Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Harmless ideas about ideas

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    eduard, Let s set aside the possibility that we can t disprove what we can t prove or whether animals are aware they are thinking, and return to my original
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      eduard,

      Let's set aside the possibility that we can't disprove what we can't prove or whether animals are aware they are thinking, and return to my original assertion. Besides, if animals do attend to their thoughts as humans do, then this supports my premise that it happens. I can observe an apple and observe my observation without examining my neural processing.

      The potential principle in any object, including our brain and thought, is that it's other than us but is also for itself and for us. As you say, an unfamiliar object doesn't automatically present a principle to us; the object requires mediation in order to discover the principle. Is the principled imagined or is it inherent?

      Mary
    • Mary
      Just to clarify eduard, is the principle also inherent in the object whether it requires our mediation or not? A principle is not developed without, or in
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Just to clarify eduard, is the principle also inherent in the object whether it requires our mediation or not? A principle is not developed without, or in isolation from, an object. If the brain is developing principles about the brain, the principle is immanent in both the object and the observer. If you contend that no other objects have brains, I remind you that animals do. Apples, of course, do not, but this does not mean the principle is developed separately from the apple. The apple plays a role in consciousness.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
        >
        > eduard,
        >
        > Let's set aside the possibility that we can't disprove what we can't prove or whether animals are aware they are thinking, and return to my original assertion. Besides, if animals do attend to their thoughts as humans do, then this supports my premise that it happens. I can observe an apple and observe my observation without examining my neural processing.
        >
        > The potential principle in any object, including our brain and thought, is that it's other than us but is also for itself and for us. As you say, an unfamiliar object doesn't automatically present a principle to us; the object requires mediation in order to discover the principle. Is the principled imagined or is it inherent?
        >
        > Mary
        >
      • eduardathome
        Mary, The principle is imaged .... in the human brain. Which isn t to say that the apple does not exist. And neither does it imply that an apple is something
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Mary,

          The principle is imaged .... in the human brain. Which isn't to say that
          the apple does not exist. And neither does it imply that an apple is
          something that can't be eaten. Apples do exist and they can be eaten and
          they taste good. Especially the Pink Lady apple. Not so much the Granny
          Smith. Although some people seem to like the Granny Smith ... for reason I
          can't fathom.

          Where we started on this, was my sole point that our thinking occurs
          entirely in our brains. The brain does not just observe and measure. It
          does all the rest of the stuff; from consciousness, to behaviour and
          emotion, to mysticism, to spirituality, to philosophy, to science, to people
          who express that the 2nd amendment gives the right to carry/own guns. You
          have offered that our thinking is somehow completed by the idea contained
          within an object. As if to say that the expression, "I like that apple",
          cannot actually be done in the mind [the brain] without somehow the "idea"
          of apple exiting from the apple to join in and complete this process of
          thinking. I take it that you have offered this example as one which shows
          that our thinking does not occur entirely in the brain.

          At least that is what I think you are saying.

          Here you are saying that "the object requires mediation in order to discover
          the principle." A mediation is a communication or exchange leading to some
          kind of settlement between parties. In the process of human thinking, the
          apple can't communicate and neither has it any means for an exchange of
          thought. And if you took it literally, the apple can't require anything as
          if to say, "you must mediate with me in order to get at my principle".

          There is nothing "in" the apple pertaining to the process of thinking. The
          inside contains seeds. If human encounters an apple, he/she gives it
          whatever principle that may come to mind at the moment. And if the only
          principle that comes to mind is that of eating, you do so and throw away the
          core with its seeds. Done. You may not even think about history or origins
          or the benefit of the apple to humankind. This is not complicated.

          My point has always been that it is the brain that is the singular means by
          which we think about whatever. I don't expect others to wholly accept this
          view, but I believe it is of fundamental importance in understanding
          ourselves. We have gone on too long with the idea that our thinking occurs
          elsewhere, especially in religion where it is assumed that gods can entre a
          prophet's brain and tell him/her what to do or what to communicate to the
          congregation. The gun lobby is not about the 2nd amendment. The amendment
          is not forcing these people to own guns against their will. No one says, "I
          own this gun because the 2nd amendment says I must have one. They want guns
          because they are programmed to think that, in present US society, guns are
          good for you by providing some kind of protection. To take away their
          assault rifles is seen as a treat to their mental comfort. And the NRA
          plays on that theme. If you don't have a gun, those "other" people will
          come and kill you with their gun.

          eduard

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mary
          Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:09 PM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Re: Harmless ideas about ideas

          eduard,

          Let's set aside the possibility that we can't disprove what we can't prove
          or whether animals are aware they are thinking, and return to my original
          assertion. Besides, if animals do attend to their thoughts as humans do,
          then this supports my premise that it happens. I can observe an apple and
          observe my observation without examining my neural processing.

          The potential principle in any object, including our brain and thought, is
          that it's other than us but is also for itself and for us. As you say, an
          unfamiliar object doesn't automatically present a principle to us; the
          object requires mediation in order to discover the principle. Is the
          principled imagined or is it inherent?

          Mary
        • eduardathome
          My point is that the principle is not developed separately from the brain. The apple doesn t play any role in consciousness. There isn t any part of the
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 18, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            My point is that the "principle" is not developed separately from the brain.

            The apple doesn't play any role in consciousness. There isn't any part of
            the consciousness [our awareness of our existence] that is dependent upon
            some role that an apple may play. Knowledge of the apple may modify what we
            think in the sense of my being aware that that I am the eduard that eats
            apples, but the apple does not contribute to the act of awareness. I am
            aware all by myself and that act occurs within my brain not elsewhere, even
            in part.

            I would agree that an apple has attributes such as roundness and red colour
            [or green], but it does not have an "idea" as a thought element that somehow
            enters my brain to complete my thinking. To put it another way, if a neuron
            in my brain outputs a "true" signal that this is an apple, it does not have
            an input whose source is some neuron or equivalent device in the apple.

            The subject is "thinking". My observation or experience of an apple can
            facilitate my awareness of myself in relation to apples, but the apple does
            not think and thus cannot play a role in my own thinking or my act of
            consciousness.

            eduard

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Mary
            Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:37 PM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Harmless ideas about ideas

            Just to clarify eduard, is the principle also inherent in the object whether
            it requires our mediation or not? A principle is not developed without, or
            in isolation from, an object. If the brain is developing principles about
            the brain, the principle is immanent in both the object and the observer. If
            you contend that no other objects have brains, I remind you that animals do.
            Apples, of course, do not, but this does not mean the principle is developed
            separately from the apple. The apple plays a role in consciousness.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
            >
            > eduard,
            >
            > Let's set aside the possibility that we can't disprove what we can't prove
            > or whether animals are aware they are thinking, and return to my original
            > assertion. Besides, if animals do attend to their thoughts as humans do,
            > then this supports my premise that it happens. I can observe an apple and
            > observe my observation without examining my neural processing.
            >
            > The potential principle in any object, including our brain and thought, is
            > that it's other than us but is also for itself and for us. As you say, an
            > unfamiliar object doesn't automatically present a principle to us; the
            > object requires mediation in order to discover the principle. Is the
            > principled imagined or is it inherent?
            >
            > Mary
            >




            ------------------------------------

            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.