartesianism, and comvemtionwlly you ignore the circularity, (or the hard problem of consciousness) which establishes this, since acknowledging a circle would invalidate the argument, and deconstruct or destabilize the cartesian system as a whole. To put it another way, if cartesianism sustains, gets beyond solipsism (which is the question) you have to learn to ignore the fact that Descartes formally makes a direct line inward to solipsism, and instead adopts the cultural intellectual ego, which establishes a possibility of your personal experiences, senses, relating outwardly reflecting back to objects. It seems to me, you are underestimating the appeal to conventionality which brings this process to its closure. the collective intellectualism, the squareness and linearity that Descartes implies, is its only constructive possibility it seems to me. If it is circular, you throw the argument out. Narcissism is sublated as the modesty of intellectually independent existence in a collective conjecture. If cartesianism is consistent, it carries through intrasubjectively, (where the importance of subjectivities are collectively regulated as much as they are posed) as well. So whether that subject is one person's private mental cognition, or of many people conforming to a frame of reference, is mostly arbitrary. The collective asserts that phenomenological opening is a narcissism, sometimes, because it would be narcissism to favor one's particular idiosyncracies and whims about the world. Yet these are the same novelties, which flower out of this system. How far one goes off, or goes into their private genius and brings something back, in a form that is novel, or even groundbreaking view, to the implied frame of references we live in, is the positive interpretation (genius). These will occur suddenly not as opening the collective mind to phenomenology, to perceptions in cartesianism, but the mass movement of the conceptual or paradigmatic shift of reference as a whole. I did not mean to say that our cartesian experience is without a phenomenology, a richness to it; I am saying that the phenomenological or functional relation can work things out, but this matrix of affairs is effective, where "subjects are made objects of information rather than subjects of communication". The conceptual mechanism that levels our reality, systematically, is an appeal to sense experience as such, the line first in and drawn out from the subject to object. This is an intellectual ego. In the world mostly we are grinding down and leveling to certain dimensions. We (as in, our scientific society) interrogate a subjects experience usually, not because they are interesting or potentially novel to us, (although some views or perspectives are respected more than others) but because they fit in a preconceived frame of reference or near to that which we want data or information about. This is what Descartes calls "foundations", or foundationalism the more or less stabilized culture of epistemic discourse. It does not seem to me to mainly be an actual cognitive function. Maybe people will judge Descartes' (and an interpretations') "modesty" as they will, but it has just as much been the gradual acceptance of our culture's intellectual ego, for that modesty to be regulated this way. Descartes may be pretty circular, in this sense, which to me means his initial argument is contrived, self glamourizing, but he is damn well the squarest philosopher we are presently, occupied with too, if we accept that circularity, and follow the ingrained formal implications. Cartesianism is essentially enframing; a gestell, or gestalt, an association of an image and single frame of reference, or univocal concept we level to which is empty of its essential content. First person descriptions (phenomenological) are described as narcissistic roughly based on how idiosyncratic they seem to the cultural ego, which says we should level to states of affairs of subjects relating to objects. That point is completely arbitrary if we accept Descartes game of solipsism. Anyone could say we value eccentricity, the circularity that is stretched and wavers in orbit around a point of reference, to swing back, as intellect, in a positive sense. How much does the eccentricity of mental experience (the social disregard for difference but love and worship of technical genius) have to do with actual perception? More, or less... or more-or-less...? Edited by Kurt (12/28/16 11:57 AM)
| |||||||
|
irregular verb Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 37,539 |
| ||||||
|
can you
a) reduce the excess words b) correct grammar after the cut it is hard to pick up the frayed threads you are spinning maybe if you put them more neatly into smaller bundles
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: exactly, sudley has a very interesting take on materialism, but he thinks that because he/she can make a straight line between consciousness and matter that he/she is right and everyone else is just daydreaming. The stumbling block that he chooses to ignore is that within the frame of his argument all things can be reduced to consciousness as all things that can be known arise in consciousness. It doesn't necessarily mean he/she is wrong, just that he/she is not properly taking into account the scope of his own argument. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The unconscious is simply the consciousness that we are not conscious of. But that is beside the point. I can theoretically reduce anything knowable to consciousness because knowledge must arrive in consciousness to be known. Do you see why people have been arguing over this for hundreds of years? You keep offering material explanations and I keep reducing them to consciousness. This is a philosophical vortex that can spin forever and never come to a definitive answer. You either posit something that exists outside of consciousness which can therefor be doubted (as you have done) or you base your philosophy on an immaterial consciousness which barely tracks that reality of actually lived life. There is no way out of this. I don't know how old you are, and I'd hate to bring age into this as if it really mattered philosophically, but something you learn as you get older is that sometimes you are between a rock and a hard place and there is no easy answer. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Do you read any continental or deconstructive philosophy RGV?
It is possible to take a more analytic view, as you please, but things will come in bundles and disjointed forms, in actual fact, in Cartesianism, since it it is not a formally consistent system. I mean, for instance, when you say Descartes is circular, it would make a lot more sense to me to throw circular arguments out, than just say they are circular. So for me to understand your own analytic views, to be fair you would have to explain this obscurity probably too. Here is an attempt; no promises though and I am on the run today so sorry for being lax on proofreading previously. In the one dimensional version of Descartes' philosophy, you have a "method of doubt" more or less straight forwardly. Sometimes it is thought of in generality. In this sense, Cartesianism says you start with assumptions about the world, they become subject to doubt, and fall away, or whittle down to what is true and certain. You go from some estimations and guesses, or opinions and beliefs, to what is indubitable and grounded. But if you are clear on these things, you see this is not just an inductive approach in Descartes. This is an appeal to the foundation of certainty, upon which the sciences as a whole are built, a deduction, not just a guess interposed within a particular domain. This is a difficult point to grasp but it is essential The first argument "I think therefore I am" is a projected rationale which in effect rifles through the contents of experiences of the world (sense experiences) and hearsay of opinion and conjecture however serious, to the one truly indubitable proposition. What I am saying that is probably different than usual is that the entity dealt with here, cogito, is not found in an empirical observation. This is above all what has to be clear. You can't just jump into a particular cognitive science and say that this is what Descartes' cogito is about. The generality of Descartes' Method of Doubt (as foundational as it may be) can't be taken as it were in a particular science. We are not observing a cognition. Neither the "thinking", or its "existence" is an observation of something in the statement, "I think therefore I am." It is rationalized or inferred as such a foundation. This is important to get straight. If it is assumed that thinking has to have particular content from past experiences of the world, to exist, this is a rationalization extended upon the first. We are not empirically observing anything as a cogito, in this statement so much as coming to a rationalization that an object or thing must exist. He says "I think, therefore I am", so we should not mistake this as an observation or study. This is the first resolve of Cartesianism as a rationalism, a sensibility of certainty about the world. As for what would be most "clear" here, I am not sure, because people project their philosophical preferences that way. My view is there is actually something disjointed here, and not formally or fully developed. This is only the form of sense experience being layed out (it is a rationalization laying out the internal and external), in the line drawn toward a subject. This describes nothing in particular content. If we hold Descartes to the deductive certainty, he has only doubted or rejected the senses, to articulate the place of the mind to the world, in a way which is formally solipsistic. That is what is going on in the argument. Maybe this seems undermining, but if we are clear that it is a straight forward assertion or argument that is asserting the cogito, that line of argument, (that upon doubting what is doubtable, the one thing I cam be certain of is "I think therefore I am") goes to the conscious subject only. Whether you want to admit this line of argument as it is asserted or not, seems to be the issue Red Green. A constructive cartesian will want to mobilize, and generalize this place of mental experience, and develop its content as something outwardly relevant and informative to the world, in sense experience. In form, this development follows the absolute skepticism or solipsism, more or less implicitly. This move to mobilize the cogito into sense perceptions is both disjointed and formally necessary at once,, to escape an implied solipsism. This should be clear enough to follow. It is not intellectual in my opinion. It is about taking responsibility for these assertions and lines of reasoning we are complicit to. The method should be destructuring (unifying as you take apart) the inherently disjointed forms of justification. So what I explained here, is that the first resolve of Cartesianism "I think therefore I am" is solipsism. The argument should probably be thrown out as saying anything at all about the world if anything.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
The non-expositional version would be that Descartes is not just circular in argument, but simultaneously very linear, structured and disjointed at once. That much should be fair, preferences to philosophical styles aside. Could you who say Descartes is circular or circling, say if and why we should indulge that, or if we should throw the argument out?
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,812 |
| ||||||
Quote: Under any consistent logic the unconscious mind is the instinct we were born with. Funny how we're born with innate knowledge isn't it? and since that's the case your assertion that anything can be reduced to consciousness is irrational in my view because knowledge can be reduced to instinct. People have believed Jesus arose from the dead for over 2000 years but that doesn't give the idea any merit. You are ignoring instinct or at least failing to acknowledged it. Again, doubt doesn't effect the physical world, to say that is essentially a belief in telepathy which is as irrational as believing Jesus came back to life. Maybe basing philosophy on the laws of nature is a better way to not sound insane because sentience cannot exist without matter. To say that anything is immaterial is to ignore everything science has ever said about the laws of nature. Sometimes you realise there are answers within perspectives you haven't yet looked through, the same went for mankind in the 1880's when radio waves were discovered, back then people didn't know anything about them but the scientific method provided a perspective for them to understand the truth of what was really going on in the world around them and what technologies could be developed. Edited by sudly (12/28/16 04:56 PM)
| |||||||
|
irregular verb Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 37,539 |
| ||||||
|
I admit I am having a bit of trouble following what you are saying.
Each idea seems decorated with suggestions of other ideas in hints and cadences. for instance this one here: Quote: and my struggle to get it goes something like this: Quote: resulting in Quote: or to simplify Quote: but it still makes little sense to me
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
cartesian dualism is unsound ( |
3,115 | 28 | 02/20/10 09:42 PM by Kickle | ||
![]() |
Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!)... ( |
11,179 | 107 | 05/03/10 01:26 AM by Withinity | ||
![]() |
Cartesian Dualism | 1,317 | 9 | 04/29/08 11:51 PM by johnm214 | ||
![]() |
Are Believers Rational Beings? ( |
8,172 | 60 | 04/22/02 03:23 AM by infidelGOD | ||
![]() |
Why Dualism is Forlorn ( |
4,224 | 50 | 12/17/04 03:29 PM by Phluck | ||
![]() |
Is Buddhism Cartesian? ( |
3,076 | 22 | 06/02/07 09:45 AM by redgreenvines | ||
![]() |
Dualism ( |
2,354 | 24 | 12/14/04 07:46 PM by ninjapixie | ||
![]() |
Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs ( |
10,629 | 39 | 01/14/05 05:58 PM by Alan Stone |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 3,114 topic views. 1 members, 15 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||





_ 


