Philosophy Now Forum

Blaggard wrote:...
And I don't buy Gee is anyone but yourself either. I mean I could be wrong but he seems a set up a dupe, a patsy.
...

I don't think this is the case nor particularly fair to Gee.

Arising_uk wrote:

Blaggard wrote:...
And I don't buy Gee is anyone but yourself either. I mean I could be wrong but he seems a set up a dupe, a patsy.
...

I don't think this is the case nor particularly fair to Gee.

Well you have to ask it's not the first time I've seen that sort of shameless promotion, I mean it's the classic 3 card monte dupe isn't it?

He probably isn't though, although you can never be too cynical when it comes to on line.

Gee wrote:After considering the two quotes above, I am wondering if you study consciousness in the same way that Heidegger studied it. I have never read his work and have been told that it is difficult to comprehend, but he studied "Being" in much the same way that some Eastern philosophies study "being". It is a subjective study, and not my cup of tea, but I found a very good thread on Heidegger and Being in another forum, which I enjoyed tremendously. If you have an interest, say so, and I will look up the thread and PM a link to you.

Thank you but no. Had enough of Heidegger at present as in translation 'being' becomes meaningless once read for the hundredth time.

You are right tho', Phenomenology(what ever that is yet?) is my interest.

I see it a little differently because I broke consciousness into two divisions. The first division is well studied and includes knowledge, thought, memory, and most of our sensory input in memory. This division is internal and private. The second division is awareness, feeling (not tactile) and emotion. This division is not well studied and is shared and external.

I'm not sure it's so cut-n-dried. "Knowledge" is a pretty undefined term in philosophy but clearly has a large component that is shared and external. "Thought" is also fairly vague, do you mean the ability to manipulate the perceptions our senses give us through memory or the process of thinking in language(voice)? The latter appears again very much the result of a shared and external process. "Memory" again is not well comprehended but I accept its pretty much internal. Your second division includes "awareness" but this appears to involve thought, memory and sensory input? I'd be interested to know what feeling or emotion you can have that is not kinesthetic(tactile)?

The central nervous system is internal and private and tells us what is going on inside the body. But hormones and pheromones are not exclusively internal, and deal with the external world, as do emotions, which are also activated by chemicals.

ITrue it is a part of the 'going on' inside but I think it, in the main, more that the CNS tells us whats going on outside the body. Hormones are pretty much internal processes? Pheromones I think are over-rated in our species.

So I see the nervous system (internal communication) and chemistry (external communication) as culminating and working together in the brain. I guess you could say that I see the CNS as the land line, and the chemistry as the cell phone.

Don't doubt they all interact in a feedback system but I think the split to harsh and think the 'brain' not really a thing on its own.

I don't see the problem with language, but then I can not study everything. I do know that there are lots of studies about language, having run across them in different forums. And I believe that there are theories of a basic structuring of grammar that precedes language in the brains of certain species. If you Wiki it, I am sure that you will find something that can explain your reservations.

Wiki is fine as it goes but its not definitive in such matters.

There are problems with language that philosophy is interested in but thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how much having a language is a cause in our sense of self-consciousness.

Chomsky is the built-in grammar structure man.

I found this very interesting as most people do not make the connection between consciousness and isolation. You actually do think, don't you. This prompted me to go to another forum and retrieve some information about isolation that I posted there. Tell me what you think of the following:

"Human Bonding": There is a lot of information on human bonding, too much to reproduce here. Suffice it to say that human bonding seems to be necessary.

If you look up "Orphanages" and "Deinstitutionalization" you will discover that it is very important for little ones to bond. Babies under the age of two can actually die for want of a bond, and older children can become physically and mentally sick and underdeveloped. The Bucharest Early Intervention information was interesting and is found under "Deinstitutionalization".

"Solitary Confinement" is also interesting. It has been called "psychological torture" and some prisoners actually stated that they would prefer to be lashed than go into solitary confinement because there is no permanent damage or madness associated with the lash.

We have juveniles on, I believe it was Riker Island, in New York, who are put into solitary confinement, and it is estimated that 48% of them have mental issues caused from confinement. In the US, we regularly put prisoners in solitary confinement and wonder why they are nuts when they get released. The World Health Organization is not happy with us in this regard.

It's to do with mind-set as a buddhist or zen monk would react differently.

If you check out Ergonomics, you will find that office workers, who are isolated are less productive, so they came up with the little booths that give privacy, but don't cut the person off from everyone else. I found that being marooned is not good, but it also does not guarantee madness, so being cut off from people is bad, but I suspect that being cut off from life is what makes people lose their minds. Why? For a long time, we believed that it was being cut off from light that made people go mad, but I am beginning to suspect that this is not the whole truth. What is cut off? Is there a connection between life forms? Are we saying that the "connection" can not go through walls?

The simplest explanation is that we are social animals and without that interaction we lose our sense of a social self. No need for magical connections, just physicality.

With respect to office cubes, it depends what job you do, open-plan offices were set-up so that workers could be overseen by less bosses. In the software development area these spaces are a productive disaster for a programmer.

Everyone knows that the "laying on of hands" is nonsense, but apparently, it can be the difference between life and death for a newborn. And if an institutionalized infant bonds with a worker, then that worker changes jobs, it can mean the death of that newborn. Why?

We are social animals.

I did not provide links with the above, but if you go to Wiki and type in the capitalized words in "quotes", you will find the stated information.

Thanks but no need.

It is clear that isolation, consciousness, and bonding are very relevant to each other. Language is also important as it is a definitive clue of consciousness, but I think that it is a mistake to consider it the only clue. Not that long ago, we were putting deaf and blind children in sanitariums along with schizophrenics, psychotics, and tuberculosis patients, primarily because we believed that a person who did not possess language did not possess consciousness. Hellen Keller, who was deaf and blind, showed us that we were wrong. Once a way was found to reach her mind, she got a bachelor's degree, became a lecturer, and a political activist -- the woman was brilliant.

I don't think language is the source of consciousness but it is certainly a factor in creating a kind of self-consciousness. Remember that it was language that let her become all these things and the thing that allowed others to discover her.

Language proves intentionality, so it proves consciousness, but as Hellen Keller demonstrated, it does not have to be verbal language. Body language can also prove intentionality, so that means that bees, who do a dance to show other bees where the flowers are, are conscious.

Sure. About this, do you have a difference between conscious and consciousness or self-consciousness? As elsewhere I think you equated it with sentience and a conversation with Impenitent led me to think these are not the same things.

One of the other members found this site, which is interesting:

There's even evidence bacteria are conscious. One will glow when a certain number exist in a given location. We're going to find out that consciousness isn't what we think it is and much of what we think is not real.

I'm not even sure what you think it is at present as it looks like you mean consciousness as 'conscious of' things, i.e. a bacteria is conscious of its surroundings.

Back to the idea of isolation; consider that zoologists have discovered that social species must have social interaction, or they also go mad. Zoos have been trying to adapt to the needs of their social animals. Even so, we know that there are some species that have life-long bonds, but are not considered social animals. So there is a lot to consider regarding isolation and consciousness.

Probably.

"other"? I lost you again.

G

I take it that if one is self-conscious or has consciousness then one knows it, the issue is convincing others.

Arising_uk;

Please consider my responses as follows:

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee wrote:I see it a little differently because I broke consciousness into two divisions. The first division is well studied and includes knowledge, thought, memory, and most of our sensory input in memory. This division is internal and private. The second division is awareness, feeling (not tactile) and emotion. This division is not well studied and is shared and external.

I'm not sure it's so cut-n-dried.

You have a dry sense of humor. (chuckle chuckle) Nothing about consciousness or life is "cut-n-dried". The truth of the matter is that the two divisions influence and bleed into each other rather routinely, so it is in fact a false dichotomy. But it is useful as a study tool. Physically we divide our bodies into the pulmonary system, the circulatory system, the digestive system, etc., for study, but in reality we would die if we did not have all of these systems working together.

I did not make this division originally; I simply acknowledged it. Consider the following part of a post that I wrote on the supernatural:

I went to Wiki and found that the word 'supernatural' was first used in the early 1,500s. This makes sense if you remember that 2,000 years ago, a bunch of pagans got together with the idea of an invisible God, and declared all things invisible to be of that God. For a time, even our personal thoughts were supposed to be put in our minds by either God or the devil, so for 1,000 years all that was invisible was God's. The Dark Ages. Then philosophers and scientists started to prove that some things were natural laws, so they fought religion with debate and logic, sometimes winning and sometimes losing, until Aquinas finally threw open the doors to science and the Enlightenment. (This is a very simplified version of a tremendous struggle by many great scientists and philosophers.) By the 1,500s all of the intangibles were being divided, some were left in the care of religion, some were proven to belong to science, but what to do with the others? Well, whatever religion did not want and science could not prove became the supernatural. Simple

Science and religion created the false dichotomy with regard to the reality of consciousness. All of the mental aspects are part of our consciousness, but all of the mental aspects are not treated equally by science and religion. Realizing this frustrated me for a very long time until I considered the reason for the division -- the source of consciousness. Everyone was looking for the source.

Science has decided that the source is internal and looks to the brain for consciousness. So it disregards religious interpretations as nonsense and assumes that the paranormal/supernatural is a figment of the brain's imagination. Religion has decided that the source is external and looks to "God" for the source. Religion accepts the external explanation, but excludes any supernatural/paranormal that does not enhance the religion's interpretations. Hence reincarnation is not paranormal in Eastern cultures as it is accepted and understood by their religions, but is paranormal in the West where Christianity does not accept reincarnation ideas.

So I took the divisions as handed to me and study how the differences in the internal and external work individually and together, because I study all of consciousness.

Arising_uk wrote:"Knowledge" is a pretty undefined term in philosophy but clearly has a large component that is shared and external.

"Knowledge" is a very well and often defined term in philosophy. The fact that it is still not quite understood is not because of lack of effort. Knowledge is not shared and is internal. Consider: You have just discovered that your bank has bounced your last three checks and are in a black mood. You meet with friends; so do you worry that your friends will pick up your thoughts on your bounced checks and stupid bankers (knowledge), or do you worry that your friends will pick up on your mood (emotion)? Knowledge is not shared unless we choose to share it. Emotions are shared automatically, unless we hide them. This is the nature of things we know and things we feel.

Arising_uk wrote:"Thought" is also fairly vague, do you mean the ability to manipulate the perceptions our senses give us through memory or the process of thinking in language(voice)? The latter appears again very much the result of a shared and external process.

Both. Language is an external communication, but it is intentional. Your thoughts are private unless you share them. Your emotions are not private, unless you are careful to hide them.

Arising_uk wrote:"Memory" again is not well comprehended but I accept its pretty much internal.

Agreed. I think that this may be part of the idea behind panpsychism, that knowledge and memory can be hidden within matter and not be known outside of that matter.

Arising_uk wrote:Your second division includes "awareness" but this appears to involve thought, memory and sensory input? I'd be interested to know what feeling or emotion you can have that is not kinesthetic(tactile)?

As I stated above, the divisions that I am working with are in fact false. All of the mental aspects influence the other mental aspects, so they are not really divisible. But there is a definable difference in the way that some aspects actually work. This is what I am looking at. Thought and emotion influence each other and are part of each other, but they do not work the same way within us or between us. Awareness seems to be a lesser form of emotion.

Arising_uk wrote:True it is a part of the 'going on' inside but I think it, in the main, more that the CNS tells us whats going on outside the body. Hormones are pretty much internal processes?

Our senses tell us what is going on outside the body, and they dump their information into the CNS. But nerves tell us what is going on with and within the body, not outside. This is the reason that you can have a tumor growing inside you, or a bacterial infection inside you, but be totally unaware of it until you feel pain or discomfort from the nervous system. We have no actual awareness within the body. Now there is awareness linked to the brain, but that awareness comes from mind and we don't actually know where the mind actually is. (chuckle chuckle)

Hormones are very interesting. They are self balancing and work to keep the different internal systems in sync. But they are also very specifically linked to our most important instincts like sex drives, eating, sleeping, nurturing the young, and stages of life and death, so they help us to deal with the outside reality and work to keep us alive in the world. Recently I have begun to think that they also activate consciousness, so they are pretty important.

Consider that hormones are communicators and every specie has some form of hormone/s. Every specie does not have a brain. So if one considers that all life is sentient, conscious in some way, then it is more likely that hormones, rather than a brain, is what activates consciousness in life. Also note that the brain is "saturated" in hormones.

Arising_uk wrote:Pheromones I think are over-rated in our species.

Maybe so, but I have a very strict rule regarding the study of consciousness, and that is to include other species in my considerations. I have noted that when people do not consider other species and limit their thoughts to human consciousness, the study ends up being a study of the human ego and how that relates to consciousness -- not actual consciousness. So if one is looking for the source of consciousness, this limiting causes one to think that consciousness comes from humans. This ends up circling back to the "God" idea though anthropomorphism.

Arising_uk wrote:There are problems with language that philosophy is interested in but thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how much having a language is a cause in our sense of self-consciousness.

It may well be, but I try to study consciousness objectively. It would be difficult to study the relationship of language and consciousness objectively, when we know so very little about other species' languages. And how could we possibly know if a specie had a sense of self-consciousness and did not have a language to communicate that idea?

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee wrote:We have juveniles on, I believe it was Riker Island, in New York, who are put into solitary confinement, and it is estimated that 48% of them have mental issues caused from confinement. In the US, we regularly put prisoners in solitary confinement and wonder why they are nuts when they get released. The World Health Organization is not happy with us in this regard.

It's to do with mind-set as a buddhist or zen monk would react differently.

That is not a very realistic answer. You seem to be presuming that the cure for this problem is to demand that everyone become a buddhist or zen monk. You have also not offered any reason for the problem of madness associated with isolation to exist in the first place.

Arising_uk wrote:The simplest explanation is that we are social animals and without that interaction we lose our sense of a social self. No need for magical connections, just physicality.

You are side-stepping the issue. What makes us "social animals"?

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee wrote:Everyone knows that the "laying on of hands" is nonsense, but apparently, it can be the difference between life and death for a newborn. And if an institutionalized infant bonds with a worker, then that worker changes jobs, it can mean the death of that newborn. Why?

We are social animals.

That is not an answer. A real answer would also probably answer the question of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) where babies simply turn off, quit, and die for no apparent reason. We know that bonding has some influence over SIDS, but we don't know what "bonding" actually is, or why it works.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee wrote:Hellen Keller, who was deaf and blind, showed us that we were wrong. Once a way was found to reach her mind, she got a bachelor's degree, became a lecturer, and a political activist -- the woman was brilliant.

I don't think language is the source of consciousness but it is certainly a factor in creating a kind of self-consciousness. Remember that it was language that let her become all things things and the thing that allowed others to discover her.

This implies that language causes intelligence. It would be interesting to see how you justify that idea.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee wrote:Language proves intentionality, so it proves consciousness, but as Hellen Keller demonstrated, it does not have to be verbal language. Body language can also prove intentionality, so that means that bees, who do a dance to show other bees where the flowers are, are conscious.

Sure. About this, do you have a difference between conscious and consciousness or self-consciousness? As elsewhere I think you equated it with sentience and a conversation with Impenitent led me to think these are not the same things.

Good question. I had to think about this for a minute. "Conscious" is a term used by the medical community to denote a state of awareness that includes intentionality. An "unconscious" person does not possess intentionality, and is very dependent upon others to ensure his/her survival, but is also not dead. Many unconscious people in various states of coma have been known to wake up and discuss things that they heard while unconscious, so the medical community has noted that it is important to consider what an unconscious person might hear. This implies that even an unconscious person possesses some awareness/consciousness. Then there are the divisions as explained by Freud regarding the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind.

Consciousness is awareness and the ability to perceive. All life is sentient; I got this straight from a neurologist. Sentience is the ability to perceive and react to stimuli, so that would imply that all life is aware to some degree.

Self-consciousness is another matter because the definition of "self" must be considered. Are we saying that a self-aware specie is aware of it's body as being distinct from it's surroundings? Or are we saying that it's "mind" is aware of itself as distinct from other minds? Or are we saying that it is aware that it has a mind? I think a person could write two or three threads on this alone.

Arising_uk wrote:

There's even evidence bacteria are conscious. One will glow when a certain number exist in a given location. We're going to find out that consciousness isn't what we think it is and much of what we think is not real.

I'm not even sure what you think it is at present as it looks like you mean consciousness as 'conscious of' things, i.e. a bacteria is conscious of its surroundings.

If you check back, you will find that the above quote is not mine. It is a quote that I copied from another forum that a member there wrote. But if you watched the video, it is interesting. Apparently bacteria can communicate with each other using a chemical that works much like pheromones. The bacteria will grow until they reach a certain mass or ratio, then they will communicate with this chemical and all turn on. This goes a long way in helping us to understand incubation periods for different diseases, but I have no idea of how or why it works. You would do better to ask a scientist, who studies bacteria. Nonetheless, there is communication going on and some way for the bacteria to be aware of their numbers or concentration, so awareness is a distinct possibility.

Arising_uk wrote:I take it that if one is self-conscious or has consciousness then one knows it, the issue is convincing others.

This has been a "truth" in philosophy for a very long time, that we can know that we are conscious, but we can not know if someone/thing else is conscious -- I think this is bull.

When there is an auto accident, we rush the people off in the ambulance so they can be helped, we will even rush animals off to the veterinarian, but does anyone rush the auto off to the mechanic? Do they worry that the fender might hurt? Are they concerned that the tires left half of their tread on the pavement and might feel tender? No. When there is an avalanch, we look for survivors and bodies, but does anyone worry about the rocks? They fell too, so they might be hurt.

Of course these ideas are ridiculous. No one is worried about autos and tires and rocks, because they are not conscious. Only life is conscious and we all know it. This is why we have "Save the Whales" and investigations regarding humane treatment at slaughter houses, and the Humane Society, because we know that life is conscious. Only the degree of consciousness is in question.

Philosophy is supposed to study reality, but they dropped the ball on this one.

G

PS Spell check is not working all of the time, so if I messed up, I apologize. My eyes are bad and I miss things.

Ginkgo wrote:This is no doubt the case, but this doesn't exclude science from from also saying the consciousness 'resides' with in the brain. There is no logical necessity that says one must exclude the other.

Gee wrote: Science can state whatever they want, but the above is wrong. Consciousness does not reside in the brain, and there is no evidence to support this position. This is a stupid word game. The rational mind (consciousness) emerges in the brain, so science is talking about being aware that we are aware, or conscious of our consciousness. THAT consciousness emerges from the brain.

If the above is wrong then can you tell me the logical necessity that excludes science from saying that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical process?

If the above is wrong can you tell me where in the extensive research does ANYONE say that we are aware about being aware, or we are conscious of our consciousness? Can you point out any of these tautologies in the extensive literature?

You are wrong on at least one account. I tend to save my idiotic best for my wife, not philosophy and science.

You are correct when you say that an intelligent person does not throw away evidence. So how do you justify 'throwing away' consciousness research undertaken by people such as Koch and Crick as an exercise in tautological thinking? You call this exercise, "silly word games". Can you can justify throwing away years of research and careful observations in this field?

Religious people can justify anything with any amount of cognitive dissonance for any amount of time.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:This is no doubt the case, but this doesn't exclude science from from also saying the consciousness 'resides' with in the brain. There is no logical necessity that says one must exclude the other.

Gee wrote:Science can state whatever they want, but the above is wrong. Consciousness does not reside in the brain, and there is no evidence to support this position. This is a stupid word game. The rational mind (consciousness) emerges in the brain, so science is talking about being aware that we are aware, or conscious of our consciousness. THAT consciousness emerges from the brain.

If the above is wrong then can you tell me the logical necessity that excludes science from saying that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical process?

There are a number of reasons, but the most important is that science is supposed to deal with proofs, and there is no proof that consciousness emerges from physical processes. There is evidence, but no proof. There can be no proof until a valid theory of consciousness exists.

Another reason is that you did not state that "consciousness is an emergent property of the physical process". What you stated was that "consciousness 'resides' with in the brain". This lack of distinction is a common problem. Science's declaration that consciousness emerges from the brain causes people to think that the source of consciousness is the brain. That without a brain, there is no consciousness. The problem with this is that it morphs into ideas that any life form that does not have a brain also has no consciousness; that consciousness can come from a computer, which is a processor like a brain; this idea can also eventually convince people that we are the source as in solipsism; it can also morph into validation of the "God" idea. So the idea that consciousness comes from us, our brains, can create a great deal of nonsense. This is the issue that I have with it.

I also should have clarified my statement as follows: "THAT consciousness emerges from the brain -- we think".

Consider that the word "consciousness" has just too damned many meanings, which is why I often use Freud's breakdowns to clarify which "consciousness" I am referring to. The following is from the SEP, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is produced by Stanford University and is a very well respected and peer reviewed on-line encyclopedia. The following can be found by searching the Contents of the SEP under the heading of Consciousness.

2. Concepts of Consciousness
The words “conscious” and “consciousness” are umbrella terms that cover a wide variety of mental phenomena. Both are used with a diversity of meanings, and the adjective “conscious” is heterogeneous in its range, being applied both to whole organisms—creature consciousness—and to particular mental states and processes—state consciousness (Rosenthal 1986, Gennaro 1995, Carruthers 2000).

Ginkgo wrote:If the above is wrong can you tell me where in the extensive research does ANYONE say that we are aware about being aware, or we are conscious of our consciousness? Can you point out any of these tautologies in the extensive literature?

From the SEP:

2.1 Creature Consciousness
An animal, person or other cognitive system may be regarded as conscious in a number of different senses.

Sentience. It may be conscious in the generic sense of simply being a sentient creature, one capable of sensing and responding to its world (Armstrong 1981). Being conscious in this sense may admit of degrees, and just what sort of sensory capacities are sufficient may not be sharply defined. Are fish conscious in the relevant respect? And what of shrimp or bees?


Self-consciousness. A third and yet more demanding sense might define conscious creatures as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware, thus treating creature consciousness as a form of self-consciousness (Carruthers 2000). The self-awareness requirement might get interpreted in a variety of ways, and which creatures would qualify as conscious in the relevant sense will vary accordingly. If it is taken to involve explicit conceptual self-awareness, many non-human animals and even young children might fail to qualify, but if only more rudimentary implicit forms of self-awareness are required then a wide range of nonlinguistic creatures might count as self-conscious.

Ginkgo wrote:You are wrong on at least one account. I tend to save my idiotic best for my wife, not philosophy and science.

Well, cancer took my husband almost ten years ago, so I guess I will have to save my idiotic best for you. I apologize for offending you.

Ginkgo wrote:You are correct when you say that an intelligent person does not throw away evidence. So how do you justify 'throwing away' consciousness research undertaken by people such as Koch and Crick as an exercise in tautological thinking? You call this exercise, "silly word games". Can you can justify throwing away years of research and careful observations in this field?

I find that it is often the interpretation of the evidence that needs to be thrown away -- not the evidence. A good example of this is anthropomorphism, which I have recently been studying.

When I referred to "silly word games" I was talking about the multiple meanings of the word "consciousness" and how these multiple meanings create confusion and nonsense.

I am not familiar with Koch and Crick, so I have no idea of what you are talking about, but Crick came up in my search of the SEP. The problem is that there were three pages of references on "Crick" and I don't even know if these pages are about the same person(s). If you could give me a brief summary of the work that you are referring to, maybe I could narrow my search and answer your question.

At this point I need to make a public apology to the SEP. About three years ago, I studied the entire chapter on Consciousness in the SEP, and came away dissatisfied with the way it was written. I have since called the SEP a "pretentious, pompous, name-dropping type of encyclopedia that is unnecessarily difficult to read" in a number of forums. The SEP has changed. I found it easy to read, informative, and expect that I will return to it and reread the Chapter on Consciousness. Whoever is responsible for this change. Thank you.

G

Arising_uk wrote:Many have had dyslexia which Blaggard admits too. I guess thats why he likes physics as it uses maths.

He can bang on and does get the wrong-end of the stick at times bit upon the whole I doubt he's a nitwit. I don't find talking to anyone reduces ones intelligence as one should be able to explain ones thoughts with anyone. That you can't doesn't bode well for your intelligence despite your IQ.

No one granted me anything.

I know several dyslexic individuals. I even diagnosed one of them, and the knowledge helped him realize that he had no mind-level deficiencies. He was born left-handed, and his parents forced him to use his right hand as the dominant hand. This is a common cause of dyslexia, because it forces the brain to deal with opposite-hemisphere functions that belong in the "home," hemisphere, i.e. the one that is connected directly to beon. He went on to compensate for his brain's screwed up childhood programming and became successful in his work. He now reads and writes without a hitch.

Even when he was actively dyslexic, he was never an intolerant asshole. Had he been, I'd not have worked with him, and he'd have been incapable of working with me and obtaining another perspective. The others I know, who remain dyslexic, are not intolerant assholes. I see no evidence to support a valid correlation.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Many have had dyslexia which Blaggard admits too. I guess thats why he likes physics as it uses maths.

He can bang on and does get the wrong-end of the stick at times bit upon the whole I doubt he's a nitwit. I don't find talking to anyone reduces ones intelligence as one should be able to explain ones thoughts with anyone. That you can't doesn't bode well for your intelligence despite your IQ.

No one granted me anything.

I know several dyslexic individuals. I even diagnosed one of them, and the knowledge helped him realize that he had no mind-level deficiencies. He was born left-handed, and his parents forced him to use his right hand as the dominant hand. This is a common cause of dyslexia, because it forces the brain to deal with opposite-hemisphere functions that belong in the "home," hemisphere, i.e. the one that is connected directly to beon. He went on to compensate for his brain's screwed up childhood programming and became successful in his work. He now reads and writes without a hitch.

Even when he was actively dyslexic, he was never an intolerant asshole. Had he been, I'd not have worked with him, and he'd have been incapable of working with me and obtaining another perspective. The others I know, who remain dyslexic, are not intolerant assholes. I see no evidence to support a valid correlation.

I'm not an intolerant person Grey, I am not what demon you imagine me to be, I am dyslexic yes, but why you seem to think that makes me hence sinister, is beyond me, I have a left and right hand, one is dexter and one is sinister.

Even when he was actively dyslexic, he was never an intolerant asshole. Had he been, I'd not have worked with him, and he'd have been incapable of working with me and obtaining another perspective. The others I know, who remain dyslexic, are not intolerant assholes. I see no evidence to support a valid correlation.

See this is just trolling Grey, and you are taking others to task for indulging in trolling, do you really think being a troll is clever? I do not know but, it is what you are doing..?

Hey you Troll away grey sinister or dexter you are just making my point for me.

Types

Right-handedness is most common. Right-handed people are more skillful with their right hands when performing tasks. Studies suggest that 70–90% of the world population is right-handed.[4][5]
Left-handedness is less common than right-handedness. Left-handed people are more skillful with their left hands when performing tasks. Studies suggest that approximately 10% of the world population is left-handed.[6]
Mixed-handedness is the change of hand preference between tasks. This is common in the population with about a 30% prevalence.[2]
Ambidexterity is exceptionally rare, although it can be learned. A truly ambidextrous person is able to do any task equally well with either hand. Those who learn it still tend to favor their originally dominant hand.[1]
Ambilevous or ambisinister people demonstrate awkwardness with both hands. Ambisinistrous motor skills or a low level of dexterity may be the result of a debilitating physical condition.

I can use both hands equally well, and since a child have learnt to use both hands equally well, my left hand is as adroit as my right. Can use the left hand to do all the things a right hand might do even play tennis or snooker with either hand equally well; I am ambidextrous, now I don't see that as anything to boast about but I have two hands that are able to do any action well and without any distinction, perhaps it's something to do with my dyslexia but perhaps not. I have two hands though and both can do the same thing equally well. Am I good at using both hands to do the same thing, yes, am I proud of it: no. It's just one of those things I can skilfully do. Am I mighty, think that one day I will rule the world, think that I have the biggest cock in the world, it's never as big as I imagine, and I know it.

I know several dyslexic individuals. I even diagnosed one of them

Good for you, and I have no doubt when you diagnosed them proles they now think of you as Man United.

Gee and Auk,

Related to your conversation about consciousness and language, there is a section in Principles of Psychology in which William James discusses the instance of a child born deaf in the mid-19th century, who had no access to schools for the deaf, thus no access to sign language. His parents did not know how to teach him to read. His father was a salesman or businessman and traveled quite a lot, usually via railroad, and made a point of bringing his son with him on these trips.

Eventually his father found and enrolled him in a school for the deaf, where he learned to read and write. He later wrote a book about his childhood experiences, growing up without language. As he relates his experience, he was fully conscious throughout his language-free childhood. He observed the world around him and the parts of it that he would pass on train rides. He formulated his own theories about reality, in his mind, without benefit of any language in which to express his thoughts or ask questions. He realized that the earth was the center of the universe, with the moon, sun, and mysterious tiny lights in the night sky moving around the earth in a slow and regular manner, except for the planets.

He noted that the train rides (the exposure to diverse information) piqued his curiosity and provided the food for his thoughts.

This is a credible and well documented indication that if there is any relationship between language and consciousness, language is the function of the potential for consciousness. There are many other examples available to those who take the subject seriously enough to read diversely.

Greylorn

Arising_uk wrote:"Knowledge" is a pretty undefined term in philosophy but clearly has a large component that is shared and external.

Interesting. Knowledge is well defined in information theory, cybernetics, and computer technology. Even I know what knowledge is. I have some, but compared to the available knowledge, a negligible portion. I know what knowledge is not, and find different forms of it that appear to confuse philosophers incapable of making distinctions between data, information, and conceptual understanding. How is it that philosophers have not gotten a handle on knowledge yet, after bullshitting about it for several millennia, unless they are utterly incompetent, and incapable of understanding that which they claim to teach?

Must make you proud.

I'd be ashamed to hold a Ph.D, for a doctorate in philosophy, amid a time in which physics knowledge is flourishing, is a declaration of intellectual futility.

Gee wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:This is no doubt the case, but this doesn't exclude science from from also saying the consciousness 'resides' with in the brain. There is no logical necessity that says one must exclude the other.

Gee wrote:Science can state whatever they want, but the above is wrong. Consciousness does not reside in the brain, and there is no evidence to support this position. This is a stupid word game. The rational mind (consciousness) emerges in the brain, so science is talking about being aware that we are aware, or conscious of our consciousness. THAT consciousness emerges from the brain.

If the above is wrong then can you tell me the logical necessity that excludes science from saying that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical process?

There are a number of reasons, but the most important is that science is supposed to deal with proofs, and there is no proof that consciousness emerges from physical processes. There is evidence, but no proof. There can be no proof until a valid theory of consciousness exists.

Another reason is that you did not state that "consciousness is an emergent property of the physical process". What you stated was that "consciousness 'resides' with in the brain". This lack of distinction is a common problem. Science's declaration that consciousness emerges from the brain causes people to think that the source of consciousness is the brain. That without a brain, there is no consciousness. The problem with this is that it morphs into ideas that any life form that does not have a brain also has no consciousness; that consciousness can come from a computer, which is a processor like a brain; this idea can also eventually convince people that we are the source as in solipsism; it can also morph into validation of the "God" idea. So the idea that consciousness comes from us, our brains, can create a great deal of nonsense. This is the issue that I have with it.

I also should have clarified my statement as follows: "THAT consciousness emerges from the brain -- we think".

Consider that the word "consciousness" has just too damned many meanings, which is why I often use Freud's breakdowns to clarify which "consciousness" I am referring to. The following is from the SEP, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is produced by Stanford University and is a very well respected and peer reviewed on-line encyclopedia. The following can be found by searching the Contents of the SEP under the heading of Consciousness.

2. Concepts of Consciousness
The words “conscious” and “consciousness” are umbrella terms that cover a wide variety of mental phenomena. Both are used with a diversity of meanings, and the adjective “conscious” is heterogeneous in its range, being applied both to whole organisms—creature consciousness—and to particular mental states and processes—state consciousness (Rosenthal 1986, Gennaro 1995, Carruthers 2000).

Ginkgo wrote:If the above is wrong can you tell me where in the extensive research does ANYONE say that we are aware about being aware, or we are conscious of our consciousness? Can you point out any of these tautologies in the extensive literature?

From the SEP:

2.1 Creature Consciousness
An animal, person or other cognitive system may be regarded as conscious in a number of different senses.

Sentience. It may be conscious in the generic sense of simply being a sentient creature, one capable of sensing and responding to its world (Armstrong 1981). Being conscious in this sense may admit of degrees, and just what sort of sensory capacities are sufficient may not be sharply defined. Are fish conscious in the relevant respect? And what of shrimp or bees?


Self-consciousness. A third and yet more demanding sense might define conscious creatures as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware, thus treating creature consciousness as a form of self-consciousness (Carruthers 2000). The self-awareness requirement might get interpreted in a variety of ways, and which creatures would qualify as conscious in the relevant sense will vary accordingly. If it is taken to involve explicit conceptual self-awareness, many non-human animals and even young children might fail to qualify, but if only more rudimentary implicit forms of self-awareness are required then a wide range of nonlinguistic creatures might count as self-conscious.

Ginkgo wrote:You are wrong on at least one account. I tend to save my idiotic best for my wife, not philosophy and science.

Well, cancer took my husband almost ten years ago, so I guess I will have to save my idiotic best for you. I apologize for offending you.

Ginkgo wrote:You are correct when you say that an intelligent person does not throw away evidence. So how do you justify 'throwing away' consciousness research undertaken by people such as Koch and Crick as an exercise in tautological thinking? You call this exercise, "silly word games". Can you can justify throwing away years of research and careful observations in this field?

I find that it is often the interpretation of the evidence that needs to be thrown away -- not the evidence. A good example of this is anthropomorphism, which I have recently been studying.

When I referred to "silly word games" I was talking about the multiple meanings of the word "consciousness" and how these multiple meanings create confusion and nonsense.

I am not familiar with Koch and Crick, so I have no idea of what you are talking about, but Crick came up in my search of the SEP. The problem is that there were three pages of references on "Crick" and I don't even know if these pages are about the same person(s). If you could give me a brief summary of the work that you are referring to, maybe I could narrow my search and answer your question.

At this point I need to make a public apology to the SEP. About three years ago, I studied the entire chapter on Consciousness in the SEP, and came away dissatisfied with the way it was written. I have since called the SEP a "pretentious, pompous, name-dropping type of encyclopedia that is unnecessarily difficult to read" in a number of forums. The SEP has changed. I found it easy to read, informative, and expect that I will return to it and reread the Chapter on Consciousness. Whoever is responsible for this change. Thank you.

G

Hi again Gee,

There is nothing in the SEP that I can see that disagree with what I have said thus far in this thread.

I think it is important to clear up at least one popular misconception in relation to science. Science only provides EVIDENCE that supports a theory. In other words, all science wants to say is that the observational evidence supports a theory FOR THE TIME BEING. Science doesn't deal in "proofs". Science is always an open question and thus is always open to continual revision. Mathematics and logic deal in the type of proofs you refer to. I am getting the idea that you see "proof" as more definitive than "evidence".

The ontological argument is proof that God exists. The only problems with this proof is that in actual fact it could be the case that God does not exist. This may seem trivial and unrelated to your response--but it isn't. You are looking for something that cannot overcome the explanatory gap.

As Kant said existence is not a predicate.
Or in his own words:

Kant then proposed that the statement "God exists" must be analytic or synthetic—the predicate must be inside or outside of the subject, respectively. If the proposition is analytic, as the ontological argument takes it to be, then the statement would be true only because of the meaning given to the words. Kant claimed that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality. However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).[50]

Kant goes on to write, "'being' is obviously not a real predicate" [47] and cannot be part of the concept of something. He proposed that existence is not a predicate, or quality. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He stated that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, "I add no new predicate to the conception of God". He argued that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, then it is conceivable for a completely perfect being to not exist, thus defeating the ontological argument

It's called a God of the gaps style argument, where angels fear to tread goes God in the gaps.

In his 1955 book Science and Christian Belief Charles Alfred Coulson (1910−1974) wrote:

There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking.[5]

and

Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He's not there at all.

Science hypothesis is a set of postulates that can either be proven to exist in experiment or can by null hypothesis be shown within a margin of error to not be evidential. Which is why incidentally greys idea is not even wrong, about the most greivous insult that can be levelled in science.

Science theory is a set of tested experiments, which have withstood the peer review process, and have independently been verified by several autonomous researchers, not to be confused with the layman's term theory, meaning an idea that needs no such verification, so in science that which is shown to be factual is given the term experimentally verified, as to whether it is true: science is silent on matters of the absolute, science assymptotically approaches but never equals truth.


One oft touted rebuke by IDiots is evolution is only a theory. Yeah and it's also a fact, but I do not think they should use that word...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Blaggard wrote:As Kant said existence is not a predicate.
Or in his own words:

Kant then proposed that the statement "God exists" must be analytic or synthetic—the predicate must be inside or outside of the subject, respectively. If the proposition is analytic, as the ontological argument takes it to be, then the statement would be true only because of the meaning given to the words. Kant claimed that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality. However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).[50]

Kant goes on to write, "'being' is obviously not a real predicate" [47] and cannot be part of the concept of something. He proposed that existence is not a predicate, or quality. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He stated that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, "I add no new predicate to the conception of God". He argued that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, then it is conceivable for a completely perfect being to not exist, thus defeating the ontological argument

It's called a God of the gaps style argument, where angels fear to tread goes God in the gaps.

In his 1955 book Science and Christian Belief Charles Alfred Coulson (1910−1974) wrote:

There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking.[5]

and

Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He's not there at all.

Science hypothesis is a set of postulates that can either be proven to exist in experiment or can by null hypothesis be shown within a margin of error to not be evidential. Which is why incidentally greys idea is not even wrong, about the most greivous insult that can be levelled in science.

Science theory is a set of tested experiments, which have withstood the peer review process, and have independently been verified by several autonomous researchers, not to be confused with the layman's term theory, meaning an idea that needs no such verification, so in science that which is shown to be factual is given the term experimentally verified, as to whether it is true: science is silent on matters of the absolute, science assymptotically approaches but never equals truth.


One oft touted rebuke by IDiots is evolution is only a theory. Yeah and it's also a fact, but I do not think they should use that word...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Yes. I guess it becomes a bit of s shock when there is a realization that science only ever provides tentative answers to problems. Lawrence Krauss said that one of the reasons that he goes to work every morning is to try and prove other scientists wrong.

If people want proofs then they need to formulate postulates and axioms. But as Kant would probably say, we have no basis for assuming that the principles we have employed relate to anything independent of experience.

Greylorn;

Thank you for sharing the information on the child, who was born deaf. It was interesting and informative.

Greylorn Ell wrote: I'd be ashamed to hold a Ph.D, for a doctorate in philosophy, amid a time in which physics knowledge is flourishing, is a declaration of intellectual futility.

But the above quote is BS. If you had a Ph.D in anything, it would be plastered all over your book to give it credibility. And don't even bother arguing this point. I climbed up the seven stories of Blarney Castle, hung over the edge like a lunatic, and kissed the Blarney Stone. I know blarney when I hear/read it.

G