News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

A long navel gazing introduction

Started by entropy, August 17, 2013, 01:16:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

entropy

The only thing I am completely sure of is my immediate experience (of a moment... then another... and then another...?). The experience is of some kind of coherence of perceptions - I experience myself perceiving myself and myself perceiving things other than myself.

Now it could be that the perceptions of things other than myself is an illusion. Reality may be no more than me - solipsistic. But I leap to the assumption that those perceptions of something other are being caused by something that exists outside of myself because the experience of the perceptions feels so overwhelmingly that it must be so. I think that sound reasoning is based on logically valid application of assumptions but I also think that the root assumptions that we make are essentially leaps of faith. I also think that we make the leaps of faith that we do because of what we value. I also think that what we value is driven largely by our emotions. Emotionally, I just can't accept that there isn't something to reality other than myself.

But how can I tell where "the line" is between me and other? And how can I tell which perceptions of that which is other than myself are accurate? I think the answer to both of those questions comes from examination of the patterns of perception. My earliest memories are of examining patterns in a manner where I began to differentiate myself from other than me - although I was not really aware that that was what I was doing. I see reflections of what must have been the differentiation of me from other in the actions of very young infants. We see them learning the patterns of sensory input and muscular output. It only takes a little empathy to see the infant beginning to realize that there is something that is a projection of herself or himself - an arm, with hands with fingers at the end. Fingers that feel the hardness and softness and heat and cold of that which is just beyond the boundaries of the fingers. I can grasp things in my hand. I can mold things. I can throw things. I can put things together.

What we come to perceive is that we are patterns of organization manifest as biological organisms that need to input matter into our biological body, filter out nutrients from our surroundings and release matter from our bodies. Determining what perceived patterns of reality are actual patterns is an essential thing to do for our biological bodies to persist through time. It becomes obvious to most of us that at least some of our efforts at making a coherent perception of reality are faulty. For us to continue to survive as a relatively intact biological organism, we need to figure out what perceptions fairly faithfully reflect what actually is and which are faulty.

In figuring out which perceptions are actual and which are faulty, we have to deal with perceptions that tend to come in the form of two relatively distinct experiential domains - the non-living and living things that are experienced. We live by consuming mostly other living things (usually things that were recently alive), but only certain kinds of living things. Recognizing the patterns of the living things we can safely consume for survival is essential. Understanding the ecology for those living things is important for being able to catch or grow the living things we need to survive. Correctly understanding the nature of living and non-living things that we need to avoid, flee or fight is crucial. Understanding the actual patterns of the world in general are essential to survive. Faulty perceptions can easily lead to harm or destruction.

How do we determine which perceptions "reflect" actual reality and which are faulty? From a practical point of view, that is determined by the parameters of what urge we are driven to fulfill at the moment and what resources that are practically available to try to fulfill the urge. A key resource is memory. There can be no pattern recognition without memory. In any given situation, we tend to look for patterns in our memory of events that are similar to whatever we face to fulfill the urge of the moment. Often, finding the right pattern is a fairly simple thing. I am hungry. I remember I have a fig tree with mature fruit on it in my back yard. I go out and pick a fig off the tree and eat it. But many of our urges are much more complex and fulfilling them involves looking through complex nexuses of memories for relavant patterns. Analyzing the patterns for actualness/faultiness gets much more difficult.

Analyzing complex issues to try to determine if our perceptions are accurate or not almost always involves input from other people. In a very important way, other people are critical in our efforts to determine what perceptions we have that are accurate and what perceptions are not. Unfortunately, even a collective of people can often be wrong about complex patterns; e.g., the persistence of superstitions. That is why I think science is so valuable. It is a methodology that we use to try to minimize the chances of inaccurate perceptions about reality.

But, of course, science stays within the bounds of assumptions about patterns of reality; e.g., that such patterns persist through time - the physical "laws" of nature. It is logically possible that there are events that do not conform to the patterns that are the laws of nature. It is logically possible that there are supernatural events. If there are such events, science cannot have anything to say about such events.

I do not think there are any supernatural events. To the extent that any entity is posited to exist which supposedly manifests itself through supernatural events, I don't think any such entities exist. To the extent that such entities may be referred to as "gods" I do not think any such gods exist.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am interested in discussions that involve synthesizing ideas from many conceptual realms. For example, at the moment, I am very interested in the emotions that drive us. As a relapsing existentialist, I never have totally gotten over Camus' Myth of Sisyphus [//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus]. There is no purely logical imperative to keep going. The desire to do so is emotional. What does our rationality make of its comprehension of the emotions that lead us to push the rock one more step? How much is our social interaction with others an element in the creation of the desire to take another step? Why do other people matter so much? It seems that we are creatures driven largely by the biology we evolved for survival, but as beings capable of reflecting on our own internal dynamics, are we little more than instinct driven automatons?

I would like some advice as to which subfora would be the best ones to posit such types of questions and which are likely to have discussions about such topics. I would appreciate any feedback you may choose to give me. Thank you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am a retired science teacher living in California, USA.

stromboli

Welcome. You got the "long" part right. We have a philosophy and rhetoric section, where this would certainly be apt. Philosophy isn't my thing, so I'll let others discuss this with you. If you read the FAQ, you know that you can only post original posts (OP's) in the Intro section for the first 10 posts, but you are welcome to comment in the existing threads. Enjoy your stay.

PopeyesPappy

Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

PickelledEggs


entropy

stromboli, thank you for the welcome. I actually pared down what I was thinking of saying.  :)  I was going to pare it down even more, but I thought I might as well lay out there where I'm coming from. I will check out the philosophy and rhetoric section and see if my rhetorically corpulent style of expression is a fit.

PopeyesPappy and PickelledEggs, I appreciate your posts welcoming me to the forum.

aitm

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Fidel_Castronaut

Hi entropy. Nice handle :)

Hope you stick around.
lol, marquee. HTML ROOLZ!

AllPurposeAtheist

I read the first part and realized it wasn't a John Grisham novel.. welcome..
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Solitary

:-D Welcome aboard entropy! Good post by the way. I'm a materialist so I think our bodies are objectively real, but I think our mind is subjectively real, and that it could be an illusion as well as our freewill. This idea that we have a mind-body problem is because people think we have a soul that is separate from the body or can be. If we had a soul or mind separate from our body how could a head bump or drugs effect it? Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

entropy

Quote from: "Solitary":-D Welcome aboard entropy! Good post by the way. I'm a materialist so I think our bodies are objectively real, but I think our mind is subjectively real, and that it could be an illusion as well as our freewill. This idea that we have a mind-body problem is because people think we have a soul that is separate from the body or can be. If we had a soul or mind separate from our body how could a head bump or drugs effect it? Solitary


I prefer to use the term "physicalist" rather than "materialist", but they are usually taken to mean the same thing. I am pretty much a physicalist. I am very interested in questions about the nature of consciousness or awareness. One of the trickiest sets of issues to grapple with has to do with how physical processes produce mental states. How does that happen? It is an extremely difficult question to answer cogently. Because it is so difficult, I can understand why some people resort to positing notions like the existence of "atoms" of consciousness or just embrace dualism (which, of course, has the problem of explaining how the physical and mental are able to interact with each other - what is the mechanism?).

At the moment, I am inclined toward the view that mentality is an emergent property of complex nervous systems.

Thanks for the welcome.

entropy

Thank you for the welcome, aitm, Fidel_Castronaut, AllPurposeAtheist. I do tend to like longer, involved conversations, so hopefully there will be the opportunity to do some of that here. If not, then this site may not be a good match for me. It's certainly okay if that is not what most people are into here - I don't want to give the impression that I think there is something wrong if people aren't into long involved conversations on the topics that interest me. I have seen enough forums that I can accept that a forum evolves into what it is because that is the way it is gratifying to a large proportion of the regular participants. What a forum evolves into is what it is - the question for me is, is it gratifying for me. I guess I'll see.

Solitary

Quote from: "entropy"
Quote from: "Solitary":-D Welcome aboard entropy! Good post by the way. I'm a materialist so I think our bodies are objectively real, but I think our mind is subjectively real, and that it could be an illusion as well as our freewill. This idea that we have a mind-body problem is because people think we have a soul that is separate from the body or can be. If we had a soul or mind separate from our body how could a head bump or drugs effect it? Solitary


I prefer to use the term "physicalist" rather than "materialist", but they are usually taken to mean the same thing. I am pretty much a physicalist. I am very interested in questions about the nature of consciousness or awareness. One of the trickiest sets of issues to grapple with has to do with how physical processes produce mental states. How does that happen? It is an extremely difficult question to answer cogently. Because it is so difficult, I can understand why some people resort to positing notions like the existence of "atoms" of consciousness or just embrace dualism (which, of course, has the problem of explaining how the physical and mental are able to interact with each other - what is the mechanism?).

At the moment, I am inclined toward the view that mentality is an emergent property of complex nervous systems.

Thanks for the welcome.

I agree! When we think of ourselves it is a self referential paradox like this sentence: This sentence is a lie.  :shock:  He! He! I think this shows that the I, "I" (thought) talk about is our physical I thinking. #-o   :popcorn:   Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.