Full Version: The Self In The Brain
| QUOTE (Trip like I do @ Feb 26, 12:49 AM) |
| Absolute TRUTH! Not my truth, not Rick's truth, not Dan's truth, not Rhymer's truth, and no, not even Hey Hey's truth. |
Don, You're absolutely right there!
We each strive to attain absolute Truth.
I think that when such 'Truths' are declared and accepted by a vast majority of people for a long time (or proveable, which may sometimes be impossible and may just remain a probability) it must be the case that no better explanation is presently available.
Well, at least, if anything, we are 'conscious' of that fact.
| QUOTE (Dan @ Feb 25, 07:53 PM) |
| everybody believes in the virtue of absolute truth, but nobody can prove absolutely that they know it |
Could one possiblly know the absolute truth without becoming God-like?
no, because if a person knew the absolute truth (and knew that they knew the absolute truth) their mind would become completely closed just like God
If consciousness is identical to certain activity in the cortex, then we cannot claim to have freedom of will. That would make us puppets dependent on the wiring of our particular neurons.
A neurobiologist, Tom, understands every neuronal process that occurs in the brains of bats. Would he be able to have a bat's consciousness - would he know what it's like to be a bat?
| QUOTE (Dan @ Feb 25, 11:14 PM) |
| no, because if a person knew the absolute truth (and knew that they knew the absolute truth) their mind would become completely closed just like God |
Then are we God's memories and dreams, if his mind is closed that is?
of course, I am using the term 'God' tounge-in-cheek here. The idea of 'God' includes an ultimate reference for the answer of any possible question; such a character's mind would not be 'open' to questioning its knowledge because such questioning could not make it any more true. The analogy is that a person who 'knows truth' is not going to open their mind to alternative 'truths' because such alternatives could not be true (otherwise they would not be alternatives)
Perhaps conscious states arise from neuronal activity in the same way that magnetic fields arise from electric currents in a wire.
| QUOTE (Dan @ Feb 25, 11:29 PM) |
| of course, I am using the term 'God' tounge-in-cheek here. The idea of 'God' includes an ultimate reference for the answer of any possible question; such a character's mind would not be 'open' to questioning its knowledge because such questioning could not make it any more true. The analogy is that a person who 'knows truth' is not going to open their mind to alternative 'truths' because such alternatives could not be true (otherwise they would not be alternatives) |
So God is an extremely myopic and dogmatic essence.
| QUOTE (Trip like I do @ Feb 25, 08:35 PM) |
| So God is an extremely myopic and dogmatic essence. |
hardly
myopia -> a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something
me->Since God is assumed to be omniscient, his discernment and foresight are maximal
dogmatic ->
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
me->'God's opinions are assumed to always be warranted and never arrogant, as 'God' is incapable of error.
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
me->'God's understanding of premise is complete, thus it is impossible for him to have not examined a premise sufficiently
(remember, I'm not talking about an actual being named 'God', just the idea)
| QUOTE (Rick @ Feb 25, 11:41 AM) |
| And there are arguments about how false beliefs can be bad. Should culture be based on fantasy? What is better, truth or comfort? |
When we ask 'which is better', it means, we need both!
True comfort and comfortable truth.
We all have a sense for comfort.
Do we all have a sense for truth?!
Is there a comfortable lie (when you know it is a lie) ?!
| QUOTE (Trip like I do @ Feb 25, 04:49 PM) |
| Absolute TRUTH! Not my truth, not Rick's truth, not Dan's truth, not Rhymer's truth, and no, not even Hey Hey's truth. |
What is absolute TRUTH ?
Is it something which is never and no-where a lie?
Does that mean for Absolute TRUTH to exist,
there should not be any lie anywhere and anytime?
If I see no lie/falseness everytime and everywhere, does that mean I am seeing absoulte TRUTH?
| QUOTE (Rajesh @ Feb 26, 02:15 PM) | ||
|
The truth is the truth.
The use of the word absolute adds nothing to it (except perhaps to emphasise it).
Truth is not a 'package'.
Truth is what has really happened and the rules of Nature.
All mens thoughts truly exist but may contain or express falsehoods.
Anything less than the truth comes from the mouth or pen or signs of man. ie., it is a human survival tactic to gain advantage, change outcomes through falsehood to the advantage of someone or something.
When we witness events we record internally what we truly saw or heard or did. But, those perceptions may also be false to an extent, due to our interpretations of what we saw - ie., they may not be intended.
And, it is the intention of mans words and works which are so difficult for each of us to determine in truth.
This is why 'actions speak louder than words'. We can see 'what happened' rather than listen to 'what is going to happen'.
Is the polar opposite of Truth, 'Truth' itself ?
If that is the case then the truth should be present even in what we perceive as falsehood.
Existence of truth would mean non existence of falsehood.
If that is the case then the truth should be present even in what we perceive as falsehood.
Existence of truth would mean non existence of falsehood.
here's a test for Rajesh:
The earth is a big blob of strawberry jelly
is that true?
The earth is a big blob of strawberry jelly
is that true?
| QUOTE (Dan @ Feb 26, 12:38 AM) | ||
hardly myopia -> a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something me->Since God is assumed to be omniscient, his discernment and foresight are maximal dogmatic -> 1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant me->'God's opinions are assumed to always be warranted and never arrogant, as 'God' is incapable of error. 2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises me->'God's understanding of premise is complete, thus it is impossible for him to have not examined a premise sufficiently (remember, I'm not talking about an actual being named 'God', just the idea) |
How many times did it take God to get the first human, Adam, correct? And, how many ribs did he have to break to get Eve?
| QUOTE (rhymer @ Feb 25, 04:00 PM) |
| Before birth and after death there is no consciousness because there is no viable brain. |
So there is no life after death then? (Hint, nothing to do with religion). Any possibilities in the future?
No homunculus in there, but maybe there's a big man out there.
| QUOTE (Dan @ Feb 28, 11:06 AM) |
| here's a test for Rajesh: The earth is a big blob of strawberry jelly is that true? |
Good test. It was true in my dream, when I was a kid!
My point is that 'Absolute truth' cannot have 'false' as its opposite. Otherwise what is so absolute about it.
The truth about your statement(question) is that, it logically disproves my statement.
Merely classifying it as true/fase is just like classfying it as lengthy/short.
But you can find truth in everything.
if i tell a lie then it is the truth that i have just lied.
If you tell a lie, it is true that you told a lie!
So, your words (the lie) were a falsehood and you truly spoke the words - no problem!
So, your words (the lie) were a falsehood and you truly spoke the words - no problem!
| QUOTE (Hey Hey @ Mar 01, 12:02 AM) |
| So there is no life after death then? |
Not for the individual that dies. Death for an individual is the end of his life. Many religions falsely profess otherwise in order to attract believers. Hoodwinking the naive is evil. It takes unfair advantage of the human tendancy toward wishful thinking and causes unnecessary harm. Distracted by false belief, the victim ignores chances to get a proper grip on reality.
you got that right. Without promises by Allah of eternal life and 72 virgins for the faithful martyr, the 'suicide' bomber would be a negligible problem.
| QUOTE (Rick @ Mar 02, 03:39 PM) | ||
Not for the individual that dies. Death for an individual is the end of his life. Many religions falsely profess otherwise in order to attract believers. Hoodwinking the naive is evil. It takes unfair advantage of the human tendancy toward wishful thinking and causes unnecessary harm. Distracted by false belief, the victim ignores chances to get a proper grip on reality. |
you do not know what happens to people after they die any better than a christian priest or a 3-year-old child does.
Yes I do. To paraphrase Newton, if I have seen further than some it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.
Bernard de Chartes, "Latecomers are dwarfs atop the shoulders of giants. However tiny they may be, from their vantage point they can see a little further than their mighty predecessors." (The Analects of Confucius - Simon Leys)
I'd rather be on the shoulder of a giant than under his foot.
I'd rather be the giant and smack all the butt-kissing poseurs off of my shoulders
so who are these giants whoes shoulders you are standing on who have the supernatural powers of seeing what happens to people when they die?
I don't believe in giants!
People don't exist before they are born.
People don't exist when they die.
Memories remain for those remaining,(and hopes and wishes for many).
These are some of my beliefs.
Do not accept them unless they suit you and your experience!
People don't exist before they are born.
People don't exist when they die.
Memories remain for those remaining,(and hopes and wishes for many).
These are some of my beliefs.
Do not accept them unless they suit you and your experience!
| QUOTE (flowerfairy @ Mar 16, 06:11 PM) |
| so who are these giants whoes shoulders you are standing on who have the supernatural powers of seeing what happens to people when they die? |
Here's the point: there is no supernatural. Rationalist giants include Copernicus, Gallileo Gallilei, Gotfried Leibnitz, Isaac Newton, and Baruch Spinoza.
Da Vinci. Michealangelo, van Gogh and Picasso, are the giants of the art industry.
Don't forget Willem DeKooning, Jackson Pollock, and Robert Rauschenberg. I like abstract expressionism.
| QUOTE (rhymer @ Mar 17, 09:06 AM) |
| I don't believe in giants! Do not accept them unless they suit you and your experience! |
thank you rhymer, that is exactly what i was getting at. i believe in most of your beliefs rick, but i do not believe in your belief that your beliefs are more than beliefs.
How can one do mathematics if one doesn't believe that proof is more than belief?
| QUOTE (Rick @ Mar 17, 06:07 PM) |
| Don't forget Willem DeKooning, Jackson Pollock, and Robert Rauschenberg. I like abstract expressionism. |
You'd love my work then, Rick.
e-mail me youir e-mail adress and I'll e-mail you a few images, see what you think.
The artist employs illusion and metaphor.
The physicist uses number and equation.
Revolutionary art and visionary physics are both investigations into the nature of reality.
The physicist uses number and equation.
Revolutionary art and visionary physics are both investigations into the nature of reality.
It's the quintessential quest for essential reality, transport into endless emptiness, where you sense around you the creative points of the universe.
It's the work of giants that enable us to live in the world we live in today, with its comforts and perks, and yes, with it's adversities as well. I'm grateful to the work done by my predecessor giants, but no longer am I a dwarf standing upon the shoulders of giants, but a man walking tall with a clear concrete vision from God intact.
People expect a great work of art to develop their minds by expressing and clarifying the best thoughts of great men and women of their own and earlier times.
| QUOTE (Rick @ Mar 18, 09:53 AM) |
| How can one do mathematics if one doesn't believe that proof is more than belief? |
mathematics do not say that C is true because A=B. mathematics say that if A=B then C is true.
the higher you climb, the harder your fall (or better, landing!).
QUOTE(Dan @ Feb 14, 2005, 06:50 PM) 
Maybe we should think in terms of a 'raster' man who cycles through all available conscious states in a temporally serial fashion (time-division-multiplexing of consciousness into a finite number of disjoint histories).
that's a rather exotic idea, but it would make more sense if this 'raster' man goes through available conscious states in a parallel fashion instead of a serial fashion. In this way, you don't deal with the problem of temporally oscillating identities.
QUOTE(Rick @ Feb 23, 2005, 11:29 AM)
Also, the time-division multiplexing thing seems to require a central processor to orchestrate individuals' "turns in the barrel." Consciousness seems to be running on multiple parallel processors (brains).
Exactly
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.