Or to summarize, the unconscious is doing a lot more, at a much higher level then we often give it credit for and key aspects of our minds that we generally think of as conscious functions (i.e. most higher level thought) also appear to be able to run in the background, without making it to the recursive system. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To start, it would make sense to make sure you and I are talking about the same thing when we say "consciousness." The word has lots of different meanings. Misunderstandings about those meanings gums up the works on almost all the discussions about consciousness here on the forum. What I mean, and what I think you mean by "consciousness" in this context is awareness of the self experiencing. The experience of experience. Self-awareness. Generally, I think of this being mediated by words - either talking to others or myself or writing.

Given that, I don't have much to offer related to the philosophical and scientific issues you've raised, but I can speak for my personal experience of the workings of my mind. Very little of what I do is mediated by my consciousness. I'm not just talking about the pumping of my heart or even dreaming. I'm talking about complex, cognitively detailed actions taking place over an extended period of time. For example - writing this post. There is nobody in the control booth translating my unconsciousness thoughts and then directing me what to write. What I'm writing comes out whole, complete. It is very common for me to be surprised by what I've written. It's as if it came from nowhere. Consciousness comes into play when I come back and edit what I've written.

Taoists have a phrase "wu wei." Acting without acting. Acting in accordance with one's true self. We wei arises spontaneously without reflection or intention. It is the ideal form of action.

It's a mistake to impose one's modern day values on the past. This game does that by relating fictional game mechanics to real world history: — counterpunch

I agree. To a certain extent, I think it's disrespectful to pretend that European colonization was cleaner than it really was. On the other hand, if I were black or American Indian, I would probably feel differently. Would @BigThoughtDropper be comfortable playing this game with people who's ancestors were slaves? I wouldn't be. Which means I wouldn't be comfortable playing this game at all.

Seems more a question of taste than morality. — Baden

Agree.

Well written, also a bit over-simplistic. It will be much easier to read if you break it down into paragraphs. Many people won't even read a wall of text. You've covered pretty much all of philosophy in one looong paragraph, a commendable feat.

But there should be no doubt about the existence of a fundamental form of the world around us. — n1tr0z3n

But there is doubt, and controversy.

But we are indeed unable to perceive the simplicity, because of the complexity of our mind, of our brain. It’s not the world that’s complex and confusing, it’s our perception making things complex and confusing. — n1tr0z3n

There is truth in this, but it is also misleading. Our minds create reality from whatever it is that's out there, so the structure of reality is intimately related to the structure of our minds. I don't think there's any getting around that. We can't perceive the world unmediated by our minds. Those who have come closest are probably people following spiritual paths - Buddhists, Christian and Islamic mystics...

But the useless complexity of emotions have made it so much difficult to understand. — n1tr0z3n

I think the opposite is true - without emotions, humans have no basis for valuing the world. Psychologists have shown that people with damage to the parts of the brain related to emotion often have disruption in their ability to make decisions.

There’s no such thing as absolute true or false. It’s just the evolution of humanity and the knowledge and law poured down by generations. The birth of different cultures, religions and philosophical beliefs have effected us. Shaped our beliefs and our perception. We gave life a meaning. — n1tr0z3n

I agree. You have interesting perspectives, although, as I said, I think they are too simplistic. Welcome to the forum.

I have often wondered about this and have written here that temperament and aesthetics probably inform people's choices. — Tom Storm

I agree that temperament is a strong determiner of philosophical approach. I'm an engineer - genetically, psychologically, spiritually. Pragmatism, otherwise known as engineering philosophy, works for me.

If true, it raises follow up questions - can this be overcome or dealt with in some way? How is it identified? — Tom Storm

I don't think it's a bad thing. It's inevitable and reasonable. What I believe reflects my heart, my mind, and my soul. Somebody said:

Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.

From my own perspective I am personally struck by this from Nietzsche's The Gay Science — Tom Storm

I like the quote, and it's right. There is not just one correct way of looking at things. Our philosophy has to let us live our lives. One philosophical approach will never supersede all others without coercion. Philosophy isn't about winning a fight, it's about searching for the best path forward.

Coherentism: none of our beliefs are foundational, and the truth of a belief can only be confirmed by its coherence with other beliefs. Thus, knowledge arises from a network of interdependent and mutually reinforcing beliefs. Whether a belief is justified or not depends on whether it agrees with one's other beliefs. — Noisy Calf

This is more in line with my previous thoughts about how people create their worlds as babies. It's also in line with my own personal experience of what it feels like for me to know something. I have a sense, an image, of a great interconnected network of knowledge. I think of it as a truss, but that's because I'm an engineer.



Each of the nodes of the truss are connected to at least two other nodes. A load placed on any node is transmitted along the truss members to other nodes and throughout the rest of the truss. I see this as a metaphor for knowledge. I can't add a new node anywhere I want. The rest of the nodes are significantly constrained in their movement by the interconnected members of the truss. If I want to make any major changes in the network, especially something that isn't consistent with its current design, it will take a lot of effort throughout the network, not just in the location of interest.

So in conclusion, we form immediate, unreflective beliefs about reality based on foundational knowledge, and then, by reflecting on these beliefs, we work them into a coherent system that allows us to know them in a reflective and self-conscious way. So unreflective knowledge is justified according to foundationalism and reflective knowledge is justified according to coherentism. — Noisy Calf

I think very little of our knowledge is reflective until we need to use the knowledge we have. That's consistent with what you've written. I guess the difference is that when you talk about foundational knowledge, I think of knowledge that has been learned, absorbed, and is present as a network in our minds. I guess that means that I don't see the distinction between foundational and coherent knowledge as important.

Imagine an empty digital photo, say with resolution of 900x900 pixels and 900 colours. It potentially can hold a picture of every planet, star and galaxy that ever was and will ever be, at any arbitrary given time, from every possible angle, every possible altitude. — Zelebg

I don't get this. How could a 900x900 pixel image show the entire universe or even a small part of the universe?

Are there moral philosophies which, in your opinion, provide an adequate method to determine the borders of the community? Are perhaps virtue ethics not just relevant, but unavoidable when it comes to this first step? — Echarmion

The most obvious method to determine borders is possession. Is that a moral standard? It certainly has moral elements.

Foundationalism: some of our beliefs are foundational, that is, they are self-evidently true, and they do not require demonstration to be justified and known. According to strict foundationalism, everything we know is either a foundational belief or a conclusion derived from foundational beliefs.

Coherentism: none of our beliefs are foundational, and the truth of a belief can only be confirmed by its coherence with other beliefs. Thus, knowledge arises from a network of interdependent and mutually reinforcing beliefs. Whether a belief is justified or not depends on whether it agrees with one's other beliefs. — Noisy Calf

This is an interesting and well thought out post. My understanding of human nature is that, although we are born with capacities and tendencies, almost everything we know we learn. The first months of a child's life are spent creating a world with raw sensory data, their mind's and body's structure and function, and guidance from other people, primarily their mothers and families. To me, that puts the kibosh on foundationalism from the start.

I have to go now. I'll think some more and come back later.

Fair. We can only really assess these results (and the success or failure of the initiative) when we have sufficient data. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Agreed.

That's an unpleasant comment. I hope I am better than this TC. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry it bothered you. It does not reflect my opinion of your contributions here. In the past I have expressed my appreciation for what you bring to the forum. It surprises me you thought I might be serious. I'll be more careful in the future.

Something worth considering, and I don't think it necessarily contradicts the other ideas presented here - One aspect of evolution and development is that structures and functions developed for one function or capacity may have side effects. These can be rejiggered for use for another purpose or, as long as they don't gum up the works too much, they can just sit around doing what they do with no particular purpose or meaning. Just because they're there, it doesn't mean dreams mean anything or do anything.

I've always thought of dreams as a kind of mental bowel movement. — Tom Storm

I thought that is why you came here to the forum.

It takes too much effort to blow up the local factory or store, wouldn't it be better if you could just stay at home on the sofa, eating your potato chips, and getting paid for it? — CountVictorClimacusIII

I've heard, although I don't know the details, that UBI would not cost any more than current welfare programs but would be more effective and much easier to administer. As a pragmatist, that sounds good to me. Even some Republicans are on board. Your homiletic position is all about virtue. I care about results.

"Homiletic" - preaching moral values. I was going to say "moralistic," but I wanted to soften it because I didn't want to be confrontational. Learned a new word in the process. Homiletic, homiletic, homiletic. Feels good to say. Love thesauruses. Thesauri.

We wouldn't want to give too much away but actually, blowing things up doesn't take all that much effort. — Bitter Crank

Said the man from Minneapolis.

They would be able to appreciate finer grades of porn, for instance. — Bitter Crank

Yes, there's no doubt. With my bachelors degree in civil engineering, I tend t be very sophistomicated in my erotica selection.

Everything else you wrote makes sense. I know two of my three children were not ready for college and neither of them graduated. One is back in school now at 36, which is when I went back to get my degree.

For a minority of high school graduates, the function of high school is college prep, and for this minority of students who go on to professional work, the culture of education, and their lives later on is excellent. — Bitter Crank

For what it's worth, according to the web, more than 60% of high school graduates go on to college. That surprises me. I can tell you from my family's experience significantly fewer graduate in four or five years. It took me 17.

Those who like classical music are alive at a time of abundant high quality live and recorded performances. This area of culture is better off now (IMHO) than at any time in the last 100 years. Bookstore (local or Amazon/Barnes & Noble, etc.) now have more high quality science fiction than ever before. They also have a lot more schlock. I find too many interesting historical and sociological studies to read should I live another 25 years (I'm 75 now). The INTERNET makes a huge amount of interesting and at least very good quality material available that would once have been very inconvenient to access. That's a cultural improvement. — Bitter Crank

I'm not a classical music fan, but the sentiment of this section is paragraph is correct. There are thousand and thousands of books written in English every year. If only 5% are good, that's more books than I can ever read. That doesn't even count older books, which are often available electronically for free from libraries and other sources. I'm not a big movie or TV watcher any more, but an incredible amount of good video is easily and cheaply available. My children are pretty sophisticated music listeners. They like a lot of the music around today, but they also listen to and know more about the music of my youth than I do. You can take free college courses by famous professors on-line. Wikipedia is wonderful. Google Earth is fantastic. If you can't find high-quality culture, you're not trying. "Caddy Shack," "Animal House," "Evil Alien Conquerors," "Dumb and Dumber."

I think you and I are fortunate. We came along at just the right time. We can pick and choose the aspects of the newer technologies that we want and discard the rest. My children; 39, 36, and 31; can also. Partly because of their age and partly because I was too cheap to get a computer and cable until they were mostly grown. Anyone younger than them will be immersed in the technology like fish in a pond.

Existence can be seen as stacked layers that start with art at the bottom as an emotional representation, science in the middle as analytical understanding of nature and finally philosophy at the top as a desire for truth that ties everything together which altogether creates a unique singular entity we experience as a conscious being. — seaofgems

Art, science, and philosophy are human-created ways of knowing the world. There are others, most significantly, religion. Seems to me they are ways of understanding existence, not existence itself.

I think the rest of your post is a vast over-simplification of what has happened to the world over the past 2,500 years.

An Absolute, such as 'God' cannot go away or have a beginning, or it wouldn't be Fundamental and 'First'.

Further, a Mind couldn't have been fundamental, for it would have parts necessarily more fundamental. — PoeticUniverse

God is whatever God is. I don't think It is constrained by human interpretations of what it can or should be, can or should do.

Eurgh, the usual suspects: Terribly-Condescending Clark joins the 'arguer, not the argument' party. Focus. On. The. Argument. — Bartricks

You're right, I shouldn't have jumped in.

I think he just means he doesn’t want to talk to you anymore because you’re an obnoxious douchebag. I could be wrong but it follows from how much of an obnoxious douchebag you are. — DingoJones

It's totally improper for me not to castigate you for your egregious abuse. Also, I hate emojis. But still:

:up: :up: :up:

I too will plead, as at this time, especially as I am rusty in the subject, I wouldn't be able to marshal enough knowledge to explicate the details of the mathematics mentioned there. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm back and I've read the texts you referenced. They were very interesting but not very helpful in answering my questions. I don't need to go any further with this except to say I was surprised to see that some of the philosophical claims associated with Godel's theorum are similar to the mystical/philosophical claims associated with quantum mechanics. These in particular struck me:

proves that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines.

They all insist that Gödel’s theorems imply that the human mind infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine or formal system.

I'm going to leave it here. I appreciate your help. This was fun.

Or, just as well, some(one) to blame, a Feuerbachian scapegoat ... — 180 Proof

Otherwise, our in-gratitude signifies taking 'the living – boredom and spite, joys and sorrows, loves and strangers – and the dying' for granted (i.e. neglecting, or denying, that we are called-into-question by these (our) givens). — 180 Proof

I have wondered whether how we take this is a matter of temperament, something we're born with, rather than anything learned.

The hard or brutal facts of our existence demand an effort from us to continue living. I think a balance between the brutal act of living and a spiritual or transcendent source of connection (finite/infinite) to potentially be a more realistic solution (if the problem we're addressing is spiritual despair). — CountVictorClimacusIII

I can't speak for you, but I am one of the most fortunate people in the history of the world. That hits me every day, with most things I do. If I can't be satisfied with that, who can be satisfied with anything. So - I don't see the act of living as brutal and I don't see the source of connection as transcendent. God, Buddha, the Tao, and all those guys are always right here. I can see them in my peripheral vision.

Surrendering to a spiritual path is an attractive thought, I just see it as difficult to properly apply in practice. — CountVictorClimacusIII

We can leave it at that.

There's an SEP article on Russell's paradox here. So it may not matter in the practical sense of you and I carrying on with our lives, but it is a philosophical issue of great significance. — Wayfarer

I resist philosophical labels, but I've come to the conclusion that I probably am a pragmatist. I have a strong resistance to philosophical issues that don't have practical consequences. As I said, let me spend some time reading.

Hey we're all in the same boat! In fact I bet my ignorance is bigger than yours! — Wayfarer

Oh, yeah! We'll see about that.

See sections 4.4 and 4.5 here: — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'll spend some time with your referenced text. Then I'll come back later and demonstrate more of my mathematical ignorance.

Thanks.

I suspect there's something you're not seeing here. — Wayfarer

I think you're exactly right. That was the point of my post. It's not that I think they're wrong and I'm right. I just don't get it. I'm hoping someone will answer my questions - why do these seemingly trivial paradoxes and inconsistencies matter so much? Where do they meet the world?

When Bertrand Russell told Gottlieb Frege about the 'barber paradox' it had a momentous impact on Frege's whole life work. I think, in layman's terms, what is at stake is elucidating a set of mathematical and logical principles which are both consistent and complete 'all the way down', so to speak. — Wayfarer

But why, in any practical sense, does that matter? Does it make mathematics less useful or effective in any significant way? It seems Platonic. Forms existing without relation to physical reality.

Basic mathematical curiosity alone leads to the question whether there is a mechanical procedure to determine whether any given Diophantine equation has a solution. And there are other answers in mathematics that incompleteness elucidates. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Basic mathematical curiosity is a pretty good reason to study something. I don't have any problem with that.

I just want to make it clear - I don't doubt the results of these brilliant mathematicians work. I'm not like one of those relativity deniers who think that I can see something that mathematicians and scientists have worked on for centuries.

Do you truly believe the world to be wonderful, do you truly enjoy the company of your fellow man, have you shouldered the burden of your responsibility with commitment, passion and love? Do these convictions truly represent you, your beliefs, your ideals, your desires, your motives? If yes, then perhaps you're on the path of inner peace and true harmony with yourself, others and the world around you. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think you're making is sound more complicated than it really is. We don't need to reach enlightenment to feel the way I've described. We don't need to be on some difficult, arcane spiritual path. I think it's more of a question of temperament. I am far from inner peace, but I see I'm responsible for my life. I don't think that's all that uncommon, although it probably is here where philosophers roam. Philosophers are an unhappy bunch.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. With all our effort. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think most spiritual paths lead to a cessation of effort, surrender.

The philosophical implications of Godel's theorems are usually very overblown. — Pfhorrest

All of the various self-reference paradoxes have always seemed trivial to me, e.g. "This sentence is false." Who cares? Russell's paradox seems just the same, just dolled up in mathematical/logical language. Ditto with Godel's incompleteness theorem. Do these "paradoxes" really have a significant, real-time, practical impact on the effective use of mathematics and computer science in the real world? Or is it only guys who are too smart playing around with trivia as if it mattered?

Now, let's assume that indeed this world and our lives are a prison cell. We can't escape it. Surely, we can attempt to alleviate our time spent in the cell then? Of course this would be subjective. A matter of perspective. But within the confines of "serving" our time out, we could at least perhaps, try to make the act of serving that time slightly more pleasant for us. Sure, rebellion might be pointless since there is no escape, but not if we subjectively find meaning in the act of that rebellion - rebellion here being to find beauty in the dissonance of life, to reduce our suffering and maximize our joy. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think you referred to this previously - what about those of us who find the world wonderful and who enjoy the company of our fellow humans. Who aren't in despair. Who recognize suffering for what it is. Who may even believe as Buddhists do that we are responsible for our own suffering. Our goal, to the extent we have one, is not to find meaning, but to make ourselves work the way God or Darwin built us to do. Tune up the machinery. Replace the framajamit. Polish up the chrome.

the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. — Wayfarer

This is the story I was referring to in my previous post. Your explanations are always better than mine.

Even if I'm wrong on that, I do think the "feeling alone" or "abandoned" is more a misperception, or an "illness" or a failure to appreciate, a lack of gratitude, amazement, wonder and love. — James Riley

I have thought that one of the reasons we need God is so we have someone to be grateful to.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

It's a great story, and very well presented. It reminds me of something I read. I think it was in Alan Watts - God was all alone in the world. Lonely. She wanted someone to play with, so she split herself into many pieces, us, and then made herself forget.

I still think your anger is clouding things for you. Baden made excellent points in that exchange you had. — DingoJones

You and your damned reasonableness. Would you please stop it!!!

I've been in quite a few exchanges like this one, both as a participant and a bystander. In those situations, censorship by bullying is a common tactic. Moderators sometimes are part of that, although others certainly participate too. When a moderator does it it can be a lot more intimidating.

Now we dishonor the memory of those who did all the hard work by allowing these people to crawl back out from under the fridge. — James Riley

So, you think those wars for freedom were fought to protect your liberty and not those you disagree with.

I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this discussion.

Thats what woke is about. That’s textbook behaviour of the biggest dicks in history. The self righteousness is in the act of viewing “woke” as a moral high ground over other views. That’s the direct implication of saying opposing views to wokeness are the views of dicks. — DingoJones

It isn't necessary for valid speech to be actively censored in order for it to be attacked. Threats, intimidation, insults, dismissal, and bullying can be effectively used to get you to just shut up. Cases in point:

As if being gay stops you from having regressive views on Palestinians or your voting pattern has to conform with what you actually believe. Your views are pretty clear snowflake. — Benkei

There are plenty of other forums less concerned about quality who do. Just go there. — Baden

If you mistreat others then you're a dick, plain and simple. That doesn't make me self-righteous; that just makes me right. — Michael

It's not self-righteous if they're right. If they're right then the people who believe otherwise are wrong, and so therefore dicks (given that this term "wokeness" seems to refer to views on ethical matters). — Michael

Ah, another right wing prejudiced poster complaining about quality because not enough people agree with him. Whatever snowflake. — Benkei

It is noteworthy that these quotes are all from moderators.

The fact that evil can use a gun does not mean that goodness should forgo the use. — James Riley

If you're saying that because others restrict speech we think is valid, we should do the same, I disagree.

Your post makes a good case against the kind of self-righteous suppression of speech we sometimes see here on the forum. I appreciate that.

...I have little patience to listen to shit from fascists or racists. And it's not simply a matter of me tuning them out or changing the channel. I want to see them shunned, banned, marginalized, pushed back under the fridge and into the darkness where they belong. They will always be with us, but we don't have to give them time or a platform. — James Riley

That's pretty much the argument used whenever speech is censored by those in power. Facism and racism - or communism, Marxism, socialism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and on and on - are often in the eye of the beholder. That's certainly the case here on the forum.

Ah, the internet. In less than a minute I can learn not only something new - that at first sounds like a disturbing effluvium from orifices to remain unnamed - but also what it is where it comes from and from Youtube videos how to make it - no effluvent orifices required. — tim wood

Actually, the Jimmy Neutron purple flurp was plagiarized. The one I was referring to came from Cracker Jack commercials in the 60s.