|
In response to
On August 06 2008 02:18 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2008 14:58 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 05 2008 06:49 travis wrote:
0.) The following is the result of (attempted)objective analysis.
You are duplicating the subject of the human mind. You are thinking with it but you are also thinking of it at the same time. Therefore the subject you use is only a subjective image of the "true" human mind. This Cartesian approach has been abandoned by nearly everyone. I suggest you read Heidegger. and so round 2 begins I do not think with the mind. I experience with the mind. I think with the brain.
and
On August 06 2008 02:26 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2008 20:08 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 05 2008 15:01 travis wrote:
ok jesus i really need to leave tl.net now wtf travis sorry if my post sounded condescending. I didn't have time to write a long post. Basically what I mean is that a basic problem with the cartesian approach to metaphysics and epistemology is its duplicating of the subject. In order to start from the mind itself you need to already have envisioned a human mind, the human mind you describe in the sentence "the mind exists" is not the mind you are thinkng with but an image you created in order to be able to use it from a third person perspective. I wasn't offended or anything by your post, my mind was simply very tired and I needed to move on but wasn't hehe. the mind i am describing cannot be described better than saying "it is something that is". why would a reformation of matter lead to the mind? where was the mind within that matter to start with? it doesn't make any sense. it wasn't the matter that changed, it was the shape, the form. the container changed, and the mind could fit in the container to form an experience.
I'm not sure we understand each other correctly. What I mean is that there are many basic problems with your, which is among many, subject/object approach to epistemology. One of which is you are doing philosophy from a passive stance in that you are never directly involved with the world but always experiencing it in you, or your mind, the subject. From here on, assuming your thinking does not belong to a particular school. I have to ask, how does your mind interact with the world? Are the objects you experience in your mind, images of the real thing-in-itself?
Also can you explain more specifically how you got to your statement that the mind "is"?
  
|
Travis we love you. Btw it is completly off topic but i want to know why your name has purple letters ?
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
yo did oneofthem make an appearance in that threaD?
|
On August 06 2008 20:27 Boblion wrote:
Travis we love you. Btw it is completly off topic but i want to know why your name has purple letters ?
i think he paid to have it
|
Epistemology has got to be the most useless branch of philosophy.
|
United States24761 Posts
^ writing a paper on meta-cognition as we speak XD
|
|
|
On August 06 2008 23:31 ahole-surprise wrote:
Epistemology has got to be the most useless branch of philosophy.
metaphysics?!?!?!?!
|
On August 07 2008 03:53 HeavOnEarth wrote:there's a PM system you know >.> .. ... <.< + Show Spoiler +
Get DOOOOOWN.
I would add something worthwhile but I have been thoroughly confused by yours and Travis' blog posts. Not only for the ever present lack of effort but the also ever present lack of apathy towards topics like this one. My philosophy is this: the world is a challenge and i am going to throw myself at it until i beat it or it beats me. thats enough for me.
|
On August 06 2008 20:27 Boblion wrote:
Travis we love you. Btw it is completly off topic but i want to know why your name has purple letters ?
because I paid joy for them
I will be back later!
|
On August 06 2008 20:44 thedeadhaji wrote:
yo did oneofthem make an appearance in that threaD?
not that i recall
|
On August 06 2008 20:13 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I'm not sure we understand each other correctly. What I mean is that there are many basic problems with your, which is among many, subject/object approach to epistemology.
One of which is you are doing philosophy from a passive stance in that you are never directly involved with the world but always experiencing it in you, or your mind, the subject. From here on, assuming your thinking does not belong to a particular school. I have to ask, how does your mind interact with the world?
It doesn't "interact" with it.
If you are asking what determines where the mind arises, it's through certain indescribable attributes of the mind. they are indescribable because language is something that has basis in the physical universe, not the mind. that's why u always see the monks and stuff explaining theirselves through analogy.
The mind is going to see what it is going to see, so it fits into the circumstances that works. That is the reason for continuity of experience. Here, I'll go indepth:
1.) all moments happen at once
2.) the mind exists
3.) the mind experiences relative to form
4.) the mind has attributes [x]
5.) the mind seeks form based upon the condition of attributes [x]
6.) attributes [x] lead to the mind seeking constant rebirth within the same body. this leads to the illusion of continuity.
7.) when form ends, the mind seeks new form and begins a new experience. this is reincarnation. it is also rebirth.
8.) various religions describe the laws governing attributes [x] as "the laws of karma"
9.) with the proper change to attributes [x], the mind no longer seeks form for rebirth.
rebirth does not just mean being reborn in a new body. it means death and rebirth between every moment.
Are the objects you experience in your mind, images of the real thing-in-itself?
what do you mean by objects? physical universe? they are real in that they are parts of it but they are illusions in that we subscribe them to be individual.
Also can you explain more specifically how you got to your statement that the mind "is"?
the alternative is that there is only a physical universe and that experience somehow arises from it.
but no evidence points to this. instead, evidence points to the contrary. I have challenged many people to give evidence why the physical universe leads to the rise of experience (consciousness... if you must),
and yet I have gotten no replies. I haven't even been shown a chain of reasoning explaining the necessity of experience in a physical universe.
|
this is like PMing except with random comments from other people
|
And it's formatted, and easier to view.
I'm not confident that I'm understanding travis's view correctly, so I'll restate what I think he's saying (followed by my comments):
The physical universe exists. Agreed.
There is no justification for a temporal preference - all moments are equal.
Well, I like using now because that's what I'm feeling. But okay, in principle there's no real fundamental difference between different times.
There is some object that we often to refer to as the mind. This object does not reside in the physical (or as some would say, the natural) universe. The main justification for this non-physicality claim is rejection of the alternative, that the physical universe results in this object called to the mind.
Well, that's what we usually call an appeal to consequences. Non-justification of the alternative does not present justification to an argument. Which is why I'm going to need to produce some sort of argument for the alternative. Which I can't, so neither of us has a leg to stand on as far as I can see.
To illustrate, I can change your description of the "mind" with arbitrary statements such as "it seeks pleasure" or "there is only one mind in existence" and I see no difference in how justified the statements are - they aren't.
|
On August 07 2008 13:53 BottleAbuser wrote:
Well, that's what we usually call an appeal to consequences. Non-justification of the alternative does not present justification to an argument. Which is why I'm going to need to produce some sort of argument for the alternative. Which I can't, so neither of us has a leg to stand on as far as I can see.
To illustrate, I can change your description of the "mind" with arbitrary statements such as "it seeks pleasure" or "there is only one mind in existence" and I see no difference in how justified the statements are - they aren't.
There is further justification for this belief. But it can't be explained to another person, I don't even know if it can be put into words. It has to do with experience that doesn't quite have proper form. Drug trips, meditation, etc.
|
-_- not trying to belittle your belief, but there's no real point in talking about it if we can't justify our own positions to each other. Usually there has to be a larger base of understanding that we both agree with to work from.
|
That would be why I never brought that up.
If you are talking about everything else, I really don't understand what you mean. There was definitely a point to all of that discussion for me.
|
Oh, your original thread had some interesting points, but we were working on the stipulation of your points in your OP. We're somehow talking about justifying those now, dunno how that happened o.O
|
travis I have a minimal idea of what you mean but not really. We're not really arguing about philosophy but your own personal ideas that I don't understand.
|
ok i retract my pm implifications D:
well at least someone else doesn't understand travis
thought it was just me ~
|
On August 07 2008 16:59 zulu_nation8 wrote:
travis I have a minimal idea of what you mean but not really. We're not really arguing about philosophy but your own personal ideas that I don't understand.
well the thread title was "some stuff I believe (philosophyish)" or somethin like that 
|
I still wanna talk about this but you gotta be clearer
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oy
although the subjective objective distinction is dated and unfit for making foundamental epistemological distinctions, it is still an (epistemic) understanding that is used by a lot of people. without sensible categories of 'i thought' and 'but in reality' you'll have a lot of trouble living let along doing science or even most philosophy. the trouble is just that, the 'in reality' is in itself a category of thought, and only takes on metaphysical reality in its performance, and not in second order review. once you describe it as a mere thought, you are no longer discussing the same thing, because you are engaged in a different activity altogether.
to give an example then
suppose we ask the question, 'do you have the flu?'
you answer, 'i thought i did, but i didn't really.'
the 'really' is just a statement 'i had the flu.'
but to a pesky philosopher with an analytic system, he could raise the question of, 'but are you in any way qualified to talk about ultimate reality????? hurrr?"
however, we may immediately notice that the nature of his question is different from 'do you have the flu.' whatever answer from the former will not impact the latter, and vice versa. further note that the criteria that frame the latter has no question of ultimate metaphysical reality, so we could merely say that the question of ultimate reality is extraneous to whether you have the flu or not.
a more abstract analysis is in this form
the first order theory of 'our world' is entirely coherent without second order distinctions between theory and 'reality.'
the object subject distinction then is problematic not because of the logical structure it seeks to describe is really faulty, but because the distinction is applied in a confused manner sometimes.
i only glanced at this thread and have no idea where this continued from, so w/e
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
