Excellent. Then you and I do agree at least on one thing: an objective, non-contradictory reality. Unfortunately, you've completely contradicted yourself by claiming that you are right and I am wrong. Do you see why yet?
You gotta explain that to me.
Of course! But you didn't make me think your post was a black cat or a white bear, nor did you make me think that black cats and white bears are the same. And I'll be asking the questions here, since I'm still indulging your previous request.
I did put a thought in your mind though. How do other thoughts come into your mind?
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
Certainly everything originates from without. Inductive reasoning is a way of coming to logical conclusions or in effect 'knowing' something, but it's ultimately based on a knowledge obtained externally.
The root of the word educate or education:
educe:-- to draw forth or bring out, as something potential or latent; elicit; develop.
-- deduce (a principle) or construe (a meaning); "We drew out some interesting linguistic data from the native informant"
--develop or evolve from a latent or potential state [syn: derive]
There is another way of looking at education*: as originating from potential within. For example words like "infer" and "deduce" rely on reasoning which can be seen to originate within, as much as without. You may prefer which comes first--the chicken or the egg-- and yet that is still your preference in how you view it.
*edit: I meant knowledge rather than education
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
and it followed the progress of one family of field mice in particular. One day, Mom, Dad, and Kid mice were all running around gathering food in the daylight, and a hawk swept down and grabbed a son. The rest of the family gathered themselves, ran back to their hole in the dirt, and huddled together, shivering and then comforting each other.
Bees communicate, and protect their queen. Termites, well, I don't know. I think the caring stops there, lol....they sure as hell don't care about my basement and its foundation.
Kidding aside, even plants show awareness in some scientific testing.
Yea, it's a rough subject with animals and plants. But few people these days deny that animals are conscious to some degree.
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
educe:-- to draw forth or bring out, as something potential or latent; elicit; develop.
-- deduce (a principle) or construe (a meaning); "We drew out some interesting linguistic data from the native informant"
--develop or evolve from a latent or potential state [syn: derive]
There is another way of looking at education: as originating from potential within. For example words like "infer" and "deduce" rely on reasoning which can be seen to originate within, as much as without. You may prefer which comes first--the chicken or the egg-- and yet that is still your preference in how you view it.
All of that is great, but you can't make any inferences or deductions about apples if you've never seen an apple. You'd have no concept of gravity if you've never whitnessed an object fall. So ultimately the knowledge comes from outside and we use induction to rationalize the objective world.
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 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 it requires observation to see how the creature reacts with the world in relation to it's self, or if it doesn't realize that it is not part of the world. Like a fruitfly doesn't seem to be aware of anything really. I can't comment on that though. I don't want to sound too definitive on consciousness as it would be rather pompous of me to claim absolute knowledge on something that remains a massive area of scientific research. But rather I'm just basing on specific scientific discoveries.
That is what I am saying. The definition of consciousness is complex and anything but simple. What are your thoughts about qualia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quale
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
What is the difference between truth and knowledge?
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Mark Twain
"To know that we know what we know and to know that we do not know what we do not know. That is true knowledge." - Copernicus
In other words, what we 'know' is what we think is truth. But truth is incontrovertible and exists independent of our knowledge of it.
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
All of that is great, but you can't make any inferences or deductions about apples if you've never seen an apple. You'd have no concept of gravity if you've never whitnessed an object fall. So ultimately the knowledge comes from outside and we use induction to rationalize the objective world.
To me, it seems that a human does not have knowlege prior to awareness or to the potential to perceive and or process information and therefore it's as fair to say knowledge originates from within as without. The truth is that the act of educing is a holistic experience that cannot be given "cause". Our preference for left to right linear perception causes us to make huge assumptions when breaking a whole down to parts, and we loose the truth.
Again, to see a cat's head, then body, then tail does not mean the head causes the body and tail.
"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 give an example of something with a brain that is not aware, short of something that is 'brain dead'.
That is what I am saying. The definition of consciousness is complex and anything but simple. What are your thoughts about qualia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quale
Qualia is a moot topic. It's pointless to discuss qualia because it has no bearing on anything. It's a philosopher's merry-go-round.
I wish I could put it in better words, I know Velmans explained how stupid the topic of qualia is in the book Conversations on Consciousness but I can't remember how he said it.
Basically, what is the point in discussing qualia? I may feel that an object is hard, and you might also feel that it is hard, but slightly harder than I feel it, but none of that changes the solidity of the object. It has to do with how badly our brains are wired. It's more evidence that our experience is subject to our brains and the laws of physics. But that can be debated until the sun super-novas.
Oops, sorry, I don't know that any creature is not self-aware.
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
To me, it seems that a human does not have knowlege prior to awareness or to the potential to perceive and or process information and therefore it's as fair to say knowledge originates from within as without. The truth is that the act of educing is a holistic experience that cannot be given "cause". Our preference for left to right linear perception causes us to make huge assumptions when breaking a whole down to parts, and we loose the truth.
Again, to see a cat's head, then body, then tail does not mean the head causes the body and tail.
Everything can be given cause Angelica.
Right thankfully our visual perception doesn't work that way. Check out Al Seckel at ted.com and his presentation called "Your brain is badly wired"
Then pick up Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis for more in-depth scientific understanding of the visual system.
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
Right thankfully our visual perception doesn't work that way. Check out Al Seckel at ted.com and his presentation called "Your brain is badly wired"
Then pick up Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis for more in-depth scientific understanding of the visual system.
Sure everything can be "given" cause. That doesn't mean the cause you give it ojectively exists.
I'm not talking about the visual perception. I'm talking about equally valid interpretations of the same act, which stem from how you or I the observer looks at it. It's obvious where your preference/preconception lies. When someone is learning, where can you draw the line between the learning and what is learned? When you draw that line, you distort what you are talking about. The act of learning requires a learner and what is learned. The act cannot take place until both are equally engaged--the inner and the outer. To prioritize where the process "begins" is about the way you look at it, not the way it is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Qualia is a moot topic. It's pointless to discuss qualia because it has no bearing on anything. It's a philosopher's merry-go-round.
I wish I could put it in better words, I know Velmans explained how stupid the topic of qualia is in the book Conversations on Consciousness but I can't remember how he said it.
Basically, what is the point in discussing qualia? I may feel that an object is hard, and you might also feel that it is hard, but slightly harder than I feel it, but none of that changes the solidity of the object. It has to do with how badly our brains are wired. It's more evidence that our experience is subject to our brains and the laws of physics. But that can be debated until the sun super-novas.
Oops, sorry, I don't know that any creature is not self-aware.
My question is can we really define consciousness?
As it is, a definition is created after we know most of what there is to know about something. Since this issue is so broad and diverse, defining consciousness is difficult.
Let's recap, a Materialist view, your view is the following:
Consciousness is simply reactions in the brain and body, created by external stimuli to the sensory system, along with memories and a very complex neural-net that cross checks this information for relevance to the stimuli.
If everything is physical, then surely this must be the solution, all there is to consciousness is its physical parts. Quantify, calculate, predict.
Then there is a more solipsistic view:
Only the self can be verified. We can never quantify and predict the emotion of happiness with math or science. Even if we knew everything about the brain, there is still something there beyond the veil, that cannot be predicted.
I mentioned qualia because it is a good example; you can never measure or predict the subjective qualia state. Materialists say that qualia is just "magical." It has no relevance because if it can't be observed in a lab, or predicted with math, then it by default doesn't exist. We can't measure happiness either, but I have no doubt it exists.
I firmly believe that there is more to consciousness than just its physical parts. Take for instance the image you see with your eyes, or the music you hear with your ears. Typical qualia experience; Now, the image you see is not inherently represented in the physical world as anything physical. The only thing others will have to do is trust you on your word that you are seeing that image or hearing that sound.
The only reason they do trust you is because they can also see that image and hear that sound. But if a scientist were to go completely neutral and logical, like materalists claim to do, then they would even have to drop this assumption that anyone is actually seeing anything or hearing anything. Because as it stands now, qualia does not exist in the physical world, it only appears to do so.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Sure everything can be "given" cause. That doesn't mean the cause you give it ojectively exists.
I'm not talking about the visual perception. I'm talking about equally valid interpretations of the same act, which stem from how you or I the observer looks at it. It's obvious where your preference/preconception lies. When someone is learning, where can you draw the line between the learning and what is learned? When you draw that line, you distort what you are talking about. The act of learning requires a learner and what is learned. The act cannot take place until both are equally engaged--the inner and the outer. To prioritize where the process "begins" is about the way you look at it, not the way it is.
I agree there is only one objective truth. But for example:
I see an ball roll down a hill and I think "The ball rolls down the hill because it is round and gravity" the inductive thought is sparked by observation.
I'm just saying I would never think "The ball rolls..." if I hadn't ever seen it occur.
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
My question is can we really define consciousness?
As it is, a definition is created after we know most of what there is to know about something. Since this issue is so broad and diverse, defining consciousness is difficult.
Let's recap, a Materialist view, your view is the following:
Consciousness is simply reactions in the brain and body, created by external stimuli to the sensory system, along with memories and a very complex neural-net that cross checks this information for relevance to the stimuli.
If everything is physical, then surely this must be the solution, all there is to consciousness is its physical parts. Quantify, calculate, predict.
Then there is a more solipsistic view:
Only the self can be verified. We can never quantify and predict the emotion of happiness with math or science. Even if we knew everything about the brain, there is still something there beyond the veil, that cannot be predicted.
I mentioned qualia because it is a good example; you can never measure or predict the subjective qualia state. Materialists say that qualia is just "magical." It has no relevance because if it can't be observed in a lab, or predicted with math, then it by default doesn't exist. We can't measure happiness either, but I have no doubt it exists.
I firmly believe that there is more to consciousness than just its physical parts. Take for instance the image you see with your eyes, or the music you hear with your ears. Typical qualia experience; Now, the image you see is not inherently represented in the physical world as anything physical. The only thing others will have to do is trust you on your word that you are seeing that image or hearing that sound.
The only reason they do trust you is because they can also see that image and hear that sound. But if a scientist were to go completely neutral and logical, like materalists claim to do, then they would even have to drop this assumption that anyone is actually seeing anything or hearing anything. Because as it stands now, qualia does not exist in the physical world, it only appears to do so.
Neuroscientists say that we will be able to measure qualia. It's a little premature to claim that we can never measure it.
I don't see where qualia is going as an argument though. I'm sorry, I just don't get how that is a major issue.
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 agree there is only one objective truth. But for example:
I see an ball roll down a hill and I think "The ball rolls down the hill because it is round and gravity" the inductive thought is sparked by observation.
I'm just saying I would never think "The ball rolls..." if I hadn't ever seen it occur(bold added by angelica).
Right, so in order to see it, you require the inner equipment that sees, correct? Are you overlooking the inner equipment when being so-called "objective"? Like seeing what is seen requires the inner ability to see, before the act can take place, to learn, one needs the inner equipment that learns. When the inner and outer come together at once, whether in seeing or learning, then the act takes place.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Right, so in order to see it, you require the inner equipment that sees, correct? Are you overlooking the inner equipment when being so-called "objective"? Like seeing what is seen requires the inner ability to see, before the act can take place, to learn, one needs the inner equipment that learns. When the inner and outer come together at once, whether in seeing or learning, then the act takes place.
Ok, but what difference is made?
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 situation above has never occurred to you, yet you obviously have a thought on it.
No. I'm sorry FFG. I don't see a contradiction.
Would you like me to explain the causes of me having the thought?
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 see a lot of different things. Everything that makes a human being.
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
Would you like me to explain the causes of me having the thought?
The cause of you having the thought is your reaction to an idea inconsistent with your beliefs. You manifested the contradiction between the two by simply merging them together. In other words, you didn't apply reason to your response.
I don't see where qualia is going as an argument though. I'm sorry, I just don't get how that is a major issue.
I thought I presented it pretty clear in my post, I am tired so perhaps not. Take away qualia, and we wouldn't be able to have these discussions. Maybe we operate with different definitions of what qualia is, but what I'm talking about is the raw experience that our consciousness has to have in order to be conscious. It comes before consciousness. A computer can store information, but for it to be conscious it needs some sort of experience. The experience itself doesn't necessary have any influence on anything, but it's there and doesn't turn into an illusion just because we find it handy. Anyway, I'm ready for an altered state of consciousness, so I'm off to bed.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Would you like me to explain the causes of me having the thought?
Do you realize, Ahnimus, you are learning here, all about observations, and the ball rolling down the hill, using reasoning, having your understanding being "educed" and the fact is, there is no objective ball rolling down the hill for you to observe? Rather, your potential is unfolding and being educed in learning situations as we speak.
You said: "I'm just saying I would never think "The ball rolls..." if I hadn't ever seen it occur"....And the truth, Ahnimus is you ARE LITERALLY THINKING "the ball rolls", without seeing it occur! Your own words prove you are thinking that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Do you realize, Ahnimus, you are learning here, all about observations, and the ball rolling down the hill, using reasoning, having your understanding being "educed" and the fact is, there is no objective ball rolling down the hill for you to observe? Rather, your potential is unfolding and being educed in learning situations as we speak.
You said: "I'm just saying I would never think "The ball rolls..." if I hadn't ever seen it occur"....And the truth, Ahnimus is you ARE LITERALLY THINKING "the ball rolls", without seeing it occur! Your own words prove you are thinking that.
lol, but I have seen balls roll and I've seen balls and gravity at work. So I'm not just making it up.
If you think such a thing is possible, then I challenge you to invent a colour. I'd be especially impressed if you could invent a colour that cannot be made from red, green and blue
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
Comments
I did put a thought in your mind though. How do other thoughts come into your mind?
educe:-- to draw forth or bring out, as something potential or latent; elicit; develop.
-- deduce (a principle) or construe (a meaning); "We drew out some interesting linguistic data from the native informant"
--develop or evolve from a latent or potential state [syn: derive]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/educe
There is another way of looking at education*: as originating from potential within. For example words like "infer" and "deduce" rely on reasoning which can be seen to originate within, as much as without. You may prefer which comes first--the chicken or the egg-- and yet that is still your preference in how you view it.
*edit: I meant knowledge rather than education
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea, it's a rough subject with animals and plants. But few people these days deny that animals are conscious to some degree.
All of that is great, but you can't make any inferences or deductions about apples if you've never seen an apple. You'd have no concept of gravity if you've never whitnessed an object fall. So ultimately the knowledge comes from outside and we use induction to rationalize the objective world.
I am. Do you understand what true means?
Yes
What is the difference between truth and knowledge?
Did you steal that from Biden?
Can you give an example of something with a brain that is not aware, short of something that is 'brain dead'.
That is what I am saying. The definition of consciousness is complex and anything but simple. What are your thoughts about qualia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quale
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Mark Twain
"To know that we know what we know and to know that we do not know what we do not know. That is true knowledge." - Copernicus
In other words, what we 'know' is what we think is truth. But truth is incontrovertible and exists independent of our knowledge of it.
Again, to see a cat's head, then body, then tail does not mean the head causes the body and tail.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Excellent. Now, do you believe determinsm is truth?
Qualia is a moot topic. It's pointless to discuss qualia because it has no bearing on anything. It's a philosopher's merry-go-round.
I wish I could put it in better words, I know Velmans explained how stupid the topic of qualia is in the book Conversations on Consciousness but I can't remember how he said it.
Basically, what is the point in discussing qualia? I may feel that an object is hard, and you might also feel that it is hard, but slightly harder than I feel it, but none of that changes the solidity of the object. It has to do with how badly our brains are wired. It's more evidence that our experience is subject to our brains and the laws of physics. But that can be debated until the sun super-novas.
Oops, sorry, I don't know that any creature is not self-aware.
Everything can be given cause Angelica.
Right thankfully our visual perception doesn't work that way. Check out Al Seckel at ted.com and his presentation called "Your brain is badly wired"
Then pick up Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis for more in-depth scientific understanding of the visual system.
I'm not talking about the visual perception. I'm talking about equally valid interpretations of the same act, which stem from how you or I the observer looks at it. It's obvious where your preference/preconception lies. When someone is learning, where can you draw the line between the learning and what is learned? When you draw that line, you distort what you are talking about. The act of learning requires a learner and what is learned. The act cannot take place until both are equally engaged--the inner and the outer. To prioritize where the process "begins" is about the way you look at it, not the way it is.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
My question is can we really define consciousness?
As it is, a definition is created after we know most of what there is to know about something. Since this issue is so broad and diverse, defining consciousness is difficult.
Let's recap, a Materialist view, your view is the following:
Consciousness is simply reactions in the brain and body, created by external stimuli to the sensory system, along with memories and a very complex neural-net that cross checks this information for relevance to the stimuli.
If everything is physical, then surely this must be the solution, all there is to consciousness is its physical parts. Quantify, calculate, predict.
Then there is a more solipsistic view:
Only the self can be verified. We can never quantify and predict the emotion of happiness with math or science. Even if we knew everything about the brain, there is still something there beyond the veil, that cannot be predicted.
I mentioned qualia because it is a good example; you can never measure or predict the subjective qualia state. Materialists say that qualia is just "magical." It has no relevance because if it can't be observed in a lab, or predicted with math, then it by default doesn't exist. We can't measure happiness either, but I have no doubt it exists.
I firmly believe that there is more to consciousness than just its physical parts. Take for instance the image you see with your eyes, or the music you hear with your ears. Typical qualia experience; Now, the image you see is not inherently represented in the physical world as anything physical. The only thing others will have to do is trust you on your word that you are seeing that image or hearing that sound.
The only reason they do trust you is because they can also see that image and hear that sound. But if a scientist were to go completely neutral and logical, like materalists claim to do, then they would even have to drop this assumption that anyone is actually seeing anything or hearing anything. Because as it stands now, qualia does not exist in the physical world, it only appears to do so.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I agree there is only one objective truth. But for example:
I see an ball roll down a hill and I think "The ball rolls down the hill because it is round and gravity" the inductive thought is sparked by observation.
I'm just saying I would never think "The ball rolls..." if I hadn't ever seen it occur.
Neuroscientists say that we will be able to measure qualia. It's a little premature to claim that we can never measure it.
I don't see where qualia is going as an argument though. I'm sorry, I just don't get how that is a major issue.
GAH!!! Do you not see the contradiction here?????
The situation above has never occurred to you, yet you obviously have a thought on it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, but what difference is made?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No. I'm sorry FFG. I don't see a contradiction.
Would you like me to explain the causes of me having the thought?
I see a lot of different things. Everything that makes a human being.
The cause of you having the thought is your reaction to an idea inconsistent with your beliefs. You manifested the contradiction between the two by simply merging them together. In other words, you didn't apply reason to your response.
But you still owe me an answer, Ahniums:
Do you believe determinsm is truth?
That would be quite impressive, indeed!
I thought I presented it pretty clear in my post, I am tired so perhaps not. Take away qualia, and we wouldn't be able to have these discussions. Maybe we operate with different definitions of what qualia is, but what I'm talking about is the raw experience that our consciousness has to have in order to be conscious. It comes before consciousness. A computer can store information, but for it to be conscious it needs some sort of experience. The experience itself doesn't necessary have any influence on anything, but it's there and doesn't turn into an illusion just because we find it handy. Anyway, I'm ready for an altered state of consciousness, so I'm off to bed.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You said: "I'm just saying I would never think "The ball rolls..." if I hadn't ever seen it occur"....And the truth, Ahnimus is you ARE LITERALLY THINKING "the ball rolls", without seeing it occur! Your own words prove you are thinking that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
lol, but I have seen balls roll and I've seen balls and gravity at work. So I'm not just making it up.
If you think such a thing is possible, then I challenge you to invent a colour. I'd be especially impressed if you could invent a colour that cannot be made from red, green and blue
You are not your physical attributes.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde