What do you think of this claim?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

What do you think of this claim?

Post by The Voice of Time » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:04 pm

We become meaning when we diversify, and we diversify when we react. We ---are--- reaction, both in type, shape, consistency and origin... in every single way, we are reaction, and at the moment we stop being reaction, we stop entirely being anything else but the black background of the universe that lies sleeping, waiting to come into the consciousness of living things.
Can it be true? Is there any way in which we are not subject to reaction but still participating in a moment of time?

tbieter
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: What do you think of this claim?

Post by tbieter » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:34 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:
We become meaning when we diversify, and we diversify when we react. We ---are--- reaction, both in type, shape, consistency and origin... in every single way, we are reaction, and at the moment we stop being reaction, we stop entirely being anything else but the black background of the universe that lies sleeping, waiting to come into the consciousness of living things.
Can it be true? Is there any way in which we are not subject to reaction but still participating in a moment of time?
reaction
3. action in response to some influence, event, etc.: the nation's reaction to the president's speech.
4. Physiology . action in response to a stimulus, as of the system or of a nerve, muscle, etc.
The claim is true.
Referring to the above definitions, in this world (the world, investigated for the ultimate causes of all things, by the philosopher) I won't be subject to reaction when I am dead.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What do you think of this claim?

Post by The Voice of Time » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:40 pm

Well, "you" won't exist when you're dead, so obviously not xD A corpse will take your place.

As always I totally object to the use of a dictionary to say anything about the meaning of a word since we all continuously develop the meaning of words, especially in this context where reaction can be thought of as having proprietary meaning associated with scientific studies of reaction for instance, when I use it in a purely generic sense that strips it off all specific instances of use which unfortunately is too often the pre-occupation of dictionaries that fail to account for the vast variety and flexibility of human language.

tbieter
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: What do you think of this claim?

Post by tbieter » Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:23 pm

[quote="The Voice of Time"]Well, "you" won't exist when you're dead, so obviously not xD A corpse will take your place.

As always I totally object to the use of a dictionary to say anything about the meaning of a word since we all continuously develop the meaning of words, especially in this context where reaction can be thought of as having proprietary meaning associated with scientific studies of reaction for instance, when I use it in a purely generic sense that strips it off all specific instances of use which unfortunately is too often the pre-occupation of dictionaries that fail to account for the vast variety and flexibility of human language.[/quote

What is your definition of 'reaction'? Or that of the author?

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What do you think of this claim?

Post by The Voice of Time » Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:11 am

I am the author ^^ I just put quotation marks to separate the claim from the perception of the claim.

Reaction would be something that follows in response from something preceding it in time, the direction of the response being interpretable, meaning that we'd have to set up rules, like in an ordinary language, from where in space (or non-time) the response would be coming from. Whether it's the same location, or some law of physics that would use a variety of factors to ascertain the way in which time reacts to itself from one instance of time to the next.

tbieter
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: What do you think of this claim?

Post by tbieter » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:15 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:I am the author ^^ I just put quotation marks to separate the claim from the perception of the claim.

Reaction would be something that follows in response from something preceding it in time, the direction of the response being interpretable, meaning that we'd have to set up rules, like in an ordinary language, from where in space (or non-time) the response would be coming from. Whether it's the same location, or some law of physics that would use a variety of factors to ascertain the way in which time reacts to itself from one instance of time to the next.
Thanks for the clarification. The claim is reasonable as long as it is qualified by the uncertainty principle. Have you considered the principle? Rules can only be approximations, always subject to deviations..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What do you think of this claim?

Post by The Voice of Time » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:26 am

I think some knowledge is expanding and not fully changing, and I think that would be true for what I'm talking about. You might find various ways to add or adjust, but it'll still have practically the same foundation.

tbieter
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: What do you think of this claim?

Post by tbieter » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:29 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:Well, "you" won't exist when you're dead, so obviously not xD A corpse will take your place.

As always I totally object to the use of a dictionary to say anything about the meaning of a word since we all continuously develop the meaning of words, especially in this context where reaction can be thought of as having proprietary meaning associated with scientific studies of reaction for instance, when I use it in a purely generic sense that strips it off all specific instances of use which unfortunately is too often the pre-occupation of dictionaries that fail to account for the vast variety and flexibility of human language.
My favorite philosopher is Michael Oakeshott. I just got the new book, Notebooks 1922-, which contains this thought on the use of definition:

"Thought must have a starting place - it can have none better than a good definition. As a particular thing coordinates the mind & leads it to the truth; so a good definition centres the mind upon the essential nature of a particular thing & keeps it from "useless" speculation."

But, he also teaches:

"Words have, nor can have, no definite meaning. It depends wholly upon the hearer what he understands by them & the meaning he reads into them. We must use language accurately and reduce to a minimum the danger of misunderstanding from this quarter."

Please clarify your statement that you used "reaction" in a "purely generic sense". Would it not be more accurate for the reader's understanding if you had defined reaction in the purely generic sense?

Richard Weaver, another favorite of mine, will often define a term of importance at the beginning of his essay.

What say you. :?


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IAE ... s-os-doi_0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Weaver

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: What do you think of this claim?

Post by The Voice of Time » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:34 am

If the reader knows what "generic" means it shouldn't really be much an issue. Generic means it can be wildly varying instances while still remaining under the same classification. So obviously I meant that my use of the word was not to be narrowed down to anything too circumstantial, as that would imply it was bound by those circumstances instead of its generic flexibility as a term.

What is special about generic meanings is that for example in the sciences, reaction can have a meaning related to both physics, psychology, and so forth. In their circumstances they are all rather specific, well-defined and narrowed. A generic understanding of reaction, would incorporate all of them, being all at once, but not to the degree that it's bound by the circumstances of each one.

Meaning that some property of all the uses of reaction, was contained in a simple generic definition... my explanation in the above post being an attempt at bringing up an accurate detail of its generic build-up... that was given circumstantial properties when it was required for the people who used it, that it should be understood more narrowly. And scientists loves when it has narrow meaning because it can be standardized jargon that makes the flow of communication that much more easier.

When I used the word, I did not give it any circumstance. Hence, it dwells in its generic composition of truths.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests