How simple are people?
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
This is a compositional error. Many macroscopic properties (wetness, elasticity, temperature) emerge from organized interactions of parts even though no part singly bears them. Current neuroscience and complexity theory treat consciousness likewise (as an emergent, system level phenomenon) without assigning it to each constituent particle
You are right about the compositional error. I'd need to think more about whether or not it applies to (any form or level of) consciousness. We can change it then --> How could consciousness emerge from particles? Or we could just ask how can any particles interact at all.
Standard physical interactions (electromagnetic coupling, chemical bonding, synaptic transmission) already lie outside any single particle yet remain fully within physical law. No extra layer is required other then forces and the relational structure they generate.
What they transmit are energy and information via physical forces. The emergence of mental states from neural computation requires only these well documented exchanges
What are physical laws and forces? How about energy and information?
From what I remember, physical laws aren't really anything in themselves. They are just patterns people have observed and made into rules. The rules don't do anything, but we can use them to predict things.
The forces appear to function outside the limits of the particles themselves. They are not the particles they affect. So what are they? If we believe that they too are composed of particles, we'd have to come up with new forces to explain their interaction, which then are made up of more particles again. Particles all the way down ad infinitum without ever getting to an explanation. It makes more sense to think of forces as something other than particles. For anything to interact with each other, a common medium is needed.
Similar thing for energy as with forces. Are they more particles?
When something gains information, it's a change in its state, isn't it? But if the particles are single indivisible units, not composed of anything else within them that could change, then how could information be transmitted?
To clarify, I'm not arguing for the reality of the soul here. I'm just saying that particles aren't the most fundamental layer of reality.
By the way, I can understand wetness, elasticity and temperature, but I don't see how subjectivity could emerge from purely objective phenomena. It seems equally odd to me to say that pure objectivity can give rise to subjectivity, as it would be to say that pure subjectivity can give rise to objectivity.
I don't think I was wrong in my previous post after all, except perhaps in the choice of words. "Subject" or "subjectivity" might have worked better than "consciousness", but I don't really know the best words to use. The kind of consciousness we experience is not an attribute of one thing alone. I think of it something like the below quote says.
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
As of now, the only way I can make sense of consciousness is by imagining something non-material and without discrete parts (it reminds me of water or air, though those are material of course) which could be said to be everywhere and nowhere simultaneously (not literally). The human body then receives and modulates this "signal", which then results in the kind of consciousness we are familiar with.
While I wasn't originally arguing for the reality of the soul, I guess I could give my thought on this. In my view, the soul is "pure subject." It can't be examined from the outside but is nonetheless real.
"We must remember that the only instrument of investigation we possess is our mind . . . The quality and condition of the telescope govern the observation resulting from its use. If there is dust on our lens, we see dark spots in the heavens."
🎧🎶24/7
-
@random wait so if I understand correctly, you agree with me that the soul is a subjective matter and not something that can be objectively identified in every human?
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
My opinion (which I’d be happy for you to prove wrong) is that we've come as close as necessary to understanding the fundamentals of our universe to recognize that the soul is a belief, not a fact
We've come as close as necessary to make it a tangible scientific hypothesis chap. Stick around.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
As I said before, I'm not here to argue, I'm here to have a productive debate. So, as I mentioned, I'm happy to listen to your ideas about why I'm wrong or where my position might be flawed. But saying lol and making comments like "While you're busy with sports, others are busy with science" doesn't help me understand your stance
lol
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@random wait so if I understand correctly, you agree with me that the soul is a subjective matter and not something that can be objectively identified in every human?
Objectivity doesn't exist. Reality is what each person feels.
So the soul exists in the reality of some people, and may not exist in the reality of others -
@random said in How simple are people?:
Objectivity doesn't exist. Reality is what each person feels.
So the soul exists in the reality of some people, and may not exist in the reality of othersSatan-coded waffle.
@random said in Raypeat = infertility psyop?:
"relativism" Can be harmfull.
Schizo.
-
@ThinPicking Not only is the idea that the objective doesn't exist incoherent, its also self-defeating.
-
@jamezb46 said in How simple are people?:
@ThinPicking Not only is the idea that the objective doesn't exist incoherent, its also self-defeating.
Very coherent, there is no experience without a subject/person to experience it, all your thoughts and feelings happen inside you, so when you think about the idea of “objectivity” it happens inside you, a subject/person. so objectivity doesn't exist because you never experience an object without being a subject, your perception is always influenced by your experiences, your feelings, your instincts. It does not exclude having empathy and considering your perception of other feelings
-
@random said in How simple are people?:
there is no experience without a subject/person to experience it, all your thoughts and feelings happen inside you
Not in isolation.
your perception is always influenced by your experiences, your feelings, your instincts.
Ok but if you take that to an extreme you might end up sincerely believing a desktop PC can read your mind directly in the present. And defend the idea like gollum to the ring. Or that the dose makes the poison and the concentration has nothing to do with it.
It does not exclude having empathy and considering your perception of other feelings
So too in reverse. I've moved a million miles in a direction I probably wouldn't otherwise have travelled for the science and art of others. Particularly in this "community". And that was often painful. It was an expense to me. Lucky someone gave me bioenergetic cheat codes for free. If I hinged on the feels I might prefer to go nowhere or off in to the grass.
Maybe it's the wrong way. You tell me Truth. Feel free to be cringe and witty. It's better than war.
-
@random As I've written about here already, I think the kind of solipsism you espouse here is often the result of a low energy state. It's obvious that everything we see is channeled through our own personal experiences. Nevertheless we need to use objectivity in order to actually accomplish anything (including Peating itself, derived from objective/materialist principles of cellular function), even something as simple as crossing a street requires looking both ways for the objective car which might objectively harm you. It takes more energy to seriously believe in The Real than just oneself. But the fruits are much greater. Now you're actually starting to play the game.
The Abrahamic religions encode this as "faith" imo. Something that is effortful and takes maintenance. With various techniques for doing so.
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
@random As I've written about here already, I think the kind of solipsism you espouse here is often the result of a low energy state. It's obvious that everything we see is channeled through our own personal experiences. Nevertheless we need to use objectivity in order to actually accomplish anything (including Peating itself, derived from objective/materialist principles of cellular function), even something as simple as crossing a street requires looking both ways for the objective car which might objectively harm you. It takes more energy to seriously believe in The Real than just oneself. But the fruits are much greater. Now you're actually starting to play the game.
The Abrahamic religions encode this as "faith" imo. Something that is effortful and takes maintenance. With various techniques for doing so.
Opposite, I started thinking that at times when I reached a high degree of energy.
I'm not sure what you mean by solipsism, the internet definition is:
"the quality of being very self-centred or selfish.
"she herself elicits scant sympathy, such is her solipsism and lack of self-awareness"
2.
Philosophy
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
"solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"That doesn't correspond to anything I've said. What I said doesn't exclude feeling empathy for others and considering our perception of their feelings.
didnt say only self/mind exist, i said everything you experience happens with in you at least partly,
So yes objectivity doesn't exist because there is no experience without subjects.Acting on the assumption that things are real and have an impact, as in your example of the car, in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
-
I edited my previous post on this thread to add some thoughts I felt fit better there than in a separate post.
-
@random so you don't think objective reality doesn't exist, you just think that we can't have any purely objective knowledge?
-
Acting on the assumption that things are real
in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
As predicted. You believe in objectivity like everyone else trying to do anything in the world. You just pretend that you don't using veiled and distant language.
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
Acting on the assumption that things are real
in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
As predicted. You believe in objectivity like everyone else trying to do anything in the world. You just pretend that you don't using veiled and distant language.
Nah, you just not confused, read better, or increase degree of discernement.
From an individual perspective, what he feel/perceive is real, does this mean this car exist Independently of his perception?no.
Does this mean he can have an Idea about a car or perceive the car with out it being influenced by being a subject? No.Go read definitions for words you use.
Give a definition of objectivity
-
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
@random so you don't think objective reality doesn't exist, just that we can't have any purely objective knowledge?
From a person perspective, Objective reality doesnt exist, reality is what a being perceive, if you perceive/feel something it exist, if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist. Yes we cant have any purely objective knowledge. It doesnt make an individual subjective reality and knowledge less valuable
-
‘To science definitions are worthless because always inadequate. The only real definition is the development of the thing itself, but this is no longer a definition.’
Friedrich Engels.
Read Mao Zedong's "Where do correct ideas come from".
You're not wrong in any individual statement you make . You're just overemphasizing one small part, possibly the least interesting, of the mental digestive process. It's mental constipation.
if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
Imagine seriously taking this mindset into a warzone. Or anywhere else where it actually matters what epistemology one has, like a factory floor.
-
@random I kinda wish we could just transmit thoughts through telepathy, bypassing language...
Anyway, definitions:
- Real
- actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
- existing or occurring in the physical world; not imaginary, fictitious, or theoretical; actual
- (of a thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
- Reality
- the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
- the state or quality of having existence or substance.
@random said in How simple are people?:
reality is what a being perceive, if you perceive/feel something it exist, if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
If we use the definitions I found online, then I don't think what you wrote is the whole picture. It would make more sense to say that there are real things even when we don't perceive them. And when we do perceive them, our experience of them is a mixture of ourselves and of the real thing outside of ourselves. If there was nothing real to perceive, how could you perceive it?
@random said in How simple are people?:
Yes we cant have any purely objective knowledge. It doesnt make an individual subjective reality and knowledge less valuable
I agree. At least to an extent.
@NoeticJuice said in Quotes from books:
"There are certain modes of attention which are naturally called forth by certain kinds of object. We pay a different sort of attention to a dying man from the sort of attention we'd pay to a sunset, or a carburettor. However, this process is reciprocal. It is not just that what we find determines the nature of the attention we accord to it, but that the attention we pay to anything also determines what it is we find . . . [attention] creates, brings aspects of things into being, but in doing so makes others recede. What a thing is depends on who is attending to it, and in what way . . . One way of putting this is to say that we neither discover an objective reality nor invent a subjective reality, but that there is a process of responsive evocation, the world 'calling forth' something in me that in turn 'calls forth' something in the world."
The Master and His Emissary (2019), p. 133
Ian McGilchrist - Real
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
‘To science definitions are worthless because always inadequate. The only real definition is the development of the thing itself, but this is no longer a definition.’
Friedrich Engels.
Read Mao Zedong's "Where do correct ideas come from".
You're not wrong in any individual statement you make . You're just overemphasizing one small part, possibly the least interesting, of the mental digestive process. It's mental constipation.
if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
Imagine seriously taking this mindset into a warzone. Or anywhere else where it actually matters what epistemology one has, like a factory floor.
You are mentally constipated.
I dont overemphasize anything.
What about this mindset in a war zone?
-
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
It can't be examined from the outside but is nonetheless real.
Never say never. (Maybe) we border it somewhere.
I'm not gunning to make a black mirror episode out of this though.
