Re: In what sense is Descartes's dualism wrong?
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:17 am
No, symbols are not in minds. Symbols externalise the contents of minds.
Symbols have a reality. These are symbols on your screen right now. They are real.Satyavan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:07 pmThey can't have any reality in-itself since they are already figments and virtual projections IN us. It can't be otherwise. And these figments we then would like to put as basic stuff from which everything else comes from? One can't posit as essence of the world something which is already an illusion.
These real symbols on your screen don't have any inherent meaning.
There was the intended meaning (when I uttered them)
And there is the interpreted meaning (when you read them).
OK... if the mind discerns, and consciousness is aware:Satyavan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:07 pmOk, colloquially I would say that "mind" is that part and inner plane in us that thinks, reflects, has analytic and rational functions, represents and organizes concepts by models discerns, discriminates, is thinking intelligence, is intellect. It is not consciousness. Because consciousness is pure awareness, pure 'beingness', pure existence pure sentience, absolute silence, spaceless, immobile, featureless, the knower who knows oneself which does not need mental constructs to know itself.
1. What discerns between mind and consciousness?
2. What is aware of that distinction?
You are using those words. They sound meaningful to you. If they were not meaningful you wouldn't be using them.
I am of the precisely opposite opinion. Mind and consciousness are one and the same thing. The distinction exists only in as much as it's useful drawing it towards understanding oneself.
I understand myself, so I don't find the distinction useful. My identity is not fragmented. I am all of me.
OK.... so why do you draw a distinction between being and consciousness?
That's what I am telling you - they aren't circular. They are recursive!
So "consciousness" and "being" are not mind constructs then? This is so confusing!
I am talking about myself. What about myself could possibly go beyond myself?
I am looking inside. That's what I am saying! Looking inside myself is recursive.
Looking inside the looker.
Cool. I can go with that: what cognitive process draws distinctions?
What determines what is a fallacy and what is "not a fallacy" ?Satyavan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:07 pmIt is a question to see clearly what it is as it is without constructing on it concepts. Whereas, if one conflates the two then we will be confused by things like we would by equating milk with cheese, ice with liquid water or waves with the ocean. Of course they are intimately related, but you will fall in lots of fallacies and misrepresentations and misinterpretations if you will take them as synonymous.
I am appealing to the rule-following paradox.
Well. When I use the word "I" I am referring to the witness.
But then again, when I use the words mind, consciousness, I, witness - I am really referring to the same thing.
Me. What else could I be referring to?
So the witness is ALSO aware? Is it aware of consciousness?
Is consciousness aware of the witness?
Is the mind aware of the witness?
Who's aware of who in your zoo?
I don't want to explain consciousness - I want to define it. Focus
And I agree with you. But as I already said, I am not looking for an explanation! I am looking for a definition.
It's not self-evident to me what the definition of "consciousness" is.
Furthermore: it is not self-evident to me what the definition of "definition" is!
What is "definition"?