< 1 2 3
 
   
 

ON THE QUESTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS

 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
29 January 2008 12:21
 
burt - 29 January 2008 01:25 PM

So, Jehu, are you seeking the truth, or simply trying to win the argument?

I don’t see either outcome. But like I said, I’m not familiar with argumentative strategies and philosophy. The bottom line will be the determining factor for me.

Actually, I can’t say I agree with your scientific premise of existence and non-existence. You’ve identified the self to include the physical and mental aspects of the body in its generally accepted form. Scientifically, the self also might include all manifestations of its biological material. That leaves only two other possiblities that I can foresee.

[ Edited: 29 January 2008 12:44 by goodgraydrab]
 
 
Jehu
 
Avatar
 
 
Jehu
Total Posts:  30
Joined  22-01-2008
 
 
 
29 January 2008 17:42
 
burt - 29 January 2008 01:25 PM

The problem with a dialectic approach for you is that you are trying to support a positive conclusion (there is a self beyond the ordinary everyday self).  That means that you need to resolve apparent contradictions in an “upward” direction. At the same time, you are attempting to stand above the dialectic, saying in effect: “give me a problem and I will resolve it, then when you agree with my resolution we can move to the next step.”  In other words, you are assuming an external rather than cooperative position, not a good idea for a dialectical exercise.  You are placing yourself in the position of the one who is going to lead us to a predetermined conclusion that you assume is correct, and the structure of the way you intend to do it guarantees that you will end up with agreement from anybody who is foolish enough to take the bait.

It is true, that it is my intention to direct the enquiry, for an enquiry that is without direction can not help but go astray; since each of the participants will want to pull the enquiry in the direction that they think is most productive. However, since it I who has said that I can navigate my way to the truth of the matter, it would be unfair if I should be made to follow the lead of others who may not know their way. Further, I have elected to deal with the concerns of each participant before proceeding, not because I intend to badger them into agreeing with me, but to help them to see the rationale behind each proposition; for until each point is firmly grasp, there is nothing to be gained be continuing.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15844
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
29 January 2008 21:14
 
Jehu - 29 January 2008 10:42 PM
burt - 29 January 2008 01:25 PM

The problem with a dialectic approach for you is that you are trying to support a positive conclusion (there is a self beyond the ordinary everyday self).  That means that you need to resolve apparent contradictions in an “upward” direction. At the same time, you are attempting to stand above the dialectic, saying in effect: “give me a problem and I will resolve it, then when you agree with my resolution we can move to the next step.”  In other words, you are assuming an external rather than cooperative position, not a good idea for a dialectical exercise.  You are placing yourself in the position of the one who is going to lead us to a predetermined conclusion that you assume is correct, and the structure of the way you intend to do it guarantees that you will end up with agreement from anybody who is foolish enough to take the bait.

It is true, that it is my intention to direct the enquiry, for an enquiry that is without direction can not help but go astray; since each of the participants will want to pull the enquiry in the direction that they think is most productive. However, since it I who has said that I can navigate my way to the truth of the matter, it would be unfair if I should be made to follow the lead of others who may not know their way. Further, I have elected to deal with the concerns of each participant before proceeding, not because I intend to badger them into agreeing with me, but to help them to see the rationale behind each proposition; for until each point is firmly grasp, there is nothing to be gained be continuing.

I haven’t read many postings that display greater arrogance than this.  I suggest that you simply lay out your argument from beginning to end and invite comment.  You sound like a preacher trying to lead his sheep.  My response is put up or shut up.

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
30 January 2008 10:34
 
Jehu - 25 January 2008 08:16 PM

John,

An interesting supposition, but what if you are wrong? What if there is a self beyond that which we generally hold to be our self; that is to say, our physical bodies, personal preferences, private concepts, habitual patterns of behavior, and the like? Sam Harris says that we must not hold to any belief which is based upon blind faith, and I would think that this must apply to the sciences as well; for the sciences are based upon the belief that there is an ‘objective reality’, the elements of which are space, time, matter, energy and motion. The fact is, however, that these elements have never be logically demonstrated, but are merely accepted as being ‘self-evident’; by I think the term ‘apparent’ would be more fitting.

Now, according to the scientific view, I (my self) exist now, but did not exist in the past, and will not exist in the future; and so it may be said that, scientifically speaking, there is both existence and non-existence. But I say that this cannot be, for to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction, one of the three laws that govern rational thought. Further, if you are willing to enquire with me, I will logically demonstrate that there is indeed a self that transcends the self of everyday consciousness.

Arrogant is one word, stupid would be another. This was his original post. Basically, this fellow is just full of shit.  A waste of time. I think he should take him"self”, “beyond” this forum.

 
 
Jeanie
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeanie
Total Posts:  279
Joined  24-10-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2008 11:57
 

Come on, guys - this Jehu sounds devilishly close to Yahun, Yahseen, etc, etc.  His/her/its writing rambles on like a college student with no experience of real life.  Claiming to know everything, they know only show they know nothing.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15844
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
30 January 2008 14:08
 
Jeanie - 30 January 2008 04:57 PM

Come on, guys - this Jehu sounds devilishly close to Yahun, Yahseen, etc, etc.  His/her/its writing rambles on like a college student with no experience of real life.  Claiming to know everything, they know only show they know nothing.

I was beginning to have similar thoughts about who this might be.  The last postings of the Yahun entity, however, seemed to show a bit of a messiah complex as well.

 
AtheEisegete
 
Avatar
 
 
AtheEisegete
Total Posts:  209
Joined  27-01-2008
 
 
 
01 February 2008 13:00
 
eucaryote - 30 January 2008 03:34 PM
Jehu - 25 January 2008 08:16 PM

John,

An interesting supposition, but what if you are wrong? What if there is a self beyond that which we generally hold to be our self; that is to say, our physical bodies, personal preferences, private concepts, habitual patterns of behavior, and the like? Sam Harris says that we must not hold to any belief which is based upon blind faith, and I would think that this must apply to the sciences as well; for the sciences are based upon the belief that there is an ‘objective reality’, the elements of which are space, time, matter, energy and motion. The fact is, however, that these elements have never be logically demonstrated, but are merely accepted as being ‘self-evident’; by I think the term ‘apparent’ would be more fitting.

Now, according to the scientific view, I (my self) exist now, but did not exist in the past, and will not exist in the future; and so it may be said that, scientifically speaking, there is both existence and non-existence. But I say that this cannot be, for to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction, one of the three laws that govern rational thought. Further, if you are willing to enquire with me, I will logically demonstrate that there is indeed a self that transcends the self of everyday consciousness.

Arrogant is one word, stupid would be another. This was his original post. Basically, this fellow is just full of shit.  A waste of time. I think he should take him"self”, “beyond” this forum.

Hmm, “to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction”? “Jehu does not exist.” Whether the statement just quoted is true or false is not a matter of logic but of fact. A statement of fact may be true or false, or it may be inconsistent with other statements of fact, but its denial cannot be contradictory, for if that were the case it would be a tautology and not a statement of fact. I concur with eucaryote - throw the bum out.

 
 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
01 February 2008 13:50
 
AtheEisegete - 01 February 2008 06:00 PM
eucaryote - 30 January 2008 03:34 PM
Jehu - 25 January 2008 08:16 PM

John,

An interesting supposition, but what if you are wrong? What if there is a self beyond that which we generally hold to be our self; that is to say, our physical bodies, personal preferences, private concepts, habitual patterns of behavior, and the like? Sam Harris says that we must not hold to any belief which is based upon blind faith, and I would think that this must apply to the sciences as well; for the sciences are based upon the belief that there is an ‘objective reality’, the elements of which are space, time, matter, energy and motion. The fact is, however, that these elements have never be logically demonstrated, but are merely accepted as being ‘self-evident’; by I think the term ‘apparent’ would be more fitting.

Now, according to the scientific view, I (my self) exist now, but did not exist in the past, and will not exist in the future; and so it may be said that, scientifically speaking, there is both existence and non-existence. But I say that this cannot be, for to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction, one of the three laws that govern rational thought. Further, if you are willing to enquire with me, I will logically demonstrate that there is indeed a self that transcends the self of everyday consciousness.

Arrogant is one word, stupid would be another. This was his original post. Basically, this fellow is just full of shit.  A waste of time. I think he should take him"self”, “beyond” this forum.

Hmm, “to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction”? “Jehu does not exist.” Whether the statement just quoted is true or false is not a matter of logic but of fact. A statement of fact may be true or false, or it may be inconsistent with other statements of fact, but its denial cannot be contradictory, for if that were the case it would be a tautology and not a statement of fact. I concur with eucaryote - throw the bum out.

Big Chuckle! All I can say is you gotta know it when you step in it….it’s a test. cool smile

 
 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
01 February 2008 14:52
 
eucaryote - 30 January 2008 03:34 PM


A waste of time. I think he should take him"self”, “beyond” this forum.

It’s starting to look that way .... astral-projected to another plane.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15844
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
01 February 2008 15:46
 
AtheEisegete - 01 February 2008 06:00 PM
eucaryote - 30 January 2008 03:34 PM
Jehu - 25 January 2008 08:16 PM

John,

An interesting supposition, but what if you are wrong? What if there is a self beyond that which we generally hold to be our self; that is to say, our physical bodies, personal preferences, private concepts, habitual patterns of behavior, and the like? Sam Harris says that we must not hold to any belief which is based upon blind faith, and I would think that this must apply to the sciences as well; for the sciences are based upon the belief that there is an ‘objective reality’, the elements of which are space, time, matter, energy and motion. The fact is, however, that these elements have never be logically demonstrated, but are merely accepted as being ‘self-evident’; by I think the term ‘apparent’ would be more fitting.

Now, according to the scientific view, I (my self) exist now, but did not exist in the past, and will not exist in the future; and so it may be said that, scientifically speaking, there is both existence and non-existence. But I say that this cannot be, for to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction, one of the three laws that govern rational thought. Further, if you are willing to enquire with me, I will logically demonstrate that there is indeed a self that transcends the self of everyday consciousness.

Arrogant is one word, stupid would be another. This was his original post. Basically, this fellow is just full of shit.  A waste of time. I think he should take him"self”, “beyond” this forum.

Hmm, “to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction”? “Jehu does not exist.” Whether the statement just quoted is true or false is not a matter of logic but of fact. A statement of fact may be true or false, or it may be inconsistent with other statements of fact, but its denial cannot be contradictory, for if that were the case it would be a tautology and not a statement of fact. I concur with eucaryote - throw the bum out.

Not quite, Jehu is clever than that.  He is trying to recycle the argument of Parmenides.  Roughly, what is, is and cannot not be.  Therefore, something that exists, is and cannot cease to exist, nor can something that is not come into existence because in either case something has become other than it was and so violates the law of contradiction: A is not not-A.  The problem is that this ignores the presence of change.  (It’s well known tha Aristotelian logic cannot deal with change, it has no time component.  Aristotle tried to get around this with his theory of potential and actual.)

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
01 February 2008 15:52
 
burt - 01 February 2008 08:46 PM
AtheEisegete - 01 February 2008 06:00 PM
eucaryote - 30 January 2008 03:34 PM
Jehu - 25 January 2008 08:16 PM

John,

An interesting supposition, but what if you are wrong? What if there is a self beyond that which we generally hold to be our self; that is to say, our physical bodies, personal preferences, private concepts, habitual patterns of behavior, and the like? Sam Harris says that we must not hold to any belief which is based upon blind faith, and I would think that this must apply to the sciences as well; for the sciences are based upon the belief that there is an ‘objective reality’, the elements of which are space, time, matter, energy and motion. The fact is, however, that these elements have never be logically demonstrated, but are merely accepted as being ‘self-evident’; by I think the term ‘apparent’ would be more fitting.

Now, according to the scientific view, I (my self) exist now, but did not exist in the past, and will not exist in the future; and so it may be said that, scientifically speaking, there is both existence and non-existence. But I say that this cannot be, for to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction, one of the three laws that govern rational thought. Further, if you are willing to enquire with me, I will logically demonstrate that there is indeed a self that transcends the self of everyday consciousness.

Arrogant is one word, stupid would be another. This was his original post. Basically, this fellow is just full of shit.  A waste of time. I think he should take him"self”, “beyond” this forum.

Hmm, “to say that anything does not exist is to violate the law of contradiction”? “Jehu does not exist.” Whether the statement just quoted is true or false is not a matter of logic but of fact. A statement of fact may be true or false, or it may be inconsistent with other statements of fact, but its denial cannot be contradictory, for if that were the case it would be a tautology and not a statement of fact. I concur with eucaryote - throw the bum out.

Not quite, Jehu is clever than that.  He is trying to recycle the argument of Parmenides.  Roughly, what is, is and cannot not be.  Therefore, something that exists, is and cannot cease to exist, nor can something that is not come into existence because in either case something has become other than it was and so violates the law of contradiction: A is not not-A.  The problem is that this ignores the presence of change.  (It’s well known tha Aristotelian logic cannot deal with change, it has no time component.  Aristotle tried to get around this with his theory of potential and actual.)

I don’t see any cleverness in any of this. Is it not true that the more things change, the more they stay the same? Or is that just me trying to be clever?

 
 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
01 February 2008 17:58
 
burt - 01 February 2008 08:46 PM

Not quite, Jehu is clever than that.  He is trying to recycle the argument of Parmenides.  Roughly, what is, is and cannot not be.  Therefore, something that exists, is and cannot cease to exist, nor can something that is not come into existence because in either case something has become other than it was and so violates the law of contradiction: A is not not-A.  The problem is that this ignores the presence of change.  (It’s well known tha Aristotelian logic cannot deal with change, it has no time component.  Aristotle tried to get around this with his theory of potential and actual.)

Well that’s interesting. It all depends on what your definition of is, is.

 
 
AtheEisegete
 
Avatar
 
 
AtheEisegete
Total Posts:  209
Joined  27-01-2008
 
 
 
01 February 2008 23:45
 
goodgraydrab - 01 February 2008 10:58 PM
burt - 01 February 2008 08:46 PM

Not quite, Jehu is clever than that.  He is trying to recycle the argument of Parmenides.  Roughly, what is, is and cannot not be.  Therefore, something that exists, is and cannot cease to exist, nor can something that is not come into existence because in either case something has become other than it was and so violates the law of contradiction: A is not not-A.  The problem is that this ignores the presence of change.  (It’s well known tha Aristotelian logic cannot deal with change, it has no time component.  Aristotle tried to get around this with his theory of potential and actual.)

Well that’s interesting. It all depends on what your definition of is, is.

Very Clintonesque, but all this dickers around with time. Parmenides, Zeno, and the rest were all weak on time. What is, was, and always will have been. Thus it is in Einstein’s block universe. The logic here can be cast in set theory using what I think is a neat pun. The word “exist” breaks to “ex-ist” and “ist” is German for “is” (as Heidegger and other bigheads well knew). So we have a transition from “it is” to “it exists” (that is, it was) and hence to the strata of history. The set theory is of course the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel theory of the cumulative hierarchy of pure well-founded sets, in the von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel variant admitting pure classes. Your ontology goes from classes to sets as you clamber up the cumulative hierarchy. What you get is the ordinal scale acting as a formal stand-in for time. In fact, you get a nice ice-cream-cone universe with a fluffy top that gives wonderful visions of homology with the big bang. Let me add, before I wash my mouth out with soap and water, that God breathed out a transfinitude of sets, which crystalized into the ice-cream cone with the fluffy top, which became the Calabi-Yau manifold twisting in the quantum foam and inflated to all we know and love. Amen!

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15844
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
02 February 2008 14:26
 
AtheEisegete - 02 February 2008 04:45 AM
goodgraydrab - 01 February 2008 10:58 PM
burt - 01 February 2008 08:46 PM

Not quite, Jehu is clever than that.  He is trying to recycle the argument of Parmenides.  Roughly, what is, is and cannot not be.  Therefore, something that exists, is and cannot cease to exist, nor can something that is not come into existence because in either case something has become other than it was and so violates the law of contradiction: A is not not-A.  The problem is that this ignores the presence of change.  (It’s well known tha Aristotelian logic cannot deal with change, it has no time component.  Aristotle tried to get around this with his theory of potential and actual.)

Well that’s interesting. It all depends on what your definition of is, is.

Very Clintonesque, but all this dickers around with time. Parmenides, Zeno, and the rest were all weak on time. What is, was, and always will have been. Thus it is in Einstein’s block universe. The logic here can be cast in set theory using what I think is a neat pun. The word “exist” breaks to “ex-ist” and “ist” is German for “is” (as Heidegger and other bigheads well knew). So we have a transition from “it is” to “it exists” (that is, it was) and hence to the strata of history. The set theory is of course the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel theory of the cumulative hierarchy of pure well-founded sets, in the von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel variant admitting pure classes. Your ontology goes from classes to sets as you clamber up the cumulative hierarchy. What you get is the ordinal scale acting as a formal stand-in for time. In fact, you get a nice ice-cream-cone universe with a fluffy top that gives wonderful visions of homology with the big bang. Let me add, before I wash my mouth out with soap and water, that God breathed out a transfinitude of sets, which crystalized into the ice-cream cone with the fluffy top, which became the Calabi-Yau manifold twisting in the quantum foam and inflated to all we know and love. Amen!

Hallalulla Bro!!!!!

 
 < 1 2 3