|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
#23967241 - 12/30/16 02:54 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
blingbling said:
Quote:
sudly said: Thinking is not always reducible to consciousness
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.
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.
The scientific revolution is definitely the most transformative force that has ever acted upon human beings in my opinion. I'm not trying to deny that. But you are missing a fundamental truth about reality by leaning so heavily on your brand of materialist philosophy.
Your example of instinct is a good one. We do things for reasons of which we only retrospectively interpret as instinctual. We know things that we don't know we know. But consider a concrete example.
I learn to play the piano. I play a song I have learned to on the piano and it brings me joy. We would not consider these actions instinctual. However, perhaps I finish with the piano and see an alluring woman which I desire greatly. It is fair to say that this reaction is instinctual correct?
What both these experiences have in common is that they are first and foremost experienced by someone as the arising of sensations in consciousness. It doesn't matter whether the behaviour is learned or instinctual, it nonetheless appears first in consciousness.
Even if we stuck someone in a brain scanner and observed with some technology that we don't currently posses that in the next 5 minutes a person will engage in X behaviour, we can only know this because there is an experimenter whose is conscious of an experiment taking place.
There are lots of problems with a combination of scientific and first person perspectives, its clunky and our language doesn't seem to support it appropriately. But, the position of idealism, that reality is located in consciousness has its own small truth.
Lastly, consider the scientific principle that most of matter is in fact empty space, and yet we experience it as being something hard of soft or sticky,, when really there is not that much there from an atomic perspective. This disjointedness between consciousness and what physics tells us reality is, is symptomatic of our failure to effectively integrate idealist and materialist philosophies, and which leads to the circular arguments that we have been engaging in for the last few posts.
-------------------- 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.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: viktor]
#23967257 - 12/30/16 03:12 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
viktor said:
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.
Actually I agree with most of what he has to say. You claim that he is a "meat worshipper" and this might be true, but its a bit rich coming from someone who is clearly a spirit worshipper; in the sense that you use the philosophical ideas of idealism to shelter yourself from the reality of death and impermanence. All this gets us is a one dimensional hallmark card version of real philosophy.
I think sudley should stick around even if it is to merely troll the rest of the spirit worshippers at the shroomery.
Perhaps you should open yourself to some of sudley's arguments and through the integration and conflagration of opposites we might come to real knowledge.
-------------------- 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.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
#23967270 - 12/30/16 03:36 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
in one quote above sudly uses the following to support an argument:
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?
most psychologists will not agree that instinct is equal to subconscious, nor has there been experimental proof of being born with innate knowledge.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: blingbling]
#23967287 - 12/30/16 04:07 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I learn to play the piano. I play a song I have learned to on the piano and it brings me joy. We would not consider these actions instinctual.
No, we wouldn't consider that instinctual for it is a learnt behaviour to be able to play the piano.
Desire is a tough one but I still think physical desire is instinctual e.g. the desire to procreate. As they say you can't choose your sexuality
On the other hand there is love or emotional desire which I don't think is instinctual but instead related to individual personality.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (12/30/16 04:13 AM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
How else does one explain instinctive responses such as the Moro reflex?
Quote:
The Moro reflex may have developed in human evolution to help the infant cling to their mother while she carried them around all day. If the infant lost their balance, the reflex caused the infant to embrace their mother and regain their hold on the mother’s body.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
#23967384 - 12/30/16 06:32 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Morrow reflex can be an example of instinct, if it is not an example of subconscious. Not both.
Any example of subconscious is an example of memory which has formed in this lifetime, and the "sub" qualifier relates to the memory surfacing "sublimely" or "subliminally", more felt than heard if you will.
Again, it is for capricious use of scientific terms that I am calling you out. These terms don't even support your argument, they are buckshot to illustrate that you are steeped in knowledge, but that is not a reasonable way to stay on topic, and it muddies other conversations, in cases when you become quoted by a more ignorant person.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: Morrow reflex can be an example of instinct, if it is not an example of subconscious. Not both.
Instinctive is a synonym to subconscious so I can't agree with you when you say the Moro reflex is not an example of both instinct and the subconscious.
I appreciate your feedback but I think you're wrong because I'm following dictionary definitions
Quote:
Instinctive: relating to or prompted by instinct; done without conscious thought.
Quote:
Subconscious: of or concerning the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one's actions and feelings.
synonyms: intuitive, instinctive, innate, involuntary;
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
#23968606 - 12/30/16 04:36 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
a dictionary will give you common usage, and if that is the rule used for your science, you will have a common science that is not very good.
the size of your vocabulary is expanding, but the quality is sinking.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
A dictionary will give you the correct definition of words, so..
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Defining Cogito [Re: sudly]
#23969151 - 12/30/16 08:26 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Speaking of definitions, what is the cogito; cognition?
Is there some kind of synopsis to this thread in sight? The discussion of how cognitions relate to or embrace empirical psychology has continually proved to go nowhere. Words like "unconscious", "subconscious" and instinct, conscience, and so on, may seem to be attempts to naturalize discussion. They may seem to stand for a deeper ecology of the human conscious life, explaining how we act, or live by certain drives, and ostensibly these theories could be grounded more or less in empirical bases, but for a discussion of cognition specifically this proves to be all too theoretical.
I am not sure if it would be helpful to distinguish what we are talking about, but here is a try. The bridge and correlation between supervening mental states studied in empirical psychology and the subserving brain functions (so where the brain lights up when a person fears, or desires, or has such a mental state), is broad and theoretically associative. This is not a commentary on what is wrong with psychology or something like that. I think the way we can work with those concepts should not be used as bridges, in a discussions of things Redgreenvines has mentioned like "perception" "sensation" and "association/memory" though. So I decided to look up cognition, and found out why there seems to be a difference in language. There is not any more grounding of the "cognitive" mental states in neuroscience, but as I discovered there is grounds to consider this language cognition.
Why? To take the simple definition, what we call cognition is not conscious experience as a whole, but as Oxford English Dictionary defines it, "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses." Cognition, in other words has a general epistemic basis. Cognition is how conscious functions reflect the synthesis of knowledge in the mind and its features. Apparently, at some historic point, this epistemelogical connotation, (again not just a possible connection to a particular body of knowledge, but in how we gather any knowledge whatsoever) has been passed down as necessarily having something to do with what we call mind, or cogito.
Granted this is a formal approach, but I do think intuitively, there is something to it. Maybe by method, we can try to learn to bracket and clarify the propositions of psychology, as these terms do not directly relate to the gathering of knowledge in a direct way. Then we can bring this discussion around to the sort of statements and language that confers directly, (in certain possible confirmations of discourse) as links between the mental function and our world; the cogito. One language, or basis of statement, should not be confused with the other.
I will try to take a queue from what I am following from this. I would say one of things about about Cartesianism is it is discursive at face value. There is an ostensive statement about the world, something that people can get ahold of, and in a sense, claim or assert. The statement we all seem to be familiar with, is "I think therefore I am"; Cogito ergo sum.
From here on maybe we get into the deeper discussion of cogito. Whether it is to add context, or distill the meaning of a discursive statement, I am not sure, but hopefully we all are aware that there is this discursive context now. It seems to me we have to be careful about language if we want to have any cohesive discussion.
Edited by Kurt (12/31/16 08:23 AM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Defining Cogito [Re: Kurt]
#23969186 - 12/30/16 08:42 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I usually struggle to find a point in your discussions but I do like this one.
Quote:
Cognition is how conscious functions reflect the synthesis of knowledge in the mind and its features.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Defining Cogito [Re: sudly]
#23969582 - 12/30/16 11:17 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Thanks, but should your agreement with a statement or dialogue be in a preference of what you like to read? I do not really care about your philosophic rigamorole. I can see where people are coming from and what they speak to. Now what is worthwhile is practical flexibility in conceptions, and at least being aware of them.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Defining Cogito [Re: Kurt]
#23969637 - 12/30/16 11:51 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I do not really care about your philosophic rigamorole.
Amen.
Res cogitans is mind. (a thinking thing) Res extensa is body. (Descartes often translated it as "corporeal substance")
What more is there to say?
I don't think solipsism accounts for res extensa
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Buster_Brown
L'une


Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Defining Cogito [Re: sudly]
#23970013 - 12/31/16 06:24 AM (7 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Sudly, your 20% derogatory rating reflects the pressure of the hive-mind to adjust participant behavior. The effect of aspersion can be calculated to affect participation in these affairs, with the greater aspersion correlating with a lesser participation and on the flip-side the greater acclaim linking the psychological-set of a participant with their favor. This bullying is unrecognized evidently because we don't think, ergo the refutation of Cogito ergo sum and the establishment of "The hive-mind thinks and therefor I am."
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: a dictionary will give you common usage, and if that is the rule used for your science, you will have a common science that is not very good.
the size of your vocabulary is expanding, but the quality is sinking.
talk talk
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
If the statement of a definition of a cognition (as inward syntheses of knowledge) is fitting, and not arbitrary, I would venture to propose what it actually means in general, is important. I guess it would mean we apparently begin and remain in close correspondence with a discursive statement, ( Like I think therefore I am) in whatever intelligibility we choose to ascribe to the mind.
Knowledge in general may be something gathered empirically, through a sensory experience and the way of recording of data, in a community of conjecture. We say things about the world and they are true or not, and record them to the books. If we look for a broad equivelence to fields of knowledge when we study cognition, I do not think the description of cognition is just going to be any aping of science. That is where people looking to extrapolate too much from empirical psychology are making their mistake. But perhaps it is assuming and adopting a generally synthetic ("placing together") view of the mind which can unfold itself? That is what with some reservation and skepticism, I find interesting, but I will try to clarify.
If we practically assume a mind is consisting in an apparatus of sensory experience, and gathering together of recorded memories, this cogito, as a glassy reflection to our discursive rational-intellect is indeed uncanny. I would note it is not just uncanny in the sense that when we observe the mind, we realize how dogmatically we think that mental function follows language and discursive meaning. To what extent in general have we assumed cognition: that cognition is a synthesis, a sensory experience, a gathering and ascription of "data"?
My point is not to posture the extent we look to cognition is either arbitrarily marked, or on the other hand, essential. Likewise in a similar proposition it could be that being homo sapien, "wise man", as we arrogate, really is essentially a way of nature, cutting through the fields of knowing. Perhaps our knowledges came correspondently, out of our minds, as they are in this way, but the uncanniness of this mirroring back and forth strikes me. To what extent is knowing really essential to cognition, to "thinking and being?"
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
#23971511 - 12/31/16 06:16 PM (7 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
I image you doing weird modern dance moves as you describe this.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: Kurt]
#23971528 - 12/31/16 06:23 PM (7 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
I would think the beliefs and values an individual holds are influenced by what they have come to know through the gathering and rectification of sensory experiences, 'data' or nerve impulses.
In other words I'd say knowledge is essential to the formation of individual values.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi



Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,660
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: Cartesianism and Violence [Re: sudly]
#23971654 - 12/31/16 07:19 PM (7 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
hello gentleman
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
|
|