| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Thinking Ahead
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| andy-k |
 Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
zinnic wrote:
Quote: "andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
In the absence of "Me" and "ideas" there is no container called
consciousness!.
Consciousness is not a container -- we use the word to allude to
the fact of the very existence of what there is consciousness *of*.
Furthermore, the category of "ideas" (including the idea of "me")
is not the only category into which the content of consciousness
may be placed, so the "absence of 'me' and 'ideas'" does not
logically entail the absence of consciousness.
And as far as I know does not logically entail an increase in the
price of grapes in winter!
In the absence of ideas there would be notion of trade at all, so it
is meaningless to talk about the price of grapes in the absence of
ideas.
That is exactly the point I was making! Congratulations!
Thank you. It may clarify the issue for you if I build on your analogy:
an absence of grapes does not logically entail an absence of fruit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| andy-k |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
zinnic wrote:
Quote: "andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
In the absence of "Me" and "ideas" there is no container called
consciousness!.
Consciousness is not a container -- we use the word to allude to
the fact of the very existence of what there is consciousness
*of*. Furthermore, the category of "ideas" (including the idea
of "me") is not the only category into which the content of
consciousness may be placed, so the "absence of 'me' and
'ideas'" does not logically entail the absence of consciousness.
And as far as I know does not logically entail an increase in the
price of grapes in winter!
In the absence of ideas there would be notion of trade at all, so
it is meaningless to talk about the price of grapes in the absence
of ideas.
That is exactly the point I was making! Congratulations!
Thank you. It may clarify the issue for you if I build on your
analogy:
an absence of grapes does not logically entail an absence of fruit.
The price of grapes entails an affect on the price of fruit!
An absence of the price of grapes does not logically entail an absence of
the price of fruit. Now perhaps we can move on from your preoccupation with
groceries and get back to the issue you raised regarding consciousness.
Ideas are constituents of the subjective perspective (i.e. part of what
there is consciousness *of*), but they are not the *only* constituents.
Consequently an absence of ideas does not logically entail the absence
of a subjective perspective (i.e. an absence of consciousness).
So your demand that I should "concede it is true that consciousness
(ideas) affects behaviour" is clearly nonsensical in that it conflates one
of the categories of the *constituents* of a subjective perspective with
the very existence of that entire subjective perspective (i.e. with the
sum total of all of the constituents regardless of their categorization). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zinnic |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 23, 4:17 pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
Quote: zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
In the absence of "Me" and "ideas" there is no container called
consciousness!.
Consciousness is not a container -- we use the word to allude to
the fact of the very existence of what there is consciousness
*of*. Furthermore, the category of "ideas" (including the idea
of "me") is not the only category into which the content of
consciousness may be placed, so the "absence of 'me' and
'ideas'" does not logically entail the absence of consciousness.
And as far as I know does not logically entail an increase in the
price of grapes in winter!
In the absence of ideas there would be notion of trade at all, so
it is meaningless to talk about the price of grapes in the absence
of ideas.
That is exactly the point I was making! Congratulations!
Thank you. It may clarify the issue for you if I build on your
analogy:
an absence of grapes does not logically entail an absence of fruit.
The price of grapes entails an affect on the price of fruit!
An absence of the price of grapes does not logically entail an absence of
the price of fruit. Now perhaps we can move on from your preoccupation with
groceries and get back to the issue you raised regarding consciousness.
Ideas are constituents of the subjective perspective (i.e. part of what
there is consciousness *of*), but they are not the *only* constituents.
Consequently an absence of ideas does not logically entail the absence
of a subjective perspective (i.e. an absence of consciousness).
So your demand that I should "concede it is true that consciousness
(ideas) affects behaviour" is clearly nonsensical in that it conflates one
of the categories of the *constituents* of a subjective perspective with
the very existence of that entire subjective perspective (i.e. with the
sum total of all of the constituents regardless of their categorization).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That is like saying that aspects of a language, like words and
sentences, convey information but the language they constitute does
not! Nit picking silliness! Wiggle wriggle. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zinnic |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 25, 9:19 am, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
Quote: zinnicwrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
Ideas are constituents of the subjective perspective (i.e. part of what
there is consciousness *of*), but they are not the *only* constituents.
Consequently an absence of ideas does not logically entail the absence
of a subjective perspective (i.e. an absence of consciousness). So your
demand that I should "concede it is true that consciousness (ideas)
affects behaviour" is clearly nonsensical in that it conflates one of the
categories of the *constituents* of a subjective perspective with the
very existence of that entire subjective perspective (i.e. with the sum
total of all of the constituents regardless of their categorization).
That is like saying that aspects of a language, like words and sentences,
convey information but the language they constitute does not!
No, it's like saying that prepositions are an *aspect* of language and *not*
language in its entirety. To continue with your analogy, an absence of
prepositions does not logically entail the absence of language. Similarly an
absence of ideas does not logically entail the absence of consciousness.
An absence of content entails the absence of language and the absence
of consciousness. Why do you find it so hard to concede that a bucket
of water does not exist in the absence of water! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zinnic |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 25, 11:42 am, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
Quote: zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
That is like saying that aspects of a language, like words and
sentences, convey information but the language they constitute
does not!
No, it's like saying that prepositions are an *aspect* of language
and *not* language in its entirety. To continue with your analogy,
an absence of prepositions does not logically entail the absence
of language. Similarly an absence of ideas does not logically
entail the absence of consciousness.
An absence of content entails the absence of language and the
absence of consciousness.
Since the existence of content (including language) simply *is*
consciousness, the statement above is correct.
Why do you find it so hard to concede that a bucket of water does
not exist in the absence of water!
I have no problem with the proposition that "a bucket of water does not
exist in the absence of water", but your analogy is false. Consciousness
is not a "container" (I can't emphasize this enough -- consciousness
is *not* a container) in the manner of your analogy (the bucket *is* a
container) -- consciousness is simply the brute fact of the existence
of the constituents of a subjective perspective upon the world. There will
only be an absence of consciousness when *all* constituents are absent.
Why do you find it so hard to see the falsity of your analogies?
You are dodging again. In an ealier post I categorically stated that
consciousness is not a container. You know it!
My term 'the absence of content' means "all" constituents of
consciousness are absent. You know it!
Thus you finally concede that, in the absence of contents,
consciousness does not exist. There's hope for you yet!
I presume you recognize the difference between water and a 'bucket of
water'. Try to remember that the water is not synonymous (your word)
with a 'bucket of water'. Forget the bucket. Concentrate on the
concept that absence of water precludes the existence of a "bucket of
water".
If that is too subtle for you, try to reason it out with the analogy
of a gallon of water. See if you can retain the gallon in the absence
of water.
Patiently waiting your next non sequitur! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| andy-k |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
zinnic wrote:
Quote: "andy-k" wrote:
Ideas are constituents of the subjective perspective (i.e. part of what
there is consciousness *of*), but they are not the *only* constituents.
Consequently an absence of ideas does not logically entail the absence
of a subjective perspective (i.e. an absence of consciousness). So your
demand that I should "concede it is true that consciousness (ideas)
affects behaviour" is clearly nonsensical in that it conflates one of the
categories of the *constituents* of a subjective perspective with the
very existence of that entire subjective perspective (i.e. with the sum
total of all of the constituents regardless of their categorization).
That is like saying that aspects of a language, like words and sentences,
convey information but the language they constitute does not!
No, it's like saying that prepositions are an *aspect* of language and *not*
language in its entirety. To continue with your analogy, an absence of
prepositions does not logically entail the absence of language. Similarly an
absence of ideas does not logically entail the absence of consciousness. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| andy-k |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
zinnic wrote:
Quote: "andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
That is like saying that aspects of a language, like words and
sentences, convey information but the language they constitute
does not!
No, it's like saying that prepositions are an *aspect* of language
and *not* language in its entirety. To continue with your analogy,
an absence of prepositions does not logically entail the absence
of language. Similarly an absence of ideas does not logically
entail the absence of consciousness.
An absence of content entails the absence of language and the
absence of consciousness.
Since the existence of content (including language) simply *is*
consciousness, the statement above is correct.
Quote: Why do you find it so hard to concede that a bucket of water does
not exist in the absence of water!
I have no problem with the proposition that "a bucket of water does not
exist in the absence of water", but your analogy is false. Consciousness
is not a "container" (I can't emphasize this enough -- consciousness
is *not* a container) in the manner of your analogy (the bucket *is* a
container) -- consciousness is simply the brute fact of the existence
of the constituents of a subjective perspective upon the world. There will
only be an absence of consciousness when *all* constituents are absent.
Why do you find it so hard to see the falsity of your analogies? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zinnic |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 25, 2:13 pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
Quote: zinnic wrote:
Thus you finally concede that, in the absence of contents,
consciousness does not exist.
That point was never at issue -- what was at issue was your conflation
of "consciousness" with "ideas" (your demand that I "concede it is true
that consciousness (ideas) affects behaviour"), *which is clearly wrong*!
Forget the bucket. Concentrate on the concept that absence of water
precludes the existence of a "bucket of water".
Whilst your statement is correct as far as it goes (i.e. an absence
of water precludes the existence of a bucket of water), it does
not carry over as an analogy into the issue of consciousness.
In the latter case, both water *and* bucket comprise constituent
parts of the subjective perspective, and an absence of content
means an absence of *all* content, *including the bucket*.
Why do you find it so difficult to see why your analogies fail?
I guess by the same argument you claim that a gallon is a constituent
of a gallon of water! You were the one who claimed that ideas affect
behaviour. If ideas are constituents of consciousness then it follows
that consciousness affects behaviour. Would you claim that a gallon of
water cannot make something wet and that only only its constituent
water does that? Pathetic nit picking! . |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| andy-k |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
zinnic wrote:
Quote: Thus you finally concede that, in the absence of contents,
consciousness does not exist.
That point was never at issue -- what was at issue was your conflation
of "consciousness" with "ideas" (your demand that I "concede it is true
that consciousness (ideas) affects behaviour"), *which is clearly wrong*!
Quote: Forget the bucket. Concentrate on the concept that absence of water
precludes the existence of a "bucket of water".
Whilst your statement is correct as far as it goes (i.e. an absence
of water precludes the existence of a bucket of water), it does
not carry over as an analogy into the issue of consciousness.
In the latter case, both water *and* bucket comprise constituent
parts of the subjective perspective, and an absence of content
means an absence of *all* content, *including the bucket*.
Why do you find it so difficult to see why your analogies fail? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| turtoni |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 26, 1:47 am, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
Quote: zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
Whilst your statement is correct as far as it goes (i.e. an absence
of water precludes the existence of a bucket of water), it does
not carry over as an analogy into the issue of consciousness.
In the latter case, both water *and* bucket comprise constituent
parts of the subjective perspective, and an absence of content
means an absence of *all* content, *including the bucket*.
Why do you find it so difficult to see why your analogies fail?
I guess by the same argument you claim that a gallon is a constituent
of a gallon of water!
You're still missing the point -- your analogy *fails*.
You were the one who claimed that ideas affect behaviour.
I don't remember making that claim, but I would sort of go along with it
given a certain kind of linguistic license. One could say that ideas affect
behavior in the same way that memories affect behavior, although I would
prefer to say that ideas, memories, and behavior are inter-related
processes. (They are actually sub-processes in a single over-arching
process, the existence of which we refer to as consciousness, so it
shouldn't be surprising that these sub-processes are mutually dependent.)
If ideas are constituents of consciousness then it follows that
consciousness affects behaviour.
No, that's not a valid conclusion. Inter-dependent processes can be
said (given linguistic license) to "affect each other", but consciousness
is the brute fact of the *existence* of those processes (or rather of the
over-arching single process).
since you guys continually refer to either subjective or objective
notions the only way forward is to resort to an absolute system like
mathematics for example to make the communication effect and in order
to make yourself understood. if that's what you want. i know that
sucks but that's they way it goes. but i like poetry too. good luck.
i cant see any other way forward. otherwise it's just like making soup? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| andy-k |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
zinnic wrote:
Quote: "andy-k" wrote:
Whilst your statement is correct as far as it goes (i.e. an absence
of water precludes the existence of a bucket of water), it does
not carry over as an analogy into the issue of consciousness.
In the latter case, both water *and* bucket comprise constituent
parts of the subjective perspective, and an absence of content
means an absence of *all* content, *including the bucket*.
Why do you find it so difficult to see why your analogies fail?
I guess by the same argument you claim that a gallon is a constituent
of a gallon of water!
You're still missing the point -- your analogy *fails*.
Quote: You were the one who claimed that ideas affect behaviour.
I don't remember making that claim, but I would sort of go along with it
given a certain kind of linguistic license. One could say that ideas affect
behavior in the same way that memories affect behavior, although I would
prefer to say that ideas, memories, and behavior are inter-related
processes. (They are actually sub-processes in a single over-arching
process, the existence of which we refer to as consciousness, so it
shouldn't be surprising that these sub-processes are mutually dependent.)
Quote: If ideas are constituents of consciousness then it follows that
consciousness affects behaviour.
No, that's not a valid conclusion. Inter-dependent processes can be
said (given linguistic license) to "affect each other", but consciousness
is the brute fact of the *existence* of those processes (or rather of the
over-arching single process). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zinnic |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 26, 12:47 am, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
Quote: zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
Whilst your statement is correct as far as it goes (i.e. an absence
of water precludes the existence of a bucket of water), it does
not carry over as an analogy into the issue of consciousness.
In the latter case, both water *and* bucket comprise constituent
parts of the subjective perspective, and an absence of content
means an absence of *all* content, *including the bucket*.
Why do you find it so difficult to see why your analogies fail?
I guess by the same argument you claim that a gallon is a constituent
of a gallon of water!
You're still missing the point -- your analogy *fails*.
Pick at my imperfect analogies as much as you wish. Be my guest!
Quote: You were the one who claimed that ideas affect behaviour.
I don't remember making that claim,
By any measure an *idea* of a separate "me " is consciousness!
Quote from your post, April 14 4.02 pm this thread.
"We have an *idea* of a separate "me" that somehow INFLUENCES the
BEHAVIOUR of the organism, and this idea certainly is an aspect in
the
behavior of the organism,.." (My caps)
Quote: but I would sort of go along with it
given a certain kind of linguistic license. One could say that ideas affect
behavior in the same way that memories affect behavior, although I would
prefer to say that ideas, memories, and behavior are inter-related
processes. (They are actually sub-processes in a single over-arching
process, the existence of which we refer to as consciousness, so it
shouldn't be surprising that these sub-processes are mutually dependent.)
If ideas are constituents of consciousness then it follows that
consciousness affects behaviour.
No, that's not a valid conclusion. Inter-dependent processes can be
said (given linguistic license) to "affect each other", but consciousness
is the brute fact of the *existence* of those processes (or rather of the
over-arching single process).
Linguistic license? A pretty euphemism indeed! Given sufficient
license anything goes! My labors are done. Til next time! ;-/
Zinnic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zinnic |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 26, 1:11 am, turtoni <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 26, 1:47 am, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
Whilst your statement is correct as far as it goes (i.e. an absence
of water precludes the existence of a bucket of water), it does
not carry over as an analogy into the issue of consciousness.
In the latter case, both water *and* bucket comprise constituent
parts of the subjective perspective, and an absence of content
means an absence of *all* content, *including the bucket*.
Why do you find it so difficult to see why your analogies fail?
I guess by the same argument you claim that a gallon is a constituent
of a gallon of water!
You're still missing the point -- your analogy *fails*.
You were the one who claimed that ideas affect behaviour.
I don't remember making that claim, but I would sort of go along with it
given a certain kind of linguistic license. One could say that ideas affect
behavior in the same way that memories affect behavior, although I would
prefer to say that ideas, memories, and behavior are inter-related
processes. (They are actually sub-processes in a single over-arching
process, the existence of which we refer to as consciousness, so it
shouldn't be surprising that these sub-processes are mutually dependent.)
If ideas are constituents of consciousness then it follows that
consciousness affects behaviour.
No, that's not a valid conclusion. Inter-dependent processes can be
said (given linguistic license) to "affect each other", but consciousness
is the brute fact of the *existence* of those processes (or rather of the
over-arching single process).
since you guys continually refer to either subjective or objective
notions the only way forward is to resort to an absolute system like
mathematics for example to make the communication effect and in order
to make yourself understood. if that's what you want. i know that
sucks but that's they way it goes. but i like poetry too. good luck.
i cant see any other way forward. otherwise it's just like making soup?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I guess you are correct. However, if we were to use 'mathematical
licence' would'nt we be back in the soup again?
With noted exceptions "soup" is a staple in alt.philosophy. Not very
nutritious but certainly sustaining! 
Z |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| andy-k |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
zinnic wrote:
Quote: "andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
I guess by the same argument you claim that a gallon is a
constituent of a gallon of water!
You're still missing the point -- your analogy *fails*.
Pick at my imperfect analogies as much as you wish. Be my guest!
Already done.
Quote: You were the one who claimed that ideas affect behaviour.
I don't remember making that claim,
By any measure an *idea* of a separate "me " is consciousness!
Not unless you're stipulating that as a technical definition that you're
using. If so then we're arguing at cross purposes, since I've already
stipulated the technical definition that I'm using as "the brute fact of
the existence of a subjective perspective upon a world".
Quote: Quote from your post, April 14 4.02 pm this thread.
"We have an *idea* of a separate "me" that somehow INFLUENCES the
BEHAVIOUR of the organism, and this idea certainly is an aspect in
the behavior of the organism,.." (My caps)
You didn't need to go to the trouble of reminding me, since I followed up
with the comment that I agreed with the remark that you attributed to me:--
Quote: but I would sort of go along with it given a certain kind of linguistic
license. One could say that ideas affect behavior in the same way that
memories affect behavior, although I would prefer to say that ideas,
memories, and behavior are inter-related processes. (They are actually
sub-processes in a single over-arching process, the existence of which
we refer to as consciousness, so it shouldn't be surprising that these
sub-processes are mutually dependent.)
Quote: If ideas are constituents of consciousness then it follows that
consciousness affects behaviour.
No, that's not a valid conclusion. Inter-dependent processes
can be said (given linguistic license) to "affect each other", but
consciousness is the brute fact of the *existence* of those
processes (or rather of the over-arching single process).
Linguistic license? A pretty euphemism indeed! Given sufficient
license anything goes!
Remove the linguistic license and your case fails even more spectacularly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| andy-k |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
zinnic wrote:
Quote: "andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
You were the one who claimed that ideas affect behaviour.
I don't remember making that claim,
By any measure an *idea* of a separate "me " is consciousness!
Quote from your post, April 14 4.02 pm this thread.
"We have an *idea* of a separate "me" that somehow INFLUENCES
the BEHAVIOUR of the organism, and this idea certainly is an aspect
in the behavior of the organism,.." (My caps)
It occurs to me that you may have been misled by an ambiguity in my
statement copied above. When I say that "We have an *idea* of a separate
"me" that somehow influences the behavior of the organism", I'm not saying
that the *idea* somehow influences the behavior of the organism, but that
the idea is of a "me" that somehow influences the behavior of the organism
(i.e. of a "me" that is distinct and separate from the organism, but still
somehow manages to influence it). The *idea* can certainly be said to
influence the organism given the linguistic license with which anything can
be said to influence anything else, but the organism and its ideas are not,
at bottom, separate and distinct -- they are sub-processes into which the
single over-arching process falls. Language is also just such a
sub-process -- an *objectifying* process that is grounded in that assumed
separativity. Thus if we remove that linguistic license we cannot speak
about things at all, let alone about things influencing each other. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:00 pm
|
|
