|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 3 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563077 - 11/30/23 10:58 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
If you’re really curious about it then seriously, I can’t recommend Sam Harris’s app “Waking Up” enough. It’s meditation without any of the religious dogma. It’s brilliant.
They do a 7 day free trial and in that time you can listen to heaps of content on there. If you want to subscribe to it and you can’t afford the subscription then you can email them and they’ll give you a free subscription. It’s very interesting stuff, and it’s well worth doing I think if you’re interested what people are on about when they talk about oneness…. Anyway. I’ll stop ranting about it now.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563092 - 11/30/23 11:08 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
If someone is born blind and has never seen, then descriptions in line with stereognosis are the most perfect it's possible to describe something to them.
Wine experts detail the flavours of different wines rather well, from the range of descriptions one of them will fit with someone who has tasted the wine for the first time.
There are descriptions that will match our experiences.
I feel like you're trying to take extra steps to gather greater meaning from things that in the end aren't that complicated. Maybe you want there to be more, but sometimes it is what it is.
We all reach realizations that are milestones of perspective I suppose, but my recognition of being a part of the natural world doesn't go beyond it.
I used to be a fan of Sam Harris until I realised he tends to lean towards epistemology over ontology. That said I think there's a balance that can be reached between the two. But like nature vs nurture, the current debate of epistemology and ontology appears too simplistic for my liking.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28563095 - 11/30/23 11:12 PM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: ... To exist is really ecstasy, that is ekstasis, standing out, as the word exist comes from Latin existere which literally means to stand out. The fact something is standing out against a blank backdrop is existence. ...
to move is to be noticed, our brains suppress what is not moving, what is not moving becomes the "blank backdrop"
Being present in the moment one may perceive ekstasis, and through perceiving in the moment be ecstasy.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563164 - 12/01/23 01:06 AM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry mate, missed your post! Yeah the initial question in the title is kind of lacking a lot in clarity haha, but I think my first post explains a little more of what I meant at the time.
I’m just trying to figure these things out… questions about reality, consciousness, truth and proof. I’m quite a noobie when it comes to philosophy, never studied it or anything but take quite an interest in it and love listening to what other people have to say about it.
I’m a little confused for sure, but I still feel like there’s a few things I know to be true about my conscious experience.
Deduction is a great tool, and mathematical proof I know is solid, but these are both language games that we play aren’t they? And I think the general consensus is that they don’t map onto reality perfectly… hence why we don’t have a “theory of everything”.
The way I think about it at this point I’m time is, the logic of languages can be used to absolutely prove a statement is true or false, and the logic inherent in language can be used to form extremely accurate predictive theories about nature. But these theories aren’t perfect. They always fail to predict some aspect of nature. Which is okay, because they’re not supposed to.
This.
I always felt the overwhelming majority of philosophy just reduced to pointless games of language semantics.
I'm deeply interested in metaphysics, but the way I see it, philosophers can sit in their armchairs all day long manipulating words and playing games of semantics, and we'll still be no closer to the truth.
Science also seems like a pretty rudimentary tool for the exploration of consciousness and metaphysics, but psychedelics seem like the sharpest knife we have at the moment.
Quote:
if they stop making memory & perceiving (i.e. having a memory reflex from the context of mental contents being sensation and previous perceptions) then they have stopped being conscious.
this is slightly more precision (provable down to alpha and theta waves), but essentially , yeah, I believe you are right.
[alzheimers stops making memory but still reacts from memory - perceptions function (poorly)]
Yeah that's definitely a more nuanced sharpening of my point.
Although I find it hard to even conceptualize what 'perception' would mean when juxtaposed with a complete inability to remember.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
|
Metaphysics is not an appropriate tool to garner a grounded understanding, at best you'll end up with use of concepts or words that have whatever interpretations you want.
I'm interested in hearing about metaphysics for insights into how people think about certain topics, but the end result is usually that they just want to feel apart of a community of like minded thinkers.
Metaphysics to me is lazy thinking that provides solace or pacification in easy answers that don't hold merit.
E.g. it's easy to think of God's or deities taking over our responsibilities, it's an easy answer to difficult questions, but it makes weak views that can't defend themselves and have no basis or merit.
Santa isn't discernable from metaphysics.
Metaphysics reach beyond nature, it's heretical to nature in my view. A path that idolises a disconnection from nature.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28563210 - 12/01/23 02:02 AM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Not to derail the conversation, but let's get into this a little bit...
Quote:
sudly said: Metaphysics is not an appropriate tool to garner a grounded understanding, at best you'll end up with use of concepts or words that have whatever interpretations you want.
That's precisely what I aim to avoid.
When I say 'metaphysics' I'm simply referring to questions such as: - what is the nature of reality? - why is there something rather than nothing? - how does the cycle of birth and death work? - does the soul/consciousness survive death? - what is the ego and what does it mean to lose it? - what are we aiming for, and why are we aiming?
I don't believe metaphysics is a 'tool' at all, and I don't think it makes sense to ascribe the property of appropriateness to it.
Rather I see metaphysics merely as a way of categorizing certain ephemeral subjects, like the concepts the questions above pertain to.
I don't think one can 'do metaphysics'.
And if you could, I don't think the philosopher armed merely with words is capable of doing a good job.
I believe however that the psychonaut armed with not much more than a few dried grams and the silent darkness in which they sit, is doing a much better job of 'doing metaphysics' - or more accurately, they're getting closer to the truth surrounding these subjects.
Quote:
I'm interested in hearing about metaphysics for insights into how people think about certain topics, but the end result is usually that they just want to feel apart of a community of like minded thinkers.
I'm not sure these things have much to do with metaphysics at all. Sounds more like psychology.
Quote:
Metaphysics to me is lazy thinking that provides solace or pacification in easy answers that don't hold merit.
Again I don't think this is true metaphysics, but rather philosophers playing games with words.
Quote:
E.g. it's easy to think of God's or deities taking over our responsibilities, it's an easy answer to difficult questions, but it makes weak views that can't defend themselves and have no basis or merit.
The question of whether we can be moral beings, without being informed by biblical ideas like the Ten Commandments, is more one of ethics rather than metaphysics I think.
Quote:
Metaphysics reach beyond nature, it's heretical to nature in my view. A path that idolises a disconnection from nature.
I fear we're each operating under very different definitions of metaphysics!
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
|
Metaphysics in the general sense is beyond nature, perhaps epistemology and ontology are better for such explorations.
Quote:
Epistemology and ontology are two fundamental branches of philosophy that offer distinct but complementary perspectives. Epistemology, often referred to as the theory of knowledge, delves into the nature, scope, and origins of knowledge. It questions how we come to know what we know, the limits of our understanding, and the methods we use to acquire and validate knowledge. This field addresses the processes of learning, perception, and the criteria for truth and belief. On the other hand, ontology concerns itself with the study of being and existence. It explores the nature of reality, what entities exist, their categorisations, and their interrelationships. Ontology seeks to understand the essence of things, their properties, and how they come into being. While epistemology is about the 'how' of knowledge, ontology deals with the 'what' of existence. Together, these philosophical disciplines provide a comprehensive framework for exploring and understanding the complexities of reality and knowledge.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 3 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: sudly]
#28563233 - 12/01/23 02:51 AM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
You say “the most perfect”, as in there could be something more perfect than perfect… but there can’t be. Perfect means absolutely flawless in every way. The fact that you say “the most perfect” means that it is not perfect, which means that you concede the point that we cannot adequately describe consciousness, or the taste of chocolate, or the colour blue. You conceded without noticing you conceded, and then acted like you were right in arguing against it. This is not honest. 
Wine experts say things like “this wine has hints of coffee with a short sharp aftertaste of raspberry”. Anyone who has then proceeded to drink that wine instantly thinks the person who wrote it must’ve been drunk because of the terrible description they gave of the taste. Reading a description does not put the taste in anyones mind. You are failing to recognise a widely accepted truth about the nature of consciousness.
Also, this is Sam Harris’ meditation app. It has nothing to do with his thoughts on epistemology or ontology. It’s great, and you can learn all about this mumbo jumbo hocus pocus (which it isn’t) there.
Edited by Bardy (12/01/23 04:24 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
|
Quote:
Heroic Dosage said: ...
Quote:
[alzheimers stops making memory but still reacts from memory - perceptions function (poorly)]
Yeah that's definitely a more nuanced sharpening of my point.
Although I find it hard to even conceptualize what 'perception' would mean when juxtaposed with a complete inability to remember.
a complete inabiliity to remember is the end of perception, however, in alzheimers the memory of physical movement is the last to go, so a person can feel what that is like, and it is like being in the womb but without the amniotic protection, this I can imagine.
--------------------------------------------------------
psychedelics support the simultaneous thinking of completely contradictory thoughts, so they are not the sharpest tool for plumbing reality, however they often show what we have been ignoring as well, which is an extremely valuable view to access.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 3 seconds
|
|
Is this the consensus in the literature RGV? Or is this just your thoughts on it?
It does kind of make sense to me now… I was originally imagining that there could be consciousness without remembering at all but now I’m not so sure how that would work. I mean, I have no idea how it works.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563290 - 12/01/23 04:37 AM (1 month, 27 days ago) |
|
|
most neuro scientists think that the hippocampus is responsible for memory, and have not keyed memory to the thalamic support function and the alpha and theta speed brainwaves. but most also accept the idea of "plasticity" which generally resolves down to the deposition of ARC proteins during memory formation of synchronous activation (and the synchronous activation is due to thalamic feedback support at alpha and theta frequencies)
so they largely agree but have not put it together formally, they are more into observing BOLD MRI which is at a larger scale than the deposition of individual proteins, and how the presence of those proteins affects perception (memory recall). My JavaScript demo is proof of that.
the best paper I have come across illustrates the various ways of activating a cortical neuron but it leaves out the thalamic part.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
Edited by redgreenvines (12/01/23 04:41 AM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563823 - 12/01/23 01:45 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: You say “the most perfect”, as in there could be something more perfect than perfect… but there can’t be. Perfect means absolutely flawless in every way. The fact that you say “the most perfect” means that it is not perfect, which means that you concede the point that we cannot adequately describe consciousness, or the taste of chocolate, or the colour blue. You conceded without noticing you conceded, and then acted like you were right in arguing against it. This is not honest. 
Wine experts say things like “this wine has hints of coffee with a short sharp aftertaste of raspberry”. Anyone who has then proceeded to drink that wine instantly thinks the person who wrote it must’ve been drunk because of the terrible description they gave of the taste. Reading a description does not put the taste in anyones mind. You are failing to recognise a widely accepted truth about the nature of consciousness.
Also, this is Sam Harris’ meditation app. It has nothing to do with his thoughts on epistemology or ontology. It’s great, and you can learn all about this mumbo jumbo hocus pocus (which it isn’t) there.
For blind people I said the most perfect because stereognosis is as good as it's possible to be when describing how items look to them.
Quote:
If someone is born blind and has never seen, then descriptions in line with stereognosis are the most perfect it's possible to describe something to them.
I said language can more or less perfectly describe the workings of the natural world because I believe there are more than one way to describe something as good as it is possible to do. Because one great explanation may capture the principles of an idea exceptionally well, but that doesn't mean it's easy for everyone to understand, and a different version of the same information can help others grasp such information too.
Quote:
Language can describe the workings of the natural world more of less perfectly, but can only describe experience once the actuality of said experience is pinpointed. I.e. once you recognise your feelings on a matter.
I am saying that we can perfectly describe consciousness, not that we have.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563844 - 12/01/23 01:56 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Memory isn't recalled like facsimile as much as it is (often poorly) reconstructed. I found that quite baffling at first, but I like the fact, especially when the brain is compared to a computer hard drive.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563854 - 12/01/23 02:04 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Only through forgetfulness can man ever achieve the illusion of possessing a "truth" in the sense just designated. If he does not wish to be satisfied with truth in the form of a tautology—that is, with empty shells—then he will forever buy illusions for truths. What is a word? The image of a nerve stimulus in sounds. But to infer from the nerve stimulus, a cause outside us, that is already the result of a false and unjustified application of the principle of reason…The different languages, set side by side, show that what matters with words is never the truth, never an adequate expression; else there would not be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure truth, without consequences, would be) is quite incomprehensible to the creators of language and not at all worth aiming for. One designates only the relations of things to man, and to express them one calls on the boldest metaphors. A nerve stimulus, first transposed into an image—first metaphor. The image, in turn, imitated by a sound—second metaphor… Let us still give special consideration to the formation of concepts. Every word immediately becomes a concept, inasmuch as it is not intended to serve as a reminder of the unique and wholly individualized original experience to which it owes its birth, but must at the same time fit innumerable, more or less similar cases—which means, strictly speaking, never equal—in other words, a lot of unequal cases. Every concept originates through our equating what is unequal. No leaf ever wholly equals another, and the concept "leaf" is formed through an arbitrary abstraction from these individual differences, through forgetting the distinctions; and now it gives rise to the idea that in nature there might be something besides the leaves which would be "leaf"—some kind of original form after which all leaves have been woven, marked, copied, colored, curled, and painted, but by unskilled hands, so that no copy turned out to be a correct, reliable, and faithful image of the original form. We call a person "honest." Why did he act so honestly today? we ask. Our answer usually sounds like this: because of his honesty. Honesty! That is to say again: the leaf is the cause of the leaves. After all, we know nothing of an essence-like quality named "honesty"; we know only numerous individualized, and thus unequal actions, which we equate by omitting the unequal and by then calling them honest actions. In the end, we distill from them a qualitas occulta [hidden quality] with the name of "honesty"… What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd- like in a style obligatory for all...
Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28563889 - 12/01/23 02:29 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
love that Friedrich quote
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
I have that book. It is fantastic. right now I'm reading The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious by none other than Sigmund Freud. He makes shapes out of words in your head as you read it. It is incredible. Nietzsche does similar things, and Michel Foucault.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 32 minutes, 49 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563910 - 12/01/23 02:45 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
it can be difficult emotionally to realize we don't have a clue, especially when you've been living based off the assumption you knew what was going on. Sometimes its chaotic for people. Sometimes people think they're going insane. sometimes there is a sense of falling, with no ground and nothing to grab a hold of. sometimes people want to actually grab onto something.
i think this knowing/not knowing goes really deep. knowing is intimately tied with our survival insticts.
not knowing is intimacy with everything.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 3 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28563913 - 12/01/23 02:48 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: it can be difficult emotionally to realize we don't have a clue, especially when you've been living based off the assumption you knew what was going on. Sometimes its chaotic for people. Sometimes people think they're going insane. sometimes there is a sense of falling, with no ground and nothing to grab a hold of. sometimes people want to actually grab onto something.
i think this knowing/not knowing goes really deep. knowing is intimately tied with our survival insticts.
not knowing is intimacy with everything.
Well said 😊
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28563927 - 12/01/23 03:02 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I think familiarity is everything
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28563964 - 12/01/23 03:52 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I think it is ultimately beneficial to get off the constant IV pleasure drip from mindless media and cultivate a pleasure in complex thoughts in books from writers who have something deep to say, mainly philosophers, poets, and scientists. The pleasure and sense of knowing from that is unmatched, and not doing it can prevent you from ever achieving it. I find it astonishing how people can be baffled with questions already explored by, for instance, Nietzsche 150 years ago. Many would rather a 13 minute YouTube video explaining the UberMan (deliberately botching that), as if you can just devour knowledge like a glutton at Wendy's. Knowledge isn't a series of words and contents. It is the making explicit of pathways and tendencies of consciousness.
|
|