Philosophy Now Forum

Felasco wrote:Please identify the boundary between you and your next breath.

The respiratory system.

Felasco wrote:... aphilosophy, why not try it?

Because there is no 'aphilosophy'.

Greylorn Ell wrote:By all known experience and research, that injury should have left Mr. Gage a cretin. It obviously did not. Why not?

Because the CNS is a neural network and hence exhibits plasticity, i.e. over time the network can re-route and recalibrate itself.

If he was left-handed, Beon Theory answers that question. But I've not found any helpful records.
Greylorn

I was going to mention this but left it out to see if you were consistent.

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
And the "you" that deciphers the reality of a little marble in one hand remains a mystery. Where in your brain might "you" be residing?

In the 'section' of the neural-net that runs the feeds from the inputs and sends out feedback, i.e. runs a model or sim or emulation of whats going on in the rest of the system.

uwot wrote:...whatever thought, or consciousness is, it too is part of the universe. As such, it should be observable as you suggest. The weird thing, as Ginkgo has pointed out; it isn't. Funny, that.

Forget the mechanical apparatus of the brain. Forget science. Sit in a chair, close your eyes, and observe your own mind.

You have been fined two Bozoian coins for trying to be too fancy pants.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: ...The thinking at the moment is that consciousness is not unified. Basically, this means there is no neural core,or center of consciousness. Conscious thoughts don't always occur in the same place and sometimes a thought can occur in several places in the brain at the same time.

Descartes has indirectly influenced many and has given rise to the wrong idea that when we receive information through our senses this information ends up as a crescendo of data going to the pace where it should go. That is, the neural center of consciousness which is where all of this sensory information is transformed into thoughts. A casual explanation for dis unity runs into a number of problems when we start to talk about spike trains and the brain.

Ginkgo,

Remember please that Descartes was a pioneer in this kind of thinking. Mistakes were inevitable.

He came from Catholicism, and was trying to reconcile the notion of the soul as both spirit and mind, with the physicality of the brain to which soul was attached. He fixated upon the pineal gland as the "focal point" (my words, not his) of the soul because it was the only single, non-divided biological mechanism within the brain.

Descartes saw the "soul" as the conscious mind, i.e., the entity responsible for consciousness.

He knew that the brain was bi-hemispheral, two of everything duplicated left and right-- except the pineal gland. The soul had to be a single entity connected, somehow, to a bicameral brain. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that soul would be connected to the only other one-of-a-kind component of the brain-- the pineal gland. Hence, some of the errors in his thinking.

Descartes did what could be done with the limited science of his time-- a time in which but one of Newton's three laws of mechanics had been discovered (by Galileo). Descartes' mathematics led to the science needed to expand his ideas.

For example, Descartes did not appreciate the mathematical validity of imaginary numbers. These pesky mathematical entities come about when one tries to calculate the square root of a negative number. Imaginary numbers would seem irrelevant-- except that when we expand Maxwell's equations to describe the transmission of electromagnetic waves (radio waves, TV received through a good old-fashioned antenna, light, etc.) imaginary numbers are exponential terms in those equations.

And those equations tell us how radio and TV antennas work. Look at your car's antenna. It is a linear stick, not a point. More interesting, from the perspective of the incoming radio waves that it detects, your antenna looks pretty much like a bunny's ear, extended in three-dimensional space-time.

Had he been armed with this knowledge derived with the assistance of his own mathematical insights, would Descartes have settled upon a point-source, the pineal gland, as his antenna for the soul? I think not.

I think that he would have sought a larger, more complex series of mechanisms unique to the human brain that capture and restrain the soul, holding it hostage to the input/output devices of the brain during the brain's life, with the point of leaving the soul conscious of its existence at the end of biological life.

In this scenario, the soul has the freedom to roam within the confines of the human skull, learning how to translate information from all points within the brain, and how to control its connected body in minute detail, according to its focus, and dependent upon the body's limits.

As extreme examples of this spectrum of physiological focus-- the Green Bay Packers' previous quarterback, Brett Favre, could pick up a baseball with either foot. Stephen Hawking can "speak" by moving his eyeballs. Advanced yogis can control their metabolic rate.

Clearly, if soul exists (beon, in my parlance) it is free to roam within the brain, confined only by a biochemical leash that it can learn to stretch.

I'll take a chance and respond to your post, but I will make it brief.

From your point of view I would probably keep in mind that Descartes was a substance dualist. This is not to say you are not some type of dualist, but you are more than likely not a substance dualist. From the information you provide I would say you are a supervenist. Provided you are saying that the soul supervenes on the electrical patterns of the brain .

Felasco wrote:Forget the mechanical apparatus of the brain. Forget science. Sit in a chair, close your eyes, and observe your own mind.

How long have you got?

Felasco wrote:You have been fined two Bozoian coins for trying to be too fancy pants.

How many have I got?

Arising_uk wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:By all known experience and research, that injury should have left Mr. Gage a cretin. It obviously did not. Why not?

Because the CNS is a neural network and hence exhibits plasticity, i.e. over time the network can re-route and recalibrate itself.

If he was left-handed, Beon Theory answers that question. But I've not found any helpful records.
Greylorn

AUK,

Plasticity explains Gage's life after the holes in his head were patched and had healed as best they could. It does not seem to explain his immediate post-injury consciousness.

I appreciate your consistency test. I'd love to place a $100 bet that Mr. Gage was left-handed.

Greylorn

Consider that if the space you declare to be outside that contained within the circle is truly empty, then there is nothing for you to find within it.

Yes, nothing. Indeed, when traveling beyond the circle of somethings, there is not only nothing to find, but no one to be finding.

Though true, those words just spoken by Baba Bozo are impractical fancy pants talk of the kind that clogs the circle of philosophy to overflowing. His Bozoness is embarrassed to have uttered them, but supposes the show must go on.

If one contents oneself with discussing Bozoism, one is like the man who stands on the beach talking of the ocean, knowing little of what he speaks as he's not been swimming. Nothing can not be discovered by standing safely within the circle of philosophy, and peeking out through the curtains. The serious Bozoist looks for simple practical ways to get his feet wet.

You (like me and others here) have often come across as a jerk, but not so for Baba B. Perhaps he is the guardian angel perched on a shoulder, whispering in your ear.

His Bozoness's guardian angel wishes to speak up for a moment, and comment that jerkiness arises directly from the nature of thought itself, and is not really the personal property that we usually experience it as.

Imagine that you've just dashed up a flight of stairs and are now winded and have to stop to catch your breath. This is not a personal failure or something to be embarrassed or ashamed of. The need to stop is just the normal workings of a mechanical apparatus.

And so it is with thought. Thought is just another mechanical apparatus of the body with it's uses and it's needs.

As philosophers we relish the larger perspectives that our many philosophical thoughts bring us. It is indeed grand to stand on the mountain top and gaze out over the valley below. And because the view can be breath taking in comparison to the mundane issues of every day life, we tend to think more and more, in an eager embrace of the experience.

And because thought, the medium we are using to make our glorious observations, is inherently divisive in nature, the more we think the more divided we become within. With each new thought the experience we have of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else" is strengthened, and our isolation deepened.

Seeking to escape the pain of this isolation, we turn to thought again hoping to restore the isolation with more glorious visions. And as we turn to thought to ease the pain we enter a self reinforcing cycle, and become ever more like the man trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline.

And so in our frustration we attempt to bury the pain of isolation under a mountain of noise, and jerkiness is born. We become partners in jerkiness, feeding off each other, each of us doing our part to raise the volume and push back the fear that arises from the experience of being separate and alone.

The experience of jerkiness arises directly from the inherently divisive nature of thought itself. It is an inevitable by-product of the medium itself, not a function of flawed thought content.

If flawed thought content was the source of jerkiness, then a forum full of Bozoists would be devoid of jerkiness. But Baba Bozo knows from considerable experience that nobody, and he means nobody, does the jerk dance like a forum full of meditators. Once the experience of meditation is converted in to thoughts about meditation, the usual distasteful by-products of thought are emitted.

Jerkiness is thought farting. It's built in to the system, and little can be done about it other than to fart loudly, hopefully with a sense of humor.

Felasco wrote:You have been fined two Bozoian coins for trying to be too fancy pants.

Wouldn't "Bozonian" slide off the tongue more smoothly?

Whatever, how do I obtain my fair supply of Bozonian coins? I will surely need some if this conversation continues.

Is there a Bozonian fine schedule, as for speeding tickets? Or do you get to make up the fines as a function of mood and whim? If so, how is that fair?

Has the coin been minted yet? If not, I propose that if someone's visage is on the obverse, his/her butt cheeks must grace the reverse. I'm voting for a her.

Greylorn

Arising_uk wrote:Because there is no 'aphilosophy'.

This is correct. aPhilosophy is itself a philosophy. The aPhilospher stands within the circle of philosopher just as all philosophers do. In that way he is no different than any other philosopher.

The difference is one of focus.

While the regular philosopher concerns himself with what is happening within the circle of philosophy, the aPhilosopher sets down his chair at the boundary of the circle and tries to look beyond the boundary, to that which lies outside the circle.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:By all known experience and research, that injury should have left Mr. Gage a cretin. It obviously did not. Why not?

Because the CNS is a neural network and hence exhibits plasticity, i.e. over time the network can re-route and recalibrate itself.

Ah, "By all that we know", such are the limits of human knowledge. The pity is that many believe that we know so much.

AK, I have read that doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, is a sign of insanity. Why are you arguing with Grey?

thedoc wrote: Why are you arguing with Grey?

Grey is exploring other ways of engaging. It's a worthy effort, let's give it a chance.

Wouldn't "Bozonian" slide off the tongue more smoothly?

Yes! That's what His Imaginary Holiness meant, and he thanks you for the correction. He also feels quite important whenever referencing Himself in the third person, with capitals even. Wow!

Whatever, how do I obtain my fair supply of Bozonian coins? I will surely need some if this conversation continues.

His Flatulence is experiencing great satisfaction at having engaged a highly educated physics expert in the subject of the mythical Bozonian coins. He is sure that all of science must surely soon fall at his feet.

Felasco wrote:

thedoc wrote: Why are you arguing with Grey?

Grey is exploring other ways of engaging. It's a worthy effort, let's give it a chance.

You're probably right, sometimes I'm just too tired to think that hard.