How do you explain the rapist then? Who's shoes did he put himself into?
I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that role association is a motivation to rape or be raped, it's a motivation for morality. The act it's self is carried out by other mechanics.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that role association is a motivation to rape or be raped, it's a motivation for morality. The act it's self is carried out by other mechanics.
Are you not saying that the foundation of morality is empathy?
Are you not saying that the foundation of morality is empathy?
I'm saying that the foundation of morality is wanting to improve our environments for ourselves.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Hehe...no. What is needed for there to be an "I" is awareness. And what is needed for awareness is consciousness. The entire purpose of consciousness is to provide an "I", which in turn provides the faculties of self-examination, logic, and something you so commonly attribute to magic known as free will.
"It" would describe a being. Only "I" can be used to describe a being that is consciously aware.
from my interpretation of what you are saying to Ahnimus, i disagree with you.
the "I" does not have to be recognized [i.e. "awareness"] for such an entity [i.e. "ego"] to exist beneath "instinct" for said instincts to occur....
[or maybe i'm making a mistake from the outside of this conversation?]
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
So the foundation of morality is a moral judgment (wanting to improve)??? Isn't that circular logic?
I guess it depends on your logic circuits. My logic system has no problem comprehending the concept.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
from my interpretation of what you are saying to Ahnimus, i disagree with you.
the "I" does not have to be recognized [i.e. "awareness"] for such an entity [i.e. "ego"] to exist beneath "instinct" for said instincts to occur....
[or maybe i'm making a mistake from the outside of this conversation?]
Right, or we have to consider that all instinctual creatures have consciousness, and that MPD and other neurological disorders actually give rise to dual consciousness.
Heh, anyway, all the facts are out there if anyone really cared for truth. I think most people just like their fantasies.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
from my interpretation of what you are saying to Ahnimus, i disagree with you.
the "I" does not have to be recognized [i.e. "awareness"] for such an entity [i.e. "ego"] to exist beneath "instinct" for said instincts to occur....
[or maybe i'm making a mistake from the outside of this conversation?]
Can you define what you mean by "ego" here. Are you meaning the Self? That you refer to this existing beneath instinct is what is throwing me off here.
My understanding is that farfromglorified recognizes an "entity" exists without an ego, just not a conscious awareness of one's "entity-hood"--also known as the sense of "I". Or the sense of awareness that gives rise to reflecting on one's actions, past, future or sense of mortality, etc.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Heh, anyway, all the facts are out there if anyone really cared for truth. I think most people just like their fantasies.
The facts are out there. Where we run into problems is with which philosophies people use to tie the facts together with. It makes all the difference in the world.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Can you define what you mean by "ego" here. Are you meaning the Self? That you refer to this existing beneath instinct is what is throwing me off here.
My understanding is that farfromglorified recognizes an "entity" exists without an ego, just not a conscious awareness of one's "entity-hood"--also known as the sense of "I". Or the sense of awareness that gives rise to reflecting on one's actions, past, future or sense of mortality, etc.
Ok, but thoughts come from the brain, not the consciousness. The brain gives rise to thoughts and consciousness is aware of them. The thought "I" is not a conscious manifestation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, but thoughts come from the brain, not the consciousness. The brain gives rise to thoughts and consciousness is aware of them. The thought "I" is not a conscious manifestation.
When we are talking in terms of "Self", "self", "ego", or "subconscious", we are talking in psychology concepts. Psychology is different than neuroscience for a reason. Where physical brain studying is like a chest of drawers, psychology and it's symbols and concepts (such as "ego") are about theoretical concepts describing experiences that are invisible. Psychology describes the contents of those drawers. The difference is like having a cd, and having music. Music is in a different "sphere" than the physical cd, so to speak.
Therefore, I am talking in reference to theoretical concepts--ones that are psychological. This is within the objective study of subjective experience.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When I was a child, my "logic system" thought you could take money out of the ATM without depositing any to begin with.
It's scary that some/many of you people had ATMs around when you were children! Were you also surprised to find that we used to play our vinyl records on both sides??
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When we are talking in terms of "Self", "self", "ego", or "subconscious", we are talking in psychology concepts. Psychology is different than neuroscience for a reason. Where physical brain studying is like a chest of drawers, psychology and it's symbols and concepts (such as "ego") are about theoretical concepts describing experiences that are invisible. Psychology describes the contents of those drawers. The difference is like having a cd, and having music. Music is in a different "sphere" than the physical cd, so to speak.
Therefore, I am talking in reference to theoretical concepts--ones that are psychological. This is within the objective study of subjective experience.
Ah, so in other words, you win, because you won't accept real objective study as evidence for pyshcological phenomena. Right...
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's scary that some/many of you people had ATMs around when you were children! Were you also surprised to find that we used to play our vinyl records on both sides??
When I was a child, my "logic system" thought you could take money out of the ATM without depositing any to begin with.
That's evidence of the flaws within us. Anyone can prove what I say to themselves, if they will only accept that they are imperfect.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think you're misunderstanding me. Instinct requires no "I". It's fundamental structure is defined by the absence of self-awareness.
Are you talking about the word "I"? Because the word it's self makes no distinction between awareness and non-awareness. It seems like you are attaching some philosophical relevance to the word "I".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ah, so in other words, you win, because you won't accept real objective study as evidence for pyshcological phenomena. Right...
How is this about winning/losing? It's about what the study of psychology is. There are some ways of corelating psychology to brain science. They just are two different disciplines. If we can relate the two, great. It's just that psychological principles are of a different sort. If we alter the fundamental nature of a principle such as the ego, in order to fit it into brain science, we distort the principle all around.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That's evidence of the flaws within us. Anyone can prove what I say to themselves, if they will only accept that they are imperfect.
No, that's evidence of a flaw within my logic, not "flaws within us".
Accepting what you say would eliminate the entire concept of "imperfect". Perfect or imperfect implies purpose. Absent choice and consciousness, there is no purpose. And that's exactly what people like you want -- moral nihilism wherein you cannot be considered responsible for the schisms within your own mind.
No, that's evidence of a flaw within my logic, not "flaws within us".
Accepting what you say would eliminate the entire concept of "imperfect". Perfect or imperfect implies purpose. Absent choice and consciousness, there is no purpose. And that's exactly what people like you want -- moral nihilism wherein you cannot be considered responsible for the schisms within your own mind.
No, perfect/imperfect does not imply purpose at all. Moral nihilism... man, you just don't get it. I have nothing to regret, I have nothing to absolve myself of. I only want the truth to be told.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
How is this about winning/losing? It's about what the study of psychology is. There are some ways of corelating psychology to brain science. They just are two different disciplines. If we can relate the two, great. It's just that psychological principles are of a different sort. If we alter the fundamental nature of a principle such as the ego, in order to fit it into brain science, we distort the principle all around.
Because... neuroscience is far superior to psychology, it really doesn't matter what psychology has to say about any of this stuff. It's a soft-hard science. Neuroscience is a hard-hard science.
I've stated the facts, I've posted the links to all credible sources in the fields of neuroscience AND psychology that back my point of view. There is absolutely no denying it as truth, unless, you are too weak to escape your comfort zone. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, and I have the scientific evidence to explain that too.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Of course it does, Ahnimus. How can something be perfect or imperfect without purpose?
That's just a tendency of the human brain. We are wired to find purpose or causality. We live in a causal environment, everything follows a chain of cause and effect. We look for purpose, sometimes where no purpose is to be found, such as our own existence.
I'm saying that our brains aren't perfect. They calculate 10^14 ops. The fastest supercomputers as of 2006 were 10^10 ops. By 2010 NIST will have supercomputers that surpass our processing abilities. We are certainly not perfect in any part of the human system. We are amazingly efficient, that is all.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's just a tendency of the human brain. We are wired to find purpose or causality. We live in a causal environment, everything follows a chain of cause and effect. We look for purpose, sometimes where no purpose is to be found, such as our own existence.
Not only does this not answer my question, it pretends my question and your statement that prompted it don't exist. You told me I needed to not pretend that I'm perfect. Now you're telling me that everything is equally perfect, since it all follows a chain of cause and effect.
There is a purpose to our existence, Ahnimus. As Plato said, "Nature does nothing needlessly". And as Ayn Rand said, "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."
You can attempt to hide from that purpose, to pretend it doesn't exist, to pretend it has no reason, but that won't make it disappear.
I'm saying that our brains aren't perfect. They calculate 10^14 ops. The fastest supercomputers as of 2006 were 10^10 ops. By 2010 NIST will have supercomputers that surpass our processing abilities. We are certainly not perfect in any part of the human system. We are amazingly efficient, that is all.
Hehehehe...this very statement shows that you either know nothing about computers, nothing about brains, or both. Comparing the "speed" of a computer to a brain is like comparing the speed of car to the speed of a river. It's a foolish comparison in almost all cases. The fastest computer in this world, and the fastest computer in 2010, would not be able to process in a day the information your brain does in a second.
Brains and computers are both information-processing and storage machines exsiting within the same physical environment. That is where the similarities end. They operate based on completely different mechanics and principles.
Not only does this not answer my question, it pretends my question and your statement that prompted it don't exist. You told me I needed to not pretend that I'm perfect. Now you're telling me that everything is equally perfect, since it all follows a chain of cause and effect.
There is a purpose to our existence, Ahnimus. As Plato said, "Nature does nothing needlessly". And as Ayn Rand said, "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."
You can attempt to hide from that purpose, to pretend it doesn't exist, to pretend it has no reason, but that won't make it disappear.
Hehehehe...this very statement shows that you either know nothing about computers, nothing about brains, or both. Comparing the "speed" of a computer to a brain is like comparing the speed of car to the speed of a river. It's a foolish comparison in almost all cases. The fastest computer in this world, and the fastest computer in 2010, would not be able to process in a day the information your brain does in a second.
Brains and computers are both information-processing and storage machines exsiting within the same physical environment. That is where the similarities end. They operate based on completely different mechanics and principles.
Like I said, it's pointless to talk to you about this. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"The entire purpose of consciousness is to provide an "I", which in turn provides the faculties of self-examination, logic, and something you so commonly attribute to magic known as free will."--farfromglorified.
okay... so i dont think there is any "purpose" here, unless we want to talk about god and stuff,.. which i dont..... but at least i think this is the root of my troubles with your comment.
"consciousness", in this Cartesian world of ours, is rather the cause of "I" than the purpose for it, based on "awareness", which i believe we agree upon given your other comments.
my point was that consciousness and instinct are not mutually exclusive faculties,... and that was my interpretation of what you had said previously.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
That's just a tendency of the human brain. We are wired to find purpose or causality. We live in a causal environment, everything follows a chain of cause and effect. We look for purpose, sometimes where no purpose is to be found, such as our own existence.
Allow me to add here. I agree with you. We are wired to find purpose or causality.
This is exactly why we find that we live in a causal environment--because the perceptions we are wired with tell us to find causality. What onelongsong and myself are pointing out is beyond that stuff, beyond the causality, we have the big picture. We have reality. We have what exists beyond the illusions. There we find the Self and our life blueprint. When we tap into and become one with our blueprint, then everything makes sense. As I mentioned yesterday, apparently few people are freed up enough to find what's consider our authentic nature--the Self with a capital 'S'.
I wonder if you recognize the irony of saying we are wired to find causality. And then proceeding to say this is a causal universe we live in.
edit: please pardon me for bringing into this discussion the onelongsong stuff from the other thread.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that role association is a motivation to rape or be raped, it's a motivation for morality. The act it's self is carried out by other mechanics.
Are you not saying that the foundation of morality is empathy?
I'm saying that the foundation of morality is wanting to improve our environments for ourselves.
So the foundation of morality is a moral judgment (wanting to improve)??? Isn't that circular logic?
from my interpretation of what you are saying to Ahnimus, i disagree with you.
the "I" does not have to be recognized [i.e. "awareness"] for such an entity [i.e. "ego"] to exist beneath "instinct" for said instincts to occur....
[or maybe i'm making a mistake from the outside of this conversation?]
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I guess it depends on your logic circuits. My logic system has no problem comprehending the concept.
Right, or we have to consider that all instinctual creatures have consciousness, and that MPD and other neurological disorders actually give rise to dual consciousness.
Heh, anyway, all the facts are out there if anyone really cared for truth. I think most people just like their fantasies.
My understanding is that farfromglorified recognizes an "entity" exists without an ego, just not a conscious awareness of one's "entity-hood"--also known as the sense of "I". Or the sense of awareness that gives rise to reflecting on one's actions, past, future or sense of mortality, etc.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, but thoughts come from the brain, not the consciousness. The brain gives rise to thoughts and consciousness is aware of them. The thought "I" is not a conscious manifestation.
Therefore, I am talking in reference to theoretical concepts--ones that are psychological. This is within the objective study of subjective experience.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When I was a child, my "logic system" thought you could take money out of the ATM without depositing any to begin with.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think you're misunderstanding me. Instinct requires no "I". It's fundamental structure is defined by the absence of self-awareness.
Ah, so in other words, you win, because you won't accept real objective study as evidence for pyshcological phenomena. Right...
Hehe...I have lots of vinyl too!!
That's evidence of the flaws within us. Anyone can prove what I say to themselves, if they will only accept that they are imperfect.
Are you talking about the word "I"? Because the word it's self makes no distinction between awareness and non-awareness. It seems like you are attaching some philosophical relevance to the word "I".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, that's evidence of a flaw within my logic, not "flaws within us".
Accepting what you say would eliminate the entire concept of "imperfect". Perfect or imperfect implies purpose. Absent choice and consciousness, there is no purpose. And that's exactly what people like you want -- moral nihilism wherein you cannot be considered responsible for the schisms within your own mind.
No, perfect/imperfect does not imply purpose at all. Moral nihilism... man, you just don't get it. I have nothing to regret, I have nothing to absolve myself of. I only want the truth to be told.
Because... neuroscience is far superior to psychology, it really doesn't matter what psychology has to say about any of this stuff. It's a soft-hard science. Neuroscience is a hard-hard science.
I've stated the facts, I've posted the links to all credible sources in the fields of neuroscience AND psychology that back my point of view. There is absolutely no denying it as truth, unless, you are too weak to escape your comfort zone. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, and I have the scientific evidence to explain that too.
Of course it does, Ahnimus. How can something be perfect or imperfect without purpose?
Ok. I simply don't believe you. But I could certainly be wrong.
That's just a tendency of the human brain. We are wired to find purpose or causality. We live in a causal environment, everything follows a chain of cause and effect. We look for purpose, sometimes where no purpose is to be found, such as our own existence.
I'm saying that our brains aren't perfect. They calculate 10^14 ops. The fastest supercomputers as of 2006 were 10^10 ops. By 2010 NIST will have supercomputers that surpass our processing abilities. We are certainly not perfect in any part of the human system. We are amazingly efficient, that is all.
Not only does this not answer my question, it pretends my question and your statement that prompted it don't exist. You told me I needed to not pretend that I'm perfect. Now you're telling me that everything is equally perfect, since it all follows a chain of cause and effect.
There is a purpose to our existence, Ahnimus. As Plato said, "Nature does nothing needlessly". And as Ayn Rand said, "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."
You can attempt to hide from that purpose, to pretend it doesn't exist, to pretend it has no reason, but that won't make it disappear.
Hehehehe...this very statement shows that you either know nothing about computers, nothing about brains, or both. Comparing the "speed" of a computer to a brain is like comparing the speed of car to the speed of a river. It's a foolish comparison in almost all cases. The fastest computer in this world, and the fastest computer in 2010, would not be able to process in a day the information your brain does in a second.
Brains and computers are both information-processing and storage machines exsiting within the same physical environment. That is where the similarities end. They operate based on completely different mechanics and principles.
You're certainly entitled to your personal preference based on how you assign value. That's what makes you you.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Like I said, it's pointless to talk to you about this. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
You aren't too good at accepting new tricks, either.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
okay... so i dont think there is any "purpose" here, unless we want to talk about god and stuff,.. which i dont..... but at least i think this is the root of my troubles with your comment.
"consciousness", in this Cartesian world of ours, is rather the cause of "I" than the purpose for it, based on "awareness", which i believe we agree upon given your other comments.
my point was that consciousness and instinct are not mutually exclusive faculties,... and that was my interpretation of what you had said previously.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Allow me to add here. I agree with you. We are wired to find purpose or causality.
This is exactly why we find that we live in a causal environment--because the perceptions we are wired with tell us to find causality. What onelongsong and myself are pointing out is beyond that stuff, beyond the causality, we have the big picture. We have reality. We have what exists beyond the illusions. There we find the Self and our life blueprint. When we tap into and become one with our blueprint, then everything makes sense. As I mentioned yesterday, apparently few people are freed up enough to find what's consider our authentic nature--the Self with a capital 'S'.
I wonder if you recognize the irony of saying we are wired to find causality. And then proceeding to say this is a causal universe we live in.
edit: please pardon me for bringing into this discussion the onelongsong stuff from the other thread.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!