Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 29th, 2017, 9:22 pm 

To OR,

I asked what it means to know anything. This asks for the nature of knowledge. To say that knowledge is all that we know is a tautology.

You seem to conflate knowledge with any sort of experience. In this regard, one may ask what a pain in the arse contributes to our knowledge [no reference to you intended].

Certainly, sensory experiences (as opposed to raw feelings) provide the matter from which we form judgments that may be either true or false. These are called empirical propositions, because they can be confirmed or falsified only by experience.

Other judgments are true without reference to experience.
For example 2+2=4.

Logically, any proposition is true if it corresponds to a fact.

When any reasonable person would conclude that all of the available information indicates that an empirical judgment is true, it is said to be justified.

This does not mean that such a judgment is necessarily true. Nor is justification an absolute standard. It is essentially a matter of ordinary judgment. Some empirical judgments are clearly justified. Others clearly are not. Unfortunately, there is a wide field of empirical judgments between these two extremes.

The human condition is such that there are many things in life that cannot be determined with absolute certainty where justification is the best we can do.

I am afraid that if you believe the cogito is false, there is no hope for you.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 30th, 2017, 7:57 am 

nameless wrote:"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

Old Rasputin wrote:Nameless, I don’t disagree. But to be more all-encompassing and exacting, we could simply say: Knowledge is anything that we ‘recognize’.

nameless wrote:To be Universal, my definition is necessary. What if you do not 'recognize' something that you perceive?

Then there is no perceiving! -- Without ‘something’ to recognize, then there is ‘nothing’ to perceive, and if there is nothing to perceive, there is no perceiving.

Oh, and by the way, if you didn't 'recognize' that you were perceiving, then how did you know you perceived?

To be truly "universal", I suggest you replace "perceive" with "recognize" in your "universal" definition (of knowledge).

Neri wrote:You seem to conflate knowledge with any sort of experience.

No, only with the experience of 'recognition'. The content of my knowledge is filled with that which I recognize. Knowledge is ‘anything’ that we recognize (...and not just limited to the recognition of beliefs).

Neri wrote:I am afraid that if you believe the cogito is false, there is no hope for you.

Yes, I admit that I can't do the impossible. "Thinking" (creating/authoring) one’s own thoughts is logically impossible. I can only 'experience' my thoughts.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 30th, 2017, 3:12 pm 

BadgerJelly wrote:“Section 22 Locke’s naturalistic-epistemological psychology. (continued)

… Locke makes no use of the Cartesian first introduction of the cognitatio as cognitatio of cogitata – that is, intentionality; he does not recognise it as a subject of investigation (indeed the most authentic subject of the foundation-laying investigations). He is blind to the whole distinction. The soul in something self-contained and real by itself, as is a body; in naïve naturalism the soul is now taken to be like an isolated space, like a writing tablet, in his famous simile, on which psychic data come and go. This data-sensationalism, together with the doctorine of outer and inner sense, dominates psychology and the theory of knowledgefor centuries, even up to the present day; and in spite of the familiar struggle against “psychic atomism,” the basic sense of this doctrine does not change. Of course one speaks quite unavoidably, [even] in the Lockean terminology, of perceptions, representations “of” things, or of believing “in something”, willing “something,” and the like. But no consideration is given to the fact that in the perceptions, in the experiences of consciousness themselves, that of which we are conscious is included as such – that the perception is in itself a perception of something, of “this tree”.


It is also of interest that the Lockean skepticism in respect to the rational ideal of science, and its limitation of the scope of the new sciences (which are supposed to retain their validity), leads to a new sort of agnosticism. It is not that the possibility of science is completely denied, as in ancient skepticism, although again unknowable things-in-themselves are assumed. [But] our human science depends exclusively on our representations and concept-formations; by means of these we may, of course, make inferences extending to what is transcendent; but in principle we cannot obtain actual representations of the things-in-themselves, representations which adequately express the proper essence of these things. We have adequate representations and knowledge only of what is in our own soul.”

Section 23. Berkeley. David Hume’s psychology as fictionalistic theory of knowledge: the “bankruptcy” of philosophy and science.

Locke’s naivetes and inconsistancies lead to a rapid further develpoment of his empiricism, which pushes toward a paradoxical idealism and finally ends in a consummated absurdity. The foundation continues to be sensationalism and what appears to be obvious, i.e., that the sole indubitable ground of all knowledge is self-experience and its realm of immanent data. Starting from here, Berkeley reduces the bodily things which appear in natural experience to the complexes of sense-data themselves through which they appear. No reference is thinkable, [according to Berkeley,] through which conclusions could be drawn from these sense-data about anything but other such data. It could only be inductive inference, i.e., inference growing out of the association of ideas. Matter existing in itself, … according to Locke, is [for Berkeley] a philosophical invention. It is also significant that at the same time he dissolves the manner in which rational natural science builds concepts and tranforms it into a sensationalistic critique of knowledge.

In this direction, Hume goes on to the end. All categories of objectivity – the scientific ones through which an objective, extrapsychic world is thought in scientific life, and the prescientific ones through which it is thought in everyday life – are fictions.

BadgerJelly wrote:So I will ask again for you to comment on them and simply skirt around the bits you find obtuse - give leeway and assume there is a point being made.

Okay, here is my attempt to translate (these overly verbose writings) and get to the 'meat' of what is being said --

    --since the objects of our ‘subjective’ experiences are of some ’objective’ (‘real’) objects, then this relationship unites or reconciles empiricism to rationalism; the subjective to the objective. And also, Hume, (like Old Rasputin) claim that this view is bull-crap, which then discounts Science as a means to expose ‘objective’ truths.

How far off was my translation (and meat)?
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 30th, 2017, 3:56 pm 

Old Rasputin » Tue May 30, 2017 4:57 am wrote:
nameless wrote:"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

Old Rasputin wrote:Nameless, I don’t disagree. But to be more all-encompassing and exacting, we could simply say: Knowledge is anything that we ‘recognize’.

nameless wrote:To be Universal, my definition is necessary. What if you do not 'recognize' something that you perceive?

Then there is no perceiving! -- Without ‘something’ to recognize, then there is ‘nothing’ to perceive, and if there is nothing to perceive, there is no perceiving.

Oh, and by the way, if you didn't 'recognize' that you were perceiving, then how did you know you perceived?

I can perceive something, be aware of it, without recognizing what it is; I can see you without recognizing you.
If there is no thought, there can be no re-cognition (memory).
Recognizing requires thought/memory, perception perceives 'thought/memory'.
Oh, and how can a mirror reflect what is before it without 'recognizing' it?
Recognition is unnecessary to perception.
One Knows that one perceives because Knowledge = experience. We Know what we experience. If I perceive a rock, if I experience a rock, that is Knowledge of rock. No 'validation/proof' required.

To be truly "universal", I suggest you replace "perceive" with "recognize" in your "universal" definition (of knowledge).

That would be an "error" as it would narrow and localize/truncate the definition, departing from it's Universal application and joining the plethora of poor and incomplete/non-Universal definitions.
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 30th, 2017, 4:07 pm 

Neri » Mon May 29, 2017 6:22 pm wrote:You seem to conflate knowledge with any sort of experience. In this regard, one may ask what a pain in the arse contributes to our knowledge [no reference to you intended].

Knowledge = experience, Here! Now!
A pain in the ass is experience/knowledge of a pain in the ass.
Burning a finger we Know fire.
We are (collectively One Consciousness) Omni-, ALL is, thus, Known.

I am afraid that if you believe the cogito is false, there is no hope for you.

'Thought' IS ego/identity, what we imagine/think/'believe' ourselves to be.
Descartes was more on the money than he thought! *__-
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 30th, 2017, 5:31 pm 

nameless wrote:I can perceive something, be aware of it, without recognizing what it is; I can see you without recognizing you.

Really? So then how do you know it is “me” that you are seeing?

Maybe you really are just seeing a “rock” instead? Or maybe you are seeing a “porcupine”? Or maybe you are seeing a “car”, an “elephant”, a “mosquito”? How do you know it is “me” that you are seeing?

Do I dare say the word? (hint: it has 9 letters, starts with a “r” and ends with “e”). I hope you r-e-c-o-g-n-i-z-e my hint. (hint hint)

nameless wrote:If I perceive a rock…

I'm stopping you here. Again, how do you know it is a “rock” that you perceive? Could it be that you r-e-c-o-g-n-i-z-e it as a rock?

How does one identify (know) objects without some recognition? Perceiving by itself does not cut it, nor enable one to know what one perceives.

**********

Nameless, I notice you have been making a lot of seemingly erratic postings on this forum. As a past erratic (and irritating) poster myself (many here can vouch for that!), I highly recommend you calm down, breathe, think, and post responsibly. You will get a little more respect, and not come off as such an irritating jerk. No offense intended. -- I'm just trying to help you out. Take it for whatever its worth to you.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 30th, 2017, 8:17 pm 

Old Rasputin; Really? So then how do you know it is “me” that you are seeing?

nameless; ~~~ Again you are conflating perception/cognition with thought.
You are conflating 'cognizing' with 'RE-cognizing'

Old Rasputin; Maybe you really are just seeing a “rock” instead? Or maybe you are seeing a “porcupine”? Or maybe you are seeing a “car”, an “elephant”, a “mosquito”? How do you know it is “me” that you are seeing?

~~~ I do not know that what I perceive is you. I do not RE-cognize you, but I can attest that 'something' is being perceived.
That which exists is perceived, that which is perceived exists.
All the thinking fills in bits relative to the Perspective of thought.
With no thought, perception is (thought fills in the 'details'; hot, cold, tall, sweet, Bob, nice, nasty... all existing in the eye (thoughts/re-cognition) of the beholder/Perspective.

Old Rasputin; I'm stopping you here. Again, how do you know it is a “rock” that you perceive? Could it be that you r-e-c-o-g-n-i-z-e it as a rock?

~~~ Only when I 'think' about it. And even then I only have Knowledge of the thought about the rock, not the 'rock' itself.
All you can do is 'think' that what you are perceiving is a 'rock', you cannot Know that it is inherently a 'rock'!

Old Rasputin; How does one identify (know) objects without some recognition?

~~~ One perceives 'thought' regarding the perceived 'object'.
Thought = ego = identity.
ALL identities exist in egoic thought.
You conflate 'thought' and Knowledge, which is an error as Knowledge transcends mere thought.
It is a common error to equate 'thought' and Knowledge, which is why Knowledge has never found a good definition/identity!

Old Rasputin; Perceiving by itself does not cut it,

~~~ Meaningless twaddle without some logical refutation AFTER you finally are able to understand what I am talking about.
Sans that understanding, you have nothing to say but requests for elucidation.
Then, perhaps, AFTER you understand what I offer (beyond your 'box'), you can refute, or agree.

Old Rasputin;nor enable one to know what one perceives.

~~~ Thought does not enable you to Know the perceived, it enables you to know the thought about the perceived!

Old Rasputin; Nameless, I notice... for whatever its worth to you.

~~~ Thanks for your unrequested advice, and your declaration of not understanding what I am offering.
When you are capable of understanding what I write, then refute my definition of Knowledge, or offer a better one (greater than Universal), please offer it.
Until then if you find my style of writing, and the truth that I offer offensive, simply ignore it. *__-
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 31st, 2017, 10:13 am 

OR,

Experience of any kind necessarily carries with it the idea that it is conscious. Therefore, to say that we know that we are having an experience is like saying that we are conscious of being conscious. This is meaningless repletion that adds nothing to the idea of consciousness and only conflates consciousness with knowledge.

Everything that we experience is necessarily conscious, yet everything of which we are conscious is not necessarily knowledge, that is, if we consider knowledge to embrace truth. Certainly, anyone who equates knowledge with falsity cannot be counted among the rational.

Thus, It is absurd to say that knowledge is conferred by raw feelings. Knowledge does not concern itself with subjective experiences. It concerns itself with objective and even absolute truth. Otherwise it would be a useless conception.

Indeed, some propositions are necessarily and universally true even though they do not depend on perceptions or feelings. For example, that the sum of the internal angles of any triangle is 180 degrees. We may say the same of all the axioms of mathematics and of all that is logically derived from them—that is, of mathematics generally.

Further, It is flawed reasoning to say that immediate perceptions always confer truth. Again, this conflates knowledge with experience simply because all experience is, by definition, conscious. So that this position is reduced to the absurd notion that whatever one perceives, because it is conscious, is always true.

Yet, Immediate sensory perceptions are not necessarily true, for knowledge is that which everyone cannot but accept as true and not merely an impression subjectively held to be true. Nor is recognition the infallible hallmark of truth

For example, it often happens that the victim of a rape swears that it was a certain suspect who raped her because she is sure that she recognizes his face. Yet, when the semen recovered from her body is analyzed, the DNA is found not to belong to the suspect. [See also my previously posted example of a bear seen in a wood.]

I notice that you have not answered all of the numbered questions I propounded in an earlier post. Please answer them seriatim indicating the number assigned to each question.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2017, 10:41 am 

This has turned out to be more interesting than I thought! :D

I would put emphasis on this quote:

… Locke makes no use of the Cartesian first introduction of the cognitatio as cognitatio of cogitata – that is, intentionality; he does not recognise it as a subject of investigation (indeed the most authentic subject of the foundation-laying investigations). He is blind to the whole distinction.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 31st, 2017, 11:05 am 

nameless wrote:"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

Can you actually know that which is ‘perceived’?

nameless wrote:I do not know that what I perceive…

So if you “do not know that what you perceive”, then how can you claim, and define, “Knowledge as that which is perceived”???

nameless wrote:…but I can attest that 'something' is being perceived.

How can you “attest” to this? For all you have to ‘know’ with, are your perceptions; which results from recognition; thoughts and memory.

If you are dreaming or hallucinating this ‘something’, does this ‘something’ actually exist, or is this 'something' just a product of your ‘perceptions’?

nameless wrote:That which exists is perceived, that which is perceived exists.

If you perceive a ‘flying pig’ in your dream, does it exist?
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2017, 11:18 am 

OR-

No, I don't see that as what is being said. You are putting my words into the text.

It is not that the possibility of science is completely denied, as in ancient skepticism, although again unknowable things-in-themselves are assumed. [But] our human science depends exclusively on our representations and concept-formations; by means of these we may, of course, make inferences extending to what is transcendent; but in principle we cannot obtain actual representations of the things-in-themselves, representations which adequately express the proper essence of these things.


You are where? A complete skeptic or assuming that something exists via inference? Or you somehow hold to the idea that you possess the "essence" of something "in-itself"?

This is a very common, and very ancient, philosophical question we are dealing with here. We are asking what we can be certain of. What conflates the problem is magnitude and measurement, our ability through scientific method to apply universal mathematical knowledge to experience with overwhelming success (that is why we can now talk to each other from different parts of the world, an unmistakable achievement of scientific method and a product of experimental science that has taken into account the postulate of an "in-itself" physical reality. The success is the proof, but this is not to say the success is proof of any kind of universal certainty in some "absolute" sense.

It seems like a good idea to me to stop this thread and look more closely at Hume. I for one do not know a whole lot about him. I have not read his work although I have been introduced to many of his ideas from other sources.

It is here where I understand you OR. It is not possible for us all to read every single philosophical work and have a full picture of it. We have to select those that seem to grab our attention the most and see what they've said that can either help or hinder our own views.

I am currently writing my own approach and I am trying my best not to mention a single philosopher and trying my very best to stop the reader from equating my words with those of another. It is inevitable people here will associate what I say with this or that philosophical view though because that is what we do in order to reach out and understand each other. The language of philosophy is necessarily complex being a whole field specifically interested with exploring and developing fresh ideas and concepts with which to put to use. Kant was the only Kantian, Hume was the only Humean, and Locke was the only Lockean. The rest of us use their philosophies as a means to enable a better understanding from their particular positions and say my view is LIKE this, although I disagree with X and/or Y and found this Z to be a better way to approach the problem.

I pointed out what I have because your "fantasy" seems to equate with something LIKE Hume's "fiction" that Husserl refers to. Husserl goes on to say that Hume essentially falls into a solipsism, something that may or may not be the case. Husserl accusing Hume of saying that science is a "fiction" as is "ethics" ... I will probably continue later with a couple of more quotes before abandoning this thread though because there are four more pages I wanted to go over as briefly as possible prior to dipping into Kant.

Husserl returns to the problem of "psychology" for the empirical sciences over and over. The term "psychic atomism" is a reference to how empirical science has attempted to apply quantity to qualitative attributes. This was mentioned some time back by Biv I believe in reference to the "measuring" of something being the same as the "feeling", yet this abandons what seems too obvious to me, that being we can have a "feeling" about measuring, a subjective claim over the act of "measuring" and must have an emotional content (an INTENT) about an act being performed. The same can not be said the other way around because to have a "measure" about feeling requires a feeling (emotional intent) of measuring otherwise we wouldn't make a measurement in the first place.

Note: I completely understand the difficulty of the last few sentences above and can also see that my parenthesis have not really clarified the issue I meant to point out. This is something I am working on now and something I don't expect to resolve, but at least hope to refine enough to gain some assistance from others here.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2017, 11:27 am 

OR -

We've been over this before, I believe several times. Dream or not the perception is really "OF SOMETHING". You dream about a pig because you know what a pig is. You do not dream about something you cannot comprehend (if you do you don't perceive it as such because you cannot).

When I say "pig" we all know what is meant by "pig". We are all familiar enough with the concept and have probably seen a pig on TV or in real life. We will all have our own personal experiences of "pig" yet we all understand what "pig" means as a general concept, as the animal "pig". The subjective views we each possess do not detract from the objective view. The objective view being the one required for us to even communicate the idea of "pig" in the first place.

If I feel hot I feel hot. If you touch me and I feel cold to the touch this does not detract my sensation and falsify it. If I feel hot I feel hot. If I see a pig I see a pig. If the pig is there or not, or whether I feel hot to others or not does not matters to me from a position of wanting to understand the overall picture rather than just MY personal view.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2017, 11:34 am 

So ... this is why some say inter-subjectivity IS what the objective view of the world is built from. Logically it must be so for us to be having this conversation with these very specific (and less so) terms. Other wise we'd just be grunting and saying "oiut tnhuod fnn nfnbie hbeyb" and pretending to understand each other. We don't pretend to understand each other (well ... occasionally we may obviously misinterpret and make oblique remarks fooling ourselves as well as others!)

We can communicate because there is a common ground from which we can understand each other. What is this "common ground"? That is up for debate! We do necessarily seem to assume there to be one though and logic, if "correct" (whatever that means in this bizarre context!), is our method of navigation. The method of the method is yet again a seemingly bizarre question and until we can abandon these ideas or simply create new concepts to handle them better we're left here discussing as best we can what the hell is going on! :D
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2017, 11:41 am 

It is in these absurdities of life that we see people turning to mysticism because they often abandon the rigid of reason simply because it is easier to do so. Here artist license kicks-in and the joy of life seems to overwhelm the reasoning and cold logic.

In my serious pursuit of "whatever" generally always find myself smiling at my own ignorance. Ignorance doesn't scare me. Thinking I truly KNOW anything I find to be a very scary prospect and makes me think of people blowing themselves up and killing people because they are so convinced that their view is completely beyond doubt. If something is beyond doubt to you then you are categorically WRONG. I would even say that 1+1=2 is wrong in some applications (as mentioned before the physical claim of a "1" is merely the representation of the concept "1", the "1" does not exist in a physical sense yet it has a more REAL appearance than anything physical and cannot be mistaken as "2" ... unless you're drunk! - well not even if you are drunk just to be clear, because the mathematical concept of "1" doesn't change)

note: Not had a Vietnamese coffee for three weeks ... HOLY SHIT this stuff is STRONG!! haha! happy musings
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 31st, 2017, 11:57 am 

Neri wrote:Experience of any kind necessarily carries with it the idea that it is conscious.

We have discussed this before, and I think we came the conclusion that we would agree to disagree on this point.

You believe that consciousness and experiences are integral to each other. Whereas I believe these are two separate things.

Neri wrote:Therefore, to say that we know that we are having an experience is like saying that we are conscious of being conscious.

Not so. I equate “conscious of” as “knowing of”. So in this respect, there are some bodily experiences that we ‘know’ (are conscious of), and there are some that we don’t know (are not conscious of).

Neri wrote:This is meaningless repletion that adds nothing to the idea of consciousness and only conflates consciousness with knowledge.

Yes, I conflate/equate consciousness with knowledge, and because of this, it does not make for meaningless repletion.

Neri wrote:Knowledge does not concern itself with subjective experiences. It concerns itself with objective and even absolute truth. Otherwise it would be a useless conception.

What you call “knowledge” I call “true knowledge”. So in this respect, we see eye to eye. Truths type #1 (absolute) and type #2 (objective) are “true knowledge”.

The reason I distinguish the “true knowledge" from "knowledge", is because everyone has knowledge, everyone “knows” stuff. This “stuff” that we all know, may be true, false, nonsensical, or pure fantasy.

You nailed it with the types #1 and #2, as being “true/real knowledge” (i.e. #1 is an absolute truth, and # 2 are logical truths). And types #3, 4, and 5, are NOT ‘real’ (objective) truths/knowledge.

Now as for types #3 (subjective - dependent on experiential effects), #4 (religious - dependent on blind faiths), and #5 (non-truths - the logically impossible), are not themselves considered ‘real’ (objective) truths. But if you were to ask the scientist that relies on their type #3 truths, or the religious person that relies on their type #4 truths, they wholly believe in their so-called "truths".

Neri wrote:Indeed, some propositions are necessarily and universally true even though they do not depend on perceptions or feelings. For example, that the sum of the internal angles of any triangle is 180 degrees. We may say the same of all the axioms of mathematics and of all that is logically derived from them—that is, of mathematics generally.

I absolutely agree. These are type #2 truths - logical truths; pre-experiential; a priori truths (…are NOT dependent on one’s experiences).

Neri wrote:Further, It is flawed reasoning to say that immediate perceptions always confer truth.

Agreed. These type #3 truths, our subjective experiences/perceptions, are never trustworthy to yield true knowledge.

Neri wrote:Yet, Immediate sensory perceptions are not necessarily true, for knowledge is that which everyone cannot but accept as true and not merely an impression subjectively held to be true. Nor is recognition the infallible hallmark of truth.

If you are referring to “true knowledge”, I agree. But ‘any/all’ knowledge, whether true, false, or otherwise, comes to us through 'recognition'. Again, I agree that just because we know something (recognize something) that it does not necessarily make it true.

Neri wrote:I notice that you have not answered all of the numbered questions I propounded in an earlier post. Please answer them seriatim indicating the number assigned to each question.

Sorry, I did not answer these because the earlier point, made these questions no longer relevant.

*********

BadgerJelly wrote:We've been over this before, I believe several times. Dream or not the perception is really "OF SOMETHING". You dream about a pig because you know what a pig is. You do not dream about something you cannot comprehend (if you do you don't perceive it as such because you cannot).

Huh? Have I ever disagreed with you on this?

Of course, we can only know that which we 'recognize'. If I never knew/experienced a pig in the first place, then I could never recognize ‘pig’ (in a dream, or anywhere else).

The "flying pig" exists ONLY in memory/imagination, ...and not in reality!
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 31st, 2017, 1:04 pm 

OR,

I am afraid that you are piling rubbish upon rubbish.

If there is “real knowledge,” there must be such as thing as “unreal knowledge” and this is nonsense. It is like saying that one who believes that 2+2=5 possess a kind of knowledge.

Certainly, a belief that corresponds to a fact qualifies as knowledge, because it is true. A belief that does not correspond to a fact is false and therefore cannot qualify as knowledge of any sort. I do not know how to put it plainer than that.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Neri on May 31st, 2017, 1:08 pm 

BJ,

Your thread has raised many interesting questions and I know that you have valiantly tried to keep the discussion on point. You are to be complimented for this. Unfortunately, a certain individual has succeeded in steering the discussion out of the domain of rationality. I tried to help you bring it back. Alas, to no avail. It seems to me, therefore, that there is no purpose in continuing with this discussion.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 31st, 2017, 3:24 pm 

BadgerJelly wrote:I would put emphasis on this quote:

… Locke makes no use of the Cartesian first introduction of the cognitatio as cognitatio of cogitata – that is, intentionality; he does not recognise it as a subject of investigation (indeed the most authentic subject of the foundation-laying investigations). He is blind to the whole distinction.

Sorry I don’t know what “cognitatio as cognitatio of cogitata” means. If it means “intentionality”, then this is just more fantasy talk.

“Intentionality” is a self-contradicting word, and hence its fantasy/fictionalism. For what does it really mean? How does one “intend” anything? Must one first possess the “intention” to do this “intending”? And if so, then does one need to intend this intention, etc, etc etc ?

“Intentionality” is just another make-believe word used by people that wish to write fantasy.
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2017, 4:08 pm 

Neri » June 1st, 2017, 1:08 am wrote:BJ,

Your thread has raised many interesting questions and I know that you have valiantly tried to keep the discussion on point. You are to be complimented for this. Unfortunately, a certain individual has succeeded in steering the discussion out of the domain of rationality. I tried to help you bring it back. Alas, to no avail. It seems to me, therefore, that there is no purpose in continuing with this discussion.


Ignore him then and speak to me. I will also go back to your Kant thing later. First want to tie this thread up with last few quotes and try and summarise then go on to what Husserl says about Kant (more in depth).

Also, I would appreciate feedback on essay I am writing now that ties into this subject. I have never attempted to write an essay on philosophy before so would like critical feedback on it (no idea when I will have something to present, but think it maybe a quite long).

OR-

You have a computer so do a search for a translation. Better still maybe our resident Italian can chime in (neuro?)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on May 31st, 2017, 6:50 pm 

Old Rasputin » Wed May 31, 2017 8:05 am wrote:
nameless wrote:"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

Can you actually know that which is ‘perceived’?

That is the definition of Knowledge.
What is perceived/experienced, is Known.
Thus is EVERYTHING Known!
Thus are We Omni-,
One.
To perceive, to experience, is to Know. Here! Now!
Sometimes, what is perceived are 'thoughts', then are 'thoughts' Known.
Always, it is Mind that is perceived, ever.
Mind is the 'undifferentiated potential' that we seem to 'differentiate' by our limited Perspectives.
Thoughts are, like everything else, inherent features of Mind.

nameless wrote:I do not know that what I perceive…

So if you “do not know that what you perceive”, then how can you claim, and define, “Knowledge as that which is perceived”???

I'm glad that you, at least, put that ellipsis on the end, because I would never phrase a complete sentence like that.
Why did you do that?
If you are going to take a quote, take the whole thing;
"I do not know that what I perceive is you. I do not RE-cognize you, but I can attest that 'something' is being perceived."
In light of the entire sentence, what you are calling inconsistent becomes quite consistent.
Shall we keep this intellectually honest?

nameless wrote:…but I can attest that 'something' is being perceived.

How can you “attest” to this? For all you have to ‘know’ with, are your perceptions; which results from recognition; thoughts and memory.

Let me rephrase for you, I KNOW that something (that which exists) is being perceived. Opening my mouth and stating that something is being perceived, using duality and thought, which, now, you can perceive...

If you are dreaming or hallucinating this ‘something’, does this ‘something’ actually exist, or is this 'something' just a product of your ‘perceptions’?

'Thought' exists, it is perceived.
Is there any difference between the existing thought and the 'content' of that thought?
If the 'thought' exists, the 'unicorn' exists.
'Dreams' (whatever 'they' are) are also perceived features of the One unchanging ALL inclusive Reality/Truth/Self!...

nameless wrote:That which exists is perceived, that which is perceived exists.

If you perceive a ‘flying pig’ in your dream, does it exist?

Betcherass! *__-
Everything exists!
If you can name it, describe it, imagine it... it exists!
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on May 31st, 2017, 8:59 pm 

Old Rasputin wrote:
nameless wrote:"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

Can you actually know that which is ‘perceived’?

nameless wrote:That is the definition of Knowledge.

Who’s definition? …is this your religion’s definition?

Old Rasputin wrote:
nameless wrote:I do not know that what I perceive…

So if you “do not know that what you perceive”, then how can you claim, and define, “Knowledge as that which is perceived”???

nameless wrote:I'm glad that you, at least, put that ellipsis on the end, because I would never phrase a complete sentence like that. Why did you do that?

Does it matter what the ‘object’ of the perceiving is? That which follows the ellipsis is irrelevant.

Your ending only proves my point “…but I can attest that ‘something’ is being perceived.” ...which means that you don't really know what you perceive, but yet you still adamantly claim that "Knowledge is that which is perceived", ...can you not see the problem with this claim???

nameless wrote:Shall we keep this intellectually honest?

Yes, how about “we” do that. Don’t be coy and claim a false injustice. I noticed that you never answered my question, but instead preferred to hide behind the obfuscation of the use of my ellipsis. So again, I ask:

If you “do not know that what you perceive”, then how can you claim, and define, “Knowledge as that which is perceived”???

...or is this really just a “religious belief” that you blindly accept?

Old Rasputin wrote:
nameless wrote:…but I can attest that 'something' is being perceived.

How can you “attest” to this? For all you have to ‘know’ with, are your perceptions; which results from recognition; thoughts and memory.

nameless wrote:Let me rephrase for you, I KNOW that something (that which exists) is being perceived. Opening my mouth and stating that something is being perceived, using duality and thought, which, now, you can perceive...

So why do you have such a hard time admitting to or using the word “recognition”? Is this a bad word in your religion? Isn't your ”using duality and thought” a means of recognizing (knowing) that which you perceive?

Again, how about keeping this brutally honest?

nameless wrote:
Old Rasputin wrote:If you perceive a ‘flying pig’ in your dream, does it exist?

Betcherass! *__-
Everything exists!
If you can name it, describe it, imagine it... it exists!

Only in one's (delusional) mind, ...right?

...or are you actually saying that "flying pigs" exist in 'reality', for other's to perceive? If so, I certainly haven't seen any here in Texas. So where can I see one of these "flying pigs" at?
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on June 1st, 2017, 12:20 am 

Old Rasputin » Wed May 31, 2017 5:59 pm wrote:Who’s definition? …is this your religion’s definition?

The definition that I offered.
An irrefutable definition speaks for itself, what's the difference where it comes from?
So what if it were some religion's definition? So what if Hitler's? So what if mine?

Does it matter what the ‘object’ of the perceiving is? That which follows the ellipsis is irrelevant.

What followed the ellipsis changes the entire meaning.
Frankly, it seems that this is turning into something other than a simple intellectual rational discussion.
And this niggling nitpicking and twisting of my words, are symptoms of a 'belief' feeling threatened, while in no way refuting the definition of Knowledge that I offered.
Though I think that it might have been Aristotle or Plato who first might have mentioned that 'Knowledge = experience', I came to the same theory, but added the 'immediacy' to it.

As for the rest, I've said all I needed to sat in this conversation.
See ya around.
Have a nice night. *__-
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on June 1st, 2017, 4:18 am 

EVERYONE try and keep on track please.

nameless -

I would say don't engage with OR (aka. RJG). I see you've figured this out pretty quickly already thopugh as many have before. I only bother because I was once in his position and then was committed enough to actually do some reading and find a way to engage with others who've studied philosophy (as in not simply sat around thinking about stuff, but have an understanding of the difficulties with terminology and the many divisions of philosophical positions).

I was actually so puzzled by Owleye that I went out and read Critic of Pure Reason because of him (I remain thnkaful to him for that). Ironically he then admitted he'd never read it once I tried to discuss it with him! hahaha! Funny guy, I guess he knew enough about it to know I'd be pressed to read it.

Have a look at his previous posts under RJG and you'll get a reasonable idea of this guys obstinate nature and lack of flexibility. He simply doesn't know much about what he is talking about and in his ignorance feels insulted and defensive even though people try and try to point at the flaws in his so called arguments.

OR -

I just don't think you care enough. If you do you'll have to prove it to yourself and challenge yourself. The horse and the water and all that. Right now I just feel like I am drowning you rather than encouraging you to drink.

I'll wait for your last silly comeback then foe you again. By all means let me know if you start caring though and I will be happy to discuss things again.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on June 1st, 2017, 4:40 am 

BadgerJelly » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:18 am wrote:EVERYONE try and keep on track please.

nameless -

I would say don't engage with OR (aka. RJG). I see you've figured this out pretty quickly already thopugh as many have before.

Thank you for the advice, though I'm sure that the same sage advice has been offered of me! *__-
I do know when to stop talking when I have no more to add.
And
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on June 1st, 2017, 4:47 am 

CONTINUED DIRECTLY FROM LAST QUOTE ...

NOTE : I purposely cut it short last time to allow people to think. This should tie up this section ...

In this direction, Hume goes on to the end. All categories of objectivity – the scientific ones through which an objective, extrapsychic world is thought in scientific life, and the prescientific ones through which it is thought in everyday life – are fictions. First come the mathematical concepts: number, magnitude, continuum, geometrical figure, etc. We would say that they are methodically necessary idealizations of what is given intuitively. For Hume, however, they are fictions; and the same is true, accordingly, of the whole of supposedly apodictic mathematics. The origin of these fictions can be explained perfectly well psychologically (i.e., in terms of immanent sensationalism), namely, through the immanent lawfulness of the associations and the relations between ideas. But even the categories of the prescientific world, of straightforwardly intuited world - those of corporeity (i.e., the identity of persisting bodies supposedly found in immediate, experiencing intuition), as well as the supposedly experienced identity of the person - are nothing but fictions. We say, for example, "that" tree over there, and distinguish from it its changing manners of appearing [Erscheinungsweisen]. But immanently, psychically, there is nothing there but these "manners of appearing." These are complexes of data, and again and again other complexes of data - "bound together", regulated, to be sure, by association, which explains the illusion of experiencing something identical. The same is true of the person: an identical "I" is not datum but a ceaselessly changing bundle of data. Identity is a psychological fiction. To the fictions of this sort also belongs causality, or necessary succession. Immanent experience exhibits only a post hoc. The propter hoc, the necessity of the succession, is a fictive misconstruction. Thus, in Hume's Treatise, the world in general, nature, the universe of identical bodies, the world of identical persons, and accordingly also objective science, which knows these in their objective truth, are transformed into fiction. To be consistent, we must say; reason, knowledge, including that of true values, of pure ideals of every sort, including ethical - all this is fiction.

This is indeed, then, the bankruptcy of objective knowledge. Hume ends up, basically, in a solipsism. For how could inferences from data to other data ever reach beyond the immanent sphere?

...

Like all skepticism, all irrationalism, the Humean sort cancels itself out. Astounding as hume's genius is, it is the more regrettable that a correspondingly great philosophical ethos is not joined with it. ...
Instead of taking up the struggle against absurdity, instead of unmasking those supossedly obvious views upon which sensationalism, and psychologism in general, rests, in order to penetrate to a coherent self-understanding and a genuine theory of knowledge, he remains in the comfortable and very impressive role of academic skepticism.


My final entry from quote will be from section 24, titled "The genuine philosophical motif hidden in the absurdity of Hume's skepticism: the shaking of objectivism." Two pages long so should be able to sum it up in my next post here.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on June 1st, 2017, 5:01 am 

nameless » June 1st, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:
BadgerJelly » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:18 am wrote:EVERYONE try and keep on track please.

nameless -

I would say don't engage with OR (aka. RJG). I see you've figured this out pretty quickly already thopugh as many have before.

Thank you for the advice, though I'm sure that the same sage advice has been offered of me! *__-
I do know when to stop talking when I have no more to add.
And


Hell yeah! To all of us I'm sure. The difference is whether or not we listen to criticism and try to find a different approach.

I once had the idea of making the same point in several different ways. One using day-to-day colloquial speech, one more inclined toward analogies and mysticism, another more about semantics, and finally one dealing with more familiar (to sum" philosophical jargon.

I like to think I have made a considerable leap in my understanding of how to present philosophical views. I would not say I have really changed my overall view merely learnt of the many ways to present it and the many ways it can be interpreted. Somethings I would never I said before because I thought they sounded ridiculous and obtuse ... then I read Heidegger and realized what I was saying was much easier to grasp than what he says! haha!

On this forum you say "soul" or "sprit" and people think you're away with the pixies rather than understand that these terms can be used in ways that don't necessarily relate to mythos and fantasy. This is a forum primarily ruled over by science minded people though (IMO) and that is a more of a bonus than not.

This forum pushes me to be more precise and to consider my words more and more. Like with art, if what I say is too open to interpretation then I am failing in some way. Happy misunderstandings do happen though which can be even more interesting than the original point being made ... it is that exact point that really captures my attention and why I said "ART' has been a topic of interest here, it just tends to have been threaded into numerous discussions here over the years. The mystic in us all loves to throw that spanner in the works, and I pay particular attention to it in regard to the whole theme of "subjectivity", which I have running through practically every post I've made (obviously! haha!)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby nameless on June 1st, 2017, 5:46 am 

BadgerJelly » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:01 am wrote:I once had the idea of making the same point in several different ways.

If it comes to a one on one, often, I speak to the crowd and the words come as they must. It's not as if I have any choice in the matter. At best, I step out of the way and they just flow appropriately.
If I know that I am speaking to a Xtian, for instance, I will use Xtian metaphor and terms.

On this forum you say "soul" or "sprit" and people think you're away with the pixies rather than understand that these terms can be used in ways that don't necessarily relate to mythos and fantasy. This is a forum primarily ruled over by science minded people

I don't often use 'spirit' because it means so much to so many, too nebulous, but if I use 'Soul', I can sell it to any 'scientist' capable of logic! *__-

This is a forum primarily ruled over by science minded people though (IMO) and that is a more of a bonus than not.

Science, all the sciences, are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy; original critical thought and any other means of Knowing!
Sometimes a 'scientist' finds himself in a ditch and is ready to expand his Reality.
Here I Am! *__-

... theme of "subjectivity", which I have running through practically every post I've made (obviously! haha!)

'Subject' and 'object', one and the same thing from two opposite Perspectives!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

As quantum (even classical) demonstrates, there is no definite distinction to be found between the observer and the observed, subject and object.
At best, all is uniquely, 'subjectively' perceived.
I guess we can chat on the appropriate threads.
Later... *__-
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby Old Rasputin on June 1st, 2017, 7:43 am 

nameless wrote:
Old Rasputin wrote:If you perceive a ‘flying pig’ in your dream, does it exist?

Betcherass! *__-
Everything exists!
If you can name it, describe it, imagine it... it exists!

Does this "flying pig" exist in reality for others to perceive, or only in one's mind?

Nameless -- I notice that you always run away from the hard questions. ...why is this? ...are you afraid your religion will be exposed as a fraud?

Badger -- if Nameless is afraid to answer, then maybe you know his religion's 'official response' to this (type of) question?

If it is true truth, then why the fear to answer this simple question?
Old Rasputin
 


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby TheVat on June 1st, 2017, 8:44 am 

"It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover." - Henri Poincare

User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7700
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Empirical and Rational approaches to Consciousness

Postby BadgerJelly on June 1st, 2017, 9:54 am 

OR -

He is not afraid to answer. I think he just understands the inference of the question more than you do so sees it as quite pointless to bang his head against the wall.

Btw what definition of "religion" are you choosing to use today.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests