For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
"Real" is an abstract category.
LOL
If 'that' is what you SAW and BELIEVE, then so be it.
You cannot have any sort of experience without the mind. A materialistic viewpoint takes you nowhere. Self is the mind. I/identity is the result of experiencing the stuff, Quadia.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:28 am From the thread: (viewtopic.php?t=40329)
I wanted to divert the Cartesian thread to a more generalized concept of 'Self' or 'I'/Identity.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:03 pmHow can there not be an "I". Are you at this instant in which you are typing, not conscious? While I admit you could be an AI chatbot for all I know, I can attest to the fact that I exist at this moment, and that I am having what we conscious beings refer to as "thoughts".Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:49 pm
There are arguments against the cogito, but it hasn't been disproven. Proofs are for math and symbolic logic. There are some good arguments against it or saying that it is weaker than it might seem at first glance. I looked at the other thread and while both of you were confusing at times, he was a pest and calling you asking for a source for the debunking a cop out was very silly.
The first main problem with the cogito is that just because there is thinking or really cognition going on it doesn't mean there is an 'I' for example. There could just be this phenomenon. This experiencing, which either persists through some time or doesn't.
There is a part of the brain that is responsible for generating a sense of self. How it is done? No-one knows.
I am a body interacting with the mind.
I don't think that language is relevant in the discussion about the sense of self.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:28 am For example, humans developed the literary concept of Naming one-another. You are known/identified by your name. Animals don't do this, at least, not in a literary/textual sense. Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison. It's not sophisticated. Human identity, however, is. So what's your take on this?
Genetics = racists, nazi, eugunist??? that is primitive as in the olden days, perhaps even at present, however note;Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 8:58 amThat's sufficient for me. You chose genetics, brain chemistry/mental composition, and all other derivative factors. That's a lot more detailed than anybody else on this forum seems to offer. Once you get into genetics, you quickly earn the labels of 'racist', 'nazi', 'eugenicist', by way of having interest or knowledge alone. Thus it is dangerous to set people apart too profoundly. The masses are sold on notions of camaraderie and humanity, sameness rather than distinction.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:15 amThere are many elements that differentiate one individual as unique from another.
One critical element is the DNA comprising >3 billions of coding pairs of A, T, G, C.
Just imagine the possible permutations.
Another, the human brain has appx. 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapes], again note the possible permutations.
Another, each individual human of the > 8 billion [past and present] has a unique set of fingerprints.
The unique permutation of the above will set individuals from each other.
However, naturally there will be general patterns [e.g. genes & nurturing factors] thus differentiating individuals in groups, e.g. race, physical appearances, Intelligences, health, psychology, inclinations, etc. etc.
Thus if you want to differentiate one individual from other or groups from another, you will have to specify the variable[s] involved.
If humans are so diverse and distinct apart from one-another, as you present, then I wonder how people share attributes and likeness, such as in thought and rationality. Can you say something about that? How do people 'intuit' meaning between each other?
Yes I did, get over it.Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:34 pmLOLNo, I did exactly what I did claim. I showed you, using your own words, contradicting yourself, about "differences being illusory".
LOL
LOL
NO you DID NOT.
you ACTUALLY USED words that I NEVER USED, and, WORSE, you SAID that they were MY OWN WORDS. So, IRREFUTABLY, you NEVER used my own words.
'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong here and you could NOT have FAILED ANY MORE here on YOUR OWN 'literacy' CLAIMS. Part of your OWN 'literacy' thread was about having the ability to just copy or repeat "another's" words verbatim. YET you could NOT even just COPY and PAST my OWN ACTUAL WORDS here. Thus you have FAILED ABSOLUTELY here.
We know in the sense that we experience it.
I think language is critical, because it is the foremost method of communication with regard to Self-Identity.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:22 pmI am a body interacting with the mind.
I don't think that language is relevant in the discussion about the sense of self.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:28 am For example, humans developed the literary concept of Naming one-another. You are known/identified by your name. Animals don't do this, at least, not in a literary/textual sense. Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison. It's not sophisticated. Human identity, however, is. So what's your take on this?
I agree, but when it comes to tribal identification, affiliation, cooperation...or animosity and warfare, these genetic compulsions run deep. Hence why the very topic is politically sensitive. It's (morally) "okay" for some groups to be "racist", but not others. In other words, it's (morally) "okay" for some groups to practice Eugenics, but not others. Can you remark about this?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 6:42 amGenetics = racists, nazi, eugunist??? that is primitive as in the olden days, perhaps even at present, however note;
Note the uniqueness of DNA in convicting criminals, rapists, murderers and solving cold-cases that are very old.
Also the uniqueness of DNA in tracing long lost parents, relatives, etc.
There are many other utilities from the uniqueness of DNA as unique self-identity.
All humans are programed with the primal & tribal "us versus them" to facilitate survival on a group basis.
As such there are inherent neural algorithms that seek out similar patterns [features, faces, skin color, thoughts, ideology, etc.] that one recognize as of the same feathers thus of no threat - feel good to be company with.
You will note this is so evident in the present [with refinements] as in the past.
To facilitate the progress of humanity, individual[s] must self-develop to modulate and manage this deeply embedded inherent critical-for-survival instinct toward the future.
YES I KNOW you USED words that were NOT mine, while CLAIMING that they were mine.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 8:29 amYes I did, get over it.Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:34 pmLOLNo, I did exactly what I did claim. I showed you, using your own words, contradicting yourself, about "differences being illusory".
LOL
LOL
NO you DID NOT.
you ACTUALLY USED words that I NEVER USED, and, WORSE, you SAID that they were MY OWN WORDS. So, IRREFUTABLY, you NEVER used my own words.
'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong here and you could NOT have FAILED ANY MORE here on YOUR OWN 'literacy' CLAIMS. Part of your OWN 'literacy' thread was about having the ability to just copy or repeat "another's" words verbatim. YET you could NOT even just COPY and PAST my OWN ACTUAL WORDS here. Thus you have FAILED ABSOLUTELY here.
You said differences are illusory. You were wrong. Own it, Age.
I ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED HOW young children begin to develop a 'sense of self'. So, YOUR CLAIM here IS False, Wrong, and Incorrect.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:22 pmYou cannot have any sort of experience without the mind. A materialistic viewpoint takes you nowhere. Self is the mind. I/identity is the result of experiencing the stuff, Quadia.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:28 am From the thread: (viewtopic.php?t=40329)
I wanted to divert the Cartesian thread to a more generalized concept of 'Self' or 'I'/Identity.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:03 pm
How can there not be an "I". Are you at this instant in which you are typing, not conscious? While I admit you could be an AI chatbot for all I know, I can attest to the fact that I exist at this moment, and that I am having what we conscious beings refer to as "thoughts".
There is a part of the brain that is responsible for generating a sense of self. How it is done? No-one knows.
Just two sentences ago you SAID and WROTE, 'Self IS 'the mind', but now you SAY and WRITE, 'I/Self IS a body, interacting with 'the mind'.
Okay. But the thinking within that body can be Wrong, right?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:22 pmI don't think that language is relevant in the discussion about the sense of self.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:28 am For example, humans developed the literary concept of Naming one-another. You are known/identified by your name. Animals don't do this, at least, not in a literary/textual sense. Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison. It's not sophisticated. Human identity, however, is. So what's your take on this?
LOL SHOW, EXACTLY, WHERE I SUPPOSEDLY SAID 'differences are illusory'.
