aphilosophy

[Mark Question]

maybe separating self-aware or self-conscious thinking and the rest of unconscious thinking or brain activity will do the rhetoric trick if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will ?

I really do not think it is possible to be aware of a period in which you do not think.
Even in sleep - the part you recall dreaming is evidence of thinking.
A complete lack of thinking is called being unconsciousness, for that you need to be hit with a 2x4, or drop some very strong drugs.
Any one that claimed to be able to assume the position of aphilosophy I would question their mental health.

?
seems to me that mental health is also question of definitions.

[chaz wyman]

maybe separating self-aware or self-conscious thinking and the rest of unconscious thinking or brain activity will do the rhetoric trick if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will ?

I really do not think it is possible to be aware of a period in which you do not think.
Even in sleep - the part you recall dreaming is evidence of thinking.
A complete lack of thinking is called being unconsciousness, for that you need to be hit with a 2x4, or drop some very strong drugs.
Any one that claimed to be able to assume the position of aphilosophy I would question their mental health.

?
seems to me that mental health is also question of definitions.

I certainly agree with that, but I was not making a point about mental health as such.

There is no doubt, though, that unconscious thinking is part of the human experience, else how would I be able to type these words without looking a the keyboard, or lean my motorbike round a bend without having to calculate the centrifugal forces.?
But it seems the moment I conceptualise this - I am not talking aphilosophy by psychology or behaviouralism.

[lancek4]

the question is: Do you believe that I know what you are saying and what you mean? That is pivotal.

Apologies, but I find it quite difficult to understand what you're saying or understanding, as your presentations are a challenge to wade through.

I am saying that whether or not you understand me as having an equal understanding of what aphilsophy is, is pivotal to whether we can actually have a constructive discourse. If you do not see this of me, then you will continue to repeat what you have already said.

I am saying that, through reading your posts about what your aphilsophy is, I feel I have an understanding of what you mean and, having this notion of yours, I feel that I indeed have practiced aphilsophy.

So ask ask: do you believe, understand, see, that I understand what you are saying about aphilsophy?

[lancek4]

maybe separating self-aware or self-conscious thinking and the rest of unconscious thinking or brain activity will do the rhetoric trick if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will ?

I wrote an undergraduate research paper which involved evolution of the brain and consciousness. Unfortunately, I cannot for the life of me remember the name of the book it centered on. Nevertheness, the author was arguing the existence of a part of the brain that is an evolutionary adaptation, similar to Boca's area and areas that are known to be specific to particular aspects of the senses, that he calls "the interpreter" that is responsible for human consciousness as we know it. Siteing many, many psychological experiements that were performed over the decades, that were performed for other theories, (he was a physicist and neuro-scientist, I believe). Even at this time ( I believe the book was published in the late 90's) they knew that 'conscious' experience appears to occur 5 hundreth of a second after the stimulus.
And this was calibrated: for example; neurons are known to carry a signal to the brain at a usual speed, so one would think that if a stimulus was applied to the tip of the index finger, it would arrive at the brain after a stimulus applied to, say, the tip of the nose, applied at the same time as the finger, due to the simple distance difference between the finger and the brain and the nose tip and the brain. But this is not the case: stimuli applied at the same time around the body are precieved as occurring at the same time, even though the signals arrive in the brain at their respective-distance times.


I really do not think it is possible to be aware of a period in which you do not think.
I have to disagree with you here Chaz; perhaps this is what is difficult about what Typist is saying. In a true meditative state, that can occur with some practice, no thought occurs (or at least, it seems that way), but likewise the 'conscious appearance' of time does not occur, even though there is some sort of 'experience' going on...
Even in sleep - the part you recall dreaming is evidence of thinking.
...yes, I agree, indeed, dreaming is not 'seen' until one awakens. And Im sure we all have kad the experience of having a dream that was, like, Epic in all proportions, like a full beginning-middle-end dream that seems to have felt llike a lifetime, and then wake up to find that we were only alseep for a few minutes. But, I submit, that whatever that dream was, I have no understanding of what it was until I begin thinking, that is, until i wake, then then depth, plot and meaning of the dream come to me.

A complete lack of thinking is called being unconsciousness, for that you need to be hit with a 2x4, or drop some very strong drugs.
Both of these could be an exception to the either/or of being 'fully conscious' or 'fully unconscious'.

Any one that claimed to be able to assume the position of aphilosophy I would question their mental health.

?
seems to me that mental health is also question of definitions.

And I would argue, the science of phychology was derived from just such a notion that came out of philsophy.

I certainly agree with that, but I was not making a point about mental health as such.

There is no doubt, though, that unconscious thinking is part of the human experience, else how would I be able to type these words without looking a the keyboard, or lean my motorbike round a bend without having to calculate the centrifugal forces.?
But it seems the moment I conceptualise this - I am not talking aphilosophy by psychology or behaviouralism.

I will concede that perhaps there is some kind of 'unconscious' thinking going on, but then I must add that the only way we may know of it is through consciousness, but then such 'unconsciousness' would be merely some other knowledge which has been 'classified' or 'categorized' or 'defined' as unconscious.

- Along these lines I shall attempt to point out the situation that Typist's aphilosophy seems to present to me:

If I understand what has been said above, and i think others have said it in other ways, thenit might not be too difficult to see where Im headed here.

Typist proposes that one might 'surrender' one's thinking, or thoughts, as the case might be, such that one might be able to 'investigate' the realm that lay beyond thought.
What this implies to me, is that there is some 'whole' reality of which thinking occupies only a part, and that thinking is but one 'tool' of consciousness; that there are other ways to come upon reality, which then refers itself back to this 'whole' reality of which thinking can only apprehend a part. Consistent, then, with this 'larger wholeness' is that thinking is only one type of knowledge, and that there are other 'knowledges' or 'more to' knowledge than that which occurs of thinking.
Typist's proposition is that through the practice of aphilsophy one might thus be able to 'tap into' this larger reality.

I admit, I am prone to such an idea, or at least I have been in the past; say it was part of my investigating reality.

But I propose that when one investigates such a realm thoroughly (perhaps I have - somehow I came to this idea) that if he is honest with himself, he cannot but come to anunderstanding that whatever he may think that he has experienced in that 'larger reality', it has no more, less, or different a quality so far as to what one may know and the reasons that one may come upon such knowing, than any other means of knowing. And it seems, the only apparent difference comes by the emotional state that is associated with the experience.

For a more scholarly and thorough investigation into these states, I highly recommend (I said it before) Rudolf Otto "The Idea of the Holy" where he attempt to give a description of the phenomena of 'spiritual type' experiences, holiness, and religion.

One might be tempted to point to the sychronicity of such 'knowings' and the 'emotions' to suggest some larger force at work, in that one would come to such knowing at just that time, under just such circumstances, etc... But when the ideas, the inspirations, that 'come out of' these states is appraised within the scope of history and human activity in general, especially if one 'acts' upon such inspirations, as they might be recurrent, one might just become less inclined to grant significant varacity to what one came accross, and be humbled himself, and see that something else is going on with human consciousness.

[Mark Question]

But it seems the moment I conceptualise this - I am not talking aphilosophy by psychology or behaviouralism.

i dont know if i understand that right but i was also thinking the problem when aphilosopher is seen like atheist: he who have lost faith or have lack of faith in philosophy. he who need faith and its concepts to be atheist or aphilosopher.

[lancek4]

But it seems the moment I conceptualise this - I am not talking aphilosophy by psychology or behaviouralism.

i dont know if i understand that right but i was also thinking the problem when aphilosopher is seen like atheist: he who have lost fate or have lack of fate in philosophy. he who need fate and its concepts to be atheist or aphilosopher.

Perhaps you are onto something MQ. (And I think the term is 'faith' - but maybe you meant 'fate'?)

[Typist]

Typist proposes that one might 'surrender' one's thinking, or thoughts, as the case might be, such that one might be able to 'investigate' the realm that lay beyond thought.

Scientists use both visible light telescopes and infrared telescopes to examine the heavens. Both tools are examining the same reality, but focus on different aspects of that reality.

Thought is just a tool. It's like any other tool, it has it's uses, and it's limitations.

If we as observers rely on this tool exclusively for all of our investigation, then our entire investigation will be restricted within the limits of the one tool we have chosen.

Imagine that we declared microscopes to be the only tool we would use to examine reality. Our investigation would thus be limited to very small things.

Thought is just a tool. It's not a religion.

We are good scientists if we view thought objectively, use it for what it's good for, and recognize it's limitations too. Philosophers who aren't interested in the limitations of the tool they are using to conduct their inquiry can fairly be declared not very good philosophers.

which then refers itself back to this 'whole' reality of which thinking can only apprehend a part.

Right. Thought is not a great tool for seeing the "whole", because the very nature of thought is to divide. This doesn't mean thought is "bad", it just means it's a lousy tool for that particular job.

This is no different than celebrating the wonder of music, while recognizing that music is a lousy tool for calculating the loads a building material will bear.

Typist's proposition is that through the practice of aphilsophy one might thus be able to 'tap into' this larger reality.

Please observe the construction of your sentence.

There is the entity "one". And there is the "larger reality".

Inherent in your sentence is the assumption that "one" and "larger reality" are two different things, and that there is a distance between them which might be overcome etc. The problem is not with your sentence particularly, but with language, thought itself. All sentences contain these distortions.

"Me" and "larger reality" are not two different things in reality. They are only two different things conceptually, within the realm of the inherently divisive tool of thought.

The apparent distance between "me" and "larger reality" is nothing more than distortion introduced by the nature of the tool we are using.

It's as if we were wearing pink tinted sunglasses, and thus everything we looked at appeared to be pink. Everything isn't actually pink, it just looks that way if we're using a tool with a strong pink bias. Everything isn't actually divided in reality, it just looks that way while we're using a tool with a strong division bias.

For a more scholarly and thorough investigation into these states, I highly recommend (I said it before) Rudolf Otto "The Idea of the Holy" where he attempt to give a description of the phenomena of 'spiritual type' experiences, holiness, and religion.

You have just fatally sidetracked the discussion by bringing up irrelevant topics which this audience has a strong allergy to. We can now kiss the next 24 pages of this thread goodbye.

[Mark Question]

Perhaps you are onto something MQ. (And I think the term is 'faith' - but maybe you meant 'fate'?)

perhaps we all are seeking aphilosophy from philosophy forum? perhaps we have faith that truth is out there..where is words, language, told and analyzed world(views) and all(inside those views and metaviews and all..) for real!?

[lancek4]

So I take it, Typist, that I have fairly ascertained your perspective.

It is interesting that so much of your rebuttal I could equally address to you as a rebuttal to your rebuttal; I could just repost your comments under yours (the same comment) and it would mean as much to me as I'm sure it must to you toward me.

For example: limitations.
I have tried to get you to understand that I know (or don't know, as the case may present itself) personally the practice and experience that you call aphilosophy. How else would I have described it to you sufficiently so you could have replied above?

And I have admitted this 'knowledge' of some 'oneness' or 'larger than what the tool of knowledge can apprehend' experience.

But somehow I do not see it as you see it.
I would offer that one aspect of what you describe is like that of an object. The present experience of an object is more than can possibly be put into words. But what is this 'more than words'? Does it convey anything that is more than or larger than whan I can say about it? The fact that it may be included in the oneness that is me and/or the universe, does that effect what I can say about it?

I would offer it does not. The fact that I may have an experience of the object is nothing more than the significance that I have or pllace upon the meaning I have had in that I might at some time use words to describe.

[Arising_uk]

Scientists use both visible light telescopes and infrared telescopes to examine the heavens. Both tools are examining the same reality, but focus on different aspects of that reality.

True.

Thought is just a tool. It's like any other tool, it has it's uses, and it's limitations.

It might but its not like any other 'tool' in that it is the ground for all tools. But as usual you do not say what you mean by "thought"?

If we as observers rely on this tool exclusively for all of our investigation, then our entire investigation will be restricted within the limits of the one tool we have chosen.

Maybe but you have a serious problem with your other 'tools' in that you cannot explain what they are nor demonstrate how to use them nor think about what they have produced.

Imagine that we declared microscopes to be the only tool we would use to examine reality. Our investigation would thus be limited to very small things.

Imagine if we did not think, there'd be no reality to examine.

Thought is just a tool. It's not a religion.

Only you think it is but its not a tool, its the ground of all our tools. Although I'm not sure here as you never say what 'thought' is.

We are good scientists if we view thought objectively, use it for what it's good for, and recognize it's limitations too. Philosophers who aren't interested in the limitations of the tool they are using to conduct their inquiry can fairly be declared not very good philosophers.

Those who claim that they've never studied philosophy are the fools who criticise what they don't understand. In general scientists don't think about 'thought' at all, thats the philosophers and, so far, we think there is no 'objectivity' per se.

Right. Thought is not a great tool for seeing the "whole", because the very nature of thought is to divide. This doesn't mean thought is "bad", it just means it's a lousy tool for that particular job.

Because you already make the assumption that there is a "whole", from thinking about it I guess, you then also assume that "thought" divides(although you never say what 'thought' is), or, you assume the other way around, either way you are making assumptions that you need to explain.

This is no different than celebrating the wonder of music, while recognizing that music is a lousy tool for calculating the loads a building material will bear.

Depends what you mean by music, as harmonics have been used when testing for loads and building material strengths.

Please observe the construction of your sentence.

There is the entity "one". And there is the "larger reality".

Inherent in your sentence is the assumption that "one" and "larger reality" are two different things, and that there is a distance between them which might be overcome etc. The problem is not with your sentence particularly, but with language, thought itself. All sentences contain these distortions.

"Me" and "larger reality" are not two different things in reality. They are only two different things conceptually, within the realm of the inherently divisive tool of thought.

Please observe the contradictions and assumptions you make in the above. But from the above I take it that you think 'thought' and language the same?

The apparent distance between "me" and "larger reality" is nothing more than distortion introduced by the nature of the tool we are using.

That and that you are a body in a reality.

It's as if we were wearing pink tinted sunglasses, and thus everything we looked at appeared to be pink. Everything isn't actually pink, it just looks that way if we're using a tool with a strong pink bias. Everything isn't actually divided in reality, it just looks that way while we're using a tool with a strong division bias.

Ever thought that this is exactly what you do with your pet psychological theory and this pet metaphysic you have? What do you actually mean by "Everything isn't actually divided in reality"? As this science you love to quote has it exactly as particles so far.

You have just fatally sidetracked the discussion by bringing up irrelevant topics which this audience has a strong allergy to. We can now kiss the next 24 pages of this thread goodbye.

Not really as it pretty much exactly nails what your idea is about, the need to replace a lost religious faith.

[Typist]

I have tried to get you to understand that I know (or don't know, as the case may present itself) personally the practice and experience that you call aphilosophy.

Ok, you know, or you don't know. I agree. Are you happy now?

But somehow I do not see it as you see it.

Ok.

But what is this 'more than words'?

It is whatever it is. There's really no requirement that we use thought to translate everything in to a concept. Whatever you are referring to, does it really need a name, a label, a symbol, a mental abstraction to reference it?

Do you see? Whatever is "more than words" can remain as it is. It doesn't require our assistance. At the moment we translate something that is "more than words" in to words, we kill it anyway, eh?

Does it convey anything that is more than or larger than whan I can say about it? The fact that it may be included in the oneness that is me and/or the universe, does that effect what I can say about it?

We can say anything we want about it. And whatever we say, what we say won't be it.

The fact that I may have an experience of the object is nothing more than the significance that I have or pllace upon the meaning I have had in that I might at some time use words to describe.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say, but would agree significance is a human invention, a product of thought. So whatever we are talking about, if it's outside of thought, it would seem to neither be significant or insignificant.

[Arising_uk]

... So whatever we are talking about, if it's outside of thought, it would seem to neither be significant or insignificant.

See how he qualifies 'it' with "seems". Gnu! I name him.

[lancek4]

What offends in that there may be no reality beyond thought?

[chaz wyman]

What offends in that there may be no reality beyond thought?

All reality has to reside in our perception of it. As our perception is moderated by thought it seem odd to suggest that there can be anything meaningful to a conception of reality beyond our ability to conceive of it.

[lancek4]

What offends in that there may be no reality beyond thought?

All reality has to reside in our perception of it. As our perception is moderated by thought it seem odd to suggest that there can be anything meaningful to a conception of reality beyond our ability to conceive of it.

Yes. That was for Typists polemic.

But on second thought: is thought different that perception?