Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-31-2002, 06:44 AM | #51 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 2,082
|
Am I mistaking Deakins for Dawkins? Could somebody set me straight? My guide through the consciousness conundrum so far is Nicholas Humphrey. There are really good, provocative websites about this insightful man's ideas.
Evolution of Consciousness: Premise 1. All known laws of the physical universe apply to all organisms. Premise 2. No activity can occur that does not involve two separate entities. Premise 3. Experential data retained presupposes consciousness data. Premise 4. Evolution begins with interaction of objects and extends to interaction of thought. Premise 5. Tools for adaptability to environments are built into the structure of organisms. Premise 6. What is mental is an organism's interpretation of what is physical. Premise 7. The human "I" is a POV which is necessary to show continuity of resources for survival. This is a beginning, needing good rigorous analysis. Please don't blame N. humphrey for my first set of premises! They are my interpretations. Ierrellus PAX |
07-31-2002, 10:22 AM | #52 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Ierrellus,
Quote:
What is doing the looking, in my view, is very broken up and distributed. The ego is a set of mechanisms for developing interpetive coherence. |
|
08-01-2002, 04:59 AM | #53 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Montrčal
Posts: 367
|
Ierrellus, Could we agree that the language of thought is identical to our native, taught language? This one is suspect, and I believe because it originates from those who have had only 1 human language in their life.
There is no such language of thought as I believe excapt as if used in the context of throught being a huge adaptable processing system which can simulate specific language forms. These language forms, include logic, mathematics, and human languages. * * * I will make a timely respond to the other question. Sammi Na Boodie () |
08-01-2002, 10:35 AM | #54 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 2,082
|
Synaesthesia,
In my reading of papers on consciousness, the concept of "I' has so many interpretations that to try to find a common substratrum among them makes one want to say foul words. In SOCIETY AND ITS DISCONTENTS, for example, Freud claims that "oceanic consciousness", or the loss of the "I" POV, is indicative of some childhood fantasy. having to do with parental/child relationships. Too many mystics have claimed to have experience without the "I". I cannot disagree with their claims because I know that the "I" is not always the dominant POV. Too many non-mystical people have experienced an "I"-less consciousness. IMO the present-tense "I" awareness is only what it is--present tense awareness. Ierrellus PAX |
08-01-2002, 05:12 PM | #55 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 333
|
Ierrellus,
I think that it has been pretty well demonstrated that "I" is part of human psychology. That, of course, is based in physiology(in turn based in genetics, chemistry, biophysics, etc.) Of course, I do not pretend to know how consciuoness arose from this fortuitous combination of organics. But it did. I think the social aspects of consciousness have recieved insufficient attention. Without second party confirmation how would we confirm our ideas at all? Why do women's periods, when living in close quaters, synchronise? As social animals, we form competeing groups, how does this shape our consciousness? There are such needs and pressures to fit in with the group. Our psychology, based in our body, and our brain is part of our body, is fine tuned for social functions. SB [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p> |
08-02-2002, 03:56 AM | #56 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 2,082
|
Mr. Sammi,
As I mentioned on another thread, our foreign language prof. in college taught French and German in English. Since he was multilingual, we asked him in what language did he think? He responded that he thought in German. He was born and raised in Germany. German was his native tongue. In what language can you think? If you master the sounds of the French lanquage and their respective "meanings" in English, can you think in French? Ierrellus PAX |
08-02-2002, 06:02 AM | #57 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
As a matter of fact, I use French quite a lot but am basically Anglophone. My French is far from perfect, but I still do some basic thinking in French. Yesterday I was coming out of a supermarket looking at my change in the still-unfamilar-to-me Euros. I caught myself thinking, "Ah, ça c'est dix centimes et l'autre est une pičce de cinquante." I also dream in French from time to time (although the French in my dreams is probably partly incorrect). But when I am conducting a deeper conversation in French, I often have to search for translations of English words rather than thinking of them directly in French.
OTOH, as I get older, I find that a few English words seem to be replaced in my mind by their French equivalents. It's not that I can't find the English words at all if I try, but the French words come first. I believe that there has been some research that showed that second languages were largely accessed by different areas of the brain from first languages. Has anyone here experienced the phenomenon whereby foreign languages from the same language groups get horribly mixed up? So English speakers who learn both Spanish and Italian, for example, get them confused. This happened to me with Dutch and German. |
08-02-2002, 06:54 AM | #58 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 229
|
Synaesthesia...
It is not just in states of emotional intensity that the subject-object distinction is lost. This feature of consciousness forms the basis of "Being and Time," the famous work by Martin Heidegger, in his discussion of Dasein. This state of consciousness is one in which is "in the world" though it cannot be indefinitely sustained. We move (consciousness transports us) between a world in which there is no subject-object distinction -- where our instruments are "ready at hand" and one in which there is a subject-object distinction -- where our instruments are "present at hand." For objects to be present to us, we adopt (consciousness adopts) a reflective posture which necessarily notices that a subject exists (i.e., itself) that has a relationship (the so-called intentional stance) with that which it is conscious of. Moreover, we can detach ourselves completely from such objects and immerse ourselves in our own thoughts. I don't believe, however, that when we are detached in this way that we can reflect upon this state of consciousness in such a way that we notice that we are immersed in thought. This occurs only subsequent to such immersion. These are but a few of the many states of consciousness that have been described. In any case, there is a whole branch of philosophy that has dedicated itself to understanding things from an analysis of the way our mind works through consciousness -- namely phenomenology. You might want to look into this. Husserl can be said to be the founder of this movement and deserves careful reading. owleye |
08-06-2002, 06:16 AM | #59 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Montrčal
Posts: 367
|
Ierrellus, I read that bit in the other thread. For the want of not coming over too clinically intelligent, I had realised the problem of overcoming translations from English to French AND French to English, when I was in the process of learning French. After deciding on my mode of attack, I had dedicated a part of my mind/brain solely for French, which was the new language I was learning.
When I think in French, I sometimes find it hard to accomodate a translation in English. There are no English thoughts which can match the experiences. So far I have been unable to match my vast computing knowledge in French, which is a bit disconcerting for me. On another tack, I started using visual representations as a thinking and self-communicating mechanism. In this mode I find it easier to correspond in English AND French. Seriously I can think in English, French, and Visuals. My conclusions show me the natural environment plays the part of binding, "the nature of thought", with the manner the thinker communicates. The natural environment (intrinsic and extrinsic) can also be influenced intrinsically by thought itself. Sammi Na Boodie () |
08-07-2002, 12:27 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sugar factory
Posts: 873
|
I agree with owleye- i am also a fan of phenomenology.
I don't understand all of what has been written over the course of this thread, in particular, the objections that make a 'paradigmatic' definition impossible. If the following has already been stated then i apologise but, even so, i shall make a few suggestions in my own way: here goes- all organisms respond to differentiation- differences in light, sound, etc, that form the basis of more complex occurences that build our mind. Consciousness occurs in the appreciation of change, which does not have to be constant, although time transforms our appreciation of occurence, and affects the extent to which we are able to notice change. We cannot see the skin on our hands die, as the process is too slow. On the other hand we cannot see the dynamics in the atom as they are too fast and we would need tools to view them. The repetition of stimuli over a short period of time increases our chance of adapting to stimuli, thus altering the level of discernment. Have you ever drunk a coffee and not even remembered drinking it? Novel stimuli will increase our receptivity and better able us to remember things. Stressful events, which have already been mentioned, can alter our perception of time effectively making the moment last longer. The *I* of consciousness is a ghost; it is an abstract of the world that enables a degree of predictability. Like many tools that allow us to capture reality, this form of conciousness is static and incompatible with the present moment to an extent, but it can protect the organism from danger. A baby has no I but is conscious of the world. sixty babies all have a different view of the world and, in that, they are all individuals. If one developed anterograde amnesia the ghost *I* would be very important as a 'self referencing' system by which 'the real world' could be measured. This would also be a dangerous state to be in, as novel stimuli would be lost, including information about people we learn not to trust (for instance) The ghost *I* can also interfere with the present moment of new consciousness when it says: "i can't believe this is happening to me". This is where *i* get onto the subject of repressed memories and also this is where *I* stops. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|