|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The horror! The horror! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Ifen writes: self consciousness is what I think he is talking about. Sentience , or primordial awareness which is what I call consciousness would have been prior. The distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness is something I have a problem with. I don't see how you can be conscious without being self-conscious. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-20-2005 09:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Let me see if I can make these incoherent ideas of mine more coherent, as I should have done in the first place.
The phrase "The horror! The horror!" comes from "Heart of Darkness"; what I was always struck by in the story was the way this world that Marlowe steps into is constantly described as absurd and "unreal"; the people he meets are "empty inside." For example: "I let him run on . . . and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and would find nothing but a little loose dirt, maybe." The person referred to is a brickmaker who has been in Africa for a year but has not made a single brick (missing some material). More absurdity. This was always very suggestive to me of the plight one finds oneself in when contemplating the philosophical implications of modern science. The "horror" consists of the feeling of pointlessness and absurdity, a feeling that is generated by various factors. No God, the brevity of life, and the questionable status of morality I've mentioned (along with the possibility of determinism), but the feeling of the "unreal" nature of life is caused by what seems to be The Negation of Private Experience. (Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," a book I just started, addresses this very issue of nihilism in the wake of Darwinism, so perhaps I will learn something more about this topic in a few days). This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-20-2005 12:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
I don't see how you can be conscious without being self-conscious. Not much time this morning. First I suggest: The feeling of what happens : body and emotion in the making of consciousness Author: Damasio, Antonio R.Publisher, Date: New York : Harcourt Brace, c1999. - Edition: 1st ed. ISBN: 0151003696 - Description: xii, 386 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Then I'll ask. Do you think dogs are self conscious? conscious? What about cats? fish? ants? bacteria? plants? just trying to calibrate the concept a bit. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Dennett's paraphrase of Searle's idea: "According to Searle, automata (computers or robots) don't have real intentionality; at best they have mere as if intentionality . . . This creates a problem for Searle, because whereas AI says you are composed of automata, Darwinism says you are descended from automata. It is hard to deny the former if you admit the latter; how could anything born of automata ever be anything but a much, much fancier automaton?
Exactly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I always wondered why this weird, incoherent stuff always attracted me, and now I am beginning to understand it--after all these years!
It's all about Darwinism. "Unreal CityUnder the brown fog of a winter dawn, A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many, I had not thought death had undone so many . . ." "We are the hollow menWe are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!" --T. S. Eliot "There died a myriad,And of the best, among them, For an old bitch gone in the teeth, For a botched civilization, Charming, smiling at the good mouth,Quick eyes gone under earth's lid, For two gross of broken statues,For a few thousand battered books." --Ezra Pound "And lonely as it is, that lonelinessWill be more lonely ere it will be less-- A blanker whiteness of benighted snow, With no expression, nothing to express." --Robert Frost Automata!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Robin,
If consciousness is an emergent property of something physical (the brain), then why not entertain the thought that a sense of meaning, or purpose, and of morality, could be emergent as well, and in that sense just as real? Our subjective experience of existence may not coincide with the absolute truth about the world, but it is our experience, it is our truth. We may be allowed a glimpse of objective truth every now and then, which will then prompt us to reappraise our views, but the fact that we have these views in the first place cannot be denied. So, even if the whole of objective truth is unobtainable, we still have our own truth, and it is, although not absolute, very real. For that matter, morality even must be subjective, because absolute morality is an impossibility, as a lion and a gazelle would attest: the lion eating the gazelle is bad news, from the gazelle's point of view, but the lion begs to differ. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the escaping of the gazelle.
robinrohan writes: Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," a book I just started [...] That's a decision you won't regret. I think it would be very hard to find a better description of (Neo-)Darwinism than that wonderful book. P.S.: It seems to me that you and Ifen need to agree on some precise definitions first. Because the terms 'consciousness', 'self-consciousness', 'sentience', and 'awareness' are so closely linked and yet all seem to have a slighty different meaning, it makes for a murky discussion if they have not been precisely agreed upon. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Para writes: Our subjective experience of existence may not coincide with the absolute truth about the world, but it is our experience, it is our truth. We may be allowed a glimpse of objective truth every now and then, which will then prompt us to reappraise our views, but the fact that we have these views in the first place cannot be denied. So, even if the whole of objective truth is unobtainable, we still have our own truth, and it is, although not absolute, very real. I don't how one can have "one's own truth" and still call it truth. But my point is that all of science converges on the idea that our private experiences are fantasies--illusions. The scientists aren't coming to these conclusions to be fashionably pessimistic; they are coming to these conclusions because they are true (presumably). 1. Consciousness is an illusion, many say (not you).2. Mentality is really physicality, all say (including you). 3. On another level, all human motives and behavior are evolutionary motives and behavior(many say, not all). 4. On another level, all actions, thoughts, and feelings are at bottom electro-chemical reactions (you could take it to the subatomic level if you wanted to) which are automatonic events. 5. So we are automata, although it sure doesn't seem like it. But this fantasy we have in our brains has developed for evolutionary reasons. In fact, ALL reasons for everything as regards life forms are, at bottom, evolutionary reasons. Such a view gives rise to the feeling of "the horror" which is felt not just by me but by others as well. One of the reasons Dennett wrote the book was to address the problem of nihilism: "Others ground their highest concerns in entirely secular philosophies, views of the meaning of life that stave off despair . . ." Note that: We have to "stave off despair." Why should we have to do that with our relatively comfortable lives (in a material sense)? "From the outset, there have been those who thought they saw Darwin letting the worse possible cat out of the bag: nihilism" (18). It's out.
Para writes: If consciousness is an emergent property of something physical (the brain), then why not entertain the thought that a sense of meaning, or purpose, and of morality, could be emergent as well, and in that sense just as real? I now understand why you were so insistent that consciousness is real. Otherwise this argument would collapse. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-21-2005 16:56 AM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-21-2005 17:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Robin,
The Heart Of AwarenessA translation of the Ashtavakra Gita ----- By Dr. Thomas Byrom http://www.swcp.com/~robicks/gita00.htm Is online. Easy to read, it's brief and gives a very interesting alternative take on "dispair" or the "horror".
What is illusion,
Or the world? What is the little soul,Or God himself? One without two,I am always the same. I sit in my heart. What need is thereFor striving or stillness? What is freedom or bondage? What are holy books or teachings? What is the purpose of life? Who is the disciple,And who is the master? For I have no bounds. I am Shiva. Nothing arises in me,In whom nothing is single, Nothing is double. Nothing is,Nothing is not. What more is there to say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD responds to me:
quote: I know, RAZD. I'm a mathematician, remember? Do you really think the discussion that is going on can be reasonably correlated to a matrix whose transpose equals its own inverse? Of course, that use of the word conceptually translates to "perpendicular" when viewing the world as a matrix, so it isn't as if we're talking about "inflammable" meaning "unable to burn" and "inflammable" meaning "capable of burning." Similarly for a linear transformation preserving length. Essentially, you're just rotating everything...which is another way of visualizing the concept of "perpendicular" in matrix theory.
quote: Indeed. And there is what you said and what you meant. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." There is no contradiction between two variables being orthogonal and the existence of third axes that also have an effect. Three dimensional space is a perfect example. The x- and y-axes are orthogonal and the function of the z-axis is orthogonal to both of them and is important in locating yourself in three-space. Go ahead and add your randomness. That does not affect the non-correlation between free will and determinism. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
schrafinator writes:
quote: And how to go about selling your daughter into slavery, don't forget. And how to deafen through violence a slave of yours that you are setting free but does not wish to go because you are retaining ownership of his wife and children. And then you get to keep him forever. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Robin,
I was reading this excerpt from Nisargadatta's book I AM THAT and he seems to have put it very succinctly:
Maharaj In the great mirror of consciousness images arise and disappear and only memory gives them continuity. And memory is material -- destructible, perishable, transient. On such flimsy foundations we build a sense of personal existence -- vague, intermittent, dreamlike. This vague persuasion: 'I-am-so-and-so' obscures the changeless state of pure awareness and makes us believe that we are born to suffer and to die ... I am beyond all dreams. I am light in which all dreams appear and disappear. I am both inside and outside the dream. Just as a man having a headache knows the ache and also knows that he is not the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not dreaming -- all at the same time. I am what I am before, during and after the dream. But what I see in dream, I am not." Seeker If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the way out? Maharaj There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out is also part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as dream. Seeker If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where will it lead me? Maharaj Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs be done. http://www.advaita.org/
The horror is one way of looking at things. It may even be one of great themes but your reaction to the "horror" demonstrates that there is something beyond it. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
To me this usage is more like skewed -- two lines that do not intersect and are neither parallel nor perpendicular, they are not related and are not even oriented in the same frame of reference. I don't think "orthogonal" has the desired connotations here, regardless of my initial miss-interpreation. I wonder what J.Leno's "man on the street" would say the term means?
Now let's discuss whether "will" needs to have a qualifier or not ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
You are egggactly right. This is the mentality given to "those" by evolution.
The subtlety of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding; so that the specious meditations, speculations, and theories of mankind are but a kind of insanity, only there is no one to stand by and observe it. -Francis Bacon "Novum Organum"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Ifen writes: The horror is one way of looking at things. It may even be one of great themes but your reaction to the "horror" demonstrates that there is something beyond it. In that I am aware of the horror? Or in that I am preferring one part of the dream to another--preferring the delightful to the horrible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Would those be the Exodus 20/Rudy Roy Moore set or the Exodus 34/Ark of the Covenant set? Heh. Make it the latter one, in tact. I've insulated myself from stuff like Moore's to the point that I had to google him to learn who he was. It appears from the text that he might've fit in with some stuff going on which irritated Moses to the point of busting up the first ones. In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024