knowing the knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dimebag
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Dimebag » Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:20 pm

..nameless.. wrote:
Dimebag wrote:Obviously the multiple drafts model means nothing to you.
If there is something that you care to present in refutation of something I say, please, feel free. But this is unworthy.
There are many 'models' that are crap! Much obsolete garbage all over the place.
Any 'model' of which you care to get my perspective, just let me know.
But I'm disinclined to investing all this time and energy thoughtfully and respectfully responding to your questions, when without even acknowledging any points that I offer, one way or another, you just move right along...

I am unfamiliar with the theory that you blythely mention, and I'm not going to look it up. If it somehow refutes something I offer, I would have heard of it a long time ago, or, please, show me!
I'm always open...
The philosopher, the scientist, the artist, always lives in the arena of critical examination!

What I am offering (the Perspective) is worth at least a serious effort to understand it (that is what happens in a philosophical discussion), and then, when you do, if you still have questions, we go from there.
Theories can always be altered or dumped. The third option is tentative acceptance, even accepted axiomatically.

What I offer is the often disputed, as yet unrefuted, all inclusive, 'theory of everything'.
Such big talk just begs for refutation, no?
If/when it comes, it will be wonderful to watch me publically crash and burn (but i rebuild even better)! But 'till then...
First understand, then refute (if possible).
peace
I'm sorry, but to fully explain the complexity of the multiple drafts model in full would require first, me to re-read Dennett's Consciousness Explained, which I don't have the time or willpower to do right now, and for me then to summarise it in its totality and present it to you in a book critique. It would be much more worthwhile if you went and read it yourself, and then you can make your own judgements on it. Its worth a read for sure if you are at all interested in Consciousness. It is however an extremely difficult read, which is why I prefer not to go back to it just yet.

My attempt to deflect your points rests in the need to draw your attention to the idea that Consciousness is not actually experienced within a cartesian theatre as is most typically imagined, with a dualistic account. There is no central area where 'it all comes together'. This means that the time we experience certain things might not necessarily agree with the time of other subsequent experiences which would normally accompany that experience.

For instance, we can perceive certain things which are extremely quicky forgotten, however previous knowledge from our day earlier can interfere with that memory and alter it. When we are later asked to recall things, when we come to recall the memory which we quickly forgot, it may be recalled in the altered form. This is what I mean by destructive intereference, and is an example of the Orwellian hypothesis which is presented in consciousness explained.

So experience is extremely dependent on memory, recollection and the preservation of that memory in its original form, and memories can be altered extremely easily. Now I am not saying that once you experience something, that this experience can be altered, that is impossible and would require some kind of time travel, so the idea that our experience itself, or one "quail" of experience can be altered so that the original experience never actually happened, is absurd. But what I am saying is our assertions about our experiences are constantly being altered, so much so that upon recollection (which is also an experience) an original memory can be changed to something totally foreign or incongruent with the original experience. Remember, our conscious experience is a stream with many layers, and those layers are constantly being overwritten, to the point where an experience which is overwritten may as well have never happened, as our recollectons of that experience will only reflect the altered version. That is what I mean by our experiences being subject to change. And when the original experience occurs very quickly and isn't actively attended to, the later recollection appear more real than the original, which was barely conscious.

At any rate, you must read Consciousness explained by Daniel Dennett. It may not sit well with you, and it didn't for me, but you can take away from it what you want and discard the rest.

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by ..nameless.. » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:09 am

Dimebag wrote:I'm sorry, but to fully explain the complexity of the multiple drafts model in full would require first, me to re-read Dennett's Consciousness Explained, which I don't have the time or willpower to do right now,

My experience with Dennett's thoughts leave me seriously questioning his biasses, agendas, and how they interfere with his philosophical practice.
I'm uninpressed with his 'thoughts' to say the least.
I'd be happy to take him on point by point, sometime well after I'm dead, I hope! How boring and repetitious it would be!
Bias and agenda have no place in philosophy or science!
and for me then to summarise it in its totality and present it to you in a book critique.
I guess that we can just leave it on the shelf for now...
Its worth a read for sure if you are at all interested in Consciousness.
It is however an extremely difficult read, which is why I prefer not to go back to it just yet.

I have been studying Consciousness for many decades, many!
I've read it all already! There is not anything 'new'. There are more and more 'exclusive' theories, some so convoluted and desperate that even the theorist cannot make clear sense.
If you clearly know your subject, communicating it to those willing to do some work (at a 'layman's level, at least) attempting to understand!
I am already willing to accept his theories, whether or not I think them Universally valid, or not, as truths, sub-sets of the Truth, 'sub-sets' of Consciousness (Perspectives perceive percepts (units of perception); one moment = one percept; all are units of Consciousness!)!
But philosophically and scientifically... whatever...

My attempt to deflect your points rests in the need to draw your attention to the idea that Consciousness is not actually experienced within cartesian theatre as is most typically imagined, with a dualistic account.
Ahhh, more 'Dennett'.
The features of Reality 'mind/thoughts' and 'body' that some consider a 'problem', are 'features' of Reality fully integrated, consistant and explained in my philosophy. What the 'cartesians' would have liked to do, out there in Cartesia, but have not!
I have just read some of the wiki on Dennett's derisive use of the term. The only 'theater' that Dennett is playing is his own, keep face in public, collect funds! Attempting to ridicule another theory is a fallacy and not a refutation.
It is said that;
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer
His showmanship is not philosophy.
But the grants and book sales are important also! What else can he do?
Sorry, I don't take the 'showman' seriously, philosophically.
There is no central area where 'it all comes together'.

Depends how that is defined.
i have learned as soon as you say, "there is no (fill in the blank)", one learns the error of his ways! Everything exists! There only 'Is'!
My own personal experience refutes your assertion!
Consciousness is One!
Everywhere is the "central area where it all comes together"!
It's like microbes.
They exist, but for us, they didn't exist, due to our perceptual limitations. As we paid our dues, built a microscope, we have subsequently found the little critters all over the place!
The difference is not the microbes, but our limitations (Perspectives).
Everywhere is the 'center' of that without context, without limitation or definition or qualities...
This means that the time we experience certain things might not necessarily agree with the time of other subsequent experiences which would normally accompany that experience.
All 'experiences', all 'perceptions' occur, exist, Now!
'Time' only exists as 'thought' ('memories', 'imagination', 'analytical', 'feelings'... all forms of 'thought)! Such thoughts of 'time' are seen and experienced uniquely by every Perspective of that 'thought' every moment of existence!
consciousness explained.
Vain oxymoron!
Especially as he cannot!
All 'explanations' are 'subsets', thus limited in 'explaining' the complete 'set' (Consciousness)!!
So experience is extremely dependent on memory,

I would say that 'memory-thoughts' are an integral feature of the reality that we experience/perceive.
Without 'tyhought' we are still Here! Now! Doing what we must!
"'Cause' and 'effect' is a clumsy way of saying mutually arising features of the Same Event!"
recollection and the preservation of that memory in its original form, and memories can be altered extremely easily.

There is no 'storage' capacity for memories. Perception is a momentary thing! When our little telescope of perspective points at a 'memory', it perceives that which is 'in front of it'. Other Perspectives point away. They don't 'forget', they no longer perceive. Telescope points elsewhere. One moment we 'remember' (perceive a memory) another we don't, another we do...
The 'memory' is NEVER perceived the same way (Perspective) twice!
an original memory can be changed
Not any moment of existence, ever, can be 'changed'! Every moment is as it Is! Now!
At any rate, you must read Consciousness explained by Daniel Dennett. It may not sit well with you, and it didn't for me, but you can take away from it what you want and discard the rest.
I do appreciate you sharing your Dennett with me, but I guess that you might have guessed from the hints that I subtly left lying around that he's not exactly my cup or meat! (I never claimed not to have quite the ego! *__- )

That 'center, where it's ALL True' is not in the 'book' or the 'guru' or the 'scripture' or the 'odometer'.. it is US, the (eye of the) perceiver!
We can read/perceive anything and turn it into 'gold'!
It's all True!
We Are the Philosopher's Stone!
Last edited by ..nameless.. on Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dimebag
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Dimebag » Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:20 am

...nameless... wrote:My experience with Dennett's thoughts leave me seriously questioning his biasses, agendas, and how they interfere with his philosophical practice.
I'm uninpressed with his 'thoughts' to say the least.
I'd be happy to take him on point by point, sometime well after I'm dead, I hope! How boring and repetitious it would be!
Bias and agenda have no place in philosophy or science!
Honestly, I don't really like the way Dennett goes about his business, I find him to be slightly abrasive. But despite this, there is much to be gleaned from his ideas. And thankfully, the ultimate conclusions he comes to don't necessarily always follow from the ideas he presents, which means even if you don't agree with his conclusions you can still extract some extremely useful knowledge to aid in understanding consciousness. So to throw away his ideas altogether simply because you dislike him and what he stands for is to do yourself a disservice.
I have been studying Consciousness for many decades, many!
I've read it all already! There is not anything 'new'. There are more and more 'exclusive' theories, some so convoluted and desperate that even the theorist cannot make clear sense.
If you clearly know your subject, communicating it to those willing to do some work (at a 'layman's level, at least) attempting to understand!
I am already willing to accept his theories, whether or not I think them Universally valid, or not, as truths, sub-sets of the Truth, 'sub-sets' of Consciousness (Perspectives perceive percepts (units of perception); one moment = one percept; all are units of Consciousness!)!
But philosophically and scientifically... whatever...
So you have read it all, but are now choosing to refraining from reading anything new? How can you ever hope to understand consciousness if you choose to restrict yourself? Any new understanding in consciousness will come from technological advances, so you should watch this space.
Ahhh, more 'Dennett'.
The features of Reality 'mind/thoughts' and 'body' that some consider a 'problem', are 'features' of Reality fully integrated, consistant and explained in my philosophy. What the 'cartesians' would have liked to do, out there in Cartesia, but have not!
I have just read some of the wiki on Dennett's derisive use of the term. The only 'theater' that Dennett is playing is his own, keep face in public, collect funds! Attempting to ridicule another theory is a fallacy and not a refutation.
It is said that;
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer
His showmanship is not philosophy.
But the grants and book sales are important also! What else can he do?
Sorry, I don't take the 'showman' seriously, philosophically.
You need to forget that it is Dennett who Authored these ideas because it is getting in the way of you understanding them. If you instantly dismiss an idea just because you don't like its source then you are in no position to critique it. Read it thouroughly, understand it, then critique it (critique means acknowledging strong points as well as weaknesses) otherwise you are just engaging in a smear campaign. Let an ideas logic be the ultimate judge of its validity.
Depends how that is defined.
i have learned as soon as you say, "there is no (fill in the blank)", one learns the error of his ways! Everything exists! There only 'Is'!
My own personal experience refutes your assertion!
Consciousness is One!
Everywhere is the "central area where it all comes together"!
It's like microbes.
They exist, but for us, they didn't exist, due to our perceptual limitations. As we paid our dues, built a microscope, we have subsequently found the little critters all over the place!
The difference is not the microbes, but our limitations (Perspectives).
Everywhere is the 'center' of that without context, without limitation or definition or qualities...
One should not let appearances get in the way of truth. It seems to us that we have free will, that we are the author of our actions, but the whole idea is nonsensical and neuroscience is making the idea seem less and less possible. You say everywhere is the central area where it comes together, but if it is separated it has not come together, so I think we might agree that there is no central area in the brain which houses our conscious experience. Our consciousness may be ONE, but not always (split brain patients for example), and our consciousness is certainly not one with everyone elses as much as you may feel connected with your neighbors and feek you share the ability to experience. Yes we all experience, and all experience is consciousness, but that doesn't make it all one. All matter belongs to the category of matter; that doesn't make all matter one, it just makes an individual unit of matter part of a collective.
There is no 'storage' capacity for memories. Perception is a momentary thing! When our little telescope of perspective points at a 'memory', it perceives that which is 'in front of it'. Other Perspectives point away. They don't 'forget', they no longer perceive. Telescope points elsewhere. One moment we 'remember' (perceive a memory) another we don't, another we do...
The 'memory' is NEVER perceived the same way (Perspective) twice!
Really? So how is recollection possible if a memory cannot persist over time? The way you use the analogy of a telescope pointing at a memory shows to me that you believe something perceives memories, rather than memories merely becoming conscious. What good is a telescope if you have no eyes? There is no inner homunculus to experience things for us (in my opinion), but rather our memories, our perceptions become conscious, and this is possible when there is nowhere in the brain where it must all come together.
Not any moment of existence, ever, can be 'changed'! Every moment is as it Is! Now!
No it can't, but you have agreed that our experience occurs in moments of now. For an experience to persist longer than a few moments it must become a memory or it is lost forever and for all purposes, never happened. In order for our mind to make any sense of the world, our experiences must persist longer than a fraction of a second, which is where memory comes in handy, and there are many different kinds of memory. So experiences become memories or they are lost. Those memories are then invoked when required, to the point where they are also experiences or perceptions. So if an experience becomes encoded in memory, and is later attended to but has been altered, it can be recollected differently to how it was originally experienced. You claimed as much when you said "a memory is never perceived the same way twice". This is what I mean by an experience being altered, and am in no way inferring that a perception can somehow be erased and replaced with a different one as that involves time travel. Yes, once something happends it can not unhappen, but if a conscious experience is not remembered correctly and becomes encoded incorrectly, when we recall it later our experience will now have changed compared with the original.

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by ..nameless.. » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:15 am

Dimebag wrote:Honestly, I don't really like the way Dennett goes about his business, I find him to be slightly abrasive. But despite this, there is much to be gleaned from his ideas.

Unless you can point out what he can say that might be of interest to me, what i have seen and heard disinclines me to 'waste' further time.
If you can show me something specifically relevent to the discussion, i'm willing to discuss it. But the suggestion to read another book because I might get something from it leaves me cold. I have never heard a philosophy as Universally inclusive and simple and irrefutable as mine. I'll take on all commers, but I don't need to hunt them up.
So to throw away his ideas altogether simply because you dislike him and what he stands for is to do yourself a disservice.
I can find the metaphysical gold in the 'Cat in the Hat'!
I can translate anything into truth!
I don't "dislike him", I do not know him 'personally', but I do not respect his 'philosophy'.
Again, toss me something relevent and I'll critically examine it with you, but other than that, I'm bored of talking of nebulous Dennettry! That's all the free advertising he gets from me! *__-
So you have read it all, but are now choosing to refraining from reading anything new? How can you ever hope to understand consciousness if you choose to restrict yourself?

No one can ever understand Consciousness!!!
Repeat self, repeat self, repeat self!
Show me one 'complete' definition of Consciousness, and I'll tear it to philosophical/scientific shreds before your eyes!
There is not anything 'new' that I have heard that is relevent. All other theories/definitions are subsets of the complete 'Set' that I offer.
I'm bored with the "I" "I" "I"s already, ego tired...

Unless you can offer some evidence in refutation, i need not go looking. I'm right here!

I'm sure that there is a De...tt website where you can find a knowledgable fan that would be willing to come here and discuss that which you feel relevent. Otherwise... I have no reason to read his book, and you seem unable to offer me one.

So shall we lett it rest pending new and relevent data?
Any new understanding in consciousness will come from technological advances, so you should watch this space.

Thats not sandpaper you hear, thats my dry eyes rolling around!!
No matter how advanced your toaster, it will never explain the matrix in which it exists, Consciousness!
That which has no context, Consciousness/Reality... cannot be defined much less 'understood'.
It Is that it Is!
One should not let appearances get in the way of truth.

Truth is all inclusive! Not anything can "get in the way of Truth"!
All 'appearances' are true!
It seems to us that we have free will, that we are the author of our actions, but the whole idea is nonsensical and neuroscience is making the idea seem less and less possible.

Old news.
We have 'feelings' (thoughts) of 'free-will/choice', thats all. The notion fails completely scientifically and philosophically! It always ends in paradox (a sure sign of error)!
Nice to see neuroscience catching up.
You say everywhere is the central area where it comes together, but if it is separated it has not come together
Everywhere is the center in that which has no context!
Three dinensionally, everywhere is the center of a sphere without limits, without boundaries. Thought paints a grid over everything and perceives 'seperation'.
It is as/in 'thought' alone that subject/object distinctions are perceived! No thought = no such distinctions perceived.

Do the O2 atoms and the H atoms come together when you take your eye from the microscope lens, to become water again?
It's a matter of Perspective of the One Reality of water!
, so I think we might agree that there is no central area in the brain which houses our conscious experience.

Of course I agree!
I never intimated such nonsense!
'Materialism' is an obsolete theory!
it just makes an individual unit of matter part of a collective.
All individual 'units of matter' comprise the One Reality feature of 'matter'!
There is no, nor can there be, any evidence that Consciousness is multiple!
The mystics and philosophers have known this for millennia! Even quantum physics has found this truth!
Even 'classical physics' has declared that there can be no definitive place where onje 'thing' stops, and something else begins!
There is no definitive dividing line between you and me or the sun and dreams!
None has ever been found! You might say 'yet', and I would reply that all theories are tentative, pending further evidence/data.
Really? So how is recollection possible if a memory cannot persist over time?

What you call 'recollection' is the same as 'memory', as far as I can see!
It 'feels' as if we are looking at some 'film of the past', but you are still perceiving a 'thought', in this case, a 'memory', Here! Now!
There is no 'past', there is Here! Now!

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"
('Thought' 'unzips' the file... 'Time' exists as uniquely perceived 'thoughts'.)
The way you use the analogy of a telescope pointing at a memory shows to me that you believe something perceives memories, rather than memories merely becoming conscious. What good is a telescope if you have no eyes?
Consciousness/Reality... cannot be perceived because there IS NO CONTEXT! No features! The inherent limitations in all us unique Perspectives enable 'features' of the Whole to be Perceived as they all are contextual!
A circle ain't a circle without a 'ring' around it!
Something to 'seperate' the 'inside' of the circle from the 'outside'. Context.
The ineffable cannot be directly completely perceived but by Perspectives. And the appearance of a Perspective and it's equal and opposite Perspective spontaneously annihilate upon perception. Again, the One complete Reality, Consciousness, cannot be perceived in it's entirety.
Perspectives are all it's got for 'Self!' Knowledge!.
Not any moment of existence, ever, can be 'changed'! Every moment is as it Is! Now!
No it can't, but you have agreed that our experience occurs in moments of now. For an experience to persist longer than a few moments

Not anything in existence/the entire Universe/Reality..., ever, lasts longer than a 'Planck' moment! (see above)
it must become a memory or it is lost forever and for all purposes, never happened. In order for our mind to make any sense of the world, our experiences must persist longer than a fraction of a second,
Thats what thoughts do, they 'fragment' (like an exploded diagram) that they might find the patterns of reconstruction back to the One. Complete Knowledge, Omniscience requires knowledge from the micro to the macro (yes, they are two Perspectives of One Reality!)! The thoughts break stuff into byte sized easily digestible pieces. We can see how 'electrons' work, what they are... We perceive 'thoughts' along with 'feelings' of understanding! Omni means ALL understanding, ALL ignorant, ALL knowledgable, all Perspectives... Consciousness is One Omni 'Self!'! Call it God, or Tao... it doesnt matter, it is different Perspectives of the One Reality.
which is where memory comes in handy, and there are many different kinds of memory. So experiences become memories or they are lost.
Is that some sort of metaphysical magical maneuver?
A perception 'becomes' a memory? No, 'memories' are perceived!
Perception doesn't 'become' anything! All that exists is perceived!
"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - (op cit)
but if a conscious experience is not remembered correctly and becomes encoded incorrectly, when we recall it later our experience will now have changed compared with the original.
There is no definitive evidence that 'memories' are anything other than a 'memory' and not necessarily 'tied' to any other 'action/moment'!
Just because you remember something does not mean that it actually happened!
The Reality of the moment is that you are perceiving a 'memory'. That's all.
'Linearity' is only one Perspective of Reality. That's what thoughts offer, a 'lens' to examine. Other than as thought, Reality is holistic, not linear (as per science and philosophy).
I am offering the holistic picture as I see it.
It is the Universally inclusive theory. It includes the linear Perspective, and all others!

Just think of all the questions that would be answered; all the 'psychic' phenomena, super-locality, 'deja vous', the list is endless!
Ponder it for a moment. Just axiomatically accept, for the moment, that everything IS True, that Consciousness/We are all a Unity of One!
Just accept it as a 'what if' and ponder the 'repercussions', the waves emanate like pond ripples...
Repercussions socially, technologically, financially, access to health care wise, the 'poor' wise...
This is PEACE brother!
Understanding our Oneness is the healing of the 130,000 years of violent schizo-sapiens madness, our evolution into homo-novus, New Man.
The planet will be Universally 'Enlightened' (which is about the all inclusive 'Oneness' that I offer)!
The Heart, the knowledge of the mystics, the enlightened is merging with the Head (science/philosophy).
The New Man is the healed integration of his previously 'fractured' Perspective.
Can finally live at peace (at-One-ment) with the environment ('Self!'!), of which we are all features!
One Omni- 'Self!'!

Dimebag
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Dimebag » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:38 am

I am slightly hesitant to post the following, but it seems I have not much choice, other than to not comment at all or to change the subject. Forgive me for any snide comments I might have written, they are not supposed to be personal attacks but rather retorts against your opinion, which are frankly, very polarized, vague, and difficult to interpret. I have nothing against you, but the way you discuss consciousness frustrates me, as it is already such a difficult subject and using language which is intentionally vague and misleading is not doing anyone any favors.
...nameless... wrote:Unless you can point out what he can say that might be of interest to me, what i have seen and heard disinclines me to 'waste' further time.
If you can show me something specifically relevent to the discussion, i'm willing to discuss it. But the suggestion to read another book because I might get something from it leaves me cold. I have never heard a philosophy as Universally inclusive and simple and irrefutable as mine. I'll take on all commers, but I don't need to hunt them up.
I have been pointing that out this whole time, what I have been saying are not my ideas. What i have been saying is extremely relevant, however you seem to be less interesting in discussing consciousness and more interested in selling your all inclusive theory, while denying that anyone else has a semblance of a point. Good luck with having a conversation with yourelf. So far I have not heard anything amazingly enlightening in your theory. In fact, so far your theory seems to defy all attempts to express it in words, as it disappears before your eyes as you read it. If you wish to put forth your theory of consciousness, please do it clearly, free of riddles and buddhist rhetoric for all to understand. Im not interested in reading a Dr Seuss book.
I can find the metaphysical gold in the 'Cat in the Hat'!
I can translate anything into truth!
I don't "dislike him", I do not know him 'personally', but I do not respect his 'philosophy'.
Again, toss me something relevent and I'll critically examine it with you, but other than that, I'm bored of talking of nebulous Dennettry! That's all the free advertising he gets from me! *__-
Im sure you can, being the luinguistical alchemist that you are, and I bet you believe it to. Once again, forget his name, focus on the ideas...... Your really not good at this are you. Stop latching onto a name. You are the one who keeps bringing him up. Forget him!
No one can ever understand Consciousness!!!
Repeat self, repeat self, repeat self!
Show me one 'complete' definition of Consciousness, and I'll tear it to philosophical/scientific shreds before your eyes!
There is not anything 'new' that I have heard that is relevent. All other theories/definitions are subsets of the complete 'Set' that I offer.
I'm bored with the "I" "I" "I"s already, ego tired...

Unless you can offer some evidence in refutation, i need not go looking. I'm right here!

I'm sure that there is a De...tt website where you can find a knowledgable fan that would be willing to come here and discuss that which you feel relevent. Otherwise... I have no reason to read his book, and you seem unable to offer me one.

So shall we lett it rest pending new and relevent data?
Well we can sure try. That is what this is all about. You seem to be trying to take apart any semblance of a theory here (while inserting your own home brewed vaporous 'law of "soul dynamics"'), that is totally useless in our understanding of consciousness and only serves to free our minds of worry about such things. That is not what I seek to do, nor anyone else here.

Again, not interested in discussing him, only consciousness. I have told you my ideas now, several times, quite clearly you will agree. Now you tell me yours, without riddles, poetry, metaphors and any other linguistic trickery. All i have heard so far is non-dualist rhetoric, no new information there. I've done that, not interested in never being able to know anything, that is of no use to me.
No one can ever understand Consciousness!!! random ego spouting, random ego spouting, random ego spouting
Show me one 'complete' definition of Consciousness, and I'll tear it to philosophical/scientific shreds before your eyes!
No... We'll never understand consciousness with that attitude. Go and bury your head in the metaphysical sand because that seems to be where you want your mind to be. Honestly, for a non-dualist, you have the biggest ego I have ever come across, it's quite rediculous actually. You are supposed to get rid of your ego, not inflate it like a giant hot air balloon.
Truth is all inclusive! Not anything can "get in the way of Truth"!
All 'appearances' are true!
By that logic, even untruths are truth. That seems a bit paradoxical and oxymoronic. Maybe you should rethink that. You stated as much:
...paradox (a sure sign of error)!...........Nice to see neuroscience catching up.
Neuroscience is actually providing evidence for that theory, do you have a problem with that? Maybe you should try it, it helps convince people of your ideas.
...nameless... wrote:
Dimebag wrote:, so I think we might agree that there is no central area in the brain which houses our conscious experience.
Of course I agree!
I never intimated such nonsense!
Dimebag wrote:There is no central area where 'it all comes together'.


...nameless... wrote:My own personal experience refutes your assertion!


...don't you just hate it when you contradict yourself?
There is no definitive dividing line between you and me or the sun and dreams!
None has ever been found! You might say 'yet', and I would reply that all theories are tentative, pending further evidence/data.
I would take the problem of other minds as such a boundary. What am I thinking now? No idea? Didn't think so, because you have no access to my thoughts due to our minds being separate.
What you call 'recollection' is the same as 'memory', as far as I can see!
Well done, now I'll do one. What you call 'the sun' is the same as 'a star', as far as I can see!
the One complete Reality, Consciousness, cannot be perceived in it's entirety.
What then is the evidence of the one realitys existence?
Is that some sort of metaphysical magical maneuver?
A perception 'becomes' a memory? No, 'memories' are perceived!
Perception doesn't 'become' anything! All that exists is perceived!
No, actually, no miracles required. Perceptions stimulate the networks of neurons responsible for storing concepts (engrams), and when those perceptions are repeated enough they form stronger connections which persist over time. Eventually those networks can be restimulated at a later point, facilitating the recollection and experience (or not) of said memory (that is my understanding, there may be a more accurate view). I say 'or not' because memories can be used without our conscious knowledge.

Again, sorry for snide comments, but I can't remove them now as they are tied up in what we are trying to discuss. And if I delete them I will have repressed all of that latent anger, which is very unhealthy. :P

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by ..nameless.. » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:32 am

Dimebag wrote:And if I delete them I will have repressed all of that latent anger, which is very unhealthy. :P
I hope that you are feeling better now. Don't sweat it. There is food for thought in what i say for 'some' who read it.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything! I offer food for thought and if it don't suit you, I say that it will be here for someone else. That is not my business.
Sorry you wasted your time.
There is no 'enlightenment' in any of these words, it is (or is not) in the 'beholder'
later.

Dimebag
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Dimebag » Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:31 pm

..nameless.. wrote:
Dimebag wrote:And if I delete them I will have repressed all of that latent anger, which is very unhealthy. :P
I hope that you are feeling better now. Don't sweat it. There is food for thought in what i say for 'some' who read it.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything! I offer food for thought and if it don't suit you, I say that it will be here for someone else. That is not my business.
Sorry you wasted your time.
There is no 'enlightenment' in any of these words, it is (or is not) in the 'beholder'
later.
Don't worry too much, I am not, as there is always something to be gained from matters such as this. A consolidation of thoughts for example. Now I know what I know, because I had to check. And you do too. Really it was quite relevant.

daramantus
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by daramantus » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:52 am

..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
The new, critically updated, all inclusive, final definition of 'Knowledge';
"'Knowledge' is 'that which is ̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶c̶e̶i̶v̶e̶d̶'̶!̶"̶
No, knowledge is that what you have.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is ̶ ̶'̶k̶n̶o̶w̶l̶e̶d̶g̶e̶'̶.
No, your knowledge about what you are perceiving is what you have after you perceive it.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, ̶N̶o̶w̶!̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶N̶o̶w̶!̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶N̶o̶w̶!̶!̶!̶
No, I can know my thoughts, memories, any content in my mind, and I'm not perceiving them, I'm just thinking about them, and I can create new knowledge out of what I already had before.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶E̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶=̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶=̶ ̶R̶e̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶=̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶=̶ ̶T̶r̶u̶t̶h̶ ̶=̶ ̶'̶S̶e̶l̶f̶!̶'̶ ̶=̶ ̶G̶o̶d̶ ̶=̶ ̶B̶r̶a̶h̶m̶a̶n̶ ̶=̶ ̶T̶a̶o̶ ̶=̶ ̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶e̶t̶c̶.̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶
̶E̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶=̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶l̶i̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶b̶j̶e̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶.̶ ̶A̶L̶L̶ ̶I̶N̶C̶L̶U̶S̶I̶V̶E̶!̶ ̶'̶O̶n̶e̶'̶!̶
Reality = the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Consciousness = the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. the awareness or perception of something by a person.
Truth = the quality or state of being true. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
'Self!' = a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action. oneself, in particular.
God = Mythology
Brahman = Mythology
Tao = Mythology

̶A̶L̶L̶ ̶I̶N̶C̶L̶U̶S̶I̶V̶E̶!̶!̶
'One', 'Two', 'Three', little indians.........
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶E̶v̶e̶r̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶ex̶i̶s̶t̶s̶!̶
Are flying elephants out there? Are there any gods? Are there any aliens? Flying unicorns exist? REALLY? where is the time machine that exists out there? since "every" "thing" "exist" or is 'real'????
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶E̶v̶e̶r̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶ ̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶a̶̶̶l̶̶̶!̶
Are flying elephants out there? Are there any gods? Are there any aliens? Flying unicorns exist? REALLY? where is the time machine that exists out there? since "every" "thing" "exist" or is 'real'????
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶E̶v̶e̶r̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶r̶̶̶u̶̶̶e̶̶̶!̶
So if someone tells you, hey you should be killed, is that true?

existence/reality/truth ARE ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶v̶e̶!̶ NOT what you think it is.
'One', 'Two', 'Three', little indians.........
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶T̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶c̶e̶i̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶!̶
So if you perceive a hallucination, then it does exist? if so, where? and why others are not perceiving it in reality? And we have shared common knowledge about an apple, but not about a hallucination.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶T̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶c̶e̶i̶v̶e̶d̶!̶
So if you perceive a hallucination, then it does exist? if so, where? and why others are not perceiving it in reality? And we have shared common knowledge about an apple, but not about a hallucination.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶(̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶d̶i̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶'̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶'̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶,̶ ̶'̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶!̶ ̶*̶_̶_̶-̶ ̶)̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶c̶e̶i̶v̶e̶d̶!̶
̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶c̶e̶i̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶!̶
So if you perceive a hallucination, then it does exist? if so, where? and why others are not perceiving it in reality? And we have shared common knowledge about an apple, but not about a hallucination.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
(There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!)
There is no need for any 'evidence' to the contrary, just a simple question and a little of commons sense to discard the absurd and absolute hogwash you're babbling.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶l̶e̶d̶g̶e̶
Everything = all the things of a group or class.
'knowledge' = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶L̶a̶w̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶S̶o̶u̶l̶ ̶D̶y̶n̶a̶m̶i̶c̶s̶;̶ ̶
̶"̶F̶o̶r̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶P̶e̶r̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶e̶q̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶p̶p̶o̶s̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶P̶e̶r̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶!̶"̶ ̶
̶T̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶'̶o̶n̶e̶-̶s̶i̶z̶e̶-̶f̶i̶t̶s̶-̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶'̶k̶n̶o̶w̶l̶e̶d̶g̶e̶'̶.̶ ̶E̶v̶e̶r̶y̶o̶n̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶c̶e̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶u̶n̶i̶q̶u̶e̶;̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶i̶t̶,̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶m̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶s̶o̶.̶
Gibberish.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
̶"̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶(̶R̶e̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶/̶T̶r̶u̶t̶h̶/̶G̶o̶d̶/̶'̶S̶e̶l̶f̶!̶'̶/̶T̶a̶o̶/̶B̶r̶a̶h̶m̶a̶n̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶f̶e̶a̶t̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶i̶n̶.̶.̶.̶)̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶e̶d̶/̶d̶e̶s̶c̶r̶i̶b̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶y̶n̶c̶h̶r̶o̶n̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶s̶u̶m̶-̶t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶P̶e̶r̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶!̶"̶ ̶-̶ ̶B̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶F̶u̶d̶d̶
̶A̶L̶L̶ ̶I̶N̶C̶L̶U̶S̶I̶V̶E̶!̶!̶!̶
Existence = the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Reality = the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Consciousness = the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. the awareness or perception of something by a person.
Truth = the quality or state of being true. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
'Self!' = a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action. oneself, in particular.
God = Mythology
Brahman = Mythology
Tao = Mythology

..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
Everyone's perceptions/knowledge are inherently real features of ̶ ̶R̶e̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶!̶
Everyone's perceptions/knowledge are inherently real features of their minds.
..nameless.. wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am
All unique (Perspectives/perceptions) 'knowledge' is perceived by ̶'̶o̶n̶e̶'̶ 'two' three little indians...... ̶A̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶c̶e̶!̶

I have my 'one' Consciousness. you have your one consciousness......and etc.....


_

also, probably nameless is also the troll trolling in all forums......... nameless=dontaskme=your construct=placid=confidencia=etc
the guy is a f frustrated troll

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:35 am

daramantus wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:52 am
There is no need for any 'evidence' to the contrary, just a simple question and a little of commons sense to discard the absurd and absolute hogwash you're babbling.
Is there an alternative to absolute hogwash babbling?

If yes, what is it?

And do you personally conform to that particular mold of thinking and believing and why?

And what is wrong with Nature apparently churning out completely and absolutely unique individuals with their own views on....
(this is how we do it)?

.

Londoner
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Londoner » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:57 am

daramantus wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:52 am
Reality = the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Consciousness = the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. the awareness or perception of something by a person.
Truth = the quality or state of being true. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
'Self!' = a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action. oneself, in particular.
God = Mythology
Brahman = Mythology
Tao = Mythology
Why aren't they all 'mythology'?

'Reality' understood that way would be something assumed but unreachable, since we can only know the world through our ideas and never directly. For the same reason, we would never be 'conscious' since we could not draw a hard line between our 'self' and our surroundings. And, since we never know what part, if any, of our ideas are in accordance with 'fact or reality' we cannot say which ideas are the 'truth'. So, like God, they are all 'myths' in the sense that they speak about a 'something' beyond the empirical that we cannot clearly explain.

I do not think we can make an argument of definitions. If we disagree with 'nameless' we have got to put up a philosophy of our own - which isn't so easy. For example, that bit about 'reality'; you don't have to be any kind of a mystic to see the problems with it.

Nick_A
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:28 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:16 pm
HI friends,

I read this in the recent post of BB and found it interesting.

SAID HUNTER S THOMPSON, "YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE FROM SOMEWHERE. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE MATERIAL YOU'RE WRITING ABOUT BEFORE YOU ALTER IT."

Is he right about his perception of knowledge?

With love,
Sanjay
Using chess as n example: When a person knows the rules of the game, the functions of the pieces, and how they interact, then they know chess. Being able to play chess well requires more than knowing the game. it requires knowledge of the game.

Life is like that. It is one thing to know facts of life and quite another to be able to live as a human being.

daramantus
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by daramantus » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:10 pm

Londoner wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:57 am
'Reality' understood that way would be something assumed but unreachable
Eh, you idiot, you were reaching your computer when you typed this nonsense.

Londoner wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:57 am
since we can only know the world through our ideas and never directly.
It's always direct, just like how you use your computer to type this bs. DIRECTLY.
Londoner wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:57 am
For the same reason, we would never be 'conscious' since we could not draw a hard line between our 'self' and our surroundings.
Yet, we are.
Londoner wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:57 am
And, since we never know what part, if any, of our ideas are in accordance with 'fact or reality' we cannot say which ideas are the 'truth'.
Yet, we always know.

daramantus
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by daramantus » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:35 am
daramantus wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:52 am
There is no need for any 'evidence' to the contrary, just a simple question and a little of commons sense to discard the absurd and absolute hogwash you're babbling.
Is there an alternative to absolute hogwash babbling?

If yes, what is it?

And do you personally conform to that particular mold of thinking and believing and why?

And what is wrong with Nature apparently churning out completely and absolutely unique individuals with their own views on....
(this is how we do it)?

.
Dude you said in another post that the moon is also observing you when you're observing the moon, as if the moon was also an observer, otherwise the moon exists in quantum probabilities. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's like we can't even argue with you because you don't understand shit of quantum physics. You don't make sense. all you say is "empty" this "empty" that without even getting to the point. You're a troll.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:18 pm

daramantus wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:12 pm

Dude you said in another post that the moon is also observing you when you're observing the moon, as if the moon was also an observer, otherwise the moon exists in quantum probabilities. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well that would be no thing saying that.
daramantus wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:12 pm
It's like we can't even argue with you because you don't understand shit of quantum physics. You don't make sense. all you say is "empty" this "empty" that without even getting to the point. You're a troll.
Well that would be no thing arguing over things they don't understand. And that would be no thing trying to make sense, and being a troll.

It's all a dream story appearing in no thing, appearing to be some-thing, and then disappearing back into no thing.

All dreamscape.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest