Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14741 - 14760 of total 22396 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 15, 2013 - 09:49pm PT
that beliefs influence consciousness and what we do, if I even paraphrased JL correct
-


I never said that beliefs don't influence consciousness, though I would have used the word "behavior," which is radially shaped by our beliefs. Trying to live in a way that is not driven by beliefs is feared by most who feel
we will revert to animistic and pre-caveman depravity. The fundamental nature of being sentient might not change much by what we believe, but those beliefs are huge factors in our lives, pro and con.

I'd be intgerested in hearing how you might define consciousness.

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 15, 2013 - 10:45pm PT
Many people who fervently believe in what you or I might consider outlandish things are nonetheless decent, good people, . . . .

And everything that they know and believe could be right, and all that for you could be wrong. You have no way of knowing other than experience, and the experience you have is greatly limited.

Can you prove that "You are" without a scintilla of a doubt?

I can prove it to myself. There is No doubt. I imagine that everyone hear can prove it to themselves without any effort. It's the only thing that is self-obvious. (Perhaps you did not see my posting of Descartes' writing on the subject up-thread? His writing is very clear, and his argument inescapable.)
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 15, 2013 - 10:50pm PT

I'd be intgerested in hearing how you might define consciousness.

The 64 million dallor question. I'd begin with we have our self conscious. Then we have our social conscious. In my self conscious there seems to be a ping-pong match going on between what I know is true, and how I want to use that to predict what kind of emotional outcome I'd wish to recieve. Now you could say this is all happening in my head. But if you listen to ur conscious close enough. You'll hear the arguement going on between the logical, correct path to take from the brain, and the spiritual path that makes you feel good. This decessionmaker is what I feel like is my conscious.
MH2

climber
Jun 15, 2013 - 10:59pm PT
I can prove it to myself. There is No doubt. I imagine that everyone hear can prove it to themselves without any effort. It's the only thing that is self-obvious.


I was hoping that you had a proof. What you are talking about is more in the nature of an axiom. You take it to be self-evident. It is not a proof. There is more than a scintilla of a doubt as to its truth if you can only prove it to yourself! Please show your work.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 15, 2013 - 11:08pm PT
Subjectively, you can declare yourself anything that you think you are.

If you get crushed by a rock, what is your perspective on self and the nature of change, after being treated in such an objective manner ?

MH2

climber
Jun 15, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
I rock, therefore I am.




Wait a minute...


What is this "I" that I am talking about? It seems to precede the rock. If it came before the rock, why do I need the rock to demonstrate that I am?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Jun 15, 2013 - 11:49pm PT
bibo ergo sum

I drink, therefore I am.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 16, 2013 - 12:09am PT
The "rock" has a parameter. That's why it is that specific "rock".
"The rock" is in your parameter. And, in "Our parameter". your own self's parameter is within yor body. Yourself understands there's "do's and dont's" for the well being of said body.
But shite happens..

What was the question again?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 16, 2013 - 12:35am PT
Oh yea,
why do I need the rock to demonstrate that I am?

Or, am not? When that rock smashes you, your I am becomes, I was.

But you don't need a rock to demonstrate the fact that you are an I am.
The fact that you can sit there and meditate and go against the discursive mind,
demonstrates your I am.

Termed; I deny myself.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 16, 2013 - 12:37am PT

I can prove it to myself. There is No doubt. I imagine that everyone hear can prove it to themselves without any effort. It's the only thing that is self-obvious.


I was hoping that you had a proof. What you are talking about is more in the nature of an axiom. You take it to be self-evident. It is not a proof. There is more than a scintilla of a doubt as to its truth if you can only prove it to yourself! Please show your work.


An Axiom in it's usual usage means the starting point of a reasoned argument or proposition. Ergo you are considering Mike's statement, in terms of him "proving it" to himself, in terms of a discursive, or noodled conclusion, when what he's talking about is a direct experience - like a rock falling on his head. What's more, I bet your "sceintilla of doubt" is based on you believing that self-proof is catagorically inferior to a measured proof. How would you know otherwise if you have no such experiences? In fact no such quantification in really viable within the subjective world so you're asking for something that belongs to the external world - and does quite well there, to boot.

The real question, the imporant question is: By what means do you arrive at this self-proof? You are entirely correct in distrusting this. That's the starting point to find out.

JL

Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 16, 2013 - 01:03am PT
From a subjectively intuitive standpoint, how is the objective result of mass and impersonal gravity crushing the self with the theoretical rock, resolved ?
MH2

climber
Jun 16, 2013 - 01:12am PT
when what he's talking about is a direct experience


He seemed to be talking about Descartes' cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am. The one and only thing Descartes claimed he could be sure of. It is in the view of some later philosophers an overstatement. You can be sure that something exists but you cannot be sure that that something is or includes an "I". You have the intuitive impression that there must be an "I" but you have no proof. Or do you? I would love to hear it.

Again, terms as 'proof', 'I', and 'consciousness', require some kind of definition before we try to decide whether statements which use those terms are true, false, undecidable, improbable, probable, or outright ridiculous. You can say whatever you wish, but MikeL was making statements about truth. He may be 100% certain that he exists, but it begins and ends there and does not prove that he does. The trick is in what it means to be him. He may think he knows, but does he really?
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Jun 16, 2013 - 01:21am PT
The fact that MikeL is alive proves he exists. If he wasn't, he wouldn't...
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 16, 2013 - 09:59am PT
John, I take it back. You're right, and I'm wrong. I don't think your writing is harsh.


Since we seem to be relying upon consensus-based ideas of truth (ala Cintune) on this thread, may I please see a show of hands ("me" or "not me" will do) of those readers who know or even just believe they are not conscious? If anyone has "proof of their work" for MH2, would you kindly show it? And for those of you who favor the Excluded Middle, would you say something like . . . "neither conscious nor unconscious?"

(Baby steps.)
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 16, 2013 - 10:37am PT
MH2

climber
Jun 16, 2013 - 10:48am PT
The fact that MikeL is alive proves he exists. If he wasn't, he wouldn't...


However, philosophy also exists and for René Descartes being alive was not good enough evidence of existence:

//In his Discourse on the Method, he attempts to arrive at a fundamental set of principles that one can know as true without any doubt. To achieve this, he employs a method called hyperbolical/metaphysical doubt, also sometimes referred to as methodological skepticism: he rejects any ideas that can be doubted, and then reestablishes them in order to acquire a firm foundation for genuine knowledge.//

Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am"). Therefore, Descartes concluded, if he doubted, then something or someone must be doing the doubting, therefore the very fact that he doubted proved his existence. "The simple meaning of the phrase is that if one is sceptical of existence, that is in and of itself proof that he does exist."

Other philosophers have objections to Descartes' proof:

First of all, his argument, if looked at carefully, begs the question by assuming that an "I" exists before making that conclusion. Even unchanged, that statement assumes that an "I" exists in order to think before concluding that an "I" exists. An argument that simply assumes its conclusion is valid before actually making that conclusion loses considerable validity. Soren Kierkegaard, a great existential philosopher, was an early objector to Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" that pointed out this logical fallacy.

Furthermore, the false validity "cogito ergo sum" relies on the validity of grammar in metaphysical argument, as noted by Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzche. Why does there have to be a subject that does the thinking and why does it have to be this "I," whose very existence we are contemplating? It is intuitive to think that we are doing the thinking, but what if we do not create these thoughts-what if these thoughts come to us? If that is the case, then we have no proof that an "I" exists.




MikeL has said several times that he will only accept an absolute truth. He recently gave Descartes as an example.




I am not a philosopher. I am happy to go with the balance of probabilities. I am just pointing out that the one thing Descartes and MikeL consider incontestable has been doubted also.
WBraun

climber
Jun 16, 2013 - 10:54am PT
assuming that


but what if we


what if these thoughts


If that is the case

This proves you/they have no clue and are just plain blindly guessing.

This is your so called science, pure guessing.

MH2

climber
Jun 16, 2013 - 11:02am PT
This is your so called science, pure guessing.


Don't bring science in here! We were talking philosophy.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 16, 2013 - 12:06pm PT
I Pooh, Therefor I Am
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 16, 2013 - 01:04pm PT
Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am").



This is starting to get at the core of it.


First of all, his argument, if looked at carefully, begs the question by assuming that an "I" exists before making that conclusion. Even unchanged, that statement assumes that an "I" exists in order to think before concluding that an "I" exists. An argument that simply assumes its conclusion is valid before actually making that conclusion loses considerable validity. Soren Kierkegaard, a great existential philosopher, was an early objector to Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" that pointed out this logical fallacy.
Per the above: the “I” was assumed to exist not as the conclusion of a logical argument, rather because psychologically there seems to be a subject experiencing thoughts. An “I” moving through the life cycle, with a name, memories, thoughts, et al.

Why does there have to be a subject that does the thinking and why does it have to be this "I," whose very existence we are contemplating? It is intuitive to think that we are doing the thinking, but what if we do not create these thoughts-what if these thoughts come to us? If that is the case, then we have no proof that an "I" exists.

We don’t create thoughts. They geyser up. We can focus our attention on this or that geyser with increasingly fine accuracy because we have free will over our attention (if developed), but thoughts come unbidden. Even a duffer like Dennett know that much. So ultimately, the last line is somewhat accurate, though not for the reasons stated.
In fact the “I” is simply the experience of observing, meaning there is watching, but no watcher in the normal, bounded sense of the world. The discursive mind can only quantify things with specific qualities, dimensions, functions, etc., and watching and experiencing itself cannot be quantified without defaulting into content – we watched so an so many …..
The conclusion is that the “I” is ungraspable, while all the content IS graspable in a fleeting kind of way.

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that once they go into purely rational terms and are no longer grounded in the experience and processes they are referring to, the cart gets so far ahead of the horse it ultimately is entirely muddled and inaccurate no matter how logical it sounds. To really get at the heart of the above, you’d have to start with the process of thought, and the idea that “thought cannot be separated from me,” and really dig into those terms as they related to the experience they supposedly underscore (thinking, sense of self, et al), divide and then conquer, knowing that the division itself is an abstraction from the whole.
Messages 14741 - 14760 of total 22396 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews