False Consciousness: Why Most are not really Conscious

[uwot]

The divisive nature of thought influences anything made of thought.

I think most people would conclude that different people have different interests, hopes, desires and needs which will lead them to think differently. I don't know of any philosopher who thinks that there is something inherent in thought that causes us to think differently. Yours is possibly a unique, certainly rare, metaphysics of thought. Like any metaphysics, it might be true, but given that there is a simpler explanation, you will struggle to convince anyone. What you need is some phenomenon that 'the divisive nature of thought' explains, that 'different interests' doesn't, then people will pay attention.

[Arising_uk]

My thesis is that thought is inherently divisive in nature, and this bias for division infects all the content of thought.

An example is the noun. Language is a key expression of thought, and the noun is a building block of language, thus examining the nature of nouns provides some insight in to the nature of thought.

The function of a noun is to divide one part of reality from another. The word "tree" creates the impression that a tree is something separate and unique from everything else. Conceptually this is true, and psychologically the separateness of "tree" feels solid, because the word "tree" is a completely different word than the words "sun" and "soil" and "water". ...

The function of a noun is to name objects and things, the things that the world is made up of. That they have relations does not affect their separateness nor their uniqueness.

Wittgenstein expressed your error succinctly,
“We must not say, the complex sign ‘aRb’ says ‘a stands in a certain relation R to b’; but we must say, that ‘a’ stands in a certain relation to ‘b’ says that aRb” - TLP, (3.1432). To paraphrase, 'We must not say that a noun 'Z' creates an object, but we must say that an object creates a noun 'Z' '. Even your squirrels know a tree when they see one.

So I think your 'thesis' is based upon a false premise.

[Felasco]

I think most people would conclude that different people have different interests, hopes, desires and needs which will lead them to think differently.

Yes, of course, agreed. And the "interests, hopes, desires and needs" are created by the inherently divisive nature of thought.

The particular form the needs take will vary from person to person, but the fact that everybody has such needs arises from the inherently divisive nature of thought. The inherently divisive nature of thought creates the human condition, an experience of reality being divided between "me" and "everything else". This is the perspective that generates fear, and the needs.

We could study my particular needs vs. your particular needs and learn something about uwot and Felasco. Or we could study thought, and learn something about everybody on Earth. Imho, the later is far more interesting and productive.

I don't know of any philosopher who thinks that there is something inherent in thought that causes us to think differently.

We only think differently on the surface. Underneath the surface details we're all pretty much the same, as we're all made of the same thing, thought.

What you need is some phenomenon that 'the divisive nature of thought' explains, that 'different interests' doesn't, then people will pay attention.

I doubt anybody will ever pay attention. I keep typing it because I have a typoholic screw loose.

On the surface all the philosophies appear to have "different interests", underneath the surface they all share the same bias for division, because they're all made of the same stuff.

[uwot]

We could study my particular needs vs. your particular needs and learn something about uwot and Felasco. Or we could study thought, and learn something about everybody on Earth. Imho, the later is far more interesting and productive.

Well let's see where it leads us. How do we start, Baba Bozo?

[Felasco]

Well let's see where it leads us. How do we start, Baba Bozo?

And it only took me something like 6 years and 20,000 posts on this topic all over the forum for me to inspire a useful practical reply. I must be quite the expert writer!

Seriously, His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo will now inquire, in a sincere and cooperative way, why are you asking him?

This isn't gotcha sarcasm, but a real point which I offer in direct response to your good question. The way to begin is not to sit back and listen to Baba Bozo blabber on, and then agree or disagree.

The way to begin is to begin your own investigation. If nothing else this will help you understand if you're really interested in this topic. Assuming you are, and that you demonstrate this to yourself by beginning on your own...

What would you do if there were no great imaginary sage like Baba Bozo to wear a turban and give a sermon?

If you had nobody to rely on but yourself, how would you begin your investigation? How would you proceed if you wanted to study say, chipmunks. What first steps might you take?

[uwot]

If you had nobody to rely on but yourself, how would you begin your investigation? How would you proceed if you wanted to study say, chipmunks. What first steps might you take?

I would build a hide, so that I could observe and record chipmunk behaviour, while having as little impact and influence on their environment and behaviour as possible. What should I look at to study thought?

[Greylorn Ell]

If you had nobody to rely on but yourself, how would you begin your investigation? How would you proceed if you wanted to study say, chipmunks. What first steps might you take?

I would build a hide, so that I could observe and record chipmunk behaviour, while having as little impact and influence on their environment and behaviour as possible. What should I look at to study thought?

How would you answer your own question?

[uwot]

How would you answer your own question?

I have no idea. If I were to study thoughts, I would read about them, evaluate them and discuss them in academic as well as informal settings, such as this. As far as I can work out, Baba Bozo believes that 'thought' is a substance that can be studied independently of anyone thinking. It may be that he has some 'beon' like entity in mind, but he hasn't given any hint as to how it could be detected, much less observed.

[Felasco]

I would build a hide, so that I could observe and record chipmunk behaviour, while having as little impact and influence on their environment and behaviour as possible.

There you go. As I suggested, you don't really need Baba Bozo too much, as you already know how to proceed with your investigation. If you should conduct such an investigation, we could possibly share notes and such.

Baba Bozo likes the following about the plan for your investigation.

1) Observation.

2) Try to have as little influence upon what is being observed as possible.

3) No mention of theories and conclusions.

[Felasco]

As far as I can work out, Baba Bozo believes that 'thought' is a substance...

It's not esoteric, so don't work too hard on this. Be simple and practical.

Thought has a physical existence within the body, just like blood, bone, tissue etc. Perhaps it's better described as a process than a material, but don't worry about the details too much.

Whatever it is, thought has properties, just like everything else in existence. It seems reasonable to propose that anything made of thought would be influenced by those properties. This seems helpful, because both the philosopher and his philosophy are made of thought.

Philosophy, an analysis of the content of thought, is like studying the creatures of the ocean. Each creature is different, they can be compared etc.

Studying thought itself is like studying the water which all the ocean creatures swim in and are largely made of.

[uwot]

Studying thought itself is like studying the water which all the ocean creatures swim in and are largely made of.

I'm really struggling with this metaphor, Baba Bozo. Might it not be easier to describe thoughts as waves on the ocean?

[Felasco]

Studying thought itself is like studying the water which all the ocean creatures swim in and are largely made of.

I'm really struggling with this metaphor, Baba Bozo.

Ok, sorry about that, explain why please.

Might it not be easier to describe thoughts as waves on the ocean?

That could be interesting. Tell us why this occurs to you.

[Greylorn Ell]

How would you answer your own question?

I have no idea. If I were to study thoughts, I would read about them, evaluate them and discuss them in academic as well as informal settings, such as this. As far as I can work out, Baba Bozo believes that 'thought' is a substance that can be studied independently of anyone thinking. It may be that he has some 'beon' like entity in mind, but he hasn't given any hint as to how it could be detected, much less observed.

Let's do that then. There are enough here who've put in some time at a university to make this an informally academic discussion.

Of course I have my own axe to grind, but even in boy scouts I was not the best at sharpening axes. Someone with a different perspective who takes Beon Theory seriously enough to discuss its potential will do a better job of that.

Beon Theory treats beon as a substance, thought as a force manifested by that substance. It also proposes that both the substance and its properties can be experimentally verified.

[Greylorn Ell]

I would build a hide, so that I could observe and record chipmunk behaviour, while having as little impact and influence on their environment and behaviour as possible.

There you go. As I suggested, you don't really need Baba Bozo too much, as you already know how to proceed with your investigation. If you should conduct such an investigation, we could possibly share notes and such.

Baba Bozo likes the following about the plan for your investigation.

1) Observation.

2) Try to have as little influence upon what is being observed as possible.

3) No mention of theories and conclusions.

Baba Bozo,

1. Observation is good.

2. Influence upon that which is being observed, particularly in the case of conscious entities, is sometimes an essential component of observation. Try engineering an armor-piercing bullet without destroying lots of bullets. You'll have trouble performing a quantum physics experiment without destroying some photons and electrons. Moreover, every photon of light coming off your screen that enters your eyes, thereby allowing you to read this stuff, is bent from its normal trajectory by your lens, then destroyed in your retina.

We learned more about consciousness back in 1948 when Wilder Penfield inserted electric probes into a live human brain with a fully consciousness mind than had been learned from the passive observations of psychology (James, Freud, etc.) in the previous 70 years.

3. Physics has always worked from theories. They are essential to the scientific process because they tell experimentalists where to look, and how. No one thought of observing stars whose light passed near the sun during an eclipse to see if they appeared to be displaced from their normal position until General Relativity Theorypredicted their displacement.

Had a casual observer noticed this displacement before Big Al's theory was published, it is likely that nothing useful would have been deduced from it. The most common approach of scientists confronted with observations that do not fit their theories is to declare that the observations are just bullshit.

Brain research is a perfect example of the value of interference. Scientists have made thousands of interesting observations about the nature of consciousness, but still cannot explain the case of Phineas Gage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
Roger Penrose and others regard consciousness as one of the two greatest mysteries of the 21st century. (A number of his lectures are on U-Tube, and you might appreciate the man. There are others.)

BTW, I love Baba Bozo's newfound sense of humor.

[Greylorn Ell]

As far as I can work out, Baba Bozo believes that 'thought' is a substance...

It's not esoteric, so don't work too hard on this. Be simple and practical.

Thought has a physical existence within the body, just like blood, bone, tissue etc. Perhaps it's better described as a process than a material, but don't worry about the details too much.

Whatever it is, thought has properties, just like everything else in existence. It seems reasonable to propose that anything made of thought would be influenced by those properties. This seems helpful, because both the philosopher and his philosophy are made of thought.

Philosophy, an analysis of the content of thought, is like studying the creatures of the ocean. Each creature is different, they can be compared etc.

Studying thought itself is like studying the water which all the ocean creatures swim in and are largely made of.

Baba Bozo,

It looks like you are lumping many different kinds of mental activities under the single word, "thought."

Is the process by which you read these words, thought? Is that process the same as that where you first learned to read?

Is the process of gleaning the content of those two previous sentences, and reducing them to concepts, the same as the process required to read them?

Is the process of formulating a reply to these questions the same as that required when you first memorized the alphabet?

What happens when you suddenly come up with a new idea? New ideas arrive in the mind fully formed as pure concepts without words. To retain the concept it is necessary to wrap some words or mathematics around it. Are these two different processes suitably distinguished by the single word, "thought?"

Greylorn