When a rational being intends to understand the entirety of existence, then it begins to philosophize. I believe it may begin with the expression of a meaningful series of questions. The expressions are arbitrary; it is the feeling or notion that is distinct. The notion of philosophy in a broad sense is the study of everything. Most humans, it would seem, do not seek to know everything; such a goal is quite unrealistic. Yet any attempt to escape the ennui of any circumstance would require that one tries to transcend the circumstance, even if the attempt is futile.
Perhaps the goal of philosophy is to know as much as one can. That seems to be what many philosophers do, they either explicitly state what they know, or they express a method that one can use to obtain knowledge. I personally prefer the Socratic Method, in which case one seeks knowledge through systematic questioning; although in practice most investigations fall short of a perfect or complete line of questioning. From what I have seen it would be foolish (perhaps impossible) to depend solely on the Socratic Method, but as a preliminary method it is as good as any other, and easily accessible.
The first notion which comes to my mind when I begin to think about what it means to “know” is observation. To observe a phenomenon is to experience it, which is to sense it in some way. On the other hand, to observe could merely mean to be aware of something. It sounds more proper for one to say “I am aware of knowledge,” than “I sense knowledge.” Typically individuals say they have/possess knowledge.
An observer is perhaps the best description of an object that mindlessly absorbs or somehow “perceives” information (information being a more concrete notion of knowledge). How the observer, or perhaps one could say an extended meaning of observer, is used by various mechanisms is quite complex. For one, the observer is the focal point of experience, particularly sensational experiences. This focal point can be awareness of one’s self. By what I have seen, most philosopher take the awareness of self and extend it to the awareness of others, the world, or god, and justly so I believe; for any object that cannot move beyond self awareness may not possess consciousness nor sentience. I myself do not imagine dead objects as objects that are only aware of themselves. I imagine physical space to be something analogous to multiple layers of infinitesimally thin cloths, or as infinitesimally small spheres which become more massive when they clump together. The mathematics, however, seems to show that the act of picturing a particular object itself is erroneous. But I know very little about such facts.
For me, the observer can be seen as a point on a plane. Knowledge is a network inside that point, with different nodes representing discrete information. This, however, is a mathematical analogy, and I lack a formal grasp of mathematics, albeit I’ll still use mathematical metaphors. The observer and knowledge relationship is also similar to the mind and body relationship; although I would consider the observer to be the thing below Descartes “cogito ergo sum.” The mind or body can be said to possess information, whereas the observer only senses information.
The interaction between observer and knowledge is very much like a Cartesian Theater, but the individual or thing viewing the stimuli/events also views the reflections, thoughts, and judgments being made. The observer becomes a problem when language is introduced, whereas knowledge becomes a problem when logic is introduced. There are many issues that need to be addressed.
No matter the perspective one takes, in practice at least, one can never have a view of everything (everything meaning omniscience). Knowledge of everything would imply producing a model or summary of everything. Exclusion of any detail could be seen as incomplete work. But to make an exact replica of everything would require everything. Creating another time and space similar to our own seems beyond the powers of a human being. Language is the closes we can get to a display of everything, with philosophy as the notion of the pursuit of truth and knowledge, despite its apparent ultimate failings. Everything is the collection of all particular things, and language implies that a particular thing be expressed.
Language itself is mediated by the thought of an agreed upon idea. Whether the idea is actually consistent in both minds, i.e. whether observers perceive the same events or two different events, is rarely analyzed in great detail; the notion of a common sense is typically applied to a circumstance by observers occupying a local space (local merely meaning one can interact with another). The notions of change and difference automatically conflict with the notion of a common sense, which leads me to the issues with knowledge and logic.
I am no logician, but I find the idea of logic quite compelling. All practical matters appear to require the minimum of an informal understanding of logic; Aristotle’s Organon could be an example of a formal theory of logic. Logic is profoundly useful in investigations on particular subjects. However, it is a difficult ideal to aspire to in philosophy. How can I obtain the knowledge of everything if it must also contain its negation, viz. non-philosophy/not everything? Particular items are not everything (unless the particular item in question is everything), but they are all still parts of philosophy (some particular categories in philosophy are ontology, epistemology, ethics, axiology, among others).
The second problem with logic is truth. What exactly is truth? It is perhaps best understood in comparison to its opposite, falsity. But falsehoods are truths one excludes from one’s own system of truths (for what would an unassailable reasoning or ultimate truth look like?). I would consider falsity to still be a truth, i.e. it is true that some propositions are false. The strongest truths typically are associated with empiricism. However, the observer perceives more than just sensory information. Most individuals observe science, religion, philosophy, or intuition in their models of the truth. Subjective truths are also in effect, and they generate more complications. Truth makes all notions ambiguous, and most methods fatal.
Thought seems to be the mechanism in which ideas obtain a praxis existence. Usually I think of thought as the internal monologue. Yet, there are many mechanisms which operate in us. One can repeat a single word in one’s mind while thinking of other ideas (either simultaneously or consecutively, I’m unsure which) and moving the body about. We have the connotation and denotation of words, i.e. the facts words express and the feelings associated with the words. We possess memory, which leads to the notion of time. The mind has many abilities, yet it has a limit.
Perhaps it can be said that the observer is viewing a consciousness. I can only speak for myself and those who may think like me, although I can’t guarantee certain truth. My consciousness is one of many. So whereas one could consider one’s self as a single point on a plane, life is multiple points on a finite plane moving about gaining and losing points as it goes along. Humans seem to be the only creatures that attempt to express universal facts about the world explicitly and logically. I believe it best to first focus on the non-intuitive facts/atypical senses of the world, which one may fall upon while investigating grander problems.
The validity of science is obtained from the expressions of observations made by observers from various times and places on the earth. The reoccurrence of particular ideas, perhaps expressed in different ways, binds them to the mind; one may become more attentive and reactive to those features of the world. Overall science seems to be a learnt skill, or perhaps it is the extension of the curious will.
What is consider natural after time has operated on it? Most, if not all, humans use ideas formulated by others. It seems that it is through mastery of one skill that we invent novel items. People praise those skills that go beyond naturally and universally inherited abilities, e.g. no one praises another for breathing (unless the individual is a new born, or recovering from an injury). Science is the study of nature qua nature, which seems to imply that it is somehow innate to nature, although its modern interpretation is not in the mind from birth. It is the ability to question or be curious that appears innate in us, though how strongly the emotion is felt depends on an individual’s proclivity.
It seems to me that social, genetic, and first-person forces push the individual toward particular actions. I want to remove errors and acquire vital truths of the world, which would perhaps be achieved quickly and efficiently if I survey the works of the most profound minds to appear on earth. I can’t enumerate every author I’ve ever read; I hope their influence on my mind is entailed in my thoughts. The hope of philosophy is to constantly go beyond any limits.
The limit of philosophy appears to be God. My personal understanding of God is acquired by first negating all other notions of it. If I have any direct relationship with God, it must be founded in my nature. Philosophy being the study of everything, and God being the limit of philosophy, makes God everything itself or something beyond everything. In any case, God can be used as an extreme notion.
Religion/theology is the study of God. God being the initial and/or final being is, in some sense, the ultimate being. Like every other religion, I would say all other religions contain some truths and many errors. I’m perhaps not a religious individual, but I do enjoy playing with the notion of God. For instance, I would consider It both within and beyond understanding, which is logically absurd; yet if absurdities exist, they must exist in existence.
What is the relationship between science and religion? Maybe science is a set of axioms or vitally true propositions one uses to make sense of the universe. If God can be known, then the universe in question is either the universe of God or a part of God’s universe, or perhaps God is the universe. In any case one would need to think about one’s own relationship with God. From the viewpoint of mere existence, a relationship with God is a relationship with anything at all.
Science is an amalgamation of findings from studies on the natural world, i.e. the world of the senses. Information picked up by our senses are encoded into language and recorded in or on a medium of some sort. The medium of self seems to be the focus of experience or the immediate container of the observer, all of which is perhaps summed up to be consciousness. Consciousness is a strange object, but in relation to the natural/physical world, it appears to be a logical outcome of complex and dynamic forces. All things or anything can be just byproducts of God; or certain things can be specially made by God.
There may be no way to truly know which actions are from God or from something other than God, e.g. accidents or byproducts from God’s mere existence. One notion that I believe is the doing of God (assuming It does something more than merely existing) is logic, or “the rules of mere existence."
The brain seems to have a function that is directed toward the physical world, the senses, and a function that is directed toward symbolism, reasoning. These properties can conflict or supplement each other; for reason appears to contradict sensation when one expresses a particular happening that is not actually happening, which is a falsity. The truth, however, is usually sought for outside of one’s simple self, i.e. the scientific truth is objective and serves a function.
What is expressed in society serves a social function. How exactly does the "social being” exist? Individuals must somehow cooperate while pursuing personal goals/motives. Simply put, we work in the best interest of our being, which is a complex system. What is God’s hand in the harmonious movement of beings?
Friday, April 17, 2015
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Some Thoughts on Ethics
Is the core of what is considered ethical in my feelings or is it in my thoughts? Thoughts are propositional statement like mental objects, and by mental perhaps it can mean subjective events, which are one’s personal experiences. Experiences are our perceptions of the world. Perceptions are quite complex, for both feelings and thoughts are perceptions because we perceive them, or are aware of them. Experiences are also conceptions, recollections, emotions, ideations, etc. Does the suffix -tion have anything to do with the nature of experience? -Tion is used to form abstract nouns from verbs or stems not identical with verbs, whether as expressing action (revolution; commendation), or state (contrition; starvation), or associated meanings (relation; temptation), says dictionary.com. Recollections, emotions, conceptions, and ideations are all states of mind, since we can feel or cause these events to occur in us, and can distinguish each thing by the mere feeling of it, without having to use propositional statements. However, though we think in propositional statements, our thoughts are still feelings essentially, since we must be in a particular state of mind to have any particular thought. Therefore, thoughts and feelings are distinguishable, yet are both states of mind. Perhaps the core of ethics is in a state of mind?
Maybe what caused me to compare and contrast feelings and thoughts was in the distinction between states of mind and propositional statements. States of mind are innate to objects in reality, all objects have a “feel” to them; ie all objects influence the senses, either directly by touching or somehow interfering with our sensory system, or indirectly by affecting something that affects our sensory system. States of mind are created by those effects and the other capacities of the mind. Another capacity of our minds (by our here I mean human minds) is language. Language is connected to propositional statements. The main function of language seems to be communication with other organisms, and the organization of ideas and concepts. For the words I use are more than just mental or physical noise, by which I mean nonsense. Nonsense being the opposite of sense is something I can only experience as incomprehensibility, or no appeal to any sense at all, which can be achieve by disconnecting or not having the capacity for a particular sense. Language is directly connected to our senses, since we must somehow be able to sense the other being we are attempting to communicate with. Language also requires being able to perceive certain motions as being more than accidental occurrences. Most accidental occurrences are mindless matter reactions, but some are mindful matter actions. Mindful matter actions are motions meant to achieve something more than mere motion, either now or in the future. But all one can ever get from existence is motion essentially, yet our goals are not completely random and without some sort of organization, so language must be organized movement of some kind. Language is just another state of mind, but with a particular organization of moving parts.
Perhaps the core of ethics is in the idea of truth and falsehood. These two ideas are related to propositional statements and accidental occurrences. I have a state of mind that I can call truth, or the feeling of truth, and one that I can call falsehood, or the feeling of falsehood. These words I write are clear and to the purpose for me, though it may not be for others, but these distinctions are causes by differences in our mind states, particularly and most likely in the various ways that states of mind can be organized. Most coherent thought has an idea or feeling of truth or falsehood applied to it. The distinction between truth or falsehood is first based on what exist, then based on how mindful actions are interpreted. Existence is given. Interpretation is knowing or understanding the meaning of an action, ie knowing or understanding why the action occurred. Knowing or understanding are states of mind we analogize to truth or falsehood. All actions appear to me to be accidental motion or mindful motion, perhaps the core of ethics is in this distinction.
(How do physical laws manifest ethical phenomena or thought? Do they manifest these things?)
Maybe what caused me to compare and contrast feelings and thoughts was in the distinction between states of mind and propositional statements. States of mind are innate to objects in reality, all objects have a “feel” to them; ie all objects influence the senses, either directly by touching or somehow interfering with our sensory system, or indirectly by affecting something that affects our sensory system. States of mind are created by those effects and the other capacities of the mind. Another capacity of our minds (by our here I mean human minds) is language. Language is connected to propositional statements. The main function of language seems to be communication with other organisms, and the organization of ideas and concepts. For the words I use are more than just mental or physical noise, by which I mean nonsense. Nonsense being the opposite of sense is something I can only experience as incomprehensibility, or no appeal to any sense at all, which can be achieve by disconnecting or not having the capacity for a particular sense. Language is directly connected to our senses, since we must somehow be able to sense the other being we are attempting to communicate with. Language also requires being able to perceive certain motions as being more than accidental occurrences. Most accidental occurrences are mindless matter reactions, but some are mindful matter actions. Mindful matter actions are motions meant to achieve something more than mere motion, either now or in the future. But all one can ever get from existence is motion essentially, yet our goals are not completely random and without some sort of organization, so language must be organized movement of some kind. Language is just another state of mind, but with a particular organization of moving parts.
Perhaps the core of ethics is in the idea of truth and falsehood. These two ideas are related to propositional statements and accidental occurrences. I have a state of mind that I can call truth, or the feeling of truth, and one that I can call falsehood, or the feeling of falsehood. These words I write are clear and to the purpose for me, though it may not be for others, but these distinctions are causes by differences in our mind states, particularly and most likely in the various ways that states of mind can be organized. Most coherent thought has an idea or feeling of truth or falsehood applied to it. The distinction between truth or falsehood is first based on what exist, then based on how mindful actions are interpreted. Existence is given. Interpretation is knowing or understanding the meaning of an action, ie knowing or understanding why the action occurred. Knowing or understanding are states of mind we analogize to truth or falsehood. All actions appear to me to be accidental motion or mindful motion, perhaps the core of ethics is in this distinction.
(How do physical laws manifest ethical phenomena or thought? Do they manifest these things?)
Monday, April 13, 2015
God and Ethics
How does God affect the nature of ethics? For some people claim that an atheist has no objective morality. I’m assuming this claim doesn’t infer that an atheist is a savage of some sort. Regardless, ethics is a rational standard for behavior. Evolution has provided each creature with a means to accomplish its ends, which for the most part is survival. And as the earth is the only place in the observable universe with life, we all have the possibility of interaction, since the earth is a finite object. Obviously some general rules would be a natural outcome of the circumstances.
Though I advocate a rather broad ethical standard, something along the lines of not doing harm to others, I can understand any other ethical standards, granted it is sensible. All the religions and philosophies that advocate some kind of ethical system are concerned with the human condition and its maintenance. As a human, there are things I need and things I want; and there are particular ways in which to accomplish these ends. The existence or non-existence of God has no fundamental effect on how I must live in order to live comfortably. I believed in God as a child, and now I do not. This change in my understanding of reality hasn’t altered my need for food, air, water, and other vital functions.
I mean, how could I not possess a knowledge which I claim and prove to have? I don’t have to believe in God to understand the words in the the bible, what the ten commandments are, what laws are, what the constitution is, etc. I just believe a synthesis of different philosophies is closer to the truth. And I prefer more literal explanations for my reality; religions are far too metaphorical for my taste. Ultimately all ethical dilemmas are circumstantial. The outcome will always depend on the mind’s understanding of reality and the possible motions of the world.
Though I advocate a rather broad ethical standard, something along the lines of not doing harm to others, I can understand any other ethical standards, granted it is sensible. All the religions and philosophies that advocate some kind of ethical system are concerned with the human condition and its maintenance. As a human, there are things I need and things I want; and there are particular ways in which to accomplish these ends. The existence or non-existence of God has no fundamental effect on how I must live in order to live comfortably. I believed in God as a child, and now I do not. This change in my understanding of reality hasn’t altered my need for food, air, water, and other vital functions.
I mean, how could I not possess a knowledge which I claim and prove to have? I don’t have to believe in God to understand the words in the the bible, what the ten commandments are, what laws are, what the constitution is, etc. I just believe a synthesis of different philosophies is closer to the truth. And I prefer more literal explanations for my reality; religions are far too metaphorical for my taste. Ultimately all ethical dilemmas are circumstantial. The outcome will always depend on the mind’s understanding of reality and the possible motions of the world.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
The Mind-Body Problem
Rene Descartes’s distinction between the mind and body was that the mind is a non-extended, thinking thing; and the body is an extended thing which does not think. It is a distinction between the mind and the body that many people maintain; however it creates unavoidable problems, the main one perhaps being how an non-extended object can interact with an extended object?
The limitation of science in describing the relationship between body and mind does not outweigh its ability to identify mechanisms and relationships between the two constructs. There is no proof for a mind existing without a body. For the most part, any organism with a brain structure has a mind of some kind. It may also be safe to assume all organisms with a mind are having profoundly different experiences. But as biologically manifest phenomena in the same universe, we must all have a common factor to our existence, which is our functionality.
The impression of the external world is projected internally. The sense or result of chemical interactions, i.e. reactions in the body to stimulus, create a subjective experience that perceives events, this we identify by observing behavior we relate to that of an object possess of a subjective experience or a mind. Our complex structure of chemical interactions resulted with sensations, drives, and intelligence; none of which appear to be beyond the capacity of physics. Physics is a description of a kind of motion; sensations, drives, and intelligence are all known by a relationship to an object or behavior. All minds are known by their relationship to a body. We have never seen a mind that has no body (even ghost have a form or behavior which makes their presence known). If we have never seen a non-extended object, how can we say such a thing exist? All things known must exert some kind of observable force for us to identify its existence.
There is no physical law that claims nature can not create a thinking object. Why can’t the body think? A mind isn’t extended because it is an action or function; not an object in space, but rather a characteristic inferred by the behavior of an object, i.e. the body. People typically say we use our minds; as if it is a tool we use. And we do not say concepts such as eating or walking are objects, we say they are descriptions of actions, i.e. motions of objects. In both cases the mind is related to something it is external to and also subjected to, which is the body.
The mind must be a product of a tangible object; for a non-extended force can not interact with an extended force, only extended forces can interact. Extension would indicate a multitude of particles, which would appear as a mass of some magnitude. Whereas a non-extended force is no particles, or perhaps one or a few. And we know extension is merely a characteristic of space and time. Thought is a brain function, and a brain is a multitude of particles arranged in a specific manner. Though we don’t have a complete model of the motions of all the particles that make a brain, when can correlate specific parts to specific functions.
The distinction Descartes appears to be making is between agent and action. Consciousness isn’t producing the phenomena of having a body, it is a function of the biological machine, viz. an active brain structure, typically within a body. It can feel as if the mind is outside the body, because there are many body states which result in different mental states, one such state creates a feeling of distance from the body. Is this surprising, considering that various chemicals can manifest a variety of particular bodily, and consequently mental, states? Anything that can be considered to possess the characteristic of a mind must be in some way expressing this possession through the utilization of energy/matter.
The limitation of science in describing the relationship between body and mind does not outweigh its ability to identify mechanisms and relationships between the two constructs. There is no proof for a mind existing without a body. For the most part, any organism with a brain structure has a mind of some kind. It may also be safe to assume all organisms with a mind are having profoundly different experiences. But as biologically manifest phenomena in the same universe, we must all have a common factor to our existence, which is our functionality.
The impression of the external world is projected internally. The sense or result of chemical interactions, i.e. reactions in the body to stimulus, create a subjective experience that perceives events, this we identify by observing behavior we relate to that of an object possess of a subjective experience or a mind. Our complex structure of chemical interactions resulted with sensations, drives, and intelligence; none of which appear to be beyond the capacity of physics. Physics is a description of a kind of motion; sensations, drives, and intelligence are all known by a relationship to an object or behavior. All minds are known by their relationship to a body. We have never seen a mind that has no body (even ghost have a form or behavior which makes their presence known). If we have never seen a non-extended object, how can we say such a thing exist? All things known must exert some kind of observable force for us to identify its existence.
There is no physical law that claims nature can not create a thinking object. Why can’t the body think? A mind isn’t extended because it is an action or function; not an object in space, but rather a characteristic inferred by the behavior of an object, i.e. the body. People typically say we use our minds; as if it is a tool we use. And we do not say concepts such as eating or walking are objects, we say they are descriptions of actions, i.e. motions of objects. In both cases the mind is related to something it is external to and also subjected to, which is the body.
The mind must be a product of a tangible object; for a non-extended force can not interact with an extended force, only extended forces can interact. Extension would indicate a multitude of particles, which would appear as a mass of some magnitude. Whereas a non-extended force is no particles, or perhaps one or a few. And we know extension is merely a characteristic of space and time. Thought is a brain function, and a brain is a multitude of particles arranged in a specific manner. Though we don’t have a complete model of the motions of all the particles that make a brain, when can correlate specific parts to specific functions.
The distinction Descartes appears to be making is between agent and action. Consciousness isn’t producing the phenomena of having a body, it is a function of the biological machine, viz. an active brain structure, typically within a body. It can feel as if the mind is outside the body, because there are many body states which result in different mental states, one such state creates a feeling of distance from the body. Is this surprising, considering that various chemicals can manifest a variety of particular bodily, and consequently mental, states? Anything that can be considered to possess the characteristic of a mind must be in some way expressing this possession through the utilization of energy/matter.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
On Consciousness
Our method for perceiving objects is to look upon them from the outside of them, though granted we may perceive the innards of an object, but even then we are outside the innards looking upon them. However, for ourselves, we appear to be an object inside our bodies looking outwards at phenomena. This is not only the case for physical phenomena, but also for mental phenomena; for when we utilize the mechanics of imagination, we still appear to be an internal object looking upon some external phenomena (inside ourselves). Is it possible that the object which is looking outwards is consciousness? What consequences follow if this object, which is something within us looking outwards, is consciousness?
If consciousness can look upon itself, then our inquiry is, at least, partially answered. One object that is never too far away from consciousness is the body. It is clear that we can perceive our own bodies by use of a mirror, but I’m reluctant to claim that the consciousness is perceiving itself when it looks upon the object that it appears to be within. But, if our own bodies aren’t considered to be consciousness, then what else can we consider consciousness to be? For physical objects always give the body more of a feeling of reality than mental objects, whenever the two are compared. If our own body is not the consciousness, though it appears to be as consistent in existence as consciousness itself, then how can we make any mental objects consciousness; for no mental object is as consistent as the consciousness or body, though they may appear before the mind frequently. Even if we gave a mental object that has appeared before us the label of consciousness, we would still be obliged to explain the reason why we identify the mental object as consciousness.
Let us return to the basic description of consciousness, which is “awareness of one’s own existence.” If the consciousness is an object that looks upon other objects from the inside of some object, how is it aware of its own existence? For consciousness appears to be aware of many objects, but none of them can firmly be considered consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t seem to possess the ability to look upon itself, and if it has, how will we know? We become aware of the existence of other objects, physical or mental, by a perception of them. However, we claim such a thing as consciousness exist, without having any perception of such a phenomena; for we can not perceive consciousness physically nor mentally. This presents a major threat to any conception of reality that would attempt to describe existence accurately. For whether we claim all things are mental or physical, we must explain how we came to such knowledge. If we say we observed such and such phenomena, but never observed the object which is observing the phenomena, how can we claim to know the information we are receiving is true?
My personal fix to this dilemma is to be rid of the concept of consciousness completely. Consciousness appears to be a failed attempt at discovering a feature of the body and brain that is somehow beyond them both (like the spirit or soul). If we know the interactions between body and brain are the cause of our personal experiences, and that the brain is the physical structure that causes most of our bodily motions and all of our mental events, then I see no reason not to assume it is the brain and body that perceives phenomena and interacts with objects. This, however, would require some alteration to one’s model of reality, particularly a will caused solely by the brain. For we would no longer be able to claim we were in control of our bodies unless when we use the term “we” or “I”, we are referring to our brain.
If consciousness can look upon itself, then our inquiry is, at least, partially answered. One object that is never too far away from consciousness is the body. It is clear that we can perceive our own bodies by use of a mirror, but I’m reluctant to claim that the consciousness is perceiving itself when it looks upon the object that it appears to be within. But, if our own bodies aren’t considered to be consciousness, then what else can we consider consciousness to be? For physical objects always give the body more of a feeling of reality than mental objects, whenever the two are compared. If our own body is not the consciousness, though it appears to be as consistent in existence as consciousness itself, then how can we make any mental objects consciousness; for no mental object is as consistent as the consciousness or body, though they may appear before the mind frequently. Even if we gave a mental object that has appeared before us the label of consciousness, we would still be obliged to explain the reason why we identify the mental object as consciousness.
Let us return to the basic description of consciousness, which is “awareness of one’s own existence.” If the consciousness is an object that looks upon other objects from the inside of some object, how is it aware of its own existence? For consciousness appears to be aware of many objects, but none of them can firmly be considered consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t seem to possess the ability to look upon itself, and if it has, how will we know? We become aware of the existence of other objects, physical or mental, by a perception of them. However, we claim such a thing as consciousness exist, without having any perception of such a phenomena; for we can not perceive consciousness physically nor mentally. This presents a major threat to any conception of reality that would attempt to describe existence accurately. For whether we claim all things are mental or physical, we must explain how we came to such knowledge. If we say we observed such and such phenomena, but never observed the object which is observing the phenomena, how can we claim to know the information we are receiving is true?
My personal fix to this dilemma is to be rid of the concept of consciousness completely. Consciousness appears to be a failed attempt at discovering a feature of the body and brain that is somehow beyond them both (like the spirit or soul). If we know the interactions between body and brain are the cause of our personal experiences, and that the brain is the physical structure that causes most of our bodily motions and all of our mental events, then I see no reason not to assume it is the brain and body that perceives phenomena and interacts with objects. This, however, would require some alteration to one’s model of reality, particularly a will caused solely by the brain. For we would no longer be able to claim we were in control of our bodies unless when we use the term “we” or “I”, we are referring to our brain.
On Purpose II
An object as massive as the universe, or even more fundamental, existence itself, could not possibly have been actualize for any other reason than that it could not have not happened. It is impossible for absolute nothingness to exist at any point in time, therefore existence must have always existed in some form. There is no other source for existence other than existence itself. Every phenomena in this place, including ourselves, are just parts of this whole. It has no innate or ultimate purpose, it’s merely a self propelled force. Ultimately, we also have no profound purpose. However, our brains are capable of simulating various perspectives of reality. All we need is an object in which to pursue, and we will begin to formulate means to obtain it. This knowledge of our possibilities and necessities gives rise to the concept of purpose. A consequence of the body’s adaptation to the environment.
The capacity for pain and pleasure(the negative state and positive state of the body) is the bases for the idea of purpose. If pain and pleasure did not exist, it would be impossible to know what situations we should pursue and which we should avoid. Also, how would creatures learn and evolve without these senses? It is necessary that a rational being have the ability to identify dysfunction and efficiency, as rationality requires a universal logic and adaptable mechanics. For sensations are reactions, or reflexes, to the environment. How else could the body possibly maneuver this harsh environment?
Purpose is nothing more than a pain and pleasure motivator. Even knowledge, the most valuable object in existence, is weighed in accordance to its efficiency at achieving some pleasure or avoiding some pain. Without sensations of pain and pleasure, knowledge would be nothing more than a collection of useless data. And, unless the world is adapting to the individual in it, it is impossible to live without some kind of adaptation to the environment.
If it is a fact and truth that there is no intrinsic purpose to life and existence, than is it permitted for people to take advantage of others for personal gains? For what end would an intelligent being do so, knowing its existence is not permanent, and nothing is greater than the whole? The rational choice is to formulate a harmonious relationship with the environment and acquire valuable information. Only knowledge has proven to be effective in preserving contentment, for brute strength is not enough, an understanding of direction is needed, in living entities at least. And happiness seems to be the goal of most.
(Footnote: Though life is purposeless, virtue is logically preferable to vice. Virtue is another concept which imposes on the mind. For all rational beings do what they perceive as good; and most shall agree that those who do evil to themselves or others for the sole reason of evil or pain are irrational. Therefore, if purpose exist, one must maintain also the virtue exist. What actions are virtuous?)
The capacity for pain and pleasure(the negative state and positive state of the body) is the bases for the idea of purpose. If pain and pleasure did not exist, it would be impossible to know what situations we should pursue and which we should avoid. Also, how would creatures learn and evolve without these senses? It is necessary that a rational being have the ability to identify dysfunction and efficiency, as rationality requires a universal logic and adaptable mechanics. For sensations are reactions, or reflexes, to the environment. How else could the body possibly maneuver this harsh environment?
Purpose is nothing more than a pain and pleasure motivator. Even knowledge, the most valuable object in existence, is weighed in accordance to its efficiency at achieving some pleasure or avoiding some pain. Without sensations of pain and pleasure, knowledge would be nothing more than a collection of useless data. And, unless the world is adapting to the individual in it, it is impossible to live without some kind of adaptation to the environment.
If it is a fact and truth that there is no intrinsic purpose to life and existence, than is it permitted for people to take advantage of others for personal gains? For what end would an intelligent being do so, knowing its existence is not permanent, and nothing is greater than the whole? The rational choice is to formulate a harmonious relationship with the environment and acquire valuable information. Only knowledge has proven to be effective in preserving contentment, for brute strength is not enough, an understanding of direction is needed, in living entities at least. And happiness seems to be the goal of most.
(Footnote: Though life is purposeless, virtue is logically preferable to vice. Virtue is another concept which imposes on the mind. For all rational beings do what they perceive as good; and most shall agree that those who do evil to themselves or others for the sole reason of evil or pain are irrational. Therefore, if purpose exist, one must maintain also the virtue exist. What actions are virtuous?)
Friday, April 10, 2015
Pwip XXV
Since one idea implies the existence of all possible ideas, and the representation of such a concept as a point of view is beyond human cognitive abilities, we instead use abstractions. All knowledge is perhaps an approximation of the truth. How one arrives at whatever truth one finds is perhaps a matter of epistemic paths. From the perspective of the first-person one must develop one’s philosophy. One will perhaps naturally pick up on particular patterns in the world without putting forth much mental effort, or perhaps intention, to know those facts. Yet it appears that one’s own first-person view is just one of multiple first-person views, which is similar to the domain of ideas, in that all ideas are one of many. The mind while thinking of one concept may fail in bringing other concepts into its view, which is similar to the range of perception.
There are perhaps a few special ideas which supersede other ideas, and existence appears to be one of them. Anything can be put forth to represent existence. The node which would represent the idea of one’s self is one among many due to existence’s omnipresence. Ideas do not possess first-person views unless they are being expressed through first-person views. Yet it seems the idea of the Statue of Liberty doesn’t go away when I cease to think of it, neither does it seem the object which the idea reference is destroyed when I cease to look at it. The idea of the world is like the idea of the self, in that it is dynamic, both constant and changing. Physical information provides a history of the external world that any being contained within should be able to access in some form. The world as an idea, that is as something that not only is happening, but also could have happened, and in such a case has already happened and is simply waiting on actuality, may not be so easy to access by every being. Where one’s mind will move in thought seems to depend on where it has been, and its potential.
Plato suggested the only good leader for society would be a philosopher king. Would not such an individual need expert knowledge in all aspects of existence? That feat appears to require rather precise configurations from the individual who would take the role. An epistemic threshold seems needed to pass as knowledgeable or informed on a particular subject. With enough concentration on one field one can pass the threshold, or meaningful node, in ones own epistemic path. Factors such as time, perspective, and disposition limit the amount and type of goals one embarks on. In the end most individuals possess a philosophy that is judged good enough, which would require the learning of particular patterns for others to fully comprehend. So the next practical step could be a philosopher collective, i.e. a group of individuals whose net function equals that of a true philosopher. In that way one can pass or neglect certain ideas without neglecting the main goal of philosophy (which maybe some form of closure).
The social world appears to rely on notions contained in symmetry. It seemingly generates a social scale composed of the dominate and inferior ends. Most weighted social relations appear determined by functions and the individuals with such capacities. Such often appears in the form of competition. Animals perhaps use competition as a means of testing objects. One can only know what one can do by comparing one’s self with other selves. Ethics, however, appears purely cooperative, all semblance of competition is meant to maintain the collective goal of the collective good. The capacity necessary for the application of ethics doesn’t appear in all entities, though ethics must consider some of those individuals still. And it appears intuitive that non-sentient matter is inferior to sentient matter in the domain of ethics.
Ethics perhaps has a net value dictated by the output, which is mostly implicit, of a global feeling scale. Unlike in formal mathematics where positivity and negativity cancel one another, in “ethical math” the net value is negative as long as any sentient being in a socio-ethical context can be consider unreasonably pained. Those whom an intelligent being is aware are on the negative end of the feeling scale are ethical problems. Those on the positive end of the state of being whom can help others are unethical if they neglect to do so. Those who know they can help are perhaps more unethical than those whom are ignorant of their ability. Otherwise those on the negative end must depend on luck or await the expression of some potential ability that can lead to a positive state of being. The practical needs of the world must be reconciled with the needs of ethics. Whereas ethics claims all beings under it are equal, practicality shows that beings aren’t always equal. Although this may perhaps only be due to a cooperative ethical framing
Social inequality comes in the form of networks and functions. One’s first network is perhaps the community. Everyone will not necessarily be guided by their biological parent, but all would be rared by some other. There is thus the generation of a connection which begins a network that is perhaps based on some relation either explicit, i.e. both parties are aware of their relationship, or implicit, i.e. functional relations. Domains are perhaps the network of functional relations as abstract objects. All behaviors appear to be functions, and different functions seem to be related under a single category or domain.
An individual can identify various behavior it performs and list them as its own abilities. If two individuals can perform the same task, then they appear to be equal, e.g. a computer can generate two objects with different qualities (perhaps color) doing the same action. If two individuals can build a house, but one can also aid a broken leg, then the two are equal in building a house but unequal in aiding a broken leg. If the individual that can aid the leg can also aid a poisonous snake bite, while the other individual can also build a boat (which the first individual can not), then they maybe said to have knowledge of the domain of building in one and medicine in the other. Typically many functions are needed before others will accept that one is in a domain, i.e. one must pass a threshold. Inside of the domain individuals are weighed against one another to form an order of some sort, usually hierarchical, and those outside are inferior in the context. The social functional network appears hierarchical and is perhaps expressed in the economic system.
The economic system seems more related to applying a number to objects based on psychological and biological needs and wants rather than physical relations. The price of objects and functions are less constant than the metrics used to calculate physical phenomena. Such maybe due to the fact that we are more sensitive to the form of matter, rather than its mere existence (which maybe a necessity of survival). Since there is no permanent state of comfort, or such a condition is difficult to obtain, one must become skilled at controlling one’s own being in the given context. When one is fully aware of one’s capabilities, one can use such knowledge to one’s advantage in the world. The domain of the first person offers options in the form of bodily movements, such appears subsumed in the domain of cause and effect, or consistency, in and by the world. All domains intersect each other under the domain of existence, albeit they don’t all connect easily. The domain of ethics offers the option of unethical actions by being contained in the domain of existence; existence offering the options of itself and nonexistence. Yet, in the case of ethics one ought to seek virtue, since in this reality it appears to be the only true good.
Society appears to require a large amount of some form of ethical behavior. Vice seems at best useful for the purpose of aesthetics or entertainment. The leaders of each domain typically represent the domain, and serve the purpose of assisting those without such options, by making them aware or performing the action themselves. The human being needs to consume some amount of energy to perform the action of survival. And by implication survival is related to existence. There is no apparent necessity from existence for one to survive other than the possibility for one to exist based on natural processes. Such seems to be the case since the pursuit of existence or nonexistence can be seen as advantageous or disadvantageous depending on one’s mind. At the very least ethics can consider the plight of individuals articulating problems, which infers a negative condition. A philosopher collective perhaps should be aware of the categories of philosophy, if not each particular distinct idea contained within; and ethics is one of these, as no human appears without a social context.
There are perhaps a few special ideas which supersede other ideas, and existence appears to be one of them. Anything can be put forth to represent existence. The node which would represent the idea of one’s self is one among many due to existence’s omnipresence. Ideas do not possess first-person views unless they are being expressed through first-person views. Yet it seems the idea of the Statue of Liberty doesn’t go away when I cease to think of it, neither does it seem the object which the idea reference is destroyed when I cease to look at it. The idea of the world is like the idea of the self, in that it is dynamic, both constant and changing. Physical information provides a history of the external world that any being contained within should be able to access in some form. The world as an idea, that is as something that not only is happening, but also could have happened, and in such a case has already happened and is simply waiting on actuality, may not be so easy to access by every being. Where one’s mind will move in thought seems to depend on where it has been, and its potential.
Plato suggested the only good leader for society would be a philosopher king. Would not such an individual need expert knowledge in all aspects of existence? That feat appears to require rather precise configurations from the individual who would take the role. An epistemic threshold seems needed to pass as knowledgeable or informed on a particular subject. With enough concentration on one field one can pass the threshold, or meaningful node, in ones own epistemic path. Factors such as time, perspective, and disposition limit the amount and type of goals one embarks on. In the end most individuals possess a philosophy that is judged good enough, which would require the learning of particular patterns for others to fully comprehend. So the next practical step could be a philosopher collective, i.e. a group of individuals whose net function equals that of a true philosopher. In that way one can pass or neglect certain ideas without neglecting the main goal of philosophy (which maybe some form of closure).
The social world appears to rely on notions contained in symmetry. It seemingly generates a social scale composed of the dominate and inferior ends. Most weighted social relations appear determined by functions and the individuals with such capacities. Such often appears in the form of competition. Animals perhaps use competition as a means of testing objects. One can only know what one can do by comparing one’s self with other selves. Ethics, however, appears purely cooperative, all semblance of competition is meant to maintain the collective goal of the collective good. The capacity necessary for the application of ethics doesn’t appear in all entities, though ethics must consider some of those individuals still. And it appears intuitive that non-sentient matter is inferior to sentient matter in the domain of ethics.
Ethics perhaps has a net value dictated by the output, which is mostly implicit, of a global feeling scale. Unlike in formal mathematics where positivity and negativity cancel one another, in “ethical math” the net value is negative as long as any sentient being in a socio-ethical context can be consider unreasonably pained. Those whom an intelligent being is aware are on the negative end of the feeling scale are ethical problems. Those on the positive end of the state of being whom can help others are unethical if they neglect to do so. Those who know they can help are perhaps more unethical than those whom are ignorant of their ability. Otherwise those on the negative end must depend on luck or await the expression of some potential ability that can lead to a positive state of being. The practical needs of the world must be reconciled with the needs of ethics. Whereas ethics claims all beings under it are equal, practicality shows that beings aren’t always equal. Although this may perhaps only be due to a cooperative ethical framing
Social inequality comes in the form of networks and functions. One’s first network is perhaps the community. Everyone will not necessarily be guided by their biological parent, but all would be rared by some other. There is thus the generation of a connection which begins a network that is perhaps based on some relation either explicit, i.e. both parties are aware of their relationship, or implicit, i.e. functional relations. Domains are perhaps the network of functional relations as abstract objects. All behaviors appear to be functions, and different functions seem to be related under a single category or domain.
An individual can identify various behavior it performs and list them as its own abilities. If two individuals can perform the same task, then they appear to be equal, e.g. a computer can generate two objects with different qualities (perhaps color) doing the same action. If two individuals can build a house, but one can also aid a broken leg, then the two are equal in building a house but unequal in aiding a broken leg. If the individual that can aid the leg can also aid a poisonous snake bite, while the other individual can also build a boat (which the first individual can not), then they maybe said to have knowledge of the domain of building in one and medicine in the other. Typically many functions are needed before others will accept that one is in a domain, i.e. one must pass a threshold. Inside of the domain individuals are weighed against one another to form an order of some sort, usually hierarchical, and those outside are inferior in the context. The social functional network appears hierarchical and is perhaps expressed in the economic system.
The economic system seems more related to applying a number to objects based on psychological and biological needs and wants rather than physical relations. The price of objects and functions are less constant than the metrics used to calculate physical phenomena. Such maybe due to the fact that we are more sensitive to the form of matter, rather than its mere existence (which maybe a necessity of survival). Since there is no permanent state of comfort, or such a condition is difficult to obtain, one must become skilled at controlling one’s own being in the given context. When one is fully aware of one’s capabilities, one can use such knowledge to one’s advantage in the world. The domain of the first person offers options in the form of bodily movements, such appears subsumed in the domain of cause and effect, or consistency, in and by the world. All domains intersect each other under the domain of existence, albeit they don’t all connect easily. The domain of ethics offers the option of unethical actions by being contained in the domain of existence; existence offering the options of itself and nonexistence. Yet, in the case of ethics one ought to seek virtue, since in this reality it appears to be the only true good.
Society appears to require a large amount of some form of ethical behavior. Vice seems at best useful for the purpose of aesthetics or entertainment. The leaders of each domain typically represent the domain, and serve the purpose of assisting those without such options, by making them aware or performing the action themselves. The human being needs to consume some amount of energy to perform the action of survival. And by implication survival is related to existence. There is no apparent necessity from existence for one to survive other than the possibility for one to exist based on natural processes. Such seems to be the case since the pursuit of existence or nonexistence can be seen as advantageous or disadvantageous depending on one’s mind. At the very least ethics can consider the plight of individuals articulating problems, which infers a negative condition. A philosopher collective perhaps should be aware of the categories of philosophy, if not each particular distinct idea contained within; and ethics is one of these, as no human appears without a social context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)