What is the use of self?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by ken »

bahman wrote:
ken wrote: More unfortunate is that you do not show any inquisitiveness.

Do you have any inquiringly questions?

What in particular do you want Me to elaborate on for you?

What is it you are not yet seeing and understanding?
To my understanding both materialism and dualism have their own issues.
Nearly everything that ends with an 'ism' is an idea or set of thoughts that is believed in. 'Believed in' has to be taken into account here. Any 'ism', which remember is just a thing written by one or more people and then believed in by others, and sometimes changed. Because of how the brain works, that is it just takes in information, from the 'world' [the environment] around it, and then from that information then learns how to view things, the world around it, the way it does, AND, because of the "education system" and its way of teaching debating, people now either believe in one thing or another. If an 'ism', lets use materialism for an example here, is not agreed with, then instead of arguing with it in the sense of logical reasoning with materialism, some people will argue, with it from the fighting and debating sense. That is they will instead of working with that view of one or some people and work together to find more and truer knowledge together, they will instantly oppose it. They have been taught that if you do not believe in it, then you MUST believe in something else. So, they look for completely opposing views, and then try to back up those points of view. Through an education system teaching a certain way to debate things, which entails picking a side and fighting, (to the death?), for it, human beings in this age generally believe one side or the other, and then will try any thing and all they can to show that that side is right. To Me, there is no materialism nor dualism. These are just points of view, which are missing the mark, so to say. The Truth is in them. The Truth is not one or the other of them.
bahman wrote: Materialism has issue to explain how consciousness and self arises from brain activities.
Human beings have issue just trying to explain what consciousness and self IS first, let alone working out how they arise from brain activities. This is like fighting over whether God exists or not before human beings even decide what God is first. The ridiculousness of this is funny to watch. Imagine sitting back and watching two people fighting over whether something exists or not. Let them go for a while, and then ask both of them what is the actual 'thing' that you two are debating about whether it exists or not, and they both answer you, "I don't know". This is exactly what human beings have done for thousands upon thousands of years, and are still doing.

To Me there is no issue to explain how consciousness and self arise from brain activities. The very fact that without brain activities these "issues" would not arise at all shows in itself how consciousness and self arise from brain activity.

What do you mean by 'consciousness' and 'self'?
bahman wrote: We have two substances in dualism and each are responsible for some activities. Body allows us to move around, grasp things, receive sensory data, etc. The soul in another hand allows us to experience and have a sense of self.
What is 'soul'? And, what do you mean by 'a sense of self'? Is 'a sense of self' the same as 'self'?

The issue I have to explain ALL of these things to any person is I firstly need to know their view and definition of things, I also need to know how open, if they are at all, to changing those definitions and views of things. If they are not open at all, then there is no use a proceeding.
bahman wrote: Dualism however have interaction problem.
What is the problem here?

To Me, a 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution, which is the answer.

If no question is posed, then no solution for answer can be given. For example, it is said "There are thousands of children dying from starvation. How do we fix this problem?" To Me, the problem has not been posed. If an answer and/or solution, then pose the question, and then I can solve and fix the, so called, "problem". There are no problems in of themselves in Life. Only human beings cause, make, and create, problems, by asking questions.
bahman wrote: In your post you mentioned "Absolutely everything is relative to the observer. When I observe what is written about materialism and what is written about dualism I see a consistent Truth within and between the two.". I understand that materialism and dualism can each explain a part of problem we are facing but I don't understand how we are allowed to consider or possibly can construct a combine model to explain reality so I would be have happy if you elaborate on this issues.
Sure, what happened was I learned, accidentally by the way, how the Mind and the brain work before I even heard of or knew of materialism and dualism. These two things, like many, many things in Life, are just a perspective of reality. There is nothing that says one or the other has to be right. ALL older human beings at some points in their lives gain concepts of what is actually real in Life but then when trying to explain that relatively "new" right knowledge the explanation gets caught up with previously learned wrong knowledge, which can confuse issues more. This is the whole concept of 'inspiration'.

Reality is not found in being allowed to consider nor in possibly constructing a combined model here. Reality is found in the way you are looking at the so called "problem" here. By the way I am going to have to ask you, "What exactly is the problem we are supposedly facing here?" (Remembering that just because 'you' might be facing a "problem", that does not mean Me nor others are also.) Anyway I think trying to construct a combined model of materialism and dualism might be a hard ask. What I found is by understanding how the Mind and the brain work firstly, and how they can work together and oppositely, automatically allows the Truth to be seen within and between the two subject and only topic matters of materialism and dualism. I know this is of no help to you here now, and I apologize for that, but I still think if you ask Me direct questions, then this will help you more.

You said, "that materialism and dualism can each explain a part of problem", maybe if you explain what the actual problem is that you have, that is, ask the actual question, which you want solved, and also say what "part of the problem" that you think materialism and dualism can explain.

This is how I view this;
There is a physical body with a brain, we can see and feel these organs, and, there is a Mind. Until the Mind can be felt, seen, heard, smelt, or tasted as far as we, human beings, know in this era the Mind is not a physical thing.

We say things like, "With an open mind we can do anything", "We have to keep an open mind if we want to find and learn (discover) some thing", et cetera. To Me, there is only one Mind and It is always open. This Mind is what has allowed human beings to go as far as they have, which is way far beyond any other animal, (that we human beings know of), has gone and can go. The Mind can imagine anything, and is what has allowed human beings to continually learn how to create and achieve more and more things, at an exponential rate I will also add. This progression is because of the ability the open Mind gives human beings. This potentiality of exponential progression is because of how the human brain works.

The brain is not open like the Mind is. The brain can only work from what information has been fed into it, just like a computer can. If the brain is taught to believe in things, then it will. Some brains will, depending on past experiences, even believe that a person can not live without believing in things. Because of this power of belief, which comes from the brain only, the belief in a human being's and human beings' potential, which is exponentially growing with the advancements made by human beings with the technology they are inventing and creating, then this believing can interfere with, or enhance the ability, which comes from the one and only completely open Mind. The brain can and does prevent this potential for learning, absolutely all things, from coming about. But, the Mind already KNOWS how It and the brain work. The brain just stops this knowledge from coming to light, because of some of the beliefs, which it holds onto. The Mind allows human beings and gives them the ability to learn, understand, and reason, anything (everything). The brain, however, allows human beings to grasp the knowledge of anything (everything) learned, understood, and reasoned. But because of beliefs the brain can, sadly, learn, understand, and reason, absolutely anything including anything wrong, and then believe is it right. Thus, the human brain just does not have the ability to grasp wrong knowledge, but also to believe in that wrong knowledge and believe that that knowledge is true, right, and correct, and, most unfortunately, also teach that wrong knowledge onto others.

To Me, there is a 'self', little s, which is a construct of the brain. This self is the one we believe or think we are, for example a doctor, a priest, a mother, a grand-father, a skier, a footballer, a "whatever". When we say, "I am... "whatever", then we believe/think we are that self. This is how the brain works, it constructs things from what gets fed into it, and then compartmentalizes or separates things. Whereas, the Mind works by seeing things as they really are. The Mind allows ALL things to be united as One.

Consciousness is just Self-awareness, which the Mind knows It is Its Self and is able to see ALL because the Mind is completely open. The Mind is not limited nor restricted at all because It is of no physicality. It can sit "outside" and "within", as they say, and look at ALL things as they really are.

An individual person is just the self, or sense of self, created by an individual brain. This person can only think, it does not know for sure, and it can only see from what information the brain has grasped and is holding onto, which is what is actually creating this (sense of) self.

How the (non-physical?) Mind interacts with the physical human body and brain is the Mind just allows human beings to have the ability to learn, understand, and reason, anything (everything), thus allowing them to imagine, invent, and create absolutely anything also. To some this is just dualism.

How the brain, creates or constructs concepts or (sense of) selves is because that brain just works that way, information in - information (knowledge thoughts) out. To some this is just materialism.

Both are correct certain ways. To tell you the truth I do not recall ever reading anything much at about the two, but if you can see that there is a brain self, which is just the 'person', which is just the thoughts (and feelings) within a body, which come only from the brain. There are as many as these selves as there are human bodies. Then there is a truer Self, which is the Mind, Its Self. There is only one and only Self, which is found and known with the knowledge that all the little selves agree with.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by Belinda »

attofishpi wrote:
bahman wrote:What is the use of self?
..again .. the ability to eat and enjoy fish 'n chips.
Attofishpi's idea might be facetious or it might be an illustration of conetus in action. As the latter, enjoying fish 'n chips helps to keep a self alive and is therefore effectual in maintaining the integrity of the individual self without which the individual self would die, unless she were on a life support machine.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by ken »

Ginkgo wrote:
ken wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:

Well, no you are not actually right, unless of course you can answer the following questions in relation to your previous responses
What part exactly am I not right?

You certainly did not show any sign of inquisitiveness previously. That is until now, after I wrote what I did here.
So what part of what I wrote was not right?
Ginkgo wrote:Ken wrote:
"Absolutely everything is relative to the observer. When I observe what is written about materialism and what is written about dualism I see a consistent truth with and between the two."

Please outline what is consistent in materialism and dualism.
If you want to provide an example/link of the two, then I will see if there is any other consistences in them. Until then they both talk about a body and a Mind.
Ginkgo wrote:Ken wrote:
"I also observe and see he falsehoods in both of then."

Please outline the falsehoods in dualism and materialism.
Again, provide an example or link of the two, then I will see if there is any falsehoods in those examples.

Also, remember neither dualism nor materialism on there own has brought anyone closer to a understanding. The Truths of Life are not found in either of them alone. The Truths of Life are found in the way a person looks, at them.
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/36606-the-consc ... xperience/\


Above I have provide a link for your perusal. In broad terms Chalmers is a dualist and Prinz is a materialist. Please elaborate on what is true or false in this article.
The first thing I notice that is false, from my perspective, is that a person with the name chalmers is presumed to be a "dualist", and that person named prinz, is presumed to be a "materialist". chalmers and prinz are just the names or labels given to two people, who are just expressing their views. chalmers and prinz are nothing more than two different unique individual people, and the people that these names are being referred to are just the thoughts and internal feelings within two human bodies. These people are nothing more than any other person, that is the thought and internal feelings within any human body. They, themselves, and others also, may label them(selves) as any thing, but they can not truly be those things. If there are beliefs within a human head, then that is what it is; just a belief, and that is all that is happening. A person can not be anything else other than what they really are. A 'person' can not truly be what is being thought. Although some people like to believe that they are what they are thinking, for example, "I am a doctor", the Truth is that they can not really be that thing being thought of. So, chalmers is not a "dualist" and prinz is not a "materialist". They both have just decided to pick one side or one point of view of some thing and chose to believe in that side or view.

As I have said previously, Truth is not found in one side nor one point of view. Truth is found, seen, and understood in ALL sides and in ALL points of views.

Another thing that is false, to Me, is the term "the conscious brain". There can not be a conscious brain, nor any other type of brain. A human brain is just a brain, existing within a human body, either while the body is asleep, awake, or not breathing. The brain in a non breathing body is about as useful as a rock is for learning and understanding about the Life around it. A brain in a sleeping body helps keep the body alive, and of not much more use than that. A brain, however, in a woken human body just works in the way that it was created for, and has evolved to do, that is to produce thoughts, from the information fed into it, through the five senses of the body. Those thoughts, once upon a time, were produced only to keep the human body alive and well, as well as to keep the species alive and existing. These fundamental thoughts, which were absolutely necessary, were the only thoughts that were produced. The fundamental thoughts are still as necessary today, but it appears with each evolving year more and more unnecessary thoughts are being produced and added onto the fundamental necessary thoughts.

As thoughts evolve more and more into consciousness, which is just the highest level of being conscious of one's self and of the real Self. When a brain has had the necessary information fed into it in order to become a truly self-aware being, then the brain can produce the necessary thoughts to answer the the question, "Who am 'I'?" This awareness of the real Self is what consciousness is. Awareness or consciousness is held within thoughts and thinking. A brain is just like all other organs, any and all organs can not be conscious of themselves. But a human brain can produce self aware and Self conscious thoughts. Once there are those thoughts, existing, which are aware of what thoughts, themselves, actually are and what and how the brain works, then there can be a self-conscious or self-aware thinking. This self-aware thinking is a self-aware person, or the self-aware being. So, a brain can not be conscious, but a brain can produce thoughts or thinking, which can be conscious and aware of things, including the True Self.

Also, to Me, attention does not cause nor give rise to [engenders] experience. I see that the other way around actually happens, that is experiences cause or give rise to [engenders] how much or how little attention is given to things. When far more attention was given to the thoughts that were being produced within this head, while being far more open and honest than usual, and also while asking questions, which are usually just dismissed, were more importantly answered, openly and honestly again, then what was found was that full consciousness (or full awareness) of the thinking (pretending) self, and the full consciousness of the knowing (real and True) Self were just being revealed in natural procession. The experiences that this body was having at that time engendered more and more attention to the thoughts and thinking and internal feelings (emotions) arising within the body.

This is what I found to be false in just the topic heading and in your view of chalmers and prinz. But then again I am not at all savvy with the specific terms, and their defined meanings, given within university philosophical discussions and reviews. Those specific terms and definitions may cause confusion, to others, when combined with my views, but how I, now, see things there is a clear cut distinction between what is actually True and Real and what is perceived to be true and real.
User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by TSBU »

bahman wrote:We know that any system is functional if it does X by receiving Y, where X is a set of actions (output) and Y is a set of stimulus (input). The question is what is the use of self if the system, human for example, can function without it?
Changing self by I:
I don't need a "use", that sound like "the meaning of life", I don't need a "meaning", I measure the use of things in order to make me happy, that is, everything can be used, more or less, for me.
I can't see myself from outside me and see me as a tool to use for myself, that's wrong, I don't "use myself", I do things.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by Ginkgo »

Ken wrote: The first thing I notice that is false, from my perspective, is that a person with the name chalmers is presumed to be a "dualist", and that person named prinz, is presumed to be a "materialist". chalmers and prinz are just the names or labels given to two people, who are just expressing their views.
chalmers and prinz are nothing more than two different unique individual people, and the people that these names are being referred to are just the thoughts and internal feelings within two human bodies.
It is other people in the filed that classifies them as materialist or dualist. Chalmers is a property dualist and Prinz it a physicalist. Classification of theories is important for the advance of knowledge in the subject area. Prinz is not just expressing a point of view, his theory has a lot of scientific research behind it.
Ken wrote: These people are nothing more than any other person, that is the thought and internal feelings within any human body. They, themselves, and others also, may label them(selves) as any thing, but they can not truly be those things. If there are beliefs within a human head, then that is what it is; just a belief, and that is all that is happening. A person can not be anything else other than what they really are. A 'person' can not truly be what is being thought. Although some people like to believe that they are what they are thinking, for example, "I am a doctor", the Truth is that they can not really be that thing being thought of. So, chalmers is not a "dualist" and prinz is not a "materialist". They both have just decided to pick one side or one point of view of some thing and chose to believe in that side or view.
I am afraid this doesn't make any sense. Being a doctor or neurophilosopher is more than just thinking one is that label, it is the qualifications behind the thinking that makes a person what they are in their particular area of expertise.
Ken wrote: Another thing that is false, to Me, is the term "the conscious brain". There can not be a conscious brain, nor any other type of brain. A human brain is just a brain, existing within a human body, either while the body is asleep, awake, or not breathing. The brain in a non breathing body is about as useful as a rock is for learning and understanding about the Life around it. A brain in a sleeping body helps keep the body alive, and of not much more use than that. A brain, however, in a woken human body just works in the way that it was created for, and has evolved to do, that is to produce thoughts, from the information fed into it, through the five senses of the body.
Those thoughts, once upon a time, were produced only to keep the human body alive and well, as well as to keep the species alive and existing. These fundamental thoughts, which were absolutely necessary, were the only thoughts that were produced. The fundamental thoughts are still as necessary today, but it appears with each evolving year more and more unnecessary thoughts are being produced and added onto the fundamental necessary thoughts.

As thoughts evolve more and more into consciousness, which is just the highest level of being conscious of one's self and of the real Self. When a brain has had the necessary information fed into it in order to become a truly self-aware being, then the brain can produce the necessary thoughts to answer the the question, "Who am 'I'?" This awareness of the real Self is what consciousness is. Awareness or consciousness is held within thoughts and thinking. A brain is just like all other organs, any and all organs can not be conscious of themselves. But a human brain can produce self aware and Self conscious thoughts. Once there are those thoughts, existing, which are aware of what thoughts, themselves, actually are and what and how the brain works, then there can be a self-conscious or self-aware thinking. This self-aware thinking is a self-aware person, or the self-aware being. So, a brain can not be conscious, but a brain can produce thoughts or thinking, which can be conscious and aware of things, including the True Self.
In top paragraph you say there cannot be a conscious brain and in the next paragraph you say, "Thoughts evolve more and more into consciousness." You can't have it both ways.
Ken wrote:
Also, to Me, attention does not cause nor give rise to [engenders] experience. I see that the other way around actually happens, that is experiences cause or give rise to [engenders] how much or how little attention is given to things. When far more attention was given to the thoughts that were being produced within this head, while being far more open and honest than usual, and also while asking questions, which are usually just dismissed, were more importantly answered, openly and honestly again, then what was found was that full consciousness (or full awareness) of the thinking (pretending) self, and the full consciousness of the knowing (real and True) Self were just being revealed in natural procession. The experiences that this body was having at that time engendered more and more attention to the thoughts and thinking and internal feelings (emotions) arising within the body.
Sorry, I don't follow this at all.
Ken wrote:
This is what I found to be false in just the topic heading and in your view of chalmers and prinz. But then again I am not at all savvy with the specific terms, and their defined meanings, given within university philosophical discussions and reviews. Those specific terms and definitions may cause confusion, to others, when combined with my views, but how I, now, see things there is a clear cut distinction between what is actually True and Real and what is perceived to be true and real.
Yes, I can see you are struggling with the professional terminology, so it does create confusion.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by raw_thought »

I am not my thoughts. Suppose I think, "1+1=2" . Someone asks me," who are you?" It would be silly to answer, "1+1=2". I am that which is aware that 1+1=2.
My self=consciousness. What is the purpose ( use) of consciousness? That is like asking, "what is the purpose of existence?" What is the purpose of instantiating? Consciousness instantiates concepts. "1+1=2 " is only an ink pattern until consciousness transforms it into an abstraction ( a concept). Note that I am not saying that consciousness creates matter. I am saying that just as existence instantiates particular physical objects, consciousness instantiates concepts.
Subject/predicate
Existence/ this object ( a rock or whatever)
Consciousness / this particular concept.
Subjects without any predicates are ineffable. However, predicates without any subject are abstractions. I am not an abstraction.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by ken »

Ginkgo wrote:
Ken wrote: The first thing I notice that is false, from my perspective, is that a person with the name chalmers is presumed to be a "dualist", and that person named prinz, is presumed to be a "materialist". chalmers and prinz are just the names or labels given to two people, who are just expressing their views.
chalmers and prinz are nothing more than two different unique individual people, and the people that these names are being referred to are just the thoughts and internal feelings within two human bodies.
It is other people in the filed that classifies them as materialist or dualist. Chalmers is a property dualist and Prinz it a physicalist. Classification of theories is important for the advance of knowledge in the subject area. Prinz is not just expressing a point of view, his theory has a lot of scientific research behind it.
Okay this is what is happening here; you, and others, say 'chalmers' is a property dualist and 'prinze' is a materialist and/or physicalist. I say 'chalmers' and 'prinze' are just the labels given to two different, unique, individual persons. I reiterate that a 'person' is the different, unique, individual thoughts within one human body. Just to make this clear; we see things differently here. I view this one way and you view this a different way. You have expressed a point of view, I have expressed a point of view, just like prinz has expressed a(nother) point of view. Any or all of these point of views can have a lot of scientific research behind them, in fact two completely opposite points of views can be said to have a lot of scientific research behind it, just look at the "global warming" debate for an example, but ALL points of views are just expressed views. Only those expressed views that can be accepted and agreed upon by everyone are the views that are right, which views they are exactly you will have to wait and see. But exactly how to find them, and thus discovering which ones are right exactly, should be becoming more and more obvious by now.
Ginkgo wrote:
Ken wrote: These people are nothing more than any other person, that is the thought and internal feelings within any human body. They, themselves, and others also, may label them(selves) as any thing, but they can not truly be those things. If there are beliefs within a human head, then that is what it is; just a belief, and that is all that is happening. A person can not be anything else other than what they really are. A 'person' can not truly be what is being thought. Although some people like to believe that they are what they are thinking, for example, "I am a doctor", the Truth is that they can not really be that thing being thought of. So, chalmers is not a "dualist" and prinz is not a "materialist". They both have just decided to pick one side or one point of view of some thing and chose to believe in that side or view.
I am afraid this doesn't make any sense. Being a doctor or neurophilosopher is more than just thinking one is that label, it is the qualifications behind the thinking that makes a person what they are in their particular area of expertise.
If an individual is being a doctor or neurophilosopher, then that is what they are. But can an individual be a doctor or a neurophilosopher always? If they can, then so be it. But if they can not, then it does not matter how qualified an individual is, when does that individual transition in and out from doctor or neurophilosopher to whatever else that individual is labelled as? For example, mom, daughter, father, son, driver, pedestrian, gardener, swimmer, et cetera, et cetera.

I think you will discover that it is actually how much belief that is put into the idea of one's own self and who they are, which obviously comes only from thoughts and thinking, which is what makes an individual be what they are, or more correctly be what they think, or believe, they are.

I think you will also find that qualifications, by themselves, are used only by others to make a judgment call or view of an individual. Surely an individual knows who they are, with or without qualifications. Or, maybe more correctly "should" know who they are, with or without qualifications. Qualification does not make a person, a person. Qualifications are just given out to a person or people who have passed a test formulated by other persons or people.

By the way if this still does not make any sense to you, then this is totally understandable to Me. The reason 'you' are confused and can not yet make sense of this is the same reason why you are who you are. And, if you do not yet know that reason, then that is why all of this is totally understandable, to Me.
Ginkgo wrote:
Ken wrote: Another thing that is false, to Me, is the term "the conscious brain". There can not be a conscious brain, nor any other type of brain. A human brain is just a brain, existing within a human body, either while the body is asleep, awake, or not breathing. The brain in a non breathing body is about as useful as a rock is for learning and understanding about the Life around it. A brain in a sleeping body helps keep the body alive, and of not much more use than that. A brain, however, in a woken human body just works in the way that it was created for, and has evolved to do, that is to produce thoughts, from the information fed into it, through the five senses of the body.
Those thoughts, once upon a time, were produced only to keep the human body alive and well, as well as to keep the species alive and existing. These fundamental thoughts, which were absolutely necessary, were the only thoughts that were produced. The fundamental thoughts are still as necessary today, but it appears with each evolving year more and more unnecessary thoughts are being produced and added onto the fundamental necessary thoughts.

As thoughts evolve more and more into consciousness, which is just the highest level of being conscious of one's self and of the real Self. When a brain has had the necessary information fed into it in order to become a truly self-aware being, then the brain can produce the necessary thoughts to answer the the question, "Who am 'I'?" This awareness of the real Self is what consciousness is. Awareness or consciousness is held within thoughts and thinking. A brain is just like all other organs, any and all organs can not be conscious of themselves. But a human brain can produce self aware and Self conscious thoughts. Once there are those thoughts, existing, which are aware of what thoughts, themselves, actually are and what and how the brain works, then there can be a self-conscious or self-aware thinking. This self-aware thinking is a self-aware person, or the self-aware being. So, a brain can not be conscious, but a brain can produce thoughts or thinking, which can be conscious and aware of things, including the True Self.
In top paragraph you say there cannot be a conscious brain and in the next paragraph you say, "Thoughts evolve more and more into consciousness." You can't have it both ways.
Probably the biggest issue human beings have in trying to understand themselves, and Life Itself, is that they have completely overlooked and forgotten to study the very thing that they use to view and see [understand] ALL things with, and that is thoughts, themselves. Human beings can study the brain forever more, but that will not provide the answers to what they are looking for. Answers are found in thoughts, and thinking, NOT in the brain, itself. The brain just produces thoughts. Answers are in the thoughts.

An example of how a person/thoughts can so easily overlook what is plainly obvious, is in your quote here. Yes in the top paragraph I did say that and in the next paragraph I also did say that, BUT they certainly do not contradict each other in any way, whatsoever, from my point of view. 'Thoughts' and the 'brain' are two very distinctly different things. The reason there is two completely different words with two completely different definitions for the two things is because they are two very completely distinctly different things. Although, to an individual, who defines them self as a materialist/physicalist, this distinction would not be so obvious, but to others the distinction is obvious. The reason it is not obvious to some people is because they can not look at nor view things in way that would defy their own beliefs. In other words when people believe things, then they are not open enough to even see or notice the glaringly obvious Truth/s in front of them.
Ginkgo wrote:
Ken wrote:
Also, to Me, attention does not cause nor give rise to [engenders] experience. I see that the other way around actually happens, that is experiences cause or give rise to [engenders] how much or how little attention is given to things. When far more attention was given to the thoughts that were being produced within this head, while being far more open and honest than usual, and also while asking questions, which are usually just dismissed, were more importantly answered, openly and honestly again, then what was found was that full consciousness (or full awareness) of the thinking (pretending) self, and the full consciousness of the knowing (real and True) Self were just being revealed in natural procession. The experiences that this body was having at that time engendered more and more attention to the thoughts and thinking and internal feelings (emotions) arising within the body.
Sorry, I don't follow this at all.
That is understandable and although I totally understand why you do not follow, imagine if I said to you, "I do not follow why you do not follow this at all." Now, until either of us asks each other for some kind of clarification we are both left wondering if the other has any real interest in gaining an understanding or not. In most cases if people do not ask questions, then they are really not that interested in following for understanding.
Ginkgo wrote:
Ken wrote:
This is what I found to be false in just the topic heading and in your view of chalmers and prinz. But then again I am not at all savvy with the specific terms, and their defined meanings, given within university philosophical discussions and reviews. Those specific terms and definitions may cause confusion, to others, when combined with my views, but how I, now, see things there is a clear cut distinction between what is actually True and Real and what is perceived to be true and real.
Yes, I can see you are struggling with the professional terminology, so it does create confusion.
Thus the reason why I am here. I am here to learn how to express better to everyone, and not just for the sake of a select few. What I want to express is very simple and could be very easily understood by young children. It is the human beings who have already been adulterated who have trouble understanding the simplicity of what I want to express. Some human beings have been so adulterated that they even believe that Life is complex, and hard to understand, so it is these adults that are the ones who I need to learn how to express to better. I am learning how to express the most simplest and obvious things in and about Life, with a language that has been altered and adulterated so much. Human beings have added professional/complex terminology, and thus confusing definitions, that they, themselves, even after centuries, are still just as confused as they were all that time ago to what the actual answers are for all of the meaningful questions in Life, for example, who am I?, what is our purpose for being here?, what is the meaning of Life? why are we here? where are we heading? how do we get there?, et cetera, et cetera.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by ken »

raw_thought wrote:I am not my thoughts. Suppose I think, "1+1=2" . Someone asks me," who are you?" It would be silly to answer, "1+1=2".
It sure would be silly to give that answer. For example if I ask you, "who are you?", then what is your answer?

Whatever answer you give comes from the thoughts/the thinking within that head, right?

Thoughts are always changing. There can be a thought about 1+1=2, but I am pretty sure that thought changes to something else when the question is asked, "who are you?"

I know it does not sound correct when I say 'you', a person, is the thoughts and thinking within that head. But to understand this fully we have to look at what you wrote here, that is "I am not "my" thoughts". 'My' implies ownership, so of course the owner of some thing and the thing, itself, namely 'thoughts' here, can not be one and the same thing. So, I will have to clarify with you now, "who is the 'my', the owner, of thoughts?"

You also have to remember 'you' and 'I' are not the same thing. So, objectively what 'you' are is not the same as what 'I' am. 'you', the person, are the thoughts within a head, whereas, 'I' am not.
raw_thought wrote:I am that which is aware that 1+1=2.
Ah okay you have answered the question here. 'I' am that which is aware. So, I will have to clarify with you now, "who is that which is aware?"
raw_thought wrote:My self=consciousness.
You have partly answered my question here already, BUT how can there be a "My" and a "self" together? Who is the one who owns the self?

If 'my' is in reference to something which is belonging to or associated with the speaker, then who is the speaker and who is the one in 'My self'? And, how is/are that/they related to consciousness?

If as you suggest, I am consciousness, which I do not necessarily disagree with, I am just wondering how can consciousness be aware of 1+1=2 but not be aware of who the 'my' and who the 'self' is in the question, "who am 'I' (my self)?" Unless of course you are able to answer that question for us all here and now, then we ALL will know that consciousness is FULLY aware, of what 'It' is.

I do know how to answer this and have an answer. I am just curious as to your answer, if you have one.

raw_thought wrote: What is the purpose ( use) of consciousness? That is like asking, "what is the purpose of existence?" What is the purpose of instantiating? Consciousness instantiates concepts. "1+1=2 " is only an ink pattern until consciousness transforms it into an abstraction ( a concept). Note that I am not saying that consciousness creates matter. I am saying that just as existence instantiates particular physical objects, consciousness instantiates concepts.
Where did 'I' or 'consciousness' come from? How long have 'I' or 'consciousness' been here? Whereabouts do 'I' or 'consciousness' actually exist?

The answers are very simple to find, once you know-how, and very easy to understand, once you learn HOW.
raw_thought wrote:Subject/predicate
Existence/ this object ( a rock or whatever)
Consciousness / this particular concept.
Subjects without any predicates are ineffable. However, predicates without any subject are abstractions. I am not an abstraction.
I would like to spend a bit of time working through this with you, if you would like also.

To Me, there is no thing that is ineffable, that is if by 'ineffable' you mean too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words. To Me, absolutely every thing can very simply and easily be described in words.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by raw_thought »

First let me thank you for your response. I have avoided this site because most responses attack the poster and not the poster's argument. You have reinstalled my faith that civilized debate is possible.
Can you give me written instructions as to how to move my thumb. Saying, " send electrical impulses from your brain to your thumb muscles" will not help me. If I do not know the word "red" does that mean that I cannot experience the color red? In other words most of our knowledge is ineffable.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by raw_thought »

"
"Qualia" is an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us. As is so often the case with philosophical jargon, it is easier to give examples than to give a definition of the term. Look at a glass of milk at sunset; the way it looks to you--the particular, personal, subjective visual quality of the glass of milk is the quale of your visual experience at the moment. The way the milk tastes to you then is another, gustatory quale, and how it sounds to you as you swallow is an auditory quale; These various "properties of conscious experience" are prime examples of qualia..... At first blush it would be hard to imagine a more quixotic quest than trying to convince people that there are no such properties as qualia; hence the ironic title of this chapter. But I am not kidding. "

FROM




http://cogprints.org/254/1/quinqual.htm




I realize that this is hearsay evidence but my professor friend that met Dennett is not known to lie. He told me that Dennett admitted that he does not believe that an "on" light switch knows that the light is on, or that pain doesn't hurt. Dennett further admitted that he says such outrageous things because it gets publicity! Anyway, his argument in " Quining Qualia " I took on in Seminar. My argument was that Dennett's argument is that part of a quale's definition is ineffability. He then proves that qualia are ineffable. Which he concludes proves that qualia do not exist because nothing can be ineffable.




Back to our subject. I was not precise in the way I expressed myself. I did not mean that I own my consciousness. I meant that I am my consciousness. I am not the consciousness of a particular thought or collection of thought. If I read " Moby Dick" I am not the thoughts in " Moby Dick".

Since consciousness is not a particular quale, it has no predicates. From that Dennett assumes that therefore it cannot exist. To say that consciousness ( qualia) does not exist because you cannot point at it is similar to saying that to say that something exists is meaningless because you cannot point at existence.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by Belinda »

raw_thought wrote:First let me thank you for your response. I have avoided this site because most responses attack the poster and not the poster's argument. You have reinstalled my faith that civilized debate is possible.
Can you give me written instructions as to how to move my thumb. Saying, " send electrical impulses from your brain to your thumb muscles" will not help me. If I do not know the word "red" does that mean that I cannot experience the color red? In other words most of our knowledge is ineffable.
It's not only qualia but all experiences including an experience of moving the thumb , and an experience of thinking a concept , that are impossible to describe except by analogy with some other experience or some alternative sensory mode. We can and do explain experiences including those to which we have privileged access as the subjects of the experiences.

We can and do explain not only concepts and how we come to experience them but also the mechanism of movement involving bones, joints, muscles, and nervous system, and also experiences of qualia. In other words, we can and do explain how qualia, movements, and concepts occur despite our being unable to describe how they feel from the subject's point of view. I suppose artists in all media are best at describing what any activity by any subject feels like.
Last edited by Belinda on Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

raw_thought wrote:First let me thank you for your response. I have avoided this site because most responses attack the poster and not the poster's argument. You have reinstalled my faith that civilized debate is possible.
Can you give me written instructions as to how to move my thumb. Saying, " send electrical impulses from your brain to your thumb muscles" will not help me. If I do not know the word "red" does that mean that I cannot experience the color red? In other words most of our knowledge is ineffable.
The word "red" is a mere convention of agreement. Even were we to agree that a cup is red, there would not give us warrant to say the for each of us the experience of 'redness' is the same thing. Even children play the game which asks that if I saw blue when you saw red, i'd have learned to call blue red, and so we would never know the difference.

Al we are left with is the pretence of the object, that we can agree upon, but the subject must always remain sundered from that.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by raw_thought »

Kant showed that existence is not a predicate. Science only deals with predicates. How can a person say that something exists or that someone is conscious since existence and consciousness are not predicates.
Now for the core of the debate! Is consciousness a predicate? At first blush it seems to make sense, that human is conscious and that rock is not. However, my belief that you are conscious and the rock is not isn't direct knowledge. It is based on my experiences ( qualia) of you and the rock. So is my experience of lets say red a predicate? Perhaps. But I am not the experience of red. Similarly, I am not the thought 1+1=2.
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/a ... gy_web.pdf
My understanding of "1+1=2" is a particular quale. I am the subject. my thoughts and experiences are predicates.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by raw_thought »

Hobbes, I agree. the signifier "red" is a convention. However, would you say that we do not experience pain until we know the word for it?
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is the use of self?

Post by raw_thought »

"Thoughts are always changing. There can be a thought about 1+1=2, but I am pretty sure that thought changes to something else when the question is asked, "who are you?"
Ken
Are you implying that when my thoughts change I become another person? If that is the case I die every minute and am replaced by someone that resembles me.
Post Reply