Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:Ginkgo,

"I wonder if sight, sound and smell are a unified experience, or can I experience these thing as separate streams of consciousness?"


Irrelevant, I think, since 'I' will unify them.

I may be comprised of pieces and parts, but none of those pieces and parts exist in isolation. Each piece and part has developed along side and in coordination with all the others. These pieces and parts work together to form a whole: 'me'.

Sure, the sound is disconnected from the light which is disconnected from the smell which is disconnected from the textures, but 'I' don't exist as multiple entities (one for sight, one for hearing, etc). 'I' exist as 'one', a locus for apprehending multiple streams of disconnected information and then merging those streams into one model of the world. I do this (in this way) because 'I' am a single organism with all means of apprehension (my senses) located and connected within a single discrete mass.

It's a system ('I' am a system) that works well for moving in the world and using the world as resource.

Multiple streams of 'consciousness' need not apply.

Yes, it is irrelevant to most of us. It is only relevant to those professionals who make a study of such things.

There is no more justification for your "functional group" proposal than for multiverse theory

I agree with that. It is speculative and it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to new theories in science (especially for non-scientists). Some theories, like inflation, seem to be generally accepted, others come and go.

Greylorn wrote:

Wyman,
For the benefit of those who do not need to kill time by following every conversation on a complex thread (as dumb as trying to participate in every conversation at a large dinner party), why not observe the courtesy of referencing whom you are responding to? It just takes a quick copy and paste of their

xxx wrote:, then, later, a

to close their part of the conversation.
Greylorn

I, like Henry, have not figured out how to do this. Although Henry may be just trying to be different.

I have no idea where your hostility towards Gingko comes from. I find him to be very knowledgeable. If it is a result of your hostility towards contemporary philosophy in general, I somewhat share that sentiment. However, when I came on this site at the same time I started reading Philosophy Now, it was in an attempt to get caught up on contemporary philosophy, an area I have neglected for twenty years, after turning down acceptance into a graduate program in philosophy in favor of a law degree. As I have collected names to read - Searle, Dennett, Nagel, Chalmers, I went into it skeptically. It all seems to revolve around this 'problem of consciousness.' If you want to get into the mix (and maybe you don't), I think you need to read them and meet them on their terms, to be relevant. They are obviously not just 'idiots,' as you maintain - in the sense that I'm sure they have very high IQs and have studied science and philosophy for decades. Granted, even very bright people can get so mired in the muck (thinking of Jean Valjean trudging through the labyrinthine Paris sewers) as to have their theories grind to a halt. But the more I have understood them and read them, the less dismissive I have become.

Wyman,

"it is possible (in theory) that if you get every Chinese person (I guess because there are so many of them) to perform the requisite function, you could in theory get a big, collective, Chinese experience or consciousness up and running"

Yesterday, I was gonna poo-poo this (didn't have time to actually post).

This morning, I'm more than half way to agreeing with you.

Was watching the news and saw a piece out of China.

Figurative in the piece was a young Asian woman directing traffic.

She was utterly robotic in demeanor and action (well indoctrinated in the role of cog, I imagine).

Perhaps China (the population) already 'is' a kind of (loose) 'brain'.

Grey,

"Neurolinguistic Programming" "stupid slang"

Is this the best you can do?

Amateur.

Wyman,

"I, like Henry, have not figured out how to do this."

I'm well-acquainted with the quote function, thank you very much.

I prefer my way.

Ginkgo,

"It is only relevant to those professionals who make a study of such things"

And what conclusions have these professionals foisted up?

And are these conclusions as water-proof as Libet's 'readiness potential'?

Seems to me: every time a professional 'declares' a 'fact' regarding the brain and its operations, someone else comes along and blows their shit right out of the water.

I prefer, instead of taking professional declarations as 'fact', to compare them to my experiences of 'I'ness.

Where there is co-incidence: wonderful!

Where there is disagreement: I go with 'me'.

As I self-examine and -interrogate, I see no evidence of multiple, simultaneous, streams of consciousness, and no evidence that an integrated organism (like me) is capable of experiencing (or, 'doing') multiple, simultaneous, streams of consciousness.

*shrug*

I think it's "Double" not Dual Aspect Theory.

It's a very oudated way of thinking of the mind, long before we understood neurons, hormones, reptile brain and big brain, etc.

It's imo a very irrelevant topic.

.







........................................................

......................................................................YES !





.

HQ wrote:

Perhaps China (the population) already 'is' a kind of (loose) 'brain'.

And perhaps there is such a thing as a 'collective consciousness' and maybe esp and paranormal happenings are remnants or brief ignition sparks of such collective happenings. This is a very uncomfortable position to be in for a materialist trying to do away with anything not recognized by modern science. That is why I characterized it as a reductio ad absurdum argument. I suppose it's not if you are willing to accept these ghosts hovering above (rather than 'in') the machine.

ESP, the paranormal, ghosts: hooey.

My comment about China was not meant to be taken literally.

Next time I make with a funny I'll include a winking smilie ( )

It's sometimes helpful (to get a thread back on track) for folks involved to re-state core positions.

Here's mine...

Consciousness (mind, self, 'I') is a response (action/reaction) of a brain (of particular and peculiar complexity), in a body, in an environment.

Wyman wrote:

Greylorn wrote: Wyman,
For the benefit of those who do not need to kill time by following every conversation on a complex thread (as dumb as trying to participate in every conversation at a large dinner party), why not observe the courtesy of referencing whom you are responding to? It just takes a quick copy and paste of their {quote=xxx}, then, later, a {/quote} to close their part of the conversation.

Greylorn
I, like Henry, have not figured out how to do this. Although Henry may be just trying to be different.

Wyman,

I'd killed about two hours developing an explanation of how to use the {quote} function, whereupon Bubba's cousin, Bobo, threw the wrong switch at the local power plant, killing everything I wrote. So I'll try to simplify it, using { } instead of [ ] to not confuse the software that interprets this stuff.

This post from you began with: {quote="Wyman"}{quote}

Note the format of the primary quote. It is followed by an "=" sign, then a name enclosed in parentheses. Had you followed this format and written your secondary quote as {quote="Greylorn"}, it would have been perfectly clear to whom you were responding.

You do not need to type out this stuff. Paste the {quote="whatever"} from the original text that you are quoting.

Also note that every {quote=...} must be followed by a corresponding, paired {/quote}. Information between these quotes can (or must) be nested between the larger quotes that comprise their context.

Experiment a bit, using the "Preview" function, and let me know if I need to clarify this. I appreciate your willingness to query.

Greylorn

Wyman wrote: I have no idea where your hostility towards Gingko comes from. I find him to be very knowledgeable. If it is a result of your hostility towards contemporary philosophy in general, I somewhat share that sentiment.

Perhaps you've explained the origin of my attitude towards Gingko. It is not hostility. More like a combination of disinterest and frustration, with the latter coming from my sense that he could do great things were he not mired in contemporary philosophy. It would be politically correct to say that this is an impersonal judgment, but that would be bullshit.

You have no idea of the extent of my hostility toward contemporary philosophy. I feel like a lot of Obama 2x voters ought to feel, that something for which I had great hopes had not simply dropped some balls, but had kicked me in mine. I could substitute "devout, trusting Catholics" (or other categories of trusting but stupid people) for "Obama 2x voters."

Wyman wrote:However, when I came on this site at the same time I started reading Philosophy Now, it was in an attempt to get caught up on contemporary philosophy, an area I have neglected for twenty years, after turning down acceptance into a graduate program in philosophy in favor of a law degree. As I have collected names to read - Searle, Dennett, Nagel, Chalmers, I went into it skeptically. It all seems to revolve around this 'problem of consciousness.'

Good attorneys have a way of getting to the crux of their case.

Wyman wrote:If you want to get into the mix (and maybe you don't), I think you need to read them and meet them on their terms, to be relevant. They are obviously not just 'idiots,' as you maintain - in the sense that I'm sure they have very high IQs and have studied science and philosophy for decades. Granted, even very bright people can get so mired in the muck (thinking of Jean Valjean trudging through the labyrinthine Paris sewers) as to have their theories grind to a halt. But the more I have understood them and read them, the less dismissive I have become.

You are the kind of attorney I'd want on my side, in any case. I do not want to get into the mix of conventional opinions. Would you defend a client by agreeing with the prosecutor's positions; or vice-versa?

In your law career you will have encountered many individuals who presented the facade of intelligence, like a high, dominating storefront with nothing behind it but empty space. Perhaps you'll have been fooled by one or more of them. The appearance of intelligence is as seductive as a pair of silicone tits perched above a flabby ass and soft belly. Easy to get sucked in by the upfront appearance. Dennet has the biggest tits of all; but no ass, no legs. If he's your style of thinker, well, pick a nipple and suck away.

You can learn about conventional philosophy by studying your toilet bowl, over time. You'll find that the soft turds float to the top, whereas the solid, well-formed turds drop to the bottom. If you eat the wrong food and get diarrhea next morning, your biffy will be full of the floaters, those turds that rise to the top.

So it is with philosophy.

If you have a poor diet, you'll find that your turds will float, and stink. In time you'll come to see that as normal. You'll become accustomed to the stink. After awhile, if you drop a turd that sinks (as a well-formed turd will do) you'll see it as a health problem, or evidence of a dietary mistake. Humans become accustomed to the customary.

So you've been reading a lot of philosophical bullshit. Yep, your turds are starting to float, and you're thinking that that's the way they are supposed to behave. Keep reading like-minded bullshit, your turds will float as high as theirs.

So read my book. You're smart enough. Problem is, like most attorneys, you're a fast reader, and if you read it like a legal brief you'll miss the points. Whatever, do what works for you.

I've noticed that good attorneys first gather the facts, then devise a coherent presentation (in their client''s favor). Shitty attorneys go for the presentation. Seems to me that your "philosophy" studies have focused upon (excellent) presentations that ignore the facts.

If you have questions, come on back. I have much more respect for good attorneys than for half-assed philosophers.

Greylorn

henry quirk wrote:It's sometimes helpful (to get a thread back on track) for folks involved to re-state core positions.

Here's mine...

Consciousness (mind, self, 'I') is a response (action/reaction) of a brain (of particular and peculiar complexity), in a body, in an environment.

That's a brilliantly conventional interpretation. Great work! Perhaps when you next write about "minds," you might want to exclude whatever passes in you for yours from that set.

Your "core position" is equivalent to philosophical-establishment bullshit. How impressed should I be by your parroting skills?

Greylorn

henry quirk wrote:Grey,

"Neurolinguistic Programming" "stupid slang"

Is this the best you can do?

Amateur.

"Neurolinguistic programming" is not stupid slang. It is a reference to a well-defined psychological technology, mastered by the most filthy and worthless politicians of our day, of which you pretend to be ignorant. Yet, you utilize this technology.

Communicating with a dolt is impossible. There is nothing that can be done for the dolt, except to expose him.

Greylorn