Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 17, 2011, 04:32 (5058 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Balance,
> The linear version of the discussion is, "I think therefore I am." My brain exists, my brain calculates, which translates into thought, therefore my inner self is the product of the calculations and sensory evaluation of my brain. The non-linear version would be: I am. My brain is. Me('I') and my brain function together. 'I' is aware of my brain. My brain is aware of 'I'. This does not dictate that 'I' and 'brain' are one. We do not understand 'I'. We do not fully understand the brain. We do not understand the linkage between between 'I' and the brain. Therefore it is possible to speculate that they are in fact distinctly separate entities. The fact that you are aware of when reason tries to override intuition actually serves to highlight the fact that they are separate.
> -Dualism. God I hope you're not serious... It's interesting when this beast pops up; but there's a good reason that it is one idea that has been repeatedly rejected by both eastern and western philosophy, writ large. In fact, I can steadfastly say that in my own Zen Buddhism the entire idea is anathema. I would perhaps direct you to Graham Dunstin Martin, an ID advocate that wrote a book "Does it Matter?" where he advances a revival of dualism. He has some excellent criticisms on AI and materialism, but I found the book chock full of "WTF" ideas than ideas with realistic merit. The problem with debating dualists is that since they assert that mind and matter are entirely different things, they have no problem accepting non-empirical claims. "If we can think it, that is its own reality." It's especially maddening to a mathematician.-Why not bring back idealism while we're at it? -I could be mistaking you when I analyse your statement in green. However, in my mind I am aware BOTH of my sense of intuition, and my ability to supersede it with reason. Consciousness to me, is simply the ability to make those decisions, in this sense "aware that I'm aware." Again we return to the fact that your description falls apart when we try to apply empirical methods to it; and as I discussed earlier in my framework, I'm not interested in things that can't be known. So as boring and "linear" as I seem to you I'm not really interested in pursuing this "nonlinear" approach. It seems a waste of time.-> 
> Quantum entanglement is something that we have only been able to study under the conditions you listed. That does not mean that they only exist under those conditions, but we do not, as of yet, have a way to study them in other conditions.-I put extra emphasis on your words here because it is precisely this reason that we shouldn't waste our precious time considering such options until a physical reality exists that allows us to pursue them.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"