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

Re: Harmless ideas about ideas

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Jan 18, 2013
      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 2 of 6 , Jan 18, 2013
        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 3 of 6 , Jan 18, 2013
          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.