The Sexes

[Getoriks]

Orenholt wrote:
It’s not that the perception of a thing is necessarily false (or true) it is that perceptions are by their very nature untrustworthy. You can only build a tentative reality from them. For example, we look at the fossil evidence and extrapolate from it that dinosaurs existed. But we can’t be sure that they ever did exist, we can just accept that they might have. This doesn’t make dinosaurs any less real, for as an example their existence and every other things existence relies on that same reasoning. And that’s fine, because for the most part it is practical for us to see things this way.

For science and ordinary day to day life that way of looking at things can work fine, but when it comes to philosophy such guessing isn’t enough. Ultimate reality is what matters, so certainty is what one is after – and that can only be found through logic.

Ok I can accept that. BUT why would we disregard empirical evidence that consciousness comes from the brain? I know it's just a guess but isn't it a logical one given what information we have?

Well, there is no empirical evidence that consciousness comes from the brain, only that it seems to come from the brain. We mustn't conflate correlation with causation.

David Quinn once gave another example, saying something along the lines of: If our car does not start, and we rework the spark plugs which seemed fine but might not have been, and afterward the car then starts, we assume that the spark plugs were indeed not fine and therefore the cause of the car's failure to start. But do we really know this? What if they were fine all along, and that, in our messing with them, we unknowingly bumped some other connection back into its proper place, and that was what allowed the car to start again? We can never be exactly sure of what the particular cause was.

To be sure, we can narrow them down through a process of elimination and pick the most likely one. But it is just that -- the most likely one -- and nothing more. It is never 100% certain. Likewise with consciousness and the brain. Likewise with all empirical matters of the senses. You yourself just noted that it's just a guess. In philosophy, a guess does not cut it. If you want the true prizes of philosophy, you're going to have to go on quite a long journey, and one of its first steps is beginning to think in terms of what is ultimately real. That is, leave the guessing games for your scientific interests, not your philosophical quest.

But really, I'm now the 4th (5th?) person on this forum to personally point this out to you, and it's found many other places as well, and of course, in your own mind. Please, less posting, more thinking. Don't get me wrong -- conversation with others is important, but without contemplation (conversation with your self), it is useless, and will at best make you a self-assured parrot, but will most likely leave you feeling uncertain and even stupid. I don't think this conversation has been pointless, as it's always worth the effort to wake another person up, but Dennis Mahar had a point in that these issues cannot be forced.

[Russell Parr]

David Quinn once gave another example, saying something along the lines of: If our car does not start, and we rework the spark plugs which seemed fine but might not have been, and afterward the car then starts, we assume that the spark plugs were indeed not fine and therefore the cause of the car's failure to start. But do we really know this? What if they were fine all along, and that, in our messing with them, we unknowingly bumped some other connection back into its proper place, and that was what allowed the car to start again? We can never be exactly sure of what the particular cause was.

To be sure, we can narrow them down through a process of elimination and pick the most likely one. But it is just that -- the most likely one -- and nothing more. It is never 100% certain. Likewise with consciousness and the brain. Likewise with all empirical matters of the senses. You yourself just noted that it's just a guess. In philosophy, a guess does not cut it. If you want the true prizes of philosophy, you're going to have to go on quite a long journey, and one of its first steps is beginning to think in terms of what is ultimately real. That is, leave the guessing games for your scientific interests, not your philosophical quest.

Furthermore, the only thing that we can be 100% certain of is that everything that we perceive has no identity in anyway whatsoever until the mind projects an identity on it. Through science, we can perceive that all solid objects, and even non-solid like air and gasses, are a conglomerate of atoms, and the microscopic electrical processes which bind them together. This in no way resembles our experience in every day life, so does that mean science is logically wrong? Of course not. Science provides a specific set of "eyes" for seeing things in different particular ways, with different rules and boundaries. Similarly, a point often made by the forum founders, can you really identify an absolute starting point for your consciousness? One may say its the brain, but what is a brain without the body's sense transmitters, like the eyes and ears, which are external of the brain? Then even further out, what are those transmitters without sense triggers, like light and sound? On and on it goes.

But really, I'm now the 4th (5th?) person on this forum to personally point this out to you, and it's found many other places as well, and of course, in your own mind. Please, less posting, more thinking. Don't get me wrong -- conversation with others is important, but without contemplation (conversation with your self), it is useless, and will at best make you a self-assured parrot, but will most likely leave you feeling uncertain and even stupid. I don't think this conversation has been pointless, as it's always worth the effort to wake another person up, but Dennis Mahar had a point in that these issues cannot be forced.

Continually addressing the same points with the same counter points should show 1 of 2 things to a new poster: 1) that the forum regulars must be hopelessly deluded, or 2) there's something amiss in one's own thinking. Both of these are good reasons to excuse oneself to either move on, or meditate on the points being made by both parties. On top of the second point, there are lots of material to go over to try and get a better grasp on the mentality of the forum founders, like Genius news issues, and Kevin's book, Poison for the Heart. Yes, it would take quite a bit of time to go over everything, so one must decide if it is worthy material.

The point is, if one is continually engaging in counter arguments with forum members with the same points, then learning is not the priority.

[Orenholt]

Well, there is no empirical evidence that consciousness comes from the brain, only that it seems to come from the brain. We mustn't conflate correlation with causation.

David Quinn once gave another example, saying something along the lines of: If our car does not start, and we rework the spark plugs which seemed fine but might not have been, and afterward the car then starts, we assume that the spark plugs were indeed not fine and therefore the cause of the car's failure to start. But do we really know this? What if they were fine all along, and that, in our messing with them, we unknowingly bumped some other connection back into its proper place, and that was what allowed the car to start again? We can never be exactly sure of what the particular cause was.

This sounds a lot like something Quinn was criticizing. The thing about if you strike a match and fire appears then it could really be aliens shooting a fire beam to that exact location at the exact time every time.

Are you willing to say there's only a correlation between the brain and consciousness (which has no exceptions we know of) but also willing to say that there's a causation between sex and consciousness (which has been proven to have exceptions)?

To be sure, we can narrow them down through a process of elimination and pick the most likely one. But it is just that -- the most likely one -- and nothing more. It is never 100% certain. Likewise with consciousness and the brain. Likewise with all empirical matters of the senses. You yourself just noted that it's just a guess. In philosophy, a guess does not cut it. If you want the true prizes of philosophy, you're going to have to go on quite a long journey, and one of its first steps is beginning to think in terms of what is ultimately real. That is, leave the guessing games for your scientific interests, not your philosophical quest.

Then give me an example of what's ultimately real and then define "ultimately real".

But really, I'm now the 4th (5th?) person on this forum to personally point this out to you, and it's found many other places as well, and of course, in your own mind. Please, less posting, more thinking. Don't get me wrong -- conversation with others is important, but without contemplation (conversation with your self), it is useless, and will at best make you a self-assured parrot, but will most likely leave you feeling uncertain and even stupid.

Well I think we can conclude 1 of 2 things. Either you all are wrong which is why I don't get what you're saying about some things or 2 I'm completely stupid for not getting it.
I'm open to the possibility of both.

[Robert]

Well I think we can conclude 1 of 2 things. Either you all are wrong which is why I don't get what you're saying about some things or 2 I'm completely stupid for not getting it.
I'm open to the possibility of both.

How would you know if a person is wrong if you don't get what they're saying? You'd have to 'get' them first to know they're wrong.

This is a clear indication that you should heed the advice others have given you, and spend some time reading what's been suggested. What's the rush anyway?

[Orenholt]

How would you know if a person is wrong if you don't get what they're saying? You'd have to 'get' them first to know they're wrong.

This is a clear indication that you should heed the advice others have given you, and spend some time reading what's been suggested. What's the rush anyway?

Because I think I get what they're saying and I disagree with what I think they're saying. Admittedly I could be wrong in what I think they're saying though. That's why I'm open to the possibility that I'm just stupid.
The only reason I'd like to know in a timely manner is because it's frustrating to not know.

[Dan Rowden]

Well I think we can conclude 1 of 2 things. Either you all are wrong which is why I don't get what you're saying about some things or 2 I'm completely stupid for not getting it. I'm open to the possibility of both.

Classic false dilemma.

[Getoriks]

Well, there is no empirical evidence that consciousness comes from the brain, only that it seems to come from the brain. We mustn't conflate correlation with causation.

David Quinn once gave another example, saying something along the lines of: If our car does not start, and we rework the spark plugs which seemed fine but might not have been, and afterward the car then starts, we assume that the spark plugs were indeed not fine and therefore the cause of the car's failure to start. But do we really know this? What if they were fine all along, and that, in our messing with them, we unknowingly bumped some other connection back into its proper place, and that was what allowed the car to start again? We can never be exactly sure of what the particular cause was.

This sounds a lot like something Quinn was criticizing. The thing about if you strike a match and fire appears then it could really be aliens shooting a fire beam to that exact location at the exact time every time.

What would David be criticizing? Him and I are in full agreement: we can never know, locate, or isolate the exact, specific, particular cause with 100% certainty and can only pick for practical purposes, but we can know that all things are caused with 100% certainty. That you think David and I are at some disagreement here leads me to think your personal emotional issues are causing you to have reading comprehension issues. Advanced students are generously assisting you in your learning and you are doing next to nothing to receive what they are communicating.

Are you willing to say there's only a correlation between the brain and consciousness (which has no exceptions we know of) but also willing to say that there's a causation between sex and consciousness (which has been proven to have exceptions)?

I am willing to say the former, and unwilling to say the latter.

Give me an example of what's ultimately real and then define "ultimately real".

A thing must be what it is and cannot be what it is not, no thing is inherent, all things are caused by other things, all things must pass, etc.

Ultimately real = fundamental, essential, absolute, certain, without a doubt, permanent, eternal, unchanging, undivided, complete, whole, immovable, genuine, authentic, incontestable, infallible, correct, true in all worlds, undeniable, right in all situations, substantial, legitimate, actual, bona fide, etc.

I'm completely stupid...

... is, as Dan put it, "false", and is the only completely stupid conclusion you've made, once again, stemming from personal emotional issues. You're not stupid. I'd say you have at least a 125 IQ, perhaps up to a 140 IQ even. It only takes about a 120 IQ to become enlightened. You're just being ignorant, irrational, stubborn (which can actually turn into a positive quality later on), and you're new to / rusty at this. It takes time and effort. It takes work. A lot of work. Becoming enlightened is much harder than, say, earning a doctorate degree. Have patience.

[Orenholt]

What would David be criticizing? Him and I are in full agreement: we can never know, locate, or isolate the exact, specific, particular cause with 100% certainty and can only pick for practical purposes, but we can know that all things are caused with 100% certainty.

Ok I see how that is so. And yes, I didn't read carefully enough. I admit it. I was just vaguely remembering it.

Give me an example of what's ultimately real and then define "ultimately real".

A thing must be what it is and cannot be what it is not, no thing is inherent, all things are caused by other things, all things must pass, etc.

Ultimately real = fundamental, essential, absolute, certain, without a doubt, permanent, eternal, unchanging, undivided, complete, whole, immovable, genuine, authentic, incontestable, infallible, correct, true in all worlds, undeniable, right in all situations, substantial, legitimate, actual, bona fide, etc.

So are experiences "ultimately real" ?

I'm completely stupid...

... is, as Dan put it, "false", and is the only completely stupid conclusion you've made, once again, stemming from personal emotional issues. You're not stupid. I'd say you have at least a 125 IQ, perhaps up to a 140 IQ even. It only takes about a 120 IQ to become enlightened. You're just being ignorant, irrational, stubborn (which can actually turn into a positive quality later on), and you're new to / rusty at this. It takes time and effort. It takes work. A lot of work. Becoming enlightened is much harder than, say, earning a doctorate degree. Have patience.

You know my IQ is 138 but those tests aren't completely accurate.
I admit that I may be ignorant and I agree that I am stubborn but I disagree that I'm being irrational because I am endowed with the faculty of reason and a reason is a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event. So I am not uncaused in my perceptions.

[Getoriks]

I admit that I may be ignorant and I agree that I am stubborn but I disagree that I'm being irrational because I am endowed with the faculty of reason and a reason is a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event. So I am not uncaused in my perceptions.

Please distinguish between reason (logical thought) and reason (cause). For example, a Christian has their reason (cause) for their unreasoning (illogical thinking).

Also, experiences can never be ultimately real.

[Orenholt]

Please distinguish between reason (logical thought) and reason (cause). For example, a Christian has their reason (cause) for their unreasoning (illogical thinking).

It may be rational for a Christian to believe in Heaven etc. but it doesn't mean that it is therefore logical.

So if you said I'm being illogical then I'd say that I may indeed be illogical in this subject.

[Getoriks]

It may be rational for a Christian to believe in Heaven...

You are perhaps confusing rational with rationale, and reason with rationalization.

[Orenholt]

It may be rational for a Christian to believe in Heaven...

You are perhaps confusing rational with rationale, and reason with rationalization.

I already gave you the definitions of these things.

Rational: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational?s=t
Reason: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason?s=t.

Logic: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic?s=t

[Dennis Mahar]

Like Russell indicated.
Reality is real and nameless.
Geddit?

[Bobo]

Admittedly I could be wrong in what I think they're saying though.

I think that what is being said is that only appearances are real. And there is no reality besides what appears for you.

[Jamesh]

Well, there is no empirical evidence that consciousness comes from the brain, only that it seems to come from the brain. We mustn't conflate correlation with causation.

Why? It is completely clear to me, via the non-conscious experience of dreamless sleep, that a brain is required for our consciousness - although the brain is not the only cause, everything else is as well, without a form of brain there is no consciousness.

Philosophy to me is about correlations and the generalisations that can arise from such correlations. It is how our brains work. Everything to me, even a-priori thoughts, must have an empirical foundation, it is just that certainty arises via logical correlation and generalisation.

Maybe I should listen again to Dan’s Youtube explanation of Certitude v Certainty before posting this – but nah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiP9DDHUKc

A thing must be what it is and cannot be what it is not, no thing is inherent, all things are caused by other things, all things must pass, etc.

Funny enough I can find fault in each of these truths. Although they do apply to almost everything, certainly anything observable, there is a point in which each of these logical truths fall down. They are almost absolute, not completely absolute.

Firstly it is 100% clear that something must be inherent otherwise evolution (of anything - matter or life) could not occur – there must be a base of some kind. If this base thing was inherent then it is also not caused by other things and does not pass from existence.

One can believe that The Totality is this base, that things just somehow arise from the totality, as most here do - but not I. To me the inherent self-expansion of Time (the only property it has) is the only possible underlying cause of everything. Time is the only possible individual thing that cannot be other than infinite, while no other thing can be infinite (except perhaps space, though I view space as being caused by Time overlapping).

That “a thing must be what it is and cannot be what it is not” or A=A, is certain though but only in a fleeting sense, or a logical sense – it is only half the story. As all things are in a state of constant change, a thing eventually will become what it is presently not.

The problem here is the old issue of whether within the duality of the universe one chooses at the time top perceive the A=A effect based “holist” perspective or the A=BCD causally focused “reductionist” perspective.

It is the reductionist perspective that makes us more conscious than animals, not the holist one. However it can be circular - one can become post-reductionist and return to the holist perspective.

[Getoriks]

Why? It is completely clear to me, via the non-conscious experience of dreamless sleep, that a brain is required for our consciousness - although the brain is not the only cause, everything else is as well, without a form of brain there is no consciousness. Philosophy to me is about correlations and the generalisations that can arise from such correlations. It is how our brains work. Everything to me, even a-priori thoughts, must have an empirical foundation, it is just that certainty arises via logical correlation and generalisation.

Empirical evidence can never reveal actual causes, only ever the most likely causes. The very fact of it being empirical makes it uncertain, by definition. Sorry.

Funny enough I can find fault in each of these truths. Although they do apply to almost everything, certainly anything observable, there is a point in which each of these logical truths fall down. They are almost absolute, not completely absolute. Firstly it is 100% clear that something must be inherent otherwise evolution (of anything - matter or life) could not occur – there must be a base of some kind. If this base thing was inherent then it is also not caused by other things and does not pass from existence.

The only fault is your understanding. There is no evolution. There is no change. Nothing is happening. There is no base, bottom, ground, floor, or bedrock. There is no underlying substratum. There is no mystic essence. There is no fundamental process. The nature of the Universe is no-nature.

One can believe that The Totality is this base, that things just somehow arise from the totality, as most here do - but not I. To me the inherent self-expansion of Time (the only property it has) is the only possible underlying cause of everything. Time is the only possible individual thing that cannot be other than infinite, while no other thing can be infinite (except perhaps space, though I view space as being caused by Time overlapping).

No thing can be other than the Infinite, as the Infinite is all things. Time is no special snowflake.

That “a thing must be what it is and cannot be what it is not” or A=A, is certain though but only in a fleeting sense, or a logical sense – it is only half the story. As all things are in a state of constant change, a thing eventually will become what it is presently not.

Wrong, because then it would cease to be that thing. You'd then be talking about something else. A = A. You cannot defy it. Even the attempt to defy it proves it. A = A isn't just about "logic", it's about everything.

The problem here is the old issue of whether within the duality of the universe one chooses at the time top perceive the A=A effect based “holist” perspective or the A=BCD causally focused “reductionist” perspective. It is the reductionist perspective that makes us more conscious than animals, not the holist one. However it can be circular - one can become post-reductionist and return to the holist perspective.

Both of these "perspectives" are equally deluded. My friend, I beg of you: wake up, go beyond mere perspectives, and see the Real!

[Russell Parr]

It only takes about a 120 IQ to become enlightened.

I've never heard that before, how did you come up with it?

[Getoriks]

It only takes about a 120 IQ to become enlightened.

I've never heard that before, how did you come up with it?

Ah, I did not mean it as an exact statement or a finding from some formal study. It was just to make the point that you don't need some super high 160 IQ to be a genius.

[guest_of_logic]

Welcome to the forum, Orenholt, belated as my welcome is, and assuming that you're coming back - I see you haven't visited in almost exactly a week. This is just a small note to let you know that for the most part I agree with and support you in this thread. I've challenged the "woman=unconsciousness" meme too, on many occasions, on one of them taking the same approach as you and posting a selection of the most unreasonable quotes from David's essay. I also agree with you that the forum definition for "to exist" of "to present an appearance [to consciousness]" is flawed, and have argued as much in past posts. Likewise, I agree that needs are dependent on wants (although I would prefer "will" to "wants" in this context), or at least that such can be argued - for example, if you have a will (want) to die, then you don't need food. I think that there are alternative definitions of "need" by which this is not true though, such as (w.r.t. the noun not the verb) "that without which one cannot continue to live" [source: my head, not a dictionary, although I'd expect a dictionary to offer a very similar definition as one of the senses of the word].

One thing I disagree with you on in this thread though is that consciousness is caused by the brain. I disagree in part because of the stories of people who have died and whose brains have become electrically inert, and yet who have had out-of-body experiences whilst "dead", and then returned to life. I also disagree in part because of the evidence I have seen for reincarnation, which is hard to explain if consciousness is caused by the brain. I could probably come up with other reasons if pressed.

Anyhow, thanks for your presence, you've catalysed a lot of interesting activity on the forum.

Laird

[Dan Rowden]

One thing I disagree with you on in this thread though is that consciousness is caused by the brain. I disagree in part because of the stories of people who have died and whose brains have become electrically inert, and yet who have had out-of-body experiences whilst "dead", and then returned to life. I also disagree in part because of the evidence I have seen for reincarnation, which is hard to explain if consciousness is caused by the brain. I could probably come up with other reasons if pressed.

I think you should because the idea that people have NDEs when their brains are "electrically inert" is utter claptrap.

[guest_of_logic]

OK, well, I won't make an attempt to defend my assertions as I don't feel like getting into an extended argument on the issue, but sure, if you do want to press me to come up with other reasons, then I'll give it a shot. I can think of two categories of reason: empirical and philosophical. Other empirical reasons than the ones I've already supplied (and both of those were empirical) include:

1. that some people (claim to (that's a freebie for you!)) see (literally, with their eyes) a spiritual aspect to beings - auras and chakras, basically - which, again, suggests (I don't think it proves it though) that a person's consciousness is independent of the physical body, including the brain.

2. that some people reportedly have experienced astral travel - and here you get another freebie admission: granted, reports are rare, and reports including validation of details unseen from the perspective of the body at "home" even rarer, but on the whole there seems to be something to this phenomenon, and, speaking personally, on one occasion (as I've mentioned once before on this forum, I believe), whilst in a peculiar set of circumstances, I felt myself lifting out of my body, but for some reason, probably fear, didn't fully separate.

The main philosophical reason I can think of is this: that it's particularly hard to imagine how the subjectivity of consciousness could ever arise in the first place from inert (in the sense of having no consciousness to start with) matter/energy. I mean, let's take a neuron - it seems pretty likely that on its own it doesn't give rise to consciousness. OK, so, let's add another neuron with a neural connection to it. Now we have two neurons in communication. Any consciousness yet? My guess: nope. Fine, fine - let's keep going, adding neurons and neurons, and each time asking "Is the neural network conscious yet?" - I wonder at what point (and especially why) we would answer "Yes, we just hit the jackpot". It seems unlikely to me that we ever would, but I understand that there are efforts under way to simulate the neural networks of certain brains in supercomputers, so it's possible I'll be proven wrong at some point.

I'm aware that there is a philosophical position - panpsychism - that denies the truth of my parenthesised comment, in other words, it denies that matter/energy are inert with respect to consciousness, or at least it posits, as Wikipedia informs us, that "mind or soul (ψυχή) is a universal feature of all things", but this doesn't invalidate my point, because even if it's true, it still means that consciousness is not caused by the brain, but by the consciousness inherent in "all things".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

OK, so, let's add another neuron with a neural connection to it. Now we have two neurons in communication. Any consciousness yet?

But the same argument can be made to start doubting the natural process of fusion giving rise to the immensely complex and ever changing, evolving properties of our own sun. It's really hostile to science in a fundamental manner: to belittle nature to be as dumb as a collections of screws, Lego, mecano!

As for the other claims, one should take into account effects of LSD, DMT, Salvia and lucid dreaming before getting into "other" factors that can give experiences of dislocation in space, time and experiencing the unordinary. And the effects of these substances or techniques on the brain have been studied. They can even be reproduced! Without much need for complex concepts of astral worlds or substrates where a "consciousness" arises. That said, there's a lot of unknows here, nobody claims the riddle of consciousness is completely solved. Just that it doesn't seem to need any contrived imaginary ideas about it to keep functioning.

[Dan Rowden]

The brain is obviously not the source or sufficient cause of consciousness (however important it may be) because the brain cannot function in isolation.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The brain is obviously not the source or sufficient cause of consciousness (however important it may be) because the brain cannot function in isolation.

It's just the main bridge hanging between all what happens outside the skin and what happens underneath the skin. Remove one side and the bridge collapses. If they ever would put a brain in a vat, they might need to keep all the senses going, providing complex and consistent signals to prevent a total shutdown or crash. That's what I imagine at least.

[Dan Rowden]

Indeed. Put a brain on a table and what's it going to do? Create its own data input? Provide its own electro-chemical power supply? No, it's going to just sit there waiting to be crumbed and deep fried.