So what is it in your view ? Given we can't infinitely derive questions from concepts without assuming a starting point somewhere, a primitive, which of these two you think is more simple ?
Its all again the Cartesian problem isn't it ? ...or is it ?
My view on this is simple, while "is-ness" only asks for self consistency, structure, "me-sness" asks for a lot more.
...yes being a subject is also all about the consistency of your identity, but it is more then that, it assumes face value on there being subjects, agents with free will that act upon the world, it assumes minds in that sense...
...of course whether this is true or not is besides the point...the question is, which of those two is less complex and better serves the purpose of a master primitive ?
Beingness, even if pure experience, is not questionable.
Pure experience, some say requires an experiencer, but it informs nothing about the nature of what is it that experiences...if anything the experiencer is itself reducible to experiencing...
....that is to mean, what I have from the subject itself is an idea of the subject.
...and we are back to abstract Platonism aren't we ?
The point being, having structure, patternicity, is all that matters...
..."is-ness" can be defined from A pattern being distinct from B pattern regarding structuring...
...one asks what changed, and ones gets for answer the pattern. Thats where from "is-ness" is coming...we don't go on defining what the pattern really is other then it is different. Distinctiveness is what comes a priori...even when one thinks about the thinker...
The experiencer itself is a pattern in the process of distinct patterns at work.
0 Replies
Fil Albuquerque
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jul, 2015 11:09 pm
There is nothing but structure...
Some people are OK with calling it "God" !
(note that it is not a person but a thing)
"Me" emerges out of the structure. All you have for direct fact is experiencing.
You infer a subject but its a step to far as the subject itself is an idea in the experiencing. Either you understand this or you don't. You can also opt out of being honest and admit this is the case for the sake of saving your beloved countryman Descartes, but that position of course is vain...
You can post and should post all you want. I am offering a perspective. You don't expect me to post stuff that I don't believe in do you ? I am all open for arguments.
PS - Also this is not a contest on how many ppl show up. I am proud not many do. Its a good sign...
"Me-ness" could be derived from experience but the same can be said for any other concept...
Personally, I see it as part of the mind's "axiomatic", or if you prefer, as a part of the mind's operating system. Or "structure". I doubt human beings can live healthy mental lives without the concept of "me", and therefore I see it as more fundamental than "is-ness".
We agree the concept of self exists with a purpose. I don't believe anything is purposeless.
I just don't believe consciousness is anything else other then a bunch of clever tricks in the structuring of information exchange. Conciousness is not special.
There's also what Derrida called "le jeux dans la structure", which (as I understand it - don't quote me on this) means both the degree of freedom that a structure has (how it can shake and move and bent -- a structure is never completely fixed or immobile) and the capacity to play with the structure, to subvert it from within, using its degree of freedom to bent it our of shape and make it do things it was not meant or designed to do. I realize that this idea does not sit well with determinism.
0 Replies
Olivier5
1
Reply
Sun 12 Jul, 2015 02:50 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I just don't believe consciousness is anything else other then a bunch of clever tricks in the structuring of information exchange. Conciousness is not special.
Well, nothing is "special", no?... Consciousness is not divine or out of this world, if this is what you mean. This is perhaps the biggest adjustment I would make to Descartes' dualism: there's no need to attribute consciousness to God. But at the same time, it seems to me that it is of a different "order" than inanimate matter, and from that viewpoint there is value to Descartes "dualism" between matter and mind -- it's the same distinction than between hardware and software (as Dennet himself pointed out in another vid you posted, that distinction is non-controversial).
Are you familiar with virtual machines ? I for one don't really know what is the difference between hardware and software...I am not a materialist although I am a naturalist.
More to the point you can't have two "alien' substances in the world and expect they interact.
More to the point you can't have two "alien' substances in the world and expect they interact.
Why not? Oil does not mix with water but they can interact, if you see my drift.
Heard this new vid and I disagree with the "consciousness is fame" idea. He himself says ideas compete for attention.... But attention implies someone paying attention to something.
I see consciousness as a sort of mind mirror. Perhaps the product of our two brains interacting, one reading the other constantly and vice versa, and creating a virtual space where the most important thoughts from all parts of the brain interact. Imagine a computer that would be intimately wired to another one, so that not only they can speak to one another but each can sense and decode what the other computes as and when it computes it. Wild speculation of course.
Deleuze and Guatari saw the mind as a set of "desiring machines" or "abstract machines" in interaction. That was years before personal computers and the concept of software becoming commonplace.
Oil and Water are both made of "atoms" whatever those are...(maybe just information)
...of course I don't have a final argument against two substances interacting while being fundamentally different in nature, it just does not seem elegant. Its complicated that you need two to make stuff work while there is no good reason to do well enough with one substance. I Occam razor the problem for elegance purposes. Is that a hard counter ? Obviously not. As you said wild speculation. But while I am on the business of almost metaphysical wild speculation I reduce my options to the simplest possible explanation.
Deleuze and Guatari saw the mind as a set of "desiring machines" or "abstract machines" in interaction. That was years before personal computers and the concept of software becoming commonplace.
Interesting. Thanks for the reference I have to look those up.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace