|
On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:
Perhaps mathematically true was a bad choice of words. Descartes conclusively, and deductively, proved that an "I" exists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Moreover, mathematics is real, at least in part. 1+1=2 is true, objectively, regardless of anything else. It is true by definition, because of the definitions involved. Certainly, there could be a universe where nobody ever thought about numbers, or quantities, or anything else, but the statement 1+1=2 would still be true there.
I never said there was not an I. What I did say was that it is not possible to jump from subjective view points to objective correlations. This does not mean that you can create some kind of paradigm of thought, which is based on your subjective view point, that in some way describes how phenomena seem to function to you. It does mean however that just because this system describes how it works it does not mean this system is intrinsic to existence.
Objectivity means that wholly beyond all subjectivity what is being referred to must exist. 1 + 1 = 2 is not an objective fact but a subjective definition. Objectivity knows no 1 + 1 = 2. Phenomena may emulate this law you have created in your head and therefore you may think it to be true but, once again, this does not mean that there is some kind of law intrinsic to existence.
On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:Its making an assumption which must be made. As I said before, such an assumption is, for all intents and purposes, not an assumption.
You cannot correctly argue under these conditions. An assumption which is not an assumption? What you choose to call it does not make it anything other then an assumption. You can deny this and say your assumption is better then others and as such we should take it as the right assumption. Doing so is like saying that your fake World Cup soccer ball is not the real one but it is closer to the real one then mine so in fact we should call yours the real World Cup soccer ball.
The very fact that you 'must' make this assumption to give any true validity to science shows that science is not held up on anything that can be justifiably real in any sense.
On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:
I deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity, as does Dennett.
Who is this Dennet. And why should I feel swayed by the weight of his authority?
If you deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity show me some proof. If you cannot you are not operating under a valid paradigm. You are operating under an unfounded belief.
|
On July 15 2010 12:24 Epsilon8 wrote:
Who is this Dennet. And why should I feel swayed by the weight of his authority?
If you deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity show me some proof. If you cannot you are not operating under a valid paradigm. You are operating under an unfounded belief.
I'm getting bored of the rest of the argument so I'm just gonna bow out of that.
You should not, of course, be swayed by any authority. You should be swayed by arguments. The most explicit setting out of Dennett's argument against the subjective aspect of consciousness (at least insofar as it relates to the hard problem of consciousness) is in Consciousness Explained in Chapters 10 through 12 (iirc). You can probably find a copy of the book via less legal means, but I'm not sure.
Its fairly complicated and I just wrote a thesis that was partially on it so I'm not going to massacre it by trying to simplify it.
|
On July 15 2010 12:24 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:
Perhaps mathematically true was a bad choice of words. Descartes conclusively, and deductively, proved that an "I" exists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Moreover, mathematics is real, at least in part. 1+1=2 is true, objectively, regardless of anything else. It is true by definition, because of the definitions involved. Certainly, there could be a universe where nobody ever thought about numbers, or quantities, or anything else, but the statement 1+1=2 would still be true there.
I never said there was not an I. What I did say was that it is not possible to jump from subjective view points to objective correlations. This does not mean that you can create some kind of paradigm of thought, which is based on your subjective view point, that in some way describes how phenomena seem to function to you. It does mean however that just because this system describes how it works it does not mean this system is intrinsic to existence. Objectivity means that wholly beyond all subjectivity what is being referred to must exist. 1 + 1 = 2 is not an objective fact but a subjective definition. Objectivity knows no 1 + 1 = 2. Phenomena may emulate this law you have created in your head and therefore you may think it to be true but, once again, this does not mean that there is some kind of law intrinsic to existence. Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:Its making an assumption which must be made. As I said before, such an assumption is, for all intents and purposes, not an assumption.
You cannot correctly argue under these conditions. An assumption which is not an assumption? What you choose to call it does not make it anything other then an assumption. You can deny this and say your assumption is better then others and as such we should take it as the right assumption. Doing so is like saying that your fake World Cup soccer ball is not the real one but it is closer to the real one then mine so in fact we should call yours the real World Cup soccer ball. The very fact that you 'must' make this assumption to give any true validity to science shows that science is not held up on anything that can be justifiably real in any sense. Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:
I deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity, as does Dennett.
Who is this Dennet. And why should I feel swayed by the weight of his authority? If you deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity show me some proof. If you cannot you are not operating under a valid paradigm. You are operating under an unfounded belief.
Daneil Dennet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_dennet
He's done some compelling work on free will, consciousness and all that epistemology fun.
While I'm not going to pretend to be educated enough to hold my own in these arguments, I do, nevertheless enjoy following this discussion and do routinely work to further my education on these subjects in my free time. I find the arguments on whether or not consciousness is subjective or not very interesting.
|
|
|
I know it's 4chan, but this is a really interesting philosophical story.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VlwP6.jpg)
|
One "opponent" of Dennet that I find interesting is David Chalmers. He has a "take it seriously" approach to the problem of consciousness that I find insanely sane. His book "The Conscious Mind" is always on my to-read list, but I've always been too coward to get into it. =)
Another non-mainstream view on the topic comes from mathematician and theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, who some might know from the work together with Stephen Hawking. He wrote a book called "The Emperor's New Mind", which tries to argue that the mind-computer analogy is necessarily wrong, because Turing Machines cannot model the quantum behaviour of the brain.
Also, Hilary Putnam, the original spreader of the computational view of the mind (who happens to be my hero on philosophical method), has written against it, in "Representation and Reality".
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
|
On July 15 2010 09:48 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 09:44 Gnosis wrote:
That's the way it has to be to survive, but why does it care about surviving, or, why does it care about existing? Why is it the way it is, is what I'm asking. No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive.
maybe there's no reason "why" in some spiritual sense. but the cause is understood: genes program them that way. if you want to learn what causes genes to program organisms to want to survive, you need to study natural selection.
|
On July 15 2010 11:05 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 10:58 kzn wrote:On July 15 2010 10:55 Yurebis wrote:
I think it's a pretty big problem for those trying to achieve a scientific ought.
"causality is true" is a description so I dunno what you're saying. Who needs to achieve a scientific ought? No one in particular, I'm just reminding the people here using evolutionary theories that such gap exists, before they go jumping over it. I think someone here already did but I'm not going to review and quote atm.
is-ought is a problem for moral philosophers, not a problem for evolutionary theory. i think any sensible person would agree that there is no magical, objective standard of what ought to be. we as a society decide what ought to be based on our common goals.
|
On July 15 2010 09:10 Gnosis wrote:
So the answer according to both of you is simply, "that's just the way it is", am I correct?
well, genetic mutations are random. some are beneficial in survival+reproduction, some are neutral, and some are harmful. oftentimes, harmful mutations are weeded out of the gene pool, because the organisms that contain these genes don't survive long enough to reproduce. now, would you ask, "why do those harmful mutations want to commit suicide?" of course not; they are random mutations with no brains and therefore no desires. it's just that the world automatically becomes full of genes that do survive and replicate.
|
What is the point of life ?
Being happy.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
To stop trying to chase happiness in material objects or relationships.
What are your most important values ?
Striving for being honest at all times.
What is good and what is evil ?
Good and evil only exist in the mind and differs from person to person.
What is Wisdom ?
Wisdom is not claiming to 'know' anything. When you do that you wing-clip your own learning.
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
?
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
Haven't studied any philosophers and do not particularly like any philosophy, I simply agree or disagree with them. Discovering new ways to look at the world is always sweet 
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
Philosophical cogitations on what? Just like quantum-physics I don't think there's any particular philosophy that is good to live by on its own. What I like about philosophy is that gets your brain going, as you come to a new realization your new frame of mind will create more questions in need of an answer.
On July 15 2010 15:45 Raisauce wrote:I know it's 4chan, but this is a really interesting philosophical story. + Show Spoiler +
I like it, a lot
|
If you guys want to know a possible beggining ending and why, read "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov. Great little story.
|
On July 15 2010 11:53 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 11:28 Gnosis wrote:
If you insist, then you are implying the inherent existence of this teaching (i.e., this teaching is true regardless of it being known, because it is an inherent property of the universe. You are saying it is true for me, even though I disagree with it), and that will contradict your idea that "all things are empty of inherent existence," because at least this teaching inherently exists. Hmm.. you've taken me to a point that I have never thought about before. I would say that desire causes suffering because emptiness exists (not inherently existent) and because of this what you will desire you will never be able to attain. So in fact the reason that desire causes suffering is not because it is some kind of inherent law but because of the cause of emptiness rendering everything that you perceive to be truly attainable.
Through diagnosing the cause of human suffering - and applying it to all people - you are describing reality as it actually is (or else there would be many different, independent sources of human suffering). Emptiness, as I'm sure you know, states that nothing has an essential, fixed, or independent nature. As such, even emptiness itself is empty, at least, our "idea" of emptiness is empty. Two things should be in our consideration 1) the idea of emptiness and 2) emptiness (as a matter of fact). But in any case, if emptiness is empty, why is there opposition to its changing?
So you see, I suffer because I can only love that which is impermanent.
|
On July 15 2010 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
Through diagnosing the cause of human suffering - and applying it to all people - you are describing reality as it actually is (or else there would be many different, independent sources of human suffering). Emptiness, as I'm sure you know, states that nothing has an essential, fixed, or independent nature. As such, even emptiness itself is empty, at least, our "idea" of emptiness is empty. Two things should be in our consideration 1) the idea of emptiness and 2) emptiness (as a matter of fact).
I'm slightly confused on what your point here is exactly. Are you still of the opinion that there is a contradiction here?
On July 15 2010 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
But in any case, if emptiness is empty, why is there opposition to its changing?
Existence could not be if there were not emptiness. Lack of emptiness would really mean lack of impermanence. In this case everything would be static and would not be able to interact or effect anything else. Emptiness is necessary for existence to be.
It is an emergent function of phenomena. But this does not mean it is somehow inherently existent. Because its existence is still dependent on a 'reality' that functions in this way.
On July 15 2010 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
So you see, I suffer because I can only love that which is impermanent.
Would not the solution be to love that which must exist (and I'm going to make an apparent contradiction here) inherently for impermanence and emptiness to?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 15 2010 12:35 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 12:24 Epsilon8 wrote:
Who is this Dennet. And why should I feel swayed by the weight of his authority?
If you deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity show me some proof. If you cannot you are not operating under a valid paradigm. You are operating under an unfounded belief. I'm getting bored of the rest of the argument so I'm just gonna bow out of that. You should not, of course, be swayed by any authority. You should be swayed by arguments. The most explicit setting out of Dennett's argument against the subjective aspect of consciousness (at least insofar as it relates to the hard problem of consciousness) is in Consciousness Explained in Chapters 10 through 12 (iirc). You can probably find a copy of the book via less legal means, but I'm not sure. Its fairly complicated and I just wrote a thesis that was partially on it so I'm not going to massacre it by trying to simplify it.
I meant the comment about Daniel Dennet to draw attention to how you seemed to be citing Daniel Dennet as though the very mention of his name would bring me to the 'understanding' of truth. And that you are in some way allied and support each others arguments.
I will take a look at the book when I get time.
On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them.
If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
|
On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one.
if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
|
On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly
The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
|
On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins.
hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
|
On July 15 2010 23:59 Epsilon8 wrote:
I'm slightly confused on what your point here is exactly. Are you still of the opinion that there is a contradiction here?
I believe Buddhism would teach that the teaching of emptiness is empty (that is, it requires minds to think it up, exchange it, etc.), but as it describes reality accurately (according to Buddhism), then the description itself cannot be empty, and therefore, emptiness cannot be empty. On this view I see emptiness as a facet of reality being discovered, rather than invented (as not the product of minds, and therefore inherently existing). If that is very confusing, I apologize. Essentially, "emptiness" as a teaching is "empty" by virtue that it must be discovered, but emptiness as a description of reality is not, by virtue that it describes reality.
This is not something that is "dependent" on reality--it is reality.
On July 15 2010 23:59 Epsilon8 wrote:
Existence could not be if there were not emptiness. Lack of emptiness would really mean lack of impermanence. In this case everything would be static and would not be able to interact or effect anything else. Emptiness is necessary for existence to be.
It is an emergent function of phenomena. But this does not mean it is somehow inherently existent. Because its existence is still dependent on a 'reality' that functions in this way.
I think one of the few honest things I could say at this point, is that I simply reject the "step of faith" that I must take to come to this belief. I do not agree that if something has a Platonic form (an essential nature), that therefore it is unable to interact or effect anything else. To poorly argue from a conclusion to a premise: I believe I have an essential nature, I can affect and interact with things, therefore, things with essential natures can interact and effect things. I believe this would constitute a sort of lame argument from experience. As far as I see it now, it all comes down to that bit of "faith".
On July 15 2010 23:59 Epsilon8 wrote:
Would not the solution be to love that which must exist (and I'm going to make an apparent contradiction here) inherently for impermanence and emptiness to?
I'm very much enjoying the dialogue, so please don't take my replies as "pushy" or however else I may be misconstrued (I have a very bad habit of "going after" people). But anyway, my solution would be to reject the system, because it does not account for my experiences.
|
On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of?
For me it is his tone and argument style. I retract my former statement of thinking poorly.
I just plain do not like him. Period. To be honest though, I've only ever seen video lectures of him and short essays hes written, I've never read one of his books. I'll look into reading one.
|
On July 16 2010 01:32 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 01:23 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 01:11 Gnosis wrote:On July 16 2010 00:54 Win.win wrote:On July 16 2010 00:50 Epsilon8 wrote:On July 15 2010 17:51 rockslave wrote:
Dennet is a known name because Dawkins keeps endorsing him, but sometimes he takes truths from nothing. In the language of mathematics, he doesn't prove the isomorphisms between his models and the modelled stuff before he uses them. If Daniel Dennet is well liked by Dawkins I am very skeptical. Dawkins is a bad thinker if I ever saw one. if you wouldn't mind, i'd love to hear some examples of Dawkins thinking poorly The God Delusion was Dawkins far from his best. The Greatest Show on Earth was also some what vitriolic, but otherwise I very much enjoy Dawkins. hmm you enjoy dawkins. not to be offensive but, judging by your questions in this thread, i take it you haven't read the selfish gene? dawkins is rather straightforward in the god delusion, but is that really an example of "bad thinking"? is there a particular argument he makes that you find unreasonable, or is it just his tone that you disapprove of? For me it is his tone and argument style. I retract my former statement of thinking poorly. I just plain do not like him. Period. To be honest though, I've only ever seen video lectures of him and short essays hes written, I've never read one of his books. I'll look into reading one.
fair enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
