Failure of "I".

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8360
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:57 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:26 pm


(Just focus on the sound of one hand clapping, DAM.)
There can be no focus on the subject, when the subject is the focusing. For the subject..it’s only focus is on an object of it’s focus since it cannot focus on what is focusing and the object at the same time..If the focusing could focus on the focusing ...that would require the focusor to be external to itself ..it would have to split itself in two...into the seer and the seen...impossible.
But not possible when it is realised that both subject and object are the same no/thing indivisible one.

.
.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:43 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:43 pm
"I exist" is an objective statement
I don't see that it is. As "I exist" is only ever said by he/she that is considering it, with their particular understanding of "I" and "existence," such that it's always "subjective."

"I think, therefore I am," is not a valid form of objectivity. A rock doesn't think, (as far as we know), yet it is.



that exists seperate from

the subjective experience of "I".
This is all anyone ever really has, as one cannot exist outside oneself, so as to truly objectify oneself. Self shall always be attached in some way.

Discuss.
Anything outside us is an object relative to us, which is why it's so easy for us to objectify others. We have to remember that they are as we are, and that they have the same rights we do. We're only objects from a point of view outside us.

Our experience is only ever subjective.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6050
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:53 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:43 pm
"I exist" is an objective statement
I don't see that it is. As "I exist" is only ever said by he/she that is considering it, with their particular understanding of "I" and "existence," such that it's always "subjective."

"I think, therefore I am," is not a valid form of objectivity. A rock doesn't think, (as far as we know), yet it is.



that exists seperate from

the subjective experience of "I".
This is all anyone ever really has, as one cannot exist outside oneself, so as to truly objectify oneself. Self shall always be attached in some way.

Discuss.
Anything outside us is an object relative to us, which is why it's so easy for us to objectify others. We have to remember that they are as we are, and that they have the same rights we do. We're only objects from a point of view outside us.

Our experience is only ever subjective.
That which "exists outside of us" observes an inherent connect boundary between dual relativistic positions of inside and outside.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:53 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:43 pm
"I exist" is an objective statement
I don't see that it is. As "I exist" is only ever said by he/she that is considering it, with their particular understanding of "I" and "existence," such that it's always "subjective."

"I think, therefore I am," is not a valid form of objectivity. A rock doesn't think, (as far as we know), yet it is.



that exists seperate from

the subjective experience of "I".
This is all anyone ever really has, as one cannot exist outside oneself, so as to truly objectify oneself. Self shall always be attached in some way.

Discuss.
Anything outside us is an object relative to us, which is why it's so easy for us to objectify others. We have to remember that they are as we are, and that they have the same rights we do. We're only objects from a point of view outside us.

Our experience is only ever subjective.
That which "exists outside of us" observes an inherent connect boundary between dual relativistic positions of inside and outside.
So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?

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. ;-)

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 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.

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by uwot » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:11 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:53 pm
When I took philosophy we came to a so called thought experiment that they believed would make one think...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...
In the above instance, science (physics) trumped philosophy, unless they were just joking...
Not really, Spheres. No one is challenging the idea that a tree falling creates sound waves, the question is whether mechanical waves are the same as the experience of sound. It's an introduction to the mind/body problem.

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by uwot » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:43 pm
"I exist" is an objective statement that exists seperate from the subjective experience of "I".

Discuss.
Well, it's objective insofar as anyone who can say it is correct. Your personal experience of "I", or "you", if it simplifies things, is unique to "I". Or "you".

Dubious
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Dubious » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:44 pm

It is the "I" that dies and with it the objective statement that "I exist".

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6050
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:27 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:53 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:43 pm

Anything outside us is an object relative to us, which is why it's so easy for us to objectify others. We have to remember that they are as we are, and that they have the same rights we do. We're only objects from a point of view outside us.

Our experience is only ever subjective.
That which "exists outside of us" observes an inherent connect boundary between dual relativistic positions of inside and outside.
So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?

You tell me the answer to that question...

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.

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 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...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.

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?


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.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6050
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:41 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:15 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:43 pm
"I exist" is an objective statement that exists seperate from the subjective experience of "I".

Discuss.
Well, it's objective insofar as anyone who can say it is correct. Your personal experience of "I", or "you", if it simplifies things, is unique to "I". Or "you".
And yet the projection of my "I" is recieved by your "I" and vice versa where new subjective "I"'s are formed through an inherent objectivity with this "objectivity" giving a sense of limit to the "I" in one respect through an inherently unlimited subjectivity.

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by uwot » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:41 pm
And yet the projection of my "I" is recieved by your "I" and vice versa where new subjective "I"'s are formed through an inherent objectivity with this "objectivity" giving a sense of limit to the "I" in one respect through an inherently unlimited subjectivity.
Really? Who are these other ""I"'s"?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6050
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:07 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:41 pm
And yet the projection of my "I" is recieved by your "I" and vice versa where new subjective "I"'s are formed through an inherent objectivity with this "objectivity" giving a sense of limit to the "I" in one respect through an inherently unlimited subjectivity.
Really? Who are these other ""I"'s"?
"You" is strictly "I" directed away from itself to another "I" in which one "I" is seperated from another in the respect it projects away from its origins.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:13 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:11 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:53 pm
When I took philosophy we came to a so called thought experiment that they believed would make one think...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...
In the above instance, science (physics) trumped philosophy, unless they were just joking...
Not really, Spheres. No one is challenging the idea that a tree falling creates sound waves, the question is whether mechanical waves are the same as the experience of sound. It's an introduction to the mind/body problem.
Sorry uwot, but as stated, and considering the 2nd definition of sound, it's not.

The version that was presented to the class when I attended college.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

sound1 [sound]
noun
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

There is absolutely no sense that it's about any mind body problem. And I also see that only fools believe there is a mind/body problem. All one has to understand, to see the foolishness, is that all life on planet earth originated as a single celled organism that crawled out of the primordial ooze. Flash forward to what the organism has become. Then one can only conclude that there is no problem. It's just more philosophical ignorance being passed off as some profound thought experiment. Come now I'm sure you're aware that many things the presocratics said was eventually found to be incorrect. Aether anyone? For that matter, flash forward to the differences between Copernicus and Kepler. But there is really no shame, as what was in error, led to that which is not. But it was still in error and I laugh at the errors, even though hindsight is always 20/20. And I wonder why anyone mentions that which was in error, for any other reason than to point out the importance of following the scientific method.

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:07 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:41 pm
And yet the projection of my "I" is recieved by your "I" and vice versa where new subjective "I"'s are formed through an inherent objectivity with this "objectivity" giving a sense of limit to the "I" in one respect through an inherently unlimited subjectivity.
Really? Who are these other ""I"'s"?
"You" is strictly "I" directed away from itself to another "I" in which one "I" is seperated from another in the respect it projects away from its origins.
I get "You" and I get "I". It's all the """I"'s"" in between that are confusing me.I

uwot
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:56 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:13 pm
uwot wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:11 pm
No one is challenging the idea that a tree falling creates sound waves, the question is whether mechanical waves are the same as the experience of sound. It's an introduction to the mind/body problem.
Sorry 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.
You 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.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6050
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:57 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:07 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:12 pm
Really? Who are these other ""I"'s"?
"You" is strictly "I" directed away from itself to another "I" in which one "I" is seperated from another in the respect it projects away from its origins.
I get "You" and I get "I". It's all the """I"'s"" in between that are confusing me.I
"I" as a limit which composes all phenomena, fold's through itself across time and space through continual relations in which the "I" multiplies and divides with these multiple "I's" being an extension of the one "I am" as an approximation of it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests