Dasein/dasein

[iambiguous]

Brains, Minds, Selves
Raymond Tallis uses all three to show that he has all three.

Behind many autocides is a phobia – a fear that accepting the reality of the self means subscribing to Cartesian dualism or to the view that one is or has a soul, or at least its secular equivalent.

This is, of course, nonsense.

How does he figure that? In fact, neither theologians, scientists nor philosophers have [to the best of my own current knowledge] been able to actually go beyond what "in their heads" they "accept" about dualism and the soul, in order to pin down what all rational men and women are obligated to think about them. Let alone then moving beyond this in order to direct "I" toward the most rational and virtuous behaviors.

This is all just speculation and conjecture until the facts are finally pinned down. If the human mind is even capable of accomplishing that.

It is entirely possible, without invoking immaterial spirits, to acknowledge that the Raymond Tallis who was a junior doctor in 1973 and who is a retired physician in 2018 refers to the same self when he says ‘I’.

Okay, but is it entirely possible to demonstrate that any of this is unequivocally within the grasp of his own autonomous mind? Is it possible to demonstrate that nature is not wholly behind everything he wrote there and then and everything that we are reading here and now?

And what about the nature of human "reality" explored in films like The Matrix, Total Recall, Ex Machina and Inception? Or reality in Westworld.

Memory, the connectedness of experience, the continuity of characters traits, a distinctive body of knowledge and a repertoire of skills, supported by the cladding that comes from the world that acknowledges him as the same person, along with the ‘address’ (in the widest sense) that he has in that world, the offices he occupies, the audit trail of his responsibility, and so on – these are sufficient to underpin a non-illusory, enduring self.

Sure, if you are focused in entirely on human interactions in the either/or world. Right now, the world is awash in any number of demonstrable facts about the coronavirus pandemic. For example, the fact that "Trump halts WHO funding over handling of coronavirus".

But what of our conflicting political reactions to that? Which "I" here comes closest to encompassing and embodying the most rational reaction of all?

[iambiguous]

Brains, Minds, Selves
Raymond Tallis uses all three to show that he has all three.

So why does the idea of the self as an illusion have such a hold? It may be because the rejection of the notion that we are ghosts in a machine has created space for the idea that we are just a machine. The machine in question is the brain and the brain, being a material object, cannot host an immaterial self. More precisely, the self is an illusion created by the brain.

And we know how far back this notion can be taken. To this point: That I am typing these words and you are reading them only in the manner in which nature compels us going all the way back to an explanation of why there is matter at all; and why it behaves as it does and not in some other way.

Now, if there is anyone here who can unequivocally demonstrate to us whether or not the self is an illusion created by the brain then, by all means, give it your best shot. On the other hand, what if your best shot is in turn...

Psychologist Nick Chater’s recent book, The Mind is Flat: The Illusion of Mental Depth and the Improvised Mind (2018) is devoted to this very idea. Indeed, more radically, he claims that even ‘mental depth’ is an illusion: the surface is all that there is: “To believe that we have constructed a ‘picture’ of the visual world in our minds is to fall for the illusion of mental depth, hook, line, and sinker” (p.82). His idea of the mind is of something entirely ‘in-the-moment’, and indeed, without breadth: the mind is a pin-point. If we disagree with this, it is because “almost everything we know about our minds is a hoax, played on us by our brains” (p.15). A hoax that Chater’s brain has mysteriously unmasked.

Or course he is no less in the same boat here as the author and all the rest of us. He himself would need to demonstrate unequivocally that his findings, derived from his brain, are not in turn merely an illusion built into human psychology by nature itself.

And that's before we get to the profoundest mystery of all: Why?

Why would a nature, the nature, our nature create these laws of matter able to evolve into a "self" conscious material brain actually capable of pointing this out? Of examining and explaining it?

Is there a meaning, a purpose, behind it all?

And, indeed, when the self-conscious "I" interacts in the is/ought world, that becomes all the more important. After all, that's the part where the brain brings, among other things, God into existence.

[iambiguous]

Brains, Minds, Selves
Raymond Tallis uses all three to show that he has all three.

The Illusion of an Illusion

Illusion? Hardly. After all, the richness of the world that we see is clearly not an illusion. The seething vista of events and objects that is the moment-to-moment appearance of the world around us clearly corresponds to reality; and so to see a rich world is not to be the victim of any illusion. I see a room or a landscape, as opposed to pin-pricks of sense data, because there is a room or a landscape to see. If there is an illusion, it is a little one, about the processes underlying visual consciousness, not about the objects of consciousness.

Same for me. There are simply far, far too many factors and variables embedded in the interaction between a self and the world around it, to realistically suppose that, in the either/or world, "I" is an illusion.

For that to be true, you are out on the deep end of the metaphysical limb. There "I" can be anything that one is able to imagine it to be. Call it, say, the Matrix Syndrome.

But rather than even an illusion, since most of us are not up to speed with the latest research in the psychology and physiology of perception, it is merely an unawareness of those processes. Indeed, if we were aware of those processes as we looked around us, we would be distracted to the point of being blind.

Here though we are equally all stuck. We can propose any number of things that explain why and how we have awareness. But exactly how to connect the dots between the evolution of biological life on Earth and the existence of human psychology reacting to that is still [presumably] a long way from being fully understood. And, sure, the more we try to grasp this "technically", as those in any number of scientific fields attempt to, the easier it is to lose sight of that which can be known about what we are actually aware of itself at any particular time, in any particular place.

Which he basically demonstrates for us here:

Anyway, all that psychology shows us is that at least one version of the representational theory of experience is bankrupt – and that our visual experiences are not realist pictures in the head, mirror images of our surroundings. Psychology does not show us that our having an experience of a complex world is an illusion. In fact, if the mind were a succession of moments, and the idea of enduring mental phenomena, such as beliefs, were untrue, it is difficult to see how Chater could have become sufficiently together in order to write a book (which was presumably planned, researched, and written over many years) in support of those beliefs. In short, the existence of The Mind is Flat is itself the most decisive refutation of the thesis contained between its covers.

Now, you tell me. In regard to any particular awareness that you have had today -- one that stands out -- how would you use this assessment in order to capture it more fully? What aspects of your awareness would make it more or less likely to construe your self as more or less an illusion?

How would you make a distinction between what you are convinced you are aware of insofar as that is not actually the "real world"?

[iambiguous]

Brains, Minds, Selves
Raymond Tallis uses all three to show that he has all three.

Ludwig Wittgenstein famously argued that his method was to “pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense” – thereby undermining daft ideas that may have seemed like serious philosophical positions.

That may be applicable to any number of subjects that philosophers choose to explore. But who here can consistently make important distinctions between "disguised nonsense" and "patent nonsense" when it comes to explaining why any particular "I" chooses to do any particular thing at any particular time and place instead of choosing to do any other particular thing.

Given situations in which others will judge what they do as either moral or immoral. Is pragmatism here an example of "disguised nonsense" while objectivism reflects "patent nonsense" instead?

I certainly think so. But then my own arguments are deemed by others to be either disguised or patent nonsense.

The Mind is Flat also illustrates how reducing persons or selves to their brains – what we may call ‘brainifying’ the person – invariably involves personifying the brain and treating it as if it were, after all, a kind of self.

So, is this closer to disguised nonsense or patent nonsense? After all, who here is able to establish beyond all doubt where the brain ends and the conscious mind begins. Or where the conscious mind ends and "I" as an autonomous individual able to assess this begins?

The brain, Chater tells us, perpetrates “hoaxes”, “solves problems”, “is continuously scrambling to link together scraps of sensory information”, trying to organize and interpret them. All of this is, “in a very real sense mindless” – although (with a characteristic wobble) Chater asserts that we are “relentless improvisers, powered by a mental engine, perpetually creating meaning from sensory input.” How very like a self!

Here, as is often the case, I come back to dreams. My dreams in particular. What boggles my own brain/mind is the fact that in my dreams new realities/contexts seem to be created. In other words, suppose my dreams merely repeated the things that I said and did on any particular day. That might seem entirely more reasonable. Instead "I" find myself in "situations" I have never been in before. A whole other world is created in which I am interacting with others such that in the dream it all feels like what I experience when I am not asleep. Unless my dreams are completely different from those of others.

And, in fact, in one way they are. My dreams are almost never, ever "way out there". Almost every time the dreams revolve around more or less real situations that reflect on experiences that I have actually had.

But: My brain is doing this...right?

Well, who is say that somehow my brain isn't also totally in command of my experiences in the waking world?

Others clearly shrug this off more far more easily than I can. But how exactly do they explain their brain creating these new worlds...worlds only more or less in sync with the world when they are awake?

[iambiguous]

DNA & The Identity Crisis
Raymond Keogh has a science-based take on personal identity.

When philosophers grapple with the issue of what constitutes personal identity that endures through time they generally rely on description rather than definition. In fact, the humanities have failed to define ‘identity’ concisely. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘identity’ to mean: “The sameness of a person or thing at all times or in all circumstances; the condition or fact that a person or thing is itself and not something else.” Unfortunately, philosophy has been dogged by its inability to explain what can be meant by ‘sameness’ for something that changes. As a result, it has not been possible to apply the dictionary definition.

Imagine then someone coming up with a definition of "personal identity" and then grappling with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. Which is basically the challenge I make in distinguishing between the either/or I and the is/ought "i".

Okay, I suggest, tell us what your definition of "personal identity" is and then note how that definition intertwines both those aspects of the self clearly embedded out in the empirical world necessarily embodying the laws of nature, and those characteristics which shift and change over time as, for example, your value judgments or aesthetic "tastes" shift and change over time.

What stays the same because it is integral part of the demographic, biological self -- the verifyiable, falsifiable self -- and what has changed insofar as how you have come to understand yourself out in the world reacting to the behaviors that you and others choose over time given new experiences.

What accounts for "staying the same" and "changing" given those aspects of your personal identity that you are able to make this distinction regarding?

One of the problems with the concept of identity can be traced to the age-old question about the conditions under which something persists as the same object through time.

And, in regard to DNA, if the conditions include total adherence to the laws of matter in a wholly determined universe, than "I" persists as it does because there was never any possibility of "I" freely choosing to persist another way.

But that either is or is not another discussion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From ChatGpt [with reservations]

Heidegger Contribution to the Individual & Humanity

Question:
As I read Kant, what I gathered is, Kant's ultimate positive result is a philosophy that enable him to ground his Moral and Ethical theory that could contribute to the well-being of humanity.
As for Heidegger, what is the positive end result of his philosophy that could contribute to the well-being of humanity or there is no such thing?

• ChatGpt:
  Heidegger's philosophy, as opposed to Kant's, doesn't provide a straightforward positive ethical theory or a system of morality.
  Heidegger was more concerned with ontology, the study of being, and hermeneutics, the study of interpretation.
  His primary focus was on understanding the nature of existence and the human experience.
  
  Heidegger's positive contributions are often seen in his attempts to rethink the nature of human existence and to address the fundamental questions about being.
  He emphasizes the idea of "Dasein," which roughly translates to "being there" or "existence."
  Heidegger urges individuals to engage in authentic existence, to confront the realities of their own existence, and to take responsibility for their lives.
  
  One positive aspect of Heidegger's philosophy is his emphasis on the importance of questioning and a continual search for meaning.
  He encourages individuals to question assumptions and engage in a process of self-discovery, which can lead to a deeper understanding of oneself and one's place in the world.
  
  However, it's crucial to note that Heidegger's legacy is also complicated by his involvement with the Nazi party during the 1930s.
  While some argue that his philosophy can be separated from his political affiliations, others criticize the lack of explicit ethical guidelines in his work.
  
  In summary, Heidegger's positive contribution to humanity lies in his exploration of existential questions and his call for individuals to engage in authentic self-reflection.
  However, the practical implications for ethical or moral guidance are not as explicit in his philosophy as they are in the case of Kant.

Question:
Re:
"In summary, Heidegger's positive contribution to humanity lies in his exploration of existential questions and his call for individuals to engage in authentic self-reflection."

• Is there more to the above?
  For example, in higher teachings of Buddhism, one is called to do self-exploration to the extent the self is illusory and one to apply the iterative 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Paths as a problem solving technique for continual self-development..
  
  ChatGPT
  Heidegger's call for authentic self-reflection shares some similarities with certain aspects of Eastern philosophical traditions, including Buddhism. However, the differences in their underlying metaphysical assumptions and goals should be noted.
  
  In Buddhism, the concept of the self as illusory is indeed central. The teaching of anatta (non-self) emphasizes that there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul. This realization is considered crucial for overcoming suffering. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path provide a framework for understanding and addressing the nature of suffering and the path to liberation (nirvana).
  
  Heidegger's approach, while also encouraging self-reflection, is situated within a Western existential and phenomenological context.
  He doesn't explicitly engage with the concept of an illusory self in the Buddhist sense, but he does emphasize the need for individuals to confront the fundamental questions of existence and take responsibility for their being.
  The emphasis is on the individual's existence within the world and the possibilities for authentic living.
  
  In the positive sense, both perspectives encourage individuals to engage in ongoing self-development and self-awareness.
  However, the specific methods, goals, and underlying philosophical frameworks differ significantly. Buddhism offers a systematic approach to understanding and overcoming suffering, rooted in a worldview without a permanent self.
  Heidegger's philosophy, on the other hand, is more concerned with the nature of being and the existential experience of individuals within the world.

..................
So Heidegger's approach encourages self-reflection but it has no goals and improvement techniques for the individual to develop and improve themselves on a pragmatic basis.

No wonder some Heideggerians 'improve' on digging a deeper, deeper and deeper hole to bury themselves in.

[Gary Childress]

From ChatGpt [with reservations]

Heidegger Contribution to the Individual & Humanity

Question:
As I read Kant, what I gathered is, Kant's ultimate positive result is a philosophy that enable him to ground his Moral and Ethical theory that could contribute to the well-being of humanity.
As for Heidegger, what is the positive end result of his philosophy that could contribute to the well-being of humanity or there is no such thing?

• ChatGpt:
  Heidegger's philosophy, as opposed to Kant's, doesn't provide a straightforward positive ethical theory or a system of morality.
  Heidegger was more concerned with ontology, the study of being, and hermeneutics, the study of interpretation.
  His primary focus was on understanding the nature of existence and the human experience.
  
  Heidegger's positive contributions are often seen in his attempts to rethink the nature of human existence and to address the fundamental questions about being.
  He emphasizes the idea of "Dasein," which roughly translates to "being there" or "existence."
  Heidegger urges individuals to engage in authentic existence, to confront the realities of their own existence, and to take responsibility for their lives.
  
  One positive aspect of Heidegger's philosophy is his emphasis on the importance of questioning and a continual search for meaning.
  He encourages individuals to question assumptions and engage in a process of self-discovery, which can lead to a deeper understanding of oneself and one's place in the world.
  
  However, it's crucial to note that Heidegger's legacy is also complicated by his involvement with the Nazi party during the 1930s.
  While some argue that his philosophy can be separated from his political affiliations, others criticize the lack of explicit ethical guidelines in his work.
  
  In summary, Heidegger's positive contribution to humanity lies in his exploration of existential questions and his call for individuals to engage in authentic self-reflection.
  However, the practical implications for ethical or moral guidance are not as explicit in his philosophy as they are in the case of Kant.

Question:
Re:
"In summary, Heidegger's positive contribution to humanity lies in his exploration of existential questions and his call for individuals to engage in authentic self-reflection."

• Is there more to the above?
  For example, in higher teachings of Buddhism, one is called to do self-exploration to the extent the self is illusory and one to apply the iterative 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Paths as a problem solving technique for continual self-development..
  
  ChatGPT
  Heidegger's call for authentic self-reflection shares some similarities with certain aspects of Eastern philosophical traditions, including Buddhism. However, the differences in their underlying metaphysical assumptions and goals should be noted.
  
  In Buddhism, the concept of the self as illusory is indeed central. The teaching of anatta (non-self) emphasizes that there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul. This realization is considered crucial for overcoming suffering. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path provide a framework for understanding and addressing the nature of suffering and the path to liberation (nirvana).
  
  Heidegger's approach, while also encouraging self-reflection, is situated within a Western existential and phenomenological context.
  He doesn't explicitly engage with the concept of an illusory self in the Buddhist sense, but he does emphasize the need for individuals to confront the fundamental questions of existence and take responsibility for their being.
  The emphasis is on the individual's existence within the world and the possibilities for authentic living.
  
  In the positive sense, both perspectives encourage individuals to engage in ongoing self-development and self-awareness.
  However, the specific methods, goals, and underlying philosophical frameworks differ significantly. Buddhism offers a systematic approach to understanding and overcoming suffering, rooted in a worldview without a permanent self.
  Heidegger's philosophy, on the other hand, is more concerned with the nature of being and the existential experience of individuals within the world.

..................
So Heidegger's approach encourages self-reflection but it has no goals and improvement techniques for the individual to develop and improve themselves on a pragmatic basis.

No wonder some Heideggerians 'improve' on digging a deeper, deeper and deeper hole to bury themselves in.

It sounds like Heidegger is an essential product of Kant in some ways. Kant gives us (perhaps) a morality and Heidegger gives us the tool to measure our own conduct and place within that world of morality. However, I'm not aware of where Heidegger himself stands in relation to himself. Does he stand in relation to himself? It is a fact that he was a "card-carrying" Nazi until a controversial point in its existence. However, it is also said that Heidegger himself disapproved of what the Nazis did. In a later interview, he stated something to the effect that something good was starting to happen but then it went off the rails for some undisclosed (by H) reason. Of course, Nazism is seen as the ultimate evil a society can embrace. The whole of the Anglo tradition now seems to be largely rooted in the idea that Nazism must be rejected in total.

I guess the question becomes, "What is' Nazism?'"

It seems that we all have "enemies", those who would seek our undoing. Those who would wish us to or let us "go first" when it comes to dying when the time comes. Dying seems very difficult for me to do and yet I feel like I must let go and let it happen to me. But I don't know how. It's as if I need others to end me for me because I cannot end myself. It is the most sobering thought possible for a living being.

Which is better, to go before the last one standing or to be the last one standing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk55FA6_xkM

[Gary Childress]

And perhaps all of us are enemies to another just by virtue of fearing death.

[Flannel Jesus]

I forgot about this thread. It's another wonderful example of iambiguous's love for ambiguity. "Dasein". One of the most ambiguous words of all time, made even more ambiguous in biggys hands.

[Gary Childress]

I forgot about this thread. It's another wonderful example of iambiguous's love for ambiguity. "Dasein". One of the most ambiguous words of all time, made even more ambiguous in biggys hands.

From what I've heard, Iambigoous was introduced to Christianity at a young age and still has a lot of conflict with it. I can relate. I tried to date a Christian woman not so long back and she got me going to a church program for people recovering from problems (something along the lines of AA except covering any and all "spiritual" problems). It wasn't a very good experience for me. So, rather than continue with it, I chose to distance myself, however, as they say, "once the seed is planted, it begins to take root". And now I'm "fighting" with the notion of a "benevolent" God. The world does not present itself as the work of a "benevolent" creator to me. But apparently, if I don't believe in this "god"/creator I will go to hell and all the evil in the world comes from people who do not believe in this "benevolent" creator. So I have to struggle with the idea that I am perhaps "evil".

I can now empathize with young people who are raised within some religious traditions. Some of those religious traditions are tenacious.

[Flannel Jesus]

But apparently, if I don't believe in this "god"/creator I will go to hell and all the evil in the world comes from people who do not believe in this "benevolent" creator. So I have to struggle with the idea that I am perhaps "evil".

Seems pretty evil to tell people "if you don't accept this specific fact that I have no evidence of, you're evil."

[Gary Childress]

But apparently, if I don't believe in this "god"/creator I will go to hell and all the evil in the world comes from people who do not believe in this "benevolent" creator. So I have to struggle with the idea that I am perhaps "evil".

Seems pretty evil to tell people "if you don't accept this specific fact that I have no evidence of, you're evil."

Well, in the Christian "recovery" program that I attended, we were all told that "salvation" ultimately comes from "accepting Jesus Christ". Nothing else seems to matter a whole lot as long as one doesn't engage in sexual perversions or substance abuse. If you abstain from those things, then you can dump toxic waste into rivers or sell children tobacco and it's no big deal. Just don't try to abort fetuses or watch porn. Those are the devil's work I'm told.

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, in the Christian "recovery" program that I attended, we were all told that "salvation" ultimately comes from "accepting Jesus Christ".

Turns out they're wrong. Salvation only comes to those who like stuff in their butts.

[Gary Childress]

Well, in the Christian "recovery" program that I attended, we were all told that "salvation" ultimately comes from "accepting Jesus Christ".

Turns out they're wrong. Salvation only comes to those who like stuff in their butts.

I doubt that is true either. Personally, I say, stay away from militarism, producing toxic chemicals, and producing large amounts of cheap disposable plastic trinkets that are worthless and will fill "landfills" quickly. Of course, that wasn't covered at all in the Christian "recovery" program I attended.

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, in the Christian "recovery" program that I attended, we were all told that "salvation" ultimately comes from "accepting Jesus Christ".

Turns out they're wrong. Salvation only comes to those who like stuff in their butts.

I doubt that is true either. Personally, I say, stay away from militarism, producing toxic chemicals, and producing large amounts of cheap disposable plastic trinkets that are worthless and will fill "landfills" quickly. Of course, that wasn't covered at all in the Christian "recovery" program I attended.

That's because doing all those things is actually required to get into heaven. In addition to the butt stuff.