'I' am not consciousness

1…78101213…17

Comments

  • Posts: 180
    Ahnimus wrote:
    You see, he didn't grasp it solely with his mind, because he had sensory input from his senses, and he never doubted that the wax existed, even though he couldn't think as the wax. He also came up with a lot of theories that were highly doubtful and in-fact wrong. So I'm not sure if he was a hypocrite or insane. I think his biggest contribution was confusing the hell out of people. Didn't he also say we can never know what it's like to be bat?
    indeed he did, like i said crap.


    Well he was a good mathmatician, just a crappy philosopher.
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • Posts: 180
    catefrances wrote:
    i disagree. i interact with society because i need to. because there are certain things that make it a necessity. that doesn't mean it is my reality. all it means is i adapt to suit my purpose, i enter, do what needs to be done and then i withdraw.
    and no i do not have to accept the reality of the masses. who says i have to accept what i some mindless collective consciousness?
    and to use the example of the internet as a reality is amsuing. if ever there was a place where reality didnt count for anything it's the internet. the anonimity of the medium makes anything possible. you can be anyone you like on here but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
    By interacting with society, you are part of the reality. Reality can't be "yours" or "mine" Its little bparts of everyones inner reality, so everytime you and i interact, i get some of your reality and you get some of mine. that could be the ideas we share, the kick ass shirt you see I have. the cup of coffee I hand you...


    The internet is a collevtive of ideas, which can be shared and therefore expand soemones reality....
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • Posts: 10,560
    catefrances wrote:
    i disagree. i interact with society because i need to. because there are certain things that make it a necessity. that doesn't mean it is my reality. all it means is i adapt to suit my purpose, i enter, do what needs to be done and then i withdraw.
    and no i do not have to accept the reality of the masses. who says i have to accept what i some mindless collective consciousness?
    and to use the example of the internet as a reality is amsuing. if ever there was a place where reality didnt count for anything it's the internet. the anonimity of the medium makes anything possible. you can be anyone you like on here but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

    I consider the internet to be a social reality. We all have identities and reputations and so on. There is virtually nothing different about it except the medium.
    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
  • Posts: 1,146
    Ahnimus wrote:
    You see, he didn't grasp it solely with his mind, because he had sensory input from his senses, and he never doubted that the wax existed, even though he couldn't think as the wax. He also came up with a lot of theories that were highly doubtful and in-fact wrong. So I'm not sure if he was a hypocrite or insane. I think his biggest contribution was confusing the hell out of people. Didn't he also say we can never know what it's like to be bat?

    He was an excellent mathematician. And his cogito ergo sum is still valid today: you're dead only if your brain is. But whatever, after all you can always dismiss arguments without critical analysis.
    (and like Augustine, Descartes lived a long time ago. It's not his fault if his knowledge isn't comparable to yours today).
  • Posts: 29,003
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I consider the internet to be a social reality. We all have identities and reputations and so on. There is virtually nothing different about it except the medium.

    that is true, we do have identities. but are they 'real' or are they a construct exclusive to the internet. are you sure that 24 year old blonde college co-ed is not a 54 year old trucker called malcolm?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 180
    Kann wrote:
    He was an excellent mathematician. And his cogito ergo sum is still valid today: you're dead only if your brain is. But whatever, after all you can always dismiss arguments without critical analysis.
    (and like Augustine, Descartes lived a long time ago. It's not his fault if his knowledge isn't comparable to yours today).
    He was a great mathmatician, but most of his other stuff has been hashed over and dismissed. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I dismissed anything with out analysis.

    catefrances wrote:
    that is true, we do have identities. but are they 'real' or are they a construct exclusive to the internet. are you sure that 24 year old blonde college co-ed is not a 54 year old trucker called malcolm?
    hate to do this to you, but whats Real?
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • Posts: 29,003
    sicnevol wrote:

    hate to do this to you, but whats Real?

    and that is the question, is it not?
    what do we perceive as reality and what can be proven to be so?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 10,560
    Kann wrote:
    He was an excellent mathematician. And his cogito ergo sum is still valid today: you're dead only if your brain is. But whatever, after all you can always dismiss arguments without critical analysis.
    (and like Augustine, Descartes lived a long time ago. It's not his fault if his knowledge isn't comparable to yours today).

    Well, when you compare Descartes with Augustine he was a genius ;)

    I'm not trashing the guy, just his theories.
    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
  • Posts: 180
    catefrances wrote:
    and that is the question, is it not?
    what do we perceive as reality and what can be proven to be so?
    exactly my point. If you can't tell me what real is, then why are we even having this talk?
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • Posts: 29,003
    sicnevol wrote:
    exactly my point. If you can't tell me what real is, then why are we even having this talk?

    because the perception of reality is in flux. do we take as a given what we are told or do we form our own opinion, and not even be concerned if what we think runs counter to the general consensus. or do we allow that consensus to shape our opinion?
    the reality of a hermit is not the same as that of someone who listens to death metal and lives in a share house.
    my reality as a student and parent is not the same as a gay couple. sure we all breathe. we all eat. we all sleep. all the basic things may be the same but where the realities deviate is how we choose to interact with society. the way in which we live our lives.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 180
    catefrances wrote:
    because the perception of reality is in flux. do we take as a given what we are told or do we form our own opinion, and not even be concerned if what we think runs counter to the general consensus. or do we allow that consensus to shape our opinion?
    the reality of a hermit is not the same as that of someone who listens to death metal and lives in a share house.
    my reality as a student and parent is not the same as a gay couple. sure we all breathe. we all eat. we all sleep. all the basic things may be the same but where the realities deviate is how we choose to interact with society. the way in which we live our lives.
    I'm not even going to talk to you about this anymore, because it is a waste of my time. Pick up a book on physics, and learn about the quantum universe, hell even newton.

    ther are inherent laws with in our universe, proven to be so to EVERYONE, that is reality.
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • Posts: 29,003
    well you know descartes is correct when he says we can never know what it's like to be bat? i can assure you, i will never know what it's like to fly through the night and eat fruit hanging upside down in a tree. :D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 6,038
    sicnevol wrote:
    I'm not even going to talk to you about this anymore, because it is a waste of my time. Pick up a book on physics, and learn about the quantum universe, hell even newton.

    ther are inherent laws with in our universe, proven to be so to EVERYONE, that is reality.
    Do you acknowledge that our different perceptions and our choices,whether unconscious or conscious, exist within those natural laws? Do you realize that our perceptions shape how we experience life within those natural laws?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 1,146
    sicnevol wrote:
    ther are inherent laws with in our universe, proven to be so to EVERYONE, that is reality.

    That's not true. Physical laws are true until proven wrong, it's not exactly the same. No physical, biological or chemical law is absolute, they can be applied to explain that which surrounds us and which we percieve but they are not absolute laws and can be broken. Take gravity, it is a law, but it has been proven wrong.
    That's why I fail to see where Descartes is wrong, until we achieve total understanding of our universe (you know, the unified law in physics) the only thing that is sure is that we can doubt reality.
  • Posts: 2,403
    catefrances wrote:
    well you know descartes is correct when he says we can never know what it's like to be bat? i can assure you, i will never know what it's like to fly through the night and eat fruit hanging upside down in a tree. :D

    Well, unless you count jumping out a window while being chased by a jealous husband, and having to hang by your legs in the inconvenient tree while eating the remains of the romantic feast you were serving, while waiting for the guard dog to fall asleep so you can escape.

    Sorry, you weer talking about you, not me !!!
    Music is not a competetion.
  • Posts: 1,268
    Boy, this thread grew overnight.................

    Ahnimus, I agree to the idea that combinations of various sensory data plus data from memory states are things that an “upper consciousness”, with it’s personality and feeling of self, needs for coming into existence. But it also needs the possibility for experience (which you feel is an illusion?), and that is the basis for all consciousness – experience and raw conciousness are the same.

    Your 'hero' Blackmore and other qualia-opponents fail to explain how phenomenally represented information (qualia) gets to be experienced in the first place. They only have theories on how already experienced information accumulate and creates an illusion of a self. This is why I prodded you about it last night, as I knew you would regurgitate their stance. And, if you were part of the scientific community, you would know that they are NOT in agreement over the definition of consciousness.

    Now, whether qualia are separated from the experience (conscious unit) itself, or actually is the experience, is a tough question. But just as you can compare qualia with an organization, and state that “an organization is only a concept or illusion - it’s actually just a bunch of people”, you can say that yes, consciousness might only be a concept or illusion, but it’s components are just as real as that bunch of people.

    Consciousness consists not of data, but of phenomenal information, since it’s experience-able. Again, that information might be experience itself, but still the components are real since experiencing is real. So, why can’t we locate qualia in the brain? Because qualia are the instruments through which "we" (the experiences) examine the world. We would have to leave experiencing to be able to find qualia, but then of course we wouldn’t be able to experience the finding of qualia.
    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
  • Posts: 5,515
    baraka wrote:
    Consciousness consists not of data, but of phenomenal information, since it’s experience-able. Again, that information might be experience itself, but still the components are real since experiencing is real. So, why can’t we locate qualia in the brain? Because qualia are the instruments through which "we" (the experiences) examine the world. We would have to leave experiencing to be able to find qualia, but then of course we wouldn’t be able to experience the finding of qualia.

    How do you know you're you, behind your own eyes?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Posts: 1,268
    gue_barium wrote:
    How do you know you're you, behind your own eyes?

    I'm not sure I follow the question. I know that I am a distinct being, an individual.
    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
  • Posts: 5,515
    baraka wrote:
    I'm not sure I follow the question. I know that I am a distinct being, an individual.

    I was sort of echoing the paragraph of yours that I replied to, other than out and out asking you. A parallel contrast. :)

    Or, I'm just having fun.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Posts: 1,268
    gue_barium wrote:
    I was sort of echoing the paragraph of yours that I replied to, other than out and out asking you. A parallel contrast. :)

    Or, I'm just having fun.

    I'll go with having fun..........I was basically showing that consciousness is NOT simply defined, esp when you take in account phenomenal experiences, which Ahnimus dismisses in his argument. Of course, I did write that before my morning coffee.........;)
    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

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories