Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: All you need is to process the picture you experiencing and realizing that there is a tiger there. You then escape. Even a computer can be programmed to do that. There is no need for sense of self or self.

I'm guessing before I start that there's no way you're going to understand this, but the implicit argument you're making here is this:

E is necessary in situation T.
S is sufficient for E in situation T.
However, just in case E can be achieved by C, B or A, then S isn't necessary.
E can be achieved by C, B or A.
Thus, there's no need for S.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that just in case E can be achieved by C, B or A, then the necessity of E will be achieved by C, B or A. But that might not be the case for everything. And if S is sufficient for E, then S is needed in cases where C, B or A do not arise first.

Terrapin Station wrote:So is "explanation" the same in your usage as "(giving) evidence or reasons"?

henry quirk wrote:"Trying not to, Henry."

Jeez, but you (and bahman) still are. You aint't talkin' to me. You're talkin' to 'materialism'.

When either of you decide you wanna talk to me, drop me a line.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:So is "explanation" the same in your usage as "(giving) evidence or reasons"?

Those are two of its activities; but it really means to lay out in specific terms how something happens, whether through evidence or reasons.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:So is "explanation" the same in your usage as "(giving) evidence or reasons"?

Those are two of its activities; but it really means to lay out in specific terms how something happens, whether through evidence or reasons.

Okay, but that just leaves an opening to say, "those aren't specific terms" at whim.

Terrapin Station wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:The interpretations are in themselves not mental states.

I was with you until this sentence. What do you take interpretations to be if not mental states?

bahman wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: OF course there is. If you didn't know that you are distinct from the tiger, you would stand there doing nothing. Why do you escape from the tiger? because you know that it is not you. How do you know that it is not you? because you can perceive your self. The self is a preservation mechanism of the brain.

We are not discussing anything. You are making a claim of some sort. Brain is capable of distinguishing itself from others as well as interpreting experiences. The combined effect is that of the self experiencing certain things. The self is a mental state. The experiences are mental interpretations of things. The interpretations are in themselves not mental states. They can create mental states like joy or anger or indifference or astonishment or just plain recognition as a separate entity.

All you need is to process the picture you experiencing and realizing that there is a tiger there. You then escape. Even a computer can be programmed to do that. There is no need for sense of self or self.

bahman wrote:
Well, the problem is that self is only a mental state if it is created with brain. That is meaningless to say that your self experience anything since a mental state, self, cannot experience another mental state, other stuff.

sthitapragya wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:The interpretations are in themselves not mental states.

I was with you until this sentence. What do you take interpretations to be if not mental states?

I believe that observation itself is not a mental state. You see a tree and recognize it as a tree, relate it to your psyche and then have some feelings regarding the tree. That is the mental state. Of course, this is the definition of mental state I looked up. It could very well be wrong. But if you get the point, initial perception itself is not a mental state. I look up from my lap top and I see a wall and look back down. Now, when I think back, I realize I saw the wall and didn't react to it at all. Our eyes when open see a lot of things which we disregard completely, otherwise I believe we would have an overload. It is only when there is a focus on something that we react to it and that creates the mental state with regard to that thing.

sthitapragya wrote:

bahman wrote: All you need is to process the picture you experiencing and realizing that there is a tiger there. You then escape. Even a computer can be programmed to do that. There is no need for sense of self or self.

Of course there is. Even to program a computer you need to know that it is different from you and cannot program itself. Without the basic understanding that the tiger is not you and out to harm you, you will not be able to react to it at all.

You say all you need to do is process the picture. The process tells you "that is a hungry tiger". If there were no concept of self, there would be no concept of this and that. There would be no tiger. It would all be one. The process of differentiation is inherently connected to the self.

sthitapragya wrote:

bahman wrote: Well, the problem is that self is only a mental state if it is created with brain. That is meaningless to say that your self experience anything since a mental state, self, cannot experience another mental state, other stuff.

Again, you have got it completely backwards. The self is a perpetual mental state which helps in creating other mental states like fear, anger, love, cognition etc. If there was no self, there would be nothing to fear or be angry about or love or even recognize.

Terrapin Station wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:I was with you until this sentence. What do you take interpretations to be if not mental states?

I believe that observation itself is not a mental state. You see a tree and recognize it as a tree, relate it to your psyche and then have some feelings regarding the tree. That is the mental state. Of course, this is the definition of mental state I looked up. It could very well be wrong. But if you get the point, initial perception itself is not a mental state. I look up from my lap top and I see a wall and look back down. Now, when I think back, I realize I saw the wall and didn't react to it at all. Our eyes when open see a lot of things which we disregard completely, otherwise I believe we would have an overload. It is only when there is a focus on something that we react to it and that creates the mental state with regard to that thing.

I agree with all of that, but I don't understand how in your view interpretations could be things that are not focused on. For one, interpretations necessarily involve concept application, meaning assignment, etc.

bahman wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

bahman wrote: All you need is to process the picture you experiencing and realizing that there is a tiger there. You then escape. Even a computer can be programmed to do that. There is no need for sense of self or self.

Of course there is. Even to program a computer you need to know that it is different from you and cannot program itself. Without the basic understanding that the tiger is not you and out to harm you, you will not be able to react to it at all.

You say all you need to do is process the picture. The process tells you "that is a hungry tiger". If there were no concept of self, there would be no concept of this and that. There would be no tiger. It would all be one. The process of differentiation is inherently connected to the self.

This is a simple algorithm for a computer when it faces a tiger: If observe (this part needs the process of image which was experienced) a tiger then escape.

bahman wrote:
You don't need self to experience fear, love, etc. since all of these emotions are simply mental states that they could be experienced directly. Moreover I think that under materialism what a brain can produce is only sense of self and not a self.