Re: Failure of "I".
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:31 am
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
This round, the SOB in red.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:27 pmSpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:53 pmSo are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?
You tell me the answer to that question...
I can't know what you're actually trying to do, I can only say what it seems to me, that you're trying to do.
When I took philosophy we came to a so called thought experiment that they believed would make one think, instead it made me laugh, and it dropped philosophy down a notch, as to me believing that it had the final say on what is and is not knowledge. It was a first year students class, so I guess they expected 18 & 19 year olds fresh out of high school that they could impress with bull shit. But I was 36 and recently honorably discharged from the USN after working in, on and around multi-million dollar aircraft. In them, flying missions; on them, as preventative maintenance; and around them, maintaining their support equipment. I had left with 13 credit hours short of a technical degree, just an associates. Anyway, when they posed the "tree falling in the forest" 'thought experiment,' asking if it made any sound if no one was there to hear it, I just had to laugh. Because my job while flying sorties was all about sound and electromagnetic energy, as picked up by our various sensors, so I immediately saw the "thought experiment" as absurd. As everyone with the training I'd had knows, it certainly makes a sound, at least on this planet, with this atmosphere.
The question is an extension of the question of "Perception?"...how does perception relate to the existence of a phenomena. In these respects we go back to questions inherent within the base of quantum physics...something "physics" has not trumped yet without going to a form of metaphysics.
I have a problem with the current state of quantum physics, not that I don't believe there are sub atomic particles, rather I believe our understanding of how it all works is still in it's infancy.
In the above instance, science (physics) trumped philosophy, unless they were just joking...
I suspect that's what you're trying to do with your sentence above, I mean, I know what each word means, but together they just don't seem to jibe.
And working on an aircraft carrier
Not a carrier, I was on a patrol aircraft, far to large for a carrier. I did ASW work, that's: ANTI SUBMARINE WARFARE. Selflessly Protecting you and all that you love from the "Soviet Nuclear Threat" during the "Cold War." Unless of course you're in the USSR.
can be percieved as not jibing with the question presented...at least not with the argument presented. The impression appears that your argument is: "I experienced forced and violence
Nope it means "Stop speaking in riddles, speak simply so as to be understood by everyone. I hate conceded people. It means that I talked with people at the NASA AIMES RESEARCH CENTER in MTN. VIEW CALFORNIA and I understood every word they said and didn't get lost because they were trying to stroke their ego by attempting to talk over anyone's head. Sorry you were confused, see how I was considerate and explained to you those things you misunderstood due to my jargon or your ignorance/assumption. I expect the same from you. If you can't say it in layman's terms it means you don't understand it yourself, and you're just copying it out of some book.
Am I pissing you off? Well I'm not trying to. I just can't tell if you're trying to baffle me with BS or not, and it's frustrating. I can see now that you're capable of speaking like a normal human being, so I expect you to continue along those lines. I mean to say that I want to hear your well thought out argument, whether you're just parroting a book or not. I just want to come to grips with it so I can formulate my rebuttal. Or is that it? You just want the last "encrypted" word???
...the question is irrelevant"...when the question itself acted as the force which gave structure to the nature of your experience through a sense of self-reflection.
So I guess you see your mind as a vacuous vortex of simply being the absolute truth of the universe. Everyone questions. And to constantly question oneself is the only way to find and correct our failures and increase our triumphs. If not, then we don't grow. My point actually was that I have a reasonably high IQ. That in particular I can ferret out how things fit together. That while short sentences of larger words decreases ones time spent asserting propositions, it can be confusing to some. And that many that do so, are usually more concerned with themselves and their projected stature than they are actually getting a message across. Just my 60 years of observation.
And what may be the problem, is that I haven't memorized the entire dictionary so as to know every single definition for every single word, it's just too much work. Usually the original meaning of a word is the one I'm familiar with. Which is why I didn't go too much further in college, I was beginning to see how people get lost in words not really knowing what the hell they were saying, or so it surely seemed. I was never really interested in majoring or minoring in English. After all, I didn't have any problems understanding or speaking to people involved in aerospace. They begged me to stay, when I told them I was leaving. My 16 years of service had proven I was someone that could get the job done with a very high attention to detail, or so they said in my final evals.
So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?
Touche', yet you're the one that first grabbed your foil. I'm simply defending.
My point is that what we considering as two relative parts (an internal actual existence or external actual existence) are mediated through "I" as a part which is both composed of and composed both and in these respects the "I" exists as a continual median of change.
"What we considering," really? How about, "What we are considering." But as to your point, I only see one actual existence, and that the fact that it's multidimensional is of no real consequence. Often in philosophy I see hairs being created so as to try and split them, and I consider the act a fantasy. All of the I's may change, but then change is a constant of the universe, so called, time. Still the I is also a constant, as this particular I vessel, like all the others, has a distinct beginning and end. I was born, and no one else. I am me, and no one else, as I shall experience/understand things of an exclusive particular set, sequence, and intensity, and no one else. Then I shall die, and no one else. All the other I's shall come to be, their same unique particulars sets, sequences, and intensities of experience/understanding. Which are the differences between us. There is only ever the actual internal I.
sound1 [sound]uwot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:56 pmYou don't say what the 1st definition of sound was, but I suspect it was in that context that it was about the mind/body problem.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:13 pmSorry uwot, but as stated, and considering the 2nd definition of sound, it's not...
There is absolutely no sense that it's about any mind body problem.
No, but Descarte can be applied.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:40 pmThis round, the SOB in red.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:27 pmSpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:53 pm
So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?
You tell me the answer to that question...
I can't know what you're actually trying to do, I can only say what it seems to me, that you're trying to do.
Oh looks like we have a rainbow going...what I am trying to do? Destroy logic and use the ashes to build something new. One only has to look at the foundations of thoughts, we have used over the years, to look at the world which resulted from it.
When I took philosophy we came to a so called thought experiment that they believed would make one think, instead it made me laugh, and it dropped philosophy down a notch, as to me believing that it had the final say on what is and is not knowledge. It was a first year students class, so I guess they expected 18 & 19 year olds fresh out of high school that they could impress with bull shit. But I was 36 and recently honorably discharged from the USN after working in, on and around multi-million dollar aircraft. In them, flying missions; on them, as preventative maintenance; and around them, maintaining their support equipment. I had left with 13 credit hours short of a technical degree, just an associates. Anyway, when they posed the "tree falling in the forest" 'thought experiment,' asking if it made any sound if no one was there to hear it, I just had to laugh. Because my job while flying sorties was all about sound and electromagnetic energy, as picked up by our various sensors, so I immediately saw the "thought experiment" as absurd. As everyone with the training I'd had knows, it certainly makes a sound, at least on this planet, with this atmosphere.
The question is an extension of the question of "Perception?"...how does perception relate to the existence of a phenomena. In these respects we go back to questions inherent within the base of quantum physics...something "physics" has not trumped yet without going to a form of metaphysics.
I have a problem with the current state of quantum physics, not that I don't believe there are sub atomic particles, rather I believe our understanding of how it all works is still in it's infancy.
The same applies for metaphysics and logic.
In the above instance, science (physics) trumped philosophy, unless they were just joking...
I suspect that's what you're trying to do with your sentence above, I mean, I know what each word means, but together they just don't seem to jibe.
And working on an aircraft carrier
Not a carrier, I was on a patrol aircraft, far to large for a carrier. I did ASW work, that's: ANTI SUBMARINE WARFARE. Selflessly Protecting you and all that you love from the "Soviet Nuclear Threat" during the "Cold War." Unless of course you're in the USSR.
If it was so self-less than why rub it everyone's face. The USSR says the same thing "selflessly protecting you from the U.S. Capitalist pigs".
can be percieved as not jibing with the question presented...at least not with the argument presented. The impression appears that your argument is: "I experienced forced and violence
Nope it means "Stop speaking in riddles, speak simply so as to be understood by everyone. I hate conceded people. It means that I talked with people at the NASA AIMES RESEARCH CENTER in MTN. VIEW CALFORNIA and I understood every word they said and didn't get lost because they were trying to stroke their ego by attempting to talk over anyone's head. Sorry you were confused, see how I was considerate and explained to you those things you misunderstood due to my jargon or your ignorance/assumption. I expect the same from you. If you can't say it in layman's terms it means you don't understand it yourself, and you're just copying it out of some book.
Actually there is no riddle. The "I" has both subjective and objective elements which determine it, and the "I" as the relation of these subjective and objective elements observes that what we consider of the "I" is not merely limited to the individual but exists through groups of people (multiple "I"'s.)
The "I" is defined both through the self and the group and in these respects the "I" shares a nature of being unified in itself and existing through multiple extensions.
What we understand of the subjective self (the individual "I") is form from it's relations to other "I"'s and in these respects maintains a degree of objectivity in the respect these other's "I"'s as both seperate and disinterested form certain boundaries of the subjective experience itself and in effect objectify it.
So for example the subjective experience of "I" in me going to get something to eat, is determined by the nature of other "I"'s providing food service (cooking the food, cashier, etc.) which in itself is objective in the respect, that whether or not "I" experience them directly these "emotionally detached" existing actions effectively form my own experience. The objective act of the food being cooked, or the money being processed all form the subjective experience of the "I". Even the formation of objective truths, by observing boundaries of existence through "law's" or "theories", effect me subjectively (such as the objective argument of evolution forming and negating certain personal beliefs) effectively give structure to the subjective "I" and in fact objectify it.
We are not talking about "NASA" or "the military", quoting your past experience does not work as the base levels of these institutions are founded in highschool students where "
Am I pissing you off? Well I'm not trying to. I just can't tell if you're trying to baffle me with BS or not, and it's frustrating. I can see now that you're capable of speaking like a normal human being, so I expect you to continue along those lines. I mean to say that I want to hear your well thought out argument, whether you're just parroting a book or not. I just want to come to grips with it so I can formulate my rebuttal. Or is that it? You just want the last "encrypted" word???
Rebuttal against what? So whatever presented is automatically wrong?
...the question is irrelevant"...when the question itself acted as the force which gave structure to the nature of your experience through a sense of self-reflection.
So I guess you see your mind as a vacuous vortex of simply being the absolute truth of the universe. Everyone questions. And to constantly question oneself is the only way to find and correct our failures and increase our triumphs. If not, then we don't grow. My point actually was that I have a reasonably high IQ. That in particular I can ferret out how things fit together. That while short sentences of larger words decreases ones time spent asserting propositions, it can be confusing to some. And that many that do so, are usually more concerned with themselves and their projected stature than they are actually getting a message across. Just my 60 years of observation.
There is truth in everything.
And what may be the problem, is that I haven't memorized the entire dictionary so as to know every single definition for every single word, it's just too much work. Usually the original meaning of a word is the one I'm familiar with. Which is why I didn't go too much further in college, I was beginning to see how people get lost in words not really knowing what the hell they were saying, or so it surely seemed. I was never really interested in majoring or minoring in English. After all, I didn't have any problems understanding or speaking to people involved in aerospace. They begged me to stay, when I told them I was leaving. My 16 years of service had proven I was someone that could get the job done with a very high attention to detail, or so they said in my final evals.
So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?
Touche', yet you're the one that first grabbed your foil. I'm simply defending.
What foil?
My point is that what we considering as two relative parts (an internal actual existence or external actual existence) are mediated through "I" as a part which is both composed of and composed both and in these respects the "I" exists as a continual median of change.
"What we considering," really? How about, "What we are considering." But as to your point, I only see one actual existence, and that the fact that it's multidimensional is of no real consequence. Often in philosophy I see hairs being created so as to try and split them, and I consider the act a fantasy. All of the I's may change, but then change is a constant of the universe, so called, time. Still the I is also a constant, as this particular I vessel, like all the others, has a distinct beginning and end. I was born, and no one else. I am me, and no one else, as I shall experience/understand things of an exclusive particular set, sequence, and intensity, and no one else. Then I shall die, and no one else. All the other I's shall come to be, their same unique particulars sets, sequences, and intensities of experience/understanding. Which are the differences between us. There is only ever the actual internal I.
P.S. Sorry if I've insulted your writing abilities, and English is your second language, as in such a case, you're doing much better than "I."
Well yeah, but the key word is sensation. It is how the mechanical waves produce this sensation that we really don't know how to answer and is the crux of the mind/body problem.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:13 pm1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
uwot, sound was there first, it predated any animal life on this planet.
I disagree, don't you understand a tape recording machine. The human brain, the same thing. The ears, the microphone; the nerves, the wires that carry the analog/digital signal; the brain, the tape. That we haven't found a way to cut a live human open while maintaining their life just long enough to know exactly how it works, is of no consequence. But surely we've done similar horrible things like that in the past, in the name of scientific research. I shudder to think.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:09 pmWell yeah, but the key word is sensation. It is how the mechanical waves produce this sensation that we really don't know how to answer and is the crux of the mind/body problem.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:13 pm1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
uwot, sound was there first, it predated any animal life on this planet.
In principle, but I've never sat down, had a pint and a chat with one.
Well, just as I'm the sort of atheist that doesn't believe that god exists, rather than one who believes that god doesn't exist; I don't believe that mind is supernatural, rather than believe that mind isn't supernatural.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:14 pmWhy an atheist lends credibility to a ghost in the machine theory, is beyond me. Well? Why?
Maybe so, but that still leaves the question of how the brain generates consciousness.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:14 pmThe abilities we have are due to the biochemistry of the body, the brain being no exception.
The nature of "I" as qualitatively dependent upon the culture which we both form and forms us takes on a dual quantitative nature in the respect the "I" as both groups and composing groups exists as temporal.Greta wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:09 am What abut the "I" of a person raised by wolves rather than humans?
A huge portion of what we consider to be "I" is our culture. Any similarities in tendencies between the wofl-raised child or if raised by people would be trivial - aggression and cooperativeness, dominance and submission, etc.
The real fireworks - the aspects of consciousness and identity that we value - start when the maturing human mind is immersed in human culture. We have an identity within a community, judged via comparison with others in the community. That judgement is not an objective measure based on all of known reality.
So, no, we aren't really what we think we are. What we actually are ...
Very well said.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:38 pmNo, but Descarte can be applied.
"I think therefore I am"
Observes the act of thinking as an action that determines the "I", but it is the "action" that determines the existance of the "I". This action does not have to be limited to "thinking", it can be any action as a form of "movement".
In these respects "I think therefore I am" can be replaced with just "I am" in the respect "am" universalizes all possible actions as "being" itself.