Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Consciousness and Idealism 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy UNPLUGGED (audio series by UncleZook)
Sam Hunter wrote:
Hi, I like the idea you sent me in the PM.

That idea was to create a new thread for Sam's discussion on consciousness.

Sam Hunter wrote:
I cannot see using material based "tools" to determine what individual humans "can and cannot do" with regards to what everyone has access to "equally" in society - such as positions of power and control.

Everyone does not and should not have equal access to everything in society. An example is driving a car on public roads. Only those with adequate vision and demonstrated proficiency should be allowed a license to drive. Likewise, only humans with adequate empathy, humility, honesty, and responsibility should be allowed to occupy positions of power and control.

Sam Hunter wrote:
It was my assumption that you had to have a materialist (and/or 'realist,' and/or 'scientism based') world view because I cannot see how your solution could be valid under the alternative world view of idealism and that consciousness is fundamental to all).

The reason why you cannot see it is because you have oversimplified your world view. For example, I doubt that consciousness is fundamental to all.

Sam Hunter wrote:
If there is a world view other than the ones I mentioned above which you might hold as the most likely 'truth' then please share it.

Sam, if you can see the value in questioning everything and dismissing nothing, then surely you can see that fixating on a particular world view is not compatible with that philosophy. I can certainly entertain world views, but all are flawed because human perspective is flawed.

Sam Hunter wrote:
Also I had a typo in the previous post - meant UP not UC - I will edit the error.
well, apparently I am not allowed to edit that post now.

Due to the mischief GypsyWoman performed in the forum, posts become permanent in a matter of hours. This is another example of how sociopaths ruin things for everyone when they are allowed to run rampant unmanaged. I would prefer to make posts permanent on a sliding time scale based on the sociopathic nature of the poster, but the software does not support that. It only has a universal setting that applies to everyone. That's like giving a driver's license to everyone, regardless of their ability or inability to drive safely on public roads.

When I saw "UC", I could only guess that you were referring to 'Universal Consciousness". Now you can perhaps understand why I strive to be clear in my written communication, and why I must constantly work diligently towards that goal. Communicating clearly may be our greatest challenge as humans. I know I am not sufficiently skilled at it, but I'm trying to improve.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:01 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 2:08 am
Posts: 14
Reply with quote
Post Re: Favorite You Tubes
Sam Hunter wrote:
Chico, did you write the comment above?

Don't be silly! Of course I wrote it. Can't you see the author of the post to the left of it?

Sam Hunter wrote:
If so, please, listen to the video again as Schwartz emphasizes the exact opposite of what you (if it was you) stated above - that "consciousness must come from the brain." He also provides his reasoning as to why it does not.

Sam, you've misread and misunderstood what I wrote. Read it again -- "Dr. Gary Schwartz makes the same mistake that science made in assuming consciousness must come from the brain." Schwartz makes the same kind of mistake that science made when science assumed consciousness must come from the brain. In other words, Schwartz is assuming consciousness must come from outside the brain for the same reasons that science assumed it must come from inside the brain.

What both science and Schwartz should do is admit that they don't know what consciousness is or where it comes from, instead of creating elaborate theories that cannot be properly tested and evaluated.


And the grave mistake you make is in limiting yourself to all and only what satisfies your self created criteria as to what you might then say is properly tested and evaluated never, ever stuck in that limited view and thus stuck in the results of such a limited view.

Reason and the data shows that consciousness does not come forth from the brain. That eliminates materialism, Chico. Yet you cannot eliminate idealism.

You still have never addressed the issue of the infamous "hard problem of consciousness" which only exists within a materialist world view. I make odds high you never do.


Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:09 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy UNPLUGGED (audio series by UncleZook)
Sam Hunter wrote:
No more Holy than your plethora of posts, Chico... perhaps also no less. ;)

My point exactly.

Sam Hunter wrote:
It is a belief system for you perhaps... for me my metaphysical world view is a reasoned theory only and is my current best operational assumption.

It is also a belief system. You have to realize that all we can deal in is belief systems. Even what we call "truth" is a belief system. Do you believe 6 million Jews were gassed to death by the Germans during World War II? That is a belief system. Do you believe the Jew leaders invented the Holocaust story for their own selfish benefit because they are monstrous sociopaths? That too is a belief system. What counts is the quality and quantity of evidence for holding that belief system.

Sam Hunter wrote:
Let's be honest as to what we label these things instead of placing labels on things for mis-characterization purposes with the intended result of discrediting the poster.

I was being honest. My intent was not to discredit the poster (you), but to point out the human tendency to fixate on so-called authoritative "holy" books, like the Bible, the Koran, or the one you linked to.

Sam Hunter wrote:
Do note your own world view "that 'truth' is preeminent" would be characterized the same whichever the case may be - best current operational assumption or 'belief system.'

Exactly. What counts is the quality and quantity of evidence for holding that belief system.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Favorite You Tubes
Sam Hunter wrote:
You still have never addressed the issue of the infamous "hard problem of consciousness" which only exists within a materialist world view. I make odds high you never do.

I hope you didn't bet a lot of money on those odds.

The hard problem of consciousness "is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes."

In other words, it is a problem of explanation.

Religious people often use this same tactic -- "so how do you explain this!?" Since they can explain it using their God belief system, and you cannot explain it, they can assume the "intellectual" high ground due to having an explanation when you do not. It matters not that the explanation is bogus, false, or unverifiable. It only matters that an explanation has been proffered.

The tactic I use when faced with the hard question of consciousness is to be honest and say "I don't know". I don't really know what consciousness is, much less how to explain it. Other people don't know either, despite their elaborate explanations into how they justify their explanations or their shaky premises.

Quote:
Some philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett, Stanislas Dehaene, and Peter Hacker, oppose the idea that there is a hard problem. These theorists argue that once we really come to understand what consciousness is, we will realize that the hard problem is unreal. -- source

That is also the crux of the problem -- we don't even understand what consciousness is! How can we explain something that we have no real understanding of? I'm all for investigating consciousness, but I'm not in favor of explaining it from a position of ignorance.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Jul 16, 2016 7:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 2:08 am
Posts: 14
Reply with quote
Post Re: Consciousness and Idealism
Consciousness doesn't "come from" anywhere as it always was (from the POV you are attempting to look at it from).

Fortunately, this is where words are only pointers and one must have "the eyes to see" what is being pointed to.

Fortunately, we all have the potential to have "these eyes" and eternity is ever patient.


Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:51 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Consciousness and Idealism
Sam Hunter wrote:
Consciousness doesn't "come from" anywhere as it always was (from the POV you are attempting to look at it from).

So it's like God.

Sam Hunter wrote:
Fortunately, this is where words are only pointers and one must have "the eyes to see" what is being pointed to.

So it's like faith.

Sam Hunter wrote:
Fortunately, we all have the potential to have "these eyes" and eternity is ever patient.

All things come to he who waits.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:30 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Consciousness and Idealism
I was reminded of Sam Hunter and his belief system when I read the article quoted below:

Quote:
Despite the lesson that the unseen phenomena of electromagnetic radiation should be teaching us we are still largely unaware of how the limitations of our sensory apparatus have conditioned our models of reality. There are many more unseen phenomena we have yet to detect and understand. Our visual perceptions are far less complete than we have ever imagined, and this has led to a tenacious conceptual bias that has colored our models of reality. This bias is interfering with formulating a broader, deeper more accurate model including tackling the big question we’ve been avoiding — what is consciousness and how it is related to reality. -- source

I have no doubt that we as humans carry a heavy conceptual bias. This is why Sam Hunter's "monistic idealism" is just as flawed as mainstream scientific materialism. In both cases, we assume that we have a capable means of investigating ourselves and our environment, with that "capable means" being our minds and our thoughts. But is such a concept justifiable, when we cannot even experience 99.9% of "what is" because it falls outside of our limited sensory receptors? Is it justifiable when we are clearly forced to oversimplify and reduce complexity down to "rules of thumb" because our mental capabilities are so impoverished? Perhaps the question is not "what is consciousness", but "is consciousness of any use". Perhaps they are the same question to minds as simple as ours, meaning questions we cannot possibly answer with any degree of accuracy.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:26 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.