Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23963430 - 12/28/16 05:56 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Getting psychology mixed up into arguments seems to be the bane of this thread, guys. It is muddy and not clear, but I understand why we would too. Cogito ("I think"...and therefore I am) is like the intellectual version of egotism, a view seeming to come from nowhere. I think that probably it is in a good part (in content) psychology but it is a straight forward argument, about the world, not a psychologism at face value.

I would propose that if psychological terminology has to be used, or if it is clarifying to what we talk about, we need to try to be clear about this. Sudly, I respect your moral scruples quite a bit, but "conscience" is not an inherent structure of nature or of human cognition. It may be something that we can emphasize, that comes through our nature, but it really is not cognition itself.

Bling Bling, the theory of unconscious, (or any particular theory about the id, libido, or death anxiety, as particular unconscious "drives") is a theoretical postulate, not a cognitive structure.

The particular theories of unconscious are projected to perhaps explain human nature in more primal ways, and in very fundamental ways. But in spite of this depth, they generally remain social constructs (just theories) more than sciences. The theory can be empirical, which is to say a subject can be studied and analyzed, and gathered from, but these studies are not rigorously falsifiable or confirmable. That is, none of the studies confirm or falsify or validate anything about the theories, other than that human behavior can seem be studied in the projected way. Behaviorism as the generalization of a method of explaining people's drives to act, or behave in certain ways, is no longer held in high regard by standing science.

We need to be clear on what the scientific basis really is here, so we are not just on our way to posture Psychoanalyse of people. If you are out to confirm a pet theory, by reified objectifications (unscientifically making objects or ends of people) you will be pointed out. We need to be practicing clear reasoning, and that means we need to be maintaining a good standard of discussion rather than just projecting stereotypes and anthroprocentric categories of human nature.

The idea of philosophy is in large part to discuss ideas, or make arguments about the world. Talking about person's behind the ideas, reflexes conferring with an ideology or belief, is getting it backwards. I don't care about whatever spin. This is ad hominem argument, argument to the man, rather than the idea, it is just bad form. We could at least have a more cohesive dialogue if we came to a ground of assertion about the world or existence.

Descartes makes an argument about the world when he says "I think therefore I am". As much as we may be suspicious of this statement, and however psychological it seems, we need to stick to grounds ostensibly like this; as the reasoned argument about the world, and sort through the rationalistic and empirical baselines.

I would also challenge anyone to consider the question I asked above about the circularity of Descartes' argument.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
    #23963537 - 12/28/16 06:38 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Sudly, I respect your moral scruples quite a bit, but "conscience" is not an inherent structure of nature or of human cognition. It may be something that we can emphasize, that comes through our nature, but it really is not cognition itself.




As I've been saying throughout this, I think only consciousness is an inherent structure in nature and that a conscience is something that can become emphasised in humans through the accumulated experience of an inhibited fight or flight response that come alongside the ingestion of psychedelic drugs like the psilocybin found in magic mushrooms.

Here is the basic logic I follow to get from having a sense of morality to having a conscience to expressing sentience.

Quote:

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour




Quote:

Conscience: a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour.




Quote:

Sentience: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought




Morality in my view is distinguished from explicit feelings and sensations as implicit perception and thought.

Quote:

the theory of unconscious, (or any particular theory about the id, libido, or death anxiety, as particular unconscious "drives") is a theoretical postulate, not a cognitive structure.

The particular theories of unconscious are projected to perhaps explain human nature in more primal ways, and in very fundamental ways. But in spite of this depth, they generally remain social constructs (just theories) more than sciences. The theory can be empirical, which is to say a subject can be studied and analyzed, and gathered from, but these studies are not rigorously falsifiable or confirmable.




To date that makes sense but hopefully in time the theory of Triune Dualism will be completed to explain these things and show that there is a basic and fundamental cognitive structure to the human experience.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Simplify this [Re: Kurt]
    #23963576 - 12/28/16 06:53 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

what is the question?
you say in the question above, well how far above( or was it an implicit question above) that would be naughty))?

loose linkages are not helping with clarity.

anyway, to the basic statement: "I think, therefore I am"
I concur:
all mental contents together are thought, with or without language, with or without sensation, with or without logic, with or without memory, with or without pain - that is the broader reality of thinking and of being,
so yeah
"I think, therefore I am".


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Simplify this [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23963607 - 12/28/16 07:04 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I think therefore I am, but what am I, am I a body and/or a mind?




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,660
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Simplify this [Re: sudly]
    #23963691 - 12/28/16 07:39 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Samsaric appearances, unfounded, are like optical illusion,
their very rootlessness undoing all defining features;
with insight, they appear as hollow, insubstantial light-form
and we recognize their primordially unoriginated nature.

Just as a small object in the middle of an empty plain,
although insignificant assumes vast importance,
so from a tendentious belief in empty self as solid ego
samsara' s delusory panorama arises and materializes.

Under scrutiny that delusory vision dematerializes
and it is evident that like the sky it is impotent,
mere light-form without existence, like optical illusion,
so we just let it be, denying it all credibility.

It is pure space! it is timeless! it is primordially pristine!
Do not try to localize it! do not try to conceptualize it!
What is inchoate light without dimension
cannot be caged by obsessive, biased, constructs.
It is better to surrender all ideas about it
and recognize it all as devoid of truth.

So we recognize all events as optical illusion
and rest the weary mind, just as it is, in its primordial nature.

:patlal:


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Simplify this [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #23963762 - 12/28/16 08:03 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,660
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Simplify this [Re: sudly]
    #23963852 - 12/28/16 08:40 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

:excuseme::manofapproval::heart:

The crass naive materialist thumping the table
and saying, 'And isn't this real?' is in denial of the ineluctable
dominant cognitive component of every perception.
Indeed in every cognitive event our specifically personal
beliefs about the reality of the external world are
undermined by the logic of variable sensory experience
under evolving conditions.

The subjectivity of our deeper,
hidden, preconscious, common, shared beliefs about the
external world and its presumed immutable reality are
easily refuted by the proofs offered by the scanning electron
microscope and by quantum theory and particle physics in
the field of objective investigation.

Then turning inward in discursive, analytical meditation we can search for an essence that is
substantial and permanent and yet find only emptiness:  magical illusion


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Edited by The Blind Ass (12/28/16 08:42 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Simplify this [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #23963888 - 12/28/16 08:53 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Pilot wave theory, not the Copenhagen interpretation thank you.



Quote:

redgreenvines said:
we are constantly playing with models of the real world, even to the extent that we stop connecting with the real worlds because our model is far too engrossing. The mind's eye can be easily distracted by it's own model.






--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
    #23963896 - 12/28/16 08:55 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

blingbling said:
I'm just trying to get you to admit that idealism is logically consistent.




Sudly is a meat-worshipper. He doesn't have the intellectual capacity to step back and think about idealism.

I'm not even sure why he posts here, since the entire point of the psychedelic experience is to realise that the material world is an illusion and consciousness is eternal and thus to become liberated.

He should post on some physics or maths forum where there are some people on a similar wavelength. Getting lectured by him about 'implicit sensations' is like getting lectured by a religious child that just will not listen when you try to tell him that Santa isn't real.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,660
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
    #23963920 - 12/28/16 09:05 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Nothing wrong with his opinion, Its pretty clever and represents things well I think.  Others do the same but with other interpretations, probably because of different personality types or whatever conditioning they have or what have you.  All the same to me.  Materialism, or Consciousness Only, or whatever it is all is the same to me, just like people talking about the same thing in nature but only using different languages to do it.  But the subtle nuances or gross ones of each individuals take on a thing adds a nice spice to life, and megusta el spice.


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Edited by The Blind Ass (12/28/16 09:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
    #23963942 - 12/28/16 09:18 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

viktor said:
I'm not even sure why he posts here, since the entire point of the psychedelic experience is to realise that the material world is an illusion and consciousness is eternal and thus to become liberated.

He should post on some physics or maths forum where there are some people on a similar wavelength. Getting lectured by him about 'implicit sensations' is like getting lectured by a religious child that just will not listen when you try to tell him that Santa isn't real.




Quote:

"Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology"





Implicit perception*
Quote:

At this point the concept of implicit memory (Graf & Schacter, 1985; Schacter, 1987), also known as indirect memory (Johnson & Hasher, 1987; Richardson-Klavehn & Bjork, 1988) or memory without awareness (Eich, 1984; Jacoby, 1984; Jacoby & Witherspoon, 1982), is quite familiar and widely accepted.
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/Bornstein92.htm




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,660
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
    #23963974 - 12/28/16 09:33 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Hey Sudly, I hear you...worship meat?  Is this true?

Do you have an alter you worship at with some raw beef shaped into a phallus seated on a golden plate on top of it and surrounded by incense? :datass:


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #23964005 - 12/28/16 09:44 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

You got me..


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Simplify this [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23964086 - 12/28/16 10:11 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

The statement you bolded is a neat truism. I take it you are saying Descartes is talking about the mind or thought, like a vessel to be filled? It is a place where things come or are placed together.

As I understand;

All experiences, past as much as present perceptions and feelings, take place equally in the place of consciousness. All physicalities (sensations), as much as mentalities take place in consciousness. What we mean by thought as intellect sometimes; as thoughts expressed in linguistic statements, dialogues, or thought as internal narratives, and non-linguistic thoughts, like image like phenomena and dreams (etc), are really anything we experience all together in consciousness.

Descartes' statement is not simplified to this point, "mental content is thought"; and I would say truisms are troublesome in that they themselves already say too much for what they have to say. I take your notion "simplify this!" though. All I would say there is a lot more to get a hold of and interpret in Descartes. In a way what you say, is the same as, or what he essentially says, even if what he is saying is more, and more toublesome in many cases.

It actually sounds like a pretty weird thing to just say "I think therefore I am" out of nothing, or without looser context. Descartes says not only "I think", or "I think...(x)", (and not I think I am) but "I think...therefore I am." He is saying a lot. I wonder, is it just like you say, to wit, that this statement is like filling a vessel, or placing together of all things in one place? Maybe that only works in simplicity.

It seems to me that Descartes is not only talking about identification more, but also significantly, what he thinks and asserts as the metaphysical foundation of the world, or what the foundations of scientific knowledge should be, in respect to the cogito. In Discourse on Method this is the looser context he lays out to haggle. I might have clarified, when I set out to reinterpret Descartes in this thread I did not just intend to find a distilled truth, in what he says, but to understand completely what he is saying and how it seems to be taken especially, in testament and in a broad philosophical cultural tradition, as cartesianism.

For instance, we did not even cover why in cartesianism the world is extended (like in linear spatiotemporal dimensions) res extensa, in respect to the cognition res cogitans; or how Descartes' mind and body relation "works". If you are talking pretty well about being and thinking, as such, I would add, Cartesianism is not just what we can distill in it as true. Well, hopefully this makes more sense.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Simplify this [Re: Kurt]
    #23964706 - 12/29/16 05:54 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

it was somewhat more readable, although it seems extra words were added at any opportunities.

Although "vessel" helps to formulate a metaphor for what I was saying, I think "mind" has properties that make "vessel" too limiting:

to begin with it is not spatially constrained, it is vast and accommodating of all experience.

while it floats on life, it floats whether upended or not.

if it sinks, it sinks within its own materiel.

================

as for the property of extension, this is mostly attributed to earth, which solidly extends and supports; but it is also intrinsic to space, and to mind, since both accommodate dimensions.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,660
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Simplify this [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23964712 - 12/29/16 06:05 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

absent yet apparent - like an apparition, comes to mind - no pun intended


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: Simplify this [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #23964792 - 12/29/16 07:32 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

that too


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Simplify this [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23965226 - 12/29/16 10:57 AM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Well, true to form. I think the guy above you thinks it is your aura and redgreeny essence floating by.

Anyway, I agree that communication is great, but let's see what progress has actually been made in terms of argument. To recap, you said you concur with Descartes when he says "I think therefore I am":

"Yes", you say, "all mental contents together are thoughts" (these are your words, two of your posts up).

To really be true to form, we need a more focused verbal argument. I am not myself impressed by the guru style in pronouncing truisms, either, so you will have to do a little better with your words. Sorry to weigh you down. We need actual argument as the constraining form. Let's actually consider what you say this way:

Explain this: You say "all mental contents - all thoughts - together, are thoughts?" Thoughts (together) are thoughts? A=A, is placed together? What is this statement saying?

Are you also going to also tell me that "all bachelors are unmarried"?

Or will you say that "the buddhist's opiate makes me sleepy because of its dormitive power"? It may be lulling, and nice sounding to young grasshoppers who love to assume the question of consciousness. You are already off talking about this stuff, the formless unconstrained "matter" of thought; I am just offering that we keep things grounded a bit.

Redgreen essences,
squeezing through and wafting by,
no argument though.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
phenomena which occur in mind [Re: Kurt] * 2
    #23965389 - 12/29/16 12:08 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

obviously I am not talking about bachelors, I am talking about mental objects.
phenomena which occur in mind.
what is experienced.
the mind stage is like a theater or media player.
the content of mind is mental media.
traditionally we consider the meaning of thought to be its subset which is discursive thought or thought that is packaged in word streams, or word streams that are voiced silently, and this corresponds to the activity of discourse/argument/conversation/communication etc.

thought that has the form of words or sentences and cadences is made of general mental forms/energy that has the character of words etc. which could be read or heard or spoken.

thought that has the form of scenery or graphical views is also made of the same general mental forms/energy that has the character of what could be seen or navigated within.

thought that has the form of body sensations or physical posture, gesture or movement is also made of the same general mental form-stuff as other thought though the character of it is has proprioceptive reality.

thoughts of all these types occur with eyes open or closed, when dreaming or awake.

what is most uncanny is that verbal thought is considered by many as the only real thought, and any other thinking is not considered at all as having the same basic substance, or even any valid semblance to thinking, to the extent that inarticulate animals are not considered conscious, though we may observe emotions, and even complex planning in their behaviors.

We here in mushroom land enjoy mental state alteration recreationally, which means that we take pleasure and find inspiration in the intermingling trails that mental events afford.

by observation we come to see that any idea, or mental form, or component thereof, or composite thereof arises, and passes away with the same property - i.e. while stoned we may note resonance extension, prolonged fading etc. of any class of mental form that arises.

I am not sure if you can accept experiential proof of this, or even if your kind of discourse accepts measurements or experimental recording of this, but this is what happens when getting stoned, and it applies equally well when not getting stoned.

any mental forms that occur (from sensational experience) may be integrated (associatively) into the continuum of memory formation, and any recognition from memory also is a mental form (which arises and passes away - though not from real-time sensation).

This is why I am careful to separate sensation from perception, since sensation is real-time input to the mind, and perception is reflective, i.e. a new form arising because of the (associative) sensory trigger, in which the sensation is recognized as like unto something that happened before.

the curious aspect of solipsism is that the real time feed is external to self, even though the experience of it is as mindforms in real time, mixed with triggered memory mind forms.

the triggered memory mindforms (including discursive thought as well as body sense memories) are, however, all internal. and after a period of time one could begin to live within their own head, though it is guaranteed to be repetitive.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: phenomena which occur in mind [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23966228 - 12/29/16 06:13 PM (7 years, 1 month ago)

Obviously?

Good post though, I read through a few times and think I follow.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* cartesian dualism is unsound
( 1 2 all )
Patisotagami 3,115 28 02/20/10 09:42 PM
by Kickle
* Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!)...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Shroomalicious 11,179 107 05/03/10 01:26 AM
by Withinity
* Cartesian Dualism Voido 1,317 9 04/29/08 11:51 PM
by johnm214
* Are Believers Rational Beings?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 8,172 60 04/22/02 03:23 AM
by infidelGOD
* Why Dualism is Forlorn
( 1 2 3 all )
Annom 4,224 50 12/17/04 03:29 PM
by Phluck
* Is Buddhism Cartesian?
( 1 2 all )
Lakefingers 3,076 22 06/02/07 09:45 AM
by redgreenvines
* Dualism
( 1 2 all )
Jellric 2,354 24 12/14/04 07:46 PM
by ninjapixie
* Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs
( 1 2 all )
Swami 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, 26 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.