|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] 2
#24020613 - 01/18/17 04:41 PM (7 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Bullshit.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
#24020620 - 01/18/17 04:43 PM (7 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said:

A method of generally following discrete observations of experience (sense) in order to recognize a local faculty of perception in cognition; is a lot different than Sudly's formalistic and generally projected physicalism.
I think this is significant. Sudly ironically does not start with the senses, (with experiential observations), as much as he pretends to or formally endorses a "sense-based philosophy" in general, in a kind of pseudo-empiricism and pseudoscience.
So I see a difference in the arguments, that Bluecoyote practically begins with sense experience, while Sudly theoretically postulates sense experiences, or a notion of cognition and neuroscience in a mostly unexamined and formally projected framework.
If the conclusion is similar in that we have discrete faculties of cognition in conscious experience, the difference is still significantly in how we come to this conclusion. We can come either through experiential observations, or projected sudly-esque categories. It makes sense to look to a real empirical/scientific approach when one is being claimed. At any rate, rigorous, practical observation will be crucial in anything considered to be a biological basis of consciousness.

So I theoretically postulate sense experiences, as if that means anything.. I reference a lot of what I say but I can't control if you people actually look at them.
I've said it before but the object of science to be be able to grasp the hypothetical and it remains a powerful demonstration of force.
I take senses into consideration but I don't take my gut feelings seriously all of the time, I think there's got to be some critical thinking and rational to it as well.
Relying solely on experiential observations may work for some things but it also leads to stories of Jesus and ghosts.
An inch of common sense is all that's needed to realise there is a biological basis to consciousness.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
#24020638 - 01/18/17 04:46 PM (7 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BlueCoyote said: Our visual cortex works both ways. That really in fact means that you can 'project' 'mental' pictures onto that part of the brain which works like a canvas.
Those pictures are seen crystal clear when you sleep/dream, or similar when you meditate (but not so clear), or what happened to me, taking a special combination of ayahuasca... closed my eyes and saw full screen, crystal clear, full contrast (even more than real contrast), brilliant picture/movie of that what I was thinking of.
Quote:
Sudly said: 3) We visualise objects through a process known as Mental Synthesis in where set patterns of neural networks fire simultaneously in the brain.
4) Our abilities to conceptualise with Mental Synthesis are formed in the same way our memories are through neural networking and we can only imagine as far as we can combine our experiences into a coherent image.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] 1
#24020916 - 01/18/17 06:29 PM (7 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Kurt said:

A method of generally following discrete observations of experience (sense) in order to recognize a local faculty of perception in cognition; is a lot different than Sudly's formalistic and generally projected physicalism.
I think this is significant. Sudly ironically does not start with the senses, (with experiential observations), as much as he pretends to or formally endorses a "sense-based philosophy" in general, in a kind of pseudo-empiricism and pseudoscience.
So I see a difference in the arguments, that Bluecoyote practically begins with sense experience, while Sudly theoretically postulates sense experiences, or a notion of cognition and neuroscience in a mostly unexamined and formally projected framework.
If the conclusion is similar in that we have discrete faculties of cognition in conscious experience, the difference is still significantly in how we come to this conclusion. We can come either through experiential observations, or projected sudly-esque categories. It makes sense to look to a real empirical/scientific approach when one is being claimed. At any rate, rigorous, practical observation will be crucial in anything considered to be a biological basis of consciousness.

So I theoretically postulate sense experiences, as if that means anything.. I reference a lot of what I say but I can't control if you people actually look at them.
I've said it before but the object of science to be be able to grasp the hypothetical and it remains a powerful demonstration of force.
I take senses into consideration but I don't take my gut feelings seriously all of the time, I think there's got to be some critical thinking and rational to it as well.
Relying solely on experiential observations may work for some things but it also leads to stories of Jesus and ghosts.
An inch of common sense is all that's needed to realise there is a biological basis to consciousness.
Heap of bullshit strawman.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly] 2
#24020954 - 01/18/17 06:40 PM (7 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
An inch of common sense is all that's needed to realise there is a biological basis to consciousness.
I agree with Kurt, this is horse shit.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt]
#24020957 - 01/18/17 06:40 PM (7 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: I think this is significant. Sudly ironically does not start with the senses, (with experiential observations), as much as he pretends to or formally endorses a "sense-based philosophy" in general, in a kind of pseudo-empiricism and pseudoscience.
I start with the senses then process them through critical thought. How is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
And how am I making the straw man if I'm not the one postulating something that isn't true?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
#24021784 - 01/19/17 12:44 AM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: An inch of common sense is all that's needed to realise there is a biological basis to consciousness.
You really don't belong on this forum.
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
beforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,859
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor]
#24021797 - 01/19/17 01:06 AM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Neurological signals aren't any more thoughts or ideas than waves are what you hear when you listen to music.
It's an error of category, or something.
-------------------- Hostile humankind Can't you see you're fucking blind?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
Quote:
beforethedawn said: Neurological signals aren't any more thoughts or ideas than waves are what you hear when you listen to music.
It's an error of category, or something.
If we're talking about neurological signals don't forget to include brain wave frequencies.

We can measure sound waves too.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: viktor] 2
#24022635 - 01/19/17 10:56 AM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I don't think it is wrong for him to talk about a cogitive and neurological basis for conscious experience. He just doesn't seem to grasp how to honestly argue a point in dialogue, or contend with a real world in general, according to his philosophical assumption. He iust keeps going and going here like an energizer bunny.
Does "beginning with sense experience" mean starting from a basis and sphere of one's own experience, such as what is observed and possibly confirmed in the world through his senses? That is one idea of beginning with experience; specifically as an empirical notion. What alot of people have talked about here is that, beginning with a basis of experience.
To someone like Sudly who has identified strongly with a projected philosophical narrative, "beginning with the experience" does not mean a scientific or meditative approach to understanding the world. When he pretends to, this is just an idea of that he is aping. To him, a world that begins with sense experience is a theoretical construct, and ideology he associates with, and idolizes, and clings to, and generally splays about the forum, in pretended responses to posters and in pretended connection to the world.
Sudly does not begin or typically rely on an experiential basis, experience through experience, but a projected idea of physical organisms' experiences, like how perception, can be projectively considered brain dependent, and can be treated as physical object in the world, and he constantly looks to rationalize this as a pet philosophical ideal (materialism).
I would say he is well in his right to have a material view, but it seems like he could speak a whole lot more from an empirical baseline, rather than just projecting and attempting to force feed his philosophical/ontological assumption, about a nature that is physical.
There is definitely room for critique! Most of what Sudly says is highly suspect, and smells of bullshit. His physical categorialism, and his pet theories, usually do not make contact with the real world, or argument about it. This is because he is just aping science. He has the formality of a scientist, or at least the "cargo cult" of science down. But there is actually a big difference between what Sudly talks about as a "sense based" world, or a world that begins with the sense experience, and what a rigorous empiricist speaks of in that way.
The practical scientist actually, and in a practical way, begins with experiences, a baseline of experiential observations of the world, whereas Sudly, a pseudo-empiricist merely aping science, only has a theory of a sense based world, and a way of pretentiously representing himself as some great scientific theoretician. So ironically, in his physicalism, (again an opinion that is welcome here in general) Sudly seems to be far away from actually thinking living and dwelling close to his experience of the world, and his actual senses. As an empiricist he is nowhere near rigorous enough.
It's just bad science.
Edited by Kurt (01/19/17 01:56 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt] 3
#24022653 - 01/19/17 11:00 AM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Excellent and correct summary.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Everyone knows one cannot eat the word: ‘pie’ or the word: ’bread’.
Rene Magritte painted a picture of a pipe titled: “This is not a pipe”.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=This+is+not+a+pipe&FORM=HDRSC2
This is a valid philosophical point. Of course the adult brains of english speakers, immediately associate the english word ‘pipe’, with the picture, although we also know we cannot smoke it. And if we turn some pictures upside down we might not recognize them right away. As Magritte points out ‘really’ there is only paint on a canvas. (However in the case of the picture of an ‘attractive’ nude person sexual arousal may be produced, this Magritte does not address. In the case of movies, even more emotional effects may be produced, purely by 2 dimensional imagery at 24-32 frames per second. As we all know advertisers as well as artists exploit the human tendencies, of identification, projection, and association). So in many cases s symbol may function as that which it represents, while in other cases it may function as a symbol, and lastly it may function deceptively. Money of course is also a symbol, with special properties of it’s own. A whole other subject. We can also defy categories in many ways. For instance by writing the word ‘bread’ with bread crumbs which can be eaten.
Also however note that we do not attempt to explain how it is possible for pie or bread or a pipe to exist. They are objects, and we talk about them with words which are symbols and don’t confuse the two. Likewise we constantly use abstractions such as numbers and do not spend great effort debating how real they are and where they come from. The more intelligent we are the better we are at math. Most intelligent people do not debate wether they exist only in the intelligent mind or in the radius of a circle or spiral of a nautilus shell.
In the case of awareness aka consciousness however it seems people mistake a fine theory for awareness aka consciousness itself. A great recipe for cake is no good if in fact the milk, eggs, and flour you have, have actually spoiled. And the recipe cannot make or bake itself - this is crucial. A theory cannot become aware, but we already are, and it is some degree of this very awareness that makes the game of theorizing possible. The same goes for thoughts, as goes for theories. Thoughts are not awareness. Thoughts are not aware. There must be a subject that is experiencing them for them to have any reality. Experiencing is a synonym for being aware of … Awareness is meta to anything that is experienced. Space is meta to objects. Space exists regardless of the forms that are born into it, transform in it and decay in it. The forms do not define or control space. It is space that permits forms to arise. It is the same with awareness and perceptions. Thoughts about awareness can never define it. That much we can say about ‘it’. And it is awareness that makes possible all that we experience and choose to categorize with the linguistic symbol; ”reality”. But there is in ‘reality’ no such thing as reality. Experiencing is a verb not a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
About (its own category) In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on).
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: laughingdog]
#24022931 - 01/19/17 01:25 PM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: Everyone knows one cannot eat the word: ‘pie’ or the word: ’bread’.
Rene Magritte painted a picture of a pipe titled: “This is not a pipe”.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=This+is+not+a+pipe&FORM=HDRSC2
This is a valid philosophical point. Of course the adult brains of english speakers, immediately associate the english word ‘pipe’, with the picture, although we also know we cannot smoke it. And if we turn some pictures upside down we might not recognize them right away. As Magritte points out ‘really’ there is only paint on a canvas. (However in the case of the picture of an ‘attractive’ nude person sexual arousal may be produced, this Magritte does not address. In the case of movies, even more emotional effects may be produced, purely by 2 dimensional imagery at 24-32 frames per second. As we all know advertisers as well as artists exploit the human tendencies, of identification, projection, and association). So in many cases s symbol may function as that which it represents, while in other cases it may function as a symbol, and lastly it may function deceptively. Money of course is also a symbol, with special properties of it’s own. A whole other subject. We can also defy categories in many ways. For instance by writing the word ‘bread’ with bread crumbs which can be eaten.
Also however note that we do not attempt to explain how it is possible for pie or bread or a pipe to exist. They are objects, and we talk about them with words which are symbols and don’t confuse the two. Likewise we constantly use abstractions such as numbers and do not spend great effort debating how real they are and where they come from. The more intelligent we are the better we are at math. Most intelligent people do not debate wether they exist only in the intelligent mind or in the radius of a circle or spiral of a nautilus shell.
In the case of awareness aka consciousness however it seems people mistake a fine theory for awareness aka consciousness itself. A great recipe for cake is no good if in fact the milk, eggs, and flour you have, have actually spoiled. And the recipe cannot make or bake itself - this is crucial. A theory cannot become aware, but we already are, and it is some degree of this very awareness that makes the game of theorizing possible. The same goes for thoughts, as goes for theories. Thoughts are not awareness. Thoughts are not aware. There must be a subject that is experiencing them for them to have any reality. Experiencing is a synonym for being aware of … Awareness is meta to anything that is experienced. Space is meta to objects. Space exists regardless of the forms that are born into it, transform in it and decay in it. The forms do not define or control space. It is space that permits forms to arise. It is the same with awareness and perceptions. Thoughts about awareness can never define it. That much we can say about ‘it’. And it is awareness that makes possible all that we experience and choose to categorize with the linguistic symbol; ”reality”. But there is in ‘reality’ no such thing as reality. Experiencing is a verb not a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
About (its own category) In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on).
Nice post. I especially resonate with the following:
Quote:
The same goes for thoughts, as goes for theories. Thoughts are not awareness. Thoughts are not aware. There must be a subject that is experiencing them for them to have any reality. Experiencing is a synonym for being aware of … Awareness is meta to anything that is experienced. Space is meta to objects.
Couldn't have put it better.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
hello awareness is also thought
this is where it get kookie:
all mental content is thought or thought is the same as any mental content; thought is not just the imagining of words but it is also:
everything being experienced is thought - it all is either transduced from sensation into mental content, or it is expressed from memory potentials triggered from existing (fading) mental content.
Even meditation is thought, though gurus may try to tell you that word thought is thought and meditation is not thought - but then they tell you how to meditate and it involves putting your awareness in a spot (chakkra) and repeating a mantra or some such. all of which is thought. it all happens in the mind.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt] 1
#24023588 - 01/19/17 05:52 PM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I have had what many would call spiritual experiences but I've realised that the things I thought were external forces were actually the influences of my subconscious thoughts.
Here you are saying I pretend to have experiences..
I think in order to do good science you can't rely on your gut feelings, as a little rational and critical thought are required.
Quote:
Kurt said: He has the formality of a scientist, or at least the "cargo cult" of science down.
I don't think you're a serious person.. 
Quote:
Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures. They focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture through magical means, by building landing strips, mock aircraft, mock radios, and the like.
Even so I understand your point that you think I'm laying out some sort of pseudo-scientific trap to capture the attention of people like you.
Instead of trying to bash the air how about you ask a question about something you're not satisfied with in relation to my 'pet theory'?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
#24023647 - 01/19/17 06:07 PM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
#24023661 - 01/19/17 06:10 PM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Instead of trying to bash the air how about you ask a question about something you're not satisfied with in relation to my 'pet theory'?
Who is bashing the air?
The argument is done as far as I am concerned. I am okay with everything that has been said.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: Kurt] 1
#24023799 - 01/19/17 06:54 PM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I don't know who this is aimed at because I advocate for the idea that we process our sensual experiences through critical thought as perceptions, i.e. Explicit feelings/Implicit thoughts, a duality of experience so as to say.
Quote:
Kurt said: To someone like Sudly who has identified strongly with a projected philosophical narrative, "beginning with the experience" does not mean a scientific or meditative approach to understanding the world. When he pretends to, this is just an idea of that he is aping. To him, a world that begins with sense experience is a theoretical construct, and ideology he associates with, and idolizes, and clings to, and generally splays about the forum, in pretended responses to posters and in pretended connection to the world.
Sudly does not begin or typically rely on an experiential basis, experience through experience, but a projected idea of physical organisms' experiences, like how perception, can be projectively considered brain dependent, and can be treated as physical object in the world, and he constantly looks to rationalize this as a pet philosophical ideal (materialism).
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: The illusory nature of reality [Re: sudly]
#24023843 - 01/19/17 07:09 PM (7 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
sudly, the hole has been deep enough for awhile, yet you insist on continuing to dig.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
I'm still doing what I can to develop my pet theory on explaining what I think is the existence of an anatomical Tripartite-Dichotomy.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|