Inflate or destroy self?

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

And to despair about.

I laugh...you can despair. Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

Pardon my late response. I've had a busy few days since starting this thread, and haven't had much time to follow it.

You post takes the considerations way deeper than what I had intended, and to be honest, your comments sort of remove any questions I had prior to it. Through the years here on a2k I think we have discussed all the various aspects of self that you mention.

When it comes to self-destructive behavior, though, I feel that there is a divide between what I know and what I do. I might behave in a way that gives me the desired results, but down the line it backfires so that the overall gain is less than the effort was worth. What I perceived as constructive behavior was actually destructive...

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

The fact is that according to contemporary specialists, "cognitive science" (2nd order) has indeed shifted away from "naive realism" (1st order) due in part to the resounding failure of such an approach by the AI faction.

In my experience, cognitive science in general is fairly naive in its assumptions. I guess science has to be simplistic on such a subject, to a degree. We need to start somewhere... and so far we're only scratching the surface of the mind. My approach is to accept mind phenomenons as they appear rather than try to "explain them away". I find the project by a guy like Daniel Dennett to "explain conscience away" ridiculous, for instance, in particular because the entities projecting this are themselves conscient and use their conscience as a tool to say it is an illusion... All Cretans are liars, said the Cretan...

Quote:

my reading has led me to conclusion that "the mind" is a somewhat vacuous layman's concept, perhaps an epiphenomenon of language

Wait here: just because we don't understand "the mind" doesn't mean the concept is void. There were minds before there was language. E.g. a dog has a mind.

I would agree however that language allows a reification of thought, a cristalization of it into a real, objective series of words, and that this allows our consciousness to do much much more than what it could do if we didn't have language. For instance, couching our ideas on paper so that we can refine them, and then share them. Language allows the third world of the popperian cosmogony, which in my own cosmogony corresponds to the 4th level of nature: the world of ideas.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

We do of course attribute some anthropomorphic concepts like "mind" to non-human species, but to suggest that animals have a concept of "self" is less usual. The problem with "mind" was identified by Gilbert Ryle as having no specific "boundaries". It is an entity that may be thought to extend even beyond the physiology of the individual (as in the "group mind "of the hive). And your mention of Freud with his concept of "the unconscious" suggests that even at the individual level the entity "mind" is as uncharted as the extent of an iceberg.
Like all concepts, "scientific" or otherwise, their measure is a function of their utility in human interactions. We need only consider those bedfellows of "mind" such as "self" or "soul" to understand how such utility evades precision.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Your post triggers the adage "hindsight is a wonderful thing", but beyond such one-liners you mught consider that "self" (time1) may have only a tentative relationship with "self" (time2). As Ouspensky put it,<< we can spend our lives fulfilling promises made by somebody else.!>>

0 Replies

@fresco,

It's not anthropomorphic. A dog can dream. That implies a mental world. If one would go through a structured process to define testable characteristics of a “mind” or “sense of self”, and would proceed to test a dog of chimp or any mammal against them, I venture to say that one would find they have a sense of self. The idea that men are different from animals in a fundamental way is just a remnant of a religious, “in the image of God” kind of thinking. From a Darwinian perspective, if the genome of a chimp is 99% identical to that of a man, there’s little reason to believe their mental universe is 100% different from ours.

All concepts have vague boundaries. As for the boundaries of the concept of "mind", I think they are precise enough, certainly more precise than any alternative concept (what’s a non-mind? what’s a non-self?...). Nobody has a clue what mater is either, so that’s another vaguely defined concept, and yet you don’t see that many people hoping around saying mater does not exist. Empirically, “we know it when we see it”, or when we bump into it. At the same empirical level, the existence of our own mind is pretty much the only thing we can be sure 100%. It’s the cogito ergo sum. We “bump into it” all the time when we think. This most intimate experience cannot be disposed off on conceptual grounds.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I would essentially reverse and thereby contra your initial argument by claiming "mind" and "mental events" can be dissolved in terms of systems theory for all species. In essence it is mentalism per se which is anthropocentric (religious or otherwise) .As for "existence", my view of this is relative rather than absolute, a viewpoint which essentially deflates the cogito.

Once again, I have no wish to attack your preferred paradigm. I merely point out that I find it antithetical to recent developments.

1 Reply

So many words...

...mostly devoted to avoiding saying, "I really do not know!"

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you can know there is no "self"...but have trouble understanding how I can know when I make a guess.

I said "as I understand it" there is no self that is not just a concept. How is that going to help me know how you know you are guessing? You may be wrong. Your problem is that you have taken the ability to know that you are guessing as axiomatic. You actually 'believe' you can guess (now that is laughable) and from a man that doesn't to belief!

igm wrote:

How do I know what you mean when you say you are guessing?

Frank Apisa wrote:

You can KNOW that there is no self...but you cannot figure how to know when I am guessing--after I tell you I am guessing.

I haven't said there is no self... the self is a concept.. that it is more than that is imaginary.... you laugh but it's your own misunderstanding of what I've said that you find funny... now that's funny!

The rest of what you've said is in the same vein.

You can't know that there is someone who can guess or that there is something to guess about or that guessing can actually take place... you believe it... Frank the non-believer, believes that he can guess Laughing

Guessing is part of reality and yet you say everything that can be said about it is a guess and then you say you 'know' you can guess... that's a contradiction... my friend.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you can know there is no "self"...but have trouble understanding how I can know when I make a guess.

I said "as I understand it" there is no self that is not just a concept. How is that going to help me know how you know you are guessing? You may be wrong. Your problem is that you have taken the ability to know that you are guessing as axiomatic. You actually 'believe' you can guess (now that is laughable) and from a man that doesn't to belief!

igm wrote:

How do I know what you mean when you say you are guessing?

Frank Apisa wrote:

You can KNOW that there is no self...but you cannot figure how to know when I am guessing--after I tell you I am guessing.

I haven't said there is no self... the self is a concept.. that it is more than that is imaginary.... you laugh but it's your own misunderstanding of what I've said that you find funny... now that's funny!

The rest of what you've said is in the same vein.

You can't know that there is someone who can guess or that there is something to guess about or that guessing can actually take place... you believe it... Frank the non-believer, believes that he can guess

Guessing is part of reality and yet you say everything that can be said about it is a guess and then you say you 'know' you can guess... that's a contradiction... my friend.

You want so much for there to be contradictions, you see them where they do not exist, igm.

Quote something I have actually written...tell me why you disagree...and let's discuss it.

And if we can do it without my having to define "quote" "written" "disagree" or "discuss"...so much the better.

This is fun. We should do this more often, igm.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

Guessing is part of reality and yet you say everything that can be said about it is a guess and then you say you 'know' you can guess... that's a contradiction... my friend.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You want so much for there to be contradictions, you see them where they do not exist, igm.

You said that no one knows the true nature of reality, whatever they say is a guess. Correct?

If it is correct then 'guessing' is a part of reality and you say you 'know' that you are guessing... when you make a guess. Therefore you know something about reality whilst also saying you cannot know something about reality you can only guess... that is a contradiction.

Of course this response is a waste of time... but...

Basically if you say you know anything to do with reality you contradict your premise that reality's nature can only be guessed

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

igm wrote:

Guessing is part of reality and yet you say everything that can be said about it is a guess and then you say you 'know' you can guess... that's a contradiction... my friend.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You want so much for there to be contradictions, you see them where they do not exist, igm.

You said that no one knows the true nature of reality, whatever they say is a guess. Correct?

If it is correct then 'guessing' is a part of reality and you say you 'know' that you are guessing... when you make a guess. Therefore you know something about reality whilst also saying you cannot know something about reality you can only guess... that is a contradiction.

Of course this response is a waste of time... but...

Basically if you say you know anything to do with reality you contradict your premise that reality's nature can only be guessed

If you want to play one of those imoveable object/irresistable force kinds of games...go to a playground and find someone who also wants to play.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I would essentially reverse and thereby contra your initial argument by claiming "mind" and "mental events" can be dissolved in terms of systems theory for all species.

I would have to see that argument before I can comment on it, but doubt it can float. System theory itself is a mental construct, 'mind' you, like any theory...

Quote:

As for "existence", my view of this is relative rather than absolute, a viewpoint which essentially deflates the cogito.

Relative to what exactly?

Quote:

Once again, I have no wish to attack your preferred paradigm. I merely point out that I find it antithetical to recent developments.

Don't worry, I enjoy the interaction. These places would be boring if all posters agreed.

Plus I don't think I exposed my own preferred paradigm yet. It's all based on Popper, with modifications to take into consideration the value of intuition and induction, and my own biology background (Popper did not understand biology; he was all fascinated with physics, as historically biology started to become "big" only after the 2nd world war). Maybe if you're interested I'll explain it to you.

Sorry if I come across as dismissive - I often do. It's an attitude rooted in a healthy skepticism about the power of language over reality. "Recent developments" are nothing more than a few guys talking, most of the times. I try to keep abreast of neurosciences but it's all subject to change. Freud too was recent once, and now see how he is attacked from all sides?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

This is fun. We should do this more often, igm.

Then...

igm wrote:

Guessing is part of reality and yet you say everything that can be said about it is a guess and then you say you 'know' you can guess... that's a contradiction... my friend.

Basically if you say you know anything to do with reality you contradict your premise that reality's nature can only be guessed.

And suddenly...

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you want to play one of those imoveable object/irresistable force kinds of games...go to a playground and find someone who also wants to play.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

This is fun. We should do this more often, igm.

Then...

igm wrote:

Guessing is part of reality and yet you say everything that can be said about it is a guess and then you say you 'know' you can guess... that's a contradiction... my friend.

Basically if you say you know anything to do with reality you contradict your premise that reality's nature can only be guessed.

And suddenly...

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you want to play one of those imoveable object/irresistable force kinds of games...go to a playground and find someone who also wants to play.

It is fun. Just like a playground. But sometimes in a playground (or other fun spots)...**** starts to happen that require a deviation.

If you have a problem with me telling you to get lost with some of your nonsense...I don't know what to say.

Lemme try this: TOUGH!

Wink

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

(UK bedtime intervened)
Briefly
1. The systems theory argument can be found in Fritjof Capra's "Web of Life" in which he refers to "second order cybernetics" (the observation of observation). A synopsis can be found here.
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~lsdc1/SysBiol/capra.weboflife.schrodingerlecture.1997.pdf

2. What I mean by relativistic existence is that "observer" and "observered" are two sides of the same coin. "Things and their thingers" are coexistent and co-extensive. Neither has existential status its own right. This is a non-dualistic view applicable to all dualities including Descartes "mind vs body". Internal states and external states are co defined and transient irrespective of their apparent permanence with respect to our lifespans. ( "Mountains" come and go in geological time and have no "functional existence" at all for most species).

3. I might be interested in your Popperian paradigm, but my statements so far might indicate to you that I follow Thmas Kuhn who attacked Popper's falsifiability principle. Kuhn argued that "falsifiability" was aimed at distiguishing between "real science" from "pseudo-science" (specifically Marx and Freud) but had little relevence to "what scientists do"( which is paradigmatic,transient and aimed at elegance in attempts to predict and control).

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

(UK bedtime intervened)
Briefly
1. The systems theory argument can be found in Fritjof Capra's "Web of Life" in which he refers to "second order cybernetics" (the observation of observation). A synopsis can be found here.
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~lsdc1/SysBiol/capra.weboflife.schrodingerlecture.1997.pdf

2. What I mean by relativistic existence is that "observer" and "observered" are two sides of the same coin. "Things and their thingers" are coexistent and co-extensive. Neither has existential status its own right. This is a non-dualistic view applicable to all dualities including Descartes "mind vs body". Internal states and external states are co defined and transient irrespective of their apparent permanence with respect to our lifespans. ( "Mountains" come and go in geological time and have no "functional existence" at all for most species).

3. I might be interested in your Popperian paradigm, but my statements so far might indicate to you that I follow Thmas Kuhn who attacked Popper's falsifiability principle. Kuhn argued that "falsifiability" was aimed at distiguishing between "real science" from "pseudo-science" (specifically Marx and Freud) but had little relevence to "what scientists do"( which is paradigmatic,transient and aimed at elegance in attempts to predict and control).

And of course all of this is certain because Fresco has said it...and in his endless appeals to authority...that means certainty, whether it is correct or not.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you have a problem with me telling you to get lost with some of your nonsense...I don't know what to say.

Do you 'know' that it's nonsense or do you guess it is and if you guess how do you know you guess? Your ability to guess is axiomatic and is therefore a belief, as it is assumed true and that assumption makes it a belief as it is not known.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you have a problem with me telling you to get lost with some of your nonsense...I don't know what to say.

Do you 'know' that it's nonsense or do you guess it is and if you guess how do you know you guess? Your ability to guess is axiomatic and is therefore a belief, as it is assumed true and that assumption makes it a belief as it is not known.

There is no problem with me KNOWING that most of what you say lately is nonsense. I am surprise you are not able to see it for the nonsense it is. But...it is what it is.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is no problem with me KNOWING that most of what you say lately is nonsense.

Explain how you know that? Explain how there is definitely someone who can know and something that someone can know (if there is a someone) and that you (if there is a you) definitely knows there is some way of knowing that something?

I think you'll find it's the opposite of 'no problem'.

If how to know is axiomatic then as it cannot be based on evidence but just assumed as true then your ability to know... is a belief... so Frank does beliefs even though he says he doesn't.

1 Reply

Inflate or destroy self?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know