Anonymous (May God bless his soul) comments on the last post:
"After thousands of years of human consciousness there is still no 'evidence' (it is not an absolute truth let alone a fact) that physical substance is metaphysical and nothing actually exists -- except consciousness that is somehow magically independent of physical neural memory banks. So James Randy still has his million bucks.
Perhaps it's time to start looking for the facts, because not doing so has perpetuated a mass on nonsensical suffering.
So far all the evidence points to awareness always being conscious of some form of content, whether it be experiential knowledge (sense data) or mental images fabricated from sense data memories stored in neurons. Consciousness is always consciousness of something. No one has ever proven they were 'conscious of nothing' whilst unconscious. No disembodied consciousness has ever made itself known independent of or to a physical brain.
Zen practitioners 'claim' to experience consciousness without content, but only after many years of intensive meditation. Basically they psyche themselves into a dissociated state. They train the brain to ignore, become unawareness of, it's own bodily sense data. How senseless is that? And all the while they remaining dependent on their brain to maintain that pointless content-less consciousness. For what benefit?
Instead of growing into a more intelligent benign less aggressive human being they cop out, or protest human suffering by showing how they can violently set themselves on fire without writhing in agony -- and still -- leave no 'evidence' that their senseless consciousness lived on independently of that innocent body they burnt to death?
Try pondering why and how a formless consciousness would dream up an illusory physical realm so well it can no longer prove it's not really here? Why? And what would trigger it's first imaginings out of it's formless metaphysical state? And how would consciousness even know it existed in a no thing world with no feedback loop of experiences to reflect on?
If this physical world really is a metaphysical world of no things, then prove it and claim James Randy's million bucks. Otherwise you're just wasting your intelligence writing about unprovable metaphysical nonsense."
"After thousands of years of human consciousness there is still no 'evidence' (it is not an absolute truth let alone a fact) that physical substance is metaphysical and nothing actually exists -- except consciousness that is somehow magically independent of physical neural memory banks. So James Randy still has his million bucks.
Perhaps it's time to start looking for the facts, because not doing so has perpetuated a mass on nonsensical suffering.
So far all the evidence points to awareness always being conscious of some form of content, whether it be experiential knowledge (sense data) or mental images fabricated from sense data memories stored in neurons. Consciousness is always consciousness of something. No one has ever proven they were 'conscious of nothing' whilst unconscious. No disembodied consciousness has ever made itself known independent of or to a physical brain.
Zen practitioners 'claim' to experience consciousness without content, but only after many years of intensive meditation. Basically they psyche themselves into a dissociated state. They train the brain to ignore, become unawareness of, it's own bodily sense data. How senseless is that? And all the while they remaining dependent on their brain to maintain that pointless content-less consciousness. For what benefit?
Instead of growing into a more intelligent benign less aggressive human being they cop out, or protest human suffering by showing how they can violently set themselves on fire without writhing in agony -- and still -- leave no 'evidence' that their senseless consciousness lived on independently of that innocent body they burnt to death?
Try pondering why and how a formless consciousness would dream up an illusory physical realm so well it can no longer prove it's not really here? Why? And what would trigger it's first imaginings out of it's formless metaphysical state? And how would consciousness even know it existed in a no thing world with no feedback loop of experiences to reflect on?
If this physical world really is a metaphysical world of no things, then prove it and claim James Randy's million bucks. Otherwise you're just wasting your intelligence writing about unprovable metaphysical nonsense."
25 comments:
Knowledge begins with observing and recognition and labeling.
Self knowledge is no different.
Here is how, observe the process of experiencing:
In each experience there is a subject? Yes
Is the subject the same in each experience? Yes
Does the subject change as the objects change? No
How many subjects? One
Is the body the subject or object? Object
Is the mind the subject or an object? Object
Hence the subject is quite different from the objects lets label it something, we can call it consciousness or you can call it the self or atma or brahm.
Its a simple matter of observation and labeling, no need to read abstruse theories and whatnot.
If you think that refutation of solipsim is easy, then you are probably dealing with strawman arguments only. If you really want to see how solipsism rests on a very strong ground you should be willing to go wherever the logic leads. The logic runs like this:
Right now as I am typing these words I am perceiving an "outside" world. However, a little reflection will show that I am only perceiving the impressions made in my mind by "outside" phenomena. In fact all my life, all my perceptions have only been perceptions of various impressions made in my mind, which I believe have been created by "outside" phenomena. Apart from these impressions in my mind I have never ever experienced anything else. Since all my life I have never experienced anything apart from these impressions, there is no reason for me to believe that anything exists other than these impressions. Inferring an outside world is pure conjecture.
"protest human suffering by showing how they can violently set themselves on fire without writhing in agony"
By doing so, they also show that it is possible to be free of suffering because if they don't writhe in agony as they burn, what else could cause them suffering?
"Knowledge begins with observing and recognition and labeling.
# Without sense organs first relaying data to the brain there is nothing to recognise, understand or label. Therefore sense organ data is primary and conscious awareness (knowledge) of that sense data is secondary.
"Self knowledge is no different."
# If by self you mean self-reflective consciousness being aware of it's own consciousness then that is very different indeed. Animal consciousness probably existed long before mirror neurons were developed enough for consciousness to reflect on it's own awareness. Even children cannot contemplate their own awareness for many years. So self reflective knowledge is a much later development than awareness of sense data.
"Here is how, observe the process of experiencing: In each experience there is a subject? Yes
# Are you speaking for all conscious animals? An animal consciousness may be automatically reacting to sense data relayed to it's neurons and nervous system without making any subject image out of it. And they may have no awareness or cannot differentiate between the mental images of sense data or even know they are individuals in a group. Which again makes sense data primary and conscious experience of that sense data secondary and extremely varied.
"Is the subject the same in each experience? Yes"
# If by subject you mean the content of consciousness (the awareness of sensate experience being reflected onto the visual cortex and other areas of the brain) then unless there is such a thing as consciousness without content, subjective awareness is constantly changing both in mental imagery and intensity, for survival purposes.
"Does the subject change as the objects change? No"
# Okay, so as to avoid confusion I must stop here to ascertain which of the many definitions of the word "subject" you are using in your questions below. Because it's beginning to look as though you are using consciousness, self, and subject as though they are the same thing, which they are not. So please clarify and then use the word which most reflects your definition of 'subject' below.
"How many subjects? One
Is the body the subject or object? Object
Is the mind the subject or an object? Object
Hence the subject is quite different from the objects lets label it something, we can call it consciousness or you can call it the self or atma or brahm?
Its a simple matter of observation and labeling, no need to read abstruse theories and whatnot."
@sanjay, My original article was specifically about drishti-srishti-vaad but it can be used in similar refutations of solipsism. There are many ways of refuting "no outside world" kind of solipsism. I will point out three:
1. "Since ... I have never experienced anything apart from these impressions, there is no reason for me to believe that anything exists other than these impressions. Inferring an outside world is pure conjecture."
There is a very strong reason to state that there is a material world. After all, you agree that there is experiencing happening (the "impressions") which contains information. The information might be coming from within you, from outside you, from a computer simulation, might be a dream, whatever. But it is /somewhere/ (e.g. even in dreams, the normal understanding is that the information is coming from semi-random neuronal firing coupled with stored memories etc.). That /somewhere/ needs a substrate. Hence, a substrate exists somewhere. That's all.
2. When you are not receiving the impressions (when you are asleep), whatever is causing those impressions is in abeyance/asleep/hibernating/having-a-vacation/unconscious... When you wake up, the impressions re-appear and in fact have moved in time (clothes have dried, etc.) Where was the information about those impressions while there were no impressions, and where was the "computation" required to move them through time taking place? Both need a substrate. Hence, a substrate exists somewhere. That's all.
3. (from a Wittgenstein-language-theoretic-kind-of-analysis) The sentence "Apart from these impressions in my mind I have never ever experienced anything else." is an interesting sentence at first look. To expose the meaninglessness of it, let me ask a question: What in your opinion, will count as an evidence/experience of "anything else" if not an impression?
I believe the answer will have to be: NOTHING can, even in theory or in imagination, count as an experiential distinction between "something else" and "these impressions". In that case, the statement is interesting but meaningless. Why? Because the word "experience" is then exactly the same as "impression".
If there is no way, even in theory, to distinguish a from b, then a = b.
@Anoymous
Be experience I refer to your experience, and by subject I refer to you. Animal experience child experience etc are not your experiences but merely thought forms that appear to you.
"By doing so, they also show that it is possible to be free of suffering because if they don't writhe in agony as they burn, what else could cause them suffering?"
It's because humans consider their psychological comfort more important than the well being of their own body, and other creature's, that we have so much self inflicted illnesses and are in the process of thoughtlessly destroying this planet.
twould be better to knock the whole psyche off and free the body of it's obscene violations.
"It's because humans consider their psychological comfort more important than the well being of their own body, and other creature's, that we have so much self inflicted illnesses and are in the process of thoughtlessly destroying this planet.
twould be better to knock the whole psyche off and free the body of it's obscene violations."
"Knocking off the whole psyche" doesn't make someone any wiser as to how not to inflict any self harm or not destroy the planet.
Knocking off the whole psyche doesn't make someone any wiser as to how not to inflict any self harm or not destroy the planet.
It's very possible that conscious bodily intelligence could function more efficiently without the primitive emotional psyche (the sense of being a feeling Being/Soul). And that without emotional suffering, and the rejection and repulsion about being 'just a mortal body' there would be nothing motivating such a bodily intelligence to dissociate from itself or the planet.
Such an intelligently aware substance of the planet with no emotional repulsions driving it would probably be unable to even imagine that something as senseless as damaging or burning what 'it' is, is reasonable as it's only mortal for a short time anyway. It would probably be so unintelligible as to even be incomprehensible to such an undissociated conscious intelligence.
"It's very possible that conscious bodily intelligence could function more efficiently without the primitive emotional psyche (the sense of being a feeling Being/Soul)."
You seem to be talking about actual freedom and Harmanjit knows very well what it is and that is why he commented that if Richard was a leader of a country, he could cause wars between different nations (paraphrasing here).
Harman: I have thought over your points and would like to counter them from a solipsistic standpoint:
1) "There is a very strong reason to state that there is a material world. After all, you agree that there is experiencing happening (the "impressions") which contains information. The information might be coming from within you, from outside you, from a computer simulation, might be a dream, whatever. But it is /somewhere/ (e.g. even in dreams, the normal understanding is that the information is coming from semi-random neuronal firing coupled with stored memories etc.)."
So far, so good.
"That /somewhere/ needs a substrate."
What makes you think that/ somewhere needs a substrate? I have seen in your other posts also that you have argued that storage of information requires matter. I do not see any logical necessity that storage of information should need matter. Note that you cannot make inference based on observations of a "world" whose validity itself is in question.
2. "When you are not receiving the impressions (when you are asleep), whatever is causing those impressions is in abeyance/asleep/hibernating/having-a-vacation/unconscious... When you wake up, the impressions re-appear and in fact have moved in time (clothes have dried, etc.) Where was the information about those impressions while there were no impressions, and where was the "computation" required to move them through time taking place? Both need a substrate. Hence, a substrate exists somewhere. That's all."
Here also your argument presupposes validity of an outside world.
What makes you think that "movement in time" itself is not an impression? Why do you suppose that computation is required to move through time? Why do you suppose that such computation needs a substrate?
These all are hypotheses based on your belief that there is an objective outside world which can be observed to arrive at universal conclusions. Why can't everything including your arguments be simply another impression?
3. (from a Wittgenstein-language-theoretic-kind-of-analysis) The sentence "Apart from these impressions in my mind I have never ever experienced anything else." is an interesting sentence at first look. To expose the meaninglessness of it, let me ask a question: What in your opinion, will count as an evidence/experience of "anything else" if not an impression?
Nothing.
Everything I experience is an impression. Therefore "anything else" loses meaning. It is as it is. Neither inside nor outside.
@ Anononymous "You seem to be talking about actual freedom and Harmanjit knows very well what it is and that is why he commented that if Richard was a leader of a country, he could cause wars between different nations (paraphrasing here)."
I would agree with Harman there. Richard's personality could not portray a worse example of a psyche-less flesh and blood body if he tried. Nevertheless many a person with damaged neurons but a sharp intelligence have made astute observations about the human condition that minds less traumatised are too content and complacent to uncover.
What about yourself? Have you ever considered the possibility that the conscious human body may have the potential to use sense data oriented intelligence as it's primary motivator? Or have you, like most people, always imagined the conscious body would be nothing but an incoherent fool if imaginings and emotions were secondary, had no impact on decision making, or did not exist at all?
@sanjay:
"What makes you think that/ somewhere needs a substrate? I have seen in your other posts also that you have argued that storage of information requires matter. I do not see any logical necessity that storage of information should need matter."
Can you, even in theory, postulate a way to store information without using a substrate of matter/energy? Information is "content". The content needs a substrate like a book's words need paper (or equivalent). It is a logical necessity.
"What about yourself? Have you ever considered the possibility that the conscious human body may have the potential to use sense data oriented intelligence as it's primary motivator? Or have you, like most people, always imagined the conscious body would be nothing but an incoherent fool if imaginings and emotions were secondary, had no impact on decision making, or did not exist at all?"
Can you give an example of somebody who makes use of the sense data oriented intelligence as it's primary motivator? And somebody who has no imaginings and emotions?
"Can you give an example of somebody who makes use of the sense data oriented intelligence as it's primary motivator?"
I do, and it has changed my life remarkably.
But as to whether it's possible to be 100% free of fear and desire or even whether that would be beneficial, I do not know. Richard displayed too much aggression and defensiveness for me to be convinced that he was free of emotions and ego.
But from my own experience, noticing but not acting on emotional responses enables me to see what's actually happening better. And as a result I am much happier, rarely anxious and never stressed, more mentally alert, have less accidents, learn new skills faster, eat better, sleep more sensible hours and have a hell of a lot more free time. Nature has become a marvel to behold, I buy less consumer goods, live simpler and best of all I have no longer have unresolved emotionally hostile arguments with my partner and fellow human beings. That doesn't mean I can control whether they chose to lose the plot or not, but I certainly never ignorantly exacerbate their struggles anymore. The intelligent brain is a wonderful thing when it's focussed on sense data instead of psychological imaginings.
So now that I've answered your questions, which I gather you needed before answering mine, would you like to reciprocate? "What about yourself? Have you ever considered the possibility that the conscious human body may have the potential to use sense data oriented intelligence as it's primary motivator? Or have you, like most people, always imagined the conscious body would be nothing but an incoherent fool if imaginings and emotions were secondary, had no impact on decision making, or did not exist at all?"
I think Kant's conclusion was that the thing in itself or "substrate" is unknowable, since our experience of the substrate is never direct and always through our sense mechanisms and conceptual apparatus. Besides if the materialistic picture of the universe is correct, it means the universe is geared towards the eventuality of matter studying itself (the mind produced by the brain studies and understands the brain). I think it is reasonable to assume that the human mind may not have the wherewithal to understand everything about the "real nature" of the universe (or anything at all) and the matter/mind dichotomy probably lies in that area.
> "I think Kant's conclusion was that the thing in itself or "substrate" is unknowable, since our experience of the substrate is never direct and always through our sense mechanisms and conceptual apparatus."
In that case, can you define, for my benefit, what "knowable" and "direct experience" means? Is something like "absolute velocity"? :-)
Suppose everyone was perpetually high, where the world for them was bizarre patterns - would Science be the study of bizarre patterns?
The process of experience is roughly this - object interacts with subject > subject assimilates information about the object through assimilation capacities (sight, smell, touch, etc.) > the information is passed to the brain > neural networks fire in the brain > an idea is constructed in the mind (not even close to being understood) > the idea has qualities like space, time, sensation, succession etc etc. Is the idea the same as the object?
> "object interacts with subject"
hence objects are presumed. how do you know this rough "process of experience"? all you know, according to yourself, is some impressions in your "mind" (whatever that is).
I have a feeling this is going to be super circular.
In presuming the "object" I was merely answering the posed question.
The "process of experience" could well be impressions on the mind. (A side note - Applying our reason to the "world" does roughly give us something like the clumsy "process of experience" I proposed. So even if the "world" and the validity of reason are presupposed, reason itself concludes that the "world" is not the same as our "ideas" of it).
Or the "process of experience" could relate to a real world out there. I don't think there is an infallible argument either way. You could take your pick.
> The "process of experience" could well be impressions on the mind.
Impressions of what?
//"Can you give an example of somebody who makes use of the sense data oriented intelligence as it's primary motivator?"
I do, and it has changed my life remarkably.
But as to whether it's possible to be 100% free of fear and desire or even whether that would be beneficial, I do not know.//
So you are not sure whether it is possible to be 100% free of fear and desire.
//So now that I've answered your questions, which I gather you needed before answering mine, would you like to reciprocate?//
You left this part out: "And somebody who has no imaginings and emotions?"
But I gather from your answer that you don't know anybody who has no imaginings and emotions? Right?
and you left this part out: your answers to my questions
From what I have observed over the years, no one practicing Actualism or any of the inspired practices became any harmless by using their intelligence. Instead they became dumber than they actually were and just nuisance to everybody around them. So unless I observe a change in somebody, I can't believe otherwise. That is why I asked you if you know of somebody who has changed for the better.
Post a Comment