|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 09:26:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Dave W.
To a solipsist, "I" is the only thing that can be known.
|
Yeah, but I know you've argued pretty strongly against the concept of free will. But if we do live in a deterministic universe and free will is an illusion, wouldn't that mean any concept of "I" is also largely an illusion? Oh, I know we'd still exist and still have thoughts, but they wouldn't be our thoughts exactly. They would be just the inevitable effects of some previous cause. Each thought would inevitably follow from the one before it. Each predetermined environmental stimulus triggering some predetermined mental state. Our freedom to think would be entirely an illusion. If there is such a thing as individual consciousness in a predetermined universe, then it would be nothing but a passive observer watching a slide show of predetermined mental images.
Right? |
Doesn't matter if "I" is an illusion or not, or whether free will exists or not, or whether the universe is deterministic or not. If "I" is an emergent property of a brain, or if it's an emergent property of a computer simulation, or if it is the intrinsic property of a detachable soul, is all irrelevant. At the basest level of existence, "I" cannot know any of that. All "I" can know is "I," and that what appear to be "external" stimuli impinge upon "I."
So if consciousness is an illusion, it is a complete illusion in that we will never be able to pull back the curtain. So for all practical purposes, we can act as if it is real.
|
Never say never Decartes.  |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 01/21/2009 09:28:31 |
 |
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2009 : 10:03:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Doesn't matter if "I" is an illusion or not, or whether free will exists or not, or whether the universe is deterministic or not. If "I" is an emergent property of a brain, or if it's an emergent property of a computer simulation, or if it is the intrinsic property of a detachable soul, is all irrelevant. At the basest level of existence, "I" cannot know any of that. All "I" can know is "I," and that what appear to be "external" stimuli impinge upon "I."
So if consciousness is an illusion, it is a complete illusion in that we will never be able to pull back the curtain. So for all practical purposes, we can act as if it is real.
|
And we know about the completeness of the illusion because we have defined "I" such that it is independent of the external world. Now, we know Dave is being facetious here, for the benefit of at least one not-quite-so-innocent bystander, but still he might at least wiggle his ears when he gives us this tired old stuff.
Although it is of interest that some are claiming to be able to strip away or bypass the "I." From eastern mysticism to one speaker at a TED conference (who made an impassioned reference to oneness due to a brain injury).
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Mind you, how they know they've experienced non-I-ness is an open question... 
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBcYa1K718&NR=1
"This is fun!"
As for determinism, it seems to me determinism is a god-concept. It is both too broad and too narrow in that it explains all behaviours (including contradictory ones) without excluding any (including contradictory ones). Without limitations, it provides us with no predictive power. Any other information, normative or otherwise, being parasitic on the seeming strength of the stipulation, needs to be evaluated on its own merits, independent of the claims of determinism. To say that we are or are not responsible for our behaviour on the basis of a deterministic argument is much like saying that love leads to happiness because god's will explains everything and precludes nothing. Stipulations, stipulations...
Again, introspection (reference to entirely private, internal realms) is not sufficient to discover what is objectively,, or even inter-subjectively, the case and stipulations that do not make external referent are not sufficient for anything but building logical houses of cards - which, with the right premises, can take any form and lead to any conclusion.
[Edited for runaway italics - Dave W.] |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 01/21/2009 10:13:05 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 11:22:07 [Permalink]
|
Who am I? I am me. How do I know this? Because I told me.
Don't know if that's any good or not....but I just made it up after reading this thread |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 01/21/2009 11:24:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 11:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
And we know about the completeness of the illusion because we have defined "I" such that it is independent of the external world. Now, we know Dave is being facetious here, for the benefit of at least one not-quite-so-innocent bystander, but still he might at least wiggle his ears when he gives us this tired old stuff.
...
As for determinism, it seems to me determinism is a god-concept...
...
Again, introspection (reference to entirely private, internal realms) is not sufficient to discover what is objectively,, or even inter-subjectively, the case and stipulations that do not make external referent are not sufficient for anything but building logical houses of cards - which, with the right premises, can take any form and lead to any conclusion. |
Well, the problem is that solipsism, determinism and the rest are philosophies, and not necessarily scientific (or even logical) positions. Solipsism (for example) rejects the notion of an objective external referent, so your complaint about introspection is meaningless in the context of solipsism.
My point was that we can reject certain philosophical positions on pragmatic grounds. Whether consciousness is real or an illusion is irrelevant in light of the fact that we can't know (it's pointless to even discuss that question at this level). And that is, more-or-less, the starting point for climbing up out of the pit of solipsism and philosophically agreeing to the existence of an objective reality without having to resort to something like faith. (And one needs such a philosophical basis before making external referents makes sense.)
In other words, the pragmatic reality of consciousness is the (not facetious) beginnng to a rebuttal to the charge that science works on faith (faith in an objective reality). It just so happened to have answered H.'s question, too. (We would go on from there to make a pragmatic argument for the utility of one's senses, etc.)
(Dark Star was a great little movie, wasn't it?) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2009 : 07:20:56 [Permalink]
|
| As long as reality as perceived continues to be consistent I'm fine with having the faith that you guys and everything else exists. Rejecting it would just lead to increased suffering, real or imagined, assumming consistency again. Less suffering is better than more, IMO. Thanks. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 14:43:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dglas
And we know about the completeness of the illusion because we have defined "I" such that it is independent of the external world. Now, we know Dave is being facetious here, for the benefit of at least one not-quite-so-innocent bystander, but still he might at least wiggle his ears when he gives us this tired old stuff.
...
As for determinism, it seems to me determinism is a god-concept...
...
Again, introspection (reference to entirely private, internal realms) is not sufficient to discover what is objectively,, or even inter-subjectively, the case and stipulations that do not make external referent are not sufficient for anything but building logical houses of cards - which, with the right premises, can take any form and lead to any conclusion. |
Well, the problem is that solipsism, determinism and the rest are philosophies, and not necessarily scientific (or even logical) positions. Solipsism (for example) rejects the notion of an objective external referent, so your complaint about introspection is meaningless in the context of solipsism.
My point was that we can reject certain philosophical positions on pragmatic grounds. Whether consciousness is real or an illusion is irrelevant in light of the fact that we can't know (it's pointless to even discuss that question at this level). And that is, more-or-less, the starting point for climbing up out of the pit of solipsism and philosophically agreeing to the existence of an objective reality without having to resort to something like faith. (And one needs such a philosophical basis before making external referents makes sense.)
In other words, the pragmatic reality of consciousness is the (not facetious) beginnng to a rebuttal to the charge that science works on faith (faith in an objective reality). It just so happened to have answered H.'s question, too. (We would go on from there to make a pragmatic argument for the utility of one's senses, etc.)
(Dark Star was a great little movie, wasn't it?)
|
Yes, it was a great movie.
Now I am not entirely unsympathetic to your purposes here, but by that reasoning, could one not dismiss "on pragmatic grounds" skepticism as well? The principle of the universality of doubt relies on the "knower-known" barrier as well. This would then cycle back into uncritical assumptions (since we then eliminate the vital conditional nature of our assumptions), and thus we have something very akin to faith again. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 15:08:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Now I am not entirely unsympathetic to your purposes here, but by that reasoning, could one not dismiss "on pragmatic grounds" skepticism as well? The principle of the universality of doubt relies on the "knower-known" barrier as well. This would then cycle back into uncritical assumptions (since we then eliminate the vital conditional nature of our assumptions), and thus we have something very akin to faith again. |
As an example, what are the consequences to us if our basic reasoning abilities actually result in random truth values for the propositions we examine? It seems to me that we cannot reason our way to such a position, nor (at that point) could we be assured that outside influences (nor more introspection) could help correct our faulty reasoning (such positions require sound reasoning). We would be insane to any outside observer who can reason, but with no way of knowing it nor any way to fix it. From a pragmatic point-of-view, then, the truth value of "my reasoning is unreliable" is worthless as a data point, and we may as well consider it false. In other words, the only way an answer to "is my reasoning reliable" would be useful is if my reasoning's reliability is actually close to 100%. If it's even as low as 50%, then my experiences and actions within the world (if it exists) are all highly questionable (what's to stop me from "reasoning" my way towards thinking that a microwave oven is a toilet, for example?).
Now, if that sort of argument is what a religious person wants to call "faith," more power to 'em. But I think it would demean the faithful. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is there anything called consciousness?
