God's explanation for this shit

It's time

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#221  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 14, 2018 2:35 pm

laklak wrote:even with special sauce.


God's explanation will be a mango-blackberry-jalapeño mousse.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 30152
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#222  Postby laklak » Nov 14, 2018 2:50 pm

That reminds me, I made a mango-habanero jam a few months ago, it's probably been sitting long enough for the flavors to meld. Idealism, OTOH, has been sitting long enough to grow fuzzy bits. Though fuzziness is not necessarily an issue with most philosophies.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 68
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#223  Postby Thommo » Nov 14, 2018 3:28 pm

jamest wrote:The only difference between day and night is that day always brings the same dream.


I overlooked that line somehow.

I think it's fair to say that is not remotely the only difference, as pointed out by others.

Experiences in the daytime are consilient, display consistent, universal laws of nature, are more concrete and definite in every respect, have features like object permanence, and other apparently intelligent agents can be found who report the same things with extraordinarily high levels of intersubjective agreement. The daytime world abides consistent laws of cause and effect, with damage to our bodies being exactly correlated with experiences of loss of faculty and correlated with experiences like pain. None of these things happen in dreams, which is precisely why we do not consider or call the state of being "awake" a dream at all.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27233

Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#224  Postby Macdoc » Nov 14, 2018 3:36 pm

Lucid dreams are an intermediate state vaguely under conscious control and quite delightful when gravity gets abrogated.

It's a gradient not an either or.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17632
Age: 74
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#225  Postby Thommo » Nov 14, 2018 3:44 pm

Not really. Lucid dreams are a gradient regarding conscious awareness and control of faculties. They are not a gradient in terms of "self" or of the world in which they occur.

The behaviour of the world in lucid dreams does not take on more of the features found in the waking world to any extent. No object permanence, no inability for teleportation, time travel, defiance of gravity and other laws of nature, no other conscious agents, no consilience, no intersubjective agreements etc. etc.

It is only those ways, in which lucid dreams are not a gradual transition between the waking world and a dream, which are relevant to jamest's point.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27233

Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#226  Postby GrahamH » Nov 14, 2018 3:48 pm

Macdoc wrote:Lucid dreams are an intermediate state vaguely under conscious control and quite delightful when gravity gets abrogated.

It's a gradient not an either or.


The thing about lucid dreaming is it may seem that "your conscious mind" is awake and in control, but it could simply be that you are dreaming of being awake and in control. You can dream of waking up, but remain asleep. You can't really confirm that you have "conscious control" if you are unconscious.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#227  Postby Thommo » Nov 14, 2018 3:53 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Macdoc wrote:Lucid dreams are an intermediate state vaguely under conscious control and quite delightful when gravity gets abrogated.

It's a gradient not an either or.


The thing about lucid dreaming is it may seem that "your conscious mind" is awake and in control, but it could simply be that you are dreaming of being awake and in control. You can dream of waking up, but remain asleep. You can't really confirm that you have "conscious control" if you are unconscious.


I have lucid dreams all the time, I had one today, in fact. Sometimes you're in control more than others, the very minimal state is that you are aware that you are dreaming. Almost always it's possible to intentionally rouse yourself to wakefulness*.

It never represents an intermediate state of the world between sleep and wakefulness though, only an intermediate state of awareness and cognitive faculty. The rules within the dreamworld are as arbitrary and dreamlike as in a non-lucid dream.

*Although it is possible to be deceived that you have woken, by having a dream about waking, and then forget that you are asleep. This is a distinct experience from trying to wake and failing.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27233

Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#228  Postby Thommo » Nov 14, 2018 4:26 pm

jamest wrote:I did not present my thoughts here about dreams as an argument for God's existence. Rather, as explicitly stated within the post, I used my thoughts about dreams to support the notion that the 'conscious self' can and does forget itself when presented with various scenarios via 'experience'.


Firstly, you did not explictly state that. Nor implicitly. If that's what you mean, fair enough, I accept your clarification of your intended meaning.

Secondly, there are a lot of problems with both what you write here, and what you wrote in the original passage:
jamest wrote:whilst asleep (to who we believe we are) - we become lost to all sorts of bizarre scenarios imposed upon our consciousness via orchestrated sensations.


To pick out a few issues.
(i) That a dream scenario is "orchestrated", implying a conscious intent from outside. This is generally held to be wrong.
(ii) That "orchestration" has previously been defined in terms of qualia - a disputed object.
(iii) In your corrected assertion in this post you say that the "conscious self" forgets itself when presented with various scenarios. The reverse is actually the case with dreams: various scenarios are perceived when the dreamer has lost consciousness. The difference in causality dramatically alters the implications.
(iv) The introduction of "self" into the description mentioned in (iii). It is clear that someone asleep is not conscious. It is not clear that they have lost their sense of self, or some reified version of that. Or even what that would mean. It would appear to be a contradiction in terms for an object's reference to that same object, known as itself, to refer to any other object.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27233

Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#229  Postby GrahamH » Nov 14, 2018 4:49 pm

Thommo wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Macdoc wrote:Lucid dreams are an intermediate state vaguely under conscious control and quite delightful when gravity gets abrogated.

It's a gradient not an either or.


The thing about lucid dreaming is it may seem that "your conscious mind" is awake and in control, but it could simply be that you are dreaming of being awake and in control. You can dream of waking up, but remain asleep. You can't really confirm that you have "conscious control" if you are unconscious.


I have lucid dreams all the time, I had one today, in fact. Sometimes you're in control more than others, the very minimal state is that you are aware that you are dreaming. Almost always it's possible to intentionally rouse yourself to wakefulness*.

It never represents an intermediate state of the world between sleep and wakefulness though, only an intermediate state of awareness and cognitive faculty. The rules within the dreamworld are as arbitrary and dreamlike as in a non-lucid dream.

*Although it is possible to be deceived that you have woken, by having a dream about waking, and then forget that you are asleep. This is a distinct experience from trying to wake and failing.


It seems straightforward to suppose that people can dream that they are awake, or dream that they are controlling things in the dream. But how would you know if that was actually the case? What would it mean to be actually the case?

I gather LaBerge developed a technique of signalling with the eyes which goes some way to establish some timings and the physiological correlates of a lucid state as distinct from both waking and REM sleep, but still, can the dreamer verify "conscious control"? It seems even less likely than verifying free will when awake.
Anyway, this is a digression so maybe I should leave it for another time, another topic.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#230  Postby Thommo » Nov 14, 2018 5:40 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Thommo wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Macdoc wrote:Lucid dreams are an intermediate state vaguely under conscious control and quite delightful when gravity gets abrogated.

It's a gradient not an either or.


The thing about lucid dreaming is it may seem that "your conscious mind" is awake and in control, but it could simply be that you are dreaming of being awake and in control. You can dream of waking up, but remain asleep. You can't really confirm that you have "conscious control" if you are unconscious.


I have lucid dreams all the time, I had one today, in fact. Sometimes you're in control more than others, the very minimal state is that you are aware that you are dreaming. Almost always it's possible to intentionally rouse yourself to wakefulness*.

It never represents an intermediate state of the world between sleep and wakefulness though, only an intermediate state of awareness and cognitive faculty. The rules within the dreamworld are as arbitrary and dreamlike as in a non-lucid dream.

*Although it is possible to be deceived that you have woken, by having a dream about waking, and then forget that you are asleep. This is a distinct experience from trying to wake and failing.


It seems straightforward to suppose that people can dream that they are awake, or dream that they are controlling things in the dream. But how would you know if that was actually the case? What would it mean to be actually the case?


Well, in the same way that right now, you have the ability to say to yourself "in a few seconds time I'll type on my keyboard", that you can resolve, in advance an intent to do an action and then do it, you can do this in your dream. You have a state of awareness that it's a dream, and consequently you aren't bound by the rules of the waking world. Common examples from my own dreams are that I can, having realised I'm dreaming and not bound by rules, will a nightmare creature out of my perception, pull lightning from the sky, teleport, fly or wake myself from the dream.

To say that I have conscious control in the dream is identical to saying I have conscious control when I drive a car when I'm awake. I have the ability to preplan actions, but those actions are not restricted to the movements of my body.

GrahamH wrote:I gather LaBerge developed a technique of signalling with the eyes which goes some way to establish some timings and the physiological correlates of a lucid state as distinct from both waking and REM sleep, but still, can the dreamer verify "conscious control"? It seems even less likely than verifying free will when awake.


Introducing free will is just confusing things. Lucid dreaming is not the grand romantic thing it's often portrayed as. It's simply the awareness that one is asleep, and that awareness grants some measure of control.

If I decide I want to wake up, because I'm having a bad dream, and then wake, that's no more hard to believe than that I decide to get up from a chair and then get up. Sure, you can't verify it from outside because I can't talk when I'm asleep, but by the same token you can't verify I have any dreams, let alone lucid ones. We also cannot verify synesthesia by this token. And if my memory of making a pre-planned decision to wake, and then waking is untrustworthy, why then is my memory of deciding what I ate for breakfast yesterday trustworthy?

You can apply some sort of super-scepticism to the situation if you want, I suppose, but it's just not that interesting that I really see the point.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27233

Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#231  Postby LucidFlight » Nov 14, 2018 6:09 pm

When I have a lucid flying dream, I make a point of checking whether my feet are attached to anything. When it's clear that I'm not attached and, thus, flying unassisted by some mechanical contraption, my suspicion of being in a dream is confirmed. It's an odd mix of, "Yay, I'm flying" and "But it's not real."

ETA

Not sure what God's explanation for that is, but there you go.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10805
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#232  Postby Scot Dutchy » Nov 14, 2018 7:00 pm

I had great flying dreams when I was going through puberty.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 73
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: God's explanation for this shit

#233  Postby SpeedOfSound » Dec 14, 2018 11:43 am

jamest wrote:I created a scenario in which I would view myself as a part/object of that experience. I could do this countless times - numerous experiences within one scenario. Thus, I could experience myself as jamest within scenario Earth, 21st century; or else anyone else seemingly there and then. I could even add to this complexity by experiencing myself at any time and even giving it an apparent ordered origin at the 'big bang', such that the experience of being this object/thing didn't disintegrate upon introspection. This would enable me to experience myself as any thing/creature capable of experiencing sensations along the way and making judgements about that, even simple judgements such as where to quench my thirst/hunger, etc.. Within the experience as a whole, when the 'game' finally allowed for it and I'd acquired enough 'points' to think/feel/etc., I still got to the point that even though I didn't remember myself (since I'm lost within the experience) that I acquired certain capabilites inherent within me. For instance, I become creative and started to think beyond the realms of my experiential/material needs. I guess, once I acquired the experience of being human, I also acquired the capacity to question that experience.

The last several thousand years bear witness to that bollocks. I say 'bollocks' merely because of the infinite number of (relative) ways it is possible to fuck-up one's quest to find 'me' within that experience.

I shall explain it ALL to you soon. There's much to discuss. Except jamest. He's just my microphone now. You can take the piss out of him if you like, as you always have, but I'm not him. The philosophy echoed through him for the last two decades attests to that fact, as that indeed was that philosophy: that only I exist.

So, you've got two choices, which is either to take this thread seriously or merely take the piss out of james. I suppose you could take the piss out of me if you like, but then you won't learn anything. I'm here to teach you things that you do not know. All of you.



You are so close! Nearly at the truth of the matter. All you need now is to accept full on naturalism and let go of that final spook. Consciousness itself. No rush though. You will of necessity let go sometime in the next half dozen decades anyway. I just hope for your realization to take place earlier; in the living organism.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32087
Age: 71
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest