anthony

Members
  • Content Count

    6,767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

anthony last won the day on May 29

anthony had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

147 Excellent

1 Follower

About anthony

  • Rank
    tony garland

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Republic of South Africa

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    A. GARLAND
  • Description
    My all-time quote: "Man is a being of self-made soul."
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

19,284 profile views
  1. There is no 'unconscious' unless you're asleep or in a coma. Everything that is in the subconscious had to get there through the consciousness. Aware of it and not.
  2. You have a problem envisaging that a biological function, physical pain -pleasure, is the forerunner to emotional pain-pleasure? That's your problem, not mine. Use some introspection. You said: "There is no consciousness without emotion". This is clearly a reversal of the nature of consciousness, stating outright that consciousness would not exist without emotions. "IS no" ... "without".. evades and negates the axiomatic nature of consciousness. Therefore, you say consciousness depends for its existence on emotions. Your sophistry and obfuscation can't hide your nonsensical statement. And what else is an emotion but mental in its origins, as I've restated? Only chemicals? A mystical revelation? Arrived out of thin air? I await your reply. Conveniently you keep forgetting what I've repeated several times. After making a conscious value-judgment, it soon becomes automated in the subconscious. (Like learning to drive). I don't have to think and re-evaluate, every minute of my day that e.g. my work, my child, etc.etc. is precious to me. I don't have to stop and think and reconsider if I see my child fall of the swing whether she is important to my value-hierarchy or not: I react with immediate fear and instantly run to her. I quoted Branden saying something like that, about one moving without fail to one's highest value. Get it? self-programmed/automated in one's subconscious? AFTER making a conscious value-judgment? And following it up over a long period with many affirmatory thoughts and actions, especially and more so with one's higher values.
  3. There is "no consciousness without emotion" - is your repetitive, illogical take. And a reversal. The existence of consciousness is the prerequisite for acts of consciousness. I've said before you confuse the message with the messenger. If one doesn't choose to be rational, meaning one's application to reality and conceiving reality - consciously - and evaluating reality - consciously - one will inevitably depend on or gather one's ideas and values, from others/society/authorities/etc. - subconsciously. As for my avoiding, I directly answered you but you refuse to consider these explanations about the process of moving from biological pleasure-pain to advanced emotions. . Do we know pain is bad automatically? Pain-bad should be self-evident to a sentient creature - if you're unsure try putting your hand in a fire.
  4. Automated only at the sensory pain-pleasure level that warns/guards all of us animals. Man doesn't stop there, he needs to volitionally think, to identify/assimilate knowledge to live as 'man' and his basic, automatic pleasure-pain faculty evolves in step with his conceptual knowledge to a much higher order. He has to make ~conscious~ and deliberate good/bad judgments of new knowledge which he calls value-judgments. The physical pain-pleasure he instead experiences now as his emotions - those instant signals that tell when his values are threatened (or lost), or reward him when they do well.
  5. Like the animal bitten by an ant, I think an automated association is made: This ¬thing¬ hurts. Or eating a berry off a bush, ugh, sour! (spits it out). And many more associations between entities and the visual/touch/taste senses: The thing's appearance -and- how good/bad it is for me (the animal). So not implicit, rather innate and automatic. Automated 'judgments' and 'identifications' made without discerned choice. I think is valid to say, our senses are performing double-duty - investigatory and self-protective. Further on, the rational animal evolves to - explicitly, effortfully - forming complex 'associations', his abstract concepts. And still: What is it? What is its value? Which emotions arise from my judgments?
  6. Simple and true. The human begins with his senses to accrue knowledge equally to accrue his value-system.
  7. Btw, My "original question" in fact was "Who here thinks emotions are independent of consciousness?" Apart from Dg, no one wants to take a shot?
  8. Several subjective assertions without substance or validation... Amounts to - I feel this way about my feelings because I feel this way about my feelings - because I feel ... because they just ARE! "Asking which comes first ... makes no sense"? Then you've understood little. How can there be an emotion without the pre-existence of a consciousness? How can there be a consciousness without the pre-existence of existence? I must assume you reject the explanation of axioms. "Value comes before rationality"? It gets no better. How do you ~know~ what's of value (to you) and what's not, before you identify - what it IS? Who has been filling your mind with this? really, don't listen to them you do better alone. You've not even addressed my post's full content so getting through to you is a waste of time. What you plainly continue asserting is primacy of consciousness/primacy of emotion. I.e. "I feel therefore I am". (This "age of Infantilism" explained in brief: Primacy of consciousness).
  9. I think you should study and let sink in the above quote by Rand. In brief a consciousness has to be conscious of some 'thing' or is self-contradictory, and that goes with emotions. Keeping its correct relationship to reality/existence. One is emotional about some 'thing'; BY the judgments one has already made, ultimately, BY the value placed in one's existence. You want, it's appeared, to put emotions ahead of a mind. Emotions responding, without anything to be consciously emotional about and without a standard of value are an impossibility, to repeat; perhaps you didn't know you went through that process, usually since it was subconsciously, when not consciously done. You'd like emotions elevated - by the reverse process, in importance and in chronological order - before and above the mind. But as soon as one tries to by-pass identification and evaluation, one inevitably reverts to primacy of consciousness, the 'subcategory', "primacy of emotions". There's where emotions go haywire, random, controlling, changeable, meaningless, unpredictable - e.g. now, elated, for no presentable reason, and next, anxious for no detectable cause. That's more psychological, but anything goes when emotions have not been founded in original conscious reality- identification-value (nor been occasionally revisited in introspection). "I am" has here been given a base, first and foremost in one's feelings, when they are properly the consequence. "I feel therefore I am", describes that. What I've known of some people (who hasn't?)is how they get quite a kick from taking their self-identity from emotions and being perceived this way by others, despite how erratic their minds and feelings become, and how their self-esteem suffers.
  10. Apply your mind to reality. I think we went at length into induction. The question remains, and the right way round.
  11. Let's cut to the chase. How about a show of hands. Who here thinks that emotions are independent of consciousness? Perhaps this should be first: who thinks there is consciousness?
  12. But you have the right to dig up a thread disconnected from this, and pose it as an example? Hey, don't fool yourself, that's saying I'm wrong there and now. You don't fool me. And I identified the wheel well enough to make all those games superfluous. No, you all had to "fix" the unfixable. And that didn't work.
  13. I've gone on and on about primacy of existence, that man is the animal who is rational. Nobody questioned that. But respondents here choose to think that emotions are the exception - contrary to consciousness - when they *clearly* emanate from consciousness aware of reality. All along there's been that mind-emotion, mind-body dichotomy implied and stated by some. I see no dichotomy, others do (and if they'd be honest enough they would admit it). You raise your arm, is this not an act of consciousness and an act of biology? If agreed, now take the thought further. Must I state that again? : Consciousness which is aware of reality. "That which exists". The human mind too is natural and has a "nature". Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness. Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it . . . Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
  14. Ha, the real nit-picker. Tony was wrong then, so Tony is wrong now. (there's a logical fallacy, I can't recall which). But Tony was right, in the conclusions I also repeated ad nauseum. I can make an error in the experiment and correct, you know. The final outcome I stand by, I repeated above.
  15. The Wheel, ah. Another case of over-education and under-observation. The problem is not a problem, an outer wheel must turn further than an inner. That's it. Then there was the never-needed "Fix". Providing an inner surface for the inner wheel. Trouble is, 1). if there is slippage, then the inner surface has no purchase by definition and you're back to square one. As with no inner surface. Or, 2. if there is some grip, no slippage, the total wheel combination must come to a halt. Due to drag and different turn speeds of the wheels, and evidenced by 2 cogs on the same axle. The Fix didn't work. Enough? I'm bored already.