Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
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   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: truekimbo2]
    #9636395 - 01/19/09 05:35 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Which part of decay, entropy, brain injury, aging, Alzheimer's was not explanatory enough?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: zannennagara]
    #9641472 - 01/19/09 08:55 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Arigatou. :bow:

Quote:

zannennagara said:
To us, however, reality must be coexistent with the mental experience; it's impossible for us to imagine the reality "beyond," as that imagining would be within it. If we can propose a reality beyond mental imagination, there is not only no verifiability or measure of credulity but no limit to what reality could be, and the idea of "reality" at all seems completely dissolved.




To be precise, the realist view, i.e. mine, states that not only is there a universe out there but we can know it.  Our perception is reality is one thing; reality is another.  All historical theories from the Big Bang to Evolution contain the fact that, for most of time, humans did not exist.  Thus, "reality" isn't "beyond," it is outside.



Quote:

In letting the mental experience act as equivalent to reality, we do leave the door open to various theoretical creation myths - the mental experience is caused by ideas, the mental experience is all mine, etc., both as contradictorily backwards as Creationism in that the theoretician poses a version of himself or his ideas as the source of his experience, from which he derives concepts of both in the first place. And supposing these unverifiable notions are "true," what does either matter? - this is the ultimate reason to reject idealism or solipsism; their fundamental concepts do not match real experience and they are functionally useless.




Yes, by accepting that mental experience equates to reality, we open the door to error.  How would you know Idealism or solipsism is functionally useless if they were true?  Isn't the acceptance a violation of parsimony?

Quote:

If it's all generated by one's own mind, one still has to deal with the most highly-developed simulations/manifestations of independent will and action, so the basic assumption is dissonant with experience. Or, to make solipsism more "true," the definition of mind must be expanded to encompass all these other entities so that "solipsism" becomes functionally indistinct from several contradictory ontological views. The conundrums are solved by making their putative exclusive conceptions moot points.




Please explain the dissonance because I don't see it.  To which contradictory ontological views are you referring and how to they contradict one another?

Quote:

I think that very few take the time to fully grasp the concepts of either, put off by bastard- and bowdlerizations of both. Each is so easily dismissed as shallow or missing the deeper truths and realities that a lack of mutual understanding is perpetuated. I have your love for the deep thought of philosophy, but also think that many "materialists" (who would not think of themselves dualistically or pejoratively) hold a parallel deep thought that should be explored and synthesized with philosophical pursuit, the love of wisdom encompassing the love of scientific pursuit and the material view encompassing all a philosopher is or speaks of.




Nowadays fields of inquiry exist as isolated pockets with little serious regard for, or knowledge of, another field unless it agrees with their a priori existential, e.g. ontological, epistemological, or psychological, i.e. philosophical notions--a philosophical error of the nth degree. Honest philosophers are excluded of course. Your love of philosophy is abundantly apparent in this dialogue.  Having said that, I do not think "materialists" as a group have much respect for anything that threatens their tiny, introspective worldview.  Should empirical facts uncovered by them be explored philosophically?  The answer is axiomatic, my dear Watson.  Moreover, they are--just not so much within the confines of academic philosophy.  That is another reason, i.e. the philosopher's, or philosophy's, fault, things are in the mess they are in.  When I say deep thought I am talking about the philosophical ramifications of one's empirical or philosophic view, not the taxonomy that takes place within an empirical (if one could call it that) field such as quantum mechanics.  Half the time theoretical physicists are doing bad philosophy without knowing it.  As an aside, I view the love of wisdom and the love of knowledge to be not only analytically distinct, but ontologically distinct as well.  Materialists easily love one and hate the other, particularly if it stands as an impediment to some prejudice they hold dear.


--------------------

Edited by Mr. Mushrooms (01/19/09 09:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezannennagara
Found in Space
Male


Registered: 09/25/08
Posts: 433
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #9643613 - 01/20/09 03:09 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Gozaimashita!

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
To be precise, the realist view, i.e. mine, states that not only is there a universe out there but we can know it.  Our perception is reality is one thing; reality is another.  All historical theories from the Big Bang to Evolution contain the fact that, for most of time, humans did not exist.  Thus, "reality" isn't "beyond," it is outside.






But isn't this bringing us back to the brain=mind assumption? Our individualized human somatology carries with it egoic structures, yet influencing and shaping the ego is so much non-ego that separating the two requires a materialist limitation of our experience to the one body. These cosmic feelings, these synthesized and exchanged thoughts, these electrical signals passing through here, this interactivity I don't believe to be an individual confinement of reality. From any single perception can be derived the entirety, by exploring, as you said, the deep philosophical ramifications. We can know it, and I think this knowing brings that reality inside of our experience, yet even without knowing, reality is suffused within.

Quote:

Yes, by accepting that mental experience equates to reality, we open the door to error.  How would you know Idealism or solipsism is functionally useless if they were true?  Isn't the acceptance a violation of parsimony?




I don't see the violation. If anything is to be real, it must be a part of one's mental experience, and I don't see criteria for unreality other than non-consensual linguistic interpretation. Many doors are flung open in claiming discursive hegemony, but the way to close the doors is not to gesticulate towards our favorite - I think it's a matter of asking where, exactly, these doors lead and realizing they keep coming back into the same room.

The functional uselessness of solipsism, Idealism, etc. is that their truth or non-truth is irrelevant to their practicality - knowing it was true that everything was created by mind, we would still have to act as if we knew that everything was material and independent of mind. And what is meant by mind? Mind=brain, again, or mind=gestalt, in which case dealing with everything is no different? Of course, the functionality of techniques like The Secret implies that changing one's mind does not so radically change reality, but then changing minds does still change things, but this is still interpretable within a more realist worldview.

What I mean is, what can we really do with solipsism that we can't do with realism etc., when both isms are alternately wording what's going on? It's the seeming perspectival bias of solipsism, apparently relegating existence to the brain of one sad, despairing, miserable, lonely human being, that makes its interpretation a little less palatable to those whose perspectives involve hope and connection.

Quote:

Please explain the dissonance because I don't see it.  To which contradictory ontological views are you referring and how to they contradict one another?




The dissonance is, as above, the difference in perspective between someone with close interconnections with others or with empirical studies or what have you and someone who believes all to be known is the self and its ideas. The former someone may accurately be called a solipsist if the latter is correct that everything he knows is just himself, but the former would laugh at this contradiction by finding so much knowledge apparently outside himself. It may be true, but why redefine things in such a way? The purpose of solipsism may not be to destroy realism but to utilize a different perspective to place a higher emphasis on the self's intrinsic involvement with all it encounters.

Quote:

Nowadays fields of inquiry exist as isolated pockets with little serious regard for, or knowledge of, another field unless it agrees with their a priori existential, e.g. ontological, epistemological, or psychological, i.e. philosophical notions--a philosophical error of the nth degree. Honest philosophers are excluded of course. Your love of philosophy is abundantly apparent in this dialogue.  Having said that, I do not think "materialists" as a group have much respect for anything that threatens their tiny, introspective worldview.  Should empirical facts uncovered by them be explored philosophically?  The answer is axiomatic, my dear Watson.  Moreover, they are--just not so much within the confines of academic philosophy.  That is another reason, i.e. the philosopher's, or philosophy's, fault, things are in the mess they are in.  When I say deep thought I am talking about the philosophical ramifications of one's empirical or philosophic view, not the taxonomy that takes place within an empirical (if one could call it that) field such as quantum mechanics.  Half the time theoretical physicists are doing bad philosophy without knowing it.  As an aside, I view the love of wisdom and the love of knowledge to be not only analytically distinct, but ontologically distinct as well.  Materialists easily love one and hate the other, particularly if it stands as an impediment to some prejudice they hold dear.




There are several "materialists" who have impressed me with their deep consideration of ramifications: Einstein, Feynman, and Sagan among many others, along with several on these boards. There are countless scientists who are incredibly limited in their empiricism, but I can always find countless philosophers as limited in their pompously Latinate and insular discourses, obsessed with ontological isms without putting them in context with the people to whom they supposedly apply. Love of knowledge over wisdom is rampant in each field, yet many wise are to be found in both.

And finally, yikes, you were apologizing for one day's break, and here I go again for another several days, busy as a fiend now during the week. So take your time, and keep in mind I will have to take mine.


--------------------
No debe haber separaciĆ³n, no puede haber definiciĆ³n.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletruekimbo2
Cya later, friends.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/08/02
Posts: 9,234
Loc: ny Flag
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9643665 - 01/20/09 03:32 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Which part of decay, entropy, brain injury, aging, Alzheimer's was not explanatory enough?




he's saying that the physical person might be a receiver of the actual identity, but not the source of the identity.

the things you listed harm the receiver and distort what's displayed, but don't interfere with the signal.

his metaphor is apt is say, apt. (well maybe, who knows)


--------------------
You can check the last post in my journal for contact info.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: truekimbo2]
    #9645351 - 01/20/09 12:01 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Seeing as how there is not the tiniest shred of evidence for that POV, should we postulate a zillion other equally improbably scenarios and give them all equal credence?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletruekimbo2
Cya later, friends.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/08/02
Posts: 9,234
Loc: ny Flag
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9647017 - 01/20/09 04:59 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

yeah why not. 

surely postulating things that have no evidence for them has led to breakthroughs at some point in history.  maybe while testing them, or in this case, perhaps in designing the test itself.


--------------------
You can check the last post in my journal for contact info.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: truekimbo2]
    #9647605 - 01/20/09 06:28 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Example please.

Every one that led to a breakthrough I can think of had some corroborating evidence first. It was not 100% fabrication.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: zannennagara]
    #9670521 - 01/24/09 11:18 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I meant to get to this earlier.  I think I have found a point that will help us get to the root of this paradox.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletruekimbo2
Cya later, friends.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/08/02
Posts: 9,234
Loc: ny Flag
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9671706 - 01/24/09 03:43 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

honestly i couldn't think of anything. i concede i think.


--------------------
You can check the last post in my journal for contact info.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: truekimbo2]
    #9671747 - 01/24/09 03:52 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Props to you! That is only the third ever P&S concession - and one of those was an accident.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9671884 - 01/24/09 04:24 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

I'm working on one.  Mutters to self. If only I would stop being right all the time.


--------------------

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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Holographic Universe. Life changing read. DarkMushrooom 1,832 16 07/23/03 11:30 PM
by HagbardCeline
* The Universe as a Hologram seethe303 1,699 15 05/31/03 12:08 AM
by DailyPot
* Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 4,280 58 10/21/02 11:18 PM
by shii-tan
* global brain encounter pattern 1,265 7 09/12/02 01:55 AM
by pattern
* OBEs = Brain Misfiring?
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 5,420 39 09/24/02 09:33 AM
by Albino_Jesus
* Do you belive you are your brain?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
David_Scape 4,451 85 12/24/02 06:16 PM
by Swami
* 10% of brain usage myth
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 5,945 57 10/09/01 08:51 AM
by Crobih
* Human brain and species memory Xlea321 1,950 11 04/13/02 12:35 AM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
10,454 topic views. 0 members, 9 guests and 24 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 0.028 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.