Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[Dennis Mahar]

Laird has to admit an assumption he makes, although he uses the word suggests, he believes the assumption.

'When a mind conceives of an electron it is assumed electron always existed'.

is the old wrangling point.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Exactly, assigning a past to everything seen...

Based on this logic I should just assign a past to every object that appears in my consciousness, the roller coaster in my backyard has been there for years! How else?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

For anyone with a sensible mind it should be instantly agreed that all experiences/knowing/ideas/conceptualizations of "universe" exist as manifestations of consciousness. Agreed?

Fact, right?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Void v drama?

[Tomas]

Look Laird what your saying is completely contradictory:

For what it's worth...

Look Laird what your saying is completely contradictory:

Should read >> Look Laird what you're saying is completely contradictory:

Big difference...

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It wasn't worth anything Tomas :b similar to that whole conversation about the subjective indicative or something a rather

[Tomas]

It wasn't worth anything Tomas :b similar to that whole conversation about the subjective indicative or something a rather

Oh yeah, you're (your) the dreamer...

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Who are you?(your, you're, yoous)

[Pye]

Seeker, I put off your questions for a bit whether I've dreamt "correctly" or not (yoose funny :)), in favour of restating a question here I put to you priorly.

Seeker, what do you think sentiency is? What do you think the senses are sensing? Or is "sentiency" to you also one of those things that performs its operations in the vacuum of mind - i.e. has nothing to sense but itself?

As you 'demand' answers of others, so shall I demand of you that . . . . . . . . . oh, frack it. :) Just answer if you like.

Dennis, there's a post of yours back there (Friday, Dec. 28, 3:55 pm): perfect and beautiful.
I don't want to go to the grave with that stuff unspoken.
:)

and just as a little aside-musing, do you think it's possible for some of you males to talk to the women on this forum without sort of 'sexualizing' them? (teets, mother-images, preistesses, angels, girls-with-guns, etc.). I don't mean restricting the comments of sex and gender when they're part of the point, but rather these little winking asides that have come for so long with the clueless territory of privilege and sexism. I'm not insisting, not-really complaining or demanding, but just wondering if it's possible. Surely it's possible, for there are a very small handful of males here that have never once put those little stones in my path of conversing with them here. No worries - I'll just keep stepping over them. But perhaps one of you has some towering argument that explains why these little sexualized privilege-winks just have to appear when conversing with women and that Pye will be waiting until the end of time for them not-to. I could very well be asking for too much, so the few blokes on here who've never once done this (and I know who you are) are about to get my thanks for surpassing the winking in favour of thinking with me.

[Pye]

(oops - I forgot "she-masters"!)

[Tomas]

(oops - I forgot "she-masters"!)

A great part is the handle you are using..

If Pye isn't your real parent-given name, why use it?

And if Pye is your actual name, carry on!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

C'mon Tomas, you're just blabbing here. A typical male issue, the all too sexualized but at the same time overfamiliar talk when it's thought to be a woman at the other end. It's playing for the audience actually, staking out positions while hardly meant for the female involved (even when no audience is actually there). In fact, you seem to be doing the same here in a slightly different fashion.

Over the years I've been starting to question the wisdom of using real names, first or last, anywhere on the public net. As a principle of owing up it's a good thing but for the reality of a world of deranged people and overeager agencies, it doesn't seem that smart at all anymore.

[Pye]

Tomas suggests: A great part is the handle you are using..

Seriously? Seriously, Tomas? The "great part" is my responsibility? And "Pye" is a provocative name, bearing no relation to Pi? When a man hears anything about pie, or Pi, or Pye he's provoked into sexualization?

I wonder what you'd say if my screen name was "Seeker of Wisdom"? Or guest-of-logic? You think these attached to a female would prevent such a thing? You think an outright feminine first name would have prevented my greater part of the responsibility for this? Someone once wrote here long ago with the screen name "Foxylaythee" but I doubt they provoked sexualization any more than "Pye" has.

What if it's my initials? What if it's the first three letters of something? Of course, I can't clear any of this up because my given name will not be forthcoming, for many of the reasons Diebert just mentioned. The internet presents particular problems for women on this front; respect the differences.

Yours was a stunningly thoughtless reply, Tomas. It'd be nice if it even registered as "stunning" anymore, given how same-old, same-old ignorant it is.

[Tomas]

C'mon Tomas, you're just blabbing here. A typical male issue, the all too sexualized but at the same time overfamiliar talk when it's thought to be a woman at the other end. It's playing for the audience actually, staking out positions while hardly meant for the female involved (even when no audience is actually there). In fact, you seem to be doing the same here in a slightly different fashion.

Over the years I've been starting to question the wisdom of using real names, first or last, anywhere on the public net. As a principle of owing up it's a good thing but for the reality of a world of deranged people and overeager agencies, it doesn't seem that smart at all anymore.

So who is she referring to? She was the one who brought up about .. 'do you think it's possible for some of you males to talk to the women on this forum without sort of 'sexualizing' them' ..

What women? They are MovingAlways (sometimes referred to as Pam) and Pye. Who else?

Perhaps you can point out what I'm missing as to what Pye is speaking about?

As to your point(s) about using a given name in any way shape or form on the Net, that's why I use a childhood nickname here. The wife and I were burned in the mid 1990's when we used our real names. It was a financial nightmare for a month or two till it was cleared up by our attorneys. That was the Wild West days we'll never go back to. Even if my name was Bruce Smith or Steve Jones - no more common than those two for an example.

Finally, if Pye has an issue she needs to take it up with Dan, he's the Administrator here and let him deal with Pye's perceived offenders either directly or through the PM route.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Seeker, I put off your questions for a bit whether I've dreamt "correctly" or not (yoose funny :)), in favour of restating a question here I put to you priorly.

Seeker, what do you think sentiency is? What do you think the senses are sensing? Or is "sentiency" to you also one of those things that performs its operations in the vacuum of mind - i.e. has nothing to sense but itself?

She master ;) You are singling out yourself! See any of us here afraid to give out our first names?


Look, an important point for you to grasp to be able to properly consider this is:
The world is just as mysterious and absurd whether it is of the mind or not.

When you realize this you will recognize the plausibility of it being of the mind. The only way is to honestly consider your own shallow experiences.

But to ask the "how" of it is also absurd, I have no clue how consciousness comes to experience "universe", or even what consciousness is, I might as well ask you what matter or energy are? You wouldn't be able to answer, although I am much closer :P

And since we are askin', I'll stick to easy Y or N questions:

For anyone with a sensible mind it should be instantly agreed that all experiences/knowing/ideas/conceptualizations of "universe" exist as manifestations of consciousness. Agreed?

Fact, right?

[Pye]

Seeker writes: See any of us hear [sic] afraid to give out our first names?

Little General, I could be found in a newyork minute just with that, given that most folks here know I teach philosophy at an american university. That's cat's already been out of the bag, and I consider it an early folly of mine.

and Seeker, again: For anyone with a sensible mind it should be instantly agreed that all experiences/knowing/ideas/conceptualizations of "universe" exist as manifestations of consciousness. Agreed?

Fact, right?

You've had plenty of agreement on your tree-falling-in-the-forest issue. The problem is, you don't seem willing or able to take the thought any further than this. Yes, "they exist as" etc. Let me know when you're ready to deal with the implications of the "as."

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I think you are over exaggerating a tad don't you?

Your a philosophy teacher! It's paramount we continue with our conversation then haha


What do you mean about the "as" thing? You trying to say they exist as something?

[Dennis Mahar]

Pye,

Dennis, there's a post of yours back there (Friday, Dec. 28, 3:55 pm): perfect and beautiful.
I don't want to go to the grave with that stuff unspoken.
:)

Yeah! that sentence 'gets' it OK as in the 'heart of the matter'.

There's biological love which looks like a couple of hamburgers programmed to procreate aka the machinery.

There's 'deliberate love' or 'loving deliberately' which shows up in the people putting together political frameworks for the We space such as Human Rights.

There's the experience of open admiration when a demonstration of 'refined consciousness' stands out.
To me the Aesthetic is that very demonstration,
'refined consciousness'.
What it took to get anywhere near that is staggering.

It gets me feeling 'snug as a bug in a rug' that Life Works!

[Tomas]

Tomas suggests: A great part is the handle you are using..

Seriously? Seriously, Tomas? The "great part" is my responsibility? And "Pye" is a provocative name, bearing no relation to Pi? When a man hears anything about pie, or Pi, or Pye he's provoked into sexualization?

Some band wrote and played "She's My Cherry Pie". Ever heard of that? A couple of our (then) children played that song several hundred times in my and the wife's house and thankfully most of the time in their bedrooms or in the back yard. We have a fenced back yard but allowed some of their friends to use the back yard for their gatherings etc again that is for a different time to speak about that.

There was a rock band's cover from the early 1970s titled Mom's Apple Pie -- and it wasn't referring to Mom's food version of pie. Do you geddit yet?

No? The photograph was of a woman's pussy (her fur pie). After a couple parents somewhere hollered and yelled the second version of the album cover was altered so as to depict an actual apple pie.

It wouldn't matter what version of pi, pye, or pie used, the meaning is sexual in origin. No, not in your mind but in a great many "man's" thought processes several times per day. "Will I get a piece of pie this weekend at the (fill in the space)"?

But then, that was the 1970s, continuing women's liberation and the Vietnam war. Well before your time and space.

Hidden Secrets of Album Covers
Mom's Apple Pie >> http://www.ugo.com/music/moms-apple-pie

And its Wiki page
Mom's Apple Pie >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mom's_apple_pie

[guest_of_logic]

So,
it depends on consciousness.

no consciousness. no access. no values.

Again, you misrepresent my meaning. In fact, I would say that values are not dependent on being accessed by consciousness; instead, being accessed by consciousness is one of the possibilities for values.

whether the values hang around waiting to be accessed
or
consciousness chooses reality as it goes along

is something else.

I'd suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive.

John,

Look Laird what your saying is completely contradictory

I don't think you actually meant "contradictory", because you didn't go on to point out any contradiction. I think you simply meant "wrong" or "false".

You say I am the one claiming something which I would need to evidence/support

I'm saying you have an hypothesis for which there are competing hypotheses against which it needs to be evaluated.

My claim is a fact, your experiences/sensations are actually manifestations of your mind

But that's disingenuous: your claim is more than that, it is also that these experiences/sensations do not correspond to a reality beyond the mind. And that is not an established fact.

Nothing has ever been experienced/known/seen/evidenced that doesn't exist as a manifestation of the mind. Agreed?

That's also disingenuous, because the meaning of "manifestation of the mind" is (deliberately on your part I'm sure) ambiguous. I think you want it to mean, "a creation created entirely by the mind in the absence of anything external", whereas, if I were to provisionally answer "Yes", it would be after interpreting that phrase to mean, "a creation created by the mind, in some cases based on the mind's senses as stimulated by external phenomena".

[paraphrasing Laird]1. It seems more plausible that consciousness has to reside somewhere in a "place". With no real reasoning provided besides that apparently it doesn't require any leaps of faith to have it this way and that this model "works".

I notice that you avoided acknowledging that in comparison, your alternative explanation of experiences-in-consciousness relies on "magic" that you have no idea how to describe. In other words, your alternative "explanation" is not even so much an actual explanation as vague hand-waving.

In any case, since that's not enough for you, then let me offer you something more along the same lines. You assert that 'every single idea you may have had of something external to mind was actually residing "within" mind'. Now, unless you make some special exception (which I would expect you to clarify and explain), then you yourself - you and your consciousness - qualify as one of these "external ideas". Therefore, by your reasoning, you reside "within" my mind. Yet, the same is true of me with respect to you: I am but an idea "within" your mind. So, we reach the conclusion that you are but an idea in my mind which is but an idea in your mind which is but an idea in my mind which is but an idea in your mind which is... and on and on in an infinite regress. Or, rather than "infinite regress", we might simply call this a contradiction.

I can't see any way to avoid this contradiction other than by positing consciousnesses as "separately located", which brings us back to this first reason that I offered you: if consciousnesses are "located", then they must be located within something, and so we have reason to believe in an external reality of some sort.

I would like you to point out how your model is a condition required to navigate or is needed to make life "work" out.

I don't claim that it is, except in the sense that believing in an actual external reality is very probably of significant psychological benefit in living effectively in one: as is evidenced by your own psychology, not believing in one can lead to very different life choices.

[paraphrasing Laird]2. Computer analogy, which bears no relation to ultimate reality because it is about computers not consciousness. Clearly.

But analogies by definition involve a contrast between different types of things, in this case computers and consciousness. The fact that this analogy meets the definition of an analogy (which is the worst criticism that can be drawn out of your comment) has no bearing on how useful it is. You seem to want to paint it as useless though, and so, as I challenged you to do in my last post, to support this you will need to point out the specific ways in which you think it is deficient. I'm still waiting for that.

Perhaps you simply don't understand what the analogy points to. I can help you there.

The only understanding you've offered so far is this:

I did have a better grasping of the point you were trying to make once you mentioned the first person shooter idea, there is a platform on which all individual consoles/PC's are "meeting", without this shared platform there would be no possibility for interacting with other players, it is this platform itself that makes such interaction possible, without this central server there is no shared platform.

This is a good start, so I'm not sure why with this basic understanding you go on to say that the analogy is useless, perhaps because of the misunderstanding I'm about to correct, namely that I'm not saying that in the absence of the central server, interaction is impossible: in fact, my analogy relies on the fact that interactive communication still occurs, just on a many-to-many level (multiple individual PCs/consciousnesses communicating with multiple other individual PCs/consciousnesses) rather than on a one-to-many level (one central server/external reality communicating with multiple individual PCs/consciousnesses).

So, yes, the "platform" (more specifically, one part of the platform: the central server) represents "external reality". The point of the analogy is that challenging problems occur when external reality (the central server) is not present that do not occur when it is present, meaning that the absence of external reality is an unnecessarily complicated and thus less likely hypothesis. Somehow, all of the individual consciousnesses (PCs) have to synchronise a consistent experience without the benefit of basing that experience on a shared external reality (the data in the central server). I pointed out some of the many problems with this in my long post; they are very much relevant to consciousness in reality.

I'll take just one of the problems that I pointed out to show you how you can perform a translation from the analogy to reality: the problem of initiation of consistent changes in shared experience. I pointed out that in the absence of a shared external reality (the central server), which could initiate changes itself, it's not clear how or why changes that aren't willed directly by one of the agents in reality (i.e. by a player pressing buttons on his PC, or, in reality, by a person making decisions and doing things) even occur. I'm talking here about changes like the wind starting to blow: this is a shared experience that multiple "players" in reality experience consistently, but if the change isn't initiated by external reality (the central server), more specifically by an application of the rules of physics to the state of that external reality, or something like that, then by what means is it initiated? Does it initiate from a single mind, from one of the consciousnesses (PCs) in reality (the first-person shoot-em-up), and if so, how is it then communicated to all of the other minds (PCs) in reality (the first-person shoot-em-up)? And what if one of the other minds (PCs) in reality (the first-person shoot-em-up) sought to impose a contradictory change - whose change would take precedence and why? See, these sort of problematic questions and the actual problems they point to simply don't arise when external reality (the central server) really exists, and when all minds (PCs) accept these sort of changes from it as authoritative.

You can apply the same sort of translation to each of the other problems I raised in my long post.

Pye,

there are a very small handful of males here that have never once put those little stones in my path of conversing with them here

To my regret, I'm not one on them. I remember once making a comment that a particular thought you'd had was impressive for a woman, which in context I meant as a sarcastic criticism of the house philosophy rather than of you, but by your response at the time and what you have said now I realise it was inappropriate, and I'm sorry.

[guest_of_logic]

By the way, another comment on this:

Nothing has ever been experienced/known/seen/evidenced that doesn't exist as a manifestation of the mind

I think that by this, and similar comments I have seen you make, you are attempting to invoke Occam's Razor: that an explanation that does not posit a reality beyond the mind is simpler than one that does, and that therefore we ought not to posit a reality beyond the mind.

What I am trying to point out to you is that the opposite assertion can also be made: I've given you two reasons why positing a reality beyond the mind is simpler (leads to fewer problems) than not positing one.

[Dennis Mahar]

When a mind conceives of a value it is assumed that the value always existed.

That's the point Laird.

the assumption.

a necessary distinction.

like John says there's evidence of a mind conceiving of a value.

there's no evidence of your 'contract'.
it is an assumption.

[guest_of_logic]

When a mind conceives of a value it is assumed that the value always existed.

That's the point Laird.

the assumption.

The cheap answer to that is: but you are equally as guilty of assuming things - you assume instead (at least I think you do, I don't know what else your position might be) that the value is "created".

The more helpful answer I think is to compare the two assumptions. Your assumption seems to be, "When I begin to value in a way that nobody has ever valued before, I 'create' a new value". The question I would ask about this, then, is, "And what if another person subsequently, without knowing anything about your prior valuing, begins to value in exactly the same way as you do?" It seems that we must take the position that this person "created" the same value independently, yet how can it be a true creation when you have already performed the creation? This problem is why I do away with human "creation" of abstract entities altogether, and talk instead about "access" to pre-existing abstract entities.

[Dennis Mahar]

It's open to Inquiry.
what isn't?

agree?

[guest_of_logic]

Yes.