zinnic wrote:
"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.

"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
"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.

Wiggle, wiggle!

zinnic wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
zinnic wrote:
"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.

Wiggle, wiggle!

I take your lack of meaningful response as an
admission of failure to find any fault in my argument.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"andy-k" wrote:
I take your lack of meaningful response as an
admission of failure to find any fault in my argument.

If that is what makes you happy, be my guest!

zinnic wrote:
"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.

turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
the organism and its ideas are not, at bottom, separate and distinct --
they are sub-processes into which the single over-arching process falls..
snip
"single over-arching process" ?

Precisely so -- the whole organism gets conceptually divided into its
structure and its function, and these categories in turn get conceptually
divided into distinct substructures and distinct subfunctions.

"andy-k" wrote:
the organism and its ideas are not, at bottom, separate and distinct --
they are sub-processes into which the single over-arching process falls.
snip
"single over-arching process" ?

"andy-k" wrote:
turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
the organism and its ideas are not, at bottom, separate and
distinct -- they are sub-processes into which the single
over-arching process falls.
snip
"single over-arching process" ?

Precisely so -- the whole organism gets conceptually divided
into its structure and its function, and these categories in turn
get conceptually divided into distinct substructures and distinct
subfunctions.

you mean the organism as a whole is
the "single over-arching process"?

turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
the organism and its ideas are not, at bottom, separate and
distinct -- they are sub-processes into which the single
over-arching process falls.
snip
"single over-arching process" ?

Precisely so -- the whole organism gets conceptually divided
into its structure and its function, and these categories in turn
get conceptually divided into distinct substructures and distinct
subfunctions.

you mean the organism as a whole is
the "single over-arching process"?

No, the whole species gets conceptually divided into individual organisms.
And in anticipation of your next question, the whole ecosystem gets
conceptually divided into distinct species and their habitat. Just keep on
going and when we can't conceive of a more encompassing process we
call that process the cosmos.

On May 1, 7:46 am, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:





turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
the organism and its ideas are not, at bottom, separate and
distinct -- they are sub-processes into which the single
over-arching process falls.
snip
"single over-arching process" ?

Precisely so -- the whole organism gets conceptually divided
into its structure and its function, and these categories in turn
get conceptually divided into distinct substructures and distinct
subfunctions.

you mean the organism as a whole is
the "single over-arching process"?

No, the whole species gets conceptually divided into individual organisms.
And in anticipation of your next question, the whole ecosystem gets
conceptually divided into distinct species and their habitat. Just keep on
going and when we can't conceive of a more encompassing process we
call that process the cosmos.

That seems to make sense. So what's the discussion about? I'm sorry i
haven't been keeping up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
the organism and its ideas are not, at bottom, separate and
distinct -- they are sub-processes into which the single
over-arching process falls.
snip
"single over-arching process" ?

Precisely so -- the whole organism gets conceptually divided
into its structure and its function, and these categories in turn
get conceptually divided into distinct substructures and distinct
subfunctions.

you mean the organism as a whole is
the "single over-arching process"?

No, the whole species gets conceptually divided into individual organisms.
And in anticipation of your next question, the whole ecosystem gets
conceptually divided into distinct species and their habitat. Just keep on
going and when we can't conceive of a more encompassing process we
call that process the cosmos.

Consciousness is a conceptual distinction in the 'over-arching process

turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
turtoni wrote:
you mean the organism as a whole is
the "single over-arching process"?

No, the whole species gets conceptually divided into individual
organisms. And in anticipation of your next question, the whole
ecosystem gets conceptually divided into distinct species and their
habitat. Just keep on going and when we can't conceive of a more
encompassing process we call that process the cosmos.

That seems to make sense. So what's the discussion about?
I'm sorry i haven't been keeping up.

Andy believes that 'ideas' can be unconscious. This way he can claim
that ideas do affect behaviour but that this does not constitute
evidence that consciousness affects behaviour.

"andy-k" wrote:
turtoni wrote:
you mean the organism as a whole is
the "single over-arching process"?

No, the whole species gets conceptually divided into individual
organisms. And in anticipation of your next question, the whole
ecosystem gets conceptually divided into distinct species and their
habitat. Just keep on going and when we can't conceive of a more
encompassing process we call that process the cosmos.

Consciousness is a conceptual distinction in the 'over-arching process
of the cosmos'

but "it is not at bottom separate and distinct.

Does "linguistic licence" allow one to claim that consciousness does,
or does not, affect the behaviour of the cosmic process?

zinnic wrote:
turtoni wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
turtoni wrote:
you mean the organism as a whole is
the "single over-arching process"?

No, the whole species gets conceptually divided into individual
organisms. And in anticipation of your next question, the whole
ecosystem gets conceptually divided into distinct species and their
habitat. Just keep on going and when we can't conceive of a more
encompassing process we call that process the cosmos.

That seems to make sense. So what's the discussion about?
I'm sorry i haven't been keeping up.

Andy believes that 'ideas' can be unconscious. This way he can claim
that ideas do affect behaviour but that this does not constitute
evidence that consciousness affects behaviour.

Misrepresentation is a sure sign of desperation. My claim is that ideas are
a part of what there is consciousness *of*, just as is behavior (though not
all of an organism's behavior is present to the consciousness associated
with that organism). Ideas and behavior may be considered co-processes
that influence each other (but are actually sub-processes of an over-arching
process that is the whole organism).

"andy-k" wrote:
ideas are a part of what there is consciousness *of*, just as is
behavior (though not all of an organism's behavior is present to the
consciousness associated with that organism). Ideas and behavior may
be considered co-processes that influence each other (but are actually
sub-processes of an over-arching process that is the whole organism).

does this have something to do with working "consciousness"
into Holism?