Self-evidence (main q)

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

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#241  Postby Little Idiot » Apr 14, 2012 5:00 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:

When you say you 'developed' idealism, you're using the lingo of academic conferences in an internet forum. It's pretentious.


I mean, (obviously enough I thought?) I developed my understanding of idealism. If you check post 216 and what I actually said was 'Another couple of decades of refinement of the primary concepts' Thats not pretentious, if it is, well boo hoo.
I dont mean to say I originated or perfected idealism (or mentalism), that would be pretentious as well as ridiculous, idealism has been around for thousands of years and I am not making claim to be the top idealist dog.
Last edited by Little Idiot on Apr 14, 2012 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Its all OK.
Little Idiot
 
Posts: 6546

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#242  Postby GrahamH » Apr 14, 2012 5:07 pm

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:

'Explaining consciousness' isn't something that features in Idealism or theism. It is taken as an inexplicable given.


'Experience', then. The 'source' of 'experience', or, "Why is there something (to experience) rather than nothing?" It's full of metaphysics. These guys don't really have a very good idea of what it is they want to 'explain'.

Can't have 'experience' without 'consciousness'. It's circular, if you don't think about it too little or too much. If you think about it just right. Goldilocks philosophy.


They can't touch 'why is there something...' either. All they have is 'just because that happens to be god's nature, which is inexplicable'.

Why is there god? - no answer.
Why does an immaterial mind create a material world - no answer (unspecified great purpose assumed)
Why are we conscious? - because god just happens to be inexplicably conscious and gifts it to us.
'God' answers no question.
All answers are deferred for god to answer directly, which she can't do, obviously.

So; you have never heard any answer to these questions?


It's a bit of a digression, but perhaps fellow posters will forgive me asking...
Do you know any sensible answers to these questions?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#243  Postby Destroyer » Apr 14, 2012 5:08 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

'Experience', then. The 'source' of 'experience', or, "Why is there something (to experience) rather than nothing?" It's full of metaphysics. These guys don't really have a very good idea of what it is they want to 'explain'.

Can't have 'experience' without 'consciousness'. It's circular, if you don't think about it too little or too much. If you think about it just right. Goldilocks philosophy.


They can't touch 'why is there something...' either. All they have is 'just because that happens to be god's nature, which is inexplicable'.

Why is there god? - no answer.
Why does an immaterial mind create a material world - no answer (unspecified great purpose assumed)
Why are we conscious? - because god just happens to be inexplicably conscious and gifts it to us.
'God' answers no question.
All answers are deferred for god to answer directly, which she can't do, obviously.

So; you have never heard any answer to these questions?


It's a bit of a digression, but perhaps fellow posters will forgive me asking...
Do you know any sensible answers to these questions?

Yes. It is a bit of a digression!
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#244  Postby Little Idiot » Apr 14, 2012 5:09 pm

:hide:
Its all OK.
Little Idiot
 
Posts: 6546

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#245  Postby GrahamH » Apr 14, 2012 5:10 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:The phrase 'master of my own little universe' was not meant to mean literally that I am/will be master of this universe.


Not even master of the curvature of a small spooniverse.


The 'spooniverse'? You vex me, GrahamH, because I did not think up that word. :rofl:


I don't think I can claim originality for spooniverse. Perhaps I 'developed' the idea.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#246  Postby Little Idiot » Apr 14, 2012 5:14 pm

Q; Why is there a god?
A; There isnt.
Not if god means the ultimate reality, and the source/creator of the cosmos, and sustain-er or of the cosmos, and the all powerful uber-individual, blah blah blah.
That sensible enough for you?
Its all OK.
Little Idiot
 
Posts: 6546

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#247  Postby GrahamH » Apr 14, 2012 5:21 pm

Little Idiot wrote:Q; Why is there a god?
A; There isnt.
Not if god means the ultimate reality, and the source/creator of the cosmos, and sustain-er or of the cosmos, and the all powerful uber-individual, blah blah blah.
That sensible enough for you?


You call it void/world-mind. Why does that exist?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#248  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 14, 2012 5:36 pm

Little Idiot wrote:
Not if god means the ultimate reality, and the source/creator of the cosmos, and sustain-er or of the cosmos, and the all powerful uber-individual, blah blah blah.


So, you just make up a definition adequate to guarantee that you'll have a definition to read? Well done, you.

You don't need to talk about 'ultimate reality', LI. You can just talk about 'reality'. Or maybe you could try using caps-lock. Oh. I know what it is. You need something to refer to the unknowable. Try using the word 'unknowable' to avoid obfuscation. Since it's unknowable, there's not much else to say about it, which makes a pretty empty wibble.

Source/creator of the cosmos? Haven't you ever seen responses to the creationist arguments which ask how something sophisticated enough to create the cosmos would itself be in need of a creator?

Sustainer of the cosmos? What makes you think it needs sustaining/sustenance? Think the cosmos might get hungry and need a teat to suck on?

And, for what do you need an 'all powerful über-individual'? Because you deny or can't imagine or understand evolution from simple beginnings? Why do you need something complex at the origin of everything? To make room for wibble because doing anything with the existing complexity is just, what? Too much science??

:rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance:
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: 29533
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#249  Postby Destroyer » Apr 14, 2012 6:02 pm

Cito di Pense wrote: Because you deny or can't imagine or understand evolution from simple beginnings?

What do you think "evolution from simple beginnings" actually means?
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#250  Postby Regina » Apr 14, 2012 6:23 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

You already know its origin?; that's news to me. Please enlighten me.

To be more precise, I know from where my consciousness originates. I don't talk about consciousness in the abstract. I'm a too practical for that. Plus, I'm not given to intellectual wankery.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#251  Postby Destroyer » Apr 14, 2012 6:28 pm

Regina wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

You already know its origin?; that's news to me. Please enlighten me.

To be more precise, I know from where my consciousness originates. I don't talk about consciousness in the abstract. I'm a too practical for that. Plus, I'm not given to intellectual wankery.

So from where exactly does your consciousness originate?
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#252  Postby Regina » Apr 14, 2012 6:29 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.


That more or less means that you are leaning towards eliminativism. The way you're using it, consciousness is a pretty useless word for something that picks up slowly or quickly in the AM, depending on whether you use an alarm clock, and then goes away slowly or quickly at bedtime, depending on whether you fall asleep watching the telly or hit yourself on the head with a plank.

No, I don't use it that way. If only you knew what goes on in my head while it looks as if I'm sleeping. :lol:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#253  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 14, 2012 6:32 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote: Because you deny or can't imagine or understand evolution from simple beginnings?

What do you think "evolution from simple beginnings" actually means?


A gentle tap from my clue bat, Destroyer: 'Simple' is taken relative to presently-observed complexity, which is what you get to observe. Or else, go study the lint in your umbilical scar and contemplate your origins. The reason that multicellular life forms are treated as 'complex' is because there is a sort of wall of simplicity at unicellular organisms, and the wall is defined in terms of a meaningful difference between 'one' and 'many' that yields different words for 'one' and for 'many'.

It works much the same way for cosmology. Now, if you want to give the word 'beginnings' some absolute meaning, I want to know why you think you have to do that. 'Beginning' is a human word, fronting an all-too-human concept. It's arrogant for you to pretend that wordplay somehow moves you beyond human semantics of abstract nouns.

You don't have any experiences beyond those of the empirical world with which to develop a semantics for 'evolution'. You can talk about your meditations, but I can call what you say 'anecdotes' unless you can do something empirical besides make noises.
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: 29533
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#254  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 14, 2012 6:39 pm

Regina wrote:No, I don't use it that way. If only you knew what goes on in my head while it looks as if I'm sleeping.


Tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, lightning, a puffy white fair weather cloud that may look like a whale. Or perhaps your non-waking life is like a languorous, humid tropics where mental tree sloths hang limply from mental banyan trees, occasionally scratching their behinds or under their arms. Then, down in the roots of the mental banyan trees are gigantic nests of mental insects and their colonies of mental bacteria. Or maybe your non-waking life is a busy urban thoroughfare with bijouteries where you can have anything in the store your mental heart desires, and up the block is a billiard parlour where unsavoury types hang out and urge you to commit unspeakable acts behind mentally-closed doorways....
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: 29533
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#255  Postby Destroyer » Apr 14, 2012 6:43 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote: Because you deny or can't imagine or understand evolution from simple beginnings?

What do you think "evolution from simple beginnings" actually means?


A gentle tap from my clue bat, Destroyer: 'Simple' is taken relative to presently-observed complexity.

You don't have any experiences beyond those of the empirical world with which to develop a semantics for 'evolution'.
You can talk about your meditations, but I can call what you say 'anecdotes' unless you can do something empirical besides make noises.

Does simplicity, as opposed to presently-observed complexity, rule out idealism? Because that is what you seemed to be saying to Little idiot.

As far as experiences "beyond the empirical world" go, you will never ever hear such a thing from me!

ETA: addition for clarification.
Last edited by Destroyer on Apr 14, 2012 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#256  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 14, 2012 6:49 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote: Because you deny or can't imagine or understand evolution from simple beginnings?

What do you think "evolution from simple beginnings" actually means?


A gentle tap from my clue bat, Destroyer: 'Simple' is taken relative to presently-observed complexity.

You don't have any experiences beyond those of the empirical world with which to develop a semantics for 'evolution'.
You can talk about your meditations, but I can call what you say 'anecdotes' unless you can do something empirical besides make noises.

Does presently-observed complexity rule out idealism? Because that is what you seemed to be saying to Little idiot.

As far as experiences "beyond the empirical world" go, you will never ever hear such a thing from me!


Nothing rules out any metaphysics, or proves it. That's what makes metaphysics so aimless. Wibblers find a sort of refuge in claims that cannot be falsified. It all depends on your disposition, and whether you find it uncomfortable to risk discovering that you are wrong.

With idealism, some of these folks are positing a Master Mind, but I find that a bit lacking in parsimony, and the complexity of the Master Mind seems to need an evolution of its own from simple beginnings, or else risk being an ex recto assertion.

Cellular automata simulations show that very complex behaviour can be produced by a small set of very simple rules.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Apr 14, 2012 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 29533
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#257  Postby asdfjkl » Apr 14, 2012 6:53 pm

@ Little Idiot: look, i was thinking 1 day and i realized that one thing that there is no way in hell you can contradict is the existence of selfevident observation.
and it seems like i observe that things that i cant sense don't exist.
for example it seems like i observe the nonexistence of xrays, you, etc.
asdfjkl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 349

Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#258  Postby Destroyer » Apr 14, 2012 7:01 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
What do you think "evolution from simple beginnings" actually means?


A gentle tap from my clue bat, Destroyer: 'Simple' is taken relative to presently-observed complexity.

You don't have any experiences beyond those of the empirical world with which to develop a semantics for 'evolution'.
You can talk about your meditations, but I can call what you say 'anecdotes' unless you can do something empirical besides make noises.

Does presently-observed complexity rule out idealism? Because that is what you seemed to be saying to Little idiot.

As far as experiences "beyond the empirical world" go, you will never ever hear such a thing from me!


Nothing rules out any metaphysics, or proves it. That's what makes metaphysics so aimless. Wibblers find a sort of refuge in claims that cannot be falsified. It all depends on your disposition, and whether you find it uncomfortable to risk discovering that you are wrong.

I actually meant to say does "simplicity" rule out idealism? which I did edit... Metaphysics is one thing, actual knowledge is quite another. Anyone who asserts actual knowledge are obliged to demonstrate it. I am not here taking issue with your challenge to idealism. I am asking a question (what does simplicity in relation to evolution mean, in your view) which could prove to be illuminating.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#259  Postby Regina » Apr 14, 2012 7:01 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Regina wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Regina wrote:Sorry, Cito. I was distracted. I meant, we needn't explain the origin of consciousness, because we already know its origin, and an X entity isn't necessary in that explanation.

You already know its origin?; that's news to me. Please enlighten me.

To be more precise, I know from where my consciousness originates. I don't talk about consciousness in the abstract. I'm a too practical for that. Plus, I'm not given to intellectual wankery.

So from where exactly does your consciousness originate?

It's a function of my brain. Once there was no Regina-brain, so no Regina-consciousness.
Sooner or later (I really hope later) there will be no more Regina-brain, and also no Regina-consciousness. Or are you suggesting, my former Regina-consciousness will be floating around in space looking for a new host?
I'm happy enough with this definition, as long as no one comes up with a better one:
"consciousness is the sum of the electrical discharges occurring throughout the nervous system of a being at any given instant"

by the biochemist Roc Ordman.
http://chemistry.beloit.edu/Ordman/clas ... rocdef.htm
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#260  Postby Destroyer » Apr 14, 2012 7:06 pm

Regina wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Regina wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
You already know its origin?; that's news to me. Please enlighten me.

To be more precise, I know from where my consciousness originates. I don't talk about consciousness in the abstract. I'm a too practical for that. Plus, I'm not given to intellectual wankery.

So from where exactly does your consciousness originate?

It's a function of my brain. Once there was no Regina-brain, so no Regina-consciousness.
Sooner or later (I really hope later) there will be no more Regina-brain, and also no Regina-consciousness. Or are you suggesting, my former Regina-consciousness will be floating around in space looking for a new host?
I'm happy enough with this definition, as long as no one comes up with a better one:
"consciousness is the sum of the electrical discharges occurring throughout the nervous system of a being at any given instant"

by the biochemist Roc Ordman.
http://chemistry.beloit.edu/Ordman/clas ... rocdef.htm

The question is quite simple: Did your brain originate consciousness? You seem to be saying that no other explanation than brains are required. So please explain exactly how brains originated consciousness.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest