871) Arminius, 08.04.2016, 00:49, 03:32, 12:28, 12:57, 13:32, 13:59, 15:37, 19:29, 20:22, 20:54, 21:20, 22:27 (4424-4435)
Topic: Superconsciousness versus Subconsciousness.
If there is a dichotomy of consciousness and unconsciousness, and if there is a subconsciousness too, then there must be a dichotomy of superconsciousness and subconsciousness too.
The offer of my two legal options is based on the supposition that the common option - thus: your legal option 3 - could perhaps be the legal option 0, because it is what we have been doing here for so long, although perhaps just not consequently and thus not effectively enough. .... But, okay, let's see.
I do not necessarily distinguish them but others do. So I think that, if they do that, although there is already the dichotomy consciousness versus unconsciousness, then there must be another dichotomy too, namely: superconsciousness versus subconsciousness.
The opposite of subconsciousness. I have been told that subconsciousness is not like unconsciousness. According to that subconsciousness must be between consciousness and unconsciousness.
It has changed its meaning?
Friedrich Wilhelm J. Schelling (1775-1854) for example, yes, but more Eduard von Hartmann (1842-1906) who was called the philosopher of the unconscious long before Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).
Unfortunately, Only Humean has not answered my question. His question could be or even is also my ultimate question, if I have such at all. But I would prefer the question How do we live a good life instead of his question How do I live a good life. Usually humans live in groups. My main philosophical interest is life. So, to me, life philosophy is the most interesting philosophy discipline - supported by anthropology and epistemology
Don't you have something better to do than complaining all day long?
By analogy, the subconscious of the old constitutional USA would be the House of Representatives with their narrow minded, limited scope issues (national emotionalism). The Senate would be the »conscious«, being far more aware of relevant foreign activities. And the »unconscious« would be the various physical concerns involved in communication: mail service, telephone networks, roads, computers, automated responses,....
And then relative to an individual, the nation's consciousness, the Senate's awareness of foreign and secret activities, is the »superconsciousness«. **
But did he use the word subconscious? I think that came from Piaget who meant pretty much the same thing as Freud's version of unconscious. **
But in any case, how do you distinguish subconscious from unconscious. We can develop the terms. It's not that I want us to align with Freud, but rather that I don't know anyone who uses both terms and have seen them used in the same sense mainly. **
»Six people in two groups.
There are six people A, B, C, D, E, F which are in each case either in group 1 or group 2. The following statements are given:
1. Both A and B are in 1.
2. F is in 2, and if E is in 2, then C is also in 2.
3. D is in 1 and if F is in 2, then A is also in 2.
4. A and E are both in 2.
5. D is in 2 and E is in 1, and if C is in 2, then B is in 1.
6. D and B are both in 2.
7. The statements 1-6 are wrong.
1) A, C, D.
2) B, E, F. **
Arminius, in addition, there may be the problem with classification. What form does it take? A clear cut severance? **
In effects, is there clear cut neuro positioning from one area of the brain to the other, corresponding to their effects? **
Or, is there an overlay of functions from different parts of the brain? **
Imagine there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore, because both are indirectly forbidden by the government. There is merely something like a socialpsychological religion which is called science. And one day you see this:
What are your thoughts?
I am not saying that philosophy is science, although it partly is of course (duh!), but I am saying that philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics (**|**). For this comparison it is absolutely irrelevant whether philosophy is science or not.
Army - snappy comeback. **
Der Herr: Kennst du den Faust?
Mephistopheles: Den Doktor?
Der Herr: Meinen Knecht!
Mephistopheles: Fürwahr! er dient Euch auf besondre Weise.
Nicht irdisch ist des Toren Trank noch Speise.
The Lord: Do you know Faust?
Mephistopheles: The doctor?
The Lord: My servant.
Mephistopheles: Ah, he serves you well, indeed!
He scorns earth's fare and drinks celestial mead.
Der Herr: ....
Es irrt der Mensch, so lang er strebt. **
The Lord: ....
Man errs, till he has ceased to strive.
Hard to believe (**).
I have been told that punishment and circumstances in prison are bad in the United States, at least worse than in Europe, where prisons are - comparatively (!) - like paradises.
It reminds me a bit of this:
Please, look at the following picture:
Imagine, you were the one on the mountaintop: What would you think?
A) Nice picture.
1) First, decide on whether you are an atheist or a believer in a god. If you are the latter, you might want to decide which god, but the most important thing is to decide if you are a believer in any god. **
2) Decide between three basic theories of human nature. Are we entirely physical, are we entirely mental (is our essence our mind, whatever the fuck that is) or are we essentially spiritual. Or, some combination thereof. If it's a combination, god help you. If you believe in a god. If not, you're screwed. **
3) Try to decide this issue: Are you going to think scientifically - seeking ever-closer approximations to close descriptions of the world - or religiously/rationalistically - looking for absolutely correct answers. **
4) Try hard to recognize that most written philosophy is political science, however crude. **
5) Also try to recognize that every political philosophy supports a morality. No matter what you read, this is the ultimate goal of most philosophers. If you know what morality the philosopher is supporting, you understand him. If you don't know what morality he supports, you don't understand him.
6) Accept that philosophy is a special study of language. You MUST master your language before you will ever be a good philosopher. **
7) Master the process of abstraction. Understand it. Well. If you cannot do this well, you're even more screwed than if you screw up 2). **
8) Read Kant and Hegel for fun, but never, ever read Heidegger without adult supervision.
9) Read the Bible.
10) Read all of Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Dr. Seuss. **
Hope this is helpful. **
874) Arminius, 11.04.2016, 02:20, 03:27, 03:47, 16:26, 19:50, 20:01, 21:57, 22:22, 23:59 (4450-4458)
What so what?? Your 1st step is pretty nonsensical.
What are you talking about? It seems that you are again slightly off-topic. If you want someone to take your philosophy in 10 easy steps seriously, then vour biased comments are the wrong means, unless they are meant rhetorically or satirically (but just not seriously in the sense of the topic of your thread). It seem that you are a comedian who does not know much about philosophy.
I did not know that you were only a cynic. So sorry for taking you seriously.
Your nuanced use of language is just the opposite of a nuanced use of language. You seem to know nothing about language.
The environment and your relation to it is what creates your choices. You don't create the choices independently or out of some whimsical free will.
You merely react to what limited choices are presented to you environmentally. **
If we take the example of the prehuman, at least until very recently, if now, there was no post human. Perhaps there will be, but it isn't here now. So perhaps there is no superconsciousness (yet). Perhaps we will turn the world into a nuclear cinder before any posthumans come to be. **
Also wouldn't this kind of deduction lead to an infinite series. If we have subcellular processes, then were have cells in a superposition to those, yes. They we have the body in a superposition to that and cells in a subposition to the body. Sure, we can go on to ecosystem, perhaps solar system - though here the terms not longer have meaning to me. But at some point, it seems to me we will reach a place where, yes, there are sub-somethings, but no super-something to all of these. **
Hierarchies may have limits. How do we know that the limit relating to consciousness isn't at conscousness. I say this not out of hubris - nothing could be beyond my mind, I am a kind of theist so personally I have no problem with this - it just seems to me it is being fooled by logic into thinking reality must match deductions based on human language. **
»So the superconsciousness as the opposite of the subconsciousness is what is beyond the consciousness, whereas the consciousness itself is beyond the subconsciousness which is beyond the unconsciousness. If we believe in an area between the consciousness and the unconsciousness, then we can also believe that the consciousness is an area between the subconsciousness and the superconsciousness. I would even say that the word consciousness stems from a higher quality than it is currently meant. This meaning has got lost, and my concept of superconsciousness is an attempt of memory, of bringing it back into use.« ** **
What is it referring to, can you use it in a more specific sentence? What do we do with it? **
BTW, why are you so afraid of bias? **
»8) Read Kant and Hegel for fun, but never, ever read Heidegger without adult supervision.« **
I enjoyed your list and liked the above one the most. Though, i would have liked to see Nietzsche's name before Heidegger there. **
»10) Read all of Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Dr. Seuss.« **
UglyGirl26 And Joker Getting Married. **
It's official, me and UglyGirl26 plan on getting married within the next couple of years. **
Yes, we really do plan on getting married within the next couple of years Arminius. **
»Only Humean wrote:
How do I live a good life? **
If I could tell you that, it wouldn't be much of a question, would it? **
The primacy of the question is in its immediacy and application to a running project.
»What is good?« is a subsidiary question, insofar as it's relatively uninteresting besides in its application to the main question. It's also a question that can lead you off down many blind alleys. »Good« is a profoundly contextual word. There's little value in abstracting what makes a good cupcake, a good novel, a good day and a good haircut and trying to tie that into a good life, for me. It would be more instructive to prioritise those four (and many others) in their importance/necessity in leading a good life.
I like your refinement of the question; a good life (for me) unquestionably is lived in a social setting, and the good and health of the society and the culture is an integral part of that. Thank you for clarifying my question. **
»Only Humean wrote:
How do I live a good life? **
Good answer by OH but Arminius rightly raised that question. **
That is indeed another issue.
Yes, because: (1) Hierarchies may have limits. May! We just know not much about it. (2) You are a kind of theist, yes. (3) It seems to you that it is being fooled by logic, yes. (4) Reality must match deductions based on language, yes. The linguistic relativity should not be underestimated but also not overestimated.
Because of the lack of economic development in Russia it was not the communistic revolution that the communistic philosophers/ideologists had predicted. It wa just a terroristic revolution in the name of a communistic revolution but not the communistic revolution the communist communistic philosophers/ideologists had predicted.
Repeating words again and again functions like advertising or other propaganda. So it is one of the most affective means of rhetoric.
Neither http://www.djedefsauron.net/index.php?o ... Itemid=144 nor http://www.filedropper.com/x-piesolver works!
Please put the main or the most interesting points of the theme (The word roots of the Proto-Indo-European language) in this thread. Thanks.
That reminds me a bit of Heidegger and his concept of Angst.
Yes, I can agree with that.
And I agree with it the more, the more it is not meant in the way of psychoanalysis but of pure existence and its analysis (compare: Dasein and Daseinsanalyse - Martin Heidegger).
Yes. If your various exclamation points, etc., can be interpreted to mean something like: Hey, but I thought you didn't think it existed what was all that stuff about not being able to deduce.....etc., I was arguing in general, not because your conclusion was one I disagreed with, but the process seemed weak to me. I stand by my issues with deducing it exists because a subconscious exists, but, for my own intuitive and experiential reasons do in fact believe in something that could be called that. **
I was using it as an example, a hypothetical. That said, I do think men and women are angry at each other....all of them. There are degrees of this and degrees of awareness of this. **
I'll do that. I am not a Freudian, though I suppose I am a post-Freudian. There are things not dreamt of in his philosophy that I beleive exist. And I think he saw some patterns and made them rules when they are not. I also think his map of the mind is limited. I rather liked Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's book on how Freud ended up with his SEduction Theory. It nicely places Freud in his time as an individual.
I do not think it is just consciousness however. There is also a super...hm, not sure a good term here, but it would be feelings, desires, urges, intuitions. What fills the internal space of consciousness. That from which consciousness springs and which gives life.
A lot of the mystical traditions have what I would consider a rather male idea of transcendence, this super awareness. Sort of a Buddha, or Angel gazing out over existence. I think that's only part of life. **
877) Arminius, 17.04.2016, 01:22, 01:25, 01:31, 01:47, 02:01, 02:08, 03:11, 03:14, 04:28, 16:10, 16:43, 19:39, 19:49, 20:08, 20:18, 20:36, 21:03, 21:15, 21:55, 22:29, 22:49 (4466-4486)
The so-called Neolithic Revolution was a process of settling, husbandry (agriculture and stock breeding), urbanisation. This process has not ended yet.
Do you mean all human economy?
Hillary and Bill. **
Random Factor wrote:
»I'm saying that everyone has homosexual tendencies whether they admit it or not.« **
What kind of nonsense is this?! Where the hell are you getting this from? Your self? Some science magazine? That's like saying everyone is susceptible to a particular mental illness. Or that everyone could be fetishized in a particular way. Just because you might like taking it up your arse and enjoy it, doesn't mean that everyone could learn to enjoy it as well (because they, being like you, should already have the potential in them). **
Until we or whatever we make to replace ourselves, replace them with gm machines and nano-cellulose goops which we take on our spacecraft upon leaving a dead and used up planet behind 'us'.
(Just to be gloomy.)
Otherwise I agree. **
Scientists don't know every area of science, that's why you get experts. I think philosophers should know the science [or any knowledge or philosophy] which pertains to what they are saying philosophically. **
I votes yes, the more you know the more evaluating you can do, the more evidence you can reach and apply to your arguments or quest.
The quest for any philosopher should ultimately be the quest for knowing more, right? **
If it all heads toward the singularity I assume they will find a way to 'eat' everything. **
Why sex bots? Because women are becoming less female and desexualized with cultural or political social engineering along with an increasingly socially alienated male population. That's why I think. **
This thread our focus of conversation shall be examples of maladaptability found in nature, human civilization, and evolution.This will be another ongoing project of mine.
Could former definitions of degeneration or de-evolution merely be an actual emphasis on maladaptability? **
»Maladaption is merely evolutionary adaptions that are more harmful than beneficial.« **
But then it is very hard to judge. Even what we consider genetic diseases were useful in some times/Environments .... **
»Well, I guess my interest in maladaption concerning biology, nature, and evolution is because I view all of humn civilization as one giant maladaption.« **
According to nature that may be true, but we have adapted to the things we have created. First we devised things from nature in prehistoric times, then came metals and we could now shape things however we wanted e.g. swords. We have continued to adapt to all the inventions through the industrial revolution and til now. I agree that that is a maladaption in terms of evolution and nature, then to a lesser degree so was the stone age. We are not the only animals which use tools tho. **
878) Arminius, 18.04.2016, 02:38, 02:47, 15:18, 15:38, 15:50, 16:03, 16:25, 16:38, 21:46, 23:08 (4487-4496)
Then ...: how could we depict logic?
Two Numbers and Two Mathematicians.
Two natural numbers between 2 and 20 are selected. Mathematician S. knows the sum, mathematician P. the product. Both mathematicians know the lower limit of the two numbers, but not the upper limit.
S.: I can not imagine that you can find out my sum.
It's because A names are the best. **
I voted no as I understood the question to mean »is knowing every branch of science an 'ought' for any given philosopher?« I don't see that the majority of philosophy is improved by knowledge of bivalve reproduction or karst formation.
If you meant something along the lines of »should every branch of science have interested philosophers who know about it?«, then I think yes. **
If you think that philosophers are less prone to guarding religious edifices of dogma, which you seem to accuse scientists of, I would disagree. There are precisely the same motivations and mechanisms at work in all fields. **
Does anyone know a branch of science? OK, I am being fussy, but it seemed rather yes/no without gradations. It would be strange, I think, if a philosopher did not also find some interest in science, likely a couple of fields. **
Biology and physics come to mind as ones with easy connections to many philosophical issues. I am not sure it is a necessary condition for being a good philosopher, but I would guess that any philosopher who did not get curious about some of the sciences would like not have the necessary attributes to be a philosopher. Just as it would be strange if they never read any literature or had no interest in psychology.
I have to say I am more concerned about scientists having no knowledge of philosophy, which actually seems more likely given specialization and how philosophy is viewed. **
I would think that it would be useful for most philosophers to have delved into the philosophy and history of science. To do this well, they would need to have some sense of specifics. OH mentions a couple of specifics and I agree with him, in the sense that a philosopher needs not, for example, have an in depth knowledge of all or even on butterfly species and its ecology. But to understand general issues, it would be good, I would think, if he or she read about some specifics, got into one or more scientific fields, as an amateur, enough to be able to read professional papers on specific species and get the gist. Or some parallel exposure to specifics in some other science. Otherwise epistemology and methodologies and models are too abstract. It would be too easy to think you understood what science was about, getting all in some dry an airy way. **
I would think that philosophers would draw conclusions, just as much as scientists along dogma lines, BUT they would be less likely to simply scoff at alternate positions. The scientists I have known are more likely to simply say something is fluff or BS and think that is a good endpoint to the discussion. The philosophers I have known generally will explore, especially if you do it well. At the end of the day they end up back where they started, but the interaction is much more useful and respectful. My sense is also that they become skilled at smelling at least one type of lies or better put the lies of one political party, one paradigmatic ontology, etc. Whereas scientists often are really quite limited. They have opinions and can be rational, so to speak, but I am not sure how good they are at spotting the problems with the more polished advocates of any position. Whereas from philosophers you can get nice lines of argument about at least those groups they tend to oppose.
I think also that if you replaced scientists with philosophers - and somehow they could do the scientists jobs - they might, for example, have a harder time just aligning with Monsanto, say. They would notice issues where the scientists would not. They would be more suceptible to outside criticism. Perhaps this would merely be a phase before they hardened up and ratinoalized away whatever dissonence the criticism created, but it seems to me they would have to, by temperment and training, engage the critics at least in their own minds. Scientists are trained to dismiss, to treat ontology as a no longer controversial subject, etc.. **
»When the culture has great times (whatever great means in this relation), then science follows and gets great times too, often when culture already starts having less great times.
Not quite sure what to make of that »chart«. Is the moon landing a great thing? I mean, I can see it as an incredible achievement, but not even good. Though in the image it would correspond to fashion that might not seem great, so perhaps it isn't. **
Somewhere underlying much of my response to this is the takeover of the technocrats coupled with modern versions of capitalism. If there is no problem there is no product so find a problem or make one then design a product for it. Make sure solutions are technological and never reduce overall energy consumption or product consumption. Downplay non-technological solutions. Downplay political solutions where we can find a way to sell a technological one. Try to get as much of the world conceived of as mechanism, because mechanisms require repair, upgrades, liscences and corporate dependence. Anything that does not view things as mechanisms should be downplayed.
Very few people take this position at this level of abstraction, yet it is the most powerful position out there today and it is worming its way into everything.
To a scientist it need not be a given, but it does tie in with their culture and also with their epistemology.
A philosopher's culture does not head them in this direction - though the rest of the culture does. **
»Evolution is all about self-preservation.
And passing information/beliefs while preserving.
Micro to macro, the cell passes it as do we. **
Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.
The stage of evolution consists of the evolutionary actors (here: living beings) and the evolutionary scenery (environment). My thesis is that the actor homo sapiens has been destroying his scenery for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the Neolithic Revolution [**|**]) the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).
By the word dissociation I mean the avoidance of adaptation.
The eugenic politics for 1%, the dysgenic politics for 99% of all humans. That is like the incresingly opening scissors, the increasing difference between rich and poor, between capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism). Most of the humans of the dysgenic politics confuse and shall confuse this dysgenic politics with eugenic politics. Other examples of such confusions are war/peace, man/woman, male/female, hate/love, good/evil, friend/foe, native/foreign, true/untrue, truth/lie, progressive/regressive, real/ideal, belief/knowledge, yes/no, strong/weak, more/less, big/small, thick/thin, ..., and son and so forth ... (almost everything).
It is possible, yeah probable, that the difference between the 1% and the 99% of all humans will lead to two different species in the future.
According to Edward n. Wolff the following chart sums up the difference across US wealth:
Edward N. Wolff wrote:
When I was a student and a research assistant at the university, I hoped to simply explore the world too, but then I noticed that science is more a dependent institution of mercenary competitors or warriors than a free market of research.
Yes, but many philosophers are used and misused too, and they allow their moneygivers to use and misuse them too.
880) Arminius, 20.04.2016, 01:36, 02:27, 02:54, 03:34, 04:28, 05:13, 05:40, 06:09, 15:36, 16:15, 16:44, 19:08, 19:44 (4502-4514)
How many ILP members are really interested in philosophy? What do you think?
A) About 100%.
A metaphor, before I look for the nearest door
existence a river
Life emerging in the flow
fighting the current
Self-preservation is an indication of standing your ground
If strength is enough
excess energies can be directed up-stream, or across stream, or to reproduce
a new life for the storm
Need is the sensation of this endless flow
fitness determines how much energy will overflow
The fittest reproduces or reaches the highest point up-stream
The weakest are washed away
slowly the energies subside
and not enough are present to resist the flow
In this time weakness is protected,
Giving the impression of fitness
How long before the entire structure is washed away?
a herd protected from culling, eats all the vegetation
leading to its own demise
Mutations left unchecked
The herd suffers a slow death
in existential heat
Will machines suffice
to resist the tide? **
Are the current generation the suckiest of all time? **
They think crazy is getting a bit drunk, but where's the anarchism, the chaos of youth, and what's with all the general conformity? **
Violent Chaotic Anarchist. **
Anarchist, Outlaw, Super Villain, Social Deviant, Criminal Entrepeneur, And General Outcast. **
Chaos, Collapse Of Civilization, Human Expirience, Nihilism, Anarchism, Primitivism, Violence, Inequality, Tyranny, Extinction, War, Nature, Egoism, Sadism, Selfishness, Misery, Despair, Guns, Knives, Grenades, Barely Legal Women, Sex, Cigarettes, And Booze. **
The music industry won, they conformed rock n roll and then everything else until now they aren't selling much at all. Well done them, that's a lesson in how to suck so badly you suck the life out of your own business. **
The political conformists [the system] has successfully removed nearly all lefty subculture, at least limited it to a level it can manage. So now we move from box to box, we don't just spring up a free festival wherever, we don't do anything we are told not to do. Is that philosophically healthy? Don't you need danger and a variety of different factions at each others throats? What will become of humanity if everyone conforms?
My guess is that the world wont have it, and just when the system thinks it has us all in check, something will happen that will catch them by surprise and they wont be prepared for it. - I hope so anyway. **
I suppose that if things don't change, then humanity will destroy itself simply by continuing down its current course. Ergo you need change! **
Arminius, ask me what? **
They think crazy is getting a bit drunk, but where's the anarchism, the chaos of youth, and what's with all the general conformity? **
What do I think of the younger generations? I call them the Mickey Mouse Generation.
The younger generations are the pinnacle achievement of social conditioning, engineering, and manipulation.
On a psychological level they are the direct creation of psychological government experiment in human husbandry.
Take a look at the brain dead Facebook twattle dumb masses of the younger generation and you'll see the abstraction of authoritarian collectivism mastered to such extensive effect in real time. Their entire existence is what I like to refer to as the Mickey Mouse Effect. **
»Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.
The stage of evolution consists of the evolutionary actors (here: living beings) and the evolutionary scenery (environment). My thesis is that the actor homo sapiens has been destroying his scenery for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the Neolithic Revolution) the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).
Beavers tear down trees, change courses of rivers, and flood entire forest areas just to make themselves a cozy pool in which to swim so they won't have to walk instead. Unlike many mammals closely related to them, they have eliminated the need to hibernate, spending the winter months eating food that they stored up and grooming/socializing inside their dens. **
How do humans or beavers falsify the principle of selection? **
The category of poster I am least charitable with is the 'voice of reason and science' poster who doesn't really know any philosophy, certainly not any epistemology or philosophy of science, has little idea of how one justifies an assertion, is content with fallacies strewn in their own posts as they deride whomever they consider barbarians, such as Chrisitans, New Agers, alternative medicine people, conspiracy theorists, spiritual people. Dawkins is a famous example of the type. **
What didn't your teacher know about you? them? **
Unfortunately I cannot get into the psyche of a beaver in order to determine whether it does anything willfully. However, the case is hardly made for human behavior to be unlike that of beavers. Both transform the environment to suit their desires first and foremost, and in a way that is careless for the consequences. **
Some people (here, for example) say that civilization suits women better than men, and, essentially that men thrive in something more primitive and civilization does not suit their needs and desires. I say, BS. I see civilization as organized more by males and to suit the male desires for linear interactions, distanced relations, and control. **
My conclusion is that Shiva [or a given androgynous deity, as per culture] exists and is a god. **
Do we own ourselves? **