I THINK therefore I AM

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 11:13 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71301 wrote:
1) Unfortunately, I am rarely satisfied when someone puts a name to something and then calls it mission accomplished. I realize that I am having an experience that is commonly called a dream. It can be named anything you want. You can call it an illusion if you want. What I would appreciate is if you can explain to me how dreams happen? I am very interested in this subject. How the mind goes from observing four dimensions into a state where there are no dimensions. Same mind, different states. How does this all happen? Which state of mind is real and which is not real? Same mind isn't it? Or is it?


Use the link that I gave you.

richrf;71301 wrote:
2) Well, I am looking at some shadows right now. What I am wondering is if I see them, and you don't are they illusions or not?


Not being in the same place at the same time, to see the same event, does not make the event an illusion. I've already explained to you what an illusion is, so please reread my previous posts?

Illusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hallucination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 11:48 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;71305 wrote:
Use the link that I gave you.


I read the link. Let me summarize it for you as I understood it.

First it describes what every kid knows - that is that there is a common experience called dreams. It happens when someone is asleep.

Second, it then goes into many interpretations of what dreams represent.

None of this addresses my questions. However, reading it did waste some precious time of mine. I was watching the Legend of Wyatt Earp with Hugh O'Brian and couldn't finish the DVD because I was reading stuff that anyone who has dreams already knows.

Quote:
Not being in the same place at the same time, to see the same event, does not make the event an illusion. I've already explained to you what an illusion is, so please reread my previous posts?
Sorry. Unfortunately, my Consciousness is rarely satisfied with names, descriptions and definitions. I am more interested in How and Why. I will still have to go on wondering what is an illusion, because all I know is that I experience things that others do not - such as taking a shower in the morning, and have dreams right before that at night. That is what my Consciousness does. It is part of my life.

The Wikipedia definitions are ... well not very satisfying. What can I say? If you are satisfied, then there isn't much where else to go. Different people are satisfied by different things.

Rich
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:31 am
@richrf,
Richrf, could I get your reply, in the detail that I'd hope to see it in, for that question in my #79 above? I sense a level of lack in honesty with a statement of yours, and I wish to verify the validity of my take on that, please. Thanks !! KJ




ps. If one is 'looking' at (or 'seeing') what is formulated from and in connection with content and activity in their visual field as a shadow, and if that can be demonstrated objectively by a second or third party to not be a shadow, and that demonstration can be replicated by others, then it is an illusion. It is an illusion because you have labelled it a shadow when it is not a shadow--since shadow has a specific definition.
 
Whoever
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 04:57 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;71144 wrote:
You mean I have to find out what Buddha and the other guy believed the Cogito meant in order to find out what it means, or in order to find our what you mean? Very puzzling.

This is not what I suggested. It's actually very clearly not what I suggested.

Quote:
I think that Buddha (and the other guy) were born way before Descartes, so how could they know what the Cogito means, anyway, and when would they have talked about it. Very puzzling.

Puzzling indeed, since Latin was unknown to them.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 07:21 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;71317 wrote:
ps. If one is 'looking' at (or 'seeing') what is formulated from and in connection with content and activity in their visual field as a shadow, and if that can be demonstrated objectively by a second or third party to not be a shadow, and that demonstration can be replicated by others, then it is an illusion. It is an illusion because you have labelled it a shadow when it is not a shadow--since shadow has a specific definition.


OK. So illusions only occur when their are two or three people around. Now that in itself is quite interesting. We have to bring in outside observers to create the notion of illusions. Pretty philosophical don't you think? But ...

Objectively? Whose senses are considered the objective ones. Yours? Mine? Your buddy? I know lots of people who listen to hard rock that can't hear worth a dime. Does this mean that I should drop all of my trust in my senses if it is 2 to 1 against me? Suppose I hear a grasshopper chirping at my footsteps and you do not, and your friend next to you does not, does that mean that there is no grasshopper? (I'm a big fan of Kung Fu Smile).

Objectivity, to me, translates into "my senses are better than yours."

Rich
 
Dearhtead
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 07:32 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;71198 wrote:
There must be a reason that every spiritual tradition has a sacred symbol that is based on the circle.



The circle is a symbol of unity, of autonomy, of perfection but I think we can say that for each geometric figure too...
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 07:34 am
@richrf,
richrf;71309 wrote:
I read the link. Let me summarize it for you as I understood it.

First it describes what every kid knows - that is that there is a common experience called dreams. It happens when someone is asleep.

Second, it then goes into many interpretations of what dreams represent.

None of this addresses my questions. However, reading it did waste some precious time of mine. I was watching the Legend of Wyatt Earp with Hugh O'Brian and couldn't finish the DVD because I was reading stuff that anyone who has dreams already knows.

Sorry. Unfortunately, my Consciousness is rarely satisfied with names, descriptions and definitions. I am more interested in How and Why. I will still have to go on wondering what is an illusion, because all I know is that I experience things that others do not - such as taking a shower in the morning, and have dreams right before that at night. That is what my Consciousness does. It is part of my life.

The Wikipedia definitions are ... well not very satisfying. What can I say? If you are satisfied, then there isn't much where else to go. Different people are satisfied by different things.

Rich


It sounds like you read little to none of the information in that link. It explains the phenomenon of dreaming at the neurological, and psychological levels. Be careful, you're almost crazy when you start to believe that dreams are real.

This is a waste of time. You ask me what something is, but when I described it to you, you brush it off by saying that your brain isn't satisfied with names, descriptions, and definitions. I'm sorry that I took you seriously.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 07:42 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;71262 wrote:
What does that mean? I'm not saying that another being is having the illusion that I exist. I'm saying that I may only exist as an abstraction of an actual reality. I don't believe, in the least bit, that I am an abstraction. I am a strong adherent to the principle of parsimony, but this argument stems from the problem of epistemic skepticism. That is why knowledge is a practical, provisional concept and not an absolute.



But if there is an illusion, then must not someone be having the illusion (or hallucination which is really what you are talking about)? I really do not know what it means to say that "X exists as an abstraction of reality" (I have never heard the phrase before, and I really have no idea what it might mean) but if "X exists as an abstraction of reality" implies that "X exists" then, of course something exist, namely the one who has the illusion or the hallucination. It it does not imply that X exists, then, I am afraid that I don't have any idea of what you mean. Generally, the peculiar phrase, "A exists as B" just means that B exists. Unfortunately, I don't know what "an abstraction of reality" means, or would be, and I doubt very much that anyone else knows what it means, or would be. Just putting a few English words together does not guarantee that the result makes sense.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 08:11 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;71366 wrote:
It sounds like you read little to none of the information in that link. It explains the phenomenon of dreaming at the neurological, and psychological levels. Be careful, you're almost crazy when you start to believe that dreams are real.

This is a waste of time. You ask me what something is, but when I described it to you, you brush it off by saying that your brain isn't satisfied with names, descriptions, and definitions. I'm sorry that I took you seriously.


Frankly, the explanation given is akin to my telling my son, that "babies come from Mommy", when he asks me "Where do babies come from". And do you know what children then ask ...?

At some point, probably when students start figuring out how to get A's in school, the process of exploration and questioning just ceases in many people. They realize that questioning the professor is a bad policy. So, it appears they lose their inquisitive nature, and just become complacent and are easily satisfied by definitions (i.e. observing and naming things), and calling definitions "answers". But as for me, I'm still like that child asking the next question .....

Rich
 
Dearhtead
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 08:18 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;71369 wrote:
But if there is an illusion, then must not someone be having the illusion (or hallucination which is really what you are talking about)? I really do not know what it means to say that "X exists as an abstraction of reality" (I have never heard the phrase before, and I really have no idea what it might mean) but if "X exists as an abstraction of reality" implies that "X exists" then, of course something exist, namely the one who has the illusion or the hallucination. It it does not imply that X exists, then, I am afraid that I don't have any idea of what you mean. Generally, the peculiar phrase, "A exists as B" just means that B exists. Unfortunately, I don't know what "an abstraction of reality" means, or would be, and I doubt very much that anyone else knows what it means, or would be. Just putting a few English words together does not guarantee that the result makes sense.


If X, which exists, is an abstraction, that is to say X is a sort of extract taken from the reality in order to be analyzed.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 08:45 am
@Dearhtead,
Dearhtead;71380 wrote:
If X, which exists, is an abstraction, that is to say X is a sort of extract taken from the reality in order to be analyzed.


That makes about as much sense of the term, "exists as an abstraction" as does anything else, I suppose.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 09:22 am
@richrf,
richrf;71282 wrote:
Abundantly clear? Does this mean your interpretation is the one to go by?
You don't need my interpretation. You already have Descartes'. He wrote it. He was a man of considerable skill at articulating a train of logic, and he did so self-consciously and intentionally in the thought experiment that culminates in his cogito (although that specific phrase appears elsewhere).

So why are we trying to interpret what his cogito means in isolation of what he actually said it means?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 09:51 am
@richrf,
richrf;71377 wrote:
Frankly, the explanation given is akin to my telling my son, that "babies come from Mommy", when he asks me "Where do babies come from". And do you know what children then ask ...?

At some point, probably when students start figuring out how to get A's in school, the process of exploration and questioning just ceases in many people. They realize that questioning the professor is a bad policy. So, it appears they lose their inquisitive nature, and just become complacent and are easily satisfied by definitions (i.e. observing and naming things), and calling definitions "answers". But as for me, I'm still like that child asking the next question .....

Rich


That babies come from mommy is true. Of course, there is a further explanation of how babies got into mommy. But that doesn't mean that it is false that babies come from mommy, does it? Just so, where do apples come from is answered by, apples come from an apple tree. And that is true. Of course there is an explanation of how apples go on an apple tree. But how does that mean that it is not true that apples come from an apple tree. Answer, it does not. Whether you find an explanation satisfactory seems to me to have nothing to do with the truth of the explanation. Some people seem to find false explanations satisfactory.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:02 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;71391 wrote:
You don't need my interpretation. You already have Descartes'. He wrote it. He was a man of considerable skill at articulating a train of logic, and he did so self-consciously and intentionally in the thought experiment that culminates in his cogito (although that specific phrase appears elsewhere).

So why are we trying to interpret what his cogito means in isolation of what he actually said it means?


Did he now? Suppose you tell me, or should I tell you? Who is right? Me or you. Or maybe the thousands of philosophers and philosophy students who have studied him and have come away with different ideas. Do you think that the the actions of the Church at that time might skew his writings just a little, so he didn't end up like Galileo? Or do you think that there was free thought and speech at that time - or at any time in our history, when someone could write anything he wanted? And even if he did? You can understand his words as written one hundred years ago, but you have no idea what I am saying. And I am here to tell you that you have NO idea what I am saying. Interesting isn't it?

To find certainty amidst enormous ambiguity. Humans are truly amazing.

Rich

---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

kennethamy;71399 wrote:
Whether you find an explanation satisfactory seems to me to have nothing to do with the truth of the explanation.


Yep. What counts is whether you think its true. Because, unlike me, you know what is true. I might as well just pack up my brain and let you do all the thinking for me, and you can tell me what's true and what's not true. Well, I am glad that burden is off my shoulders.

Rich
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:55 am
@richrf,
richrf;71401 wrote:
Did he now?
He wrote what he wrote. Period.

It does him a disservice to take his one famous pithy quotation, ignore EVERYTHING else that he wrote that places that quote in the context of his philosophy, but assume we can figure out what he meant.

He wrote what he wrote. There's your data. Go searching through his writings for his ideas.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:11 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71401 wrote:
Did he now? Suppose you tell me, or should I tell you? Who is right? Me or you. Or maybe the thousands of philosophers and philosophy students who have studied him and have come away with different ideas. Do you think that the the actions of the Church at that time might skew his writings just a little, so he didn't end up like Galileo? Or do you think that there was free thought and speech at that time - or at any time in our history, when someone could write anything he wanted? And even if he did? You can understand his words as written one hundred years ago, but you have no idea what I am saying. And I am here to tell you that you have NO idea what I am saying. Interesting isn't it?

To find certainty amidst enormous ambiguity. Humans are truly amazing.

Rich

N
---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------



Yep. What counts is whether you think its true. Because, unlike me, you know what is true. I might as well just pack up my brain and let you do all the thinking for me, and you can tell me what's true and what's not true. Well, I am glad that burden is off my shoulders.

Rich


Obviously, you misunderstand. I am just as fallible as the next person. What count is what is true, not what anyone happens to think is true, but with the qualification that if the person is an expert or an authority on the subject matter. what such an authority or expert thinks is true concerning that subject matter counts more than what a non-authority or non-expert thinks about the matter. Of course, just because people are equally fallible, which they are, doesn't mean that some people do not know more than other people, and, so, are more likely to have true beliefs than those who do not know as much. But, that, of course, is just commonsense. (Which, as Descartes remarked, should be, but is not, equally distributed. Alas!).
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:40 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;71419 wrote:
I am just as fallible as the next person. What count is what is true, not what anyone happens to think is true, but with the qualification that if the person is an expert or an authority on the subject matter. what such an authority or expert thinks is true concerning that subject matter counts more than what a non-authority or non-expert thinks about the matter.



It is an age old question. Ultimately, a person who believes in objectivity, does so on Faith, since there is no way to determine something without using human senses. The moment you use a sense, it becomes subjective. So to be objective implies a Faith that there is something outside of my sense. In other words, objectivity has all of the attributes of a religion.

So we go with a point system on determining truth. Nothing objective here, but an approach. We get a bunch of experts together. Each expert is given a certain weighting, and based upon the vote, we can decide what is true.

We can start right here in this forum. Now, who is going to decide who is an expert and how much of an expert they are? Well, I guess we need to round up a bunch of experts to do that, or we can have a dictatorship that will decide for us.

However, you cut it, eventually a person is going to have to decide something. And at that moment, it becomes subjective - unless you can decide things without people.

Rich

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

Aedes;71416 wrote:
He wrote what he wrote. Period.

It does him a disservice to take his one famous pithy quotation, ignore EVERYTHING else that he wrote that places that quote in the context of his philosophy, but assume we can figure out what he meant.

He wrote what he wrote. There's your data. Go searching through his writings for his ideas.


OK. I would you care to share with me what Descartes meant by the statement "I think therefore I am"?

Here is Wikipedia's take on it.

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, they are ambiguous on the subject, presenting many possibilities. Are any of them correct?

Rich
 
Whoever
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:11 pm
@richrf,
Perhaps the problem arises from the different uses of the term 'exist'. I suspect that hue-man is not suggesting that abstractions don't exist, but that they are reducible, have no metaphysical existence. They exist, but not in way we usually think they do. This would also have to be true for the recipient of the abstraction.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:24 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71426 wrote:

However, you cut it, eventually a person is going to have to decide something. And at that moment, it becomes subjective - unless you can decide things without people.

Rich

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

I try to decide on the basis of objective evidence, and so, my decisions are objective. Evidence isn't personal.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:35 pm
@Whoever,
Whoever;71433 wrote:
Perhaps the problem arises from the different uses of the term 'exist'. I suspect that hue-man is not suggesting that abstractions don't exist, but that they are reducible, have no metaphysical existence. They exist, but not in way we usually think they do. This would also have to be true for the recipient of the abstraction.


For me, phenomenon are not explained by simply inventing a word, or observing something and saying, "you see, this is what is happening."

Let's take something simple like Time. What is it? Simple. Answer: It is what happens when a clock moves. This might be enough for some people, but not for me. You see, time, thinking, senses, all seem to change for me when I am asleep and it fascinates me. A very interesting phenomenon that can be easily dismissed as being "psychological" - "it's in the mind", but then, what Is the Mind and how does it make the switch. Inquiring minds want to know.

I THINK therefore I AM.

Rich

---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------

kennethamy;71440 wrote:
richrf;71426 wrote:

However, you cut it, eventually a person is going to have to decide something. And at that moment, it becomes subjective - unless you can decide things without people.

Rich

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

I try to decide on the basis of objective evidence, and so, my decisions are objective. Evidence isn't personal.


Can I ask you how you receive evidence in a non-personal manner?


Rich
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 02/22/2024 at 07:49:12