GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius wrote:

So in this practical sense, do you intentionally play the role of a wise dunce?

What “intention”? What does ‘intentionally play' exactly mean, and more essentially, actually entails? Free-will in a "practical" sense? If we say ‘intentions’ are caused too, then any other ‘intention’ (or individual point of view) is equally caused… hence no comparative value… so it seems that making a “God” out of causality (THAT does it all) is illogical, for then one alienates and considers “causality” to be something apart from that which is caused.

You're being evasive, Sapius. You know exactly what I am asking. You have intimated that the dumb questions and objections you repeatedly raise on this forum are not a result of your ignorance, but are a contrived tactic designed to facilitate discussion. It is as though you are saying, "I am enlightened, naturally, but I choose to play dumb because it helps foster important discussions". You can see why one might find this curious.

For the moment the point would be… one should avoid saying, and more importantly, stop imagining that ‘God (or whatever), does it all’, poetically or otherwise.

Is this another contrived tactic? Or are you really this dumb?

-

Does 'existence' precede 'consciousness' or does C precede E?

This is a false question. Consciousness is the eruption of brain, body, world tri-intersectional space (nexus of these three regions in a unitary space). What consciousness actual is or what induces it---we have no idea! Professor Alva Noe has just published a book on this (February, 2009).

'Existence' means in Latin etymological & morphological structure "the nominal notion of 'to be'" from the adjectival participle "having the quality of being". In our Anglo-Saxon tongue we would say 'that which is.' This pertains to rocks, stars, planets, plants, animals, etc. A beginning catalogue of very concrete objects, that slowly shifts in our semantic net to invisible things at the micro- or nano- level of detail.

There is a scale of semantic generality that has been violated by the asking of this question. Since we have no idea, that is, lucid idea, of what consciousness is, we perforcely are precluded from even answering such a question.

Once we understand what consciousness is, and, more importantly, how it instantiated itself with inter-neuronal complexity in brain matter---we will be able to jump to the larger scale of semantic generality to determine if an animal body's existence forces a consciousness in local or hyper-local time-space.

The notion of "preceding" or 'walking behind' is, of course, nonsense. It is an abuse of logic as well as language. Either existence (here a most peculiar form of existence or 'animal' existence) is separate from consciousness, or they are conjoined in some fashion. Anyway, the term 'existence' is too generalized to be meaningful for a fruitful discussion.

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin

See my other posts for my background

--

Sapius, just stop talking-eh? David, I'm just wondering if everyone knows that much of what you believe regarding the Infinite, or Absolute, are tenets of Mahayana Buddhism. Not to minimize its importance or anything of the sort.

.


Blackfire09-
Then, something ceases to exist simply because one does not perceive it.

-tomas-
I haven't got there yet, so that's still an open question.


-Blackfire09-
Therefore, when one 'dies,' nothing exists?

-tomas-
Yes, and I may have never existed in the first place, wherever that was.


-Blackfire09-
Things will certainly exist to others, because they still possess life and consciousness.

-tomas-
This is unknown as to whether 'others' will have existed before, during or after 'my' supposed existence.


-Blackfire-
I may be missing something, but is this then not the be all end all definition of existence, just a quasi-subjective definition?

-tomas-
Just before beddy-bye last evening, I crawled into bed to begin another adventure in/to Sleepsville :-)


-Blackfire09-
What do you think?

-tomas-
When I wakey-uppy, it wasn't the same as Wakesville :-(

Blackfire and David:

I find you two actually wish to use language as a tool to elucidate thought, not to obfuscate it behind rhetorical-psychological flourishes.

The act of thinking must be rooted in sharp, crisp metaphors, if we are to engender thinking.

A simple recent example I came across is: Did our early hunter-gatherers hear color?

John

Tomas:

When you ask a question, stand away from it for awhile.

Observe physicality: up-down, left-right, inside-outside.

Our sensorium detects things in our world; but there are many things it did not detect (actually, most things). It required measurement technology and tools to enhance our crude African sensory systems as upper ape primates.

To suggest that something does not exist unless one perceives it---is once again a violation of logic and a sloppy use of language. A perceptual act implies the registered state of something, but given our feeble sensory powers, it would be ludicrous to delimit the existence of something due to scale and granularity in our perceptual senses.

The question hinges on the adverb "something" with the inferred latent/opaque notion of "everything" dangling in the background of thought as 'white noise.'

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin

--

J Malin;

The word "perceive" is used a little more broadly around here than perhaps you are used to.

It is more like: "to identify" or "to give identity"

Ataraxia:

Thanks for the info. I see the formidable erudition of Biochemistry has made itself felt in semantic terms drifting. How molecular protein receptors and substrates 'identify' each other (their crude perception system).

Maybe that was why such a fuss was made on one site here about the simple identity relation in higher mathematics: A = A.

I appreciate your kindness and courtesy to me. How are things in Australia?

John

Hot,dry and ablaze

Ataraxia:

That sounds dreadful. We in the U.S. have been seeing pictures of your massive droughts and fires.

If I understand it correctly, you have many of the same ecological problems we have in our Western states.

We really do need a new form of energy (perchance, dark energy) to stabalize our nasty bio-geo-chemical system that runs our atmospheric systems. We humans have over-populated Earth from a thermodynamical-ecological perspective.

Do you agree?

John

David: You're being evasive, Sapius.

Since when is that a crime? On the other hand, it could be a lack of understanding on your part.

You know exactly what I am asking. You have intimated that the dumb questions and objections you repeatedly raise on this forum are not a result of your ignorance, but are a contrived tactic designed to facilitate discussion.

Yes, I know exactly what you are asking, but you shouldn’t object if I lied, after all, it isn’t all that bad if one justifies it for a good cause, isn’t it?

It is as though you are saying, "I am enlightened, naturally, but I choose to play dumb because it helps foster important discussions". You can see why one might find this curious.

No, it may sound “as though”, but you are mistaken; the word ‘enlightenment’ leads to all sorts of egotistical mania without one actually realizing it; so with all due respects, please don’t insult me.

Blackfire09 wrote:Sapius, just stop talking-eh? David, I'm just wondering if everyone knows that much of what you believe regarding the Infinite, or Absolute, are tenets of Mahayana Buddhism. Not to minimize its importance or anything of the sort.

Why… you enjoying this? Heheheheeee…. Well, such drivel and personal evaluation doesn’t last for long, only that David likes to consolidate his authoritative position from time to time, so comes up with the likes of ‘you haven’t made the leap’; it's a different matter that he can’t even be absolutely certain if there is indeed another though.

Even David is aware that there is actually nothing new in what he says, only that others misinterpret that which is blatantly simple… at least for some.

David & Sapius:

Be fair to yourselves!

Both of you have good mettle in this little auto-erotic creative word game we all play.

Try to keep your language crisp, sharp and focused here.

Both of you have made intelligent and thought-provoking comments which I have read.

Ask me a question that has purpose, since it shields a fresh insight from our scientific literature which is low hanging fruit ripe for plucking!


John E.D.P. Malin

P.S. Where is Ataraxia?

--

John: Does 'existence' precede 'consciousness' or does C precede E?

This is a false question.

Returning to the topic at hand… but of course.

David? Your views? Would you like to actually contribute to the thread topic at hand or continue with egotistical pleasures? You haven’t actually said anything on the topic as yet. To make is more interesting, is BlackFire (particularly) being logical in asking such a question or not?

I guess I was typing while you posted, John; I am of the same opinion as you have expressed.

Ask me a question that has purpose, since it shields a fresh insight from our scientific literature which is low hanging fruit ripe for plucking!

There is no end to Knowledge; the more I learn, I learn how little I know. All we need to do is look up and reach for the fruit.

I will have questions, but I’m about to go on a trip. So when I get back in a week or two.

Sapius:

Thank you for my inclusion to this thread.

I presume David asked the question to tease out its latent or opaque content to induce thinking in the brain, or, as it is said, a thought experiment as a working tool for philosophers or, as now they are called, conceptual engineers.

In short, David is cleaning up vagueness in our thinking self-conscious minds. It is very easy to be deceived by word-language, especially, when many of these words are Greek and Latin technical terms in our English tongue.

Take the word 'consciousness': con- < Latin cum "with" [Used in Latin syntax to intensify the verbal action] + scire "to know" [simple sense verb meaning to know or perceive something] + Anglo-Saxon suffix -ness [How you make an adjective "conscious" into an abstract noun]. So our consciousness is an intensified self-awareness of our immediate situation, environment and world picture.

Do these paltry etymological language skills from a Greek, Latin & Anglo-Saxon (Old English) grammarian have any value here?

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin

--

Sapius:

I was composing my last blog while you had posted your blog immediately before.

I shall enjoy your discussion when you come back from your trip.

Have a safe and enjoyable trip!

My quote you gave was expressed badly by the use of the conjunction 'since'; what I meant is that I have noticed that there is a correlation between advance scientific research at the cutting edge and what conceptual engineers or philosophers are doing.

Generally, they start with a peculiar, silly sounding argument that leads one into the weeds of modern scientific insights. It is a modest attempt to capture the significance of the scientific literature.

Does the group agree with this?

I hope Blackfire and David will permit their voices to intrude into this discussion.

I value their input.

Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

--

John: I presume David asked the question to tease out its latent or opaque content to induce thinking in the brain, or, as it is said, a thought experiment as a working tool for philosophers or, as now they are called, conceptual engineers.

In short, David is cleaning up vagueness in our thinking self-conscious minds. It is very easy to be deceived by word-language, especially, when many of these words are Greek and Latin technical terms in our English tongue.

I do understand, but saying ‘hooked up on “words”’ is a false… (I don’t know what’s the word…)... for what exactly is a word but a symbol that represents the meaning. Nobody actually understands "words", but actually the meaning, so what does ‘hooked up on words’ actually mean? It’s actually quite amusing, really.

Sapius:

I am not following you? Where did you get the phrase "hooked up on words" (I did not use it)?

Your notion of words is quite correct.

When we took ten centuries to go from pictographic Sumerian-Akkadian cuneiform characters to stylized cuneiform characters (essentially rotated the pictograph 180 degrees) to a token character (wedge & nail impression on the clay) representing "things", as opposed to sound for things, it was the principle of the rebus and homophony (same sound) that turned our 'word' script into a 'phonetic' script. But we did not have a real alphabet until the Sanskrit grammarians and the Greek grammarians added vowels (6th Century BCE) to the alphabet.

But there is more to words than sense-datum. Syntactic relations are highly complex in all languages; and idioms are even more daunting to elucidate in the drafty corridor of time.

When you raise reference (my term), symbol or token and meaning in relation to language, you have covered an immense territory in late and early 20th century philosophy of language and logic. Here I am thinking of the Oxford crowd in the 1930's to 1950's.

So you have opened up a vast reservoir of immense erudition, whether you realize it or not. I suspect you do, since that is why you asserted these sensible claims


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin Enjoy your trip!

--

John,

Sapius,

I am not following you? Where did you get the phrase "hooked up on words" (I did not use it)?

No, you did not… but since you were explaining David’s supposed intentions, I was actually referring to his pet statements… (on the previous page of this thread which got our private philosophical discussion going)

David Quinn wrote:

Sapius wrote:I can’t exactly see the logical reason to jump from ‘no things exists inherently’, which means that things do exist but in relation (relative), or say dependent on other THINGS, to “therefore nothing ultimately exists’??? To me, saying that ‘nothing ultimately exists' is synonymous to saying ‘ultimately, existence does not exist’, which seems absurd, for without things that non-inherently but however do exist, what would existence (or causality) actually be like?

You haven't made that all-important leap in understanding and you're still getting hooked up on the words.

Given the amount of time you spend on here, you should have resolved this issue long ago.

-

For a person who claims to be a wise sage, most of the time that does seem out of place and quite meaningless to me; but no worries really :)

John: But there is more to words than sense-datum. Syntactic relations are highly complex in all languages; and idioms are even more daunting to elucidate in the drafty corridor of time.

Other than that, particularly, facial expressions and the tone of the sound can change the meaning of the same word/sentence drastically. It could reflect and convey a vast amount of written context with just a nifty shift of a single eyebrow. At times words are not even necessary to express/convey vast amounts of non-verbal messages… god bless emoticons :D


BTW, is this some other company?

JohnEDPMalin wrote:Tomas:

When you ask a question, stand away from it for awhile.

Observe physicality: up-down, left-right, inside-outside.

Our sensorium detects things in our world; but there are many things it did not detect (actually, most things). It required measurement technology and tools to enhance our crude African sensory systems as upper ape primates.

To suggest that something does not exist unless one perceives it---is once again a violation of logic and a sloppy use of language. A perceptual act implies the registered state of something, but given our feeble sensory powers, it would be ludicrous to delimit the existence of something due to scale and granularity in our perceptual senses.

The question hinges on the adverb "something" with the inferred latent/opaque notion of "everything" dangling in the background of thought as 'white noise.'

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin

--

You have Blackfire09 and me confused with one another. Perhaps it is you who do not perceive.

Blackfire09 wrote:Sapius, just stop talking-eh? David, I'm just wondering if everyone knows that much of what you believe regarding the Infinite, or Absolute, are tenets of Mahayana Buddhism. Not to minimize its importance or anything of the sort.

You can find the same deep kind of thinking in various historical sources, not only in Mahayana Buddhism - for example, in the writings of Diogenes, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Echkart, Kierkegaard, etc.

These historical sources always originate in the individual thinker, as opposed to an organized group. Within Mahayana Buddhism, for example, the real wisdom comes from thinkers like Nagarjuna. The groups which subsequently tried to systemize Nagarjuna's thinking and turn it into a bundle of "tenets" only succeeded in distorting it beyond measure.

This is another way of saying that wisdom belongs to no group or culture and can only spring into being when an individual makes the effort to resolve the Great Matter in his own mind.

-

Sapius wrote:

John: Does 'existence' precede 'consciousness' or does C precede E?

This is a false question.

Returning to the topic at hand… but of course.

David? Your views? Would you like to actually contribute to the thread topic at hand or continue with egotistical pleasures? You haven’t actually said anything on the topic as yet. To make is more interesting, is BlackFire (particularly) being logical in asking such a question or not?

If the question disturbs him, he is being logical in asking it. We shouldn't assume that he has already decided upon an illogical answer.

The question is an important one and the wisdom-seeking individual needs to resolve it.

A Zen story springs to mind:

Two monks argued about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." Their argument went back and forth and no one could agree.

The Sixth Patriarch happened to be passing by and he told them, "It is your mind that moves."

-

David Quinn wrote:

Sapius wrote:

John: Does 'existence' precede 'consciousness' or does C precede E?

This is a false question.

Returning to the topic at hand… but of course.

David? Your views? Would you like to actually contribute to the thread topic at hand or continue with egotistical pleasures? You haven’t actually said anything on the topic as yet. To make is more interesting, is BlackFire (particularly) being logical in asking such a question or not?

If the question disturbs him, he is being logical in asking it. We shouldn't assume that he has already decided upon an illogical answer.

The question is an important one and the wisdom-seeking individual needs to resolve it.

A Zen story springs to mind:

Two monks argued about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." Their argument went back and forth and no one could agree.

The Sixth Patriarch happened to be passing by and he told them, "It is your mind that moves."

-

...and I’m being accused of being evasive… I say, very well picked up on the later half... the egotistically related comment rather than the former request for a philosophical contribution, which I was 99.99% sure that THAT will be picked up and commented on :D well... never mind...

If the question disturbs him, he is being logical in asking it. We shouldn't assume that he has already decided upon an illogical answer.

But of course… are you trying to patronize Loki by any chance? It is also logical to ask ‘what’s for dinner’ too, or, did you take a crap this morning, but what has that really got to do with ‘actually contribute to the thread topic’? Or did you not understand what exactly was being asked?

The question is an important one and the wisdom-seeking individual needs to resolve it.

Well... then your saying so must have helped him resolve it… what can I say… well done!

A Zen story springs to mind:

Ah! And in time for tea too! I remember that it had sprung to your mind around the very first encounters we had around over ten years ago, and I had responded to that then, and I think it was featured in one of those GF e-news letters so you can look it up too; and my response to YOU is the same today as it was then; I would tell the Sixth Patriarch, that there is nothing really flapping/moving to begin with.

(May be not those exact words, but I'm sure you can look it up and decipher the context/meaning)

Dadid, Sapius & Tomas:

This question, "Does Existence precede consciousness, or, vice versa (conversely)?" strangely has the frame of Satre's question, "Does existence precede essence, or conversely?"

It has the smell of French 1940's Existentialism about it, doesn't it?


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin


P.S. It is amazing how French existentialism has fallen into disrepute in both Anglo-American and Continental academic chairs of philosophy.

--