Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

From ethics to metaphysics and everything in between

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby Dissily Mordentroge » Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 am

romansh wrote:What is exactly awareness? I can sense light, sound, taste, smell, touch (perhaps other senses) things that (at least I hope) are reflections of material objects around me. I appear to have a memory that I can correlate the material objects I think I am sensing in what passes as now. Is that awareness/consciousness? Of course I have a capability to create and ascribe more detailed predictive models to the objects I sense. Is that consciousness?
At times it can be revealing to step back from the arguments/ statements we make and examine the language we use.
If consciousness is an illusion what are we referring to when we use the first person 'I' ? If this 'I' is an illusion then what is making a statement such as 'I am sensing what passes now' ? This of course leaves aside the notion of 'collective consciousness', a conception thrown around with reckless abandon yet riddled with contradictions.
Dissily Mordentroge wrote: Freudians may want to argue that but they dealt themselves out of the game when they invented the term 'sub-conscious'. Which leads to questions about states of anaesthesia but that's another topic I suspect.
And that's all before we get tangled up with anything like the synthetic a priori.

You have the advantage over me when it comes to Freud and the synthetic a priori

Maybe I do but don't imagine I have any deep respect for most of Freud's theories. The synthetic a priori however is worth investigation. It would appear in some way to point towards a logical foundation to our (unconscious?) thinking processes. An operating system we are born with?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... a%20priori
The Human Race is Insane.
User avatar
Dissily Mordentroge
Member
Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:36 pm
Location: Australia
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: Australia

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby romansh » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:19 am

Dissily Mordentroge wrote:If consciousness is an illusion what are we referring to when we use the first person 'I' ? If this 'I' is an illusion then what is making a statement such as 'I am sensing what passes now' ? This of course leaves aside the notion of 'collective consciousness', a conception thrown around with reckless abandon yet riddled with contradictions.

Maybe I do but don't imagine I have any deep respect for most of Freud's theories. The synthetic a priori however is worth investigation. It would appear in some way to point towards a logical foundation to our (unconscious?) thinking processes. An operating system we are born with?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... a%20priori

Just as a re-clarification, I am using illusion in the sense of "not as it seems".

Yes if consciousness is an illusion then "I" is also not as it seems. Our waking hours seem pretty seamless and yet apparently we are blind for about two hours a day (in very small bursts). Now seems pretty instantaneous but it would seem it is a blend of the last 2 to 3 seconds. In sports that time reduces to tens of milliseconds. We are completely unaware of the chemistry and physics that determines our choices. We inhabit a world of where we have an inner voice that confabulates choices for us. We ascribe colour to objects and yet physics throws some doubt on them actually being the colour we see in our mind's eye.

Collective conscious? Well I am skeptical of plain old consciousness never mind the collective one. Some seem to argue there is an optimum amount that of complex connectivity that results in consciousness. I just wonder then why more does not result in more consciousness?

So a synthetic a priori is like an axiom we might have?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4677
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby Dissily Mordentroge » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:06 pm

romansh wrote:Yes if consciousness is an illusion then "I" is also not as it seems. Our waking hours seem pretty seamless and yet apparently we are blind for about two hours a day (in very small bursts). Now seems pretty instantaneous but it would seem it is a blend of the last 2 to 3 seconds. In sports that time reduces to tens of milliseconds. We are completely unaware of the chemistry and physics that determines our choices. We inhabit a world of where we have an inner voice that confabulates choices for us. We ascribe colour to objects and yet physics throws some doubt on them actually being the colour we see in our mind's eye.

Collective conscious? Well I am skeptical of plain old consciousness never mind the collective one. Some seem to argue there is an optimum amount that of complex connectivity that results in consciousness. I just wonder then why more does not result in more consciousness?

So a synthetic a priori is like an axiom we might have?
In some interpretations yes. However, a number of philosophers want to claim our brains contain a pre determined at birth logical system (operating system?) able to formulate rules of logic without referrence to the external world of experience. I'm more inclined to suggest it's our internal rule based thought processes interacting with the world of sensation that formulates the synthetic a priori. Depriving any individual of external stimulus from an early age totally destroys any faculty for analysing the world from either a synthetic a priori view point or from rules that could have been learnt from experience and experimentation.
I wan't to contrast such considerations with the peculiar idea that artificial intellegence posssesses anything like consciousness. One great danger our species faces results from the presumption artificial intelligence can have designed into it something equal to our capacity for conscious self awareness of the world. Has anyone yet constructed a logic chip that experiences pain and through empathy views inflicting pain on 'others' as a bad thing? Genetic algorithms running within computers can be programmed to learn effective methods/ moves reinforcing the survival of such entities without that intelligence being consciousness therefore unable to (or need to) consider the effects of it's actions on our species. Sorry, I've wandered off topic - - - -
The Human Race is Insane.
User avatar
Dissily Mordentroge
Member
Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:36 pm
Location: Australia
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: Australia

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby Dissily Mordentroge » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:08 pm

Dissily Mordentroge wrote:
romansh wrote:Yes if consciousness is an illusion then "I" is also not as it seems. Our waking hours seem pretty seamless and yet apparently we are blind for about two hours a day (in very small bursts). Now seems pretty instantaneous but it would seem it is a blend of the last 2 to 3 seconds. In sports that time reduces to tens of milliseconds. We are completely unaware of the chemistry and physics that determines our choices. We inhabit a world of where we have an inner voice that confabulates choices for us. We ascribe colour to objects and yet physics throws some doubt on them actually being the colour we see in our mind's eye.

Collective conscious? Well I am skeptical of plain old consciousness never mind the collective one. Some seem to argue there is an optimum amount that of complex connectivity that results in consciousness. I just wonder then why more does not result in more consciousness?

So a synthetic a priori is like an axiom we might have?
In some interpretations yes. However, a number of philosophers want to claim our brains contain a pre determined at birth logical system (operating system?) able to formulate rules of logic without referrence to the external world of experience. I'm more inclined to suggest it's our internal rule based thought processes interacting with the world of sensation that formulates the synthetic a priori. Depriving any individual of external stimulus from an early age totally destroys any faculty for analysing the world from either a synthetic a priori view point or from rules that could have been learnt from experience and experimentation.
I wan't to contrast such considerations with the peculiar idea that artificial intellegence posssesses anything like consciousness. One great danger our species faces results from the presumption artificial intelligence can have designed into it something equal to our capacity for conscious self awareness of the world. Has anyone yet constructed a logic chip that experiences pain and through empathy able to experience inflicting pain on 'others' as a bad thing? Genetic algorithms running within computers can be programmed to learn effective methods/ moves reinforcing the survival of such entities without that intelligence being conscious therefore unable to (or need to) consider the effects of it's actions on our species. Sorry, I've wandered off topic - - - -
The Human Race is Insane.
User avatar
Dissily Mordentroge
Member
Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:36 pm
Location: Australia
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: Australia

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby romansh » Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:48 pm

Dissily Mordentroge wrote: In some interpretations yes. However, a number of philosophers want to claim our brains contain a pre determined at birth logical system (operating system?) able to formulate rules of logic without referrence to the external world of experience.-

Ah .. Tabula rasa versus the environment. From my point of view ... nature and nurture are one (monism). Perhaps displaced in time.
Dissily Mordentroge wrote: I'm more inclined to suggest it's our internal rule based thought processes interacting with the world of sensation that formulates the synthetic a priori. Depriving any individual of external stimulus from an early age totally destroys any faculty for analysing the world from either a synthetic a priori view point or from rules that could have been learnt from experience and experimentation.

Well I still would argue evolution has given as a proclivity to be susceptible have rule based thought processes. Our immediate environment tends to fill in what the rules are. But there might be the odd rule or two built in. But I agree on the 100 % on the deprivation of stimulus.
Dissily Mordentroge wrote:I wan't to contrast such considerations with the peculiar idea that artificial intelligence posssesses anything like consciousness. One great danger our species faces results from the presumption artificial intelligence can have designed into it something equal to our capacity for conscious self awareness of the world. Has anyone yet constructed a logic chip that experiences pain and through empathy able to experience inflicting pain on 'others' as a bad thing? Genetic algorithms running within computers can be programmed to learn effective methods/ moves reinforcing the survival of such entities without that intelligence being conscious therefore unable to (or need to) consider the effects of it's actions on our species. Sorry, I've wandered off topic - - - -

Well if AI does possess consciousness I think it will likely be nothing mine and presumably yours. Is consciousness predicated on pain and suffering? Love and other emotions?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4677
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby gilnv » Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:41 pm

romansh wrote:
Dissily Mordentroge wrote: In some interpretations yes. However, a number of philosophers want to claim our brains contain a pre determined at birth logical system (operating system?) able to formulate rules of logic without referrence to the external world of experience.-

Ah .. Tabula rasa versus the environment. From my point of view ... nature and nurture are one (monism). Perhaps displaced in time.

In addition to the ideas that 'our brains being born with innate info' and the 'blank slate at birth (Tabula Rasa)' there is the 'Morphic Resonance' idea of Rupert Sheldrake.
It basically implies that there is a paranormal influence by which a pattern of events or behavior can facilitate subsequent occurrences of similar patterns.
Here is a 4 minute video of Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaking about Morphic Resonance.
I like it because it touches on many topics such as 'flock of birds moving in unison', quantum entanglement, how our minds think, etc. And its a wild idea too that takes guts to put out there.

the divine isn't a living entity, it is the living force within all of us.
- Sadhguru
User avatar
gilnv
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 891
Images: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:59 am
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby romansh » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:27 am

Dissily Mordentroge wrote:
romansh wrote:
Bill wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternatively there always has been something ... a universe, multiverse or whatever?
A non interventionist god ... should it exist does not give us any special insights either.
It is OK to say I don't know. Having said that ... what next?

What next? Maybe facing up to the nasty truth that human nature is our real enemy and if we don't start thinking about our species absurd obsession with weapons of mass destruction and with carelessly placing them in the hands of juvenile, tantrum throwing idiots , said species deserves it's self inflicted extinction. As least then none of us will be bothered again with cosmological/theological questions that at this point are not only unanswerable but a waste of time. And we have very little time left.
Maybe some theological genius lurking in the background can convince me an all loving God will pop out of the nothingness just in time to save us all by providing another comforting delusion. - - - - - - -? ? ?

Rather than just jumping to a conclusion, nasty or otherwise we could get a sense of how the universe actually ticks and work our way up from there.

Personally I find these questions of Life, the Universe and Everything interesting. You seem to be espousing some form of dualism which is fine. I can't help but think monism [some forms] is a more accurate description of how the universe ticks.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4677
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby Dissily Mordentroge » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:58 pm

romansh wrote:Rather than just jumping to a conclusion, nasty or otherwise we could get a sense of how the universe actually ticks and work our way up from there.
I'm unsure which conclusion I'm supposed to have jumped to here but agree getting a sense of 'how the universe actually ticks' working our way up from there is an attractive option. However, the presumption we will ever acquire in full a sense of how the universe actually ticks is only that, a presumtion. No harm in trying however.

Personally I find these questions of Life, the Universe and Everything interesting. You seem to be espousing some form of dualism which is fine. I can't help but think monism [some forms] is a more accurate description of how the universe ticks.

Thus far I'm not convinced of any form of dualism makes sense. As to 'some forms' of monism being more accurate you leave us wondering which forms.

Image
The Human Race is Insane.
User avatar
Dissily Mordentroge
Member
Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:36 pm
Location: Australia
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: Australia

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

Postby romansh » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:57 pm

Dissily Mordentroge wrote: I'm unsure which conclusion I'm supposed to have jumped to here

This one immediately comes to mind:
    truth that human nature is our real enemy
Dissily Mordentroge wrote: but agree getting a sense of 'how the universe actually ticks' working our way up from there is an attractive option. However, the presumption we will ever acquire in full a sense of how the universe actually ticks is only that, a presumtion. No harm in trying however.

If I ever appear to give the impression that we can have a full/complete understanding of how the universe ticks, please give me a smack.

Dissily Mordentroge wrote: Thus far I'm not convinced of any form of dualism makes sense. As to 'some forms' of monism being more accurate you leave us wondering which forms.

Well the one I like is everything is a result of cause and effect. So in this sense everything is connected albeit some of the connections are very tenuous.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4677
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Previous

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron