|
thegreytradster
Sep 24, 2006, 2:23 AM
Post #51 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
Largo, have you ever read any of Jeffery Satinover's stuff, particularly The Quantum Brain? If you have I'd be interested in your take, if not you might find it interesting.
I do find it rather odd on a more mundane and political level how some can make the irrational leap from a body politic that isn't particularly interested in rolling over and playing Dehimi for a bunch with a seventh century view of human rights to a new "Christian crusade". I'd think they'd be for the promotion of western liberal values, (in the classic sense) like freedom of religious and personal expression and the social equality of woman.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Sep 24, 2006, 5:46 PM
Post #52 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Fracture wrote: "You're still exhibiting basically essentialist thinking about "consciousness" and "awareness", as if it were a trivial on-or-off property that's either there or not. That view doesn't work so well in a post-1859 philosophical climate."
Not essentialist, rather experiential. A "post-1859 philosophical climate" most likely points to an era where consciousness and awareness are no longer encountered and experienced directly, but rather noodled and evaluated by the rational mind, so in the end what you is oftentimes theory divorced from the thing itself, and ultimately, mistaking the theory FOR the thing itself, as though they were identical.
Also, who said awareness is "trivial." That's pretty much the whole shooting match--but you're totally correct when you say it is on-or-off, at least in terms of stabalizing one's awareness of being present with the content that passes through consciousness. No one alive gets a stabalized awareness without a lot of consciousness work, anymore than someone flashes a 5.11 off width crack with no prior practice or experience.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Sep 24, 2006, 9:04 PM
Post #53 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Fracture wrote: "You're still exhibiting basically essentialist thinking about "consciousness" and "awareness", as if it were a trivial on-or-off property that's either there or not. That view doesn't work so well in a post-1859 philosophical climate." Not essentialist, rather experiential. A "post-1859 philosophical climate" most likely points to an era where consciousness and awareness are no longer encountered and experienced directly, but rather noodled and evaluated by the rational mind, so in the end what you is oftentimes theory divorced from the thing itself, and ultimately, mistaking the theory FOR the thing itself, as though they were identical.
Post-1859 meaning that any coherent theory of consciousness will have to be a theory of something that could have evolved. Evolution can't make sudden giant leaps: it takes very small gradual steps. There can't have been a first conscious organism, any more than there could have been a first human or a first primate. It has to have been possible for something to be a little bit conscious.
In reply to: Also, who said awareness is "trivial."
What I meant is that any view where consciousness or awareness is an on-or-off property greatly underestimates the complexity of these phenomena.
In reply to: That's pretty much the whole shooting match--but you're totally correct when you say it is on-or-off, ...
You seem to have misunderstood me, because I said the opposite of that.
On-or-off == essentialist == incompatible with Darwinism.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Sep 24, 2006, 9:11 PM
Post #54 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: But don't you see? That's what everyone does. Moderates, fundamentalists, skeptics - everyone has their own interpretation, and with enough effort, it can be twisted around to support just about anything. ...I really don't see a Christian Jihad that has twisted the bible to incite terrorism.
...thanks...limited but none the less attacks ....as for a large or even small fanatical Christian uprising...well...I still don't see it. The Pope statements are very calculated....he proved his point and hopefully opened some eyes.
In reply to: Executions spark Indonesia unrest Thousands of mourners are praying for the dead men Thousands of protesters took to the streets of eastern Indonesia after three Christian militants were executed in religiously divided Sulawesi. Protesters torched cars, looted shops and set prisoners free from a jail. But Palu, where the executions took place, remained calm. Mourners attended church services to pray for the men. The three men were convicted of masterminding a series of attacks on Muslims in central Sulawesi in 2000 that killed at least 70 people. A spokesman for the Vatican, which had appealed for clemency, described the executions as a defeat for humanity. VIOLENT PAST Previously known as Celebes, Sulawesi is Indonesia's fourth largest island 80% of residents are Muslim, while 17% are Christian A December 1998 brawl in Poso led to months of religious violence in which hundreds died The human rights organisation Amnesty International also expressed disappointment. The three men - Fabianus Tibo, Marianus Riwu and Dominggus da Silva - were taken before the firing squad before dawn on Friday morning, according to police officers.
In reply to: The human rights organisation Amnesty International also expressed disappointment.
...ahhhhh...the irony and hypocracy....love it....dissapointment...if only Islam could resolve their hatred so easily...
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Sep 24, 2006, 9:16 PM
Post #55 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
All of your assumptions rest on the theory that evolution is the entire story, and that consciousness is a "local" function and centered and possibly genrated in the brain. Most everyone who has done a lot of consciousness work would point you back to your earlier idea--that consciousness is a truth and a reality regardless of if we humans evolved into it or not, and regardless of what theories we cook up about it and how it was attained and so forth. If you're interested in learning for yourself how such statements were arrived at I'd be glad to point you in that direction.
Also, in terms of awareness, I'm speaking in strictly practical terms: awareness has various levels and at the higher levels it is very much on and off in us humans, escially in terms of what drives us and our impluses and choices when we act, speak, et al. Most people are so concentrated on the real or imaginary meaning of what is being said or thought they have no awareness of where it came from and what apart of their personality is doing the talking or thinking, even less so that for whatever part is acting or thinking, an opposite part is being ignored.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Sep 24, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #56 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
...also...I no longer understand the phrase "we'll bomb you back into the stone age" when used to threaten Islamic countries...? I mean isn't this redundant? Please help?
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Sep 24, 2006, 11:29 PM
Post #57 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: All of your assumptions rest on the theory that evolution is the entire story, ...
Nonsense. What would the point of AI be if biology was the entire story?
But biology is an integral part of the story. Whatever theories are arrived at need to be something that could've evolved.
Do you reject that premise? If so, you're not really doing anything that should be taken seriously: it's just intellectual tennis without a net (to borrow a metaphor). In that game, anything goes.
In reply to: ... and that consciousness is a "local" function and centered and possibly genrated in the brain.
If we're talking about humans, there are very good reasons for assuming that (not the least of which is the need for compatability with biology that I've been mentioning, but perhaps more importantly, the available evidence supports it).
In reply to: Most everyone who has done a lot of consciousness work would point you back to your earlier idea--that consciousness is a truth and a reality regardless of if we humans evolved into it or not, and regardless of what theories we cook up about it and how it was attained and so forth. If you're interested in learning for yourself how such statements were arrived at I'd be glad to point you in that direction.
Of course consciousness is a reality. "Such statements" are simply vacuous truth; you aren't explaining anything. The fact that it's real doesn't imply that all our intuitions about it are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Sep 25, 2006, 4:46 PM
Post #58 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
Quote:
Most everyone who has done a lot of consciousness work would point you back to your earlier idea--that consciousness is a truth and a reality regardless of if we humans evolved into it or not, and regardless of what theories we cook up about it and how it was attained and so forth. If you're interested in learning for yourself how such statements were arrived at I'd be glad to point you in that direction.
Fracture wrote: "Of course consciousness is a reality. "Such statements" are simply vacuous truth; you aren't explaining anything. The fact that it's real doesn't imply that all our intuitions about it are correct."
You've goten yourself stuck in the "explaining" (the map) and have lost contact with the territory. Again, if you're interested in knowing about the territory itself, above and beyond the second hand explanation/evaluation of the territory, let me know. I can guarantee that the experience is not "vacuous," but as I've said all along, it's like freesoloing and it's not for everyone. Nor can you make any real sense of it a priori the direct experience--that's like trying to know Rome before going there.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Sep 26, 2006, 12:06 AM
Post #59 of 59
(1049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: Another great article, this one from Richard Dawkins. His latest book, The God Delusion, is currently sitting at #17 on Amazon.com. Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation is at #5. Think I might head out to the bookstore...
Now at #5 and #3 respectively. Maybe there is hope, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
