False Consciousness: Why Most are not really Conscious

[WanderingLands]

Wanderinglands: Following in the footsteps of the Marxists, you appear to be misusing the term consciousness. Its true the human race can be neatly divided into people who demonstrate the desire to think deeply about themselves and the world they inhabit, while the remainder seek to live as simply as possible, tending their own gardens and shutting out the larger issues facing humans generally. I prefer to use the term awareness to characterize the distinction between these two classes, thereby reserving consciousness to mean that mental state of being awake that all higher-order animals possess, when not sleeping or otherwise "unconscious".

The larger question is, what is it that motivates most people to shun the intellectual life, actively choose to be unaware, even though they are possessed of all the same mental faculties as the deep thinkers? I believe its culture itself. Our fundamental mission in life is to survive, reproduce and maybe enjoy a few interludes. Becoming a thinker or activist in larger issues is extra work, something reserved for ambitious, curious, even brave people. Therefore, our baseline culture, regardless of where you live, impels us to cooperate with society, make a living for yourself and your family, keep your head down and don't make waves.

Fortunately for the human race, ambition, curiosity and bravery are ingrained in our DNA. Part of our success as a species is the impulse for some humans to surpass other members of the community. In spite of the pressures of society to conform, do your job and stay out of trouble, some people choose a heightened awareness of their world and the actions that entails. Most people take their cues in this regard from their parents, during childhood. For humanity, this leader/follower social order is conducive to evolutionary success. - CW

I am not really a Marxist, even though I have admittedly used that term when reading up on Marxism. The post on this thread was when I was starting to explore more deeper into the Mind, and exploring a bit of Hegel and some Existentialism to get an idea of what they have thought of concerning the Mind. Since that post, I have actually been elaborating upon that stuff, and have been writing it down on my journal to contemplate upon it. I don't know if I can or will want to post on this website some of my stuff, since it's very elaborate, but I may think about posting bits and pieces of it.

Now what you said about Culture is correct, in that it molds and shapes us in our thinking and in how we practically live our life. There are certainly fundamentalists who are antagonistic towards the broader ideas of things that afloat more in other places that value intellect as well as spirituality. However, there is wisdom to be found when reading upon the stories of the many traditions that these primal cultures, such as that in the Americas, or the middle east, Africa, Asia; whatever place you can find. It's these cultures who aid people in philosophizing in why their myths in their different cultures are true, and its because of the common belief that these cultures have had, which is the veneration of nature and being one with it, that the ancients and earliest of men have been able to produce medicines and agriculture that is organic, as it coincided with their belief in that nature is divine and sacred. It certainly is more stable than that of modern society and the empires that use the abundance of nature for pragmatic uses that are destructive and devoid of peace: such as war, profit, and to keep their complex empires afloat that includes those two other reasons.

This is the reason why I do not agree with your mentality, that the "leaders" survive and thus surpass and govern people. Now there are people that have may have accomplished many things and have become an inspiration to others for their dedication among certain things, but the reason why these people have been able to do so, is because they were exploring what's true by themselves and thinking for themselves, instead of following others. A society in which people follow "leaders" or "experts" does not give the freedom of the many to actually rely on themselves to determine what's true and what's not true, and thus it gives crooked and deceptive people who are crafty in gaining a following an upper hand in having the rights to govern the masses by means of indoctrination and oppression. So this brings me to disagreeing with the ideas and principles of evolution and natural selection, under the grounds that it does not give into account of others, and so creates a world of division which creates mass amounts of uneeded evils which exploit other humans as well as the other beings that account in nature.

[Felasco]

Is anything really separate from everything else?

Who knows, Baba Bozo?

Baba Bozo, and anybody else with half a brain knows, that's who.

That's something that philosophers have been asking for thousands of years. Check out Parmenides.

Perhaps this is why I don't often read philosophers? Even Joni Mitchell sang "we are stardust". And she's rather more entertaining that most old nerd guys and their pompous academic pretensions.

.. there is only a very small pool of things that haven't been thunk.

Agreed, it's more a process of translating ideas in to words that can be understand by a variety of audiences than it is creative thinking. Which explains why I usually don't read the official philosophers, as they seem generally most interested in talking to each other in a fancy language which makes them feel important.

By studying philosophy, you acquaint yourself with the ideas that have influenced the way we think today, the good, the bad and the ugly.

To each their own. I'm just not that interested in memorizing other people's arguments so I can impress readers by regurgitating those arguments as if they were my own. This is what 95% of philosophy seems to be concerned with.

I'm not a philosopher, I'm a typist, a wannabe writer. I'm interested in translation, which is why I talk about such things on a philosophy forum, instead of forums where many would already know what I'm talking about before I explained it. There's no need for my services there, and no challenge for me to enjoy.

You for instance have said several times that thinking is limited; I'm not sure if you have explained why or how: linguistic determinism might be the place to start.

I've explained it endlessly, in thread after thread after thread after thread (see also user Typist) and never discovered anyone who can sustain an interest in what philosophy is actually made of.

You yourself seem quite intelligent and educated, and yet also seem immune to such a central topic. So the problem is not just that forums tend to be filled with dummies. The problem is...

Everybody wants to debate the content of thought, because that's where the ego action is, the main function of forums. Ok, I get it, and I have big ego needs too, clearly documented all over the forum.

But the content of thought is small potatoes compared to the nature of thought. As example...

Consider the word "me" or "I".

Would it matter if "me" was made of jello or concrete? Yes, it would matter a great deal, as jello and concrete have very different properties. An intelligent person would seemingly wish to know which it is, and what the properties of whatever we're made of might be.

We are not jello or concrete of course.

We are thought.

How's my translating going now? Any better?

[uwot]

Is anything really separate from everything else?

Who knows, Baba Bozo?

Baba Bozo, and anybody else with half a brain knows, that's who.

Sorry about the other half Baba Bozo. Still, you seem to be coping.

Even Joni Mitchell sang "we are stardust".

Well, yes, but I wouldn't count it as evidence.

And she's rather more entertaining that most old nerd guys and their pompous academic pretensions.

Old nerd guys with pompous academic pretensions don't sound like a lot of fun. Who exactly do you have in mind? Heraclitus was known as the Obscure, because of his wilfully obtuse prose; but then he wouldn't listen to other people either. When he got dropsy, instead of taking medical advice, which to be fair, wasn't what it is today, he covered himself in manure and baked himself in the sun. It killed him. Hegel is tricky too, but by and large, academics don't like pompous pretension any more than anyone else and will only tolerate it if the ideas are worth the irritation.

...I usually don't read the official philosophers, as they seem generally most interested in talking to each other in a fancy language which makes them feel important.

Again, that probably says more about you than 'official philosophers'.
A lot of philosophy is beautifully written by people who were confident enough in their ideas to expose them in language that even people with half a brain could appreciate. Descartes took the trouble to present a lot of his work in French as well as the Latin used by scholars. Hume could not be considered pretentious by anyone who has actually read him. Those two are arguably the two most influential philosophers of the last millennium, having established the benchmarks for rationalism and empiricism respectively. You have convinced yourself of your own story, for which you have no evidence; it's common enough amongst philosophical naifs; there are plenty of examples on this forum.

By studying philosophy, you acquaint yourself with the ideas that have influenced the way we think today, the good, the bad and the ugly.

To each their own. I'm just not that interested in memorizing other people's arguments so I can impress readers by regurgitating those arguments as if they were my own.

That would only work on people who haven't bothered to read any philosophy. All the good ideas have permeated popular culture. Referencing other philosophers is just giving credit where it's due.

This is what 95% of philosophy seems to be concerned with.

It may comfort you to think so, but it is an absurd claim given that you haven't even read the basics.

You for instance have said several times that thinking is limited; I'm not sure if you have explained why or how: linguistic determinism might be the place to start.

I've explained it endlessly, in thread after thread after thread after thread (see also user Typist) and never discovered anyone who can sustain an interest in what philosophy is actually made of.

Then you should have nailed it by now: one more time for me, Baba Bozo.

You yourself seem quite intelligent and educated,

It's not easy to fake.

and yet also seem immune to such a central topic. So the problem is not just that forums tend to be filled with dummies. The problem is...

Everybody wants to debate the content of thought, because that's where the ego action is, the main function of forums. Ok, I get it, and I have big ego needs too, clearly documented all over the forum.

But the content of thought is small potatoes compared to the nature of thought. As example...

Consider the word "me" or "I".

Would it matter if "me" was made of jello or concrete? Yes, it would matter a great deal, as jello and concrete have very different properties. An intelligent person would seemingly wish to know which it is, and what the properties of whatever we're made of might be.

Lots of intelligent people discuss precisely that in philosophy of mind. Roughly speaking, some people believe mind or thought is just a product of very complex organic systems, and potentially mechanical or at least electronic human artefacts. Others think that mind is something distinct from matter and that the two substances somehow interact; the guy making all the noise at the moment is David Chalmers; l doubt he fits your old nerd guy profile. His argument is that even if you could build, say a Babbage computing engine, a mechanical device, big enough to perform as many operations as a human brain, it would not have the awareness we do. Therefore consciousness is not simply a product of huge numbers of calculations. You could ask Ginkgo if you are interested, he is much more clued up about philosophy of mind than me.

We are not jello or concrete of course.

We are thought.

How's my translating going now? Any better?

Not as good as Descartes; 'I think, therefore I am.' says it better. Have you heard of George Berkeley? He thought everything was thought. He could write and wasn't pompous.

[Felasco]

Hi again uwot,

Can you explain why you have what appears to be no interest in exploring the properties of what philosophy is literally made of? This is not a sarcastic personal challenge, I'm sincerely curious. You're clearly intelligent and educated, and so your apparent lack of interest is puzzling to me.

If you can provide an articulate explanation, perhaps that will help me understand why so many who frequent philosophy forums share your lack of interest. Be their spokesman if you wish...

As I've explained, to me this is like an architect who has little interest in the properties of the materials he will use to construct a building.

I will attempt to further explain my relationship with philosophers. First, let me make clear I am not proposing what anybody else should do, or a superior relationship, or a "one true way". I'm just explaining my own relationship.

An example...

I'm a baby boomer, and every other guy in my generation wanted to play electric blues guitar. And so we studied people like Eric Clapton and Duane Allman, prominent players we were familiar with.

People like Clapton and Allman studied Chicago blues masters like Muddy Waters. People like Muddy Waters studied the country blues pickers of the Mississippi delta.

The country blues pickers of the Mississippi delta didn't have access to a lot of influences, as they were typically sharecropper types stuck way out in the country on some remote farm. They didn't have access to lots of records and books and the net and so on. They had some old junk guitar, their front porch, and whatever music was hiding in their soul waiting to come out, and that was about it.

And these uneducated country bumpkins were the ones who started the whole blues ball rolling, because they were tapped in to the ultimate authoritative source of music, their soul, and weren't just imitating somebody else.

If you've ever learned an instrument, or participated in any other art like endeavor, you'll know that the primary challenge is finding your own voice. This is greatly complicated if your brain is jammed with memorized phrases from everybody else around you.

Honestly, I don't really care much what Kant and other people write. I'm interested in being me, and developing and experiencing my own voice as a writer and thinker, as highly imperfect as it is.

I don't study philosophy books, I study the real world in earnest. That's the authority I reference.

For what it's worth....

[Arising_uk]

...
It's not easy to fake.

Unless you've done a BA(Hons) Philosophy degree of course.

[Arising_uk]

...
And these uneducated country bumpkins were the ones who started the whole blues ball rolling, because they were tapped in to the ultimate authoritative source of music, their soul, and weren't just imitating somebody else. ...

What bollocks, they were influenced by the songs and tunes they heard around them whilst growing-up. That they taught themselves to play an instrument and then used it to make those tunes in a new format is impressive but 'souls' had bugger all to do with it. What you say is applicable to Philosophy as this is what philosophy does, takes old themes and makes them new and relevant again.

I don't study philosophy books, I study the real world in earnest. That's the authority I reference.

You think to much of yourself.

For what it's worth....

It appears to be worth fuck all then as by your own admission you've been typing the same old tune for years now and getting nowhere. You could improve your tune, with respect to Philosophy, if you actually bothered to read some and understood that to those who have all of what you say has already been said better and examined by better minds. As uwot said, its a humbling experience to realise that ones thoughts, whilst original to oneself, are not as unique as one first thought. In fact its downright depressing at times trying to think a thought thats not been had but then philosophy, if persevered with, gives one a mighty fine perspective upon the thoughts of others and a bloody thick mental skin.

[Greylorn Ell]

This is an essay of some sort about the idea of "false consciousness" (a Marxian term used in Marxist dialecticism) and how and why the masses are not really conscious of there own selves, and are just merely "drones" (defined here as simply followers, and not thinkers). Consciousness here is to be fully aware of things, and in Philosophical terms, for me, is to be aware of things within Ethics, Pragmatics, Metaphysics, Morality, Causation; to be aware of the surroundings and the environment of that where you are at. The opposite of that would obviously be none of those things, so here's why most people are not really conscious.

1. They are merely indoctrinated into a specific religion, or indoctrinated into the governmental institutions, such as public schools. They are not told to critically think: to ask questions that may challenge teachers, principals, parents, or whatever adult that guides one in their life. Because they were not versed in any logical system, they are bound to simply believing things without any thought, which cuts them off from seeking Truth. Many of them are sucked into mainstream culture: the entertainment, music, foods, fashion styles that represent nothing more than a simple commodity, as Capitalism (in a profit and corporate driven sense) reduces value to the fixed quantities of capital.
2. They are not learned in actual Ethics and Morality, or Logic (all in Practical terms), outside of what they're told within institutions (education, religion), to learn to actually know why things in society are wrong. The collective examples are: consumerism, wealth, economic growth, war, etc.
3. Even the people who do know (the majority, in fact now days, have varying degrees of mistrust in government and society) are not grounded in Logic to actually discern what is fact from fiction without any emotional bias attached to the thinking. So they are still herds, and they still do not question things as they are stuck in their ideological paradigms.
4. Much of their thinking, in terms of thinking ideally, is not realistic and centered around the real world. They tend to be irrational with their solutions, and tend to be irrational in activism. For instance, they yell very radical things without any foundational explanation for it, which causes disruption and alienation between people and individuals or activist groups (a "them" against "all" scenario). This is typical activism within whatever ideology is used, and this is mentioned because people use emotions instead of developing clear thinking capabilities.

So summarizing all of these four points, it is a case that people are not wholly conscious of there own selves; that they hold a "false consciousness", or something that is not realistic and not well thought of to the point of being confirmed or denied as being true. They are rebels without a clue of what they are doing, and they are sowing their seeds of destruction by not searching and developing mental clarity.

The lack of consciousness issue runs more deeply than the OP points. I propose that it is systemic, built into the very mechanisms of mind itself. Suppose for the sake of conversation we adopt a Cartesian-like description of mind.

Descartes proposed that the soul was the mind, and that the brain took care of sensory awareness. Suppose that we add a few modifications to his idea that are more consistent with current knowledge of physics and neurology.

• The soul is not a spirit, because to be functional it must interact with the human brain, which is a physical entity. Of course the soul is not material, like the brain. Its physical properties are as physical as other non-material aspects of the universe like electric charge and magnetic fields.
  
  Because the concept of a physical soul is different from the traditional concept of soul as spirit, we should use a different term for it. My preference is "beon."
• Beon is a non-created entity, which implies that it may have always existed.
• Beon has the potential to develop properties of sentience and consciousness, but is unlikely to do so without some assistance, for reasons best described in a different context.
• Beon is connected to brain for the purpose of bringing beon to consciousness, i.e. self-awareness. This takes quite a while.
• Because beon is only connected to a brain-body system, it does not necessarily lose consciousness after death. (By analogy, with beon and brain akin to driver and car, it is possible to total a car in a crash from which the driver walks away.)
• Also, because brain is simply a vehicle for beon's development, the connection of a free beon to a developing fetal brain is possible; i.e. reincarnation.

Of course no one will accept these premises, except perhaps on a trial basis. And that's all I ask. They work to explain a large number of mental phenomena, but in this case we are only proposing to use them to explain why lots of people struggle with consciousness.

Beon is poor at recalling details, particularly early on in its development. However, the brain is superbly engineered (I believe) to recall not only details, but patterns of details, and patterns of patterns. Language is handled primarily by the brain. Our senses are almost entirely a function of the brain. Descartes' mistake, I believe, was to minimize the power and abilitites of the brain, attributing them to the soul (our beon).

Whereas Descartes declared soul to be the mind, I propose otherwise-- that the cortical brain is the entire subconscious mind, and that beon is what some psychologists call the "super-conscious." The normal, everyday conscious mind is the composite effect of brain and beon working in concert.

The brain is an extraordinary mechanism, but it cannot become conscious. Consciousness is beon's province, and getting there is a difficult and gradual process. This process explains the observational fits and starts of conscious development.

Beon is not conscious in very young children, and pretty much goes along for the ride as the brain learns from the society in which it develops. Beon shows up in fits and starts as the brain develops; thus while we have but a few conscious memories from early childhood, we have many more from adolescence. Around age 21 beon finally develops to the point where it can take active control over its brain, rather than the other way around.

Neither all brains nor all beons are created equal, but I expect that beon-quality varies over a wider range than that of normal brains. This is certainly the case if multiple lifetimes are required to bring a beon to a high level of consciousness and creative intelligence.

Only a small percentage of human beings include a well-developed beon. Therefore most humans are entirely brain driven, and not really conscious. Brains are machines, like analog computers, and like any computer are made to be programmed. Ideally, one's brain is programmed by oneself (beon), through selective studies and physical training. But until beon is sufficiently conscious to do that programming, the brain will be programmed by society.

Beon is easily tricked. Suppose it decides to take itself and its brain to a good university, where it takes a course in Marxism. If beon does not (or is not allowed to) question the professor, it will leave the course with a brain newly indoctrinated with bullshit. Since it chose the course, beon may also choose to operate according to its brain's new programming for the rest of the brain's life.

Once a brain is programmed, only a highly conscious beon can muster the logical intelligence and gather the data necessary to dump that programming in favor of something better. And the "something better" may just turn out to be something different, equally false. A mind undertaking the study of philosophy, physics, microbiology, or any other difficult field of inquiry must master the art of retreating from blind alleys of belief and opinion if he is to find a road leading to anything like truth.

Incidentally, I like the term you used, "false consciousness." It is well documented but seems not well understood. I once experienced it, in an inter-dorm pickup football game w/o pads or helmets. I tried to block a man who outweighed me by 40 pounds, was knocked completely unconscious, and woke up two hours later standing on the sidelines next to a fellow student.

Noticing the discontinuity of time I queried him, learning that I was never lying on the ground unconscious. After that play I got up and stayed in the game, but played incompetently. When I tried to block the ball-carrier, teammates realized that it was time for me to hit the sidelines, which I did upon request. While standing there I conversed occasionally (but not productively) with a fellow dorm-mate, who did not realize that he was talking to an unconscious person.

Marx's term, "false consciousness" described my state perfectly, although the fundamental basis of his opinions is entirely different from mine.

[Blaggard]

Well you'll probably not be shocked to know I think the soul is an invention of the mind not the other way around, and like most modern day philosophers I find dualism deeply flawed.

I think we have gained a great deal of understanding on how the brain thinks, but are still in the dark on the central questions of consciousness, however I don't think this detracts from the theory of consciousness, any more than the IDiots detract from evolution by whanging on about irreducible complexity, the pseudo argument of the century.

I can quite easily explain that the sensory input and cognition by the brain and the rest of the body (yes the CNS is of course all part and parcel of what makes us conscious), hence nobody really thinks consciousness is only in the brain, it clearly is an interactive process between us and the environment. A soul is merely an indulgence preached usually by those of a religious persuasion who haven't got the remotest idea how to set about the dualist argument without sounding like a crank. I can look at patients who have undergone strokes and say with some surity that the effected area will mean x will be impaired. This says to me that when you lose an ability of reason or the ability to store numbers, or even the names of tools (yep you can make someone not remember the name of a tool by stimulating the brain) not only that someone who is thinking about the name of someone will show the same pattern of brain activity as someone else, if not the exact same, because of course how we feel about someone when we recall there name is subjective, this material and electrical activity is not a part of the soul but a part of biological matters function. If there is a soul it should be extraneous from the brains function, but since you can make people have spiritual feelings by using an electrical signal on various areas of the pre frontal cortex, I personally think even religion is on the brain and the soul if you can call it anything is just our physical functioning. It is hence my understanding that there's no flaw in the materialist argument just gaps in understanding, whose discovery of the missing pieces over time will leave the soul less and less room to manoeuvre until finally it disappears up its own sophistry.

But that's just me, I know shocking an Atheist who doesn't believe in religious arm waving. Who da thunk?

[uwot]

Can you explain why you have what appears to be no interest in exploring the properties of what philosophy is literally made of?

I once asked someone who knows a lot more physics than me, what they thought fundamental particles are made of. They looked a bit blank and after a while said, "Well, they're 'made of' their mass, charge and spin." Perhaps that is analogous to the incomprehension you have faced. I have mentioned that there is an entire field devoted to the philosophy of mind, there is another for the philosophy of language, then there is, as you say, the content of philosophy. I don't understand what you mean by 'what philosophy is literally made of' if it isn't made of ideas originating in minds communicated as language, but if you have unearthed a field of study that has escaped two and a half thousand years of scrutiny, I'd be very interested to hear about it.

An example...

I'm a baby boomer, and every other guy in my generation wanted to play electric blues guitar. And so we studied people like Eric Clapton and Duane Allman, prominent players we were familiar with.

People like Clapton and Allman studied Chicago blues masters like Muddy Waters. People like Muddy Waters studied the country blues pickers of the Mississippi delta.

The country blues pickers of the Mississippi delta didn't have access to a lot of influences, as they were typically sharecropper types stuck way out in the country on some remote farm. They didn't have access to lots of records and books and the net and so on. They had some old junk guitar, their front porch, and whatever music was hiding in their soul waiting to come out, and that was about it. And these uneducated country bumpkins were the ones who started the whole blues ball rolling, because they were tapped in to the ultimate authoritative source of music, their soul, and weren't just imitating somebody else.

And yet they commonly came up with essentially the same 4/4 time signature and pentatonic scale. What are the odds?
You seem to be suggesting that these bumpkins were working in isoltion. You obviously accept that they had enough contact with the rest of the world to influence others, but were themselves oblivious to other influences. How do you imagine that came about? The idea that the first blues players appeared out of a vacuum is untenable, Arising has made the point already.
You may be familiar with the story of how Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his ability. It isn't true. Perhaps you have also heard that you have to pay your dues if you want to pay the blues. This is frequently interpreted as meaning that anyone who has had a miserable existence will somehow be gifted the guitar playing skill of say, Hubert Sumlin (If you want to know who wrote chunks of the Lemon Song from Led Zep II, check out Howlin' Wolf's Killing Floor if you don't already know it.) In fact it originally meant you had to work very hard to learn to play the guitar "like ringing a bell" to use Chuck Berry's phrase. James Brown, 'Soul brother number one' to some, was also known as 'The Hardest Working Man in Show Business'. There is also the story of Jimi Hendrix's arrival on the London scene. Someone, I think Chas Chandler said to Eric Clapton, you have to see this guy, he's really good. During the concert Clapton, slack jawed said to whoever, 'You didn't tell me he was that f****** good.' What is less widely reported is that Hendrix practised for 5 hours a day and had done for the years he spent paying his dues on the chitlin circuit. It is a general rule that the more you do something, the better you get.

If you've ever learned an instrument, or participated in any other art like endeavor, you'll know that the primary challenge is finding your own voice.

Before I studied philosophy, I went to Art School and I'm a competent guitarist. It has been my experience that the primary challenge is to gain mastery of your medium. None of those Mississippi blues players could have influenced anybody if they couldn't play. The same is true of any artistic medium, you have to learn how to manipulate it with ease, so that whatever is in your 'soul' isn't hindered by the fact that you haven't the skill to express it. It is true of sport and industry: Arnold Palmer, I believe, was congratulated on an impressive putt, "You were lucky there." said the fan. "Yes," said Palmer, "and the more I practise, the luckier I get." Thomas Edison: "Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." Everyone who has achieved 'greatness' understands that it takes effort.
The same is true of philosophy; something I would never admit, but:

...
It's not easy to fake.

Unless you've done a BA(Hons) Philosophy degree of course.

Watch it, Arising! You know the penalty for those that break The Sacred Oath.

This is greatly complicated if your brain is jammed with memorized phrases from everybody else around you.

In what way did that hinder Clapton and Allman? If they studied the Chicago bluesmen, who themselves studied the delta bluesmen, why wasn't everyone's brain so jammed?

Honestly, I don't really care much what Kant and other people write. I'm interested in being me, and developing and experiencing my own voice as a writer and thinker, as highly imperfect as it is.

I don't study philosophy books, I study the real world in earnest. That's the authority I reference.

Do you avail yourself of the findings of the people with bloody great machines that can see in way more detail?

For what it's worth....

...indeed, Baba Bozo.

[Felasco]

I once asked someone who knows a lot more physics than me, what they thought fundamental particles are made of. They looked a bit blank and after a while said, "Well, they're 'made of' their mass, charge and spin." Perhaps that is analogous to the incomprehension you have faced.

Ok, thanks. Hmm.....

I have mentioned that there is an entire field devoted to the philosophy of mind, there is another for the philosophy of language, then there is, as you say, the content of philosophy.

Ok, so perhaps as we proceed you can educate me about these areas. If you should know a philosopher who sounds anything like me, an introduction would be helpful.

I don't understand what you mean by 'what philosophy is literally made of' if it isn't made of ideas originating in minds communicated as language,

Ok, will try harder. Off the top of my head for now...

Ideas are made of thought, yes? Thought happens in the brain. Everything that happens in the brain has a physical substance, just like the rest of the body. Perhaps thought might be described as an electro-chemical process.

However we might describe the physical existence of thought, the phenomena of thought has certain properties, characteristics, just as every other part of the body, just as everything in nature does.

Whatever those properties might be, they would have a profound influence upon the content carried in thought.

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".

But in the real world, the tree is not separate from sun, soil and water. If it was it would immediately begin to die. Functionally, in the real world, the tree is united with everything else to a degree not represented in thought, language, nouns.

The divisive nature of thought is a key source of distortion in how we see reality. It's like wearing tinted sunglasses, and then seeing a tinted world everywhere we look. The tint is not part of reality, but is instead a function of the equipment we are using to make the observation.

That's the best analogy I can think of at the moment. Thought as a pair of tinted sunglasses.

We can see reality through thought, but the view we get is distorted by the divisive nature of thought. Just as with the sunglasses, everywhere we look through thought we see division, but that division is not in reality, but is instead a form of distortion introduced by the observation equipment.

...but if you have unearthed a field of study that has escaped two and a half thousand years of scrutiny, I'd be very interested to hear about it.

I very much doubt this, as I'm sure you do. A more reasonable explanation is that my writing skills are limited, and I'm writing in the wrong place.

And yet they commonly came up with essentially the same 4/4 time signature and pentatonic scale. What are the odds?
You seem to be suggesting that these bumpkins were working in isoltion.

Relative isolation. Nothing and nobody is fully isolated.

The idea that the first blues players appeared out of a vacuum is untenable, Arising has made the point already.

Except that I didn't make that point, and Arising has no point other than that whatever somebody else said is wrong.

Perhaps you have also heard that you have to pay your dues if you want to pay the blues. This is frequently interpreted as meaning that anyone who has had a miserable existence will somehow be gifted the guitar playing skill of say,

Yes, it of course doesn't mean that. It does mean that those who have suffered may be able to access and express parts of their soul the less challenged may not have access to.

Before I studied philosophy, I went to Art School and I'm a competent guitarist.

Ah, good! I shall explain no further then.

It has been my experience that the primary challenge is to gain mastery of your medium.

Well, then you don't have enough experience. Anybody can master the mechanics. That's not what it's about in the end.

As example, consider Janis Joplin, not the greatest technical singer or even close, and half drunk most of the time. But there's been nobody like her in 50 years. She had a unique "voice". There are literally millions of singers technically better than her, that nobody has ever heard of, because they're pretty much just like everybody else.

None of those Mississippi blues players could have influenced anybody if they couldn't play.

Most of those guys were pretty nothing special guitar players, technically speaking. You can find better players, technically, on any college campus.

Everyone who has achieved 'greatness' understands that it takes effort.

But not necessarily technical effort. Sometimes it's soul effort that matters most.

In what way did that hinder Clapton and Allman? If they studied the Chicago bluesmen, who themselves studied the delta bluesmen, why wasn't everyone's brain so jammed?

Like I very clearly said, I was not suggesting a "one true way", only describing my own relationship with the topic.

Do you avail yourself of the findings of the people with bloody great machines that can see in way more detail?

Don't know what this means, apologies.

[Arising_uk]

... Except that I didn't make that point, and Arising has no point other than that whatever somebody else said is wrong. ...

Not true, what I said was that you were wrong. I find myself in agreement with much that is said by some upon this forum, I just don't think the point of philosophy is to agree but to critique so that thoughts can be improved, even if I disagree or agree with them. This is your philosophical flaw, you refuse to amend your thoughts through critique, its why, I suspect, you get nowhere with them.

[WanderingLands]

The lack of consciousness issue runs more deeply than the OP points. I propose that it is systemic, built into the very mechanisms of mind itself. Suppose for the sake of conversation we adopt a Cartesian-like description of mind.

Descartes proposed that the soul was the mind, and that the brain took care of sensory awareness. Suppose that we add a few modifications to his idea that are more consistent with current knowledge of physics and neurology.

• The soul is not a spirit, because to be functional it must interact with the human brain, which is a physical entity. Of course the soul is not material, like the brain. Its physical properties are as physical as other non-material aspects of the universe like electric charge and magnetic fields.
  
  Because the concept of a physical soul is different from the traditional concept of soul as spirit, we should use a different term for it. My preference is "beon."
• Beon is a non-created entity, which implies that it may have always existed.
• Beon has the potential to develop properties of sentience and consciousness, but is unlikely to do so without some assistance, for reasons best described in a different context.
• Beon is connected to brain for the purpose of bringing beon to consciousness, i.e. self-awareness. This takes quite a while.
• Because beon is only connected to a brain-body system, it does not necessarily lose consciousness after death. (By analogy, with beon and brain akin to driver and car, it is possible to total a car in a crash from which the driver walks away.)
• Also, because brain is simply a vehicle for beon's development, the connection of a free beon to a developing fetal brain is possible; i.e. reincarnation.

Of course no one will accept these premises, except perhaps on a trial basis. And that's all I ask. They work to explain a large number of mental phenomena, but in this case we are only proposing to use them to explain why lots of people struggle with consciousness.

Beon is poor at recalling details, particularly early on in its development. However, the brain is superbly engineered (I believe) to recall not only details, but patterns of details, and patterns of patterns. Language is handled primarily by the brain. Our senses are almost entirely a function of the brain. Descartes' mistake, I believe, was to minimize the power and abilitites of the brain, attributing them to the soul (our beon).

Whereas Descartes declared soul to be the mind, I propose otherwise-- that the cortical brain is the entire subconscious mind, and that beon is what some psychologists call the "super-conscious." The normal, everyday conscious mind is the composite effect of brain and beon working in concert.

The brain is an extraordinary mechanism, but it cannot become conscious. Consciousness is beon's province, and getting there is a difficult and gradual process. This process explains the observational fits and starts of conscious development.

Beon is not conscious in very young children, and pretty much goes along for the ride as the brain learns from the society in which it develops. Beon shows up in fits and starts as the brain develops; thus while we have but a few conscious memories from early childhood, we have many more from adolescence. Around age 21 beon finally develops to the point where it can take active control over its brain, rather than the other way around.

Neither all brains nor all beons are created equal, but I expect that beon-quality varies over a wider range than that of normal brains. This is certainly the case if multiple lifetimes are required to bring a beon to a high level of consciousness and creative intelligence.

Only a small percentage of human beings include a well-developed beon. Therefore most humans are entirely brain driven, and not really conscious. Brains are machines, like analog computers, and like any computer are made to be programmed. Ideally, one's brain is programmed by oneself (beon), through selective studies and physical training. But until beon is sufficiently conscious to do that programming, the brain will be programmed by society.

Beon is easily tricked. Suppose it decides to take itself and its brain to a good university, where it takes a course in Marxism. If beon does not (or is not allowed to) question the professor, it will leave the course with a brain newly indoctrinated with bullshit. Since it chose the course, beon may also choose to operate according to its brain's new programming for the rest of the brain's life.

Once a brain is programmed, only a highly conscious beon can muster the logical intelligence and gather the data necessary to dump that programming in favor of something better. And the "something better" may just turn out to be something different, equally false. A mind undertaking the study of philosophy, physics, microbiology, or any other difficult field of inquiry must master the art of retreating from blind alleys of belief and opinion if he is to find a road leading to anything like truth.

Incidentally, I like the term you used, "false consciousness." It is well documented but seems not well understood. I once experienced it, in an inter-dorm pickup football game w/o pads or helmets. I tried to block a man who outweighed me by 40 pounds, was knocked completely unconscious, and woke up two hours later standing on the sidelines next to a fellow student.

Noticing the discontinuity of time I queried him, learning that I was never lying on the ground unconscious. After that play I got up and stayed in the game, but played incompetently. When I tried to block the ball-carrier, teammates realized that it was time for me to hit the sidelines, which I did upon request. While standing there I conversed occasionally (but not productively) with a fellow dorm-mate, who did not realize that he was talking to an unconscious person.

Marx's term, "false consciousness" described my state perfectly, although the fundamental basis of his opinions is entirely different from mine.

I agree with your overview about the concept of "Beon", though I would like to argue against the idea of Cartesian rationalism (namely on the idea that the Mind and Body are completely different), in favor of the holistic body approach to gaining knowledge. The reason is because although Descartes was right to use the power and capabilities of the mind to logically prove Metaphysical concepts of the Soul and Spirit, his "Mind Body duality" does not take into account that the Mind is also influenced by sense perception, which influences largely the Mind's thinking when it comes to studying the surroundings of reality. Also, the "Life Force", or Will, flows through the Mind as well as to the Body in order to keep it moving, and any other organism other than the Mind that is severely injured, such as the organs of the Body, would result in Death. This means that the Mind Body duality that was conceived by Descartes must be replaced, and the senses should also be included in Philosophical inquiry in order to get the full picture of things.

[Greylorn Ell]

The lack of consciousness issue runs more deeply than the OP points. I propose that it is systemic, built into the very mechanisms of mind itself. Suppose for the sake of conversation we adopt a Cartesian-like description of mind.

Descartes proposed that the soul was the mind, and that the brain took care of sensory awareness. Suppose that we add a few modifications to his idea that are more consistent with current knowledge of physics and neurology.

• The soul is not a spirit, because to be functional it must interact with the human brain, which is a physical entity. Of course the soul is not material, like the brain. Its physical properties are as physical as other non-material aspects of the universe like electric charge and magnetic fields.
  
  Because the concept of a physical soul is different from the traditional concept of soul as spirit, we should use a different term for it. My preference is "beon."
• Beon is a non-created entity, which implies that it may have always existed.
• Beon has the potential to develop properties of sentience and consciousness, but is unlikely to do so without some assistance, for reasons best described in a different context.
• Beon is connected to brain for the purpose of bringing beon to consciousness, i.e. self-awareness. This takes quite a while.
• Because beon is only connected to a brain-body system, it does not necessarily lose consciousness after death. (By analogy, with beon and brain akin to driver and car, it is possible to total a car in a crash from which the driver walks away.)
• Also, because brain is simply a vehicle for beon's development, the connection of a free beon to a developing fetal brain is possible; i.e. reincarnation.

Of course no one will accept these premises, except perhaps on a trial basis. And that's all I ask. They work to explain a large number of mental phenomena, but in this case we are only proposing to use them to explain why lots of people struggle with consciousness.

Beon is poor at recalling details, particularly early on in its development. However, the brain is superbly engineered (I believe) to recall not only details, but patterns of details, and patterns of patterns. Language is handled primarily by the brain. Our senses are almost entirely a function of the brain. Descartes' mistake, I believe, was to minimize the power and abilitites of the brain, attributing them to the soul (our beon).

Whereas Descartes declared soul to be the mind, I propose otherwise-- that the cortical brain is the entire subconscious mind, and that beon is what some psychologists call the "super-conscious." The normal, everyday conscious mind is the composite effect of brain and beon working in concert.

The brain is an extraordinary mechanism, but it cannot become conscious. Consciousness is beon's province, and getting there is a difficult and gradual process. This process explains the observational fits and starts of conscious development.

Beon is not conscious in very young children, and pretty much goes along for the ride as the brain learns from the society in which it develops. Beon shows up in fits and starts as the brain develops; thus while we have but a few conscious memories from early childhood, we have many more from adolescence. Around age 21 beon finally develops to the point where it can take active control over its brain, rather than the other way around.

Neither all brains nor all beons are created equal, but I expect that beon-quality varies over a wider range than that of normal brains. This is certainly the case if multiple lifetimes are required to bring a beon to a high level of consciousness and creative intelligence.

Only a small percentage of human beings include a well-developed beon. Therefore most humans are entirely brain driven, and not really conscious. Brains are machines, like analog computers, and like any computer are made to be programmed. Ideally, one's brain is programmed by oneself (beon), through selective studies and physical training. But until beon is sufficiently conscious to do that programming, the brain will be programmed by society.

Beon is easily tricked. Suppose it decides to take itself and its brain to a good university, where it takes a course in Marxism. If beon does not (or is not allowed to) question the professor, it will leave the course with a brain newly indoctrinated with bullshit. Since it chose the course, beon may also choose to operate according to its brain's new programming for the rest of the brain's life.

Once a brain is programmed, only a highly conscious beon can muster the logical intelligence and gather the data necessary to dump that programming in favor of something better. And the "something better" may just turn out to be something different, equally false. A mind undertaking the study of philosophy, physics, microbiology, or any other difficult field of inquiry must master the art of retreating from blind alleys of belief and opinion if he is to find a road leading to anything like truth.

Incidentally, I like the term you used, "false consciousness." It is well documented but seems not well understood. I once experienced it, in an inter-dorm pickup football game w/o pads or helmets. I tried to block a man who outweighed me by 40 pounds, was knocked completely unconscious, and woke up two hours later standing on the sidelines next to a fellow student.

Noticing the discontinuity of time I queried him, learning that I was never lying on the ground unconscious. After that play I got up and stayed in the game, but played incompetently. When I tried to block the ball-carrier, teammates realized that it was time for me to hit the sidelines, which I did upon request. While standing there I conversed occasionally (but not productively) with a fellow dorm-mate, who did not realize that he was talking to an unconscious person.

Marx's term, "false consciousness" described my state perfectly, although the fundamental basis of his opinions is entirely different from mine.

I agree with your overview about the concept of "Beon", though I would like to argue against the idea of Cartesian rationalism (namely on the idea that the Mind and Body are completely different), in favor of the holistic body approach to gaining knowledge. The reason is because although Descartes was right to use the power and capabilities of the mind to logically prove Metaphysical concepts of the Soul and Spirit, his "Mind Body duality" does not take into account that the Mind is also influenced by sense perception, which influences largely the Mind's thinking when it comes to studying the surroundings of reality. Also, the "Life Force", or Will, flows through the Mind as well as to the Body in order to keep it moving, and any other organism other than the Mind that is severely injured, such as the organs of the Body, would result in Death. This means that the Mind Body duality that was conceived by Descartes must be replaced, and the senses should also be included in Philosophical inquiry in order to get the full picture of things.

WL,

I agree completely with your comments on Descartes' theories. That does not happen a lot. However, it is possible that you did not see exactly how some of my ideas are an effective correction to Descartes' ideas.

That would be mostly my fault. I took a little risk in trying to present a bare-bones outline of Beon Theory, without the muscle and sinew that my book provides to make the bones articulate properly. The brief outline was an experiment in presentation style.

Beon Theory is an extension of Descartes' work, with several philosophical corrections added. BT also included ideas that Descartes could not have known of-- ideas from the physics knowledge developed with the assistance of his mathematical inventions. So obviously I'm not proposing that we resurrect his original ideas and try to answer the conflicts and problems arising therefrom in the context of those ideas.

Similarly, no physicist would propose to use classical Newtonian mechanics to explain the behavior of light, much less that of subatomic particles.

Nonetheless, I believe that Descartes' core concepts will translate nicely into a functional, and perhaps an ultimately correct understanding of the mind-- provided that some basic physics principles are added to the philosophical mix.

For example, you wrote, "his "Mind Body duality" does not take into account that the Mind is also influenced by sense perception,..." Correct. However, Beon Theory insists upon an interface between beon and brain such that beon depends completely upon the sensory information provided to it via the brain, else beon could not achieve consciousness.

My basic book on the subject does not attempt to detail the exact nature of the brain's imprecise sensory mechanisms upon the development of beon. It provides enough examples to get those who care about those details (psychologists, sociologists, neurologists, etc.) started on their elucidation.

You also mention this: "... the "Life Force", or Will, flows through the Mind as well as to the Body in order to keep it moving,.." Beon Theory is not about such concepts as a life force, and will not be until someone gets around to defining exactly what they mean by it.

Awhile back I took on a brief job programming a machine to synthesize peptide molecules, small proteins found in great numbers within human and critter bodies. There I learned what I think needs to be applied to mystical "life force" concepts, which is that the proteins making up much of the human body are highly reactive, and that if their geometry is suitably arranged, it will select which reactions with other proteins will or will not take place, and when.

In other words, I see life forces as the result of physical properties, specifically those that are dealt with in biochemistry. However, this does not mean that I agree with those who claim that Darwinian evolution is responsible for the structure and arrangements of those molecules; in fact, I think that the probabilities against Darwinism are staggering. I also hold the opinion that the opposite religious notion attributing biological engineering to an almighty God is contradicted by the biological life time scale, and is therefore as poor an explanation as Darwinism.

I've kicked around "life force" ideas with various mystics and new-age religionists who set store by such notions, but have been unable to glean sense from their concepts. These are people who pretty much believe that the life force they tout in humans also extends to other critters, including insects, bacteria, and necessarily viruses. They attribute consciousness to their life force, and therefore extend it all the way down to viruses. The silliest of them believe that rocks are conscious.

Like any competently (I hope) designed arrangement of ideas, Beon Theory is about distinctions. I think that there are differences between normally intelligent humans and other critters. My theory explains the mechanisms behind these differences. Obviously, those who believe that their dog or cat, or the e-coli bacteria in their turds are conscious beings has no need for my ideas.

Incidentally, Beon Theory is holistic. Although beon and brain are physically distinct entities, and are also different kinds of entity, they are interdependent. Beon needs brain, and the brain needs training, practice, and discipline. Beon cannot develop independently of brain while it is connected with the brain. Likewise, the brain is useless without the guidance of beon.

Because the brain also works best in a physically fit body, Beon Theory invites a holistic approach to life, in which beon's job (because it has primary control) is to develop itself in the context of its body, as well as the society in which it lives and the planet that provides the resources necessary for life.

Greylorn

[uwot]

Ideas are made of thought, yes? Thought happens in the brain. Everything that happens in the brain has a physical substance, just like the rest of the body. Perhaps thought might be described as an electro-chemical process.

Well the jury is out on that. If you want to work out what the physical processes are though, you need to be talking to people involved in neuroscience.

However we might describe the physical existence of thought, the phenomena of thought has certain properties, characteristics, just as every other part of the body, just as everything in nature does.

Perhaps one day we will, but we are a long way from understanding 'what thoughts are made of' in the sense you describe.

Whatever those properties might be, they would have a profound influence upon the content carried in thought.

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

Let me bring in Janis Joplin here. What made her a remarkable performer was, as you suggest, the way she harnessed the emotion whatever experiences she happened to have engendered; her soul if you wish. The fact is though, she could sing; she had enough technical ability to hold a tune. Likewise, a lot of blues guitarists are only so so, but I defy you to name a guitarist who cannot play guitar. I guess I'm ten years younger than you, so I don't have the experience you do, but my generation took the idea that all you need is soul to it's logical conclusion in punk rock. It was not unheard of to go to gigs and watch a support act that had formed that afternoon. While we commended the energy and willing, such bands were, without exception, f****** awful. So it is with philosophy and science, we can all get up and give it a go, but without some structure, it's just noise.

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.

This is a separate issue to "Everything that happens in the brain has a physical substance". What are you suggesting the link is?

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".

But in the real world, the tree is not separate from sun, soil and water. If it was it would immediately begin to die. Functionally, in the real world, the tree is united with everything else to a degree not represented in thought, language, nouns.
You have just made that point using language in the familiar way and I doubt many people reading it would fail to understand that a tree is dependent on an environment.

The divisive nature of thought is a key source of distortion in how we see reality. It's like wearing tinted sunglasses, and then seeing a tinted world everywhere we look. The tint is not part of reality, but is instead a function of the equipment we are using to make the observation.

That's the best analogy I can think of at the moment. Thought as a pair of tinted sunglasses.

We can see reality through thought, but the view we get is distorted by the divisive nature of thought.

It is usual to distinguish between sense perceptions and the analysis of them; we don't literally 'see' through thought. I'm fairly certain research has been done to discover whether cultural expectations change what we actually see, but I don't know what the latest consensus is.

Just as with the sunglasses, everywhere we look through thought we see division, but that division is not in reality, but is instead a form of distortion introduced by the observation equipment.

People have been discussing the different modes of perception that other animals have, you have mentioned computers that can do enhanced 'thinking' for us. One way of looking at it is that science is doing everything it can to gather as much 'sense data' as it can, wearing as many shades of sunglasses as it can think of, even removing them. For all that we can enhance our vision, we can only see what is there, though. Whatever sense we make of it is philosophy and a philosophy that doesn't make use of the data provided by science may be soulful, but it will be a very limited vision. Ya gotta pay your dues, Baba Bozo.

[Felasco]

Well the jury is out on that. If you want to work out what the physical processes are though, you need to be talking to people involved in neuroscience.

For our purposes, it's not important. We can shift our focus from the content of thought to the nature of thought, make observations, and come to useful insights without understanding the physical processes. I'm not interested in brain surgery.

Perhaps one day we will, but we are a long way from understanding 'what thoughts are made of' in the sense you describe.

Yes, but thought still has properties which can be observed in action.

I guess I'm ten years younger than you, so I don't have the experience you do, but my generation took the idea that all you need is soul to it's logical conclusion in punk rock.

Good example of your case. But again, I'm not making a case that all you need is soul. I'm arguing that a focus on developing technical mastery can distract one from a focus on exploring one's soul, which in the end is what music is all about.

And again, while you are trying to turn this in to an either/or debate, I stated from the beginning that I was only expressing my own relationship with the topic of philosophy, not an ideal "one true way" that everyone must pursue.

You have just made that point using language in the familiar way and I doubt many people reading it would fail to understand that a tree is dependent on an environment.

My point is that "tree" and "environment" are two different things conceptually, in thought and thus language, but not in the real world.

Here's another example that may help illustrate what I'm trying to point to.

Please note that the following example is an example only, and that it is not my intent to promote or debunk religion in general, or any religion in particular.

Consider Christianity, as an example. It's an ideology explicitly about love and peace and bringing people together, and yet it has divided in to many different denominations. The denominations typically subdivide in to factions, which divide further in to subfactions. As example, even within one faith the Catholic Church, there are various factions and subfactions getting all steamed up at each other.

If this phenomena was seen in a limited number of cases, we could reason the problem was with the content of thought, the weakness of particular philosophies.

But what we see instead is that this division and subdivision process happens within pretty much all ideologies, not just religious philosophies. If 12 people start an ideology, any ideology, within a short time the process of division will inevitably begin, and factions will start to form.

This near universal process of philosophic division suggests that division arises from something more fundamental than the tenants of any particular philosophy. It reveals that division is a function of what all philosophies are made of, thought. The divisive nature of thought influences anything made of thought.

If we study the content of thought, we learn something about a particular philosophy.

If we study the nature of thought, we have the opportunity to learn something about all philosophies.

This shift of focus is a process of moving from the periphery of the subject of philosophy (the content of particular thoughts) towards the center of the subject of philosophy (the nature of all thought).

This might be compared to a shift of focus from studying individual species of fish in the ocean, to studying the properties of water, the element that all fish are made of and that all fish exist in.

This can be a useful shift of focus, because the nature of all particular fish arises from the central fact of the nature of water. If oceans were made of peanut butter, all fish would be very different than they currently are.