What Are We?

[Dglgmut]

What are we? If we are little girls, we are sugar and space and everything nice. If we are little boys we are snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails. Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh boy...

Other than material, what do we have labels for? Matter can be sensed, but, for example, movement cannot. Our memories allow us to comprehend movement, by relating our sensations of the present to multiple sensations from the past.

To say we are the matter that makes up our bodies is to say we can only be sensed, because that's all matter can be. To say we are aware is something completely different, because you can't sense awareness.

We have the label "energy," which Ba'al has explained makes up all the matter in the Universe... What is energy? Really, it is more accurate to say we sense energy, rather than matter. When we touch something, we sense a certain level of pressure, or force. When we smell something we are sensing the product of a chemical reaction, when we see something we are sensing light.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Without the big picture, reductionism would not exist.

Sorry, but you can't have one side of a coin only and still have a coin.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

I think I'm going to have to read that general semantics book because those points are pretty confusing to me just as they are.

I was thinking about the idea of "doing." What is doing? What does?

I'm wondering if maybe we shouldn't think of forces as generated by matter, but rather as their own thing. For example, gravity, there is the saying that objects attract. Should we rather look at it as a force that for some reason pushes/pulls objects towards each other? Why do we assume because material is involved, it must be the cause?

Someone mentioned that Rand said something like, "Awareness is aware." Does it make sense to say, "Doing does?"

Wait... What is doing without result?

Edited September 14, 2011 by Dglgmut

[Xray]

Intelligence must assume consciousness, right? Intelligence is a level of effectiveness. If there is no goal, there is no intelligence...

It's either intelligent and conscious, or random and unconscious.

And that's precisely what interests me. For example, look at a bird swarm flying in elorate formations with none of the birds colliding.

No doubt this constitutes an action one could label as "intelligent".

So according to your premises, all those birds must possess a remarkable level of consciousness enabling them to carry out these complex actions - right?

Researchers use the term "swarm intelligence":

http://en.wikipedia....rm_intelligence

Swarm intelligence (SI) is the collective behaviour of decentralized, self-organized systems, natural or artificial.

As to "who" controls the car... Who controls anything? What is control?

Seriously, what is control?

I sometimes get the impression that what you really want to discuss are issues related to linguistics and philosophy of language.

Asking for precise definitions is certainly justified if you want to make sure what your communication partner is talking about.

But asking too many "What is" questions about terms that are normally used in common language without causing misunderstandings can lead the discussion to an infinite regress.

Re the 'control' example: I'm sitting here munching a couple of walnuts. In order to perform this act, I had to have sufficient control over e. g. my motor skills to move the nuts from place A where they had been to B where they are now.

The use of the term 'control' this context causes no misunderstandings.

The same goes for the 'car' example.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Xray

[Dglgmut]

Intelligence must assume consciousness, right? Intelligence is a level of effectiveness. If there is no goal, there is no intelligence... It's either intelligent and conscious, or random and unconscious.

And that's precisely what interests me. For example, look at a bird swarm flying in elorate formations with none of the birds colliding. No doubt this constitutes an action one could label as "intelligent". So according to your premises, all those birds must possess a remarkable level of consciousness enabling them to carry out these complex actions - right? Researchers use the term "swarm intelligence":

http://en.wikipedia....rm_intelligence Swarm intelligence (SI) is the collective behaviour of decentralized, self-organized systems, natural or artificial.

As to "who" controls the car... Who controls anything? What is control? Seriously, what is control?

I sometimes get the impression that what you really want to discuss are issues related to linguistics and philosophy of language. Asking for precise definitions is certainly justified if you want to make sure what your communication partner is talking about. But asking too many "What is" questions about terms that are normally used in common language without causing misunderstandings can lead the discussion to an infinite regress. Re the 'control' example: I'm sitting here munching a couple of walnuts. In order to perform this act, I had to have sufficient control over e. g. my motor skills to move the nuts from place A where they had been to B where they are now. The use of the term 'control' this context causes no misunderstandings. The same goes for the 'car' example.

Your arm lifts the walnut, your jaw muscles tighten and release to chew... I don't know why you feel control is implied in that scenario.

Imagine a row of dominoes falling over... If one of the dominoes in the middle said, "I chose to knock the next domino over," how could you refute that?

What is doing without result? I already asked it, but it could be confusing, I guess.

My point is, if doing is nothing without result, then doing must be result. You could say that doing = intent + result... but our intent and effects are not the same, sometimes not even close.

We do have an impact on "otherness," but so does the domino in the middle. We can assume that the domino has no intent, but where do we draw the line? Do animals have intent? Does bacteria?

If we have intent, and we assume anything of a certain intelligence level and higher also has intent, why not everything?

Someone said something about how humans make discoveries through *mostly* trial and error... I'd argue that we learn everything through trial and error; or trial and failure, as it should be said. We can make all sorts of predictions based on the assumed consistency between what we've already witnessed in the Universe, and what we have not... but as soon as something inconsistent happens, we learn that our understanding was flawed...

We're constantly proved wrong. We look back at those people who all thought the world was flat, and think we would have been smarter... Their mistake wasn't believing the world was flat, it was believing anything was certain. When people believed the world was flat... gravity was an interaction between up and down... Then they learned the world was round, and gravity gained a new definition. The more we learn, the more we unlearn... We are products of our experience, that is for sure.

However, if we only had the information we observed, we wouldn't be able to do anything... How could we move our arm if we could not imagine our ability to do so? In our bodies we believe intent and result are directly linked... but outside of our bodies, we understand only result. We are contradicting ourselves somewhere...

Sorry, this post was over my head and I know it may not be that coherent.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Dglgmut

[anthony]

When people believed the world was flat... gravity was an interaction between up and down... Then they learned the world was round, and gravity gained a new definition. The more we learn, the more we unlearn... .

Reminds me as a youngster reading about the experiment of a large weight lowered down the side of a tall buildiing - and the slight but measurable deviation from the vertical, of the weight towards the mass of the building.

'Sideways gravity'!?

Heh - that brought the concept of gravity home for me.

[Dglgmut]

Here's the problem:

There are two things that exist from each of our perspectives: ourselves and otherness.

The confusion arises when we try to draw the line of separation... Where does otherness end and we begin, and vice versa?

There are a few possibilities...

We are all one. There is no such thing as separation or otherness, but it is an illusion created by our mind. The dilemma with this theory is that we have limited interaction with the Universe. Most things are out of our control and our awareness is limited. How can it be us if we are not in control?

Another theory would be that we are only observing and not interacting with the Universe. We are experiencing what it's like to be that domino in the middle... just a link in the chain. In this case, everything is otherness and nothing is really us. Without our awareness, however, it's hard to imagine a brain functioning the way it does.... but the same could be said for those complex formations created in nature.

There is no line, though, that we can be aware of, that separates awareness from the physical Universe. And if there really is no line, and we know we exist, isn't it safer to say it is us? Is otherness an illusion?

On another note, I shouldn't blame our language for anything... The words are just labels that represent things that already existed.

[Selene]

... just a link in the chain.

Remember, as Richard Loo said in The Purple Heart..."Must I remind you that a chain is no stronger than it's weakest link?"

And, if you remember the movie which was loosely based on the civilian trial by the Japanese, of eight (8) members of Jimmy Doolittle's raid, three were executed and one died as a POW,^[1] you pronounce the last word as "rink."

Adam

[Dglgmut]

... just a link in the chain.

Remember, as Richard Loo said in The Purple Heart..."Must I remind you that a chain is no stronger than it's weakest link?" And, if you remember the movie which was loosely based on the civilian trial by the Japanese, of eight (8) members of Jimmy Doolittle's raid, three were executed and one died as a POW,^[1] you pronounce the last word as "rink." Adam

Lol... I meant, though, chain of events. A metaphor inside a metaphor :S

[BaalChatzaf]

What was the big picture that Aristotle saw?

All motions are either "natural" or require a force. This is a false statement. A body moving uniformly in a straight line has no force acting on it. Its inertial keeps it in uniform motion. Aristotle thus overlooked inertia which is the biggest flaw in his theory of moving bodies.

Read -Physics- by Aristotle.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

And that's precisely what interests me. For example, look at a bird swarm flying in elorate formations with none of the birds colliding.

No doubt this constitutes an action one could label as "intelligent".

So according to your premises, all those birds must possess a remarkable level of consciousness enabling them to carry out these complex actions - right?

Researchers use the term "swarm intelligence":

http://en.wikipedia....rm_intelligence

Swarm intelligence (SI) is the collective behaviour of decentralized, self-organized systems, natural or artificial.

Okay, here's my issue:

Why must we assume the force that guides collective behavior is different than the force that drives individual behavior?

Is it not possible the cause of these intelligent formations is also the cause of our sense of self-preservation and creativity?

I'd say that consciousness is not awareness, but a force with intent. Awareness is a product of consciousness, and cannot encapsulate consciousness itself, but only its other creations.

Either that, or we do not really understand what awareness is. We can probably imagine awareness without sensation, if we had our memories... but without memory?

Even with our senses in tact, awareness would be so different without memory that we cannot conceive of it.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Dglgmut

[Selene]

Either that, or we do not really understand what awareness is. We can probably imagine awareness without sensation, if we had our memories... but without memory?

Even with our senses in tact, awareness would be so different without memory that we cannot conceive of it.

Would not an amnesiac* [long term] fit your "senses intact," but without memory?

Or, satirical though it was, Tom, in 50 First Dates, who "memory" only lasts ten (10) seconds?

Amnesia (from Greek Ἀμνησία) is a condition in which one's memory is lost. The causes of amnesia have traditionally been divided into categories. Functional causes are psychological factors, such as mental disorder, post-traumatic stress or, in psychoanalytic terms, defense mechanisms. Amnesia may also appear as spontaneous episodes, in the case of transient global amnesia.^[1]

• Anterograde amnesia, is the loss of short-term memory, the loss or impairment of the ability to form new memories through memorization. Persons may find themselves constantly forgetting information, people or events after a few seconds or minutes, because the data does not transfer successfully from their conscious short-term memory into permanent long-term memory.
  
• Retrograde amnesia, the loss of pre-existing memories to conscious recollection, beyond an ordinary degree of forgetfulness. The person may be able to memorize new things that occur after the onset of amnesia (unlike in anterograde amnesia), but is unable to recall some or all of their life or identity prior to the onset.
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesia

[Dglgmut]

I mean all forms of memory. Without it we would have no awareness of anything but the present. We would have no idea that anything else existed other than the experience we were having.

Without memory we would have no concept of change or movement (time). Most of all, we would not be able to identify with anything nor want anything.

[Xray]

Your arm lifts the walnut, your jaw muscles tighten and release to chew... I don't know why you feel control is implied in that scenario.

You really don't know? Well, it was obviously my intention to get that walnut into my mouth and that act of volition could only be carried out because certain areas of my brain had sufficient control over my motor skills to achieve this.

Imagine a row of dominoes falling over... If one of the dominoes in the middle said, "I chose to knock the next domino over," how could you refute that?

Wrong premise because the comparison you chose is false. The row of dominoes example would fit if e. g. I was being pushed in a crowd and fell over. In that case (as opposed to the walnut example), there would be no volition on my part involved.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Angela:

It must be the crowd rushing to see this poster!

Blackface Obama billboard sparks outrage

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110915-37617.html

By the way, you are correct, his comparison is not appropriate for the argument.

Finally, as a safety issue, if you are ever in a crowd crush scenario, you need to lift your feet off the ground and let the crowd "wave" carry you along its motion.

The real danger is having your feet stepped on, or catching on an already downed body. The real danger is the fall not the power of the crowd

It seems counter intuitive, like turning into a skid with a car, but it has been tested and is a tried and true crowd crush survival tactic.

Adam

[Dglgmut]

Hmm...

The domino scenario is an extremely simplified analogy. You don't believe that every thought and action has a trigger, other than your intangible awareness?

We are controlled by our memories; they give the present moment context. Without context there is no reason to do anything.

Also:

If you don't believe the domino has as much choice as you do, it may be because there is only one option for the domino. However, there's only one option for your existence too, isn't there? You think you have options in the future, but you have no option when it comes to your past, or even your present. You could say you did have the option, but how can you prove that? Only one thing could have happened.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Dglgmut

[Selene]

What is the point of your statements about the past?

I would believe that we all agree that we cannot change the last five seconds, etc.

OK.

However, similar to a chess opening, the options and permutations become almost infinite by the tenth move.

I can prove I have an option by standing at an intersection and listing my basic options of straight ahead, left, right, backwards or stationary for starters

Moreover, we are aware of some of our memories, but the choice of being controlled by them still resides in our conscious awareness. e.g., I am aware that I had a phenomenal orgasm with lady X, but that does not control me. I choose to invite her over again, or not.

Adam

[Dglgmut]

Without assumption you could not make any choices.

Without memory you couldn't make assumptions.

Nothing we do is logical, because we don't know the meaning of anything.

[Selene]

Without assumption you could not make any choices.

Without memory you couldn't make assumptions.

Nothing we do is logical, because we don't know the meaning of anything.

So this discussion is over .

Thanks. Be safe. Assuming you know the meaning of what I just wrote.

Adam

[Dglgmut]

I just mean we don't know why we do things. Like we cannot choose what we are, we can't choose how things make us feel.

I figure all our actions are guided by what we assume will make us happy.

If there were two people sitting on the same plane, one miserable, one happy, why should they have different emotions in the same experience?

They don't necessarily assume what will happen in the future, but they assume how they will feel...

If you think you are going to be happy in the future, you will be happy in the present. Isn't this true?

And our memory allows us to assume what the future will be like by relating the present to the past and projecting.

[BaalChatzaf]

Without assumption you could not make any choices.

Without memory you couldn't make assumptions.

Nothing we do is logical, because we don't know the meaning of anything.

Not so. When the phone rings it means someone is calling your and you know it. Why? You go to pick up the phone and are ready to say hello.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

Why do you pick it up?

If you kept asking why eventually you'd realize you have no idea why... You do it for seemingly no reason.

[BaalChatzaf]

Why do you pick it up? If you kept asking why eventually you'd realize you have no idea why... You do it for seemingly no reason.

The correct inference to draw is that -some things- we do have no reason, NOT -all things- we do have no reason.

Check your quantifiers carefully.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

You are not your memory. Is that not indisputable?

You existed when you were a baby... That was you, and yet it's nothing like how you see yourself now. Your memory has changed, but you have not.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Dglgmut

[BaalChatzaf]

You are not your memory. Is that not indisputable?

You existed when you were a baby... That was you, and yet it's nothing like how you see yourself now. Your memory has changed, but you have not.

Every cell in the human body with the exception of some neural cells is replaced every seven years or so. We all have changed.

Ba'al Chatzaf