WJ

Hi John!

Indeed one thing I see we have in common, or are in agreement with, is that ultimately truth is Subjectivity (thank you SK!). But, what is truth? If truth is partly a search for meaning, then of course to sound convincing we must objectify it. In essence, I think that is what natural science does (or at least in part tries to do).

In physics, it is successful using the mathematical laws of nature. So when we find patterns in this uncovery about nature that are objectively derived, then we make subjective assumptions or conclusions because we, for some reason, seek meaning to truths about physical existence. Or, said another way, the truth's behind meaning and meaning behind truth's.

So again I see a mismatch of the objective and the subjective when we throw-in concepts like truth and meaning viz. physical existence. We are seemingly suspended in a belief, (such as the one I hold that there is a higher purpose to our own levels of consciousness-conscious thought).

I think that the low light bat thing can be easily conferred onto human's, but the fact we don't live in cave's, primarily speaking, simply says that we've adapted to our particular environment. If we were fish talking to each other, I suppose I'd be Mark Spitz complaining about why we can't be like human's

In summary, on this point, it seems unusual that survival is not based on higher forms of human intellect-the ability to solve math equasions. I sense though, we are back to refuting whether trees or other animals have certan elements of a human conscious?

Walrus

John Page

Disagree. I think there are degrees of subjectivity/objectivity, its not a binary on/off thing. You can believe blindly or disbelieve completely but you can also believe somewhat or conditionally.

You might be able to achieve a higher level of awareness/consciuousness whatever but I don't see how this leads in the direction of a "higher purpose".

Oh but I think intellect is critical to survival. A well educated society will be more powerful economically and possibly militarily - outsmarting the other guys (and other living beings) is the human stock-in trade.

Clearly, consciousness could be defined in such a way that it is common to humans, trees, animals etc. It would be nice to be around when there is substantial discovery as to what human consciousness has that others do not.

Cheers.

WJ

Hi John!

I have to say I'm just a little confused on this minor point of discussion. You just said:


"Oh but I think intellect is critical to survival. A well educated society will be more powerful economically and possibly militarily - outsmarting the other guys (and other living beings) is the human stock-in trade."

Mmmm, well why do you think intellect is important? It doesn't confer any biological advantage over survival in the forrest. How are issues of economics/military/ power/ego's relate to an animal's (lower life forms) consciousness required for survival?

The only thing intellect really does is help build bigger more effective methods of anihilation. So the naysayer would simply reply what are we waiting for? The lion wants to dominate. Why are we any different? Or are we?

(And if we are, what does it mean?)

Walrus

John Page

I think intellect does confer advantages in the forest. This goes all the way from tracking the habits of your prey to communicating in teams on how to tackle a bear that would easily dominate an individual. Again, I don't think intellect is an on/off thing, people have it in degrees and put it to different uses.

As for consciousness in animals, my case is a little more vague here due to my ignorance. (Not absolute ignorance though! Having consciousness I believe that a being's ability to strategize is far increased, as well as introducing an element of objectivity into its judgement. Rather than fighting to the end, for example, an animal can learn from observation and experience, using its imagination to plan for the next time.

Cheers, John

WJ

Hi John!

You are staring to worry me. On this point I think perhaps it is safe that we may agree to disagree, as I see a bit of 'Darwinism' coming out.

If we really want to ascertain with complete logical certainty the reason for higher levels of intellect or consciousness (the ability to compute the laws of gravity when it is not necessary for surviving dodging objects; sentient existence, free-will, inability to create a new universe, so on and so forth.) I think we will have to have the ability to create a consciousness out of nothing. Or, create a robot with all and more of the features discribed, just like a human conscious. Or, discover the origins of the universe, out of nothing. Until human's can actually do that (which there are current efforts ongoing) only will our debate provide for more 'meaning' behind objects-objective existence.

Though there exists a thing called 'hope', I'm afraid the metaphysical aspects of the mind-body phenomenon shall remain as such-a metaphysical mystery! As it should be!

So when I say you are starting to worry me, I mean or sense you are coming close to, say, what a rationalist's view might be of epistemic beliefs regarding physical-mental existence. If not, please correct me. Otherwise, the next question for us to ponder might be, does the rationalist accept the premise that in fact mystery exists? Phenomenology? No answers for meaning, existence just is?

And if any of that has merit, then truth (in meaninful existence) is indeed Subjectivity!

And that's a good thing

Does that logically follow?

Walrus

WJ

Oops, hey John, I forgot:

As a separate but related matter, has human ethic's evolved? I think the answer is no, but certainly would be interested in any thoughts...

Thanks

Walrus

Ierrellus

A few decades ago "lie detectors" were connected to plants. When a match was held close to a plant, the readouts were spiked! Were the plants conscious? Were they lying? In these tests young tomato plants show a definite distaste for rock and roll.

Ierrellus

John Page

Walrus:

I didn't think my comment was Darwinist - my example wasn't intended to be a multi-generational one, just brains over brawn.

Why do you say the mind-body phenomenon should remain a mystery? For me its the phenomenon we should be trying to get a grasp of.

Well, I'm neither a rationalist or an empiricist. I am trying to rationalise (hypothesize) how empirically acquired data is turned in (abstract) knowledge about our reality. If anything, I'm more an empiricist trying to explain how we rationalize - our minds are part of reality, not separate.

Mystery must exist for the rationalist, whether they agree it does or not. If this were not so, rationalism would be able to explain external reality without reference to it.

There is meaning and there are answers for meaning, but I suggest this phenomenon is restricted to the minds of observers. I'm struggling for a really good example, how about "Proof of fraud requires evidence of the intent of the perpatrator, not just that theft occurred" or "A knife is so in our common understanding of its form, purpose and function, not because it intends to be a knife for us." More lightheartedly "One man's fish is another man's poisson."

Tomato Plants telling lies? I think the example listed above is a good case of our subjective view and conferring meaning from a human perspective. Replace the tomato plant with a human and maybe the results indicate that the subject doesn't want to be burned and likes soothing tones. We're back to amthropomorphism..

Cheers.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

John Page

Walrus:

I believe the opposite, mainly because of my relativistic views, but I'm not an expert. I have personally come across considerable variations in ethical standards in business transactions across the US, Europe and Africa that support this view. Ethics are societal norms and societies change over time.

Cheers.

WJ

Hi John!

I must say I've enjoyed the chat. Let me go ahead and read what you had sent me and I'll resport back. In the meantime, just a tidbit on the ethics viz. evolution thing: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In using the inapproporiate meaning of the word dumb (violating my own rule from the thread), I submit that we are just as 'dumb' as we were when we first appeared on the planet!

Of course that is only any extreamly wild inference based on my limited time on the planet, however, I don't see resolving the problems of (consciousness) emotional pain, good/evil/human finitude, temporality, meaning, primacy of sentience over intellect, and so on, anytime soon. In fact, I'll make the somewhat novel revelation or should I say 'educated guess', and assert that this problem of evolved ethics will not be logically possible to correct!

Be that as it may, if we are even remotely concerned that those kinds of issues (including your/our military/economic concerns)even present themselves as percieved problems, this must tell us something about our own selves. TMC.

Thanks,
Walrus